Archive for November, 2006

This looks like fun

Thursday, November 23rd, 2006


What is it? According to CNET News, it’s a boat designed to move like a dolphin. Innespace Productions, the manufacturer, describes the craft as the only submersible that does not take in water to keep itself below the surface. They claim the experience of riding in the boat is akin to “underwater flight” and that the unique design allows for incredibly dynamic motion. Whatever it does, the FAQ has more details, and it sure sounds cool, even if you can’t buy one.

Good advices

Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006

A coworker recently sent me twelve points of advice from Al Golin, the chairman of GolinHarris International and a pioneer in the public relations industry. Mr. Golin’s list makes for thought-provoking reading for anyone who goes to work each day, not just for people in the media and communications world. Here are a pair of quotes Golin selected that I really enjoyed along with my thoughts on his list. Be sure to check out the whole article for all the details.

  • President John F. Kennedy: “The time to fix a roof is when the sun is shining.”
  • British author G.K. Chesterton: “I’ve searched all the parks in all the cities and never saw a statue of a committee.”

I feel like these quotes represent a lot of what Golin wanted to share. Taking personal responsibility and continuing to make a sincere and diligent effort to face challenges are rewarding and effective choices to make on a consistent basis. Golin’s list seems to boil down to the following: Keep moving and keep trying. Be honest and earn trust. Don’t boast.”

I think that’s great advice, so I thought I’d share it. My title above alludes to a favorite R.E.M. song of mine, Good Advices, from Fables of the Reconstruction.

Staying alive

Tuesday, November 21st, 2006

I ran across two how-to lists this morning: How to survive a plane crash and how to survive a long fall. The former list is actually fairly practical. The latter one is interesting and possibly useful, but under an even more challenging scenario. Here’s what I gleaned from both articles:

Surviving a plane crash:

  • Wear tennis shoes and long pants.
  • Sit on an aisle over the wing.
  • Pay attention to the preflight safety speech.
  • Tighten my seat belt.
  • Brace for the impact.
  • Keep calm as much as you can.
  • Use a cloth to protect yourself from smoke.
  • Get as far away from the plane as possible after the crash.

Surviving a long fall:

  • Bend your knees.
  • Land feet-first, preferably on the balls of your feet.
  • Relax as much as possible.
  • Cover your head.

I found other facts in these articles interesting, too. For instance, the odds of dying in a commercial plane crash are 11 million to one. As many as 90 percent of crashes have survivors. People have survived falls from several thousand feet, but falls from even 20 to 30 feet are frequently fatal. I’m not sure how much of this information would have helped the survivors of Oceanic Flight 815, but it does make for an interesting read.

License to kill

Tuesday, November 21st, 2006

Note: Minor spoilers if you have not seen Casino Royale, but no major details.

Did you know that British secret agents really do have licenses to kill? As I think many of us Bond fans have long suspected, though, it doesn’t quite work the way it does in the films. Here’s a little more detail on the statute:

“The secretary of state can authorize persons to commit acts abroad for which they may not be held liable under British law. By implication, that includes all criminal law relating to the use of lethal force. Only two constraints are listed. It must be the case that the acts are ‘necessary for the proper discharge of a function of the Intelligence Service’ and that their ‘likely consequences will be reasonable’ with respect to their purpose.”

I didn’t tally an official body count when watching Casino Royale last weekend, but I can say with some confidence that there are several killings committed by Bond that would have a tough time passing credulity for both of these categories. The very first one in the film, though, would pass muster, I think, because it’s specifically ordered by M, 007’s boss. The killing Bond commits on the runway also would safely qualify, I think.

In the films, Bond’s license to kill generally seems to be ongoing, but in real life, this kind of exemption from legal liability is only granted in six-month periods. Agents are not given any reprieve from the laws of other countries, though, so they’re in hot water if they commit a crime and get arrested outside the U.K.

The law in question officially granting authority for criminal activity to secret agents was passed in 1994, but this practice was commonplace and clandestine prior to its becoming law. The article seems to indicate that MI6, 007’s branch of the service, wasn’t even officially recognized as an agency of the government until fairly recent times.

“Prior to 1994, agents acting outside the British Islands would officially have been exposed to ordinary U.K. law. However, the Intelligence Services Act codified what had essentially been de facto internal policy regarding covert action abroad. No MI6 officer has ever publicly admitted to (or been charged with) killing an enemy of the state, but a few assassinations are believed to have taken place during World War II and the early Cold War. Officially, SIS banned the internal origination and approval of assassinations in the 1960s. In any case, contrary to popular imagination, paramilitary action has long been carried out almost wholly by British Special Forces or foreign third parties, not by MI6.”

In Fleming’s novels, Bond uses his license to kill 38 or 39 times. (Apparently there is some uncertainty regarding one of the killings.) Daniel Craig’s Bond, on the other hand, easily takes out more than half of that total during Royale alone.

No more Jack?

Monday, November 20th, 2006

Would Lost really kill off Jack? One of the reasons I love this show is it’s willingness to do almost anything, but I wonder whether the producers would willingly go that far. (Granted, if Matthew Fox bolts to do more movies, there really isn’t much they could do to prevent it.)

As I’ve previously mentioned, my wife and I have an “untouchables” theory regarding Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Locke, meaning that the show will never get rid of these characters. That theory can’t cover when stars decide to get out while the show is in its prime, though, so we’ll have to wait and see.

Maybe all of this is one reason why the producers awkwardly introduced two new cast members at the beginning of this season by pretending that they had been part of the crash survivors all along. Note to the producers: If Fox or anyone else leaves, please do kill them off or somehow explain their absences. Don’t recast the roles. (I don’t really think they’re that foolish, but it has crossed my mind.)

VHS: 1976-2006

Monday, November 20th, 2006

No additional VHS videocassettes will be produced, ever. The Video Home System, long obsolete in the DVD era, is gone.

I personally can’t remember the last time I purchased a VHS-format movie, and apparently I’m not alone. As Variety magazine indicates in this obituary to the format, VHS ultimately died of “loneliness:”

“After its youthful Betamax battles, the longer-playing VHS tapes eventually became the format of choice for millions of consumers. VHS enjoyed a lucrative career, transforming the way people watched movies and changing the economics of the film biz. VHS hit its peak with “The Lion King,” which sold more than 30 million vidcassettes Stateside.”

I can’t say I’m shocked that videocassettes have fallen out of fashion or that they will no longer be produced. How long will DVDs last as the successor to VHS? Here’s a bigger question: How long will it be before there isn’t a container at all for our entertainment? The technology is already there, minus the bandwidth needed for wide acceptance of movie and TV downloading, and society has already been struggling to deal with what it means when you can’t confine entertainment to a box. Until these questions are answered, DVD, you are on the clock…

Galactica Recap: Hero

Monday, November 20th, 2006

Note: Spoilers below if you have not seen this episode.

Battlestar Galactica continues to produce excellent episodes week in and week out. This week’s installment, Hero, led the series in an unexpected direction: backward.

Guess who helped start the Cylon ambush on the 12 colonies? That’s right: Admiral Adama. We’ve been allowed to believe for two-plus years that the Cylons’ return and resulting annihilation of the colonies were completely unexpected. Apparently not, as this episode reveals that the military leadership for the colonies, known as the Admiralty, suspected that the Cylons might be regrouping prior to their attack.

I had two reactions to this discovery. The first was, “Wow, that makes me look at so much of the story differently.” The second was a feeling that this revelation was a little clumsy. I’m willing to forgive a lot on this series because it is so excellent nearly all the time, but I couldn’t completely shake the feeling that this was a recent addition to Adama’s past, not something that the writers have hidden from us all along. Lt. Novacek’s arrival seems a little too perfectly timed to me, even knowing that the Cylons let him escape.

I still generally like this plot development, but I wish it could have been introduced more gradually. Wouldn’t one of Adama’s first responses after the attack have been to feel remorse at not doing more before the Cylons arrived to destroy civilization? Still, this new piece of knowledge makes Adama’s miniseries speech that much more powerful: “The time comes when you can’t run from the things you’ve done.”

Education is stalking you

Sunday, November 19th, 2006


You’ve been warned.

Casino Royale reviewed

Saturday, November 18th, 2006

I’m going to risk overhyping Casino Royale in sharing my thoughts now that I’ve seen it. I went in with high expectations based on the great reviews I’d seen, and those expectations were exceeded. That is a rare event for me when seeing a much anticipated movie.

Royale is an exceptional and spectacular film, and it is easily one of the best Bond movies ever made. I’m going to allow some time to pass before I reflect on exactly where it stands against the previous films, mainly because I suspect it may be better than all of them.

This is a beautiful and brutal movie. The cinematography is elegant, the action sequences are extraordinarily well produced and the dialogue and character interactions are refreshing and vivid. Even as a longtime Bond fan, I will confess that these are attributes that have been missing from the series for a long, long time. If I knocked anything about Royale, it would be that it opens a little clumsily up until the end of the title sequence. It is top notch the rest of the way.

Once you see the movie, I think you will know what I mean when I say that comparing Daniel Craig to anyone except Sean Connery would be comparing apples to oranges. He brings elements to the character and person of Bond that have never been on screen before. Especially during the first hour of the film, he is a physical force and a man possessed. I was stunned by how he moves and by how consumed he appears with succeeding in his mission. Never does Craig seem along for the ride from one one liner (or sexual conquest) to the next: He is immersed, toe to scalp, in being a young, arrogant and powerful secret agent. It works. Boy, does it work. Craig has quickly made the character of Bond his own in a way that no one other than Connery has, and he may well surpass even Connery if given the time, the films and the solid writing needed to do so.

If you are willing to see some minor spoilers, keep reading. If not, stop here.

The last several Bond films have seemed to me to be insistent on contributing signature elements and trademarks to add to the canon of 007 excitement. They have largely failed, and those attempts have come off as mere tribute and even parody, at times, of the earlier movies.

This is not the case with Royale. The torture scene that has generated a lot of discussion prior to the film’s release is original, creative and realistic, and it is intense in a way that Bond films rarely are. It is a modern answer to the laser aimed at Connery’s crotch in Goldfinger, but it isn’t derivative. It may even become more iconic with time. I found myself wincing and entralled simultaneously in watching it.

Also akin to Goldfinger is a brief chase scene midway through the film. While it echoes the manner in which Connery wrecks his Aston Martin by being decieved by one of Goldfinger’s clever traps (a mirror that reflects his own vehicle’s headlights), leaving the lovely and strong-willed Eva Green strapped to the asphalt in the middle of the night for Craig to nearly run over is a stroke of creative brillance. I never saw that coming, and I felt myself gasp when it happened. Royale is full of these kinds of new thrills, not with poor imitations of earlier movies.

Not long after Craig signed on as Bond, I began wondering if the Bond series was nearing its end. Die Another Day was a loud and overdone movie, in my opinion, and the move to hire Craig and reboot the franchise smacked of desperation to me. No longer. I left the theatre last night feeling like the story of Bond is nowhere near a conclusion, but only beginning. I cannot wait to see where the series heads next, because it will clearly be fresh and uncharted territory.

More Royale, Craig props

Friday, November 17th, 2006

Casino Royale may be in danger of excessive hype, but I’ll weigh in with my thoughts tomorrow. Here’s another rave review, entitled “Jackpot,” from the Boston Globe:

  • “In Daniel Craig, the Bond franchise has finally found a 007 whose cruel charisma rivals that of Sean Connery.”
  • “The new James Bond is quick and muscular, and there is nothing remotely camp about him.”
  • “No slight to Connery, Timothy Dalton, or Pierce Brosnan, but there’s something to be said for casting an actor of depth and creative daring as Bond. Craig hardly overplays the role, but he gives us proof of the young 007’s arrogance and immaturity, shows him tempered by mistakes, and even lets him fall in love with believable reluctance followed by commitment.”

Galactica: Hero

Friday, November 17th, 2006


What would it be like to spend decades in captivity by a ruthless enemy? We may get a glimpse tonight, as Battlestar Galactica introduces a character from Admiral Adama’s past: Lt. Novacek (above) was apparently presumed dead following a secret mission, but it turns out that he’s been in the Cylons’ clutches since the original war nearly 40 years earlier.

Gaius Baltar was irrational long before arriving aboard a base ship, and his sabbatical has only made him worse. Who knows if Baltar was reasonably sane prior to encountering Number Six on Caprica prior to the holocaust, but we can safely assume that decades of imprisonment and isolation have left their mark on Lt. Novacek.

It appears that tonight’s episode will explore a common theme on the show, one that Adama mentioned during the show’s miniseries: “The time comes when you can’t run from the things you’ve done.” Did Adama miscalculate in sending Novacek to his fate, or did he err in assuming that Novacek was dead?

Glowing reviews for Casino Royale

Friday, November 17th, 2006

The reviews are flowing in now for Casino Royale, and they are very favorable. Here are a few highlights courtesy of Yahoo! Movies:

  • “The best Bond since Sean Connery.”
  • “Eleven years ago director Campbell made GoldenEye, the first of the Brosnan Bond pictures. Casino Royale trumps it every which way.”
  • “…Craig, speckled with facial cuts, plays Bond with an almost bruised virility…”
  • “…should help newcomers and older viewers rediscover what made Sean Connery’s early Bond movies the best of the series”
  • “Casino Royale doesn¿t play as dirty as the Bourne films, but the whole thing moves far lower to the ground than any of the newer Bond flicks.”
  • “There’s one whopper of a reason why Casino Royale is the hippest, highest-octane Bond film in ages, and his name is Daniel Craig.”
  • “…flat-out one of the best Bonds ever.”

This is a better reception than I can recall most Bond films getting, but there’s always a danger of hyperbole when it comes to new 007 movies. In my opinion, this is welcome news for a beloved film franchise that had, to say the least, shown its age in recent memory and, at worst, appeared very tired and worn out. Long live 007!