Dark Shadows

Ordinarily, I wouldn't watch a vampire movie, let alone one that looked like Dark Shadows. Unfortunately it was Johnny Depp so I just had to sneak a peek. I did not watch the original Dark Shadows tv series, so my take will be completely based on my personal observations of the film itself. The film is a fine exercise in highlighting the differences between our era, the 70's and a goodly 200 years back, with all that entails. From other reviews that compared the film to the series, it's apparent that the film did not live up to its heritage. Unfortunately, I am a horrible gauge of bad acting, so I cannot comment on just how flat a character may appear. I did like that Depp's delivery of the character was leaning rather more heavily on the deadpan rather than an emotive struggle to come to terms with one's inhuman condition and romance. Frankly, I didn't mind that performance, seeing as how it would've been how I'd have reacted regardless. That said, the overall narrative was somewhat predictable and there was little that was particularly intriguing in the characters. I'd say the movie, despite Depp (sorry, Depp) was mediocre at best and earns a nice 6.5/10. Not bad, but certainly nowhere near great.

Being Different

The social wave of this decade has bewildered me for quite some time. One moment everyone's fine with doing things alone, and the next you find that everyone has to do everything with everyone else. Otherwise, it seems that they feel bad about themselves or something. Food needs to be photographed so others know what you've been eating at every meal. Games need to be played with friends in order to be fun. Even your movements need to be reported on some social networking site. My first thought was that all of this was utterly irrational. It's not something that people grew up needing, and now it's become something of a way of life. However, on closer examination, it's become increasingly apparent to me that I am looking at what is more of a fad than a true evolution of peoples' needs. For example, I keep getting friends requesting to play games together, then find them doing their own thing and basically not making any serious effort to play together. And then there's the matter of people buying into trendy gadgetry like the iPhone, only to underutilize it. I've come to realize that ultimately this is just the high school popularity contest returned to haunt us in a slightly different guise. Most people want to fit in wherever possible, and following these odd social trends is a relatively easy way to prove that one fits in with the "in" group. They have little true personal dedication to the trend itself, but are instead doing it for the very public act of fitting in. Sadly, not many people seem to be inclined to accept the fact that they are different, and to simply say NO to a fad that does not appeal to them. I have been told that I accept and even embrace my difference, but as always I say I am different simply because that's the way I am. I make no effort to do so just to express some newfangled individuality or just for the act of being rebellious for its own sake. Then again...maybe not quite so, regarding the matter of rebelliousness.

Men In Black 3

A typical men in black show, now with some character background. For those who are familiar with the series, the show will not disappoint. The fan gen pop may well find the show amusing yet highly forgettable, unfortunately. The earth is in peril. Again. And the mib must save the earth. Again. This time its different, because it involves time travel. Overall despite some character origin narrative, the show proves to be quite the linear, predictable tale. The ending is a foregone conclusion, so everything else in between is just fluff. I would call this a mediocre delivery of a now ageing franchise, scoring 6/10

Diablo 3

For all you humans out there, you've probably heard about the craze over this strange game called Diablo 3. I have a copy with me, and played it for a couple days now. Overall I'd say that I'm fairly disappointed with the gameplay, in that it's been rather simplified to the extent that strategizing one's build is mostly out of the hands of the player. Previously, one could choose to min/max the attributes and pick from a range of skills, but in the interest of accessibility it seems that most of the skills are simplified to the extent that spamming seems to be the only realistic way to play the game. Take away the strategy bit and a whole lot of the game's longevity is lost. I've been exploring the auction house lately, and it struck me just how hard it was to find an item there. The search would not provide any meaningful hints of how many entries were found, how many are out there or any form of history. Simply put, it lacks the basic functions that make an auction useful, and that inhibits the move towards price equilibrium in an auction. So far, I've found that anchoring works really well with the people, in that the resale price of the item is actually influencing the auction base price. Overall, I've been having fun playing the market there, arguably more fun than the game itself. Perhaps I've become jaded after gaming for nearly 20 years now, but I seek challenges and perhaps a bit more depth to the gameplay than I previously did. D3 has not delivered that for me. That is not to knock the game for what it does, but that I've found myself becoming quite tired of it after playing for mere days, coming to realize that I am simply running the hamster wheel of rolling ever better items ad nauseam even while repeating the same story over and over. Perhaps this is fun for some players, but it has ceased to be fun for me unfortunately.

Commanding The Mind

I've come to realize that the mind is malleable and can be directly commanded. One example I can bring up is the matter of falling asleep. Most regard sleep as uncontrollable and one moment they're awake, the next bam they're asleep. For me, I've come to realize that before sleeping, there's a certain buzzing feeling and the body slowly becomes numb. At this critical juncture, it is actually possible to authorize or deny the sleep cycle. Should one choose to authorize it, it also becomes possible to call upon the sleep cycle at will as well, thus enabling sleep at just about any time one wants. From this, I could say that a lot of what people believe to be involuntary is actually quite consciously controllable given the right stimulus and training. Unfortunately, it seems that people are either unwilling or unable to dedicate the resources to investigating exactly what it is that they have control over. I find it sad because there likely a goodly bit of unrealized potential in the average person, and they are just not trying to maximize it at all.

Riding The Shadow

I am sure the Chinese have a saying for this, but I do not remember what it is. Regardless, of the office politics moves that I've seen, one of the more despicable ones would be riding the shadow. By that I mean a player chooses an authority figure (usually his manager and associated managers) and starts to become a yes-man. That is, he does and forwards precisely what they say. They say jump, he tells others how high it should be. Over time, he moves from being a follower to an apparent leader, borrowing the boss-man's shadow as his own. This creates the illusion that he's actually rather powerful when in reality he's just a crony. Now, this is despicable because it takes cronyism to a whole new level. A regular crony simply obeys the higher ups. A shadow rider usurps that authority and over time turns it into real authority, with most being none the wiser. It is an underhanded way to attain power, and while some may argue that it harms no one, I would say that it harms everyone because they now have a scheming player in a position of power in their organization. Unfortunately, people seem to be either unaware of these moves, somehow internally accept them as legitimate strategies or are rather accepting of power games. Allowing such moves in an organization is precisely what results in bad management, where the people in place aren't there because they wish to be there for the good of the organization, but for the advancement of their own personal power.

Defining Oneself

I am sure I've written of this some time back, but the question of how one defines oneself has been nagging at me ever since. How does one define oneself in a vacuum? While the more socially oriented or "realistic" folk would say that one cannot be defined in isolation, I would think that it's both sad and lazy to think of it that way. When one strips away one's career, friends, deeds and such, does one truly cease to exist? In my opinion, that is impossible. True, one may cease to exist in all the contexts mentioned, but one does still have a core of one's being that is independent of all the above. What's important is to constantly be aware of this core, and to constantly improve upon it. I know of people who commit suicide once they are stripped of their career and such, saying that everything that's ever meant anything to them has been taken away and that they have no further reason to live. For these people at least, they have no core to their being and are thus shattered by the move. They find themselves unable to pick themselves up. I define myself by my interests and my beliefs. Strip away the usual, and I have that core at the very least. Everything else about me is largely mutable. Should I be taken down to basics, I would find a new me to build at some point. Perhaps that simply means that I am not anchored at any single point, but it also means that I am slightly better at rolling with the punches.

Melancholia

It's interesting how certain stimuli can trigger a bout of melancholia. For me, the recently remembered trigger was wet weather at night. Typically, rain in the daytime makes me feel really good, not least because going out on a clear and sunny day is my idea of a very very bad day. However, at night, it reminds me of something I've lost but can't remember. To be precise, it feels a lot like a lost sense of discovery. I guess part of the feeling comes from no longer seeing the mysteries of the night. I've been out on too many rain nights already, and clear ones besides. Ultimately, I suppose it is the desire for a change of scene, such that I may regain my curiosity. Truly, it is not a good feeling, becoming jaded in this manner. Sometimes I think there is something to be found out there, something I seek. Unfortunately, I still do not know what that is, only that it is not here. I can only trust that I'd know it when I find it.

Arkham City

I finally got down to playing Arkham City, and this time I opted to go with the gamepad as my primary input. Seeing as how the game was originally developed for console, I figured it'd be more fun on the pad. Surprisingly, the pad on default settings proved to be a less enjoyable option than my doing the same with mouse and keyboard back in Arkham Asylum. I've not played very far so I shall not make generalizations of the gameplay, but my impression so far is that the combat just isn't quite as sophisticated as I thought it would be given that the game is the second in the series. For starters, Batman still blends the attack across what looks like 20 meters, which is a pretty absurd distance even for the caped crusader. Moreover, it seems so far that it's very possible to counter a strike using a regular attack, which is unusual enough considering that the proper way to deal with it is the counter move itself. Of course, I am not judging it as such, just stating the facts as they are. I'm sure the gameplay was done the way it is to keep the game fun for everyone, but it just seems improbable in a real fight scene. I did really enjoy the new freedom in gliding and the open world approach, however. It feels good, to be able to explore the city and basically work the criminals the way Batman would've in the comics. Perhaps I shall write again, or not. There is Diablo 3 on the horizon after all, and I imagine it shall take up a little of my time for a while after.

The Avengers

If you haven't already watched it, and love the Marvel comics, why are you reading this? Get out there and watch the film already. Joss Whedon managed to get the common theme of protecting the world from imminent destruction with tried and tired Marvel characters together to create what I'd regard as a masterpiece as far as the Marvel movies are concerned. I came to the movie expecting little more than the usual Marvel action flick, but got much more than I anticipated. The film manages to pull the Avengers characters (excepting Spidey) into action highlighting the tensions and vulnerabilities between them, and forging it into a narrative that is humorous in all the right places while preserving the intensity and seriousness that accompanies a world saving struggle. While there are the usual minor authenticity issues and plot holes, Avengers manages to mostly hold together as a rather engaging and memorable action flick while solidly preserving each characters' unique personalities. Overall I can say that I am very pleased with the movie, and that it deserves a solid 8.5/10.

The Night Shift

I was talking with a few of my more nocturnal friends, and it seems that we are in agreement that it would be very nice indeed were it possible for companies to run proper night shifts. By that I do mean professional shift work across the board, rather than the usual select few professions. Realistically, there is no reason for modern cities to stick to the traditional agrarian schedule. True, the pragmatists would argue that the agrarian 9-5 is the current de facto standard and that we should adapt to it. However, I think the time is also ripe for societies and economies to consider viable alternatives. With modern technologies, work is no longer bound to the cycle of the sun, and it is every bit a realistic option to have work done in the dead of night. Now, consider the cost of running a city approximately half of its potential 24 productive hours. For starters, the largely monolithic clock creates peak hours that cause major congestion. Moreover, it makes for deserted times where crime becomes a fairly viable option. Not to mention the economic cost of having stuff shut down for about half a day either way. Running a proper night city will mitigate that, along with the silliness whereby retail stores close at precisely the same time that offices are open. And in a city, that's precisely when everyone's just not free to do any shopping. If anyone is willing to think about it, that really doesn't make sense. Of course, in order to pull off the vision of a night city, it needs to be run as a complete system. I've seen how the cities creep towards the night concept, with 24 hour supermarkets and cinemas running past 12 midnight, but all in all it remains a fringe activity at best. Without childcare, schools, offices and such running the night shift as well, it becomes extremely difficult to get things moving properly. Given the right stimulus, however, I foresee the 24 hour city can be a rather enriching approach for any city that implements it.

L'Arc En Ciel World Tour - Singapore

Tonight, I had my first ever emergency concert. Yes it sounds funny, but it happened regardless. A friend called me and said hey she's got tickets for the L'Arc En Ciel concert. Omg? OMG! Wait wha... Ok well it's easily the first time a call came in saying that I had a chance to pop over to a 20th anniversary one-night-only concert by a band that I kinda like and it's in 2 hours. Sweet. Couldn't say no anyway. The concert itself went off with a bang, quite literally. The band played their songs one after another, with pauses in between but nothing too major. The songs were sufficiently familiar that the audience could easily sing along. Things were a bit too loud for me (as usual) and I was mildly disappointed that the audio guy let the speakers distort during some parts of the songs. Sometimes it pays not to max the sound system out. Regardless the soreness in my ears and dazzle to my eyes, I did have a whale of a time and certainly did not regret attending. As usual, Hyde's being his cute charming ageless self, raising the temperatures of a goodly number of people with his mere presence. Lovely. I find that I have the annoying inability to appreciate things as they are. Throughout the concert, I couldn't help but notice how easily the audience was manipulated by cues from the band and the SFX crew. They even aped certain animations that were played during the intermission periods and generally worked with the performers. True, some may say that it is out of sport, but I think there's more than a little herd instinct thrown in. Regardless, people were certainly having fun and I guess that's what really counts. Overall I'd say it was a right unforgettable experience, one that I actually appreciate. Sadly it'll live on exclusively in my memories, because there was no opportunity to photograph or film it. Or get someone's autograph or whatever. Not that I really mind. On a completely unrelated note, the lingering hollowness still haunts me. There's something that I need, and it still eludes me, keeping me from feeling truly happy.

Lockout

There are some movies that start strong and grow progressively worse towards the end. Lockout is one such movie. The premise of an orbital prison a'la futuristic Alcatraz is intriguing, and then as usual things go wrong, which necessitates the insertion of a special forces trooper to get the situation rectified. The movie starts strong, with a believable orbital prison, and strong characters that are distinctive and likeable. Well maybe not likeable by everyone but certainly very distinct. For moments there I thought I detected hints of Blade Runner, Mission Impossible and Half Life 2, which is generally indicative of fun times ahead. And the fun times kept going till it seems that the low budget production started running out of steam, rapidly careening into a rushed ending that is uncharacteristically disjointed. Unfortunately, really, and we were having such fine moments together. Overall there's not a lot to say. This show's an action flick about a hostage rescue by a single dude from a whole hostile prison population, with all that entails. Unfortunately, the rushed hind quarters and other miscellaneous foulups force me to give it a 5.5/10. It could've been so much better had they fleshed out the narrative in the right places, but it is what it is.

The Cabin In The Woods

Bunch of young people go into a cabin in the middle of the woods. Bad things happen and they start dying. If this sounds like the opening to a bad survival horror movie, you'd be right. However, the entire premise of Cabin is sufficiently unique that you'd probably be pleasantly surprised. Not to spoil anything, the movie certainly isn't your run of the mill survival horror. It is something of a huge elaborate conspiracy setup, whereby a bunch of kids are sent to a cabin in the woods, to face off against some classic horror movie monsters. And yes, the monsters are actually real. The movie manages to subvert a lot of the classic horror stereotypes in the context of a setup, where the common horror flick archetypes act the way they do because of manipulations by puppeteers in a command room somewhere. Given how novel the show's premise is, it's difficult to say much without spoiling the story, but suffice to say that I am greatly pleased by how they turned the genre on its head. You'd never see horror movies the same way again. What keeps this movie from true greatness is the pacing (which is a double edged sword), whereby the true premise of the story is only revealed right at the end. On one hand it keeps you guessing, but on the other it creates a niggling doubt that perhaps the reveal could've come earlier. Despite this, I am quite happy that for once, the story was designed from the start to get everyone killed. As many would know, I don't like people much, and it's awful nice to see blood spilled in gratuitous volumes while ensuring minimal survivability. It also helps that the show takes a turn that is a wee bit Portal at one point. Those who've played the game would understand. Regardless, I would say this movie has the makings of a cult classic and is nowhere near as cheesy as it may seem to be at first blush. It gets 8/10 from me.

Battleship

You sank my Battleship! A movie by Hasbro featuring the board game is something that perks my ears, because I played the game ages ago and I am greatly curious about how they might shoehorn the gameplay into a movie. If anything, I know that it is improbable to impossible, so I came to the movie fully expecting a funny flick. My expectations were met. An alien invasion comes to earth after signals were fired into space at another earthlike planet. As the premise goes, it's absolutely certain that a civilization capable of sending ships to visit us from some faraway planet is quite capable of kicking human butt. And they do. I especially like the highlight of the show, with the aliens and their weird chainsaw ball of doom. The story itself is fraught with more holes than my battleship had when it sank to the bottom of the ocean. The story is implausible from how the aliens were really quite incompetent for a race that flew all the way across space, to how they had the usual fragile central command based military systems and just how their weaponry works. And how the humans revived a particular ship to fight for them. Despite this, I love Hasbro for making the movie, as it's also full of Battleship references. To hint, it has a real battleship in the action scenes, real shelling of targets on a grid and actual pegs very much like what you see in the board game. And a little discussion on a frigate vs a battleship. Implausible aliens and apparently bad acting (I can't actually detect bad acting, unfortunately) aside, I think this movie is made primarily for kids and fans of the Battleship board game. In terms of story I'd give the movie a 2/10 for the sheer amount of plotholes, but 8/10 for managing to shoehorn key Battleship moments into an actual movie while preserving the look and feel of the boardgame brought to life by a dude very much like Michael Bay. Leave your logic at the door and enjoy the fireworks.

On Holy Ground

This will sound strange, but I do seem to discern a difference between holy ground and other normal spaces. Now, when someone mentions holy ground, people often think religious sites. That is a reasonable assumption, what with their being consecrated and all. However, that's not all the case. Religious spaces aren't necessarily holy ground.

I've been to many churches and temples, and each time I pass the threshold I just feel nothing. It's as if I've just walked into any other mall. At that point I thought well alright, so holy ground just feels like any other place. And then I step into some old churches, temples, cemeteries and the like and I get a whole other experience.

Stepping through onto true holy ground feels odd, to say the least. It's like stepping through a membrane to another space. For me it actually burns a little, but otherwise it's a pretty overwhelming feeling of peace and there's a certain awe to it. Hell it makes me feel as if I'd burst into flames if I accidentally touched some holy artifact there (I probably would, but don't want to put that to the test). I think the effect is noticeable by regular folk, as you'd see them speaking in hushed tones and basically acting reverent even though there is no religious authority figure around to dictate their conduct. It just seems to happen naturally.

I visited Naritasan temple over at Narita, Japan and I am pretty sure some of it is indeed holy ground. It has that very distinctive feeling, and it was only upon getting back did I realize that it was a temple for over 1000 years. Strangely, it's the places that are at least hundreds of years old that truly feel holy. Perhaps it is a factor of the time that people have spent earnestly worshipping at the site, or something of the sort. Regardless, it sometimes pains me to realize just how hollow modern religious sites can feel, being little different from a common mall or coffee shop.

Our Glorious Dead

I was at the Titanic exhibit today, and was slightly underwhelmed. I expected more from the exhibit, but I suppose the designers did what they could given the crazy space constraints around here. What struck me, however, was getting the boarding pass of a passenger who was actually aboard, and reading the person's life story in brief on the back.

Now, I wouldn't care about the John Smith who happened to be sitting right next to me on the metro, and really even if he told me a one liner about his life I just couldn't be arsed. Ordinarily, I believe a whole lot of people would agree with me. Yet, when it comes to a tragedy like the Titanic's sinking, suddenly everyone becomes a person of interest. I find it hypocritical. Just because we know the manner of a person's death doesn't make the person automatically interesting. In fact, it the voyeurism inherent in understanding a dead person's past that drives this sudden interest. By my definition, if you are only interested in a person after they're dead, it is a right fine example of hypocrisy.

Frankly, if a person proves to be uninteresting in life, I see little reason for their being interesting in death. Unfortunately, we seem to have set ourselves precedents for glorifying the dead, and strangely I seem to be relatively alone in seeing the irony of this. If we are to be interested in people, start while they're alive. Otherwise, let us not care at all.

Privacy

Sometimes I really do wonder at what social media brings people. On the surface, it allows mass interpersonal interactions to occur synchronously and asynchronously, thus bringing everyone together in one big happy family. Yet with technology, we can always be sure that every goodness is effectively a double edged sword, and social media is no exception.

As people have known for quite some time, social media like Facebook is a pretty good source of information for investigations. Those who are most connected to the social media have the most information on themselves out there. The most involved ones even provide live updates on their daily lives (not sure why I'd want to know that, but thanks anyway). With this information, friends can better understand other friends and law enforcement find this to be quite the boon as well. Unfortunately, stalkers can do exactly the same.

What worries me is the propensity of such lack of privacy to become habitual, in that people realize that they cannot avoid the breach without simultaneously cutting themselves off from the social stream. For many people, that is actually a very high price to pay. The problem here is that the value of privacy will go down as a result, and I foresee people not protecting their privacy as zealously as they previously would have. This is especially worrying, in that it brings us closer to a world without barriers for the common folk, but the walls remain in place for those in power...

Living With Inequality

Orwell raises a good point with inequality, in that one needs a frame of reference in order to understand that one's being oppressed in the first place. After watching Hunger Games, it also reminds me of how we live with gross inequality on a daily basis while being conditioned not to think overly much of it. Consider the fact that I am typing this on a rather high end machine that may be well over the annual income of another person out there. The inequality is right here before me, and before the one who happens to read this entry.

For those in richer urban environs, it is the sheer normalcy of everyday life that blinds us all to the struggles of others. For the desperately poor, the "normalcy" of everyday urban life is so far out of reach that the frame of reference cannot even exist. The other problems would be indoctrination, where each person is basically taught to accept ones' lot in life and by extension not seriously consider that of others. It blinds people as surely as Big Brothers' propaganda.

One of my friends commented that wow...in the Hunger Games, the rich folk of the higher districts live such ostentatiously rich lives in comparison to the drab poverty of the lower districts. I pointed out hey...that's precisely the life we're living, except we're the ones on top. It is indeed food for thought. For me, where there is an increase in wealth, the distribution should be as equitable as possible. This does not mean giving away what one rightfully earned, but to provide everyone equal opportunities to earn their own keep.

1984

I've taken to rereading Orwell's 1984 recently, and I've gained a new perspective on the matter. I remember reading it years ago and not quite getting it, because I didn't quite have an interest in the subject of how authoritarian systems work, and thus read it more like your average novel. After going through it in more detail this time, I've come to realize just how much thought went into the novel's creation, and how well Orwell actually understood authoritarianism. More interestingly, the concepts have stood the test of time disturbingly well and become quite prevalent in the recent years, albeit in a somewhat different form.

Interestingly, while Ingsoc in the book promises the equitable distribution of wealth while concentrating it amongst the select few, the capitalist system of today does the exact same thing while promising to increase the wealth of all. Where Ingsoc winds up brainwashing everyone into mindlessly accepting the system despite having to engage in doublethink, people in capitalist societies are made to accept this inequality simply because they are taught that there is no suitable substitute. People simply stop thinking about alternatives.

Given the general degeneration of democracy in today's world, the interconnectedness of the internet forcing people to think about how much of their information leaks all over the place and the omnipresence of monitoring devices, arguably the world of 1984 exists in a mutated form today. Media has become our panopticon, where citizens are being watched over by fellow citizens in a sort of self-inflicted thought police. Governments claim to be disadvantaged and disempowered by the internet, while using the same reasoning to increase their own control through heavily regulating media. And wealth distribution is extremely unequal. How, then, is this not 1984? Has Oceania truly always been at war?