How to make a long flight... longer?

Mrs. Blog and I have been on quite a few trans-oceanic flights. When that's New York to London, not a huge deal. Read a book, watch a movie, eat whatever food-like substance is put on a tray in front of you, and boom: you're landing.

But Hong Kong to anywhere in the U.S. takes a little longer. Like 15 hours or so. The in-flight entertainment system becomes a necessity, because it's too loud to talk, too cramped to sleep well and often too bumpy for, say, a nice game of cribbage. And that system better have a wide variety of movies.

But British Airways has a different solution, suggesting variety might be overrated.

If you want, you can now watch a seven-hour, first-person, commentary-free film of a train ride from Bergen to Oslo. Here's an exciting preview:

... and by preview, I mean half of the actual film. Don't watch it if you want to avoid spoilers!

I guess it's the equivalent of white noise for your eyes. But there's something a little weird about trying to experience a train ride while you're actually on an airplane. And it doesn't do anything to make the food better.

Highway to the by-the-book zone

War is Boring just did a great review of China's remake--apparently a nearly shot-for-shot version--of "Top Gun." It's called "Sky Fighters" and it looks like a mess.

"Top Gun" has always been one of my guilty (dorky?) pleasures, and I will never apologize for enjoying a well-filmed dogfight. But the same sequences in "Sky Fighters" look... well... boring. Take the "watch the birdie" scene, for example.

Fun! And it used, like, actual airplanes. The "Sky Fighters" version (the scene is at about 20:15) doesn't have real airplanes or even a rude gesture.

As the review notes, the main character doesn't have a cool callsign... he goes by "708." His wingman is "709." And his key talent is that he is a rigid doctrinaire. One might say he's not exactly a maverick. Ahem.

Anyway, the whole thing is on YouTube if you're into watching bad CGI, bad filmmaking and bad subtitles. But if you actually feel the need (the need for speed), fire up "Top Gun" instead.

What's inside the box, Pandora?

As you have probably seen splashed all over the internet, Microsoft announced its Xbox One today. Here's the video that went with it:

There is a good summary of all the features here. The stuff that stands out to me--at least in terms of trying to position a product to hit as much of the market as possible--is how gaming actually seems almost like a secondary function to all the multimedia stuff it's rigged for.

It doesn't just look a little bit like a Tivo box, it's meant to BE a Tivo box, more or less. Television, music, other streamed content, Web browsing and Skype are all part of the voice-controlled package. And, of course, you can play games, although there is a little controversy about how that will work and whether there will still be a market for used games.

I have an Xbox 360 (now eight years old, somehow), but I don't play a ton. To me, video games are entertainment in the same vein of television or movies... something to do in a spare moment but not something to do all day. Mrs. Blog, who doesn't enjoy many games you can't dance to, is much less of a fan.

But she is exactly who Microsoft is taking aim at. Not only is the box sleek and unobtrusive, it is arguably more of a multimedia reciever than a gaming console. And that's an easier purchase for a non-gamer to embrace. If you can make the case to someone that they need this because they can eliminate other devices and streamline content access, then you're in good shape to expand your consumer base. There is even talk of a subsidized system, where you pay a greatly reduced price for the gear, but pay a monthly fee for Live access (and presumably streamed content therein). That, too, feels at least psychologically like a cable bill and not a means of online gaming.

Anyway, the bottom line is that Microsoft, like Apple and Google, is trying to create a device ecosystem. Whether it works depends largely on how people like Mrs. Blog react. But it should be noted that the motion-sensing Kinect is geared toward dance games.

Gimme Some Lovin' (without the lovin')

Mrs. Blog and I went to see one of the greatest movies about Chicago ever made: The Blues Brothers. It's getting to be winter here, which means people are emerging from their concrete-and-bad-tile caves to do things outdoors. In this case, it was Cinema by the Sea, which is exactly what it sounds like. It was a nice distraction from frustrating issues with the housing "market" here.

On paper, it's a perfect idea. Great weather? Check. Great movie? Check. Beanbag chair seating? Check. They even threw in some fireworks as a bonus.

But, as Mrs. Blog noted, this would not be Abu Dhabi if everything went as it should. About halfway through the show, for instance, workers set up floodlights illuminating an EXIT HERE banner... and half the crowd.

The thing that got me the most, though, was the censorship. It wouldn't be the Blues Brothers without gratuitous swearing, and sure enough, that was untouched. There are two scenes that involve male-female relations, however. Perhaps 30 seconds, total, of footage. And by relations, I mean kissing.

Yes, the pivotal scene at the end where Carrie Fisher confronts her ex-fiancee, Joliet Jake, starts with him pleading with her and ends with her lying in the mud, with no indication of how Point A got to Point B.

Happily, they left in the part where a Nazi henchman tells Henry Gibson, "I've always loved you" as their red Pinto plummets into a crater in downtown Chicago. And I had forgotten how fun the car chase at the end is; legend has it that Lower Wacker Drive never recovered from all the damage done during the movie's filming.

All in all, a fine way to spend a Tuesday night. If nothing else, it's something you couldn't do in Chicago this time of year.

The Art of Storytelling

It's the most cultural time of the year here in Abu Dhabi: the fifth annual Abu Dhabi Film Festival has kicked off, bringing dozens of international movies to malls and hotels across the emirate.

Last night Mrs. Blog and I saw a remarkable piece of artistry called "Almost in Love." The writing was beautiful; as I have complained before, dialogue has always been one of my weak points as a writer, but this movie was filled with strong, natural, engaging conversation.

It is essentially a love story. I won't bother trying to sum up the plot--there are a lot of threads--but the gist of it is the important, difficulty and beauty of finding love.

But the fascinating thing about it is that it was done in two 40-minute takes. That's right: two locales, two groups of actors (some of whom appear in both takes) and two long shots.

The director and writer, Sam Neave, uses some interesting techniques, like occasionally shifting the sound to follow a conversation offscreen while we watch two characters interact silently in front of us. It gives the effect of being at a busy cocktail party, where you tune in and out of the conversations around you.

And none of it comes across as gimmicky or distracting. It's not ad-libbed; the acting is superb and it is clear everyone has a superb grasp of their lines. I'm guessing that like a stageplay, it was rehearsed and rehearsed and rehearsed until everything is not only memorized, but natural. And then they shot it.

We saw the world premiere. But I urge you, if this film appears at an art house (or, if you're in the Middle East, a mall), go check it out.

As real as it gets

Apparently there is a movie coming out in February whose stars you have heard about quite a bit lately, but who have absolutely no acting experience. It's an action movie--a genre in which they have plenty of experience.

They are active-duty Navy SEALs.

The project, called Act of Valor, began life as a short military recruitment video; its production team is a well-regarded commercial outfit. But realizing they had nearly unprecedented access to military equipment, they pitched--and won--the idea for a full-length movie. The script is being written by one of the authors of the 300 screenplay.

It sounds like a pretty run-of-the-mill action plot: SEALs rescue a captured spy. But the hook, of course, is that the Navy literally assigned SEALs between combat tours the mission of acting in the film.

Friend of the Blog Chris correctly pointed out that this is much like Top Gun in that it uses a ton of actual military personnel and equipment, and perhaps more important, will have teenagers lining up outside recruiting centers. It is an unabashed rah-rah picture.

I'm not sure what to think about it, honestly. The action sequences will be great, I'm sure. The plot will be largely forgettable. But will the movie as a whole be more than a novelty?

Burn, Hollywood, burn

I don't mean this literally, as I have friends in LA whom I would prefer not to roast.

However. I have just learned that the aforementioned Hollywood is apparently remaking my All-Time Favorite Movie: "Blade Runner."

This should not happen. Not now, not ever. The original (and its many edits) is brilliant. Its imagining of the future--the now quickly approaching 2019, specifically--was nominated for two Emmys. The story is well-paced and philosophically significant; the music is interesting; the cast well-chosen; the acting occasionally brilliant.

This is a bad one, the worst yet. I need the old blade runner, I need your magic.

But of course these days its risky to make a movie with too novel of an idea, I guess, so they're headin' back to the well.

Sometimes this can turn out pleasantly; the Coen Brothers' "True Grit" is a good example. But for the most part, the trend is annoying at best and especially frustrating for people who love the original artwork.

We'll see what happens. Sometimes people say things like "We're doing a sequel to Top Gun," which ultimately go nowhere. Even as an idea, though, this is an affront to good moviemaking.

My rating: Three out of four camels

Last night I saw what was arguably the most concrete example of Emirati culture we have encountered to date. Not a wedding. Not a desert barbecue. Not camel racing. A movie.

It's called "City of Life," and it's pretty good.

On the negative side, it paints in broad strokes and is somewhat predictable. There are plot points that you can see several kilometers away and dialogue that is wooden.

Having said all that, though, it is beautifully shot and directed. On a subtextual level, it illustrates perfectly what Dubai is: a collection of people from all over the world whose cultures, goals and ideals all seem to be on a collision course.

Realistic, right down the the Salik tollway tag.

But perhaps most important, it presents an authentic vision (as far as I can tell) of the UAE. The ugly side, the poverty, the desperation, the wealth, the glitter, the fun. It also offers a glimpse--and I have no idea how accurate that glimpse actually is--of Emirati life. Specifically the "middle class" Emirati life, where several generations of a family live under one roof under conditions comparable to those of blue-collar expats.

It's hard to explain how that resonates after you have been living in the Emirates and seen many of the elements in this movie, from broad social behavior to details like truck decals and types of fruit cocktails.

It feels authentic--even if the characters don't. And authenticity is one thing this country could use more of.

Avatar

Tonight, we fly to London Towne.

Last night, we drove to Khalidya Mall. That part was awful. I swear, it's like every mall designer in the UAE didn't realize that literally 90 percent of the people who would go shopping would do so in a car. The parking lot was a nightmare, so was the parking garage, and we ended up in the parking lot of a blood bank (!?) down the street.

But whatever. Our friends gave up waiting for us, as they should have, but left our tickets to the UAE 3-D premiere of "Avatar" at the box office. And so we settled into our seats, funny-looking glasses in hand, about five minutes after the opening credits.

From there, though, the experience was immersive and impressive. I know I will be mocked for this (looking at you here, Mrs. Blog), but I would even say it was moving. Here's why: It submerged you in a rich, well-thought-out world that made you forget you were in the theater.

3-D looks much better on the screen than on my head.

Yes. I know that's pretty hyperbolic. And I'm not prone to hyperbole at the movies. But the last sentence in the above paragraph is literally true.

It's not just the 3-dimensional aspect (although it's hard to imagine seeing the movie in any other way at this point). I have seen 3-D films before, the last being a kind of random nature film at the Shedd Aquarium that included a "fourth dimension" of real-world effects like water sprayed in your face and air riffling through your hair. That just seemed gimmicky.

This was, I swear, barely noticeable after the first 10 minutes. And that's a good thing. Because rather than make you think about the cinemagraphic trickery needed to pull something like that off, or cause you to duck as a randomly thrown object hurtles "toward" your face, it just established that you weren't watching a movie. You were in a movie. A silent observer pulled along into a brilliantly realized world.

And about that world. I am a sucker for space opera. I love sweeping planetscapes, multiple suns and bizarre landforms. Yet the planet that was the setting for the movie, a moon called "Pandora" that appeared to be orbiting a gas giant, for all its technicolor animals and neon nighttime vistas, seemed less like an attempt to impress with its weirdness and more like an imaginable place.

Those two factors--3-D that immerses you in the world and a world that is fun to be immersed in--are the movie's strongest points. They are magnificent. And even if you ignore the plot (which I'll get to in a sec), it's still magnificent. A National Geographic special on Pandora would have me on the edge of my seat, chowing down on Moose Crunch.

The characters are broadly drawn, and I won't get into them too much except to say that they are clearly defined as good and bad, and that the main character is truly an avatar. All the actors were fine, and I never got the sense that they were staring at a green screen as they worked... although many times they surely must have been.

And the plot. Well, I don't think I'm giving too much away by saying it's "Dances With Wolves" guest-starring 12-foot-tall blue aliens. But that's fine. It's a serviceable story with lots of archetypical conflicts that resonate, even if only at a superficial level. It hits the right notes, like a pop tune you find yourself subconsciously humming along to.

The most compelling element of the story is the romantic arc between two of the lead characters, which, I have to say, came off surprisingly well considering they were both rendered by some massive server bank deep in a Tokyo CGI farm.

Not that the aliens really come off as computer generated. Like the 3-D factor, the massive amounts of digital content don't seem like animation. They seem real--or as real as the aforementioned Smurfs of the Forest can. A lot of that has to do, if my understanding is correct, with the way that content was created. Rather than motion-captured bodies with the world filled in around them, the new technology, whatever it is, worked to capture all aspects of the actor's work, from body language to facial expressions. And it shows in every CGI sequence.

I guess that's what James Cameron was talking about whenever he talked about this movie as a "game changer." The first motion pictures weren't impressive story-wise, but holy crap! The pictures were moving! The first talking pictures... same thing. People! On screen! Talking! Whatever the hell Cameron did to put this movie together, it literally opens up a new world of filmmaking. In the right hands, this kind of technology moves the audience out of their seats and into the scene. If you just focus on that, "Avatar" is a towering, 600-foot home run.

So let's nutshell it, shall we? GO SEE AVATAR. The plot probably won't impress you. But the world you find yourself thrust into almost certainly will.

Also, I hated "Titanic." Have a great weekend....

Have video editing software, will travel

To Hollywood. With a $32 million check.

That might not have been the plan of Uruguayan director Fede Alvarez, but, thanks to a horde of marauding robots and the smoking ruins of Montevideo, that just happened to be the way it worked out. He had this vision, right--a vision of a missile-shooting robotic invasion--and so he sat down to realize it.

$300 later, this is what he came up with.

Boom! Whoosh! Aye carumba!

He said he posted the video on YouTube last month just before a weekend. By Monday, his e-mail inbox was choked with mail from bigshot types in Hollywood. And that is how he, his editing software and a bunch of unpaid extras ended up winning him a deal to produce a sci-fi action flick with the blessing of Sam Raimi.

You can't buy that kind of publicity.

Because I loves me some aliens

District 9, a science fiction movie filmed as a documentary, comes out this summer. It doesn't appear to feature too much in the way of massive space battles, explosions or even lasers.

It does seem to have an inspired plot, however.



Awesome. Perhaps I will go see it Gold Class.

An indicator of my mental capacity today

For reasons I won't explain, I feel as though my brain has been replaced with tofu, or perhaps tightly packed cottage cheese. From that starting point, then, it makes perfect sense that I was sitting here thinking about how fun it might be to see the new Transformers movie, and when is that coming out, anyway?

And from that point, I found this:



... and laughed. The end.