Dominatio Per Malum

Drinkers’ Red Face May Signal Cancer Risk - NYTimes.com

I now have a legitimate reason to refuse alcohol. It apparently means i am ALDH2-deficient.

100 Movies to See Before You Die - Yahoo! Movies

By my count i’ve only seen 41 films on the list. Need to work harder.

My expectations for the Battlestar Galactica finale was so high that whatever they did with the final episode, I was going to be disappointed. Even with a 3 hour finale split over 2 parts, there was no way that the final farewell could possibly eclipse BSG’s finest episodes. So yes, I was disappointed, but also satisfied because while “Daybreak” was at times predictable and left some loose ends hanging, it was also a fond farewell to a beloved series and has many of those little scenes that make BSG the best show on TV.

While i do not, as a general rule review specific episodes of TV shows, Daybreak is the final episode of favorite show so i think of this as a final sendoff. To me the flashback sequences were a mixed bag, and i felt Roslin’s sequence to be the weakest. Several things bugged me, including the non-resolution of Kara’s plotline, although a part of me was happy that they left it ambiguous because there was no way they could possibly explain Kara’s rebirth without resorting to convoluted logic.

The final hour of the show was an extended epilogue and while Moore gets a tad heavy handed in the end and the overlong epilogue has much the same flaws of Return of the King, I did not want it to end. It has been such a long journey that it feels fitting that we get more time with the memorable cast if only to give closure.

In many ways, the themes of science v faith was at hand in this episodes and BSG suggests a divine hand guiding us to our destiny. But it is not a God which we may understand by a Judeo-Christian faith, nor one who wants to be called god. It is more of a spiritual force, a force of nature as Gaius Balthar might say.

I was happy with the final episode of Battlestar Galactica. It did not meet my expectations, but i did not expect it to. It was a satisfactory farewell that tied up most of the loose ends even as it left some questions unanswered. Much like the flawed nature of humans, the final episode of BSG while flawed retained many of the elements that made it the most thought-provoking, challenging and morally ambiguous show today. Well done, Battlestar Galactica. I’ll miss you.

So Say We All!

Synedoche, New York (2008) 2/10

Synecdoche: n. A figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole (as hand for sailor), the whole for a part (as the law for police officer), the specific for the general (as cutthroat for assassin), the general for the specific (as thief for pickpocket), or the material for the thing made from it (as steel for sword). — American Heritage Dictionary

I don’t understand Synecdoche, New York. Directed by Charlie Kaufman, you know that this film will be one of those WTF movies. You either get it or you don’t. I don’t get it. Which makes the film a slow, boring and uninteresting film about a gloomy disenchanted character. The only saving grace is that that character is essayed brilliantly by Philip Seymour Hoffman and the rest of the cast is talented. But the script is labyrinthe, complex and oftentimes does not make a wit of sense. Yes there are themes of fiction blurring with reality, the existential angst of life blah blah blah. But the film is so mystifying and the plot so boring that it all doesn’t matter. The film alienates most viewers who will be bored to tears. But it is bold, it is crazy and the whole film is one big mindfuck. Meaning some people may actually love it. It is impossible to hold a neutral view: either you think it is bold transcendent film-making or pretentious navel gazing.

Personally, i hated it.

“To say that Charlie Kaufman’s “Synecdoche, New York” is one of the best films of the year or even one closest to my heart is such a pathetic response to its soaring ambition that I might as well pack it in right now. That at least would be an appropriate response to a film about failure, about the struggle to make your mark in a world filled with people who are more gifted, beautiful, glamorous and desirable than the rest of us — we who are crippled by narcissistic inadequacy, yes, of course, but also by real horror, by zits, flab and the cancer that we know (we know!) is eating away at us and leaving us no choice but to lie down and die.”- Dargis, New York Times

“What a pretentious piece of garbage from a writer/director I don’t particularly care for. Charlie Kaufman expects the audience to care about a man who doesn’t care about himself, let alone the people around him? “- IGN

Watchmen (2009) 8/10

Watchmen is visually striking, and looks fantastic. The source material, one of the most famous graphic novels ever written gives the film its intellectual heft with its dark portrayal of deeply flawed heroes. It starts with a brilliant, near flawless opening sequence that evokes the feel of the comic and with the soundtrack of “The Times are A-Changin” neatly summarize so much of the history of an alternate reality world. It is the 1980s, Nixon is still President, America won Vietnam and is locked in a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union.

But there is also so much that is wrong with the Watchmen that makes it such a great pity. It had the potential to be a great film, but settled to be only a good film. The labyrinthe plot was manageable even for a non-Watchmen fan like me. The voice over by Rorshach is jarring and could have been better done. Words that feel lyrical when read lose much of their power when spoken aloud.

The single biggest weakness of the film is its casting. Most of the leading characters are plain boring one dimensional cutouts. Therein lies the irony of Watchmen, whilst trying to break away from the typical mould of superheroes as paradigms of virtue, the film makes the mistake of creating simplistic one dimensional versions of these flawed heroes. Only Rorshach (Jackie Earl Haley) and the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) bring their characters to life and make these believable characters. The rest of the cast fare much worse. Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) is actually a very interesting character whose detachment to life could make for a compelling and nuanced character. Unfortunately, for a demi-god, Dr Manhattan seems like a puerile, insecure entity that makes several mistakes in the film. For someone of such supposedly great powers, he seems really dumb. And yes, i know that the scene of Dr Manhattan leading US troops to Vietnam is most probably taken from the comic but he looks really dumb as a blue Sentinel like figure blasting random Vietcongs.

The Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) is such a plain vanilla character that if we deleted him from the movie, noone will probably care. Same for Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman), who at least works as eye candy. Unfortunately she has zero chemistry with the rest of her love interests and simply plays a flower vase role. Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) has so little screen time that he doesn’t even get a flashback to tell his life story unlike the rest of the cast.

The difference between a good film and a great film lies in the cast. The Dark Knight was a great film and starred top notch actors who could emote and convey anger, sorrow, pain and doubt. Between Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Morgan Freeman and Christian Bale, The Dark Knight had an A-list cast of talents. The Watchmen seems to have spent all its budget on fancy effects because the cast with the exception of the Comedian and Rorshach put in bland performances and none of the characters feel particularly compelling.

The storyline is also affected by the need to cram everything into a movie and the film can be divided into 3 acts: Act 1 : Comedian is killed, cue flash backs; Act 2: Each of the major characters get a flashback to tell their past stories and histories; Act 3 OMIGOSH we actually have a plot to resolve so we conveniently put in a bad guy and the heroes through simple coincidences solve the mystery and go confront evil bad guy. Oh and by the way we also insert groovy Mars sequence since we still have money left over for CGI and the comic has it.

To be fair, the ending actually packs a punch and puts forth a moral question which actually makes it far better than a standard superhero movie. Plus as a bonus Dr Manhattan actually starts acting like a demigod in the last act instead of a bumbling doofus he has been for much of the film’s running time. Unfortunately, the “intellectual ending” has already been done in The Dark Knight, so it feels like a bit of deja vu.

There is also a lack of a good villian to balance the film. Every great superhero film has an equally great adversary to deal with. This is also why Heath Ledger’s joker is so damn fantastic. The villain in this film feels like an afterthought and the film suffers considerably because of this.

So to recap the GOOD POINTS: great visuals, nice CGI, strong source material, excellent 80s soundtrack, actually understandable even if you are not a watchman fan, Rorshach, the Comedian. The BAD: lousy acting by the rest of the cast, crammed plotline, unnecessarily long scenes (Mars sequence and any scene involving Silk Spectre 2 trying to be romantic), hardly any plot development for villain.

But even the uninspired casting cannot rob the strength of the original source material. The story that Alan Moore tells is a powerful tale and even when unnaturally compressed into its less than three hour running time the film still has its moments of brilliance.

Despite writing alot of negative stuff about the Watchmen, it is actually a very good film that is enjoyable and worth your time. However, this is precisely its problem: it is only a good film, when it could have been a great film. If i hadn’t watched The Dark Knight and seen what Nolan did with a superhero movie, i might have been more charitable. As it stands, while Watchmen is an entertaining flick and one of the better 2009 movies, it fails to realise its potential.

BBC News

The Brazilian president has criticised a Catholic archbishop for excommunicating several people who helped a young girl have an abortion.

The nine-year-old child underwent the abortion of twins she conceived after alleged abuse by her stepfather.

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, himself a Catholic, said he regretted what he described as the cleric’s deeply conservative attitude.

Brazil only permits abortions in cases of rape or health risks to the mother.

Doctors said the girl’s case met both these conditions, but the Catholic Church said the law of God was above any human law.

The Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, said the excommunication would apply to the child’s mother and the doctors, but not to the girl because of her age.

But his actions were criticised by President Lula, who said: “As a Christian and a Catholic I deeply regret that a bishop of the Catholic Church has such a conservative attitude.

“The doctors did what had to be done: save the life of a girl nine years old.

“In this case, the medical profession was more right than the Church,” AFP news agency quoted him as saying.

The girl, who lives in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco, was allegedly sexually assaulted over a number of years by her stepfather, possibly since she was six.

The abortion was carried out on Wednesday.

The fact that the girl was pregnant with twins was only discovered after she was taken to hospital in Pernambuco complaining of stomach pains.

Her stepfather was arrested last week, allegedly as he tried to escape to another region of the country.

He is also suspected of abusing the girl’s physically handicapped older sister who is now 14.

Brazilian Clerics are seriously out of touch with the times. Is it really so hard to use common sense instead of blind faith?

There is something seriously wrong with the education system when students turn psycho and start stabbing their professors and then commit suicide. I can’t help thinking that if guns were legal, we could potentially have a Virginia Tech incident.