2012: A good film but a shit doomsday

Yesterday, my wife and I rewatched the 2009 disaster film 2012.

Witty caption pending

Though generally this film was lambasted by critics, I cant help but take the line of US film critic Roger Ebert who at least seems to get these kinds of films, without trying to pretend that they are an exemplary example of what all films should be (which I feel is a problem with many critics out there).
Check out his review here, or just read this quote:

"This is fun. "2012" delivers what it promises, and since no sentient being will buy a ticket expecting anything else, it will be, for its audiences, one of the most satisfactory films of the year. It even has real actors in it. Like all the best disaster movies, it's funniest at its most hysterical. You think you've seen end-of-the-world movies? This one ends the world, stomps on it, grinds it up and spits it out."

Like the man suggests, unless you missed out on Independence Day, Godzilla and The Day After Tomorrow, you should know what a Rolland Emmerich film has in store for you. Leave your brain at the door, and just enjoy yourself. These films aren't looking for realism, they are just looking to entertain; and at the end of the day there isn't anything wrong with that. Not every film needs to be a masterpiece; not every character needs an arc.
I think of films like this as the equivalent of MacDonalds, or one of those microwavable pizzas; its not a great meal, and you wouldn't want to subsist on this for the rest of your life. But every now and then you just want a quick, easy, and tasty meal.
Sometimes its best to just think of these films as set in an alternate reality, where things are different, people always beat the odds, and so on. That way at least you can let a lot of things slide and just enjoy the ride (hey that rhymes).
That all being said, I still cant help but cringe at a few points in the film.
Like the opening montage of shots set in space, showing the alignment of the planets. Now I can look past the whole 'alignment of the planets causing catastrophic problems for earth' theory, but the fact that the solar systems planets are either shown as being much more massive, or else much close to each other, than they effectively are ruins the moment for me (especially when the films plot relies so little on this fact).
Then, right near the start of the film again, we have an astrophysicist talking about neutrinos, and studyting them in a subeterranean laboratory. This had its promise, because I know this is exactly what they do. But then we hear some nice 'sciency' buzz words, as we are informed that these nuclear particles are behaving strangely, and are interacting with matter in a way that they usually dont. The astrophysicists explanation: they are mutating.
Nuclear particles, mutating.
Why not just say they are degrading into other particles, or transforming, or something like that. Anything but mutating, a term which should sit firmly in biology, and not physics.

As you can see, this evidence clearly shows these neutrinos are going through puberty.

I could go on all day about the scientific inaccuracies in the film, but I don't want to give the impression that all of this bothers me too much. As I said, brains at the door fun. Its just that these little things could easily have been avoided or changed without altering the film pretty much at all. I can let the objections to tsunamis making waves in the middle of the ocean big enough to knock over ships, and the improbability of a limousine being able to drive through a building as it collapses, fly out the window; because this is the entertaining stuff I wanted from this kind of movie, and it wouldnt be the same without it. But the  astrophysicist could have just said something more sensible, and the planets aligning could have been shown to look more like stars, than actual planets in the near distance.
On to the next cringe worthy moment, and this time it was due to technical buzz words, as opposed to scientific ones.
In every scene that he is in, much like his role in Zombieland (also released in 2009); Woody Harrelson steals the show. This was a great year for fans of Woody (that doesnt sound right), one of which I happen to be ever since growing up in the 90's when he taught me that in fact white men can jump.

Two prime examples of how not to wear a cap so as to keep the sun out of your eyes

Anyhow, childhood references aside, Woody Harrelson plays Charlie Frost, a deranged conspiracy theorist who turns out to be pretty much right about everything in the end. The thing that bugs me here is only a minor point, but it irked me on re-watching nevertheless.
When Charlie is trying to inform the protagonist of the worlds impending doom, he tells him to 'download my blog', to which John Cusack clicks a few buttons on a laptop, and ends up watching a nice little flash animation outlining the films basic disaster plot.
'Download my blog'? Is that really how we talk about it? Perhaps I am being picky, perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps this was just meant to be the crazy characters quirky way of talking; yet I cant help but be annoyed that he didnt at least say 'look at my blog', or 'watch this video', or something that makes a bit more sense. It really just seems like someone who isnt savvy with todays technology trying to write some dialogue. [p.s. I know Woddy's character to be computer literate as he made the animations himself].

"Stand back; I'm about to do some internets"

My last gripe with this movie involves the President of the United States character played by Danny Glover.
After he gallantly decides to remain with the American public as their nation comes to an end, rather than flee with the other main notable actors to the ships in China, he delivers his stirring last address, and utters this little line:

"We are a nation of many religions, but I believe these words reflect the spirit of all of our faiths: The Lord is my shepherd, I shall..." [dramatic cut-off]

This is what he was quoting, Psalm 23 from the Bible. Tell me, how does that reflect the spirit of all faiths? Also, what about the 30 million atheists in the United States? Do they not warrant a mention here? I know past American presidents have shown a less than accommodating stance toward us unbelievers ("I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God" - George Bush Snr.), but at least Obama's inaugural speech mentioned them on equal footing with other citizens ("We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers." - Obama).
I mean it isnt really a big deal, but like everything else in this rant; it bugs me all the same. How does such a quote reflect the spirit of Buddhism for instance? They arent really fans of the whole 'Lord is our shepherd' thing. Nor are Hindus, or Sikhs, or to a degree Muslims. And what about the poor Scientologists?

"I'm too old for this comparative religion shit" President Murtaugh

Something I also noticed on the news the other day is this report on the suns solar activity, which is at its highest peak since 2005. Spooky huh? After all, it is 2012, the year the Mayans famously predicted the end of the world.
Except for it isn't. The Mayan long count calendar ends in December 2012, but then again so does the calendar on my desk at work. When that time comes, I wont be cowering with the ones I love, converting into a dodgy Christian and appealing to my shepherd to look after me; I'll just order another calendar.
Note that this is also what happens with the true Mayan calendar. 2012 doesn't signal the end of the world, but rather just the start of a new long count calendar.
So like most end of the world scares, this too is quickly dispersed with a healthy dose of logic. NASA has a great article debunking the whole 2012 over here.


Rant complete.
MM

Not So Lucid Dreaming

Having recently re-watched Inception, and afterwards reading an interesting piece on the multiple ways of looking at the storyline by the people over at Slate Magazine, it got me thinking about lucid dreams. In particular how to go about purposefully inducing them.

I have had lucid dreams before, where it becomes apparent that I am dreaming and I can suddenly manipulate the dreamworld around me. However this realisation usually doesn’t last long, as it triggers me to wake out of this fake reality almost straight away, just as I magically start flying into the air, or some otherwise equally implausible occurance.

Eager to try this again I found this site giving some tips on how to induce lucid dreams, and thought I might give some of it a go (well the easy parts at least).

Tip #1 – Dream Recall

It is apparently useful to be able to remember ones dreams. This has never really been a problem for me, provided I think about my dreams early in the morning, as the memory fades quickly as the day rolls on.

Tip #2 – Reality Checks

Dreams feel real when you are in them, but often something just doesn’t feel right. If you push yourself a bit further and test your reality, often you can distinguish between what is really happening, and what is a dream. This is why it is suggested that if you get yourself into a habit of doing simple ‘reality checks’, you will find yourself doing this in dreams.

No not this sort of reality check.

One of the things suggested was to read some writing in your dream, and then re-read it. Apparently around 80% of the time, upon the second reading, the text has changed, and this is a cue for you to realise you are dreaming (Hey, if Batman did it, it has to mean something).

I love the internet, where I am able to find still images of scenes from shows years passed, exactly as I remembered them

They suggest you creating a habit of remembering to look at your watch, or something else constantly on your person and reading whatever text it contains. I didn’t give it too much thought, especially as I don’t have a watch at the moment.

However the next morning when I was being diligent in my goal of lucid dreaming and purposefully thinking back about the nights dream, I remembered something odd. Though I don’t have a watch in real life, I did in my dream, and people kept pointing out my new watch to me. I remember being nonplussed by their remarks, and looking at my wrist thinking ‘Yeah; so what?’.

It is strange to think back at this now and wonder if this was a result of my subconscious trying to let me know I was in a dream. If it was, then it seems pretty amazing for an element of my dream to actually have a purpose for once, and not just be a random bunch of occurances, as usually seems the case.

Though silly me, I just brushed it off, and kept on dreaming.....

[Side note here: lucid dreams, totems, batman; is my subconscious getting excited about Christopher Nolan's new film?]

James Nesbitt Is The Man To Watch

James Nesbitt is just plain gold. Put him in a show, and that show is instantly great.

A couple of years back I discovered his dramatic chops in Jekyll, the modern extension of Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. A six part BBC thing which brings the tale forward into the modern era, complete with some sci-fi style genetic mumbo jumbo thrown in to boot.
Nesbitt did a great job playing the titular characters, changing deftly between the everyday Doctor Tom Jackman and his maniacal counterpart Hyde.

Just check out that wicked grin!

Then a year back I watched the three part three part drama serial, again by the BBC, Occupation. Set during the beginning of the 2003 Iraq war, it deals with the lives of three soldiers during the wear, and then how they adapt to life afterwards. Again Nesbitt shines as he deals with his family obligations, amid his tours of Iraq, and the realisation that he has fallen in love with an Iraqi doctor.
If you haven't seen this show, it is well worth your time, and has one of the best, most emotional, and most devastating endings of any show i have seen. And i loved it!

And yes, that is Tommy from Snatch on the left.

So when I saw an add for another upcoming British drama with the Irish actor (ITV this time, not BBC), I was pretty excited. The show was Monroe.
Monroe deals with the neurosurgeon Gabriel Monroe, played by Nesbitt, his work life, and how he deals with the goings on in his family. Think of this as a British version of House, except with less focus on the solving of a medical mystery (these are generally straight forward procedures), and more focus on personal relationships. Now that I think about it, it isn't that much like House at all.... There are similarities; he has a sidekick a la Wilson, and a rocky relationship with a female doctor at work. There are the doting younger doctors, one of whom is a smarmy self assured jerk, and so forth. This might simply be a case of the way such professions work (with the old and wise mentoring the young and cocksure), but either way it works well and there is a dynamic in the show that allows more relationships, and an opportunity for students to explain things in simpler terms for us laypeople in the audience.

Plus he has an Irish accent, and that's just tops.

But one thing that Monroe has which House lacks is a heart. Monroe is the empathetic voice in the hospital, whereas his female counterpart, the heart surgeon Brennan, plays his cold and methodical foil.
The show switches nicely between his private and personal lives. However as is the case with most shows like this, there is still the amazing coincidence that each week a patient comes in with just the right problem to parallel something happening in his life. Dealing with a patients parents who have split up as he deals with his wife leaving him, and so forth.
Nevertheless, i highly recommend getting on to this show while the gettings good; go on to iView, and check it out for free(ish).


So that is my little rant on James Nesbitt. 


Oh, and while I am geeking out about Mr. Nesbitt, check out this production photo of him in his Hobbit gear as Bofur the dwarf. Awesome: