| Movie review: Inception |
[May. 24th, 2012|10:45 pm] |
Oh, where to begin with this movie?
I suppose that "Inception" was supposed to be a bigger, better version of "The Matrix". It runs along similar lines, with alternate realities (this time in our dreams) and grandiose special effects. Yet it disappoints in storytelling, offering us instead explosions and zero-gravity stunts.
The problem is not in the special effects. They are impressive, clean, and plentiful. The problem is that the special effects are the star of the movie, elbowing aside the story and the acting. It also misses on aesthetics. In "The Matrix", Morpheus explains the situation to Neo on a set with armchairs and an old-style television set. That set was artistry: minimal visuals, with some irony and social commentary, as a scene for the story. The creators of "Inception" apparently think that more is better, and don't understand the word "minimal" (much less "irony").
Inception clocks in at two hours and twenty minutes. It could have been made (should have been made) to run in less than ninety. The screenwriters and post-production crew need to learn to tell a story with minimal glitz. After they learn that lesson, they can add glitz to movies. (And I think that they will find they need only a minimal amount of glitz.) Let's start with a time limit of eight minutes, no car chases, one gunshot, and no explosions.
I already have a movie that has over-the-top special effects, a thin plot, and mediocre acting. It's name is "Tron". I do not need another in that slot.
I rate "Inception" five cans of spam, out of a possible ten.
Better movies: "Tron", "Tron Legacy", "The Matrix", "Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" |
|
|
| A visit to another planet |
[May. 22nd, 2012|10:27 pm] |
I'm preparing to visit another planet this week-end... Planet "Balticon".
Balticon is the annual science fiction convention in the Baltimore area. (Well, one of the annual conventions.)
I like Balticon for its topic tracks. They have sessions on science fiction, hard science, and writing. The combination attracts and interesting mix of people.
Books: The Annotated Dracula
Music: The Orchids' self-titled album from 1980 (so yes, it is an LP).
Movies: who has time for movies?
TV: Star Trek TOS enhanced, on Netflix |
|
|
| Movie review: Wing and a Prayer (1944) |
[May. 20th, 2012|09:05 pm] |
A movie about WWII, made either during or slightly after WWII.
A carrier is sent on a mission to the south Pacific. Their purpose is to be sighted by Japanese forces but not to engage them. They have a planned route that takes them across large distances; the idea is to convince the Japanese that a number of carriers are far from Hawaii and Midway. Their orders are specifically to avoid combat.
Given this mission, there are few scenes with combat. There are scenes of practice flights. There is the subplot of the former movie actor enlisted (drafted?) as a pilot. But with little combat, one might think the movie boring.
It's not boring, although the movie is told with metaphors and tropes from the 1940s. They lose some of their glamour in the current age. Or perhaps I should say that we of this age are poorly prepared to accept the story-telling techniques of 70 years ago.
I enjoyed the scenes of carrier operations. The movie combines real footage, filmed scenes, and staged scenes for the take-off and landing of fighters. Lots of the special effects are obvious, especially the actors filmed in front of a projected background. Yet there are lots of shots of planes and artillery. The currently running "Battleship" has lots of scenes (and lots of things blowing up) and I am pretty sure that the explosions are all computer-generated effects. The folks who made "Wing and a Prayer" had no such niceties: everything you see was in front of a camera. (It was real! Now you kids get off my lawn!)
I rate this movie 6 cans of spam, out of a possible 10. |
|
|
| Star Trek TOS++ |
[May. 19th, 2012|08:54 pm] |
I've watched a few episodes of "Star Trek TOS" on Netflix. These are the enhanced episodes, not the original broadcast versions.
I like the enhancements. They are limited to the external shots and viewscreen images. Planets are no longer orbs of blobby colors but earth-like planets with oceans and clouds. The phasers and photon torpedoes are consistent across episodes. Scenes on board ships have not been changed (except for viewscreen images).
I think that the enhancements may include some additional music, but I am not sure.
The episodes that I have viewed are "A Taste of Armageddon", "Balance of Terror", "The Enterprise Incident", and "The Doomsday Machine". Each kept the original story and the original dialog. I found that they were better with the new special effects.
I am okay with the changes. I find them respectful of the original series. The original special effects, while good for the time, were clunky. Even now I can remember my first viewings and thinking that the effects were clunky.
These changes are a far cry from George Lucas' "improvements" to the "Star Wars" movies. Those were, in my humble opinion, gratuitous at best. The "Star Trek" enhancements are a good thing. They fix technical problems but keep the story intact. I suppose that we have a new battleground for discussions.
(The "Star Trek" enhancements are not all encompassing. The closing credits show stills from various episodes, and they remain unchanged. Thus, the old special effects "leak out" via the closing credits. I am not sure that this is a bad thing. I am leaning towards this being a feature.) |
|
|
| Thoughts on medical insurance |
[May. 13th, 2012|09:04 pm] |
This is a long rant. With lots of opinions (and some possibly correct facts).
For insurance, I use the term "medical insurance" and not "health insurance" because I feel the former is more accurate. The monies issued by insurance companies go to medical services and products, and the general mindset of the American public is that health is a normal condition, illness is a variance from that condition, and doctors and nurses are there to "fix" us and get us "back to normal". We do not have (for the most part) the mindset of staying healthy, with day-to-day actions such as exercise and nutrition. We have the mindset of "run as we do and then get repaired".
People acquire medical insurance through one of two means: group policies and individual policies. Group policies are sold to organizations (companies, unions, governments) and employees or members of those organizations may join. The polices (so I surmise) are priced on a per-person model: X dollars per employee who enrolls. (It's actually a bit more complicated, with pricing structures varying by marital and family status, so the pricing is X1 for a single person, X2 for a couple, and X3 for a family.) The insurance company wants to know how many enrollees in each category, calculates the total, and asks the organization to pay.
Organizations may pay the entire amount, or may pass the cost (or part of the cost) on to their employees. (My employer, for example, passes the entire cost on to employees.)
With group policies, the insurance company must accept all members of the organization. They cannot pick and choose. I suspect that insurance companies throw subscribing organizations into different pools to account for different levels of risk, so a Google with office workers ends in one risk pool and a coal mining company lands in a different pool. This pooling seems fair, since the risks of coal mining are significantly higher than the risks of working in an office.
Individual policies are just that: policies purchased by individuals. I suspect that individuals are lumped into risk categories as well, based on their location, their vocation, and their medical history.
My view of the market for individual policies is this: it is broken.
For a successful market, one needs two things: people willing to sell a commodity (or service) and people willing to buy that commodity (or service). And I see failure in the market from both sides. For individuals, I see little or no awareness of medical insurance, and little demand for it. (Yes, there is some interest, but most people spend more time thinking about wrapping paper for birthday presents than they do medical insurance -- unless they have a medical condition and need the insurance.)
Insurance companies are part of the failed market, in that they don't appear to want to sell medical insurance. I have seen advertisements for auto insurance, home insurance, life insurance, and even pet insurance. But no advertisements for medical insurance.
There are two types of products that need no advertising: products that have large demand and products that have no sales incentive. The Apple iPhone is in the first category. Medical insurance is not.
Selling medical insurance to individuals is difficult. The product/service combination is complicated (have you actually read a policy?) and people do not like complicated things. Especially complicated expensive things.
Another factor is that insurance companies are for-profit institutions. As such, they must act in the best interests of their shareholders. This means selling profitable products and services. A tricky proposition with medical insurance, since a customer with an individual policy can quickly change from profitable to non-profitable. (Organizations with group policies can change too, but the odds are lower. Even if one person in a group policy becomes "non profitable", the group can remain profitable.)
With their for-profit status, insurance companies have incentive to prevent a sale to a non-profitable customer, and they have incentives to get rid of non-profitable customers. Thus, even after twenty years with an insurance company, a customer can start filing claims and eat away at the profits. That is terrible news for an insurance company; "Quick, get rid of that customer!"
Individual policies are quite one-sided. Two common questions to a potential customer are: "Do you currently have medical insurance?" and "Have you ever been denied medical insurance?". A "no" answer to the first question puts one in the higher-risk (and higher premium) pool; a "yes" answer to the second question pretty much assures another denial of policy. (If some other insurance company thought you were a bad risk, we do too.) Notice that there is little negotiation and little price adjustment here; the insurance company does not offer a higher-cost policy. It simply walks away from the applicant.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA, or "Obamacare") changes that market. It makes several mandates. The most famous is the "eat your broccoli" mandate that each resident of the US must purchase medical insurance. Another mandate is the "must issue" mandate for insurance companies. This gives the insurance companies the heebie-jeebies, since they cannot filter out the unprofitable customers. Once they saw that, they demanded the "universal subscription" mandate.
Much has been debated about the mandates: are they constitutional, can the government force us to buy anything, is this nothing less that socialism. I won't cover those topics. I will say that I am not a fan of the government forcing residents to do things. But on to other aspects.
I will point out a few possible outcomes of the ACA:
-- The mandate to purchase medical insurance (or have it as part of employer benefits) will mean a greater awareness of medical insurance among the citizenry. I think that people will have incentives to learn about medical insurance and therefore make better decisions.
-- The mandate to issue insurance will mean a loosening of the workforce and a better distribution of workers to jobs. Our current system effectively ties insurance to employment. Anyone who has changed jobs knows that medical insurance does not start on day one of the new job, but can be delayed by weeks or months (sometimes as much as six months). This keeps people in their current jobs; they are afraid to move to a better job because they will lose their coverage. When people know that they can get medical insurance immediately (either through a new employer or via an individual plan) they will be more willing to move to new jobs. That can only be better for the economy.
-- When individuals know that they can obtain insurance, they will be more willing to start new enterprises. This will also improve the economy, as people will be more willing to take risks and provide new goods and services.
I recognize that the means to obtaining these outcomes is unpalatable to lots of people. And I am not one to advocate that the ends justifies the means. Yet I consider these outcomes to be good for the economy and the country.
If there are other ways to achieve these results, I would like to hear them. The only idea I have heard from conservatives has been the "sell insurance across state lines". I find this notion unconvincing: it will move all insurance companies to the state with the most lax rules. Just as credit cards are issued out of South Dakota, medical insurance will be issued from a single state -- perhaps Mississippi or Idaho, whichever the lobbyists can convince lawmakers to reduce regulation. It does nothing to increase the availability of insurance; indeed I see insurance companies striving for greater productivity and profitability, which means declining more applicants.
Notice that moving the jobs to one state does not create jobs (except for the temporary boom in office construction); it sucks jobs from current locations and dumps them in a single location. The receiving state may win but the country as a whole experiences no net gain.
I am also not keen on the idea of the federal government stripping the power of regulation from the states. (That is, in its essence, what "sales across state lines" does. A state loses its ability to regulate the service.)
In summary: I like the results of the ACA, although I do not like the means. I would like to find another mechanism to obtain the results. Ideas, anyone? |
|
|
| Stats on movies in my collection |
[May. 12th, 2012|02:00 pm] |
A while back, I went through my movies and counted the appearance of actors in movies. I've added to my private collection since then, and I re-counted actors and actresses.
First, a summary of the rules. (Yes, there are rules for counting.)
Rule 1: The only movies that count are movies in my personal collection. That is, movies that I own on DVD or VHS. This is not about movies that I have seen, but about movies that I own. (As much as one can own a movie with the MPAA's rules.)
Rule 2: Sequels count as part of the first movie, not as separate movies. Thus "The Lord of the Rings" is all one movie, not three separate movies. Elijah Wood's appearances count as one, not three. (His appearance in "Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" counts as one, too, so hist total is two.)
Rule 3: Rules are arbitrary and perhaps not consistent.
Rule 4: TV series do not count. While I have "Star Trek", "The Avengers", and "Buffy", they are not part of the statistics.
It's been a while since I counted movie actors and actresses. Has anything changed?
If I recall (since I am too lazy to look things up, even in my own journal) the actor in the most movies was Cary Grant, and the actress was... I forget. Possibly Winona Ryder or Lauren Bacall.
I went through my collection of movies and re-counted. I have added to my home collection since my last survey, and things have changed.
For actors, Cary Grant holds an impressive count of 8 movies. He surpasses Humphery Bogart (5), Bing Crosby (5), Sean Connery (4), and Gene Kelly (4)... but he does not hold the lead. He ties with Dick Powell (at 8) and is surpassed by two groups. One is the Marx Brothers (Groucho, Chico, and Harpo) who have an impressive count of 12. Yet they are not the leaders. The leaders are...
Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, each with 13 movies. Twelve of the movies are the old "Sherlock Holmes" movies. Basil Rathbone has one more for his appearance in "The Adventures of Robin Hood", and Nigel Bruce for "The Scarlet Pimpernel".
(I can hear the cries: "the 'Holmes' movies were not full-length feature movies, and Bruce's appearance in 'Pimpernel' was a minor role! They don't count!". I simply refer to rule 3.)
Actresses are a bit more difficult. As before, the numbers of appearances for actresses are lower than for actors. (Take that to mean anything you like. I simply report the numbers.)
Winona Ryder, Lauren Bacall, and Dorothy Lamour all have three movies. (Again, these numbers are against movies I own, not movies in their careers.) So do Ingrid Bergman, Jennifer Connolly, and Audrey Hepburn.
Katherine Hepburn has four, as does Julie Delpy and Joan Blondell. And Ruby Keeler.
The leader, with five, is Ginger Rogers. (And she will have six when I add "Stage Door".)
I am surprised by the results. I would not have picked Basil Rathbone and Ginger Rogers as the leaders.
My movies are a collection from across the decades, stretching back to the 1930s and up to today. (The oldest is the 1933 verison of "King Kong".) I have a number of collections, and the Busby Berkeley collections give Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler their high counts. (Joan Blondell gets all but one of her movie counts from the Busby Berkeley era.) Man, they cranked out movies in those days! |
|
|
| A mixed week-end |
[May. 6th, 2012|07:26 pm] |
The local video store has closed, and this week-end it sold its stock. At bargain prices: two DVDs for $5. I picked up a bunch of videos: "Before Sunrise", "Before Sunset", "Sabrina" (the original with Audrey Hepburn), "Fail Safe", "The House of Yes", "The Polar Express", and "Juno". Also, I picked up "Dark Water" apparently a horror/thriller (which is not my usual fare) on the basis of star power: it features Jennifer Connolly.
Saturday saw Baltimore's annual Flower Mart, a street fair with performance stages, food vendors, community groups, and the occasional flower seller. As with most street fairs, it is mostly a social event. I used it as an excuse to leave the apartment and get some air and sun.
Saturday night saw fun dancing with friends to loud (and rather stompy) music. I talked (or rather, shouted) with a number of friends. It was a good diversion.
I needed diversions this week-end, in the form of loud stompy music or eclectic street fairs. Much of the week-end was spent being a computer geek, working with Google App engine and Python. These are new to me, so I have to pay attention. And pay attention I will, since they get me into the world of web applications (and maybe even mobile apps). I invested hours on both days, learning how to do things (and how *not* to do things). I have a ways to go, yet I am determined.
I confirmed plans for the Stevens Alumni Weekend (first week-end in June). I'm looking forward to seeing Hoboken again!
Books: "The Annotated Dracula", Robin Wasserman's "Skinned"
Movies: "Sleeping Beauty" (yes, that was one of the bargain DVDs)
TV shows: "Farscape", "Star Trek TNG" (both through Netflix) |
|
|
| Computer geek and book nerd |
[Apr. 29th, 2012|09:54 pm] |
It's been a busy week-end of computer geekery. I've been splitting my time between two major efforts. One is an app on Google App Engine that details my hours for my program manager. (The timesheet system records only gross hours, and we need hours broken down by project.) It's a fun effort, as I get to learn new things (Google App Engine, web services, and Python programming) and it provides direct, tangible results.
The second is a re-write of a web page for a friend of a friend. This involves HTML, CSS, and some magic with image manipulation in GIMP. This also is a fun effort, with opportunities to learn new things.
I made progress on both tasks this week-end, which is a good feeling.
I also finalized plans for attending OSCON, the big conference for open source software. The con is in July, in Portland OR. I like Portland and will be happy to visit again.
Beyond the computer geekery and the travel planning, I acquired a (used) copy of "The Annotated Dracula", which has Bram Stoker's work with annotations. Now all I need is time to read it! It's rather large (a more than full-sized hardcover edition) and difficult to hold in my backpack. I suspect that I will be reading it not on the commute to the office but at other times. With the warmer weather I can walk to a local park and read during the afternoons; that sounds like a good plan.
TV: Farscape and Star Trek TNG
Movies: none this week
Books: The Left Hand of Darkness |
|
|
| Mrs. Romney's gaffe |
[Apr. 24th, 2012|09:58 pm] |
Mrs. Romney said something to the effect of "I am happy that some women have no choice and must work [at a paying job] and rear their children". That's a pretty mean thing to say -- especially the "happy" part -- and when I think of Mrs. Romney the term "mean girl" does not come to mind.
I suspect that she meant to say something like: "I admire the women who must balance their job and their motherhood, struggling with the economy and doing their best for their children."
Public statements are tricky, and perhaps she made this most recent one with little preparation. I prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt. |
|
|
| Movie review: Something to Sing About |
[Apr. 23rd, 2012|09:36 pm] |
A Depression-era movie with James Cagney, William Frawley (known for his performance as "Fred" on the "I Love Lucy" show) and Gene Lockhart. Lots of singing and dancing, and a silly plot. James Cagney is a dancer in New York who is convinced to move to Hollywood for a career in the movies. He stays true to his girl back in New York, but circumstances make it appear that he is not. Mayhem ensues!
Of the Depression-era movies, this one deserves more recognition than it gets. While the story is a series of hard-to-believe plot twists, keep in mind that such stories were typical for these movies. It is a decent and successful attempt at distracting us (the audience) from the woes of the real world. (It still works today, so that says something.)
"Something to Sing About" takes several pokes at the movie industry, and I suspect that the commentary is valid today. From the scripted photographs to the wardrobe and diction lessons, this movie shows that "Tinseltown" earned its nickname.
James Cagney was not a singer, and the movie deftly handles that with a number of sleight-of-hand maneuvers. The singing (performed by others) is operatic at times, and shows how music styles changed over time. Released in 1937, it is quite the contrast to "The Wizard of Oz" of two years later.
I rate this movie six cans of spam, out of a possible ten. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
jfitz's journal