Celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the film’s release, this is the definitive story of the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey, acclaimed today as one of the greatest films ever made, including the inside account of how director Stanley Kubrick and writer Arthur C. Clarke created this cinematic masterpiece.

This is the ultimate "DVD Extra" of a book. Every single detail of the genesis and revelation of 2001 is documented in painstaking detail. The author has exclusive access to original manuscripts, and has conducted dozens of interviews with everyone from Arthur C Clarke to - literally the on-set tea boy.

Full of odd little anecdotes - some barely more fleshed out than an IMDb trivia entry - including some absolute gems of stories in there. A complete guide to how the film twisted and turned in its creation. I'd go so far as to call it a pure biography of a cultural artefact.

At times it feels like each chapter is written by a different author. There are meandering asides, and spurious footnotes - but it is all rather jolly.

It is long - but what else would you expect? A great book for anyone who loves the film.

In this clip from "Back To The Future" we get a brief glimpse at the controls for setting the destination date:

Ok, we can forgive Brown for not sticking to ISO-8601 - that is the eminently sensible Year-Month-Day-Hours-Minutes-Seconds format - the standard was finalised in 1988, a few years after he allegedly built his time machine.

But why are the "Destination Time" LEDs red - the universal colour for stop/warning? The "Present Time" LEDs are green - not great for men with colour-blindness.

AM/PM are positioned before the hour marker. WTF?

Generally speaking, humans read top-to-bottom. So having the "Destination Time" label in the middle of two displays could prove confusing.

There appears to be no "Seconds" setting - is this level of precision acceptable?

Let's move on and take a look at the sequel - the imaginatively named "Back To The Future Part 2":

OMG! In this latest revision, the AM/PM labels have swapped position!

It's unclear if this is a conscious design choice, or whether the labels have fallen off and been carelessly repositioned. This could lead to the unwary user arriving 12 hours before or after they expect. That is not a great user experience!

Finally, let's take a look at Part 3

Well isn't this just fanfuckingtastic!? The AM/PM has switched again! What utter contempt the designers are showing for their user.

It's obvious that the LED lighting isn't sufficient for either use in bright sunshine - or for viewing from the driver's position.

The label is "Departed Time" - rather than "Time Departed" which would keep it consistent with the other two labels.

And, if that weren't bad enough - take a look at the "Month" section. Yup, it has gone from being JAN/FEB/MAR etc - to a two digit representation!

Oh, and apparently, there's no support for TimeZones. FFS...

Seriously, if you are planning on designing a time machine, please don't take any advice from this nutcase!

The cinema is on the deserted outskirts of Pinewood Studios. It's a wet and windy day — not unusual for England in late summer — and I'm here to take a look at the future of audience test screenings.

My friend, Ross, has asked me to take a test drive of his company's newest way of destroying artistic integrity helping movie studios connect better with their audiences.

Thursday mornings aren't my preferred time to sit on a cheap polyester chair and tip my head back in wonder at a 200 inch screen but, hey, it's a showing of an unreleased movie. I'll suffer through it. I sign the NDA and stick my phone in the little locker provided. I keep the SIM card, just in case.

The movie studio rep is everything you expect — perky, blonde, super excited, and working hard to keep the superficial smile on her lips.

"Ok guys!" she enthuses, "On your seat you'll find all the kit you need to get set up. How many of you have been to a test screening before?"

Half a dozen hands creep up.

"Fantastic," she continues, without really registering the answer, "Well, this screening is going to be a little different — a little more high tech. If you're right handed, please put the bracelet on your right hand. If you're left handed, please put the bracelet on your left hand."

They had, so Ross told me later, wanted to use a head band. Slightly more accurate but too distracting for the audience.

"Ok guys! Hold up your hands so we can check you've got the wrist bands are on tightly."

Actually, it's so that the wrist band's accelerometer can zero correctly. This latest version we're using can just about tell the difference between you rummaging in your popcorn bag and scratching your balls. That's important, apparently.

"That's super! Now, can you all please pick up your tablets and touch the button on the top?"

She begins to explain how we can register what we feel about the movie using the sliders. We can also type notes saying what we do or don't like.

This, nominally, is why I'm here. Ross knows that I can break just about any app. Give me the world's most polished software and within five minutes I'll have it crashing. We all have our talents.

The tablet is a generic Android tablet. Mass produced, plasticky, crappy screen, and a battery which just about lasts the length of the film. The real reason for the tablet isn't because they're interested in our opinions. It communicates with the wristband using Bluetooth and then shunts the results over WiFi.

Perky-Blonde takes us through the tablet tutorial and then dims the lights. The floating faces partially illuminated by glowing tablets lend a rather spooky air to proceedings.

I won't spoil the film for you (car chase, explosion, soft-core sex scene, betrayal, witty banter from the sidekick, then the good guy defeats the bad guy) — to be honest, the film-makers have already spoiled the film. It's no different from anything else that's come out in the last few years.

Before Perky-Blonde lets us leave, we have to fill in a questionnaire on our tablets. Age, gender, income level, sexuality, favourite brand of lager, weight. All completely anonymised, so we're told.

I leave and meet Ross in his office to look at the data.

"I love you!" — "I know."

It's clear Ross and his boss are unhappy with how the test screening went.

"The sex scene really didn't work. Pulse rate data across the audience didn't rise nearly enough. The car chase at the start got more of a reaction."

"Did women like it?"

"Ha! They all pressed the ‘hate it' button — but looking at the galvanic skin response they fucking loved it!"

That's why they use the bands — people lie. They lie to each other and they lie to themselves.

"We also noticed a lot of fidgeting during [rather dull exposition scene]. We're going to need to edit it down somehow. People were reaching for their drinks and popcorn all the way through. Very low engagement."

"And the final act?"

"Good news there, cutis anserina response was good. The peril worked very well. Adrenal levels also had a steady rise."

One thing the backers were worried about was the homosexual sub-plot. Quite a departure for a mainstream action flick. Nothing explicit, but unusual even in today's modern world.

Ross turned to me, "You're gay, tell me what you thought of [the scene]."

"It was fine. But I'm not gay." Which is true. Some of my best friends are gay, but I'm a committed heterosexualist.

Ross brought up my profile on screen — so much for anonymity!

"Right there!" He jabbed at the screen, "vasodilation, and all the other signs of arousal. Right when the dudes are kissing."

Am I secretly gay? No, as Ross let on, just one of those facets of human biology. Even the straightest, gay-hatin', Bible basher's penis will react to sex acts — no matter who they are between.

"And the sidekick?"

The studio was rightly worried about the sidekick. A second-rate comedian whose last few movies bombed. I certainly didn't find him funny but, as became obvious, I was in the minority.

"The tablets' microphones recorded significant laughter levels at all the right times. I think we could even use more of him."

I cringed — the guy just didn't appeal to my sense of humour. Yeah, humour with a "u".

Ross saw my scepticism. "Let me show you."

A few clicks later and the screen filled with a dozen faces. Well, up-nose shots of faces. I hadn't reckoned on the tablets' cameras being active. To my shame, there was my nose. To my greater shame, there was my laughter. Judging from the readout below my image the sensors reckoned it was "sympathetic laughter". I was laughing because I heard laughter; not because I found it funny.

"Is it raining? I hadn't noticed."

The end result was a timeline impressively drawn underneath the movie. After correcting for age and weight, Ross's software was able to draw the peaks and troughs of the audience's excitement level. Men and women were separated out. The data the audience entered on the tablet was ignored — they went straight to the physiological source.

The movie makers are convinced that with enough feedback, they can create the perfect movie. One where the average audience feels the right amount of excitement, terror, sexual arousal, and amusement. All with the minimum of boredom and distraction.

The technology is impressive. Given how cheap the tablets and sensor bands are, they are surprisingly effective. The app was solid and, despite my best efforts, I couldn't get it to misbehave significantly. And, assuming the average test audience member doesn't bring in a USB-OTG cable and a pen-computer stuffed full of naughty software, they should be robust enough to distribute to audiences around the country.

But is this what we want movies to be? I can understand that studios see these as investment vehicles and sink millions of dollars into them. They want to see a return on investment and — in their twisted minds — this means pandering to the lowest common denominator. Nothing original can be allowed; originality is a risk.

Every movie looks the same.
Every movie has the same rhythm.
Every movie has the same set pieces.

Ok, so there are only 7 plots (or not) — but that doesn't mean that we have to limit how we tell those stories.

PLOT OF EVERY BOOK EVER:

Someone is looking for something.

COMMERCIAL VERSION: They find it.

LITERARY VERSION: They don't find it.

—Matt Haig

Once the "quantified audience" gains traction, it's game over for movies as an interesting medium. They'll become more exciting, funnier, and better paced. Boring sub-plots will be done away with. Sex scenes will become more interesting for men and women. Rob Schneider will never make another movie again.

Oh.

"Here's Looking At You, Kid."

Ross rings me up a few days later to ask if I'd had any more thoughts about the Android app.

I had been wondering how 2001 would have performed under such cold and calculating conditions. I know it's a cliché, but I think it's the movie which defines what cinema can do. The gratification of that movie comes in the days and years after seeing it — when it pops unbidden into your mind and forces you to question the world around you.

Ross has been experimenting on his kids. He got them to watch classic movies from his childhood and measured their reactions. I think it's a little creepy to watch your teenager's brain being exposed to Phoebe Cates in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, or Christian Slater in Heathers. But what do I know?

"Based on our testing, it would be better if Ugarte's death was more protracted and violent. Ilsa needs to show more skin and — according to the audience — ought to leave with Rick at the end."

"Well… it's not exactly a contemporary…"

"Alien is too slow to kick off. Reservoir Dogs needs a more obvious end. Batman Begins causes people to fidget all the way through. Toy Story doesn't have enough laughs — and they're inconsistent. Before Sunset just doesn't get people's hearts racing."

"Any positives?"

"Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs is sexier than any man alive. Can we put him in a movie with Misery-era Cathy Bates?"

"That's unlikely. No."

There is a lull in our conversation. A moment of silence which, in a movie, would test very badly but probably be necessary for dramatic pacing.

"I think our data gathering devices are the problem. Wrist measurement just isn't accurate. We need to put them on the temples. Read their damn minds."

"I'm not sure if cheap Chinese Android tablets can do fMRI. Yet. Give ‘em a year."

Ross tells me that the studios aren't that interested in the technology he's helped develop. They love the concept and don't care if the data isn't accurate, but they're worried that it will be to expensive to reshoot the scenes which the audience don't like.

Video games are their next target. It's easier to measure a player's engagement levels and corrections are cheap to code. They'll be able to measure just how scary the monsters are, how dull the cut scenes are, whether the heroine needs a more revealing costume, and if the player gets too frustrated with a puzzle.

Shouldn't we let creators create? Does every damn thing need to be subject to a focus group? Isn't art about describing how you see the world — not showing people what they want to see?

Somewhere, a group of volunteers are having their vital statistics monitored while a variety of political slogans are shown to them. One day they'll find a phrase and a logo which will test off the charts. All they'll need next is a candidate.

After his previous films, it's hard to see why anyone would let Woody Allen make another comedy. I'm glad they did! "Bananas" is the first truly funny Woody Allen film. Right from the start it contains gags which - amazingly - make you laugh. A departure from his earlier films!

The jokes come at an even pace, a good mix of satire, slapstick, surrealism, and sight gags. The semi-improvised dialogue has a "stand-up" feel to it.

What's surprising is just how consistent it is. I'm used to being able to sit through 15 minutes of a Woody Allen film without a single laugh - Bananas sets up a relentless modern pace.

You can buy Bananas from Amazon - and I highly recommend it!

Take The Money And Run has a promising start. A faux documentary with some excellent gags. But it leaps around the story with no real regard for the viewer.

It's possibly the first "mockumentary" and, as such, is a trail-blazing piece. But as with his earlier films the gags are few and far between. Once the jokes hit, they're often substandard and fall flat.

You can buy Take The Money And Run from Amazon.

Set in Paris, a struggling writer on the brink of a loveless marriage seeks solace in the city's many nocturnal delights. Featuring a suicidal young woman, a cameo by Toulouse-Lautrec, and some delightful shots of Paris and its surrounding countryside.

Is this Woody Allen's "Midnight In Paris"? No, it's his 1965 film "What's New Pussycat".

It is a film of its time - a bawdy sex comedy set in the swinging sixties - so it seems rather unfair to judge it too harshly. Nevertheless it is a noisy and confusing mess. There are snatches of comedic genius in among the confusing plot strands.

Peter O'Toole may be the most devastatingly handsome leading man ever to light up the screen. And of course, only Woody Allen would have the chutzpah to write himself into a role which involves undressing a bevy of strippers.

Sadly, even the sight of Ursula Andress in her underwear fails to lift the film which, by the end, descends into slapstick.

It's not a particularly great start to my Woody Allen Challenge experience. At times the "groovy" costumes elicit greater laughter than the writing.

The film was only written by Woody Allen - he didn't direct it.

I'll confess, I tried watching What's Up Tiger Lilly a few years ago. I didn't get more than 40 minutes into it before switching it off in a mixture of boredom and disgust.

I'm not sure who first came up with the idea of revoicing a movie - making snarky comments about the action on screen - but this is one of the most influential and successful.

How it became so successful is entirely a mystery to me. For a comedy film, it is almost utterly devoid of jokes.

One thing I do when I'm watching comedies which I don't find funny is to count the number of jokes I think there are supposed to be. If there are jokes that I don't find funny - that's ok, we all have a different sense of humour. But this is a comedy film which goes minutes without a single identifiable joke.

The main problem is that the original film has large stretches without dialogue. Rather than edit this down, the audience is left watching "action" on screen which is simply dull.

What few jokes there are range from pretty decent to annoying and repetitive - but it's not enough to sustain the film.

You can buy "What's Up With Tiger Lily?" from Amazon, but I really wouldn't bother.

As I watched Woody Allen's latest film - Midnight in Paris - I realised that there are so many films of his that I haven't seen.

So, I have a brand new resolution for 2012.

• Watch every single film Woody Allen has made.
• In chronological order.
• Posting reviews on this blog.

Woody has made over 40 films - so I'll be aiming to watch one per week over the next year.

I'll be watching all the films he has directed and - where possible - those he has written.

Let's go!

Seriously, pack up the tools of your trade, go home, pour yourself a stiff drink, and weep at what you have done.

The Poster

Here's a fun game for all the family! Play "spot the QR code" on this poster...

Bzzzzzt! Time's up! Did ya see it? What? No! How could that be?

Let's zoom in...

There! Right beside the warnings of "mild peril" lurks the QR code. Tiny, overly dense, and with no call to action.

Try scanning it. To make things slightly easier, I've given you a straight shot of the code.

Not easy, is it?

The Contents

It's usually best to use a short URL in a QR code. The smaller the data, the less dense the QR code, the bigger you can print each individual square.

Let's look at what this code contains

http://www.findanyfilm.com/Take-Shelter-custom_film~39285?
   utm_source=sonypictures&
   utm_medium=QRcode&
   utm_campaign=takeshelter  Cinema_BookNow

A few things to note.

• This code is ridiculously long.
• Is all that tracking data really needed?
• There is a space which hasn't been URL encoded as "%20"

The Site

Let's assume that you've seen the QR code. And that you've managed to scan it. And that your browser will open such a malformed URL. What reward awaits you? Something good, right?

Nope. This festering pile of shit.

A non-mobile site, flash heavy, poorly thought out, abomination of a site.

But, let's play along and try to find a screening near me.

Oh great. A pop-up.

So, no easy way to find a screening, see a trailer, or buy tickets. Just what is the point of this site?

If I were one for conspiracy theories, I'd say this marketing campaign was generated by someone who hates QR codes and wants them to fail. Putting Hanlon's razor in to action, I think this is more likely the work of someone who just doesn't understand what they are doing.

If you're interested in avoiding this sort of catastrophic blunder - give me a call. I can work with you to craft a QR campaign which doesn't suck.

This is a really well executed campaign which should serve as a template to other advertisers. There are, of course, one or two issues that I have with it. Let's start by zooming in to the QR Code.

Explanatory Text

It's great to have a little note to explain to people what to do with a QR code. A couple of interesting points.

• It recommends get.beettagg.com - this is misspelled. It should be get.beetagg.com - only one "T".
• It's interesting that they've used Kaywa to generate and manage the code - yet they don't recommend Kaywa's reader.
• Finally, the wording is a little clumsy. I prefer "app store" (singular) rather than "apps store" (plural) - but that's just my personal preference.

Redirection

Using HTTP redirection to send visitors to another site automatically is usually quick - but there are pitfalls on mobile. Because of the latency inherent in mobile transmissions, multiple redirects are to be avoided where possible.

In this case, the redirection goes

1. Phone connects to Kaywa.com
2. Kaywa.com redirects to trailerqr.com
3. trailerqr.com redirects to wallstreet.mymovies.net
4. wallstreet.mymovies.net detects the phone and starts serving the correctly formatted video

So, the phone has to create three different HTTP connections to three different servers to get the content. In areas of good coverage, that shouldn't be a problem. Where possible, you should seek to minimise the number of redirects.

The Video

As I've said, a differently formatted video was served depending on the handset requesting it. Although they were appropriately sized (320 x 240 @15fps or 400 x 224 @25fps) I found them to be a little heavy. At 2 minutes 30 seconds, the trailers certainly represent value for money - but they weigh in at around 5 MB. Again, this isn't a huge issue if you're in good 3G coverage and you're not being billed per MB.

Finally, there's a very odd copyright notice at the end of the video.

Overall

A great campaign - scan and go straight to the trailer. There's not much to improve, but keep these points in mind for your next campaign.

• Check that the URLs you print are valid. There's no excuse for the beettagg spelling error.
• Make the URL human friendly if possible. It gives the user confidence that the destination is something in which they're interested.
• Don't have too many redirects. Remember there are specific considerations when working on mobile.
• Consider your audience's limitations. Is a multi-MB file going to cause problems for them?

This review is spoiler free. By which I mean, there's so little plot, there's not much to spoil. Neo goes into the Matrix, fights Boba Fett, recovers Excalibur, Learns A Valuable Lesson, gets the girl.

WARNING! This review contains EXCESSIVE CAPITALISATION. Tron Legacy isn't the sort of movie to do RESTRAINT or NUANCE. So, in homage, neither will this review.

But First, A Word From Our Sponsors

BUY A NOKIA N8! RIDE A DUCATI MOTORBIKE!

I know I'm over-sensitive to product placement of phones - working in that industry - but the brand placement is just so blatant. A shot of a cool new phone doing something technically implausible isn't the worst crime in cinema - but the movie pauses for a few minutes near the end so that the characters can chat about how great their Ducati motorbike is!

NOW DRINK SOME COORS BEER! IT'S DELICIOUS!

Daft Punk

Did you know that Daft Punk did the music for this film? The soundtrack is stonkingly good and terrifyingly loud. And Daft Punk have a cameo. Well, I say a cameo. The camera practically freezes on them while big neon signs flash out saying

"HEY KIDS! IT'S DAFT PUNK! LOOK! RIGHT THERE! SEE! DAFT PUNK DO THE MUSIC AND ARE IN THE FILM!! IT'S INTERTEXTUAL!"

The cameo is symbolic of everything wrong with this movie. Whereas you may have to watch a Hitchcock movie a few times to find the great director's cameo - here it is splashed on the screen repeatedly. There is no subtlety, no nuance, everything is in gaudy technicolour. It is son et lumière - without the storytelling grace or skill of the Lumière brothers.

Special Effects

This was the first feature-length 3D film that I've seen. There's no doubt that the Dolby 3D system is astonishing. The fact that the glasses are so expensive you need to be virtually frisked as you leave the cinema shouldn't give you cause for concern. Nor should the fact that every pair also gets a sanitary wipe to help remove the previous patron's fingerprints, their sweat, and germs.

The director does a good job of not abusing the 3D. There is the occasional pan which seems to be there purely to show off the technology - but there are no gratuitous shots of things being thrown at the audience merely to make them jump.

Which, ironically, is a pity. The 3D only exists behind the silver screen. It never seems to trouble the audience with its presence. The 3D Disney title sequence is the exception to this - it gathered a round of applause from the audience but, from then on, the 3D just faded into the background.

Had the majority of scenes been in 2D, the 3D sequences would have been significantly more effective. As it is, they're about as interesting as surround sound - or even colour.

One stand out effect is that of the Young Jeff Bridges. Essentially, they've digitally removed his beard and given him virtual botox - but the total the effect is seamless. I can see this technology being used to rejuvenate some aged screen greats for the modern age.

Fem-Bots

LOOK! LADIES IN SKIN TIGHT COSTUMES! Yes yes. Olivia Wilde is rather pretty. And skin-tight costumes are very attractive on her. And on the other ladies. Remember, girls are only there to serve teenaged-boys masturbatory fantasies. There's some nonsense about Olivia Wilde being a Eloi - but essentially all she does is pose around in her catsuit. What a waste of a talented actor.

Now What?

It seems the height of churlishness for me to dump on a film preview that I saw on the cheap. True, it wasn't the worst way to spend a few hours. The special effects are really great. Michael Sheen is the only actor who seems to relish in his role - although it's always a pleasure to see Captain Sheridan on screen again.

But that's not enough.

If you want to spend millions of dollars and thousands of man-years, you'd better have something decent to show for it. If they'd spent a little less on hype and a little more on a screenwriter, this might not have been the gigantic disaster that it is. A loud, flabby mess of a film which will succeed purely due to the huge marketing push behind it.

If you want to watch a film with cutting edge special effects, a thin plot, laughable characters, and atrocious dialogue, I suggest you watch this instead.

It has the advantage of being shorter, much more enjoyable, and culturally significant.

Verdict? If you prefer pretty flashing lights and booming sound over plot, direction, and a tight script - you'll still walk away from Tron thinking "was that it?"

Postscript - a special message to Empire Cinema

Having security goons literally screaming at the audience to switch off their phones doesn't make for a very pleasant atmosphere. A PA announcement or gentle reminder from the hosts is enough for most film fans. Aggravating your audience by shouting at them continuously really sours the mood. I don't expect to be yelled at like that in a restaurant, or any other place of business. Why you think that sort of aggression is warranted for movie reviewers is beyond me.

There's also a confusingly similarly named company called See Film First with broadly similar aims. I'm not sure what, if any, relationship the two have.

Show Film First concentrate mainly on bloggers - getting them to exclusive screenings in the hope that they will generate some online buzz about a movie before release. To help you on your way to creating a blog, they've created a handy (if somewhat patronising) guide to blogging movie reviews.

I can highly recommend signing up to the services if you're interested in movies. The films I've seen have been a mixture of blockbusters (which probably don't need that much more buzz) and smaller films (which probably benefit the most).

On Saturday the 4th of December, Show Film First are holding an Online Opinion Former's Showcase. 7 hours of movies, trailers, and panel discussions in The Empire, Leicester Square. There is an admin charge of £10 - but I think that's well worth it considering what's on offer.

• 8.45 - Intro
• 9:00 - Part 1: showreel of the next quarter’s trailers
• 9.30 - Film 1
• 11.30 - Panel discussion 'Building an online film audience' led by Charles Gant (Heat, Guardian and Variety)
• 12.10 - Q&A opportunity
• 12.30 - Short break (lunch is not provided but apart from cinema concessions there are several food outlets in close proximity.)
• 1.00 - Part 2: showreel of the next quarter’s trailers
• 1.30 - An important Film issue Q&A
• 2.00 - Film 2
• 4.00 - End

Writing about the films is embargoed until the next day, and they're not releasing the titles of the films yet. They do say:

both films are previews, one releases later in December and one early 2011 and we're confident you wont be disappointed.

My guess is that one will be Tron. Although I'd dearly love the second to be the next Harry Potter instalment, I think it's more likely to be one of the other upcoming films.

You can follow ShowFilmFirst on Twitter and register on their website.

Legend Of The Fist

I attended a bloggers preview of Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen last week. Here's the trailer:

The film starts will a brilliant premise - Kung Fu vs the Nazis! What's not to love about that? Who wouldn't want to watch a couple of hours swastikas against shurikens?

Sadly, the film then diverts into a not very subtle "homage" to Casablanca. The plotting is confusing - especially if you're not well versed in the lore of Chen Zhen - or the television series Fist of Fury, of which this is a sequel. I also found it to be highly nationalistic - almost to the point of propaganda.

There's no doubt that Donnie Yen is a talented martial artist, but from the editing of this film, it's very hard to tell. Kung Fu movies have traditionally relied on fast editing to make the action look more dramatic than it is. Legend of the Fist contains so many sub-second edits that it's hard to follow the action - the viewer can't even determine whose foot is kicking whose face. The speed at which the cuts happen mean that you lose all the majesty and beauty of the balletic battle.

Take a look at this scene from Jackie Chan's "Rumble In the Bronx"

Yes, the editing is fast - but it lingers long enough so that we can see the sheer skill of the performers. Donnie Yen may as well not have been in Legend of the Fist - the fights are that quickly cut.

Overall, it's certainly a "wait for DVD film" - and only then if you're happy to put up with long gaps between the chaotic violence.

Harry Brown is an unremittingly violent film. Utterly devoid of sympathetic characters, it offers a terrifying glimpse into the fear, violence and sadism on an unnamed council estate.

Every scene is wired with tension - nervous tension which often culminates in bloody violence.

This is not a thought provoking film. It does not "raise serious issues". It simply exists to give vent to the violent feelings we all sometimes have.

In this film, women are almost entirely absent - even as set dressing. Much like Reservoir Dogs, they exist as background characters - there to be the object of violence. Emily Mortimer plays the role of A Furrowed Brow. This talented actress is reduced to portraying a brittle willow-branch of a character. I say "character" but like all the roles, it is merely a paper thin covering with character development achieved through poorly delivered exposition.

As an exercise in dark cinematic tension, this is a master-class. But unlike the aforementioned Reservoir Dogs, there's no flair. No cutting one-liners, no memorable characters, no rousing music or cinematic style.

This is ultraviolence-by-proxy. Rather than go out and get into a fight - stay in and watch the blood drip from caricatures of every little thug you've ever wanted to throttle.

Hobbes' Leviathan has it right;

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

I'm not ashamed to say that this film rattled me. There's no doubt that as an exercise in building tension it works magnificently. As an evening's entertainment; it's for those who want to relieve their frustration with the world by watching torture porn.

So, how could you create a plot where the position is reversed?  A couple want a sham divorce.  Why? What's in it for them?

So, here's the idea that we came up with on the walk home.

Part The First

Adam and Betty are wealthy business partners and a married couple. Sadly, the spark has gone out of their relationship.

Adam is being sued by Chuck over some business matter.

Adam's lawyer, Derek, is sure that Adam is going to lose.  If he does, Chuck will take all of Adam's assets. Adam and Betty will be left penniless.

Adam and Betty hit on a cunning plan.  They'll pretend to get divorced! Betty will cite marital infidelity and take the family home, the car, the money and Lucky, the golden retriever.

Chuck is sure that Adam and Betty are trying to scam him, so he hires Ellie - a private eye - to investigate Adam.  If Ellie can prove that it's a sham divorce, Chuck will be able to sue the both of them.

Part The Second

Hilarity as Adam friends and Betty's friends sympathise with them - separately. Lots of skeletons out of the closet.  Inappropriate blind dates. People catching Adam and Betty together - so they have to pretend to fight.

Ellie decides that the only way to see if the divorce is sincere is to seduce Adam - if he doesn't fall for her feminine wiles, that should be proof enough!

Through some contrivance, Derek the lawyer finds out about Ellie.  He advises Chuck to keep seeing her to convince her of the divorce.

As Ellie continues to spy on Adam, she realises that she's starting to fall in love with him.

Betty is, understandably, enraged by Adam and Ellie's "relationship".  So she goes off to find herself a toyboy.

Enter Fred - the chiselled-jaw hunk Betty picks up.

Adam and Betty have to go as far as possible to convince everyone that they're happy with their new partners.

Part The End

Ok, so how do we resolve this divorce?

1. Adam and Ellie fall in love. Betty and Fred fall in love. Everyone is divorced and happy except for Chuck.
2. Adam and  Betty realise that they love each other more than they love money. They'd rather be penniless and happy together than rich and miserable separated.
3. Enraged by Betty's infidelity, Adam divorces her and take all the money.
4. Fred, it turns out, is really Chuck. Adam and Betty divorce, Betty gets the money, Chuck gets Betty and the money.
5. Chuck's law suit never had a chance of success.  Derek was trying to split up Adam and Betty.

Wow... finding a satisfying ending is tough. Perhaps this should be a choose-your-own-adventure...

Ten years ago, I posted on usenet that I'd watched a bootleg of The Phantom Menace. I discovered the post recently and it got me thinking about how little progress has been made in the digital download arena.

The actual resolution of the bootleg

Picture the scene, it's my first year at university and, like any good geek, I am obsessed with Star Wars - Episode I.  So much so that I help run a fan site, ThePhantomMenace.co.uk.  The guys on my corridor are similarly hungry for Star Wars.  We all grew up with it and we all love it.  Yoda's benevolent gaze eases us through our homesickness.

With Yoda watching over us, we can't possibly fail our exams!

George Lucas is a visionary when it comes to what we now call social media. Huge, detailed websites chronicle every development in the world of Star Wars. Behind the scenes movies, proto-blog posts, forums and chat rooms all blossom around this incredible social object.

Then, at the last minute, it all goes wrong. The release date for the movie is set to 19 May 1999. For the USA.  or those of us stuck in the UK - where the movie was filmed - we have to wait 2 months.

How I felt

I can't accurately describe the sense of betrayal that many of us felt. Not only were we going to have a needless wait - we were excluded from our new-found social life.

We couldn't frequent any of our favourite haunts lest an American blurted out a spoiler. Going online at all was going to be perilous - a casual glance at the wrong website could accidentally reveal something as momentous as Luke's parentage.

A few days after the première, I was ranting about this imposition when I received and anonymous email.

"Heard you couldn't see the movie. Click here. "

I clicked. It was in the innocent days before 419 scams and rampant malware.  This is what greeted me:

TPM1.mpg - 650MB

TPM2.mpg - 650MB

It took over 24 hours to download. The whole corridor kept a vigil, counting every bit as it matured into a byte. We ran out of disk space at one point and had to delete all sorts of important coursework. I missed lectures. I didn't care.

With popcorn, beer and inflatable sofas we gathered in the room with the biggest monitor - 17 inches.

The Most Profound Cinematic Experience Of My Life.

Much has been written about the merits - or lack thereof - of The Phantom Menace. But for me it was the culmination of 18 years of waiting. The grainy picture & tinny sound didn't diminish my enjoyment. I was with my friends and we were watching the movie months before anyone else in the country.  It redefined my relationship with cinema and content consumption.

The next year, Napster exploded in popularity. Those of us on blazingly fast University connections were already downloading TV shows and movies using the humble Windows File Sharing utility.

Since that day, ten years ago, I've paid to see The Phantom Menace - once on VHS, once on DVD, a few times in the cinemas. I've bought the books, the t-shirts and the video games.  I know it doesn't excuse the fact that I downloaded an illicit copy, but it is the perfect example of supply and demand being coupled with the disruptive power of the Internet.  Once my demand could be satisfied with "official" source, that's where my money went.

We've moved a long was since then. We can now download perfect quality copies of movies which play on any of our devices. High definition, surround sound, DVD extras downloading in less time than it takes to view them.  The movie industry writhes in pain, wondering where this viscous assault on their livelihood came from.  They missed the boat ten years ago. They try - but I still can't legally download The Phantom Menace. The movie downloading "problem" is caused by demand far outstripping supply - this is not a threat; it's an opportunity!

We're living in a fantastic multi-media landscape of limitless possibilities.  Can someone please tell the movie studios?