Reign Over Me (2007)

Drama starring among others Adam Sandler, Don Cheadle and Liv Tyler.

—

Alan Johnson (Cheadle) is a fairly ordinary dentist who unfortunately feels suffocated by his wife and family. He runs a dental-practice and is quite successful. One day he sees his old college room-mate Charlie Finster (Sandler) driving by on a motorized scooter, and tries to find him to catch up on old times. Charlie however suffers from the loss of his wife and three children in 9/11, and is a virtual recluse as well as suffering from deep emotional trauma. Alan befriends Charlie and tries to help him in whatever way he can, sensing that Charlie is in dire need of human contact again…

—

Let’s just start off and say that this movie really, really touched me. I’ve been suffering from clinical depression for several years, and watching this movie really moved me. A lot of dramas about emotional subjects turn me off since they have a tendency to trivialize and simplify extremely complex matters. I mean, it’s not easy squeezing years of pain into two hours of film, all the while fighting the urge to paste some trite and cliché ending on the damn thing.

Finding the proper method to convey such a complex concept as someone who has lost everything dear to them in a tragic event must’ve proved extremely challenging for every person involved in this project, and all I can do is stand up and applaud them for managing to do just that.

This film takes something very powerful, very emotional and actually manages to accurately tell the story of two men, one of which is broken and destroyed in so many different ways, and manages to tell it without trivializing it or resorting to cheap tricks. From the first moment I saw Charlie Finster on screen I knew that he was hurting. The subtle way that Adam Sandler manages to hold Charlies pain is most impressive to me. I recognized so much of Charlie and his way of dealing with his pain that I sometimes had to restrain myself from shouting at the screen; I strongly sympathized with Charlie and knew precisely how he handled his pain.

The characters are what makes this film. Simply because they’re not actually characters. Instead of the usual stereotypes presented in many films dealing with emotional trauma we get something that actually feels genuine. I don’t know what place Sandler and Cheadle went to inside of themselves to find the emotional relationship to their characters, but it sure worked.

Just like real life there is no neat and tidy ending in this film. Thankfully though it’s hinted that things took a turn for the better, which leaves the viewer with a somewhat happy feeling. I like that in this film, a dark ending would’ve been cruel not only to the characters but to the audience. We really felt for Charlie, and we felt for Alan as well. So, a hint at better times is good, but we don’t need it spelled out to us either - which the movie doesn’t do anyway.

So go see this, and see if you can relate to what Charlie and/or Alan goes through. Bring a hankie, I can almost guarantee there will be tears.

Highly recommended.

Tideland

Surreal/Fantasy/Drama from 2005 with among others Jeff Bridges and Jennifer Tilly. Directed by Terry Gilliam.

—

Jeliza-Rose travels with her father to an abandoned farmhouse in Texas after her mother dies from a drug overdose. At the farm she befriends the locals and experiences deeply surreal adventures…

—

The summary above is the best I can manage. That’s really the only resemblance of a story present in this movie, since most of it seems to consist of really weird scenes in… well… somewhere.

Is it good?

Kinda. But not really.

Is it bad?

Kinda. But not really.

I don’t know whether to like it or to hate it. Watching this movie was a bit like how I would imagine it would feel if someone scooped your brains out while eating vanilla ice-cream and LSD. It feels really awesome at the same time that you find yourself wondering what the hell you’re doing and how it can contribute to anything positive at all.

This is easily the weirdest movie I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen some really strange and messed up films in my day.

Recommended? Umm… I’ll have to get back to you on that one.

There are several really cool cars in the world of movies. I decided to list the top ten in my opinion coolest cars that ever thundered across the screen. The criteria set was that it had to be a car (no motorcycles, boats or such) and that it had to be contained within the world of the big-screen - no TV-series cars! This quickly turned out to require quite a lot of thinking and consulting my movie-collection in order to find the top ten cars of movies - but I succeded and here they’re presented in reverse order.

Buckle your seatbelts, here we go!

10. 1973 Oldsmobile Delta 88 (Essentially every Sam Raimi-movie ever produced.)

Unfortunately I couldn’t locate a decent picture of this car, but it’s well-known to fans of Sam Raimis movies. As most people know, Sam started off directing somewhat weird horror-comedies (Evil Dead) and gradually upgraded himself to hollywood-blockbusters such as the Spider-man-movies.

Back to the car though. We who have loved Sams stranger works are well acquainted with the beige Olds for many years. It’s first appearance was as the car that brought Ash and his girlfriend to that evil little cabin in the woods. The car itself belonged to Sam Raimi himself, and rumor has it that the same exact car (or at the very least the same model) makes appearances in every movie Sam has directed since then. Personally I haven’t been able to confirm this, but I know for a fact that it has cameos in many of his movies - among them Spider-Man from 2002.

Trivia: The third and so far last part of the Evil Dead-series of movies (Army of Darkness) told the story of how the powers of the Necronomicon transports Ash to the dark ages. He didn’t go there alone, however - the beige Olds was also sucked into the vortex. There’s a very memorable scene in which Ash opens the trunk of the Olds, and it is briefly shown to contain everything from chemistry-books to bottles of Coca-Cola. What makes this extra hilarious is that word around the campfire has this to be the actual contents of what was in the trunk at the time of the filming.

9. Lotus Esprit (The Spy Who Loved Me)

I know that this skirts the definitions (no boats, etc) I laid out in the beginning, but this is such a cool car I had to include it. The Esprit is in my opinion one of the truly classic sportscars from the ’70’s, but Bonds version is of course not just a car - it’s also a submarine! My personal opinion is that this car is the only reason to watch an otherwise rather forgettable Bond-movie. Keep in mind though that it’s just my personal opinion, so all you James Bond-fans don’t have to flame me all at once!

Lotus is these days one of the few car-makers who have managed to avoid being swallowed by one of the multinational conglomerates and thereby stay independent. Even Jaguar and Aston-Martin got swallowed by the corporations. Jaguar is as far as I know still owned by Ford, Bentley is owned by VW and Rolls-Royce by BMW!

According to what I’ve managed to find there were three vehicles used to film the famous going-into-the-water-scene. The first one was an Esprit that had been modified to allow it to drive into the water without damaging the driver or the car. This vehicle was used for the scenes showing the car going into our out of the water. The second was built to show the transformation from car to submarine and served no other purpose than as a special-effect. The third was a small submarine by the name of Margie Dixon who had undergone surgery to look like the Esprit in submarine-version. The car was nicknamed “Wet Nellie” by the filmmakers, in a reference to the autogyro that Bond received from Q in “You Only Live Twice“.

There was also a completely normal Esprit used for road-scenes, which Roger Moore would drive between takes.

8. Ford Crown Victoria (Men In Black)

I found the first movie about the Men In Black very enjoyable. Contrasting to many other I found the sequel equally and even more enjoyable, I felt that it kept what “worked” and discarded everything else. Tommy Lee Jones is wonderful as the terse and laconic agent working for a organization monitoring and policing legal aliens on planet earth.

At one part in the film Jay (Will Smith) makes wise-cracks about how MiB has access to all the advanced technology from around the galaxy yet insists on cruising around in a “Ford P.O.S” (P.O.S. of course being in reference to the slang-term “piece of shit”). These jokes take an abrupt end when Jay is instructed to press the little red button, and the otherwise ordinary and mundane Ford transforms into a rocket-powered monster surging through the city at the speed of sound while Kay listens to old Elvis-songs.

Memorable quote:

Jay: You do know that Elvis is dead?
Kay: No, he’s not. He just went home.

(Apologies for the quality of the image)

7. Eleanor (Gone in 60 Seconds)

“Eleanor” is the nickname of the heavily modified 1967 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 who is one of the cars in the remake of Gone In 60 Seconds from 2000. In the original movie from 1974 she was a Ford Mustang Mach1 Coupe, but I always like the remake-version much better.

The movie was a fairly big success among the fans, even though it proved to be a disappointment financially. Eleanor managed to become both a cult-car as well as a big celebrity. The demand for Eleanor-mustangs after the film was released was enormous, and this was made even worse that the car only existed on the movie-screen. Several Shelby GT500’s were custom-built for the movie, and all of them were destroyed when filming ended to prevent unauthorized sales of the cars.

Unique Performance realized the potential and developed a system where they bought old Mustangs and converted them to Eleanor-replicas. You can call them up and order one, provided you’re loaded with cash and have a lot of patience - each replica is hand-built to order. The price of a replica is unknown, but as the saying goes - if you have to ask what it costs you probably can’t afford it.

6. Bluesmobile (Blues Brothers)

It should be pointed out that the movie establishes that this car isn’t really the actual bluesmobile. Elwood traded it away for a microphone before the timeline of the movie, and according to the movie it apparently was a black Cadillac of unknown year or model.

But for every other fan of this movie this is the real deal, and the only Bluesmobile to ever exist.

According to what I’ve managed to dig up a grand total of 14 (!) black-and-white Dodge Monaco ’74s were used. This was needed since the movie had several spectacular stunts and each vehicle had to be built for a certain purpose. Vehicles that went fast, vehicles that could jump high - all were needed. In fact, one of the cars was built only to literally fall to pieces when so required!

Blues Brothers held the record for number of cars smashed in one movie for several years. It wasn’t until it’s own (somewhat less excellent) sequel was released that this record was broken. The main reason behind the over-the-top car-chases was partly based on the attempt to create really outrages chases, but also in order to lampoon earlier movies such as Bullitt or The French Connection.

Apart from the stunts this the movie is extremely entertaining thanks to the numerous musical numbers and cameos from famous musicians.

5. ECTO-1 (Ghostbusters)

ECTO-1 is the car that Ghostbusters cruised around in. It served as the company car for their business providing service of the same name. Occasionally referred to as the “Ectomobile”, although I’ve always felt that the correct name is ECTO-1, just as the license-plate says. The name is a derivative of the substance left behind by supernatural beings - ectoplasm.

The actual vehicle is a Cadillac Miller-Meteor with a loading dock in the rear. It’s a 1959 year, and this type of car mostly serviced as either ambulances or hearses. In the movie it’s bought by Ray Stanz for the ludicrous amount of US$4800 - completely absurd considering this would be about US$10.000 for a car that barely runs under it’s own power.

But after some heavy modification it became an 80’s icon. Almost anyone who lived during that decade remembers the Ghost Busters and their white car with the funky equipment.

Currently there’s a Ecto-1 replica for sale, asking price is around US$150.000. This is not the original car, but a replica built by renown car-customizer George Barris. Barris is among others the man who built the original Batmobile, used in the campy series from the 60’s, and he’s also well-known for falsely claiming to be involved in building and designing the original Ecto-1.

Trivia: Ecto-1 was originally supposed to be jet-black, but since a majority of scenes take place at night this meant the car would be almost invisible. The crew instead chose to go with the white paintjob and the red wings.

4. Batmobile (Batman, 1989)

The first time I saw Tim Burtons take on Batman I was 11 years old and watched it in the local grindhouse. Almost immediately it became one of my most loved movies ever, and the Batmobile presented in the movie was a major contributor to this fact. Previously I had only seen the Batmobile in the cheezy 60’s series, and even though that vehicle had a certain charm it couldn’t compare to the roaring beast in Tim Burtons interpretation.

No, this was a radically different kind of car. It was long, dark and voice-controlled. The looks combined the sleek elegance of sportscars from the 30’s with a jet-black exterior and extreme performance. Just like the Gotham City presented in the film it was dark, powerful and dangerous.
Various rumours insist that every single gadget on the car was fully functional - this included the extremely powerful gas turbine powering the vehicle. According to this rumour the gas turbine consumed fuel at such a rate that the car could only be driven for about 15 seconds. Personally I’m very skeptical to the validity of these rumours, but it would’ve been neat if it was true.

A few years ago I read an article about some guy in Stockholm who was building his own exact replica of this Batmobile. He constructed it on a custom chassis with a Chrysler V8 for power and some kind of rocket-engine for looks. This vehicle was of course completely road-illegal but apparently it never stopped this guy from occasional night-time cruises around the city preventing crime.

When watching the movies it seems as if the Batmobile is more like driving a boat than a car since it has a gas-throttle instead of a shifter. The car also makes an appearance in the sequel from 1991, where it’s nefariously sabotaged by The Penguin.

Unfortunately the Batmobile descended into a swamp of silliness when Joel Schumacher took over the helm. At least until…

3. The Tumbler (Batman Begins)

Yup, that’s right! Until Chris Nolan took over and re-invented the franchise. The Batmobile is the only car to nab two spots on this list, and this is solely thanks to it existing in so many different incarnations.

The vehicle presented to us in Batman Begins is more inspired by the vehicle driven by Batman in the “Dark Knight Returns” comics by Frank Miller. In that comic the “Batmobile” is more of an ironic and darkly humorous description for a huge tank. Rather than wheels it’s equipped with gigantic caterpillar tracks and easily crushes everything in it’s path.

So, it was obvious to most Batman-fans that was the catalyst for the re-invented Batmobile. In this movie the Batmobile is the result of a secret project conducted by Wayne Enterprises prior to Bruce Wayne becoming Batman. It was designed as a bridging vehicle, to jump across rivers and quickly erect bridges. They never got the bridge-part to work, but the Tumbler worked just fine. Bruce Wayne acquires the vehicle and presto! The new Batmobile is ready - even though it’s never referred to as such in the movie.

Chris Nolan was very specific about how he wanted to shoot the vehicle. He wouldn’t accept any CGI since he felt it wouldn’t look authentic, and thus a total of six cars was built for the various stunts. Two of them were full-scale and completely drivable, these were used for the road-scenes. The other four were built in smaller scales to shoot the jumps and roof-top chases.

Memorable dialogue:

Radio dispatcher: “What street is he taking?”
Cop in cruiser: “He’s not on a street, he’s flying on rooftops!”

Confused cop in patrol-car to dispatcher: “Could you just tell me what it looks like?”
(Tumbler roars past)
Cop: “Uh, never mind!”

2. Pursuit Special (Mad Max)

In 1979 a young Mel Gibson made his debut on movie-screens across the globe in what would become a cult-movie. That movie was Mad Max and painted a dystopian vision of an Australia in a not-too-distant future where the bad guys outnumbered the heroic cops. Mel Gibson portrayed Max, the terse and somewhat bitter cop who makes himself an enemy of a motorcycle gang, and loses not only his family but also most of his soul and purpose in life as a result.

Mad Max and especially it’s two sequels are well-known for two things - amazing car-chases and outrageous stunts. Even if the first sequel (The Road Warrior) introduced a slightly deeper western-derived story the car-chases were always the main attraction for viewers. Right in the middle was Max and his legendary vehicle: the black Pursuit Special.

The Pursuit Special (or as it’s sometimes called: “the last of the V8 Interceptors”) started it’s life as a fairly ordinary australian musclecar from the early 70’s. It’s a Ford Falcon XB GT Coupe, but it wasn’t until it got transformed into the Pursuit Special that it began it’s life in fame. Several modifications were made to the car, and during filming of The Road Warrior it was extensively modified as well, with among other things huge gas-tanks to fit into the fuel-starved australian desert where the movie takes place. Several of the modifications were however completely estetic and served no other purpose than looking badass. The huge supercharger sticking out of the hood is the most visual example of this, since it was completely non-functional.

The Mad Max-trilogy set most of the standard for many movies taking place in a post-apocalyptic future. Practically every movie in this genre since then has emulated some aspect of Mad Max or it’s sequels. The most obvious is Kevin Costers watery epic “Waterworld” which by many (including me) is essentially The Road Warrior but on water rather than in the desert. Unfortunately it also lacks everything that made the Mad Max-trilogy so awesome.

Pursuit Special served in two movies. Originally sold after the first movie wrapped it was re-acquired and showed up in the first sequel. The second sequel has no Pursuit Special in it, unfortunately. After that the car survived various tours among private collectors and then ended up in the Cars of the Stars-museum in the UK, where it can be seen together with among others the General Lee from the Dukes of Hazzard.

****DRUMROLL****

1. DeLorean DMC-12 (Back to the Future-trilogy)

That’s right! Doc Browns car from the Back To The Future-movies is without a doubt the coolest movie-car ever! This is not the first time that car receives that accolade, various other polls and such around the net concurs with my opinion. Personally I cannot think of a car that beats this one - not only does it look amazing but it also travels through time as well!

In the movies the time-machine is based on a DeLorean DMC-12 from 1981. When BTTF was in pre-production the original plan was that Doc Brown built his time-machine into a refrigerator! This was scrapped when the producers got worried that kids might try to mimic this, climb into their fridges and then get locked inside. The obvious replacement was a car of some kind.

Like Doc Brown himself also points out:

“The way I see it if you’re gonna build a time-machine, why not do it with some style!?”

Also, again according to Doc Brown, the cars stainless steel-body was advantageous for the flux dispersal. That’s always nice.

The choice of the Delorean was also influenced by the movies plot combined with how the Delorean looked. The producers felt that if a Delorean went back to the ’50s the futuristic styling of the car would make it look like a spaceship, and this added to the anachronistic tone of the film. The numbers for how many cars were used varies depending on source, but according to the comments track on the DVD’s a total of four were used. Three of them were built and used during filming, of which one got smashed in front of the freight-train. A fourth got chopped open to allow filming inside of the vehicle.

In the three films the time-machine goes through several changes. At the end of the first film it’s undergone hover-conversion and equipped with a fusion-reactor since providing plutonium for each trip proved to be a giant headache. In the second film it got stolen and used to alter the timeline, and in the beginning of the third film it was discovered in an abandoned mine after having rested there for more than 70 years. It also got struck by lightning several times, as well as being chased by both indians as well as the cavalry.

The sad fate of the time-machine was however to be smashed by a freight-train, but before that happened it gave us three wonderful movies filled with paradoxes, time-travelling, comedy and plenty of insanity.

Despite it’s own coolness the DMC-12 was never very successful as an automobile. It was heavily plagued by several engineering errors and planning mistakes. In the movie Marty bumps his head repeatedly on the gullwing doors, something that also was common for real-life owners. Add to this that the car was equipped with a badly under-performing engine which in the US version didn’t exceed more than 130 BHP. It was a common problem as well that the heavy doors (filled with stereo-components, electronics and airconditing equipment) would lock it’s owner out of the car due to the pistons holding up the doors being under-engineered. Another common occurrence was the draining of the cars battery if said doors were left open too long; this was due to the decision to use halogen-lights for doorlighting, and the thirsty bulbs would quickly drain the battery giving the driver a nasty surprise.

Trivia: The original script used a test-demolition of a nuclear bomb as the means by which Marty manages to get the 1.21 gigawatt required to activate the flux-capacitor. The Delorean would drive into the explosion, and this would charge the circuits and send Marty back to 1985. Steven Spielberg and the other producers felt however it would be unreasonably expensive to film, as well as difficult to produce convincingly as a special effect. Instead the producers opted for the lighting-strike.

—

Contender that just didn’t make the cut: the APC from Aliens. That was also a really nifty car - the neatest feature probably was that it was bigger inside than outside!

—

There, that summarizes my top-ten list of the most amazing movie-cars ever. The overwhelming deduction one can make from this list is that most of the really cool movie-cars appear in films from the 80’s.

Disclaimer: This list is almost exclusively based on my own personal opinions. I’ve tried to research the facts presented here to the best of my ability, but any errors or omissions is my own fault. Most of the facts come from my own personal trivia-center inside my head, and I’ve tried to confirm them as best as possible. Others come from around the net, but apart from chasing down the producers of each film and asking obscure questions this is most likely as good as it’ll get.

—

(This is a translation and slight update/rewrite of my earlier Swedish-language posting from back in May ‘07. I feel that there’s a lot of writings in my previous three years that might be enjoyable to people who don’t understand the language. Postings that I’m a little extra proud of, and thus I’ve started translating a few of them for your questionable enjoyment.)

So, last night me and the girlfriend finally got around to watching Death Proof, Quentin Tarantinos half of the Grindhouse-project he shared with Robert Rodriguez.

—

A psychotic man calling himself Stuntman Mike stalks two different groups of women, using his heavily modified car to perform murderous deeds on them.

—

Now, I really like Pulp Fiction, and while I tolerate watching Reservoir Dogs I was left with a deep feeling of dissatisfaction with his later works. Jackie Brown was watchable but Kill Bill really didn’t do it for me. In fact, Kill Bill didn’t do it enough for me to watch the other half of.

This meant that I wasn’t frothing at the mouth when I heard about Death Proof the first time.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that I disapproved of its existence - I’m a movie-geek just like mr Tarantino and I know what it’s like to want to make your dreamproject. The difference between us is that he’s got the resources to do it.

No, rather I was a little worried that this might turn out to be too nerdy and too pretentious. That’s what I felt Kill Bill was like; a neat idea that might’ve sounded great as a fanboy-fantasy but should’ve stayed that way since it in my opinion took itself way too seriously.

Last night however we were starved for movies and decided to give Death Proof a go.

It turned out to be an excellent decision, and in my opinion this is Tarantino at his best. Not only does it give tribute to a whole genre of exploitation-movies but it’s also incredibly fun. It’s quite clear that Quentin knows his shlock-movies and he manages to copy it without making it into a cliché.

Sure, this movie isn’t exactly the most intellectual out there - but it’s not meant to be either. The plot is essentially non-existent and the real gem of the movie is (like most Tarantino-flicks) the dialogue. There’s sexy babes, there’s hot cars, and there’s some truly spectacular car-chases. There’s also tons of references to various other more or less obscure movies (the least obscure being Vanishing Point) and all the variations of the F-word is sprinkled liberally throughout the conversations between the characters.

All in all this is a gorgeous, crazy and sometimes hilarious tribute to a dead genre. Definitely recommended.

(On a sidenote, me being a fan of musclecars from the late ’60s and early ’70s found it great seeing so many excellent representations of the same in this movie.)

I love music. Music fills my world in almost any situation -sitting in front of the computer, talking a walk, relaxing in bed- there’s hardly any situation or place where I would refuse some excellent music. My taste in music is also rather eclectic and wide. I listen to almost everything from delta-blues to old-skool techno to death metal to progressive rock to folkmusic to reggae to classical music.

One thing that I’m also completely convinced of is that music is best experienced live. There’s really nothing that beats a great concert with competent musicians having a blast, and inviting the audience to share it with them.

Due to this, there’s a lot of artists and bands that I wish I could see live but for one reason or another can’t. In most cases it’s because either the artist is dead or the band is lacking a key member to make it happen. This list originated as a top-ten style list but even when I didn’t consult my catalogue of music and just limited it to the bands/artists that I could name from the top of my head I easily exceeded ten of them.

These are bands/artists that were too magical to be merely recorded, and the only true way to experience them would’ve been to see them in concert. Unfortunately I came of age too late to be able to do just that in most cases, and that’s why they’ll be consigned to being a dream never to see realization.

Thus, I give you the Top Ten + Four Bands/Artists That I Wish I Could See In Concert:

Jimi Hendrix

Well, this is a bit obvious. Who wouldn’t have wanted to see what is arguably one of the greatest, most influential and creative guitarplayers in history? I’ve seen some footage of Jimi performing, and the man knew how to play. Not only did he know how to handle the guitar, he was also crazy enough to always try to expand his music and playing style. A true legend who was brutally taken away from the world far too early.

Janis Joplin and the Big Brother Holding Company

Now, Janis and her backing band aren’t the most talented or technically brilliant musicians ever. At least not in my humble opinion. Instead, what really made them intense as musicians was an extremely raw passion for what they were doing. Unfortunately in that process Janis soaked herself in alcohol and exited stage left.

The Doors

I first discovered the Doors in my early teens. My parents had their LP’s and it didn’t take long until I was sitting in darkened rooms listening to Jim Morrissons haunting lyrics set to the background of the musical fusion provided by the rest of the band. Unfortunately drugs and alcohol got the better of Jim and just like the two previous on this list he departed early. Without him, The Doors just weren’t open for business any more.

Stevie Ray Vaughan

The blues-man from Texas is someone I would’ve loved seeing in concert. A more intense man working in the electric-blues field I don’t think ever existed - playing until his fingers literally bled and then supergluing the calluses back to keep on playing. A master of the electric blues, with a presence heavier than a black hole and with a limitless talent for playing the guitar. The only thing up for question was his sense of fashion - or lack thereof. Despite cleaning up his act and kicking drugs and alcohol fate wanted things differently, and Stevie perished in 1990, only 35 years old.

White Zombie

Inventors of Groove Metal and the brainchild of Rob Zombie. Disbanded in 1998 and even though all the members are still alive there’s no way of White Zombie ever re-uniting. Even if they did, it probably would be a pale copy of what they once were. Rob prefers to direct gory horror-movies and the other members don’t seem to be on speaking terms with each other.

The Ramones

Sheena was a punkrocker, and Sheena sure as hell listened to The Ramones. Joey, Johnny, Dee Dee and various other Ramones are probably being really annoying in some alternate dimension these days since most of them are dead. The Ramones were an unquestionable influence on multiple genres and bands, and I’d have loved seeing this crazy fourpiece live. The kids were hopped up and ready to go then.

Bob Marley & The Wailers

Say “reggae” to anyone and they will say Bob Marley. Combined with his backing band The Wailers he made reggae popular and somehow managed to not sell out or lose his ideals along the way. Sure, there were/are lots of other great reggae bands, but none that really managed to match Bob Marley and the Wailers.

Jefferson Airplane

One of the few bands from the psychedelic sixties who managed to survive that era without losing members to alcohol or drugs, despite being heavily into both. In fact, the only reason the grim reaper has started visiting them lately is because of old age. Jefferson Airplane later morphed into Jefferson Starship, and when Grace Slick lost the rights to that name it morphed into just plain Starship and was responsible for some really horrible 80’s hits. But good old Jefferson Airplane was at the height of 60’s psychedelia, and if you follow the white rabbit you might find them, or at the very least a hooka-smoking caterpillar.

Johnny Cash

The man in black was a legend. Strip him down to a guitar and his singing and he was intense and brilliant, and also with a weird sense of humor. Backed by the Tennessee Two (later Three) he was at his best. The man who fused country and rock and who walked the line between them almost died until he found June Carter and later on God. Despite leaving this realm in 2003 his music will keep on talking to people for centuries.

Led Zeppelin

Who said brits can’t play blues-tinged rock? Led Zeppelin was just like it’s name implied - huge and heavy. Jimmy Page took the blues and added his own flourishes, coupled it with Robert Plants vocals and added a crazy drummer and the mixture was pretty much done. Unfortunately John Bonham died in 1980 and that solidly put a stop to any future Led Zeppelin-albums. However one reunion show has been announced - with the late Bonhams son Jason behind the drums - but none the less it will be impossible to experience the real Led Zeppelin.

The Who

A once great band who for the last 20 years have morphed into a nostalgia-act. Sure, they still release albums every now and then, but essentially The Who of today is the guys version of Cher. Endless farewell-tours and no real substance, living on former glory. In my opinion The Who died the same instant that Keith Moon kicked the bucket, since he was such a catalyst for the other bandmembers.

Lynyrd Skynyrd

The vital parts of the “real” Skynyrd didn’t survive a plane-crash in 1977. Ronnie Van Zant and guitarist Steve Gaines bought the farm in the crash, and unfortunately that turned out to be the heart and soul of Skynyrd. A decade after the crash they reformed with some of the original members, brought in Ronnies younger brother Johnny on vocals, but the magic was unfortunately gone.

Pink Floyd

Most of Pink Floyd still lives on, except for Syd Barrett who died in 2006. None the less, Syd was only a brief influence on the Floyd, and most of what me and other enthusiasts view as the “real” Floyd is the one helmed by Roger Waters and David Gilmour. Unfortunately relations have been tense between the two for decades, and apart from four songs performed in 2005 for the Live 8 concerts they haven’t shared a stage for almost three decades.

Queen

Last but definitely not least is the band fronted by one of the most wonderfully flamboyant men to ever grace a stage. Freddie Mercury died from AIDS in 1991, and even though various other singers have sometimes performed the songs together with other bits of Queen the band cannot exist without Freddie. Freddie was a vital part of why Queen worked, and filling his shoes is a tough call. So far no singer has even come close to matching his showmanship and energy.

The floor is now open for suggestions and debate.

One of my minor enjoyments is b-grade scifi-movies from the 80’s and 90’s. Not the really cheesy ones, but the ones who are at the lower-end spectrum of budget and ambition. They’re still major enough to have gone the rounds in the cinemas, but lack a lot of things in pretty much every other department.

They have a tendency to take themselves way too seriously, to have silly and overblown special effects and vehicles and to generally play loose and wild with various concepts as well as laws of physics. These movies have a very cheap cartoony style, even though that style usually is the result of inexperienced directors using the same techniques that they’ve copied from other low-budget inexperienced directors.

Also, it’s surprisingly common that these movies involve at least one or two actors who either are quite respected even at the time of release, or who will become respected and famous a few years later. In other cases, it’s actors who used to be respected or famous but who has for one reason or another has fallen from grace.

These movies are usually located in the bargain-bin at various supermarkets, electronics outlets and gas-stations. You know the kind, three movies for five bucks, that kind of deal.

Two excellent examples of this type of movie is Virus from 1999 and Tank Girl from 1995. Both have this very typical cardboard-style of filmmaking, being extremely corny and usually quite enjoyable mostly due to being very cardboardy and corny. Other excellent representations of this sub-genre is The Running Man from 1987 featuring the current gubernator of california as well as Repo Man from 1984.

Late last night I encountered another movie fitting this genre of mediocrity. It was named Freejack, a scifi/action-movie from 1992 featuring Emilio Estevez and among other people Mick Jagger (!) of Rolling Stones-fame.

The premise is a deliciously silly farce about time-travelling bounty-hunters who take people just before they die and then in the future sell their bodies as hosts for dying peoples minds.

The story itself serves as a great example of how overblown these movies usually are. They almost always have outrageously campy visions of future dystopias and Freejack is no exception to this rule. Most of the movie is set in 2009, two years from now, but features hovercraft limos with bubbletop canopys for the drivers as well as various other really silly “predictions” about the future such as a mega-corporation named McCandless Corporation who owns and operates pretty much everything in the world. But, 2009 is two years away so who knows what might happen?

This is a beautiful hangover-movie. Mick Jagger is wonderfully ridiculous in his various “badass” outfits sprouting cartoony lines, and Emilio Estevez is as gloriously one-dimensional as always.

If you manage to catch this on late night cable and have a penchant for silly scifi-movies then you won’t be disappointed. It’s also excellent stocking-stuffing for people who love this stuff, a useful tip since christmas is rolling around in less than two months time.

Alright, the topic isn’t exactly 100% true and I agree that it’s a bit to swooping. But I do think that sometimes humans are so amazingly dumb that it boggles my mind. Also, by “humans” I don’t mean the individual being but us as a collective whole.

Why?

I was spending time in the shower trying to fix our stupid shower-arrangement-thingamabobber. It’s this fancy piece of crap that was installed by the people who owned this dwelling before us, and I’m certain that they chose this thing on looks alone and in order to spice it up visually for whatever buyer was interested. It looks really impressive and adds some flair to the experience of taking a shower, but since it’s a under-engineered piece of crap it tends to break every now and then. Fixing it is relatively easy, essentially you take it off it’s brackets and re-attach the whose that came lose. No big deal.

Now, do me a favor and hold out your arms in front of you. Straight out. Now please count them for me. How many arms did you count?

Unless you’re outside of the statistical spectrum known as “normal” the answer to my question should be two. There are a few rare occasions when humans are equipped with more than two arms, but this is always due to something going wrong somewhere. If a human is equipped with more than two arms, the superfluous arms are never useful; they’re just annoying bits of meat and bone stuck somewhere they shouldn’t be. On the other side of the spectrum are humans who were born with two arms but lost one or both of them. They might have played a little too loose or fast with the chainsaw, or realized too late that juggling live handgrenades maybe wasn’t the best idea.

Thus, humans are never equipped with more than two functioning arms. That’s the absolut maximum of useful hand-equipped appendages that we are capable of commanding.

So why do humans insist on designing things that require more than two arms to install or operate?

Trying to put the thing in the shower back onto the brackets would’ve required that I grow an additional two or three arms. I got three of the screws in place, but the fourth one was at the weirdest angle and would’ve required at least four functioning arms to screw back in. Whoever the hell designed that thing in the first place would’ve received a fat lip if from me if I ever met them.

In fact, judging by my language and complete loss of calm they should count themselves lucky if all that happened to them was being skinned alive and then getting boiled in lava. The fat lip would just be a bonus.

So, I guess it was their good fortune they did not have to be present while I tried putting the damn thing back on it’s brackets. I gave up on getting the last screw in place and will wait until Ann-Sofie returns home from her trip, then have her help me hold the damn thing in place while I put the final screw in place.

Yeah, this is yet another why-linux-rules-post but whatever…

Back in spring me and Ann-Sofie inherited a printer. The previous printer we’d had was a low-end Epson that came as part of the computer package Ash bought before I met her. It did the job, but like all inkjet printers it was temperamental, wasteful and the printer was very vulnerable to dust. I don’t know how much paper we wasted having to clean the heads of that thing over and over, and it gobbled ink as if it was powered by a gas-turbine. Also, like all inkjets it was expensive to maintain in the long run since ink is more expensive than gasoline and even human blood.

Overall I’ve never really been a fan of inkjet printers. Sure, they’ve come a long way from their humble beginnings in the early 90’s, but they’re still a very poor excuse for printers. There are few peripherals that can cause such extreme irritations as printers, and since inkjet printers are squarely aimed at the Joe Schmoe market-segment they’re of course the ones that are the least properly engineered. The software and drivers are usually alpha-quality and as such it’s usually a bit of an adventure operating a consumer-grade inkjet printer, regardless of how “userfriendly” the manufacturer claims it to be.

Lasers however have usually been the opposite way. Since laserprinters historically get aimed at offices and businesses they usually receive somewhat more polish on the engineering of hardware and software. This is also reflected on the price - lasers ain’t the cheapest printer around. At least not on the initial purchase, but they weigh it up by being more reliable and more economic in the long run.

Color-lasers however were the domain of nerds wet dreams up until maybe a year or two ago. Hell, I remember when I worked in the US back in ‘99 and a customer special-ordered a color-laser. I can’t remember the exact model, but I’m pretty sure it was a Xerox and costed somewhere around US$80.000. The size is something I am sure about, it was about the size of any average house. Of course, this was the absolute top of the line, spare no expenses-class of printers, and the office that ordered it had some pretty crazy printing-needs. None the less, a lot of fan-photos were taken of the staff with that printer when it arrived.

Today even color-lasers have come down a bit and are readily available to anyone who wants something better-than-average when it comes to printing. Sure, they’re still several magnitudes more expensive than a cheapo inkjet, but you’ll get a really decent color-laser for around 600 US bucks these days. That’s a lot cheaper than 80 grand.

Our laser-printer is of the color-persuasion. We inherited from acquaintances of Ann-Sofies parents, with the provision that the toner was more or less empty and that we’d probably have to replace it pretty soon. Fine, it’s still a functioning laserprinter! And in color! Give it here, right now. Never look a gift-horse in the mouth, especially when it’s a colorlaser.

The printer turned out to be a Konica-Minolta 2300w. No frills whatsoever, but I knew it was a laser and thus was an arm and a leg (plus various other bodyparts) above anything that any inkjet could offer. It turned out to be a bit temperamental, when we first tried installing it under Windows it sometimes refused to acknowledge itself. After some tickling and general prodding it started to behave, but after both me and Ash switched to Ubuntu it got relegated to the corner since it seemed to lack support under Ubuntu - which I found a bit weird since it was a very capable printer and as pretty much any decent laserprinter was postscript-compatible. It was additionally weird since I’d found a Linux-driver and since it showed up just fine in among all the other USB-devices.

None the less, neither of us had much interest in fiddling with it, and for the bare printing needs we had the old Epson worked fine under Ubuntu. Of course with all the annoyances of a cheap inkjet, but par for the course.

Earlier tonight I decided to have a go at it again. Gutsy had supposedly a much improved printing-system over Feisty, so I decided to try it out. Same thing. Printer plugged in just fine, but printings just never happened no matter how much you clicked the “print” button. So I hit the forums, and found this thread which suggested that installing the m2300w-wrapper package from the repos made everything worked. Thus, I installed that package, restarted the printer and presto - IT PRINTS!

About the only complaint I now have about this thing is that it’s virtually impossible to place anywhere sane. All but one side of it has some panel which either needs free access or has some hatch that might need opening for jammed papers or change of toner. The only workable place to put it is literally in the middle of the room with nothing around it.

The seasons pass without us being able to affect them at all.

Spring is a very brief affair up in the northerner parts of Sweden, it’s usually taken care of in about a month or so - from start to finish. The first tinglings usually show up here in Umeå around the end of April, and by the end of May it’s full summer. I personally don’t like the first part, the slush and mush that covers everything as the snow melts more quickly than it can be dissipated. But I do love the other half of it, the dry half, the half when grass starts to grow again and the trees sprout leaves. I love how you go from wearing heavy jackets and pants to shorts and t-shirts in the period of just a few weeks.

Summers are absolutely gorgeous up here. Anyone who thinks that summers up in the northern parts of Sweden are chilly affairs have obviously never been here. Even though Umeå is quite a bit south of the arctic circle we get a similar phenomenon to the midnight sun, and there’s no lack of warmth. The great summers are mostly thanks to the gulf-stream, making sure that we get shorts-inducing temperatures.

Fall (autumn) is something that I both love and loathe. I love the first half, the dance of colors that takes place in every tree. I love taking walks and soaking it all in. The other part is not so great though, and I think most people who experience it will agree with me. It’s the part where all the leaves have long since fallen off, and the darkness of winter has arrived, but not the snow. It’s very cold, very wet, and there’s no snow to reflect the light at night so everything is a compact darkness.

That part ended last night. As I was getting ready for bedways I took a gander out the window. It was snowing. I had no choice but to go out and snap some quick shots of it.

And today it lookes like this. I was lazy and took this shout out through the office-window, but it still looks a lot more inviting. I’m doubtful as to whether this snow will stay put, I think the ground is still too warm to make it last. But it sure looks cozy, and more snow will fall.

UPDATE: As I suspected it didn’t last very long. I was surprised to find the snow still here the day after it arrived, but the day after that it had turned to slush and later the same day it was all gone. The first snow never lasts.

Ann-Sofie confessed today that she’d been propagating Ubuntu and Linux to strangers! I knew she’d recommended it to some family members even if they didn’t catch on, but I feel really proud.

My baby is out converting people to Open Source/Free Software!

I converted her to Linux a few months back, and even though she occasionally gets cranky and misses things she’s grudgingly admitted that her frustrations around computers have lessened since she freed herself from Windows. Sure, she still runs Windows inside a virtual machine in order to run Photoshop, but in every other aspect she’s 100% Linux and free software. She’s even started exploring the commandline, getting down and dirty with BASH and all that good stuff.

I think I’m gonna cry some tears of joy now!

Sure, I don’t think everyone is ready to convert just yet. You have to be willing to make a few (very few) sacrifices in order to reap the benefits. Primarily you have to accept that it will be different, and this is where most people fail. But it’s that way any time you change a platform, whether it’s to a Mac or Linux or whatever. I say that as long as you do the switch away from Windows you’re doing a good thing, regardless of what you switch to.

So watch out for Ann-Sofie! It’ll just be a matter of months before she’s a bigger open-source loudmouth than even I am.