Author: karan

Posted on

Movie Review: Hancock

Hancock: This isn’t going to get great reviews in the media, because (a) it mixes genres and (b) it’s got some moral ambiguity, which could be like, confusing and stuff? But don’t be fooled, because it’s… uh… really not that bad. Honest.

Will Smith is John Hancock, a superhero who doesn’t know why he’s a superhero. He’s a drunk and generally in need of some anger and image management – after all, what kind of superhero is hated, told to go away? – until he meets Ray (Jason Bateman), PR whizz attempting to sell his world-changing ideas.

The thing that I enjoyed most about this movie is that they actually resisted giving away a gigantic chunk of it in the trailer. Watching most trailers, you can put two and two together and work out the plot, which it really does feel like for this movie too, at least up to the inflexion point. What you might perceive to be a stock-standard parabolic plot suddenly goes the wrong way, and the audience is left bruised by the story.

I’m not going to spoil the surprise at all, because it is one of the best features of this movie. Suffice to say though, it left people gasping – something I’ve not heard in a long time. From what I can tell of its development history, it’s been in production hell for nigh on 10 years before it actually got made, and was changed from something far less comedic, and for coming through as intact as it has I give full credit.

Will Smith does a superb job as Hancock during the early part of the movie, though the effort lapses a little towards the end. I’m yet to see Jason Bateman do wrong since Arrested Development, even in the low-ball The Kingdom, where his depiction of a kidnapped American soldier was the biggest redeeming factor for the whole movie. While there’s little hint of Michael Bluth (of AD) here, occasionally you’ll hear a line or two that resonates, and his every-man affability is awesome – you want to live down the street from this guy. And finally, Charlize (as Ray’s wife) is, as ever, gorgeous and very capable.

If there’s one (or two) criticisms to be had, it’s that it does make a couple of concessions to audience populism and raises the inevitable blockbuster sceptre of sequelism. Some rather minor plot threads are left open, though not in an obvious way, and while it would be nice to get closure on these, it’s more intriguing to leave them hanging than try to draw some disparate threads together.

There is a moment, very late in the movie, where the plot can diverge one of two ways: populist, a.k.a. blockbuster-ist – what keeps the punters happy – and artistic, or maybe post-modernist. One would have you walking out of the cinema, pleased enough, and the other would make you leave a lot more contemplative or even miffed at their audacity. See if you can spot the moment too.

A note for the Aussies: a “John Hancock” is apparently American slang for a signature, something I had to look up when I got home. Also, there’s a mini bonus clip about a minute into the credits, though only worth a short chuckle.

★★★☆

Posted on

Fun Rock

I’d found The Presidents‘ new CD at my local JB Hifi the other day, and listening to it in the car on the way back I got to thinking how rare this brand of what I call “fun rock” is – rock-type music that’s reasonably upbeat and light-hearted. I’ve got a very limited library of it, mostly made up of The Presidents and Do As Infinity (sadly, no longer together).

There has to be more of this stuff out there though. To that end, I ask you, dear friend, to have a listen to a sampling of fun rock on my muxtape and tell me where I can find more of this kind of stuff. I don’t know what exactly it’s called – perhaps alternative? – but it’s the polar opposite of both Emo and “heavy metal” and its ilk. The song’s gotta make you smile, make you tap your foot along to it on the train. I’ve heard good things about MGMT for example, but not really sure what their fun rock songs are.

All suggestions welcome!

Posted on

On Petrol Prices

The recent kerfuffle between the parties over who has the best strategy for cutting petrol prices – the Liberals pushing for “at least” 5 cents a litre cut in the excise, and the government considering lifting the double-tax of the GST on the excise – effectively cutting 3.8c – is astonishing in its short-sightedness.

The Liberals above all are aiming for populism, to say to the people that hey, we’re doing something real about petrol prices. The government appears to be aiming for a pragmatic populism – to say we’re doing something, but we’re not as reckless as the opposition, and we’re doing a “sensible” tax cut. Both appear to fail to acknowledge that the price fluctations could wipe out their cuts in less than a day.

Such crass appeals to populism have also eroded any faith I had in either party’s ability to lead, as it were – it would appear that we are now locked in a permanent state of electioneering, all moves vetted by polling. This permanent state binds the hands of the government to populist moves, and the paranoia of losing even a single percentage point of advantage is clearly so high that policies must be ajudicated on their appeal to the masses.

The current price rise is driven by both demand and speculation, with speculation particularly turning into a nasty feedback loop, but in a market driven economy this something that we must accept. Changing the system to take speculation out of it – effectively killing the futures market – reduces the ability to mitigate risks for many industries, such as the airlines, which would be about as popular as mud pies.

For one, the environment cannot afford petrol prices staying low, and higher petrol prices also encourage innovation for replacements for the primary use as a fuel. Given the number of other petrochemical products we depend on, oil isn’t going to go away as a resource, but taking out use as a fuel would flatline prices, and shift our focus. Innovation is a good thing.

It’s just up to someone with a little power now to show some leadership and accept higher prices cannot be avoided through paltry measures such as a 5 cent reduction in tax.

Ed: here’s some words from someone who actually knows something about all this junk.

Posted on

On Why the World is Going to the Pot

Climate change. Global food shortage. Global oil shortage. Global  Overfishing. Deforestation. Desertification. Ice caps melting.

Credit Crunch. Corporate short-sightedness. Inflation. Labour shortage. US Recession. China overheating. Growing inequality.

The war in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan. The never-ending Israel-Palestine-Lebanon conflict. The “War on Terror”. Rising nationalism. Rights abuses. Increasing surveilance. Decreasing freedoms.

Continuing racial inequality. Continuing sexual inequality. Increasing sexual exploitation. AIDS. STDs. SARS. Bird Flu. Cancer.

Hyperbole.

Do tell, why is the above wrong? Anything else to add to the above list?