Sound advice - altblog

This is the third film in my review series, and hopefully this will round out the style of movie I prefer and what I look for in the mind of the gentle reader.

Byron Ellacott writes "Best. Movie. Ever.". I tend to agree.

I really can't think of anything negative to say about this film. The animation was excellent. Clearly they had the capability for photorealism in a number of scenes and had to pare back the level of detail to maintain their preferred level of characture. This worked wonderfully. The storyline was classical, but applied very nicely to the premise. The premise itself was lovely and carried the freshness that Pixar have become known for.

I'm somewhat of a Pixar fan. I enjoyed the two Toy Story movies. I quite enjoyed A Bug's Life. Monster's Inc was not at the top of my list of favourites, though. It was too cutesy. I'm greatly relieved to see they've take a different turn with this film (although the opening pixar short might lead to to beleive otherwise). While this film had a baby to make use of, it didn't become the centre of attention. The two children in the story were well portrayed for their supposed ages and talents. The parents were both nicely played. Even the super villian was cleverly-conceived.

This isn't shakespere, and the motivations of some characters were left largely-unexplored and potentially unbelievable. On the other hand, the central characters were no more infallable than you would expect from this kind of film. I give this one 10/10. Any failings are weaknesses of the genre, not of this specific film.

As a primary-school library technican my wife has read and is a fan of this series of books by Lemony Snicket. She describes it as being "for budding goths everywhere". That is an apt tagline, and this sweetly humourous film lives up to the books nicely.

A Series of Unfortunate Events the film actually covers the first three books in the literary series. It ties them together quite nicely as newly-made orphans see their guardians cut down one-by-one as an evil uncle tries to steal their inheritance. Don't bring the younger children to this one. Although there is no gore on-screen two murders are portrayed sensitively but directly. Some scenes may be a little too much.

The shining light of this film is the performance of australian Emily Browning as Violet. She plays the role perfectly, and clearly knows how to act. The acting of her on-screen brother Klaus (played by Liam Aiken) is not quite so good, but this is only obvious in an early monologue. The directing of Klaus, Meryl Streep as Aunt Josephine, and even Jim Carrey as Count Olaf is sublime. Despite Jim hamming his opening monologue slightly he is kept in check admirably thereafter.

Once past those early difficulties and having bought into the movie's style you can expect to enjoy the film immensely. It is well-constructed and I found my disbelief suspended nicely throughtout the latter stages of the film, until the very final scenes. I give this one a 9/10.

Benjamin

I have seen a few movies over the last couple of weeks, so I'll do a quick write-up on each in separate blog entries

I didn't go to this musical in the best mindset to see a musical. I was somewhat cynical about it from the start. Hearing Carlotta's (Minnie Driver) opening set didn't shift me from my mood, but it wasn't supposed to. I only really woke up when Emmy Rossum as Christine lit up the stage. At that point I was engaged and began to really enjoy the film.

It's a musical, and let's face it: If the music doesn't sweep you away the lyrics and the plot surely won't. A musical is a story read to the emotional inner child that doesn't care whether or not the show is something that should be worth enjoying.

The point where the Phantom (Gerard Butler) began to sing was where my inner child first really cringed. He doesn't have the voice for it. He doesn't have the acting skills for it. It just went on, and on. Let's just say that my emotional connection to the character wasn't being reenforced. Emmy's acting in the scene didn't help, either. In my opinion the whole exchange was poorly conceived, and terribly directed.

But another high-point: The letter opening scene. This is where Minnie shone to the point that I consider her contribution to the movie to be the best of any actor. My second choice goes to Miranda Richardson (Madame Giry) and Emmy would rate at best a third, despite her perfectly lovely singing voice.

In the letter opening scene we see chorus work done well. It was lovely and light-hearted as well as serious and foreshadowing. If the rest of the film had lived up to the quality of this scene I'm sure I would be rating this at around the eight out of ten mark.

As it was, the next (or nearly next?) scene was "Masquerade". Awful. Just awful. I wanted it to end. Not only had they decided to interpret the "robot" as a classical dance step, but they decided that blair-witch-style camera work would help enhance the audience's thrill of the night. No. That really doesn't help. That left the music alone to carry the scene, and let's just say that I don't consider that score one of man's greatest accomplishments.

So it was all downhill from there. Perhaps I was just lagging due to the late screening, but I did feel the rest was overly-long and uneventful. Nothing else occured that recaptured the emotional appeal. This left me wondering about the silly caracatures that made up a cemetry's monuments. It left me cringing at the obvious use of CGI to make the phantom's cloak move idiotically on the roof of the opera. It left me hoping that my companions (my wife and brother-in-law) were also critical of the film so that we could bag it together.

Overall, I'd probably still give it 4/10. The directing was inept. The casting was poor for two of the three leads. The music was familiar and broadly acceptable. The lyrics were best not thought about too much lest one lose one's suspension of emotional disbelief. The props and scenery were often lovely, and the supporting cast was a major saving grace of the film. If you're picky you won't enjoy the film. If you're not, you may find it strikes you in the right mood.

Benjamin

In relation to the recent tilt train derailment in northern Queensland, Greg Black writes:

After all, if you've assembled enough technology to get a train moving at 150 km/h, then adding such safety overrides is a trivial matter.

The name for the technology usually used for this kind of thing is Automatic Train Protection (ATP).

Queensland Rail had this to say as to why ATP was not installed on the tilt train:

The ATP was designed and configured for one driver only freight trains and major problems were experienced when we trialled the system on the electric Tilt Trains.

The major concern is reliability and the fact that unnecessary, random braking can cause injuries to passengers and staff on-board.

Hopefully I'm not limiting my future job prospects by saying that I've heard this described as "We didn't want our passengers to spill their cups of coffee".

I've heard that Queensland Rail use ATP extensively on their metro system. It's only on long lines that they leave things to the organics. As noted in the article I linked to, multiple drivers and other systems should prevent this sort of thing from happening. It will be interesting to hear how these systems failed (if indeed they did).

Please note that as always any views expressed above may or may not be my own, and are very likely not my employer. I am speaking from generic knowledge only derived from press statements (including the cups of coffee quote, which came from a radio interview around the time of the derailment). I am not an expert in rail systems, and am certainly not an expert in ATP. I have no special knowledge of the workings of Queensland Rail, and any special knowledge I have of the workings of my employer or its affiliates I do not intend to divulge.