Sunday, November 2, 2008
"The Last Enemy"

SPOILER ALERT

My friend and I watched the final episode of "The Last Enemy" tonight - a five-part miniseries on PBS. It was entirely absorbing to watch, if much too long and drawn out. It was great to see Robert Carlyle again as he did his usual super job as a menacing (probably rogue) government gun-for-hire but most of the acting was cardboardish if not downright leaden.

The plot has been described as near-future fiction rather than science fiction because it starts from the five million surveillance cameras proliferated on the streets of London and other cities around the U.K. (one for every twelve residents, according to some). That amount of being watched is indeed horrible, unacceptable, beyond Orwellian stuff and if this movie helps to alert people enough to be sure to keep governments from going this far, then good for it. The fact that human inattentiveness and error would almost certainly prevent such eyes from working much of the time does not in any way mitigate the unacceptablenss, it just means that whatever does get done will not work as it is meant to.

My serious problem with the miniseries, however is that some plot lines were left dangling and the overall resolution was altogether lacking, unless my own i.q. points have fallen. Here are my questions for which I would be most grateful if any reader has answers and/or can make me feel less cheated. It's one thing to suspend disbelief because someone can hide, undetected, behind a door, and entirely another when things just do not make sense.

-- Why did they fake blow up Michael?
-- Why would it matter that Yasmin thought he was dead? Faking his death wasn't necessary to test his reaction to the "tag" and it seems like an awful lot of work to have gone through.

-- Why kill all those medical workers when they were supposedly looking for the doctor? Especially when it turned out in the end that he was working with them??!!

-- Why was Carlyle running his operation separately and seemingly in intense opposition and hiding from the government? Apparently he was working for - or with - James, Beasley and Harewood, given that they knew where his warehouse was and that he assisted James in that last scene with the Doctor, so that whole conceit seems utterly pointless.

-- Who was the black haired assassin? Who did he work for? What became of him?

-- At various moments, Stephen was highly aware of all the ways in which he was or could be watched - and yet at other times (as when he ran his assault on the Brompton hospital for blood samples), he was surprised that "they" knew where he was. As a savant who was so aware of what was going on, it seems completely nuts that he'd just forget about the cameras.

-- Why kill Michael? He's no longer any danger to T.I.A. or Project Tab since they can keep him out of England with his new tag. And, conversely, surely they should have killed Stephen since he knows everything and can join or even arouse resistance. It's not as if they were reluctant to knock off pretty much anyone.

-- Most importantly: who is the grand manipulator running James, Beasley and Harewood?

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 10:49 PM

Thursday, September 18, 2008
Grrrr
Can I say how sick I am of hearing people quote Carly Fiorina's statement about Palin not having enough experience to be a CEO? What she actually said - and how many times will this have to be corrected??? - was that none of the four candidates has enough experience to run a company. She didn't make the point felicitously nor did she phrase it so it would avoid being misquoted, unfortunately. I guess she couldn't be an advertising copywriter, right? The far more important point, however, is that Fiorina said that neither Obama nor McCain - the two candidates for president - do not have the experience to run a company. Is it relevant? Is the United States a company? In some ways, I suppose, but not one for one. And in any case, Fiorina's disparagement of Palin, if it really was disparagement and not simply a statement of fact, equally applies to Biden, McCain and Obama.

Labels: ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 3:43 PM

Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Grousing
Maybe I'll get grousing out of my system for 2008 if I get rid of some peeves from 2007 today.

Celebrities' marriages do not have anything to do with history. In almost all "today in history" lists, great big (un)important events like Teri Garr's and Kathryn Heigl's weddings are listed. For goodness sake, those are not historical moments. Liz Taylor's weddings are a bit historical, I suppose, since there were so many of them, but being famous isn't the same as being historical. Ah, perhaps that's the ticket. Perhaps what those lists really mean is that they are listing "events that happened today to people whose names you recognize." Who cares??!

Tourists who ride at commuter time need to honor the same unwritten rules. Why do tourists need to be in Manhattan before 8:00 or 8:30 a.m. anyway? Nothing much is open before 10. They have to buy peak fare tickets (almost half again as much) and they just crowd the trains and buses and act as if they're the only people in the world. Yesterday one mother kept saying things like "see the boat!" and "see the water!" and "oh, look, you can see the track!" I swear if she were my mother I'd bop her over the head. As if kids can't see things without a running commentary. And as if the whole rest of the car wanted the commentary. Stay home or take your own train.

People who block the entry to your office building because they're smoking or just hanging out are pains in the neck. Now that no one can smoke in office buildings - which is definitely a good thing from smell and air quality points of view - they apparently continue to need more time for breaks than any two thousand million trillion other people, and they need to interfere with all the rest of us. I've always wondered if some people need extra attention even if it's by seriously annoying other people. I guess the answer is yes.

More to come as the year winds down....

Labels: ,

Permalink | 1 comment(s) | posted by jau at 11:26 PM

Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Being flixy
I'm a big fan of NetFlix but they've slowed down or become less diligent or in any case changed something about the way they process films. It used to be that when you returned a film, it was recorded the second it hit the mail, presumably through some kind of computer notification, and your next selection was sent almost that very millisecond. You'd send a film back one day and have a new film in your hands a mere two days later. But now it's almost a full week turnaround. Did the bad guys figure out how to get the postal code to indicate a film had been returned when it wasn't? All I know is that this is frustrating and it's hard to time things so you get what/when you want. For example, I sent three films back on Monday morning and they still haven't been registered as received/returned and it's Wednesday.

As for alternatives, Blockbuster doesn't carry the quirkier, foreign and not-shoot-em-up films I like and, besides, I swore I'd never go there again after they started editing films to remove things they found distasteful (yes, I'm afraid it's been documented that they do that) and after they pulled that overcharging scam for late returns. And my computer isn't fast or big enough to do downloads easily. Bottom line is that I'd prefer to stick with NetFlix, but I hate being manipulated and this is frustrating.

I remember hearing a rumor a while back that NetFlix deliberately slows things down for heavier users. Do they register a single returned film as son as it hits the post office but wait for physical returns when there's more than one? And although it seems idiotic to mistreat your best customers from a public relations point of view, it makes some dollars-and-cents sense. On the 3-films-at-once plan, if you get 9 films a month, it's $1.70+ each; 3 films is almost double that. Obviously customers having fewer films is better for them (unless customers stop renting at all, of course). Although when you multiply any amount times one or two gazillions of their customers, the numbers are enormous any way you cut it.

I wonder how to figure out if the slower turnaround is deliberate and/or how to "work" their processing.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 7:28 AM