Dehah’s fantastic infographic of the Inception plotline, just in case you forgot who’s dream was whose….
23 July, 2010
Okay — went to see Inception today since it looked like the kind of flick that works best on the big screen. So the review: it’s good. Really bloody good.
The world it paints is ambiguous enough to disguise that it’s cyberpunk-style science-fiction, a heist movie wrapped in near future sci-fi where the protagonists are able to jacking into other people’s subconsciousnesses while they are sleeping. The movie’s internal logic holds and they don’t play with the technology outside the basic premise — you can ride along in someone’s dreams, you can manipulate what they are doing to get to information they are trying to hide or to explore/alter their dream state.
The lead character, Cobb, is a troubled fellow (we find out why later — essentially he got trapped in a dream state where the perceived timespan was decades; it — and another important plot element — have left him a bit loopy, and on the run from the United States, where his children are) but he is a top “extractor” — a man who pulls information from people’s minds. He gets hired by a Japanese corporate type with a faint smell of yakuza (although this is never mentioned…maybe I’m just projecting a bit of the ol’ WG onto the flick) to break into the mind of an heir to a major energy corporation to get him to do the unthinkable: break up his father’s near monopolistic hold on energy.
To plant an idea in a person’s mind is extremely difficult, as they can always track the source of the meme; they call it “inception”. Cobb is promised by the Saito — Ken Watanabe being awesome — that he will fix it so the charges keeping Cobb out of the US are dropped. Cobb jumps at the chance and puts together a crack team to intercept Fischer (Cilian Murphy…good as always!) and break into his mind to plant this idea of breaking up his inheritance.
After this point, the action ramps up and the movie starts throwing fantastic effects sequences, interspersed with actual stunts (real stunt work always punches up CGI, I think; without a grounding in the real world — in sets, stunts, etc. — CGI starts working against the verisimilitude the more it is abused), and damned good action sequences that really take advantage of the “mental landscapes” the characters are in. There a slight Philip K Dick suggestion at the end that is no surprise in coming, but it’s almost necessary to put the button on the movie.
The acting is quite good — from Leo DeCaprio’s Cobb and Cillian Murphy’s Fischer, to Marion Coutillard as Cobb’s ex. The show, for me, was stolen — and this seems to be the case whenever I see him in things — by Tom Hardy (loved him in Rock n Rolla). Ellen Page I tend to find one-note in her performances, but she’s workable in this. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is well cast and does a good job as Cobb’s number two.
The visuals are stunning, and the wire work and combination of set design for actual stunt work really makes the movie pop. The CGI looks great, but that’s because they use it to enhance, not to do the heavy lifting in the scenes. It’s well written, and at about two and a half hours only about 5-10 minutes too long. Not enough to not enjoy, just enough to notice it’s time to wrap it up.
The sound mixing is the usual overly loud music and sound effects, but I could understand what the actors were saying…so plus there.
Style: 5 out of 5 with a bullet. Substance: 5 out of 5. It’s a damn good movie. Worth the full price, not just matinée.
21 July, 2010
Just a heads-up for those that care: I will be on vacation for the first half of August, so posting will be rare or nonexistent until after the 16th. I most likely will still be answering comments or emails, depending on my Internet coverage. (Probably going to splurge on Vodaphone’s 3G card for the iPad.)
Hopefully, I’ll have time to post some pictures.
19 July, 2010
Google: Reaping What You Sow
Posted by blackcampbell under News and Politics, Technology | Tags: Google, net neutrality, search neutrality |Leave a Comment
The New York Times had an editorial a few months ago on an idea floating through the hall of Comgress, and splattered out there by the “Paper of Record”: “search neutrality“… If this doesn’t sound scary to you, you need to think some more on it, or remember this — eventually, you’re people will be out of power and someone else will have access to those organs of government you set up.
Here’s the gist: Google,which is a massive Democratic Party supporter, managed to get a bunch of halfwitted Progressives into office. They were one of the major forces behind “net neutrality”, a staggeringly bad idea couched in terms of “freedom” and “fairness” (mostly the latter, since it would limit the former), and designed to benefit smaller bandwidth sites Vis-a-vis larger ones. In other words, it’s a subsidy for smaller sites (political ones, if you hadn’t gotten the inference) that can’t compete. This support wouldn’t go to me, for instance…I’ll still have to pay my ISP and put up with service transfer limits, high as they are. If I want to take my blog here big time, I have to pay for a swankier site, a domain name.
No, this is for the political websites — the DNC supported sites, the small opinion maker sites, and other groups that want a free ride competing in the marketplace of ideas. And guess who gets to decide what’s fair in this marketplace? It’s the electronic Fairness Doctrine, and the pushers of Net Neutrality hope to strengthen their hold on the political and historical narrative with it.
Now comes along “search neutrality”, which is touted as aiding smaller sites to be seen on Google’s search engine. Right now, you can pay to have your site be a banner result, or the engine occasionally throws up a few likely websites you’re looking for based on your previous search history. But that doesn’t get government funded or subsidized companies in the top slots of the search returns, and it doesn’t let less innovative or motivated companies do the same (think the small oil companies that couldn’t compete with Standard Oil…answer: have your Comgressman attack Standard Oil.) It also doesn’t get you to politically approved sites for the information you are looking for. There’s to much chance you might wind up on a blog or site that do not have the correct political persuasion and might cause you to question the wisdom of certain policies or politicians.
Search Neutrality is a cudgel to quash free speech and competition, as is net neutrality, wrapped in the promise of “fairness”. It also ignores the fact that Google has competition in the search engine market. Bing has become a popular engine for those looking to escape the data mining and sales activities of Google. There’s Start Page, Dogpile (which used to be fantastic and was my go-to for years.). Why does Google have such a good market share on searching? They do it better than their competition!
Google was none too fond of China curtailing their activities; it should be a lesson for the company: government regulation always comes at a cost. Think about that, the next time you’re pushing some “neutrality plot”, boys.




