Michael Caine plays Harry Brown, a retired widower living in a bad neighbourhood overrun by drug gangs. And then his friend gets hurt. And then he starts killing gang members. And then the cops get involved. That’s what I felt like when I was watching this movie… it was just a sequence of plot events. I never got a sense of the characters’ motivations and justifications for their actions. The characters were only there to move the plot along, and I didn’t care about them at all.

For example, there’s one scene where the police detective (played by Emily Mortimer) suddenly goes from being confused about the situation to being completely convinced that she’s solved the case, all based on what I think was a very vague piece of evidence. Up to that point, she was portrayed as a fair and thoughtful detective, but then abruptly jumps to a conclusion, only because that’s what was needed for the movie to set up its climax.

Overall, it was a disappointment. That being said, there are some moments of suspense that did work well, e.g., the scene where Harry goes to buy a gun from some nasty people. And Michael Caine delivers my favourite one-liner from the festival so far. After a shootout with a bad guy, he stands victoriously over his injured opponent and says: “You failed to maintain your weapon, son.” Brilliant.

2 out of 5

A while ago, I posted an item about the word “Darwinism” and how I thought it had some bad connotations. This week, there was a column in the New York Times called “Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live” (free registration required). It has a similar theme but obviously more professionally written and better researched. In particular, one paragraph echoes some of the ideas in my original post.

Science has marched on. But evolution can seem uniquely stuck on its founder. We don’t call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism. “Darwinism” implies an ideology adhering to one man’s dictates, like Marxism. And “isms” (capitalism, Catholicism, racism) are not science. “Darwinism” implies that biological scientists “believe in” Darwin’s “theory.” It’s as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.

Needless to say, I agree. I have no further comment on the matter. I only wanted to bask in self-congratulation. Thank you.

Got the statement from my corporate credit card. It made me feel good.

ONE BILLION DOLLARS…

Of course I’d get fired and probably shot if I used it, but it’s nice to know it’s there in case of emergency. Emergency luxury yacht purchases, that is…

Read more…

One of the effects of living in an apartment is that you spend a lot of time in the elevator. Of course, most of the time, you’re just in there by yourself, staring at the wall. Or, if there’s someone else in there with you, it’s an awkward experience at best. As George Carlin put it, “there’s nothing to do in an elevator except not look at the other guy.” But, once in a while, the elevator will be the site of a bizarre happenstance.

This morning, I was leaving to go to work. As I stood waiting for the elevator, I noticed that it was taking longer than usual to arrive at my floor. Oh well, I thought, it’s not like I’m in a hurry to get to work.

The elevator eventually arrived, and the door slid open. Standing in the middle of the elevator was a puppy. Just a puppy. With nobody else inside. He was a small little white dog, a terrier of some sort, and wearing a red knit sweater. Not able to help myself, I let out a high-pitched “Awwww…”

When I stepped into the elevator, I saw that the little guy (let’s call him “Buddy,” because what else do you call a dog you don’t know?) was feeling scared, because his limbs were all shaking. I didn’t know what to do, it’s not really wise to try to confront a frightened animal. So I ignored him. There’s nothing to do in an elevator except not look at the dog.

Pretty soon the elevator stopped at another floor. A lady came in with another dog. Apparently this woman knew Buddy, because she started to talk to him and bending down like she was going to pick him up. “Where’s your mommy? Where’s your mommy?” Buddy’s nervousness increased from this woman’s overexuberance, and increased further as the other dog started growling (obviously jealous of the attention that Buddy was receiving). I tried to remember whether I had ever had a rabies shot.

Fortunately, we reached the ground floor before the fur started flying. Buddy’s owner (“mommy”) was waiting. Apparently she and Buddy were about to come up the elevator when she ran into someone in the lobby and started to have a chat. Buddy had hopped into the elevator on his own before realizing that she had stayed behind. Poor Buddy. Poor, poor Buddy.

N.B.: I don’t normally post personal items on this blog, so this will be thinly disguised as a technology review article.

I’m moving into my own apartment soon, and I’m pretty excited about it. In preparation, I’ve been shopping for some furniture, as well as thinking about how I’m going to arrange the furniture in the limited space that I have. When I was at IKEA, I saw booths set up where people were using some custom software to design their furniture layouts, and I thought it would be a good idea to try to do some “interior design” of my apartment using some 3D software to better visualize the space.

I had heard good things about Google SketchUp, so I thought I would give that a shot. SketchUp is a pretty generic 3D modeling tool, but it seems like most people use it to create architectural designs. After watching some of the video tutorials on the site, and some experimentation with the interface, I was able to whip up something pretty quickly.

Voila:

This is the living room.

I’m considering maybe putting another shelf next to the TV for additional storage of books, DVDs, or whatever. On the other hand, it’s good to have some empty space so that it’s not too cluttered. There’s also a pretty large storage closet in the apartment, so anything that doesn’t need to always be conveniently available, I can just put in the closet.

Here’s the bedroom.

The bedroom seemed small to me when I first looked at the floorplan and at the empty apartment, but now I’ve seen it in 3D with the furniture models, it’s not so bad.

So in conclusion: Google SketchUp is pretty good. Pretty, pretty good. 9/10

So Radiohead announced the release of a new album called “In Rainbows”, coming out October 10th. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an album announcement so close to its release date. Usually there’s months of anticipation before a release, but this time they’ve decided to spring this on us on short notice. Like “Hey, new album next week!” Apparently, they’re able to do this because they’re no longer signed to a record contract; this is basically an “indie” release.

Because of their newly gained indie status, the band is also doing things a little differently in terms of distributing and pricing the release. The album is coming out as an online download at first. The price: “It’s up to you.” Kind of like selling it through an honour system. You can even download it for free, and they won’t mind. (I’m going to give them a couple of bucks anyway. You know, for their trouble.) This is great and very forward-thinking of them, and gives fanboys like myself ammunition when discussing the greatness of Radiohead with fans of other, more inferior bands.

BUT

They’re also selling the album as a boxset to be released later this year. The boxset will have CD and vinyl versions of the album, which makes for good collector’s items to be sure. But the thing that’s killing me is, there’s a second CD with more songs, that’s only available in the boxset. It’s like they’re selling a double album where you can download the first part for free, but you have to buy the special collector’s edition for the second part. And how much is the boxset? £40. Or about $80 CAD. (Or $80 USD, ha!) That’s a long way from “It’s up to you.”

I know I’ll probably buy the boxset anyways, and the fanboy in me wants to forgive them, but this is really a rip-off. It’s like they’re trying to trick us into thinking they’re really cool by giving away the free download, just so we’ll be happy to spend the money on the boxset. I only hope they’ll come to their senses and make the second CD available as a standalone purchase. Otherwise, I’m boycotting Radiohead forever. Oh, who am I kidding? I love you, Thom Yorke.

I was reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and something occurred to me. While I worked my way through the section about the evolution vs. intelligent design debate (which any book about atheism should address), the word “Darwinism” kept popping up. Every time the word was used, I became more and more conscious of it; something about it bothered me.

The thing that struck me is this: why is Darwinism an “-ism”? The -ism suffix is generally used for names of religions (e.g. Judaism, Catholicism, Hinduism), or a philosophical stance (e.g. existentialism, Marxism, even atheism itself), or a political movement (e.g. feminism, abolitionism).

Darwinism, being a scientific theory, doesn’t fit into these categories. I can’t think of any other scientific theories with the -ism suffix. Wouldn’t it be like calling the Laws of Motion “Newtonism”, or general relativity “Einsteinism”, or genetics “Watson and Crickism”? (Or maybe “Watsonism-and-Crickism” to be more fair to Watson.)

I wonder if the use of the word “Darwinism” weakens the evolution argument in the public eye, because it makes it sound like something less than an established theory. Maybe “Darwinism” has a very precise meaning that I’m unclear on, but it is commonly used when discussing evolution and natural selection. The debate between evolution and creationism (which is appropriately an -ism) is a public, cultural one; and the public, in my opinion, is not so concerned with precisely defining terms.

A word like “Darwinism” lends itself to attacks of this sort: “See? It’s just some guy’s opinion!” I’d like to see the word used less, at least for the purposes of cultural debate. Charles Darwin obviously deserves a lot of credit, but in this case, a more decisive term may be more useful.

My buddy made an interesting post about the perception of “straight acting” in the gay community. It just goes to show how every group has its own prejudices.

One thing I want to comment on, his comparison between “straight acting” and “banana”:

This is analogous to referring to an Asian person as a “banana” (which doesn’t seem to carry the same negative connotations).

This isn’t quite accurate. The term “banana” is not as neutral as my friend makes it out to be. Personally, I don’t take offense at being called a banana, but the whole concept of an Asian person acting white can be the cause of some friction. My banana status is ambiguous enough that sometimes I’ve been able to listen in at conversations between parents of more full-fledged bananas, and I can tell, it’s really something that they have strong feelings about. They sincerely wish that their kids were “more Chinese.” In my own family, there’s never been outright unhappiness about the issue, but I can occasionally sense an air of passive disapproval. (We don’t call it “banana” in Cantonese, there’s another term for it that I won’t even attempt a translation of… it’s some shit about bamboo or something.)

And I can only guess what FOBs think about bananas. I wouldn’t know, because I stay away from those people as much as I can…

Read more…