As I write this, my cable internet is dead for the second time in less than 2 months. The first time it happened I wasn’t sure what was wrong, but I assumed it was the cable modem (wrong word, since it is not a modulator-demodulator, but oh well). It wasn’t. Turned out that the line from the back of the house, across the yard to the cable box in a neighbor’s yard had failed. Time-Warner was good enough to come out and fix it after a couple of days, once I got through the phone hell to someone who knew what they were doing.
Well, it failed again, but this time I am pretty sure of the culprit. She is lanky, and fuzzy. She whines when we shut her up in her crate and she barks in the backyard. Yes, my dog, or rather our new dog. We have a lovely old golden retriever who may be the sweetest dog of all time, but some six months ago, we got a german shepherd/border collie/aussie shepherd mix. She is a handful, and she will chew on almost anything she can get her mouth on. It seems that they did not bury the cable very deep, and she dug it up and chewed on it.
However, that is not what I came to write about. For the second time in the recent past I am without internet, and it occurred to me that my computer feels crippled without the internet. For some of you that may seem strange, but for me it does. I got started late on computers. I am now past 50, and that means that the earliest computers I remember were as big as my living room and had the name IBM on them. I remember they first hand held calculators; my dad bought one, a Bowman 10. I was past 35 when I got my first job with a computer. Amazing part of the job interview was typing up a memo and printing it. I had never sat at a computer before, but I managed it. What amazes me is that I did it better than the other applicants…which does not say much for them.
It was later that summer that I got my first computer. Remember, summer of 1996, and I had a 286 with 2mb of RAM, and two 40MB MFM hard drives. It was put together with spare parts by a friend. I learned Windows 3.1 and then Windows 95 on that computer, with eventual upgrades from other friends. A year later I was working at Dell doing Tech Support. I suppose I learn quickly.
I remember signing up for a free AOL trial just to try out the internet. I remember using Netzero, back when it was still free. All of this was dial-up of course, so I didn’t spend hours at a time online. If I wasn’t actually doing anything I closed the connection. Of course, there wasn’t as much to the internet then.
Now, I sit here writing on my disconnected computer and it feels like it is only half there, when I have no MSN messenger and email, and Wikipedia, and gizmodo and a hundred other website all at my fingertips.
Just last night, I was on Dada.net downloading music and using Wikipedia and last.fm to listen to songs before I downloaded them. I would never even have thought of that ten years ago.
As a student of history, and a fan of science fiction, there is one thing that the science fiction writers of the 40s and 50s got wrong. None of them saw the personal computer. None of them saw that each of us would have huge computing power right in front of us. Most of them saw a World Wide Computer Network that we would access through a terminal, and now we half come around to the point where they are nearly right. Our computers are still very powerful, but without the knowledge of the internet at their beck and call, it feels much less powerful, almost crippled.
I guess I will go play Dragon Age for a while to remind myself that there still is a lot to my computer without the internet.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
This Isn’t Your Dad’s Sherlock Holmes
For my birthday this year, I was given a present of dinner and a movie. It seems only fair that I should give a review of both. The somewhat funny part is that it is also entirely fitting that this double review be handled together since both dinner and movie were experienced at the same place, the Alamo Drafthouse.
Now, for those who do not live in Texas, you may need an explanation of the Alamo Drafthouse. Imagine that someone found a wonderful use for an older theater. In the case of the Drafthouse they have found a use for at least three here in Austin. The theaters are among the earliest multi-screen theaters in town with 4-6 screens; at least the two I have visited have 4 and 6 screens each. They take the old theater, and they rip out ever other row of seats (I suppose it means they have lots of spares) and they put in long skinny tables. Now, one of the reasons why I love it is because that means I have all the legroom I need. At 6’4” that is a relatively important consideration. But, even better, they serve food and drinks…and yes, I mean drinks, beer, wine, etc.
Now, the food isn’t great, but it is good. My favorite is the Raging Bull Pizza, with Pepperoni, Canadian Bacon and Sausage. I suppose that if this were to be a proper restaurant review I would review more of the food, but oh well. My son had Porky’s Pepperoni Pizza, my wife had Fish and Chips, and my Mother-in-Law had a sandwich and everyone enjoyed their food.
I cannot really comment on drinks with dinner and during the movie, because I don’t drink. I just never really developed a taste for the stuff and never really saw a reason to, after I finished growing up, but my wife and mother-in-law had beer with dinner.
So, the Alamo Drafthouse gets a big thumbs up, so what about the movie?
Sherlock Holmes is one of the few subjects where a bit of my own personal history is important to how I feel about the movie. I am a fan. I discovered Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories years ago, and not only have I read all of the Sherlock Holmes stories, but I have read a few other things by Doyle as well. In addition, I am a fan of many of the movies that have been made from the stories. I enjoy Basil Rathbone’s Sherlock Holmes, though I am not a big fan of Nigel Bruce’s bumbling Doctor Watson. I am a huge fan of Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes and have all of them on DVD. I have seen at least a half dozen versions of the Hound of the Baskervilles with everyone from Jeremy Brett (the best) to Stewart Granger (the worst), with a few interesting performances in between, like Tom Baker (of Doctor Who fame).
Also, I am a purist when it comes to Holmes. I don’t mind an actor’s interpretation, but I do mind a writer’s interpretation. Of course, I should throw in a caveat here that I am not very impressed with the writer’s who turn books and short stories into movies. My experience tells me that writers who write novels and stories are much better than the hacks who turn them into movie scripts. If this were not the case, then we would not have so many awful movie’s made from books and stories, like Dune, Enemy Mine…oh, I don’t feel like trying to remember any others at the moment. I dislike movie writers because they don’t trust the material that was written by far better writers than they are.
I could go on, but this isn’t about how Hollywood ruins great stories.
Sherlock Holmes, with Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law
The biggest complaint I have about the movie comes from that deep seated Sherlock Holmes fan within me, and ties back exactly to the title of this review, except, this isn’t my Sherlock Holmes either. This is not a movie for purists. The tone and feel of this movie is nothing like Doyle’s stories, which means that I am actually happy that they didn’t try to use one of Doyle’s stories as the basis for the plot. In fact, in some ways the plot is more like a Victorian DaVinci Code. But, that also isn’t the movies main failure from a Holmesian standpoint. This is an action movie, and Doyle’s stories are not action stories, so whether it was a personal choice of Doyle’s or a sign of the times, the movie is not in the style of Doyle. I am not sure that is such a bad thing, since we have Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock Holmes, which is in most ways a very just and quite excellent rendition of Doyle’s stories.
Now, after having given you all the reasons why I might not like the movie, let me state now, that I did. It is not a great movie, but it is a good movie. Robert Downey, Jr. gives a strong performance, though at times he is overshadowed by Jude Law, whose performance is excellent. I find the choice of Law to be as unsurprising as the choice of Downey. Of course, I shouldn’t be surprised, Downey was chosen for his star power. He makes the movie a bigger draw, while it would have been a better movie with Law as the star. I liked the fact that they underplayed Holmes’ English accent. A few turns of phrase spoken correctly can go a long way. I was impressed with Robert Downey, Jr. because there was no Tony Stark in his performance. He was Holmes, but unfortunately, the coat didn’t quite fit, at least in my opinion. Not that he seemed uncomfortable in the role, but he just did not really seem to be English.
The rest of the cast was good, with the exception of Jude Law, who makes a great Watson. Nigel Bruce’s bumbling Watson is nowhere to be seen. This Watson is strong and smart, probably smarter, or at least quicker of wit than Doyle’s original, and thoroughly English. Rachel McAdams is good as Irene Adler and Mark Strong is suitably menacing as Lord Blackwood.
I like the plot, which at least at its foundation is suitably Sherlockian. Holmes would have loved to expose anyone attempting to use magic to cover their intentions. I was not terribly fond of the fight scenes, which were cut (I don’t think that the filming had anything to do with it) a bit too frenetically. It is at times hard to follow what is happening, which I consider a near fatal flaw in a fight scene. Holmes two one-on-one fights are okay, the one in the opening sequence, and the one in the fighting pit (though this last is terribly unHolmesian), but the group fight scenes are mostly a hard to follow blur of action and slow-mo. The one other good fight scene is the one in the shipyard with the giant, the comic elements thrown into the fight scene work perfectly.
One last thing before I wrap this up. I did not like that no explanation was given to explain the connection between Irene Adler and Sherlock Holmes. For those of you who did not understand it, you need to read Scandal in Bohemia. Irene Adler is the Woman, Sherlock Holmes’ one that got away.
So, where do we stand? I liked it. As a Sherlock Holmes fan, I found it less than satisfying, but as a movie fan, I enjoyed it thoroughly. It may eventually find a place on my movie shelf, but it will not find a place among my collection of Sherlock Holmes movies. It just really doesn’t belong there. Good as it is, this really isn’t Sherlock Holmes.
Now, for those who do not live in Texas, you may need an explanation of the Alamo Drafthouse. Imagine that someone found a wonderful use for an older theater. In the case of the Drafthouse they have found a use for at least three here in Austin. The theaters are among the earliest multi-screen theaters in town with 4-6 screens; at least the two I have visited have 4 and 6 screens each. They take the old theater, and they rip out ever other row of seats (I suppose it means they have lots of spares) and they put in long skinny tables. Now, one of the reasons why I love it is because that means I have all the legroom I need. At 6’4” that is a relatively important consideration. But, even better, they serve food and drinks…and yes, I mean drinks, beer, wine, etc.
Now, the food isn’t great, but it is good. My favorite is the Raging Bull Pizza, with Pepperoni, Canadian Bacon and Sausage. I suppose that if this were to be a proper restaurant review I would review more of the food, but oh well. My son had Porky’s Pepperoni Pizza, my wife had Fish and Chips, and my Mother-in-Law had a sandwich and everyone enjoyed their food.
I cannot really comment on drinks with dinner and during the movie, because I don’t drink. I just never really developed a taste for the stuff and never really saw a reason to, after I finished growing up, but my wife and mother-in-law had beer with dinner.
So, the Alamo Drafthouse gets a big thumbs up, so what about the movie?
Sherlock Holmes is one of the few subjects where a bit of my own personal history is important to how I feel about the movie. I am a fan. I discovered Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories years ago, and not only have I read all of the Sherlock Holmes stories, but I have read a few other things by Doyle as well. In addition, I am a fan of many of the movies that have been made from the stories. I enjoy Basil Rathbone’s Sherlock Holmes, though I am not a big fan of Nigel Bruce’s bumbling Doctor Watson. I am a huge fan of Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes and have all of them on DVD. I have seen at least a half dozen versions of the Hound of the Baskervilles with everyone from Jeremy Brett (the best) to Stewart Granger (the worst), with a few interesting performances in between, like Tom Baker (of Doctor Who fame).
Also, I am a purist when it comes to Holmes. I don’t mind an actor’s interpretation, but I do mind a writer’s interpretation. Of course, I should throw in a caveat here that I am not very impressed with the writer’s who turn books and short stories into movies. My experience tells me that writers who write novels and stories are much better than the hacks who turn them into movie scripts. If this were not the case, then we would not have so many awful movie’s made from books and stories, like Dune, Enemy Mine…oh, I don’t feel like trying to remember any others at the moment. I dislike movie writers because they don’t trust the material that was written by far better writers than they are.
I could go on, but this isn’t about how Hollywood ruins great stories.
Sherlock Holmes, with Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law
The biggest complaint I have about the movie comes from that deep seated Sherlock Holmes fan within me, and ties back exactly to the title of this review, except, this isn’t my Sherlock Holmes either. This is not a movie for purists. The tone and feel of this movie is nothing like Doyle’s stories, which means that I am actually happy that they didn’t try to use one of Doyle’s stories as the basis for the plot. In fact, in some ways the plot is more like a Victorian DaVinci Code. But, that also isn’t the movies main failure from a Holmesian standpoint. This is an action movie, and Doyle’s stories are not action stories, so whether it was a personal choice of Doyle’s or a sign of the times, the movie is not in the style of Doyle. I am not sure that is such a bad thing, since we have Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock Holmes, which is in most ways a very just and quite excellent rendition of Doyle’s stories.
Now, after having given you all the reasons why I might not like the movie, let me state now, that I did. It is not a great movie, but it is a good movie. Robert Downey, Jr. gives a strong performance, though at times he is overshadowed by Jude Law, whose performance is excellent. I find the choice of Law to be as unsurprising as the choice of Downey. Of course, I shouldn’t be surprised, Downey was chosen for his star power. He makes the movie a bigger draw, while it would have been a better movie with Law as the star. I liked the fact that they underplayed Holmes’ English accent. A few turns of phrase spoken correctly can go a long way. I was impressed with Robert Downey, Jr. because there was no Tony Stark in his performance. He was Holmes, but unfortunately, the coat didn’t quite fit, at least in my opinion. Not that he seemed uncomfortable in the role, but he just did not really seem to be English.
The rest of the cast was good, with the exception of Jude Law, who makes a great Watson. Nigel Bruce’s bumbling Watson is nowhere to be seen. This Watson is strong and smart, probably smarter, or at least quicker of wit than Doyle’s original, and thoroughly English. Rachel McAdams is good as Irene Adler and Mark Strong is suitably menacing as Lord Blackwood.
I like the plot, which at least at its foundation is suitably Sherlockian. Holmes would have loved to expose anyone attempting to use magic to cover their intentions. I was not terribly fond of the fight scenes, which were cut (I don’t think that the filming had anything to do with it) a bit too frenetically. It is at times hard to follow what is happening, which I consider a near fatal flaw in a fight scene. Holmes two one-on-one fights are okay, the one in the opening sequence, and the one in the fighting pit (though this last is terribly unHolmesian), but the group fight scenes are mostly a hard to follow blur of action and slow-mo. The one other good fight scene is the one in the shipyard with the giant, the comic elements thrown into the fight scene work perfectly.
One last thing before I wrap this up. I did not like that no explanation was given to explain the connection between Irene Adler and Sherlock Holmes. For those of you who did not understand it, you need to read Scandal in Bohemia. Irene Adler is the Woman, Sherlock Holmes’ one that got away.
So, where do we stand? I liked it. As a Sherlock Holmes fan, I found it less than satisfying, but as a movie fan, I enjoyed it thoroughly. It may eventually find a place on my movie shelf, but it will not find a place among my collection of Sherlock Holmes movies. It just really doesn’t belong there. Good as it is, this really isn’t Sherlock Holmes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)