A Year in Multimedia
In the past, I’ve often written a summary of my experiences with gaming, movies and TV at the end of each year. Similarly, I usually reflect upon my activities in podcasting and blogging as well. However, 2016 has been unique in many respects. Political and social tides have changed in the West and there is much to reflect upon in the real world. Certainly, my appetite for creating content has taken a knock and I have at times stopped and wondered if it really is all worth the bother. But after such moments of introspection I still see the benefits of the written word or bellowing in to a microphone, so here we are once again. The only difference this time is rather than multiple posts, I can pretty much distil my thought on 2016 in one simple account.
In the past, I’ve often written a summary of my experiences with gaming, movies and TV at the end of each year. Similarly, I usually reflect upon my activities in podcasting and blogging as well. However, 2016 has been unique in many respects. Political and social tides have changed in the West and there is much to reflect upon in the real world. Certainly, my appetite for creating content has taken a knock and I have at times stopped and wondered if it really is all worth the bother. But after such moments of introspection I still see the benefits of the written word or bellowing in to a microphone, so here we are once again. The only difference this time is rather than multiple posts, I can pretty much distil my thought on 2016 in one simple account.
Gaming:
To things have had a major impact upon my gaming this year. A lack of time and too few new titles that aroused my interest. I started the year playing through Hearts of Stone, the first DLC for The Witcher III: Wild Hunt and continued with the second expansion, Blood and Wine when it was released in May. I waxed lyrical about the quality of this RPG last year and will continue to do so this time. The last DLC not only added yet another superbly crafted narrative but refined the game mechanics and system even further. I think it will be a long time before I find another game from this genre that offers anywhere near a comparable experience.
MMO wise I have continued to regularly log into Star Trek Online during 2016 as it has frequently had new content to explore. This year being the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek, the new expansion, Agents of Yesterday, offered an appropriate homage to the original series. The new lighting system has improved the overall aesthetic of the game and it’s clear that developers Cryptic have plenty more in store for the MMO. It’s recent port to consoles clearly indicates that the game is in a healthy state.
LOTRO has had a curious year. I took a six-month break from the game due to the repetitive and formulaic nature of the new content. Yet the Battle of Pelennor Fields brought me back, being surprisingly well realised given the restrictions of the ageing game engine. Update 19 released in October took the game one step closer to Mordor. As ever the epic central story continues to be written to a high standard and certainly compensates for other more pedestrian regional quests. Recent news that ex Turbine staff have formed a new independent company and taken over the development of the game does seem to have renewed interest in the MMO. I remain cautiously optimistic for LOTRO’s future.
It would be remiss of me if I didn’t mention Overwatch. I played the open beta out of idle curiosity and was greatly surprised by how accessible the game is. It has now become my game of choice whenever I want a quick fix of entertainment. I’m still amazed at how equitable this team based, first person shooter is and how anyone can find a role to play, regardless of the style or abilities. It continues to add content and new characters ensuring longevity. Something that Pokémon Go has failed to do. This was another title that I was drawn to out of nostalgia and curiosity but it quickly became apparent that it was unsustainable.
TV and Movies:
I only went to my local multiplex to see movies upon their release, six time this year, which is unusual for me. This is mainly due to there being precious little of interest for me these days. Cinemas seem choked with Blockbusters and Super Hero movies. A lot of the more niche market, independent films have limited releases and tend to be available on-demand very quickly. Those movies I did see were suitably entertaining. Deadpool provided audiences with exactly what they expected and proved that the R rating could still be economically viable. Star Trek Beyond finally saw the new stories set in the Kelvin Timeline hit their stride. It offered a good character driven story that finally tapped in to the soul of the original series. Fantastic Beast and Where to Find Them also proved to be a crowd pleaser with excellent production values and a decent storyline. I have high hopes for this off shoot of the Wizarding World franchise. Rogue One certainly met with my approval and filled a suitable gap in the Star Wars lore. I almost got as much fun out of the fan driven debates about the story as the film itself.
TV once again proved to be the home of more cerebral and densely plotted drama. Stranger Things was a wonderful homage to eighties genre cinema and popular culture. Finally embracing both Amazon Prime and Netflix certainly afforded our household with more choice and provided a respite from the scourge of advertising which just seems to become increasingly preposterous and crass. The Man in the High Castle provided a suitable bookend to the start and end of the year and continues to be both intriguing and entertaining. It has also been beneficial to have access to all previous series of Star Trek and work my way through those shows I’m less familiar with.
Network TV on both sides of the Atlantic has been entertaining. There are still far too many shows to keep up with and I’m constantly amazed at how many shows bite the dust after one lacklustre season. Elementary still maintains a high standard of writing and the central characters of Holmes and Watson still have engaging story arcs. The final season of Person of Interest was both succinct and fitting, providing a bitter sweet, yet plausible ending for the show. Blindpsot somehow made it to a second season and completely reinvented itself to try and escape the narrative knot it had go itself in to. Back in the UK, Endeavour once again proved to be both superbly acted and well written. It’s sedate pace and introspective themes continue to be captivating.
As a grandparent, I also watch a great deal of children’s television, especially those aimed at the pre-school demographic. Therefore, I would like to praise CBeebies for their continued quality programming and point out that Hey Duggee is a sublime show. If you are thirtysomething, then you’ll love the pop culture references that litter every episode. Plus, in the last few days, I also been caught up in the hype surrounding Guillermo del Toro’s Trollhunters. Let it suffice to say that it is charming and entertaining. It’s curious how some creative talents can handle sentimentality without tipping in to emotional overkill.
Blogging and Podcasting:
I stopped writing daily in 2016. I simply ran out of steam after five years and then real world changes meant that such a schedule was off the table for the immediate future. However, I managed to contribute to this year’s NBI and Blaugust, so I guess content creation wasn’t a complete write off (no pun intended). The Burton & Scrooge Podcast became The Burton & Scrooge Uncut Podcast and followed a somewhat erratic release pattern. I enjoy recording with my co-host Brian but I’m thinking we need to either seriously rethink the show format for 2017 or take a break for a while. I’m determined to get my movie related show in to production next year and I also need to return to writing my book, which ground to a halt this summer.
It would appear that real life and all that it contains caught up with many of my blogging and podcasting colleagues this year. Thus, there was reduced output from certain quarters and some went so far as to take a break. It’s sad but totally understandable. Yet it was not all doom and gloom. Syp over at Bio Break continues to write and podcast with great enthusiasm. The year also saw the launch of the Geek to Geek Podcast with Void and Beej. Their dedication and focus has been a source of inspiration and the show itself is thoroughly entertaining. It also reacquainted me with the concept that you can agree to disagree, cordially. Pam over at Cannot be Tamed also produced lots of quality content via blog post, podcast and You Tube. Joseph (formerly known as the MMO troll) kept creating his own unique brand of content with the Pthppt! podcast. It always raises a wry smile and I’ll happily listen to topics that I usually wouldn’t consider exploring.
Valedictory Remarks:
For me the overwhelming impression that 2016 leaves is ones of change. This has been reflected in politics, world events, within the entertainment industry per se and even my personal life. Yet change is an inherent part of life and cannot be avoided. Therefore, I intend to start 2017 with a positive outlook and rather than focus on what I can’t do, explore what can be achieved with the time and resources that I have. I’m also sure there will still be good content available in all mediums. It may simply be a case of having to broaden one’s search. I recently discovered to my surprise that there’s a fourth instalment of Sniper Elite arriving in spring and I’m still greatly looking forward to Star Trek Discovery. I shall also continue to blog and podcast in my own peculiar way. Perhaps I may even encourage others to do so. After all, you’ve got to have a project.
A Christmas Carol (1971)
I have a great deal of affection for Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, not only because it’s a fine piece of literature but because it lends itself so well to dramatisation. I therefore have a keen interests in all the respective adaptation, of which there are many. Over the years there has been a trend to focus excessively on the sentimental aspect of the plot, resulting in a rather nauseating Disneyfication of the story. Although the redemption of the main protagonist is central to the narrative, the poverty and deprivations of the time are still very pertinent themes, especially in today's economic climate. I was therefore very gratified to rediscover the 1971 version of Charles Dickens' classic story which was originally shown on ABC. This short 25 minute animated feature realises the story superbly, capturing the tone of the book and accurately reflecting the darker aspects. Remember that A Christmas Carol is fundamentally a ghost story.
I have a great deal of affection for Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, not only because it’s a fine piece of literature but because it lends itself so well to dramatisation. I therefore have a keen interests in all the respective adaptation, of which there are many. Over the years there has been a trend to focus excessively on the sentimental aspect of the plot, resulting in a rather nauseating Disneyfication of the story. Although the redemption of the main protagonist is central to the narrative, the poverty and deprivations of the time are still very pertinent themes, especially in today's economic climate. I was therefore very gratified to rediscover the 1971 version of Charles Dickens' classic story which was originally shown on ABC. This short 25 minute animated feature realises the story superbly, capturing the tone of the book and accurately reflecting the darker aspects. Remember that A Christmas Carol is fundamentally a ghost story.
The TV special features Alastair Sim as the voice of Ebenezer Scrooge (a role Sim had previously performed in the 1951 live-action film Scrooge). Michael Hordern likewise reprised his 1951 performance as Marley's Ghost. Veteran animator Chuck Jones served as executive producer, while the great Richard Williams directed. This is a very distinguished pedigree for any animated production. The story is beautifully condensed considering the running time and captures the harsh winter environment of London in the 1843. The supernatural elements are intelligently realised, drawing directly from the source text. The scene where Marley's Ghost, removes the handkerchief that secures his jaw, so it drops to his chest terrified me as a child when I first saw it. The subsequent depiction of "Ignorance" and "Want" is also bleak and shocking.
Originally produced for television, A Christmas Carol won an Academy Award for best animated short subject in 1973; it remains the only film adaptation of the story to date to have done so. However, elements within Hollywood were unhappy that a TV show had won an Academy Award, which led to the Academy changing its policy, disqualifying any shorts that were shown on television first. Overall A Christmas Carol remains a benchmark for quality animations. The subtle line drawings and water colours bring Dicken's London to life wonderfully. The characters are vividly drawn and reflect a thoughtful design. The voice cast bring gravitas to the proceedings, resulting in a quality adaptation of the story. Unfortunately, this short animated film is not readily available. The VHS release is long obsolete and there is no mainstream DVD copy available. The film did feature on a limited edition DVD boxset of the work of Richard Williams. If you can track down a copy via the internet, then you will be well rewarded.
Standing Stone Games and LOTRO
To date one of LOTRO’s greatest weaknesses has been the way it’s been run and marketed. There are other flaws but these have been fully discussed over the years, so I see no reason to revisit them. Considering the games pedigree, the nine-year-old MMO has never reached its full potential but that is a criticism that can be levelled at many entries in this genre. In recent years LOTRO has limped forward, hobbled by an ever-diminishing development team and starved of resources by its corporate master. Yet because of the dedication of a core group of fans the game generates sufficient revenue to keep it from folding. Thus, despite continued predictions of closure from armchair experts such as myself, LOTRO endures, while other titles have sailed into the West.
To date one of LOTRO’s greatest weaknesses has been the way it’s been run and marketed. There are other flaws but these have been fully discussed over the years, so I see no reason to revisit them. Considering the games pedigree, the nine-year-old MMO has never reached its full potential but that is a criticism that can be levelled at many entries in this genre. In recent years LOTRO has limped forward, hobbled by an ever-diminishing development team and starved of resources by its corporate master. Yet because of the dedication of a core group of fans the game generates sufficient revenue to keep it from folding. Thus, despite continued predictions of closure from armchair experts such as myself, LOTRO endures, while other titles have sailed into the West.
Yesterday it was announced that Turbine would no longer be overseeing the development of LOTRO. In fact, the core team that has running both LOTRO and DDO over recent years, has formed their own new independent game studio called Standing Stone Games and have acquired both properties. Furthermore, Standing Stone Games have partnered with Daybreak Game Company who will provide global publishing services. Sundry press releases were made by both parties and a FAQ was posted to reassure existing customers of both MMOs. The separation process from Turbine and Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment is ongoing but already LOTRO has been patched to add the Standing Stone Games logo.
Now whether you are a die-hard LOTRO fan or a casually interested bystander (I’m somewhere between these two positions), this change raises a lot of questions. As ever a lot of the answers will only be known to those at the top of each respective company and will not be addressed publicly. However, common sense and a degree of deductive reasoning will probably furnish some answers. For example, it is reasonable to assume that the licensing issue has been addressed and that LOTRO has gained an extension and will not close in 2017. Middle Earth Enterprises may well have become more relaxed about licensing per se since the recent death of Saul Zaentz. I certainly can’t see any company embarking on such a transfer of ownership for a product that had less than a year to live.
Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment obviously didn’t see the need to hang on to LOTRO, which is hardly surprising as they’ve done precious little with the IP since they acquired Turbine in 2012. At the time, many LOTRO players envisaged a sizeable capital injection and an increase in game development but it never really happened. Warner’s were more than likely just acquiring studios and assets for licenses and patents. So, Standing Stone Games proposition was probably viewed as expedient and convenient. However, the most intriguing aspect of this transfer of ownership is the involvement of Daybreak Game Company. Their acquisition of SOE in early 2015 was surprise and their management of several online titles has been chequered to say the least. Exactly what impact (if any) will they have upon LOTRO?
As a publisher of an online game DGC will theoretically be responsible for things such as account systems, support services and server infrastructure. However, from what we’ve learned already it would appear that a lot of the existing facilities for LOTRO are to be maintained. However, there is the issue of the Turbine Store which no doubt will be quickly converted to reflect DGCs branding. Can we expect to see a change in the LOTROs monetisation policy? It’s very dependent upon Standing Stone Games relationship with Daybreak Game Company. As a new indie studio where did SSG get its funding. Is DGC bankrolling the development team? Or did they provide the capital for the game license which I’m sure did cost pocket change. If you follow the money you usually find out who calls the shots and that will surely impact upon the direction that LOTRO takes.
As ever with a change of this kind, speculation seems to be at both ends of the possible spectrum. LOTRO according to some is to enjoy some sort of renaissance and have a wealth of new content, or alternatively decline into lock box, money grab hell and be dead within six months. Realistically the truth is more than likely somewhere in the middle. Standing Stone Games is now in a better position to focus exclusively for content creation for both LOTRO and DDO without losing staff to other projects. If this transition is handled well then LOTRO can still deliver a modest and steady stream of revenue. DGC may well be pursuing a different endgame that is beyond LOTRO. Perhaps they have an eye on a longer-term relationship with SSG and future products. As ever only time will tell but in the meantime, it is wise to remain cautious. Perhaps this unseen news may even encourage some players to return to LOTRO. Either way my advice is to live in the present and enjoy LOTRO while you can.
Rogue One (2016)
After watching Rogue One earlier today, I was suitably impressed. Once again Disney have used all the knowledge they've amassed from successfully running major franchises and applied it here, resulting in a finely tuned and polished entry into the Star Wars pantheon. The concept of standalone movies released in-between instalments of the classic story has now proven viable opens up a wealth of possibilities. Rogue One works well narratively and provides the spectacle that fans expect from the series. The continuity and attention to detail is outstanding continuously keeping viewers on their toes. Furthermore, the story itself is credible, dovetailing nicely into the lore.
After watching Rogue One earlier today, I was suitably impressed. Once again Disney have used all the knowledge they've amassed from successfully running major franchises and applied it here, resulting in a finely tuned and polished entry into the Star Wars pantheon. The concept of standalone movies released in-between instalments of the classic story has now proven viable opens up a wealth of possibilities. Rogue One works well narratively and provides the spectacle that fans expect from the series. The continuity and attention to detail is outstanding continuously keeping viewers on their toes. Furthermore, the story itself is credible, dovetailing nicely into the lore.
One of the movies greatest assets is its depiction of a galaxy at war. A point that sometimes gets lost in the original trilogy. The rebel alliance is shown as a less than perfect organisation with fragile alliances and rogue factions. Our protagonists are also flawed, some of whom have done questionable things in the name of their cause. It is these themes that bring a greater degree of maturity to Rogue One. The dark tone is more in keeping with that of The Empire Strikes Back, rather than A New Hope.
Technically the movie is a triumph, sporting the quality of computer effects one expects from the franchise. The dogfights in space and the ground assault on the Scarif are suitably impressive. ILM’s loving recreation of Peter Cushing is fascinating to see and also raises some interesting questions regarding the future use of digital actors. The film also showcases several ideas that were previously considered but not used, such as Darth Vader’s bacta chamber. However it is the sense of continuity in the production design and casting that is most striking; Rogue One looks and feels like a seventies production.
Despite a storyline that paves the ways for A New Hope, Rogue One manages to avoid being boxed in by its narrative and takes some interesting turns along the way. The casting works well offering a diverse team of protagonist, reflecting the inter-species nature of the Rebel Alliance. The Empire remains a haven for British character actors with seventies sideburns and as the story unfolds, takes on a credibly dark tone. Rogue One is essentially a war movie and like all good examples of the genre, does not explore the subject matter in binary terms.
Apparently director Gareth Edwards original cut of the movie was a little too dark and Disney decided to shoot additional material and retool the movies ending. Yet the final edit does not necessarily bear all the hallmarks of post-production tinkering. Perhaps Darth Vader’s personal intervention to retrieve the stolen plans at the movies climax is a little contrived but appears to have been well received by fans. The films conclusion is both credible and appropriate. Opting for a more “happily ever after” tone would have diminished the themes that Rogue One explores during its two hour plus running time.
Personally I feel that the bi-yearly standalone movies that Disney has planned offer a lot more scope than the continuation of the classic story. Although I’m curious to know the fate of Luke Skywalker, that tale doesn’t seem to offer as many possibilities. I am a firm believer in the concept that not every movie needs sequel and am looking forward to the forthcoming ad-hoc stories regarding various characters from the Star Wars pantheon. If future films maintain the standard set by Rogue One then fans certainly have nothing to fear and I’m sure Disney will continue to enjoy the commercial success.
Westworld (2016)
Considering the pace of technological change since the early seventies, Michael Crichton’s Westworld was ripe for a reboot. Where the original movie simply pondered the notion of robots designed by computers becoming psychotic, HBO’s recent ten-part series has opted for a broader exploration of the subject matter. Show creators Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy reflect upon the nature of sentience, the moral ambiguity of an amusement park such as Westworld and whether fictitious emotions created through programming are any less real than those genuinely experienced. Over ten and a half hours Westworld certainly covers a lot of ground. Its $100 million production cost is also very apparent.
Considering the pace of technological change since the early seventies, Michael Crichton’s Westworld was ripe for a reboot. Where the original movie simply pondered the notion of robots designed by computers becoming psychotic, HBO’s recent ten-part series has opted for a broader exploration of the subject matter. Show creators Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy reflect upon the nature of sentience, the moral ambiguity of an amusement park such as Westworld and whether fictitious emotions created through programming are any less real than those genuinely experienced. Over ten and a half hours Westworld certainly covers a lot of ground. Its $100 million production cost is also very apparent.
When it was announced in early 2014 that Westworld was to be rebooted by HBO, many media commentators agreed that this was a good match. HBO being free from the content restrictions of network television and enjoying larger production budgets. Due to the scope of the show HBO shared financing with Warner Bros. Television who currently hold the copyright to the franchise. As further details emerged over the following months regarding casting and other production details, Westworld became one of the most eagerly awaited shows of 2016. It was broadly expected by many critics, that a show with such a pedigree was bound to be a hit.
HBO have had a lot of experience with large productions of this nature. Band of Brothers and The Pacific are good examples, both of which maintained a high standard of writing and narrative vision. However, there is also the more recent success of Game of Thrones to consider. This sprawling epic has found an audience not only because of its densely plotted narrative but due to the liberal quantities of violence, nudity and abhorrent behaviour featured in each season. It cannot be denied that the more salacious elements of George R. R. Martin’s fiction are a contributory element to the shows appeal and popularity. Furthermore, these elements may now be considered an integral part of HBOs formula for success because they are also present in Westworld. Whether they are beneficial or not is a hotly debated question.
Westworld is a story that unfolds from the point of view of the hosts, the artificial lifeforms that populate an amusement park owned by the fictitious company Delos. Because the hosts memories and experiences are constantly manipulated, erased or altered by their creators, the narrative is complex and often deliberately confusing. As a concept and a way of telling a story this is a great idea. However, there is a very fine line to tread between intriguing complexity and excessive, even self-indulgent intricacy. There is also a very old maxim regarding telling a story via a visual medium that it’s better to show rather than tell. Westworld seems to struggle to commit to either of these two courses of action over its story arc.
The shows substantial budget can be seen in every facet of the production. The visual effects are very good and the cinematography is well conceived. Costumes, props and locations all contribute to making the Westworld a credible amusement park. The cast is universally good with Evan Rachel Wood, Thandie Newton and Jeffrey Wright especially standing out. Ed Harris is also a very compelling on screen presence. Frequently sub-plots involving these actors are the high point of each episode. The writers should also be commended for some of the philosophical ideas the narrative explores. Television seldom becomes so contemplative. Yet despite so many positive aspects Westworld often slows down as it attempts to tie itself up in unnecessary dramatic Gordian knots. Furthermore, at times it exudes an air of smug satisfaction at its own “cleverness”. A prime example being the weekly use of contemporary songs being played on the Pianola.
A good screenplay can draw on a broad range of dramatic devices if it is well written and the said devices are intelligently used. Thus, physical, psychological and sexual violence can be utilised successfully beyond mere titillation. Because Westworld is a story about an amusement park that allows customers to indulge in such activities, it is natural to assume that they will be depicted. However, I feel that the spectre of Game of Thrones has impacted upon the production. Therefore, on several occasions I felt that the writers were including a degree of profane language or acts of violence because they felt obliged to. Sadly, it did not always work and stood out quite noticeably and the net result was somewhat immersion breaking.
The season finale of Westworld did manage to draw many of the plot element together and upon mature reflection, some of the more esoteric aspects of the previous episodes did now have a clear purpose. Although one should not directly compare HBOs show with the 1973 feature film, as they are very different beasts, there is broadly a comparable story arc. Effectively after ten hours plus of convoluted and at times frustrating drama, Westworld arrived at a point in the narrative that the feature film reached in about forty minutes. The journey has been far from dull but not exactly the rollercoaster ride the producers intended. For every good point of the production there is a negative one. Thought provoking themes give way to arbitrary plot twists and intriguing ideas get lost in a mire of pretentious intellectual posturing. I therefore hope that season two of Westworld manages to keep the cerebral elements of the story but jettisons the pompous tone and the deliberately pedestrian pacing.
Amazon Echo
I recently decided to buy a year’s subscription to Amazon Prime. It was discounted by £20 and as I’ve been purchasing more and more from Amazon of late, it made sense to take advantage of the deal. So, I spent £59 and became a Prime customer. The first thing I did after receiving the confirmation email that I was now one of the “chosen”, was to buy the Amazon Echo. I’ve had my eye on these so-called smart speakers for a while. I was toying with the idea of buying the Google Home but it doesn’t become available in the UK until after Christmas. The Amazon echo has the advantage of being a tried and tested product that has been around since June 2015 in the US. As I’ve now bought into the Amazon ecosystem it made sense to go with their product and utilise its respective resources fully.
I recently decided to buy a year’s subscription to Amazon Prime. It was discounted by £20 and as I’ve been purchasing more and more from Amazon of late, it made sense to take advantage of the deal. So, I spent £59 and became a Prime customer. The first thing I did after receiving the confirmation email that I was now one of the “chosen”, was to buy the Amazon Echo. I’ve had my eye on these so-called smart speakers for a while. I was toying with the idea of buying the Google Home but it doesn’t become available in the UK until after Christmas. The Amazon echo has the advantage of being a tried and tested product that has been around since June 2015 in the US. As I’ve now bought into the Amazon ecosystem it made sense to go with their product and utilise its respective resources fully.
After a week and a half of using the Amazon Echo I am broadly in agreement with most of the reviews that I’ve read. The speaker itself is robust and of a sound quality that I find more than acceptable. Despite being a Prime customer I opted to try Amazon Music for a month, thus expanding the library of music available from two million tracks to forty million. The reason for this is that my significant other and I have broad and eclectic music taste and simply wanted more choice. Playing individual songs, specific albums and bespoke playlists is quick and easy. In a nutshell, the ease of access and use that the Echo affords means that music is now a regular feature in our household again.
The Echo is also easy to move about the house, connecting effortlessly to your Wi-Fi. Bluetooth connectivity means that it can easily pair with phones, tablets or even desktop PC. This flexibility means that family members do not have to fight over using the Echo, nor inflict differing musical preferences upon each other. The voice recognition software is sufficiently sophisticated and usually understands the various requests our household makes. There are times when Alexa struggles to understand languages other than English but then again it may down to my poor pronunciation. As for Alexa, her neutral UK English accent is pleasant and far from irritating. She has also been programmed to be suitably apologetic when request fails and has a sense of humour. Try asking “Open the pod bay doors, HAL”.
Echo users can customise news, weather and travel services as well use practical apps such as timers and alarms. It should be noted that a lot of the apps and functionality that are currently available in the US are not at the disposal of UK customers. However, I’m sure this will change over time. In fact, I see the Amazon Echo as a provisional incarnation of the sort of automated convenience we’ve seen in science fiction movies and literature for years. A decade from now this sort of technology will be standard in most new build homes. At present, it offers a degree of convenience and novelty. It’s fair to say that the Echo is also a cunning marketing tool, as you gain greater functionality the more Amazon services you buy into. The Echo could also be a prime example (no pun intended) of the emerging digital divide we are seeing in contemporary society.
Overall, I’m happy with the Amazon Echo and Alexa. So far, the only disappointment I’ve suffered was after trying to use the device as a surrogate sound bar for the TV. I purchased a Bluetooth adaptor and managed to output audio from both the television, IPTV and Blu-ray player via the Echo. Sadly, due to the inherent nature of Bluetooth, there was sufficient latency for the sound to be just a fraction out of sync with the visuals. It was too noticeable to be viable so I ceased using the device in this fashion. However, this specific con did not outweigh any of the aforementioned pros. I remain confident that over the next six months I shall find more useful ways to utilise the Amazon echo. Certainly, if I can address Alexa as “computer” in a Star Trek fashion, my user satisfaction would increase even further.
The Grand Tour
I don’t drive. Never have done. I don’t hold a driver’s license and have never been behind the wheel of a car. My life has panned out in such a way that driving has never been a necessity. When I was a teenager, there was always someone else in the social group who drove (thanks’ Chris) and as an adult my other half took up the slack. Plus, I happen to live in an area with great public transport links. Driving has been something that I’ve simply bypassed without any major consequences. Furthermore, I don’t feel that I’ve missed out on anything. Therefore, the entire sub-culture associated with cars and driving is somewhat abstract to me (just like sports). Don’t get me wrong, I can understand its appeal but overall, it’s not relevant to my life.
Therefore, you may be forgiven for assuming that the popular culture phenomenon that is Top Gear is of no interest to me. However, that is in fact not the case. For many years now Top Gear has been an “entertainment” show and Mr. Clarkson a consummate performer. So, I’ve never felt my lack of interest in motoring excluded me from viewing. Irrespective of whether you’re a serious “petrolhead” or not, Top Gear is a show that you can just tune in to and enjoy for what it was; dumb fun. Like many others, I was also interested in the debacle that surrounded Messrs Clarkson, May and Hammond’s departure from the BBC and was curious to see where they’d find a new home. The subsequent move to Amazon Prime seemed a logical choice.
I don’t drive. Never have done. I don’t hold a driver’s license and have never been behind the wheel of a car. My life has panned out in such a way that driving has never been a necessity. When I was a teenager, there was always someone else in the social group who drove (thanks’ Chris) and as an adult my other half took up the slack. Plus, I happen to live in an area with great public transport links. Driving has been something that I’ve simply bypassed without any major consequences. Furthermore, I don’t feel that I’ve missed out on anything. Therefore, the entire sub-culture associated with cars and driving is somewhat abstract to me (just like sports). Don’t get me wrong, I can understand its appeal but overall, it’s not relevant to my life.
Therefore, you may be forgiven for assuming that the popular culture phenomenon that is Top Gear is of no interest to me. However, that is in fact not the case. For many years now Top Gear has been an “entertainment” show and Mr. Clarkson a consummate performer. So, I’ve never felt my lack of interest in motoring excluded me from viewing. Irrespective of whether you’re a serious “petrolhead” or not, Top Gear is a show that you can just tune in to and enjoy for what it was; dumb fun. Like many others, I was also interested in the debacle that surrounded Messrs Clarkson, May and Hammond’s departure from the BBC and was curious to see where they’d find a new home. The subsequent move to Amazon Prime seemed a logical choice.
So, today I watched the debut episode of The Grand Tour on Amazon Prime and found the show to be exactly as I expected. Free from the public broadcasting restraints of the BBC and bolstered by the corporate financing of Amazon, The Grand Tour was a loud, self-indulgent, self-assured show that gave fans more of the same. It was extremely entertaining within the parameters of its own remit and was professionally produced. The banter was there along with exotic locations and expensive “boy toys”. The formula had been tweaked sufficiently to avoid any legal issues while still catering to the tastes of the core audience. The Grand Tour is ideal for a medium such as Amazon Prime, being the embodiment of big budget disposable entertainment.
Thus, with such a marriage made in heaven, theoretically The Grand Tour should happily rumble on in its current idiom bringing unbridled joy to its core viewers. However, the shows greatest strength may also prove to be its Achilles Heel. There’s a subtle difference between being knowingly self-referential and self-plagiarising. Clarkson, May and Hammond are at risk of becoming caricatures of themselves. There’s “lads” banter and then there’s just being a bore and it won’t take much for our three leads to step from one side of the line to the other. Then of course there’s the inherent unsustainability of trying to outdo yourself. Each week The Grand Tour is going to have to attempt to better the previous episode. There surely must be limits on the size of explosions you can safely set off and similarly how “outrageous” our hosts can be. Will they eventually outstay their welcomes like the class clown we all new at school?
It’s also worth pondering is populist television entertainment just harmless fun and a convenient means to relax or something more sinister. Is demographic specific programming a subtle way to distract the public from wider social and political issues that may be of concern to them? Are Amazon Prime, Netflix and other online content delivery services just the modern equivalent of bread and circuses? Perhaps that’s a question best left to future historians. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see if The Grand Tour can sustain itself and continue to meet expectations. Or whether it will ultimately implode under the weight of its own excesses; a victim of the old adage, “familiarity breeds contempt”?
Thoughts on the Current Political Climate
Both the US Presidential election and the recent UK Brexit referendum are subjects that can be dissected from numerous angles and perspectives. Pundits, journalists and academics alike will be debating these “shock results” for months to come. As for the proverbial man in the street, let it suffice to say that these electoral outcomes have come as far less of a surprise. The divide between electorate and political classes has been clearly highlighted in 2016. However, it should be noted that the overall sense of dissatisfaction with the status quo is a very broad church and that the public are motivated by a wide variety of ideas, concerns and motivations. Analysis of both these political outcomes is complex and should not simply be dismissed with broad brushstrokes.
Both the US Presidential election and the recent UK Brexit referendum are subjects that can be dissected from numerous angles and perspectives. Pundits, journalists and academics alike will be debating these “shock results” for months to come. As for the proverbial man in the street, let it suffice to say that these electoral outcomes have come as far less of a surprise. The divide between electorate and political classes has been clearly highlighted in 2016. However, it should be noted that the overall sense of dissatisfaction with the status quo is a very broad church and that the public are motivated by a wide variety of ideas, concerns and motivations. Analysis of both these political outcomes is complex and should not simply be dismissed with broad brushstrokes.
Sadly, therein lies the rub. Complex problems often require complex solutions. We live in an age where the public seems to have very little tolerance for “complex”, as well as experts and facts. As Otto von Bismark said “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”. Compromise doesn’t strike me as something that will go down with a lot of the electorate. Therefore, it is not outside the realms of possibility that both the US and UK electorate will be disappointed by their respective governments within a year or so. When you consider the inherent diversity of individual expectations, it seems to be almost inevitable that Brexit and making America “great” again are projects doomed to overall failure.
Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of these emergent social, cultural and political divides is the question of how to address them. Debate, interaction and conciliation appear to be currently off the table. How can there be any meaningful engagement when the media is reviled, facts are denied and binary positions are adhered to. There is no clear majority position at present therefore neither side can credibly discount the other. There are levelled headed individuals on both sides of the divide who will still want to engage in dialogue and counter arguments but I am doubtful as to how much success they will have. I have always thought that society, irrespective of its diversity of views and opinions, was at least founded upon some commonly held ideals. Perhaps that is no longer the case and that the rise of the “consumer” and individual over traditional notions of “belonging” to a wider society, no longer prevail.
It has been argued that one of the driving forces behind the ongoing political turmoil currently being seen in Western countries, is an inherent opposition to the established order. The electorate have reached a point where they simply wish to see change, irrespective as to whether it’s driven by a clear plan or not; change for change sake as the adage says. Naturally this comes with a degree of risk both economically and socially. Furthermore, the benefits of change are dependent on which side of the divide you are and whether you stand to gain or lose. As previously mentioned at present there is no majority opinion so there is scope for a very large number of people to find themselves in the “losing” group if significant change is achieved. Thus, we arrive at another factor that has been associated with both Brexit and the Presidential election; namely “fear”.
Politics across the US and Europe is currently very ugly. It has also been in the past so it’s not necessarily a unique situation but it’s been a while since things were so acrimonious and tribal. Legitimate subjects of debate such as immigration, economics and equality have developed a peripheral taint and are not always discussed calmly and logically. Because anti-establishment feeling has gathered momentum and proven successful at the polls, it has validated some of the more controversial views held by some. It also raises the question as to whether so-called “extremist views” are the prerogative of a few. Perhaps large sections of society in the US and the UK are not advocates of equality and do hold less inclusive views. After all morality and ethics are abstract concepts and not naturally occurring. A cursory look at world history shows that established schools of thought wax and wane and that democratic principles are not inherently our default setting.
At present, we find ourselves in a situation where a lot of people are genuinely worried that they will have their rights taken away or be vilified in some way. They feel that they will be relegated to a position of second class citizen or worse. There is genuine scope for social unrest and violence in both the US and UK at present. However, exactly how you feel about this climate of fear and the prospect of civil disturbances is dependent upon your politics or possibly more importantly whether is directly impacts upon you and yours. The social economic make up of your neighbourhood is a major factor. You may live in a flashpoint or removed from it all. Furthermore, riots usually tend to be contained by the authorities and thus those protesting tend to do the most harm to themselves. May be some of those that have pushed for change have done so knowing that they won’t directly bear the immediate consequences. Yet there are some types of fallout that cannot be avoided. Inflation, unemployment and the value of the Dollar or Pound in your pocket must be endured by all. As ever it’s the poorest who will potentially be hurt the most, which is ironic as statistics show they are the greatest advocate of these emerging movements.
There’s another group of people that’s worth considering. A very curious group that seems to be growing. Those who have chosen for whatever reason to opt out of the entire political and voting process. There are 241 million people of voting age in the United States but only approximately 200 million of those registered to vote. In the latest US election, only 46.6% of the electorate turned out to cast their ballot. Comparable percentages of voter apathy are rife in the UK and Europe. Why exactly such numbers of people have chosen to do this is perplexing. Utter exasperation, indifference, mental incompetence or independent wealth may all be factors. However, if this group ever become politically engaged at some point they certainly have sufficient numbers to impact upon the system. Sooner or later the most jaded or apathetic voter will find a reason to “get involved”. Sadly, this usually only happens when something truly bad is imminent.
So, where exactly does the current political landscape leave us? Some may say up a certain creek without a suitable mean of locomotion. Other may say en route to the promised land. The most likely outcome is somewhere between the two of these two views. There is political uncertainty ahead and that will have social and economic consequences. However, history shows us that many things are cyclical and if a period of economic prosperity can be achieved then political unrest usually subsides as all parties benefit from an improved status quo. However economic stability does not just occur by itself and requires intervention by third parties. We also must countenance the fact that maybe we as a species are not destined for a future such as that envisioned by Gene Roddenberry. May be the reason that we don’t “just all get along” is because we can’t. Perhaps we are an evolutionary cul-de-sac doomed to live in “interesting times”. Let us hope that the latter of these two prospect is not a forgone conclusion.
The Damned (1963)
The Damned starts as a delinquent youth drama (a popular theme at the time) and then over the proceeding ninety minutes morphs into a menacing sci-fi plot that climaxes in a full blown conspiracy. It's a most unusual and experimental film that cannot easily be pigeon-holed, yet the same could be said about many other movies by veteran film director Joseph Losey (Boom!, Figures in a Landscape). It proved to be somewhat too "different" for Hammer studios who commissioned the movie and they subsequently shelved The Damned for two years. It was finally released in a heavily edited form under the alternative title of These are the Damned.
The Damned starts as a delinquent youth drama (a popular theme at the time) and then over the proceeding ninety minutes morphs into a menacing sci-fi plot that climaxes in a full blown conspiracy. It's a most unusual and experimental film that cannot easily be pigeon-holed, yet the same could be said about many other movies by veteran film director Joseph Losey (Boom!, Figures in a Landscape). It proved to be somewhat too "different" for Hammer studios who commissioned the movie and they subsequently shelved The Damned for two years. It was finally released in a heavily edited form under the alternative title of These are the Damned.
Set on the Dorset coast an American tourist Simon Wells (Macdonald Carey) on a boating holiday along England’s south coast, is assaulted by a gang of hoodlums led by the charismatic King (Oliver Reed). King's sister Joan (Shirley Anne Field) tries to make amends with Wells but incurs the wrath of her Brother. Both Wells and Joan escape the gang and hide in a network of caves and bunkers on the coast. They discover a group of strange children who have been kept isolated from the world by the military, in what appears to be some sinister government experiment. It soon becomes clear that military are not going to allow them to leave and risk the security of their top secret operation.
The Damned runs at its own pace and which is somewhat sedyte. Yet the shift between storylines midway through the proceedings is bold and quite compelling. The film explores several themes that would later be the foundation for other more notable movies, such as Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971). The most outstanding facet of this film is its overall tone. Government conspiracies where not such a common place plot devices at the time and the notion of sacrificing children for an advantage in the Cold War, made the distributors uncomfortable. The bleak ending further muddied the waters. Such material is far from controversial today but at the time this was quite radical.
It should be noted that this film is not a third instalment in the cinematic adaptation of John Wyndham's The Midwich Cuckoo. The story is based on the novel Children of the Light by H L Lawrence. It is alleged that Losey completely rewrote the script and that as well as being a statement about the Cold War, it was also a veiled criticism of his Hollywood blacklisting. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen. The Damned is mostly certainly an interesting curio with is wistful introspection and existential crisis. Dated in many respects (especially the opening song) it is still tonally a very experimental piece, especially if seen in its fully restored ninety seven minute running time.
The Terror of the Tongs (1961)
In 1910, Hong Kong is in the grips of the powerful Red Dragon tong, a secret society that extorts revenue from merchant seamen, deals in both opium and slave trades and savagely slaughters all those who offer opposition. A merchant sailor, Captain Jackson (Geoffrey Toone), swears revenge on the nefarious clan after they brutally murder his first officer and daughter. Hammer's The Terror of the Tongs strives to offer a lurid period drama but falls somewhat short of the mark due to a clumsy script, an indifferent hero and a conspicuous lack of authentic Asian actors. Apart from Burt Kwouk, most of the cast are Europeans sporting rather poor prosthetics. Christopher Lee manages to bluff his way through his role as Tong leader Chung King, through the force of his acting skills. French actress Yvonne Monlaur (Brides of Dracula) is not as successful as a mixed raced serving girl.
In 1910, Hong Kong is in the grips of the powerful Red Dragon tong, a secret society that extorts revenue from merchant seamen, deals in both opium and slave trades and savagely slaughters all those who offer opposition. A merchant sailor, Captain Jackson (Geoffrey Toone), swears revenge on the nefarious clan after they brutally murder his first officer and daughter. Hammer's The Terror of the Tongs strives to offer a lurid period drama but falls somewhat short of the mark due to a clumsy script, an indifferent hero and a conspicuous lack of authentic Asian actors. Apart from Burt Kwouk, most of the cast are Europeans sporting rather poor prosthetics. Christopher Lee manages to bluff his way through his role as Tong leader Chung King, through the force of his acting skills. French actress Yvonne Monlaur (Brides of Dracula) is not as successful as a mixed raced serving girl.
However despite its shortcomings The Terror of the Tongs is still somewhat entertaining with its highly stylised view of the Chinese underworld. Frankly expecting anything like historical accuracy from such a studio as Hammer is a mistake. They were far more focused on shock, titillation and appealing to adult audiences baser needs. Thus we have a rather sixties interpretation of what an early twentieth century gambling den looks like. Also the violent activities of the Tongs are somewhat understated. Merchants have their fingers cut off with hatchets while others that cross the Red Dragon are stabbed but it is far from graphic. Indeed the infamous bone scraping torture scene in which Milton Reid uses long needles to inflict pain upon an incapacitated hero is very restrained, resulting mainly in reaction shots.
As ever with Hammer movies, The Terror of the Tongs benefits greatly from a set design that implies a far more lavish production. Despite being very studio bound, the movie has an engaging production design bolstered by a few robust matte paintings to make the dock sequences more credible. James Bernard's score is evocative as well as exciting and brings a degree of polish to the proceedings. Hammer continued to make several more of these historical dramas in parallel to their established horror franchises over the years and they often made for a welcome alternative to the restrictions of the Gothic Horror genre. The Terror of the Tongs is a somewhat workman like entry in Hammer's back catalogue and is more than likely of interest to the fans of the studio rather than casual viewers.
The Enigma of 2001: A Space Odyssey
"2001: A Space Odyssey. Stanley Kubrick’s philosophically ambitious, technically innovative and visually stunning cinematic milestone". BFI November 2014.
You will often find this sort of language associated with Kubrick's work, especially 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is considered by many to be his finest production and one of the greatest science fiction feature films ever made. In fact 2001: A Space Odyssey has become one of those cinematic sacred cows that regularly features in most film buffs top ten movies of all time. It's a curious thing because a little research will show that critical opinion was split right down the middle on its release in spring 1968. It is only over the course of the last five decades that the movie has grown in artistic stature and garnered the acclaim it now enjoys.
"2001: A Space Odyssey. Stanley Kubrick’s philosophically ambitious, technically innovative and visually stunning cinematic milestone". BFI November 2014.
You will often find this sort of language associated with Kubrick's work, especially 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is considered by many to be his finest production and one of the greatest science fiction feature films ever made. In fact 2001: A Space Odyssey has become one of those cinematic sacred cows that regularly features in most film buffs top ten movies of all time. It's a curious thing because a little research will show that critical opinion was split right down the middle on its release in spring 1968. It is only over the course of the last five decades that the movie has grown in artistic stature and garnered the acclaim it now enjoys.
When movies achieve such status, it becomes very difficult to objectively critique them. Many viewers feel obliged to add their voice to the consensus. "If everyone thinks this film is great then so must I" seems to be the prevailing mentality. There is also an erroneous assumption that if a film is truly great, it will automatically be accessible to all potential audiences. That is often not the case. For every person who watches 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time and comes away feeling profoundly inspired, there will be another who leaves confused, mislead or just plain bored. 2001: A Space Odyssey is ultimately an acquired taste and although I enjoy and admire the film for many reasons; I would not say that it is for everyone. In fact I would actually discourage some viewers from seeing it.
The first thing I would say to anyone intending to watch his movie for the first time is to be patient. It has a deliberately slow and measured pace. The lack of dialogue in the first act, which focuses on the "dawn of man", requires you to pay extra attention to the subtleties of the story and performances. As ever with Kubrick’s work there's a focus upon imagery and emphasis placed upon visual composition. In the second act the characters are somewhat cold and clinically defined. The production design and the technology is by far the larger player at this stage. The denouement with is allegorical content will be especially hard to digest by those viewers that like their narrative linear and presented in an easily digestible format. If you are not a fan of classical music then the movie’s soundtrack may also be a major stumbling block.
There is however, much to be praised about the movie. The visual effects still hold up well today and there is little technologically to date the proceedings. The computer graphic and GUIs that are depicted are still quite pertinent. Despite its somewhat somber tone the story is a very positive one. Perhaps mankind's future isn't as bleak as some would think. It may be that the movies greatest achievement is its ability to make you think and reflect. Due to the somewhat nebulous ending, viewers are encouraged to interpret matters for themselves. I have known 2001: A Space Odyssey to inspire debates about religion, determinism and many other philosophical concepts.
2001: A Space Odyssey is more than just a conventional piece of cinematic story telling. It is a conduit for ideas and concepts. It is far from just a passive experience and requires viewers to participate in the experience with an open and enquiring mind. Kubrick has fashioned a puzzle that you can either admired for what it is, or you can go a stage further and attempt to solve it. As long as you realise that there is no single correct solution. Ultimately viewing this movie is a very unique and personal experience; 2001: A Space Odyssey doesn't necessarily offer the same thing to everyone. Perhaps that is why some viewers do not enjoy watching it. However that doesn't prove that either they or Kubrick is somehow wrong. It simply demonstrates the subjective nature of art.
There is still an enigma associated with 2001: A Space Odyssey. It will never truly disappear because the themes that Kubrick explores are ultimately timeless. So if you are tempted to see this movie at any other point, take time to consider whether it really is for you. There has been so much written about it that you shouldn't have any difficulty making such a choice. If the answer is no then that is fine. Film cannot be everything to everyone and that is especially true of 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is not always essential to join the consensus about a movie and it is perfectly acceptable to say that something is not to your liking due to differing taste. One should never feel obliged to like something because of the prevailing culture. That is something Kubrick himself would have eschewed.
Endeavour (2012-present)
The police procedural genre is one of the most flexible in existence. It has an innate quality that allows for continuous reinterpretation and reinvention. Thus it is a perennial mainstay of television drama and shows no sign of losing popularity with the public. Endeavour is a prime example of this, with three seasons under its belt and fourth in production; it’s a polished, intelligent and character driven production. Based upon Colin Dexter’s Inspector Morse, Endeavour explores the detectives early years in the Oxford Police, set against the social and political changes of the sixties. The writing and performances are outstanding, elevating often formulaic stories to greater dramatic level. The use of classical music and the Oxford locations add a layer of sophistication and gravitas to the proceedings.
The police procedural genre is one of the most flexible in existence. It has an innate quality that allows for continuous reinterpretation and reinvention. Thus it is a perennial mainstay of television drama and shows no sign of losing popularity with the public. Endeavour is a prime example of this, with three seasons under its belt and fourth in production; it’s a polished, intelligent and character driven production. Based upon Colin Dexter’s Inspector Morse, Endeavour explores the detective's early years in the Oxford Police, set against the social and political changes of the sixties. The writing and performances are outstanding, elevating often formulaic stories to a greater dramatic level. The use of classical music and the Oxford locations add a layer of sophistication and gravitas to the proceedings.
I could wax lyrical for many a paragraph regarding the lead performances. Both Shaun Evans and Roger Allam are compelling. I could also bang on about the handsome production design and the cunning use of low key digital effects that remove contemporary buildings and structures from the Oxford skyline. Then of course there are Russell Lewis’ superbly crafted screenplays for each feature length episode. The plots are often multi-layered and with each story we see both major and minor characters grow. Difficult issues are explored with intelligence and within the socio-political context of the time.
Yet there is one aspect of Endeavour that I’ve only recently discovered after watching all three seasons for a second time. Showrunner Russell Lewis is obviously a movie buff who likes to smuggle the occasional reference or homage into the proceedings. Classic dialogue is paraphrased or even used openly. Fictional characters are referenced as if they were real. It adds to the enjoyment of the show and I’m certain there may well be more than the ones that I’ve spotted so far. Here are a few examples.
From the episode Fugue (S01E03): When Morse discusses the serial killer with Dr. Daniel Cronyn, his response is very similar to that of the character Ash in the film Alien when he is quizzed about the Xenomorph. Both antagonists have a sneaking regard for their quarry and are thus accused of “admiring” them.
From episode Nocturne (S02E02): After the death of a specialist in heraldry and genealogy, Inspector Thursday and Morse seek the advice of Sir Hilary Bray at the London College of Arms. Sir Hilary is out of the country so his deputy deals with their enquiry. Bray is a character from the James Bond novel (and film adaptation) On Her Majesties Secret Service.
From the episode Prey (S03E03): The MacGuffin in this story is a Tiger that was kept illegally and has subsequently escaped into the Oxfordshire countryside. When a mauled body is pulled from a local river, large sections of the dialogue are taken directly from Jaws. Pathologist De Bryn is emphatic that “this is no boating accident”. Later in the episode when searching for the Tiger, Night of the Demon is referenced when a startled cast member states “"It's in the trees. It's coming”.
These homages that embellish Endeavour are just another example of the attention to detail and love that is lavished upon the production by those involved. They are yet another reason as to why you should watch the show. In an age of fast paced, strident police procedurals with their reliance on technology, it makes for a pleasant change to see a more measured approach to solving crime. A time when enquiries had to be done manually, painstakingly trawling through paper records and interviewing the public. Endeavour focuses on those involved in solving the crime rather than on the crime itself, although the plots are never dull. The period detail, locations and atmosphere are indeed characters in themselves. This is superior television and therefore I highly recommend it. Even more so now I’ve discovered the “hidden” movie references.
For the Love of Spock (2016)
Adam Nimoy doesn’t paint a rosy picture of family life in his documentary about his father. The novelty of fame and popular acclaim soon wore off with it’s never ending photoshoots and long working hours that kept his father from ever being home. Yet among the anecdotes in this greatly condensed biopic there evidence of a lot of love and professional respect. Far from being comprehensive For the Love of Spock focuses on the matters that interest fans the most. So the documentary explores Nimoy’s relationship with Gene Roddenberry, his subsequent casting in Star Trek, his post Trek stage career and his return to the fold with the big screen movies.
Adam Nimoy doesn’t paint a rosy picture of family life in his documentary about his father. The novelty of fame and popular acclaim soon wore off with it’s never ending photoshoots and long working hours that kept his father from ever being home. Yet among the anecdotes in this greatly condensed biopic there evidence of a lot of love and professional respect. Far from being comprehensive For the Love of Spock focuses on the matters that interest fans the most. So the documentary explores Nimoy’s relationship with Gene Roddenberry, his subsequent casting in Star Trek, his post Trek stage career and his return to the fold with the big screen movies.
Although the documentary references the autobiography I Am Not Spock, which explored Nimoy’s struggle with his own identify and his on screen persona, it is not especially thorough. The actor eventually wrote a second book titled, I Am Spock that revealed he’d reconciled both the man and the character, something the documentary is more interested in exploring. There is an allusion to conflict in later life between father and son, though the reasons for it are not elaborated on. Both struggled with substance abuse and Adam himself hints at the strain of being in his father’s formidable shadow. For the Love of Spock also acknowledges the existence of “The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins” but sees fit to delve no further.
Many stars of the original TV series are interviewed along the way, as well the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and the cast of J. J. Abrams’s cinematic reboot. Leonard’s profound contributions to Star Trek TOS are dissected such as the phrase “Live long and prosper”, its accompanying hand gesture and the iconic Vulcan nerve pinch. Time is also spent on Nimoy’s exploration of Spock ongoing battle with his half-human emotions and how he wanted the character to grow. Leonard’s stage career, as well as his film directing is also acknowledged. Time is also spent reflecting Nimoy’s dualistic relationship with Paramount studios and his legal battles with them.
For the Love of Spock treads a fairly even path through the career of one of the most iconic actors of the twentieth century. It does not shy away from the human flaws of both Nimoy senior and junior. One can’t help feeling that there is more to say but because the production is a family affair then it is natural that a degree of privacy is maintained. The documentary wisely ends on the immense legacy of Leornard Nimoy and the enduring nature of his alter ego Spock. There is a positive message in the final summation and it is handled with dignity and quiet reflection. In many ways these are the traits that make Nimoy and Spock so appealing.
Space: 1999 (1975-77)
In late 1975 I was faced with a very difficult choice. Should I watch Doctor Who on BBC1 or the new Gerry Anderson series, Space: 1999 on LWT? I opted for the latter, being seduced by the big budget production with its special effects that were (for the time) streets ahead of the competition. Now if memory serves me rightly, this was broadcast late afternoon or early evening. It was definitely a pre-watershed show by modern standards although there was no concept as such at the time. Yet like Doctor Who, this had me hiding in terror behind the proverbial sofa. Two particular episodes left a marked impression on me. This was because they were both creepy and punctuated by some rather frightening imagery. They were Dragon’s Domain and The Troubled Spirit.
In late 1975 I was faced with a very difficult choice. Should I watch Doctor Who on BBC1 or the new Gerry Anderson series, Space: 1999 on LWT? I opted for the latter, being seduced by the big budget production with its special effects that were (for the time) streets ahead of the competition. Now if memory serves me rightly, this was broadcast late afternoon or early evening. It was definitely a pre-watershed show by modern standards although there was no concept as such at the time. Yet like Doctor Who, this had me hiding in terror behind the proverbial sofa. Two particular episodes left a marked impression on me. This was because they were both creepy and punctuated by some rather frightening imagery. They were Dragon’s Domain and The Troubled Spirit.
I recently had an opportunity to revisit Space 1999. Both seasons of the show have been remastered and are available on Blu-ray. The picture quality is exceptionally good highlighting the fact that this was a big budget production for its time. However nostalgia can sometime cloud ones overall perception. Watching Space 1999 through the prism of my contemporary critical sensibilities proved to be subtly different experience from when I was eight. I found the show to have a far more varied narrative quality than I remember. Some episodes were better than others and a handful were extremely well made and atmospheric. Interestingly, both Dragon’s Domain and The Troubled Spirit were among these.
Dragon’s Domain focuses on discredited astronaut Tony Cellini, the sole survivor of the Ultra Probe Mission. He starts having nightmares about the creature that allegedly killed his crew five years previously. However the enquiry that investigated the probe disaster never found any evidence of such a creature and attributed the deaths to Cellini’s incompetence. When Commander Koenig ignores Cellini’s renewed claims that the creature is near, he steals an Eagle to hunt down his nemesis. Cellini arrives at a space graveyard full of derelict ships and finds the Ultra Probe among them. He docks with his former vessel and seeks out his foe. Koenig arrives in time to see Cellini fight and die at the hands of the creature he confronted years before. It falls to him to avenge his exonerated friend and slay the beast.
This is a very dark and atmospheric episode, punctuated by unpleasant deaths of the supporting cast. The so-called “dragon” has a nasty habit of dragging victims into its mouth and then spitting out a smouldering corpse a few seconds later. As a child this caused me many a sleepless night. The screenplay is tight and offers a modern twist on a traditional storyline. There are shades of Moby Dick and Saint George in the narrative. The ambience of this particular episode is further enhanced by the use of Tomaso Albinoni's "Adagio in G Minor". Although there is a definitive ending to this sad tale, it is very bleak. Tonally this made the show quite unusual for the times. US network television still felt obliged to offer upbeat endings and positive moral messages.
The Troubled Spirit begins with Hydroponics expert Dan Mateo holding a psychic experiment relating to plants. He theorises that human brainwaves may be able to have a positive effect upon plant growth. However something goes wrong and a burnt apparition subsequently appears and stalks Moonbase Alpha. After fatalities occur Commander Koenig decides to hold a second séance. It soon becomes apparent that the ghost is in fact that of Dan Mateo. Killed in an accident that has yet happened the vengeful spirit seeks to kill those he holds accountable for his own death. Doctor Bergman suggests neutralising the psychic powers that Mateo has gained by placing him in a containment field of reverse energy. During the experiment the ghost appears seeking retribution. Mateo wrestles with his dead self and breaks the containment field. Mateo is burnt and dies from his injuries. As he does, his defeated ghost vanishes.
This episode plays out very much in the style and idiom of seventies UK horror films. The editing, the suspense and the way the shocks are implemented are reminiscent of the work of such studios as Hammer, Amicus and Tyburn productions. The use of sitar music adds to the creepy ambience and the whole story is reminiscent of the film The Man who Haunted Himself. Forty one years on I’m still surprised that an episode of a mainstream television from that era could be so frightening. Although the murders of the crew are discrete the burnt apparition that perpetrates them is not. Again the story is very dour and has a plausible yet far from happy conclusion. The blending of the supernatural in a science fiction setting is also a bold juxtaposition of genres that works well.
Returning to a much cherished show can be a double edged sword. I’ve found that a lot of what I’ve watched and enjoyed in the past was dependent on the circumstances of the time. In the UK during the seventies there was less choice as far as channels. Therefore a lot of material was watched in default of anything else. The style of TV shows was different then. Stories were paced decidedly slower. It can also be argued that I was less discerning in my taste. Certainly less sophisticated. To a degree this has coloured my judgement of Space 1999.The two episodes I’ve referenced were above average and have held up remarkably well. There are other instalments from both seasons that are a lot more dated and weaker. Therefore I would only recommend a comprehensive re-watching of the show to fans. The more casual viewer may wish to cherry pick those episodes that have garnered specific acclaim.
Alligator (1980)
After the commercial success of Jaws in 1975, there followed a wealth of low budget creature features, hell bent on separating the viewing public from their hard earned cash. At one point every conceivable species of animal featured in a movie in which it went on the rampage and dined on B list actors and sundry extras. Many of these films left no lasting impression and vanished into obscurity (only to be resurrected a decade later during the eighties video boom). However even in this desert of cinematic mediocrity, a few examples stood out as an oasis of independent creativity. Alligator is one of these. It has stood the test of time because it’s smart and has a good pedigree.
After the commercial success of Jaws in 1975, there followed a wealth of low budget creature features, hell bent on separating the viewing public from their hard earned cash. At one point every conceivable species of animal featured in a movie in which it went on the rampage and dined on B list actors and sundry extras. Many of these films left no lasting impression and vanished into obscurity (only to be resurrected a decade later during the eighties video boom). However even in this desert of cinematic mediocrity, a few examples stood out as an oasis of independent creativity. Alligator is one of these. It has stood the test of time because it’s smart and has a good pedigree.
Firstly, the screenplay written by genre luminary and indie film-maker John Sayles is witty and satirical. The characters are likeable, with amusing foibles. The story makes sly digs at the very formula of the genre, itself. The dialogue is smart and extremely quotable. Secondly, director Lewis Teague knows exactly how to handle the material. The film has a stark and grimy eighties feel to it. The protagonists are not “beautiful people” (as they would be if the film were remade) and the production design is realistic, reflecting the Reagan era. For the bulk of the movie, the giant alligator preys on the poor in a rough neighbourhood. The authorities don’t really care until the creature moves uptown.
The film has a solid cast of quality character actors. Robert Forster delivers a sympathetic performance as a world weary detective, living in bachelor squalor, fighting male pattern baldness and City Hall politics. Victor Gazzo plays his harassed boss and Henry Silva excels as a flamboyant, misogynist, Great White hunter. There is also a nice cameo by Bart Braverman (anyone remember that TV series Vegas?) as a sleazy tabloid journalist (is there any other kind?) who gets the scoop of his life at a hefty price. All characters are well defined and credible due to John Sayles’ intelligent and smart screenplay.
The story is fairly straight forward and starts with an unwanted pet Alligator being flushed down the toilet. After eating illegally dumped medical waste loaded with growth hormones, the reptile grows to an exceptional size and soon goes looking for a suitable food supply. However it is the quirky characters and subplots that make the film so enjoyable. Henry Silva's urban safari is particularly amusing. Dean Jagger plays the corrupt CEO of a pharmaceutical company who "owns" the local Mayor. Their exchanges of dialogue, especially at a fateful wedding party, are very well observed.
Now for a modest budget film, the special effects are quite good. The beastie of the title is kept suitably hidden for the first third of the film. Later, the attack scenes are carefully crafted to maximise shock and hide the short comings of the animatronic reptile. In wider shots a full size Alligator is used on scaled down sets, to good effect. The death scenes are fairly brutal but not excessive. Alligator also breaks the Hollywood mainstream taboo, of killing a child on camera. It even has the cheek to do it in an amusing way. Alligator has a broad streak of gallows humour running through its ninety odd minute running time.
Alligator is very much a product of its time, reflecting the best aspects of independent film making that came from the US during the late seventies. Its intelligence and humour make it more than just your average creature feature. It not only entertains but provides an interesting socio-economic snapshot of the times. The screenplay and casting once again prove that when you have a solid script and the right actors, you’ve won half the battle already. The minimalist special effects work to the film’s advantage and allow the viewers to immerse themselves in the story and performances. When the shocks come they have far more impact as you actually care about the central characters.
Leviathan (1989)
There was a glut of undersea action film in 1989. The only one that really had any credibility was James Cameron’s The Abyss. Although it was not a box office success, the film gained a following over time and was substantially improved by the release of the special edition in 1993. Leviathan conversely, is one of the forgotten titles from that aquatic sub-genre. The plot follows a team of undersea miners that find a sunken Russian vessel. A case of recovered vodka turns out to be a genetic mutagen, resulting in crew members mutating into an aquatic human hybrid. It’s all conspicuously derivative and the embodiment of the term formulaic. Yet despite these flaws it does have a few virtues that merit a viewing, if you’re feeling undemanding.
There was a glut of undersea action film in 1989. The only one that really had any credibility was James Cameron’s The Abyss. Although it was not a box office success, the film gained a following over time and was substantially improved by the release of the special edition in 1993. Leviathan conversely, is one of the forgotten titles from that aquatic sub-genre. The plot follows a team of undersea miners that find a sunken Russian vessel. A case of recovered vodka turns out to be a genetic mutagen, resulting in crew members mutating into an aquatic human hybrid. It’s all conspicuously derivative and the embodiment of the term formulaic. Yet despite these flaws it does have a few virtues that merit a viewing, if you’re feeling undemanding.
Competently directed by George Pan Cosmatos, the movie features a solid cast of support actors. Peter Weller, Richard Crenna, Daniel Stern, Hector Elizondo, Ernie Hudson and Meg Foster all do the best they can. The creature effects are handled by the Stan Winston Studios, the production design is convincing and the film looks far from cheap. So what went wrong? Well the whole enterprise reeks of studio interference; story re-writes and post production editing. Fangoria reported heavily on the animatronics for this film at the time of filming, yet precious little is visible in the final cut. Also one character dies off screen and is explained away with a few lines of dialogue.
These clues point to a major shift of direction somewhere in the films production. Perhaps the studio thought that suspense was a better option than a gorefest. But Leviathan is no Alien and simply doesn’t have a compelling enough narrative to pursue that angle. So what we are left with is a failed entry in an obscure sub-genre, which is still mildly entertaining. However any film with a Jerry Goldmsith score can’t be all bad. So if you set your expectations low, or feel like playing film cliché bingo, you may find this aquatic escapade an adequate way to fill one hour and forty minutes.
The Tower (2012)
Kim Ji-hoon's The Tower is an indirect remake of John Guillermin's 1974 disaster movie, The Towering Inferno. The plot centres on a fire that breaks out in a luxury skyscraper in central Seoul on Christmas Eve. However the director manages to put a very modern spin on the story while maintaining the human drama you would expect from such a genre movie. It’s also apparent that the events of 9/11 have had an influence on the narrative; something that some critics have taken umbrage at. Yet these parallels do not extend beyond the superficial and there is certainly no attempt at any wider commentary on that real life tragedy.
Kim Ji-hoon's The Tower is an indirect remake of John Guillermin's 1974 disaster movie, The Towering Inferno. The plot centres on a fire that breaks out in a luxury skyscraper in central Seoul on Christmas Eve. However the director manages to put a very modern spin on the story while maintaining the human drama you would expect from such a genre movie. It’s also apparent that the events of 9/11 have had an influence on the narrative; something that some critics have taken umbrage at. Yet these parallels do not extend beyond the superficial and there is certainly no attempt at any wider commentary on that real life tragedy.
The cultural and social differences between US and South Korean cinema are very apparent in The Tower. The first act of the movie has a light and frivolous tone, as we meet the cast of characters. For example, Junior cook Young-cheol (Jeon Bae-soo) hides an engagement ring for his girlfriend within an ice cream, which is inadvertently eaten by his manager. Friction between one of the wealthy residents and the cleaner also highlight the rather rigid class divide within South Korean society. However despite these nominal cultural differences there are many universal themes in The Tower that make the film accessible to those with an open mind.
The Tower features some visually arresting set pieces and the physical and visual effects are of a high standard. The two burning towers are linked via a glass walkway that inevitably has to be crossed. This naturally occurs at a point when the structure is close to collapse, yet despite being a very contrived scene it is quite tense and well handled. The director also strikes the right balance between suspense and some of the more horrific aspects you would associate with a fire. Stuntmen and women are set alight and blasted through windows. Panicking staff are cooked alive in an elevator stuck in the lift shaft. Sundry extras are crushed or impaled by failing masonry. Yet none of this carnage is dwelt on excessively.
As with the The Towering Inferno, no cliché is left unturned and the scientific aspects of the plot are flawed and do not stand up to close scrutiny. The Mayor is mainly concerned about rescuing the building richest residents (I was surprised it wasn't an election year). The Director of the company that owns the tower is happy to take risks just to satisfy the shareholders. Captain Kang Young-ki (Sol Kyung-gu) of the Fire Department is estranged from his wife. Plus the most common solution to the various firefighting problems that arise is to simply blow something up. However it really wouldn't be a disaster movie without these melodramatic plot indulgences.
The Tower is by no means an outstanding movie but it is certainly entertaining. The South Korean perspective affords an interesting and alternative window onto familiar cinematic territory. The central characters although somewhat formulaic are likeable and the action scenes are enthralling. As long as you do not have an aversion to reading curiously translated subtitles or are an inherent xenophobe, then The Tower can offer two hours of spectacle and entertainment.
From Paris with Love (2010)
Some people have made the mistake of confusing From Paris with Love with the thriller and have subsequently criticised it for its failings within that genre. The thing is it’s patently not a thriller or a spy drama. It’s a textbook action film and a throwback to the 1980s. As such its merits are rather straight forward and easy to define. If you are looking for a slick, formulaic, shoot ‘em up set against the backdrop of Paris, complete with wise-ass dialogue and two personable lead actors then director Pierre Morel delivers in spades. The ludicrous premise, flagrant breaking of possibly every French law in existence and the sheer volume of carnage should not be over analysed. Action movies are not intended to stimulate debate or provoke deep thought. Their job is to entertain.
Some people have made the mistake of confusing From Paris with Love with the thriller and have subsequently criticised it for its failings within that genre. The thing is it’s patently not a thriller or a spy drama. It’s a textbook action film and a throwback to the 1980s. As such its merits are rather straight forward and easy to define. If you are looking for a slick, formulaic, shoot ‘em up set against the backdrop of Paris, complete with wise-ass dialogue and two personable lead actors then director Pierre Morel delivers in spades. The ludicrous premise, flagrant breaking of possibly every French law in existence and the sheer volume of carnage should not be over analysed. Action movies are not intended to stimulate debate or provoke deep thought. Their job is to entertain.
Diplomatic aide James Reese (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) gets the opportunity to ingratiate himself with the CIA and potentially further his career, by “facilitating” special agent Charlie Wax (John Travolta) operation in Paris. The chalk and cheese pair clash as they rampage through the city, decimating sundry drug dealers, terrorists and suicide bombers. Bodies pile up, quips are made, mirth and merriment abounds (within the parameters of the action movie genre). Xenophobia is also exalted, national stereotypes are trotted out and every bullet hit is a fatal through and through. There are even some Pulp Fiction references. Yet all of these points work within the scope of the movie. The entire film is very much a knowing wink to the audience.
From Paris with Love does not re-invent the genre. But what it does do during its ninety minute running time, it does well. The action scenes and fights are well choreographed, filmed and edited. The characters although totally implausible are quite likeable. The only deviation from the norm happens in the third act when an element of pathos is introduced that I was not expecting. Still, it doesn’t derail the proceedings. This not a human drama about the pressure of working in the intelligence community, nor is it a dissertation of the nature of terrorism. It’s an action movie pure and simple and it is not ashamed to be so.
Although not as good as Taken or District 13, the director’s previous work, From Paris with Love is a perfectly acceptable genre offering, delivering the goods in a competent fashion. It also benefits from the added bonus of the disconcertingly watchable Travolta and a very picturesque Gallic setting. It also eschews the contemporary penchant for PG-13 rated action. This is an R rated movie complete with bullet hits and blood splatter; usually all over the walls and the supporting cast. From Paris with Love is a Friday night entertainment for sure but a solid example of the genre. If you want a serious political thriller with similar international locations, then you may be better off with one of the various movie adaptations of John le Carré’s work.
Some People (1962)
Some People offers a rather interesting insight in to early sixties youth culture, as well as touching upon the class divide in post war Britain. It focuses on a group of working class youths (Ray Brooks, David Hemmings and David Andrews) who after being banned from driving, are somewhat at a loose end and heading for trouble. Their fortunes change when a local choirmaster (Kenneth Moore) gives them an opportunity to use the church hall for band practice. However this is not a rags to riches story by any means. In many ways it’s quite the opposite as the narrative has a sense of inevitability about the protagonist’s long term prospects and overall fate.
Some People offers a rather interesting insight in to early sixties youth culture, as well as touching upon the class divide in post war Britain. It focuses on a group of working class youths (Ray Brooks, David Hemmings and David Andrews) who after being banned from driving, are somewhat at a loose end and heading for trouble. Their fortunes change when a local choirmaster (Kenneth Moore) gives them an opportunity to use the church hall for band practice. However this is not a rags to riches story by any means. In many ways it’s quite the opposite as the narrative has a sense of inevitability about the protagonist’s long term prospects and overall fate.
It is easy to be side tracked by some of the superficial aspects of Some People. Obviously the beat music is very much a product of the time and the rebellious shenanigans of the cast are somewhat tame by contemporary standards. Yet the film clearly demonstrates the restrictive society of the post war era. Some of the comments made by the magistrates during the court scene reflect the prevailing socio-economic politics of era. Vicars, youth leaders and pretty much any other adult featured in the film are portrayed as authority figures desperate to maintain the status quo. There is also a rather melancholic plot theme about the generation gap. Ray Brook's father regrets not knowing his own son and realises that there's precious little he can do about it.
There's also a very liberal streak running through Some People. The great Kenneth Moore plays a progressive single parent who tries to offer the young people a way of defining themselves. The film strongly advocates the Duke of Edinburgh's Award as a means of doing this. Moore also takes a very modern attitude to his daughter’s involvement with Ray Brooks, trusting her to do the "right thing". There is a clear subtext that the class differential means that the relationship will not last. It’s implied that Moore's liberalism is a result of his academia, as he is an electrical engineer working in the aviation industry. Conversely, the most blinkered character with regard to politics and social mobility is shown to be Bill, one of the three lead young men. He maintains a “not for the likes of use” attitude which was still common at the time.
Some People is in some ways quite unique, being one of the first "Kitchen sink dramas" aimed at the youth market. Previous movies focusing on this demographic had a tendency to be American and although there was much common ground, they weren't fully applicable to a UK audience. Some People offered the genuine article for the British market. Overall it is a quite bold film for its time, considering that it was made in an era when scripts for UK productions were submitted to the BBFC in advance for approval. Director Clive Donner strayed into similar pop culture territory again with Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush but it lacked the earthy realism of Some People. Ironically five years later youth culture had evolved from a source of social concern into just a new commercial market.
Split Second (1992)
Split Second has great aspirations. Sadly they’re totally beyond the movies budget, the quality of screenplay and the ability of director Tony Maylam. The poster clearly demonstrates this with the rather bold tagline of "Blade Runner meets Alien". The reality is somewhat different. Furthermore Split Second seems to be from the wrong decade. Despite being a nineties sci-fi action movie it has all the hallmarks of one from ten years prior. The Director of Photography relies on a wealth of neon lighting to try and create a suitable atmosphere. The costume design is heavily based on leather clothing and outfits that accentuate the shoulders. There's also a drab and grating electronic score that was synonymous with this genre during the eighties. Overall Split Second certainly has a lot of strikes against it.
Split Second has great aspirations. Sadly they’re totally beyond the movies budget, the quality of screenplay and the ability of director Tony Maylam. The poster clearly demonstrates this with the rather bold tagline of "Blade Runner meets Alien". The reality is somewhat different. Furthermore Split Second seems to be from the wrong decade. Despite being a nineties sci-fi action movie it has all the hallmarks of one from ten years prior. The Director of Photography relies on a wealth of neon lighting to try and create a suitable atmosphere. The costume design is heavily based on leather clothing and outfits that accentuate the shoulders. There's also a drab and grating electronic score that was synonymous with this genre during the eighties. Overall Split Second certainly has a lot of strikes against it.
However the film has one trump card up its sleeve which it plays right from the get go; the presence of Dutch character actor and genre stalwart Rutger Hauer. He starts chewing the scenery immediately after the credits have finished and despite the movies many failings, manages to keep the film together. Hauer plays Harley Stone, a cop on the edge who’s become a loose cannon after losing his partner to a serial killer. He's the kind of guy who shoots first, asks questions later and swears profusely in his spare time. Writer Gary Scott Thompson obviously felt that a plethora of strong language could fill the gaps in the film's plot. Hauer even calls a dog a dickhead within the first five minutes of the film.
Split Second like so many other low budget genre movies seems to run on its own unique internal logic. Characters are ill defined and plot devices are often left underdeveloped. It's as if there was a production meeting and it was decided to throw in every possible cliché and trope in the hope that some of them would work. So we have an “Alien” style monster that has occult affiliations, prowling through a flooded London that has been brought about by global warming and pollution. Hearts are torn out, big guns are brandished and people swear copiously. The Police Chief shouts a lot and Hauer's new partner (Alistair Duncan) is a book worm who becomes gung-ho. Oh and there’s an obligatory and totally arbitrary love interest played by Kim Cattrall. The London locations and the finale set in an abandoned part of the Tube are convenient and cheap.
Now to the casual viewer this all adds up to a shoddy, poorly conceived movie with no redeeming features. However Split Second is not really the province of the causal viewer. Its core audience are viewers who love cheap and cheerful genre knock offs of this idiom. All the potential faults and flaws that I’ve catalogued are the very thing that fans enjoy. If you watch this movie on your own it may either raise a wry smile or annoy you. View it with a few like minded friends after a trip to the pub and its merit grows exponentially. See Split Second at a film festival with an audience of rabid B movie junkies and you'll have a totally different cinematic experience. It all comes down talent versus enthusiasm. Split Second is wanting in many respects but it has been made with a degree of love for the genre. Somehow that has managed to permeate the film and can be tapped into through shared viewing in the right circumstances.