Chindie

I want to see Never Let Me Go. It has Carey Mulligan in it. I would watch a 2 hour long film of her sat in a chair in silence.

Fallout 3. Didn't click with it at all. Borderlands - Hideous MMO inspired grinding. Gears of War - I've played them all, and none have struck me as anything other than average. There's others I can't remember off the top of my head.

Stirling Gallacher

Ha, cheers. 8) Yes the first part of that is basically AS Level chemistry - a subject I failed 6 years ago >_> I was best at biology, accept at cell level. I liked being able to break down processes in systems that have progressive stages/steps, which biology does quite easily. Physics I never enjoyed but found interesting, chemistry involved way too much remembering the exact natures of way too many things. Still, I find it all interesting.

The electron thing is pretty simple (well, it isn't, but I'm gonna explain it to the level I feel confident talking about it, which is going to be so simplistic as to miss some of the point, but we're not physicists). Every atom has electrons obviously, and it turns out that when atoms react, it's largely the electrons that do the 'reacting'. It also turns out that electrons have different levels of energy, but they want to get the lowest level of energy they can. If you imagine an atom is a series of circles within one another, with the protons and neutrons in the centre, the electrons want to get to circle closest to the centre. But they can't, because each level can only take a set number of electrons, so they fill up the levels as well as they can (IIRC the lowest 2 levels can take 1 electron each, then all the others can take 2... and they want to fill the level perfectly - it's this that makes elements react, or not - if they have spare electrons, they try to lose them or gain another to make things full. Oxygen, a very reactive element, has a spare electron so will grab another from any element it can, or try to lose it. The noble gases are incredibly unreactive because they have full electron energy levels, meaning they require a lot of effort to force to react). Through a series of other theories we've discovered that these electron energy levels also all have to be individual - no 2 electrons in the entire universe have the same energy level. But we also know that we can give electrons energy - if you picked up a metal ball and rubbed it so it heated up, the electrons in the metal ball would have gained energy... but we know that no 2 electrons can have the same energy - so that means, we currently think, that all electrons have to be somehow in sync with each other - if a single electron in the universe has an energy gain or loss, all the others have to adjust to take into account that change. I think thats an elegant solution to a problem we've discovered on the back of other things we know... but the idea that electrons all in sync somehow seems a little silly to me, and I reckon we'll eventually, as we understand quantum more, discover that we're not quite right. As for quantum, it's basically just discussing physics at atomic (and below) levels, at which point the usual pretty normal laws of physics start to go weird or do stuff that does not happen in the usual observable world.

And it isn't mine as well so I can hardly understand anything being said I can probably bring you roughly upto speed with most of the stuff we've talked about here if theres anything that particularly piques your interest. Absolute zero is pretty easy to understand, as is the thing I reckon will turn out to be wrong featuring electron energy levels.

That appointment is indeed them effectively accepting relegation. They probably shouldn;t have sacked Mick - Connors isn't going to be markedly better, if at all. The thing that struck me with Wolves under Mick this year was that they often played really well, and then lost. It was like they were cursed.

Inception's biggest problem is that the whole thing is a slave to the idea it has in its inception (fnarr!). The dialogue is, from beginning to end, explaining things to the viewer. It's often said that 'Show, don't tell' is the key to a great piece of fiction. Inception only tells. It's like playing a tutorial in a video game - 'Heres the rules. Heres the stuff we'll use to play things out to those rules. Heres the danger.' The funniest thing with Inception, for me, however, was that it was praised from the word go for being a summer blockbuster with a brain, that required the viewer to think, because it was otherwise hard to follow. It wasn't hard to follow - the entire film is laid out as a simple progression, as soon you understand the 'going into anothers dreams' thing, you're set to go. But beyond that - the films actually less enjoyable the more you follow what it wants you to. The more you can trace the path through the layers and get to the smallest degree whats going on, the less fun it is. My first watch I sat and followed everything to the letter, and it was a good film and I enjoyed it. The second time I watched it like you'd watch any old 90s action-er - turn off your brain, follow the slimmest elements of the plot, enjoy the spectacle. At that point, on second viewing, I enjoyed it immensely more - it'd become a $100m slick action film with cool stuff and a great look. I said last year on here that I expected Inception to recieve a critical hitback in the coming years, like American Beauty did. I still think it will.

The Dark Knight is a very good film, one of my favourites and I've watched it far too many times, but it's got a lot of weird problems. The underpass chase has loads of confusing cinematography errors. I noticed that something felt off about that whole scene when I first saw it at the cinema and it was only when I watched a video that pointed out how the way it's shot makes you confused about the orientation of everything. This is particularly bizarre because the problems basically constitute a serious of schoolboy errors that make up the entire scene. The final confrontation with the Joker is a mess thanks to the 'sonar' thing. Which itself I always go 'Naaaaaaaaah' at. Fingerprint off a bullet thing. And so on. It's a great film (that has a pretty grim message behind it - you can analyse it as a terrorism parable that justifies doing whatever is necessary to fight an evil), but it's got loads of flaws.

I like the 3:10 remake. It's hokum but clearly everyone is having an amazing time making it, Crowe especially. It's also the film that made me realise something a US critic had said about Christian Bale, is fairly true. He often plays the kinda... straight, dull, non-eye catching role when another actor is playing the character that gets the cameras attention. Almost like a straight man in a comedy. I also like True Grit and I really like Bridges portrayal of Cogburn. I don't think he was on top of his game or anything, but the character is really such a good one that he picks it up and runs with it, and he has the presence to really do it - I think a lot of half decent actors would have collapsed under the character and not have been as convincing. It's a very good story too, the 'race for life' at the end is surprisingly effective thanks to the performance of the 2 leads.

I think part of the change you get around about the time Leone comes along is that the films become more... professional might be the word. My experience of the older ones is that they generally appeared to have been made for pittance, the actors in them had careers because they looked half decent, could ride a horse and did what they told, and the stories were always knocked together 'the good guy gets the girl and the baddie (in the black hat) gets his comeuppance' stuff with narry a diversion from that plot (literally played as straight and to the letter of that as possible) and the whole comes off as a bit naff. Leone comes along and he has a good eye for a shot, so immediately the thing looks better on the screen, and he has more flair in his plotting. Even if ultimately he doesn't veer too far from the tried and tested 'the good guy wins', he plays a little more with it, he gives his characters more 'character'. And he's working with more talented actors. Old old Westerns generally are B-movies. Even the really well held ones. Even a lot of Wayne vehicles, a man who could act but generally it was one character in different suits he was playing in his sleep. I prefer the more pro, grandiose modern films, ultimately. Though despite it's connection to the old school Westerns, I really like Open Range. It's a little naff but it's played so well I let it go, and it helps that I find Costner fundamentally likeable.

If my understanding of what constitutes absolute zero is correct, if it is possible to exceed it it would have to have a basis in some deeper form of physics, quantum and beyond. In which case it wouldn't surprise if they considered that a different 'school' of temperature, as opposed to the common understanding of it we have. Most of the above is talking out of my arse - physics was never my strongest suit

When I was young, my dad would often have Westerns on and I hated them. But as I grew into more of a film geek I do enjoy a lot of the more modern ones as well as a fair few of the older 'classics'. I still can't say I like a lot of the older fair - they're too... staid. But theres a few decent ones. Westerns I'd take a look at would be True Grit (2010) The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) 3:10 to Yuma (2007) Unforgiven (1992) Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) Open Range (2003) It's interesting that the newer Westerns have largely turned into character studies, when they used to effectively be morality tales. The Assassination of Jesse James is very slow, but beautiful, look at obsession, really, for example. The exception to that in the list I have there would be Open Range, which is a film that could have been made 50 years ago pretty easily, and is simply a tale of good and bad, and 3.10 to Yuma, which is pretty muhc a Western crossed with a small budget action film with Russell Crowe having a huge laugh playing a bad guy. Unforgiven is a bonafide classic, and plays like a homage to Clint Eastwood's Western career.

I actually caught that particular show were he was talking about that theory, and it immediately struck me that, imo, that one is going to be a theory that we, to the best of our knowledge now, know is correct and use, but in the future it's going to to turn out is slightly, slightly wrong. We're just not yet at the stage to realise it and for, now, it fits the basis that we know of. I'd be very surprised if, by some miracle, I was shown 'The Big Book of How the Universe Really Works' that explained exactly how the whole shabang runs to the smallest detail, that there was a section that said 'Electrons all linked, and if one changes the slightest bit in it's energy they all have to or everything falls into an atom mush'. I'd put money, if I could have some sort of bet that lasted till the end of time and still collect it, on that theory being one that as we discover more about quantum and really really far out physics, we change to accommodate new knowledge. But for now, yeah - the universe is a ****' crazy place.

I get that it's Schafer. But I don't get it. My experience of him is some appearances for media stuff and interviews, and some of the Double Fine stuff he's had a hand in, and some knowledge of stuff like Day of the Tentacle. Nothing's blown me away. And again, just the wrong side of quirky for me.

More awesome. Less 'homeless-with-only-bleach-straightners and-copious amounts-of-sunlight-for-company'.

Said it before, but Thor also looks rough. His whole look looks off though, whats going on with the hair?!

I dunno, you can pull it off, lots of films have managed it. Even the Cap film managed it. It's just for this film they've got the design all wrong, every shot of Cap has looked... wrong. It stands out too much, looks too cartoon-y. And thats in a film featuring a bloke in a red and gold metal suit, and a giant green monster.

New Avengers images. Cap looks ****' shit. His WW2 era costume is going to look better at this rate. Hell, it already does. Looks awful. And the Thor pic is begging to be captioned. 'So, this is hentai you speak of... oh.'

Never got the love of Double Fine. They do interesting stuff that never quite delivers. And everything they do is just the wrong side of 'quirky' for me.

I couldn't get on with Borderlands at all. Too MMO-ey.

'Next Generation Portable'. First sentence of the first post .

The man from Del Pompey, he speak sense.

Shopto regularly have it for £20. It's very good.

Well, I'm no scientist but I daresay the answer is 'It doesn't help, and will only get worse, but theres more important issues you could address first'. So get on the petri dish burgers.