iPhone: Review

Preface

This is probably one of the longer reviews that I’ve written — and purposefully so. My intent is to give the reader a complete, full and fair account of my experience as a tech enthusiast who’s experimenting as the owner of a new iPhone. (This is one reason why I’ve waited almost a month after picking up the phone to complete the review. If you’re going to make an educated decision about whether or not to own this very different and very expensive piece of technology, you need to understand how it stands up under normal use.)

If you want a quick no-frills, “bottom-line” account, I don’t think you’re in the right place. We’re talking about a $600 phone that you’ll probably be using until 2009 (2-year contract) — I think it’s worth the investment to know what you’re buying.

I think one of the major challenges with a device like this is that it makes you completely rethink some of the ways that you are accustomed to using a phone — and not always in a good way. It’s like getting a next-generation stove. There are going to be some phenomenal features, but what good is it if heating up left overs turns into a chore. While writing the review, I was trying to contrast this experience with that of using a traditional Nokia or Motorola-interface mobile phone.

I hope what I’ve written makes your decision to buy (or not to buy) the phone one that is based more on fact and less on impression and speculation. (Cause there’s certainly a lot of that going on these days.)

.

Zodiac: Review

If there’s one regret that I have last year, it’s that I didn’t get to see Zodiac in the theaters. Somehow I just never found the time. But this was one of the films that I was going to rush out and get on DVD as soon as it launched. (Thankfully I didn’t, as I’m hearing that the DVD is pretty much free of any bonus content). But after seeing this film, there’s little doubt that when the full-on release comes out, I’ll be right there in Best Buy waiting to pick it up.

Zodiac is directed by David Fincher (who’s also done such gems as Fight Club, Seven and The Game) and is a dramatization of the search for the identity of “The Zodiac Killer” who had the San Francisco area quivering with fear during the late 60s – mid 70′s. Having been born in the mid 70′s, I didn’t know much about the storied “Zodiac Killer” and almost confused him with “The Son of Sam” murders in New York City. Regardless of whether you know anything or nothing about the legend, if you’re a fan of the JFK-style storytelling (where pieces of the puzzle are revealed almost like a ride) then chances are you’ll love this film.

The acting in Zodiac is truly exceptional. Mark Ruffalo is quickly turning into one of my favorites. He always keeps me engaged and I’ve seen him in a variety of different roles. The role of detective suits him quite well here. Say what you will about Jake Gyllenhaal, but he’s definitely taking the road less traveled as an actor. I’m sure after the success of Brokeback Mountain that he’s had a number of fluff roles thrown his way for more cash. A David Fincher movie is probably one that comes with a huge payday also, but the difference here is that he’s really gotta dig deep and turn in a subtle-yet-solid performance and it’s his acting that really made the two and a half hours seem like a lot less. Jake stars here as the San Francisco newspaper comic writer who’s intrigue over the story lead him to eventually write the best selling book whose detail acts as the backbone for much of the film. It goes without saying that Robert Downey Jr. was great in the film. (Downey Jr. is one of the reporters.) Anthony Edwards, Ione Skye and even Dermot Mulroney play some of the smaller roles in this feature. Personally, for my money, this cast turned in as great a performance as the cast of The Departed without having to resort to all of the over the top acting and stereotypes. (But, of course, what do I know?)

Seven had to be one of the most incredible films that I have ever seen because you felt connected to Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt as they searched for the killer. While this doesn’t possess the same creativity as a film where the “seven deadly sins” are featured, this film has some of that same quality. It’s very easy to follow the story as they track down the killer (certainly a lot easier than it is to internalize all of the details in an Oliver Stone film like JFK or Nixon). But much like those films, if you miss a key detail — get up to use the bathroom or doze off for a bit — it may be difficult to follow with key details missing. And so while the film’s running time is two hours and thirty-five minutes, it’s time that’s very well spent. For any film like this to work, it requires very careful pacing. The movie is split between three story arcs: the actual dramatization and re-enacting of the murders, the reporters and news media’s efforts to cover them (and to try and solve them) and the detective’s efforts to do the same. The film is very well edited — we never stay in one place too long. Just when you’ve had enough cop-talk, we’re moving into a creepy time and date-stamped scene where you start to brace yourself for another Zodiac killing. While the film isn’t a documentary, I dare say that you’d learn as much about the Zodiac killings and as effectively as you would by watching this film. In fact, after seeing this film, you’ll probably want to check out more details about the actual case (much like I did).

Sunshine: Review

Danny Boyle is one of the few directors whose work I get excited about regardless of the film’s subject matter. His ability to provide us with truly original concepts and visually compelling features sets him apart as one of our most talented directors. While he doesn’t have a long list of blockbusters to his credit, Transporting, Millions and, of course, 28 Days Later each rank as some of my more enjoyable film experiences. I can’t give Boyle sole credit for the incredible and original 28 Days Later, as the story was written by Alex Garland. When I heard that Boyle and Garland were teaming up again for another original film and that Michelle Yeoh and Cillian Murphy would be starring in it — well, needless to say I was excited. Then I saw the trailer: Sunshine. A film about a voyage… to the Sun? Now I’m really curious. I saved the trailer to my laptop and must have watched it about twenty times over the past year. When the film was released earlier this year in the U.K. I was incredibly jealous. Well, today I finally had the opportunity to check it out. And while it doesn’t quite live up to the other Danny Boyle films that I enjoyed so much, this film does the one thing that I appreciate most — it made me think.

Sunshine follows a crew of eight scientists/astronauts as they set sail with a huge bomb in hopes of re-igniting a dying Sun. The ship (cleverly titled “The Icarus”), is scheduled to fly close enough to the Sun to detach the payload and leave the crew enough time to propel themselves back towards Earth. The dilemma (besides the daring nature of the mission alone) is that this isn’t the first effort to save the Sun. Seven years prior, the “Icarus One” set sail in the exact same model ship and on the same mission — yet the fate of the original Icarus was never discovered (aside from the fact that the mission failed.)

The plot of Sunshine alone is enough to get hardcore sci-fi enthusiasts reeled in from the opening credits. The crew reminds me of the Alien crew in that they are made up of different and interesting personality types. There is, however, a discernable difference between the mood present in the Icarus and the mood of the Alien crew that flew aboard the Nostromo. This is a crew of brave scientists (some more than others) who are determined to change the fate of the Earth and to preserve humanity. You can feel the tension as they grow closer to the culmination of their mission and you sense that the fate of the original Icarus crew is a constant reminder of their own mortality.