Blogcritics Author: Daniel Woolstencroft

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Apple's WWDC Keynote: Hell Freezes Over... AGAIN!

Daniel Woolstencroft — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:16:48 EDT

A few years ago, when Apple slotted one of the most important pieces of their puzzle firmly into place, they used the line "Hell Froze Over". They were talking, of course, about the release of iTunes for Windows; a software release which arguably set the course for Apple's future endeavors - the huge success of the iPod, the "Switcher" phenomenon, PC Guy vs Mac Guy, and more. I firmly doubt that Apple would be where they are today, were it not for the historic decision to port iTunes to the Microsoft platform. And they've done it again: Safari has been ported to Windows in the apparent hope that it will mean a greater market share for the browser. It worked before, it might work again. But Apple's real plan is surely twofold. Firstly, and most obviously, they want to give people a sniff of the sweet Apple scent that's proved so tempting. Windows users can now sample iTunes (an application the Steve Jobs recently said was "many people's favourite application on Windows") along with Safari, and the ever faithful Quicktime. Apple, and Jobs, have proved that iTunes can tempt people away from Windows; time will tell if Safari can achieve the same thing. The second reason for Apple's release of their browser for Windows is likely to be the iPhone. Jobs' WWDC keynote covered three things: Leopard's new features, Safari for Windows, and the iPhone's support for "Ajax and Web 2.0" as its means of extensibility. If the iPhone's version of Safari really is the same as its desktop counterpart, then releasing Safari for Windows essentially provides both Windows and OS X users with the means to create Javascript based applications that should function on the iPhone. Again, time will tell as to how successful this move will be. How does Safari fare on Windows? See for yourself. It's fast - although perhaps not as fast as Apple would have you believe; pretty - in a minimalist kind of way; and will be instantly familiar to anyone who's used Safari before. It's also a little memory hungry (after a brief browsing session it was cheerfully consuming 200mb on my machine), doesn't support the "back" button on my mouse, and won't let me use control + enter to add "www" and ".com" to a url in the address bar; clearly a little adjustment is needed, but it would be nice if Apple made the transition slightly easier for Windows users. Also, there's no introduction or help screen to point out the "unique" features that Safari offers: you're very much left to your own devices. Safari is a novel download for now; I'm not prepared to make a call on its suitability as a Firefox or IE challenger on the Windows platform, nor its overall efficiency as a browser; I'm going to suck it and see for a while. It's certainly useful for Windows-based web developers, although it does somewhat remove the justification for having that shiny Mac under your desk... It's also quite disappointing to say that Safari was the biggest announcement of the keynote. There was no new hardware reveal, and no genuinely exciting new facets of the iPhone or Leopard were uncovered. Leopard is pretty: but we assumed that it would be. The new desktop looks very nice, yet I get the feeling that none of the ten features discussed by Jobs are going to sell new Apple hardware - which is reflected by the drop in their stock price since the keynote. Apple's reveal on the iPhone's "third party support" was a real damp squib. Compared with their competition - Windows Mobile, and the various flavours of Symbian - support for Javascript applications seems insubstantial. We've already been told that the iPhone runs a "full" version of Safari on the "real" Internet, so it goes without saying that it will support "web 2.0" applications Javascript, and by extension AJAX. Is Apple's reality distortion field failing? We shall see. I think for now they've had to divert power away from the main engines; they're trying to get both Leopard and, more immediately, the iPhone shipped with success and that's holding up potential new big hardware launches, and those all important new iPod devices. Once these two milestones are hit, things should really start to get interesting.

Daniel Woolstencroft is the brains behind Is There Food? - containing topics as diverse as zombies, Apple, technology, film, and other assorted strangeness.

Hardware Review: Bubba - The Linux-Based Mini Server

Daniel Woolstencroft — Mon, 21 May 2007 21:34:37 EDT

Microsoft would like you to think that their new Home Server products are something new; affordable devices that sit quietly in the corner of your home, providing network backup for your most important files, and streaming your media around your home. While Home Server is definitely a new approach for Microsoft, it's a niche that their nemesis Linux has been filling for some time. If Microsoft wanted a masterclass on how to craft their latest assault of consumers' homes, they should look to Excito and their Bubba Mini Server. Bubba is an endearing little beast. In many ways it looks like an external hard disk with a very nice finish, but knowing that the device packs so much extra functionality into its metal casing gives it a certain extra cuteness. It's extremely well built, and feels far heavier than I expected. It's got a single, unassuming LED on the front (which stops flashing when the device is ready), and an Ethernet, USB (x2, one for printer sharing and one for a USB pen drive), and power socket on the back. I was happy to note that it's got a single-pin power socket; most of my external hard drives sport multi-pin connectors, which always feel flimsy. Not so with Bubba. Inside its metal chassis lies Bubba's hard disk drive, and a variety of sizes are available from Excito (Bubba is currently offered without a drive, or with an 80, 320, and 500 gigabyte version). Care has been taken when selecting their drives, and it shows: Bubba is very, very quiet. Plug the little box of tricks into both the wall socket and your network, wait for the LED to stop blinking, and you're done. All that remains is to connect to Bubba over your network, by visiting "http://bubba" with your web browser. And that's the beauty of it all. It just works. Plug it in, turn it on, and connect to it. If you'd like to copy files across to Bubba, you simply map a drive or connect via its network path ("\\bubba \storage" if you're curious). Each user on your network can have their own password-protected account, and they're all managed through the previously mentioned web interface. It's fast, and extremely handy.When you're signed in to Bubba as a named user, it's possible to start a number of downloads. This is neat; it keeps everything in one place, saves running your PC, and means you can (with a little firewallconfig) queue up downloads while you're out and about (for example at the office, or on the road with a mobile device). These downloads can be http, ftp, or BitTorrent downloads, which is extremely clever. Paste the address of a torrent file into the web administration console's text field, and Bubba automatically does its stuff. Give it a zip file from a website, it'll cheerfully download the file for you. I tested the Torrent download functionality with the Ubuntu 7.04 release, and it hurtled down. The status page updates in real time too, so there's no need to keep hitting the refresh button.The little box has a few more tricks up its tiny, metal-clad sleeve. It can act as an email server, for example, and would be especially handy for backing up your Gmail account, or similar server-based email setup, for anyone who's cautious enough to want to back up all their Gmail/email data. Another of its features took me by surprise: Bubba had been obediently (and quietly, did I mention it's quiet?) doing its thing on my network for a day or so, when I opened iTunes to add a couple of CDs to my library. Automatically (which means "without doing anything", just so I'm totally clear) iTunes picked up the Firefly shared library on Bubba. Curious, I dragged a few MP3s across to Bubba's automatically (there's that word again) created Music share, and as if by magic (you could say, automatically) they appeared in iTunes, all ready for playback. Slick. Bubba's manual is astonishingly detailed. It covers pretty much every angle (including multiple operating systems), and offers both simplistic and advanced takes on many subjects. There's even a section on "hacking Bubba". For the curious, hacking Bubba involves connecting to it with a command line session and having your wicked way with it. You see, Bubba runs an embedded flavour of Linux, and as a result its potential is limited only by your imagination. Well, more accurately: its potential is limited by your imagination, your Linux hacking skills (again, for the curious: Debian Sarge), and how much the embedded ARM CPU can cope with. During my time with Bubba, I didn't take advantage of any of the flexibility of running on the Linux platform, but the potential is there. Excito's web forums are populated by an enthusiastic audience, and their own helpful developers. It's a real joy to read through some of the discussions; you get the impression that if there was something you wanted the box to do, someone would have the answer. I submitted one or two feature requests while I had the device, and although I didn't get a response, Bubba is actively supported by its creators. A new firmware update was released in mid-April, which enables a number of media sharing options (including support for Nokia's Internet tablets, using Mediatomb), and fixes a number of bugs. Not that I ever noticed any. While Microsoft's Home Server is looking like a very nice product, its pricing is still unknown, and it's potentially not going to be a great fit for non-Windows environments. Linux desktops, or even Mac OS based computers, would probably get along much better with Bubba. Philosophically at least, I can see Mac and Linux users being happier with Bubba sitting under their desk than a Home Server (it's a Microsoft product, after all). In fact, it surprises me that Apple haven't made anything like Bubba as of yet; a device that plugs straight into your network and offers you easy file backups, email, and all Bubba's other features would make a lot of sense. That said, there's a good chance it would be a lot less flexible than Bubba. However, Home Server does have its own brand of fault tolerance in its favour, which is something that Bubba doesn't have. If you store a set of files on Bubba and the disk dies, chances are you're going to lose that data. As a result, Bubba is perhaps best used for storing non-essential files, and as a second home for your most important data such as family photos, videos, and documents.To achieve this, it's easy to use a tool (such as Microsoft's free SyncToy) to automatically mirror folders from your computers onto Bubba. Used like this; as a transparent, invisible backup of your most essential documents, Bubba could save your bacon. I tested this configuration during my time with the device, and it worked flawlessly.Bubba doesn't do anything a full-sized PC can't; you can implement every single feature, including all the web management, by installing a Linux distribution and throwing in a few apps. But there are a few important things to consider: the first I've already mentioned; Bubba does all of this out of the box, with little or no config. There's no setup to work through, no packages to install, and no command line to master (unless you want to). I've mentioned the second thing too: it's quiet. Whisper quiet would probably be an accurate way of describing it.Thirdly, and probably most importantly, Bubba does all this while consuming under 10 watts of power. While downloading a few torrents, my Bubba was using about 8 watts. To put this in perspective: my desktop computer, a Core 2 Duo Intel machine, uses about 150 watts of power while doing the same thing. My old Dell 8400 uses more. And my server (a big old IBM beastie) consumes 200 - 250 watts of power while doing its thing. That's a huge difference, with serious environmental and financial implications. I've convinced myself in the past that I need that IBM monster for a variety of things, most significantly Push Email, but knowing that Bubba can do many of the same things using so little power has really made me start to re-evaluate the situation. In other words, I've started to think about ways to get rid of the power hungry beast in my garage.I love this piece of hardware; I want to put one in every room in the house, and make them all replicate data backwards and forwards to each other. I want to wave them in people's faces when they visit my house, and hop up and down with glee until they understand just how very bloody clever I think Bubba is. I had a genuinely heavy heart as I packed Bubba away in his little box, ready to send it back to Excito. It's such a stunningly efficient piece of hardware that every home should have one (no, really, every home should have one - you need to be backing your files up onto something). Now I just need to figure out how to raise the cash to get one of my own.The Bubba Mini Server is available online from Excito and, just in case you hadn't guessed, is highly recommended.

Daniel Woolstencroft is the brains behind Is There Food? - containing topics as diverse as zombies, Apple, technology, film, and other assorted strangeness.

TV Review: Doctor Who - "The Lazarus Experiment" (WooWho #6)

Daniel Woolstencroft — Sat, 19 May 2007 02:36:14 EDT

Three members of the Woolstencroft family are contributors to BC Magazine. Each discovered the BBC's Doctor Who at a different point: Tony goes all the way back to Hartnell, Ian started with Pertwee, and Daniel came on board during Davison's stay in the Tardis. The Script Tony: Solid but clichéd. What more can you say about yet another “mad scientist turns himself into monster” story?Ian: Sometimes it pays to keep things simple. There isn’t a lot of plot here – mad scientist builds a machine to make him young, things don’t work out as planned and mad scientist turns into a monster who feeds on people, the Doctor has to stop him – but it’s a well-written story that gives both the regular cast and the guest stars plenty to work with.Tony: And at least Stephen Greenhorn is sensible enough to keep the Jones family involvement reasonably brief.Ian: I thought Martha’s family were far less annoying than anticipated, and that has as much to do with the writing as the performances. There is also some intriguing foreshadowing of events to come, just who was the mystery man and what did he whisper to Martha’s mum? This is Greenhorn’s first Doctor Who script but hopefully it won’t be his last.Daniel: Yes, it's a cliché - this is pretty much a Doctor Who tribute to The Fly - but there's some excellent dialogue here, mainly from the Doctor and Lazarus. The performances - as we'll mention in a moment - help a lot, but if the script sucked initially they'd have nothing to work with.The EffectsIan: The visual effects team have come up with one ugly-looking beastie. They may have borrowed parts from elsewhere (the creatures “mouth” brings to mind the bad guy in Blade II) but it works and while you’re never really convinced it’s anything but a CGI creation some nice interaction with the environment helps. Tony: Given the constraints of the budget, this was a top-notch effort. Great makeup on Mark Gatiss and a fantastic design on the creature. This was the best episode of the series so far.Daniel: Who cares if the monster was clearly CGI: it was incredibly cool. It's like some sort of Human Transformer; you can see the ribs and the shoulders, and despite its huge size suspension of disbelief isn't a problem. Easily one of the best Who creatures I've seen, and some of the best CGI animation the series has given us so far.Cast and Crew Tony: I could have lived without the hackneyed, creature-POV shots, but aside from that this was a much better effort from director Richard Clark. The acting honours go without a doubt to Mark Gatiss, completely convincing under a ton of makeup playing a 76-year-old. I’m now firmly convinced that the Doctor has made a huge mistake and picked the wrong sister as his new travelling companion: Gugu Mbatha-Raw is far more appealing as Tish than Freema Agyeman, who appears to have very little dramatic range. Reggie Yates is about as good as you’d expect a TV presenter to be (not very) and Adjoa Andoh is very good at frowning (and not much else).Ian: Tennent and Agyeman are back at the top of there game here with some snappy interplay between the two leads. As previously stated I thought Martha’s family are a lot better here than they were in “Smith and Jones” and Gugu Mbatha-Raw as her sister Tish is actually rather good. I wouldn’t mind seeing her hitch a ride in the TARDIS at some point either.Daniel: Funnily enough, my wife turned to me during this episode and described Agyeman as having a kind of "rabbit in the headlights" approach to acting. And much as I'd like to argue, I don't think I can. Thank God for Tennant then, who is incredible when the script allows. Despite that, I totally agree that Mark Gatiss steals the episode. It's a spellbinding performance that never hits a duff note. It makes me wonder what sort of a Doctor Gatiss would have been...Ian: Gatiss is simply wonderful as Professor Lazarus, he’s both humorous and monstrous in equal measure. The best baddie so far this season.Overall Ian: A return to form after the terrible two-part Dalek story. This shows how good the series can be with decent writers and less reliance on old villains. The trailer at the end gave us a glimpse of what’s ahead in the rest of the series and it looks like the best could still be to come - Derek Jacobi, John Simm and the return of Captain Jack! Daniel: Much, much better than the Daleks, and the sort of inconsequential Saturday-night entertainment that Doctor Who excels at when it's done right. Agyeman hasn't quite clicked properly yet, but it took Billy a few episodes. We shall see. Ian: A little less sonic screwdriver would be nice as well.Tony: I’d put this one in the success column. However I’ve been vaguely dissatisfied with this season and I think I now know why. Billie Piper was the heart of the show and with her departure, the spark seems to have gone out. There isn’t the same emotional impact that used to be there and Freema Agyeman doesn’t seem able to replicate that. It’s still an entertaining show but it’s dropped several rungs down the ladder.WooWho returns shortly with "42".

Daniel Woolstencroft is the brains behind Is There Food? - containing topics as diverse as zombies, Apple, technology, film, and other assorted strangeness.

Music Review: John Prine & Mac Wiseman - Standard Songs for Average People

Daniel Woolstencroft — Mon, 7 May 2007 16:17:02 EDT

It's a modest title, ain't it? Standard Songs for Average People. It's quiet, unassuming, and makes no pretension about its worth or importance. It's also a title that's equal parts accurate and misleading; Standard Songs is such a beautiful, worthy album that it deserves a far less reserved title, and yet it's so comfortable, mellow, and soothing that its title fits. I'll admit upfront that I had never heard of Mac Wiseman prior to this record; I guess living in the UK means the Bluesgrass hero has been off my radar. That said, up until I saw him live back in 2005, I was unaware of John Prine too. Ignorant fool that I am! Since seeing him on stage, it's fair to say I've adored Prine's work. He's a great lyricist, and has a unique charisma as a performer. You won't find any of Prine's lyrics on this album though; it's a compilation of covers performed by Prine and Wiseman, backed by a great set of musicians. The Opry's Carol Lee Singers also appear on half of the album's tracks, with a sound that reminds me of The Carter Family's backing work with the late Johnny Cash. Much of the album has that sort of feel to it; somehow feeling old-fashioned, yet clearly a recent piece of work - oddly timeless. It's a magical soundscape. Songs covered range from Kris Kristofferson's "Just the Other Side of Nowhere" (a personal favourite of mine), to "Old Cape Cod", "Old Rugged Cross", and the album's opener "Blue Eyed Elaine". The voices of Prine and Wiseman sound old and experienced, yet not in a gruff over-the-hill kind of way. They sound hopeful, content, and at peace. It's blissful. There's much fun to be had too: "Don't Be Ashamed of Your Age", "Pistol Packin' Mama", and "Saginaw Michigan" - a track Prine performed when I saw him, the inclusion of which makes me a very happy man - will all put a smile on your face, just as certainly as the performers had a smile when they recorded it, I'd wager. The beauty of this album is the range of emotions covered: aside from the fun, tracks like "Old Dogs, Children, and Watermelon Wine" have a sense of melancholy to them, while "Old Rugged Cross" keeps its chin up and tries to be hopeful in the face of adversity. You can almost picture Prine and Wiseman recording this, or at least settling down to decide what to record. Despite an age difference of over twenty years, they seem to have a genuine chemistry and compatibility that enriches each song on the album. And despite the fact that Prine is twenty years Wiseman's younger, his voice is such a well worn instrument (perhaps in no small part due to the throat cancer surgery he experienced in 1998) that there's nothing but a sense of equality amongst the two of them. They're just two old dudes putting the world to rights, reminiscing, and having a little fun. In short: I adore this album. It travels across a range of emotion and sentiment, is never anything other than a splendid joy musically, and sticks with you long after you've finished listening to it.

Daniel Woolstencroft is the brains behind Is There Food? - containing topics as diverse as zombies, Apple, technology, film, and other assorted strangeness.

Movie Review: Spider-Man 3 - Dear Sam Raimi...

Daniel Woolstencroft — Sun, 6 May 2007 20:16:05 EDT

Dear Sam Raimi, I hope you get this, because I really wanted to ask you -- what went wrong, man? I guess you probably don't care; the movie's making more money than anything ever has, and the sales of merchandise should make another fortune, but surely you've got to admit that it sucked?And I think, deep down, that you really know that. Maybe you pushed the self destruct button: "Hey, I know, I'll make a crap third movie, and then I'll have my life back; I can kick the web-swinger out of my mind, and get on with Evil Dead 4 or maybe another movie with Bill Paxton and Billy Bob" - but I don't buy that. You're on to a good thing, right? And what else is there to work on -- some movie about short dudes with hairy feet?But Sam, you said there'd be no Venom. I remember it, a while back, you said you'd never do it. But then, in the movie, the Spider-Man 3 movie, he's there. Venom. The black-suited, snappy jawed thing. Except his face kept peeling back and that Topher Grace dude was in there (who was pretty good, I liked him in this). So we've got Venom, and then Sandman (nice job on not letting Thomas Haden Church act until the last five minutes of the movie by the way, was that one of your ideas too? You might as well have cast David Hasselhoff), and New Goblin (who I thought was pretty cool).Even though you said there'd be no Venom, I could forgive you. I could, if you had actually managed to get that Tobey Mogwai guy and Kirsten Dunce to act. Maybe they couldn't remember what acting was; maybe all the money had clouded their minds or something? They should take a look at the second movie: the stuff that Alfred Molina's doing in that one: that's called "acting". The stuff that Tobey and Kirsten are doing here: that's not acting, that's sucking.And that dance sequence! What were you thinking? Who told you that was a good idea? Having women check Peter Parker out in the street, just 'cause he's taken a leaf out of Johnny Cash's wardrobe, and started wearing his hair like someone out of My Chemical Romance? WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!? I was ashamed to be in the cinema. I'd happily sit through Ghost Rider another three times to erase the memory of those sequences from my mind.You turn J. Jonah into some kind of laughing stock, rewrite Spidey's origin story to better suit your movie (which was DUMB by the way - oh, and we're suppose to just accept that the "actually trying to do right by my daughter" Sandman would pair up with the "actually, want to kill everyone 'cause I'm evil" Venom?), waste James Cromwell and Theresa Russell, and bore the living bejesus out of me for over two hours.And what was the point of Gwen Stacy? Other than to give you a new love interest when Dunce decides she's not coming back for another movie. Although if you ask me, she didn't really come back for this one: she looked like she really wanted to be somewhere else; somewhere far, far away (much like I did, at times). Oh, and Bryce Dallas Howard -- much cuter than Kirsten Dunce. I can't help but think she'd have made a better MJ. At the very least Bryce looks like she's pleased to be in the movie; Kirsten just looks embarrassed. Does she not like being a redhead, Sam?"But Dan", you ask, "surely you enjoyed my CGI-tastic fight sequences?" Um... no. The first one, with Harry and Peter, that was cool. I enjoyed that one. The Sandman effects -- also cool. And, I'll admit, I enjoyed the big finish -- that construction site scrap with Mega-Sandman and Crappy-Venom. But why'd you have to go an insult everyone's intelligence with a flashback to the church bell during the finale? Not cool. And why'd you have to take a) so long to get to the end, and b) so long to actually end the Goddamn movie? I can't hold it all against you though; getting Bruce back was inspired. The Monty Python turn he does here -- magnifique! I want a director's cut of this movie, that just has the CGI, Bruce sequence, and the Ted Raimi sequence (minus the cringe-worthy sending up of JJ). That might make a good movie.Sam, Sam, Sam. I say this one word to you now: "STOP!" Hang up the Spidey-suit. Walk away. Go make Evil Dead 4, or some new horror movie with virtually no budget. Hell, make The Hobbit, that'll at least be a major change from this gig. But maybe that was your plan all along?

Daniel Woolstencroft is the brains behind Is There Food? - containing topics as diverse as zombies, Apple, technology, film, and other assorted strangeness.

Music Review: Steven Seagal & Thunderbox - Mojo Priest

Daniel Woolstencroft — Sun, 6 May 2007 20:04:19 EDT

I'm going to get this out of my system in the first paragraph: Steven Seagal obviously thinks he's Above The Law producing an album like this. It's a good job I don't have a dodgy Ticker, as my ears were Under Siege listening to his blues album. So I made an Executive Decision to turn it off. Seagal might end up having a musical career that's Hard To Kill, but blues lovers will be Out For Justice and may even have Seagal Marked For Death if they don't like what he's done. Maybe the CD should be destroyed in a Fire Down Below, or beaten until it's Half Past Dead? Apologies for that, and I'm glad I've got that out of the way; but I feel slightly guilty as a result. It just shows how easy it is to mock Seagal for doing something like this, and it's easy to take a cynical view; along the lines of "movie career ceases to be the brilliant example of action heroism that it once was, and given a capacity to produce music - and an apparent fondness for the blues - an album is produced". But that view sells things a little short, and doesn't tell the whole story.In truth, what we have here is a fairly standard (dare I say "dull"?), if overlong and deeply self indulgent, blues album.The opening track, "Somewhere In Between" is catchy, guitar-heavy blues-pop, and it's a good start to the album. Seagal's vocals are initially a surprise and they suit the tone of this track well. The second track, "Love Doctor" features a frankly awful female vocalist, and is the first of the really traditional blues tracks on the album. Seagal is in whispering and slurring mode; but it still suits. Seagal isn't the problem here.The guitar work on the introduction to "Dark Angel" is pleasant, and we arrive firmly in trademark "whispering" Steve Seagal territory; it's a vocal delivery that any fan of Seagal's movies will recognise. Once again, this is a catchy number and suits Seagal's vocal delivery. The line "we all got to die someday" is one that he can get away with too; it's the sort of lyric you'd expect from an action hero.So far, so good. Track four, "Gunfire In A Juke Joint", is a fairly minimalist track, with Seagal playing the bad man, and telling us "you know I gots to go, somebody done me wrong and it gone have to be corrected. If I can't find them soon, I'm the one who'll be...suspected." There are guitar solos in the form of standard blues riffs; nothing particularly awe-inspiring, but nothing embarrassing just the same."My Time Is Numbered" continues the hard man theme. Seagal is still whispering, it still just about works; but by this stage everything's starting to blur together. Five tracks in I started to wonder where this was going. The songs all adhered to the same firmly established blues conventions, and didn't seem to have the confidence to differ."Alligator Ass", track six, picks up the pace a little, but with a set of nonsensical lyrics, Seagal's low whispering vocals, and the lack of anything terribly catchy, it fails. Seven, "BBQ", is a more up-tempo, boogy-esque track. It's got another unpleasant screechy female vocalist, more whispering, and an extremely long guitar solo. Seagal can play, but is he playing anything anyone wants to listen to?While listening to the album, it becomes apparent that Seagal is taking this quite seriously. It's a shame: many of these tracks would benefit from an increased dose of self-deprecating humour. Maybe this comes across more in his live shows, but I can't shake the impression here that Seagal is taking this very seriously indeed."Hoochie Koochie Man" finds Seagal singing lines like "He gone makes pretty womennnnn", and includes another long solo. It's at this point that I really started to lose interest, and I was only halfway through the album.Perhaps with a producer who's less willing to allow the indulgence, a similarly less indulgent track listing, and more variety and catchy tunes, Seagal might be onto something. He's certainly not an abysmal singer or guitarist (when the song suits), but this just doesn't work."Talk To My Ass" is a song about making the woman in your life give you what you want, and be grateful about it! The repetition, tone, and content all leave a bit of a sour taste, with lines like "I went to bed last night, tried to give my baby some love, she looked at me kind of surprised and she said baby you got your own two pair of hands, but you ain't got no glove"; and it includes another tiresome guitar solo."Dust My Broom" is more of the same: repetition, standard blues trappings; it all sounds much the same as it has before. "Slow Boat To China" is an appropriately named slow song, but with inappropriate vocals for Seagal. He can't pull it off and it's an awful, awful track. It also marked the end of my patience with this album. Things should have come to a conclusion long before this.A Bo Diddley track, and a few short untitled tracks round out the album, and leave the listener feeling a little bemused, not to mention drained, exhausted, and wanting part of the last hour or so back.It could have all worked so well: sticking to the songs that suited his voice best, and making the album far shorter than it is, could've left a better impression. Perhaps the first album, Songs from the Crystal Cave (which I've heard is less "bluesy") is more enjoyable. Regardless, this is one that fans of the blues - and any fan of Seagal's movie work who's curious - would perhaps be best avoiding, which is a shame.

Daniel Woolstencroft is the brains behind Is There Food? - containing topics as diverse as zombies, Apple, technology, film, and other assorted strangeness.

TV Review: Doctor Who - "Daleks" (WooWho #4 and #5)

Daniel Woolstencroft — Fri, 4 May 2007 22:16:49 EDT

Three members of the Woolstencroft family are contributors to BC Magazine. Each discovered the BBC's Doctor Who at a different point: Tony goes all the way back to Hartnell, Ian started with Pertwee, and Daniel came on board during Davison's stay in the Tardis. This week WooWho faces its biggest challenge yet -- we were all subjected to a two part episode: "Daleks in Manhattan" and "Evolution of the Daleks"The ScriptIan: Where to begin? Writer Helen Raynor obviously owns a copy of the “Writers Guide to Stereotypes” and isn’t afraid to use it, treating us to such clichés as the tough showgirl with a heart of gold, the greedy industrialist who’ll do anything for power, and the disfigured man watching from the wings as his lost love performs onstage. Then of course there are the pig-men. The Daleks have had slaves before – the Robomen in "The Dalek Invasion of Earth" and, most memorably, the Ogrons in several Pertwee-era stories spring to mind – but this time the fiendish pepper pots have merged human and pig DNA. Why? God only knows, for it seems clear Raynor doesn’t have a clue. Unless Dalek DNA is a close match to that of a pig.Daniel: There's this idea that Doctor Who terrifies young children, causing them to hide behind the sofa lest the nasty beasts on screen "get them". This episode nearly had me doing the same, thanks to its ludicrous plot - why would a heavily armored Dalek decide to make itself far more vulnerable? Amongst other puzzlers - and numerous additional flaws.Ian: This would have been bad enough as a single episode but it’s been padded out to a two-parter by falling back on the old Who tradition of having a lot of pointless running around in corridors (or in this case sewers). I’d say this was disappointing, but I never had high hopes for it in the first place. Tony: Laughably awful. How anyone could have thought this would work on screen is beyond me. It may have worked better (not that it worked at all for me) if they’d played it for laughs, but there are some ludicrously overblown lines culminating with "The Doctor is in!" One of the most unintentionally hilarious episodes I can remember.The EffectsIan: It’s the make-up effects team that make the biggest impression this time; unfortunately it’s not a favourable one. Did someone find the pig-head mould from "Aliens of London” in a box somewhere and decide “hey, pig-men would be cool!”? If so they were sadly mistaken. The pig-men are laughable, and not in a good way. And the best thing that can be said for the Dalek-human hybrid is that I’m relieved they didn’t call him Davros! Tony: In a word, unconvincing. And the whole pig-men idea was just idiotic anyway.Ian: Depression-era New York is reasonably well realised by the visual effects team, but being a “real” place it’s not very exciting. Then there’s the now regular sight of flying Daleks, although this time it’s a little less convincing. Daniel: Oh good -- a stupid-looking Dalek-human hybrid prosthetic, stupid-looking pig-men, a stupid-looking half pig-man, and Daleks that look pretty stupid thanks to how they've been shot (the Dalek-cam was laughable). Some of the shots from high up on the Empire State were passable, but there wasn't much to recommend, or enjoy, here. Cast and CrewIan: Terribly fake American accents and hammy performances are the order of the day from the supporting cast. As for the leads, David Tennant looks like he’d rather be somewhere else and Freema Agyeman, after several fine performances, does nothing here, but then the script gives her nothing to do. Tony: Almost universally bad. Dreadful attempts at accents, Freema Agyeman has gone back to amateur hour and not even the usually reliable Tennant can make this dialogue work. Some of the sloppiest direction yet seen in the series.Daniel: Miranda Raison needs to stick to Spooks (MI5); her accent here was utterly diabolical. Hugh Quarshie does a better American accent than the last time I saw him (in the excellent, if misunderstood, horror Nightbreed), but it's still deeply crap. Ryan Carnes is actually American, but surrounded by so much crapness actually sounds as cheesy as the others. Tennant gets virtually nothing to do, as does Agyeman. The less said about Eric Loren's Diagoras the better, I think. In a word: lousy.Overall Daniel: I never thought I'd be bored watching Doctor Who, and I never thought I'd be thinking "please, make it stop" either. But I was, and I did. Oh dear...Ian: A terrible story that almost had me remembering the John Nathan-Turner years with fondness. As I credit Nathan-Turner with killing the show (or at least putting it into a coma for fifteen years) that should give you some idea of how much I disliked this two part story. Still, Doctor Who fans have always had to take the rough with the smooth. Lets hope Davies gives the Daleks a rest now.Tony: An unmitigated disaster. I felt like I was watching a Carry On film as people ran down tunnels being chased by pig-men and Daleks, then ran back again. Oh, and please stop with the flying Daleks – they just don’t work. Even with a decent budget and effects team a flying dustbin is not going to look even remotely menacing. I found it almost impossible to keep from bursting out laughing whenever the new human-Dalek hybrid spoke with its ridiculous fake accent, and a head surrounded by very badly animated tentacles.Daniel: I thought he sounded too much like ex-Conservative Party leader Michael Howard to take seriously too... but that might just be me.Tony: I’m sure next week's (despite featuring members of the appalling Jones clan) will be better – it can’t possibly get any worse.Daniel: "The Lazarus Experiment" does look like it might be quite good again; a return to the single part episode, and a format that should hopefully work. But, yes, the family return!WooWho returns in a few short days, with "The Lazarus Experiment".

Daniel Woolstencroft is the brains behind Is There Food? - containing topics as diverse as zombies, Apple, technology, film, and other assorted strangeness.

Music Review: Loudlife - Loudlife

Daniel Woolstencroft — Fri, 4 May 2007 21:37:00 EDT

Loudlife's press release and artist bio mentions a "Soundgarden meets Led Zeppelin" sound. As a huge fan of both, I couldn't let such bold claims go untested. After several listens to their self-titled debut album I'd say it's an accurate claim, but that Loudlife aren't yet at the lofty heights of the bands they clearly draw their inspiration from.Loudlife are fronted by Lorraine Ferro; the aforementioned bio suggests that she's been 'round the block a few times - in the nicest possible way - but I've genuinely never heard of her. This triggered a number of alarm bells.Similarly, the scattering of names like Steve Tyler, Joe Perry, Layne Staley and Jerry Cantrell throughout the band's description didn't do much for my confidence levels. I feared that Loudlife would be a terrible wannabe rock record; devoid of any merit, a dreary sound-alike which I'd struggle to listen to once and never go back to. It's a very harsh judgement to make when you've never even heard the record, but as the old saying goes, "you should never judge a rock band by its bio". I'd give the album a fair shake.My fears were, for the most part, unfounded: Loudlife is actually a very good album. Far, far better than I ever expected it to be, and perhaps better than it deserves to be. As my opening paragraph suggested, this band isn't in the same league as such legends as Led Zeppelin and Soundgarden, and the comparison does them no favours. All those bold claims on their Myspace page do exactly what they're there to do: hook in potential listeners by dangling their musical heroes as bait. But it's a double edged sword: setting an expectation that they can never truly live up to.Ferro is a great vocalist. There's no doubt about that. She's powerful, capable, and doesn't sound like a demonic harpy. She switches styles a few times during the album, and as a result reminds me of any number of people. I can't put my finger on precisely who I think she sounds like, but here's a few names: Melissa Etheridge, Sass Jordan, Emmy Lou Harris, Chris Cornell, Pink, and Robert Plant. It's an impressive list isn't it? Chances are anyone with more than a passing interest in any of those artists is going to want to have a listen to Loudlife. So now I'm just as guilty as whoever wrote that bio I mentioned earlier.Musically the album's perfectly acceptable too. Producer Teddy Kumpel does a good job, and the whole thing sounds slick and polished. Geoff Sobel does a good job on guitar and his riffs are always pleasing. That nasty bio compares him to Jimmy Page, which is stretching things a bit, so we've got that paradox again: he's talented, and performs well on the album, but your expectations have been set at such a high level that you can't help - on the first few listens - to feel a bit let down.The album's tracks fall into two camps, for the most part. There are the satisfying, enjoyably crunchy rock offerings, and slightly lacklustre ballads. When Loudlife click - coincidentally, it's at these times that they most sound like Soundgarden - they're a really good listen. Tracks like the opener "Let Go Of The Wheel", "Tear In The Curtain" - on which Ferro could be Chris Cornell's long lost sister, and "Step Away" all steam along nicely; Ferro's in the zone, Sobel's riffs are juicy and delicious, and the lyrics don't really matter enough to disturb the balance.But it's on the ballads, the slower tempo numbers, that the lyrics start to really hurt the album. "Icarus" offers us lines like "he's crazy as he is sane" and its chorus contains "I guess I'm just too afraid to die, oh Icarus can you teach me how to fly?". It's a trite, unsatisfying track that doesn't sit comfortably with its grungier siblings. "Far Below The Surface" is another of my least favourite tracks, the chorus - "break me, mend me, save me, spend me" - is one example of why it just doesn't do it for me.Loudlife are at their best when indulging in their funky Soundgarden inspired rock. They're not Led Zep, not Alice in Chains, and not Soundgarden. Given another couple of albums, they might get close. In fairness, I can't stand Soundgarden's early "Louder Than Love" album, so Ferro and co. are already off to a better start. I look forward to seeing what might happen for the second album; hopefully with just a little more discipline, but the same funk and enthusiasm.My yardstick for a good album is this: if I'm in the mood for that particular genre and I don't scroll past it on my iPod when browsing, then it's good. Loudlife has been played a few times as a result of the iPod browse; by my somewhat bizarre measurement it's a success. Regardless, the chances are you'll either be intrigued by what you've read here so far, or totally turned off. Either way, I'd urge you to have a listen to the tracks on the band's Myspace page. It'll give you a good indication as to what you'll get if you decide to try the whole album, and you may well find something you like. I know I did.

Daniel Woolstencroft is the brains behind Is There Food? - containing topics as diverse as zombies, Apple, technology, film, and other assorted strangeness.

Product Review: Proporta's Gadget Bag

Daniel Woolstencroft — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:15:59 EDT

Chances are you carry quite a few bits and bobs on a daily basis. As a self-confessed geek, I carry (in no particular order) an iPod, a pair of headphones for the iPod, a wallet, a NintendoDS Lite, a mobile phone, a hands free kit for the mobile phone, some form of portable charging device for both the iPod and mobile phone, car keys, house keys, a book, a notepad... the list goes on.In the winter when wearing a nice, roomy coat or jacket, I've got a number of pockets in which to store my equipment. That said, there's always the danger of reaching critical mass; at which point you're going to need a bigger jacket (or maybe you'll just explode). A Clint Eastwood-style duster or greatcoat is ideal, but lacking in practicality. Inevitably, the summer comes and my jacket (or greatcoat) needs to be retired, and I'm left with a bit of a problem.Enter Proporta's cleverly named Gadget Bag, which just might be the answer to the above problem.Previously I've used either a satchel-esque record bag to carry my possessions, or the RoadWired Pod. The satchel is great for larger items, but has a tendency to eat your iPod and not play nice and give it back when asked. The Pod served me well, but is designed in such a way as to hold very specific items (there are obvious sections for batteries, for example; not something I carry). And it looks quite a lot like a camera bag. The Gadget Bag is smarter than your average bag: it's a lot flatter than a camera bag, and yet it seems to hold a marvelous amount of gadgetery. It's designed with three main compartments (although it arguably has four). The two symmetrical front compartments - which are removable if they're surplus to your requirements - are designed to house your iPod, or your phone; whatever you like, really. I've comfortably fit my iPod (other mass storage MP3 players are available) in one side, my smart-phone in the other, and still had room to spare. Then there's the larger rear section - this is twice the size of the front compartments, and will easily consume a couple of DVD cases. Within this third compartment is the fourth, a smaller pouch-like pocket that's intended to house headphones, I suspect. It "Velcros" to the inside of the bag, and has comfortably accommodated my USB keyfob since I started using the bag. Each of these sections (with the exception of the pocket) has a rubberized opening to allow the use of headphones or a wired hands-free kit. Without opening zips or puncturing your bag, you can easily thread your cables out of one compartment and into the other, or your ears, or hands. As an example, a battery powered charging device can live in one of the smaller front compartments, and the cable can run into the second and charge a device.Thanks to their removable nature, you can leave the rest of the bag behind and just take one of the smaller sections with you; handy if you're just taking your iPod out to the car, or over to a friend's house, but don't want to remove everything from the bag first. The split between the sections is key to the bag's success: you're never rooting around trying to find something, it's either in the left compartment, the right one, of the larger rear one; it's a logical split that doesn't mean you have to learn your way around a maze-like sack with numerous nooks and crannies.There's a real cleverness to the Gadget Bag; it's clear that a lot of thought has gone into it, and it's been created by someone who is in the same boat as me: lots of gadgets, and not enough pockets. The only (minor) gripes I had were the lack of a smaller carrying handle (it just has a shoulder strap) and the colour - even though I've warmed to the bag's silver, I thought it would be great to see a choice of black or silver bags. I was quite pleased to discover that Proporta now offer a black version, which eliminates the larger of the two, admittedly quite minor, complaints.This is a wonderful bit of kit, easily the best bag I've ever carried; versatile enough to accommodate everything I've wanted to put in it (and there's a lot), and sufficiently lacking in bulk so as not to get in the way, or on your nerves.If you read the first paragraph of this review and recognised yourself, even to some small degree, then it's well worth investing in the Gadget Bag. No self-respecting geek should be without one, and there's a lot to like even for "normal" people.

Daniel Woolstencroft is the brains behind Is There Food? - containing topics as diverse as zombies, Apple, technology, film, and other assorted strangeness.

TV Review: Doctor Who - "Gridlock" (WooWho #3)

Daniel Woolstencroft — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:52:20 EDT

Three members of the Woolstencroft family are contributors to BC Magazine. Each discovered the BBC's Doctor Who at a different point: Tony goes all the way back to Hartnell, Ian started with Pertwee, and Daniel came on board during Davison's stay in the Tardis. Each week, they will offer their take on the latest episode. WooWho continues...The ScriptIan: It's a bit more like BooWho this week for me, I'm afraid. The old SF chestnut of a nomadic community gets the Russell T. Davies treatment in this absurd tale of the ultimate traffic jam. Is he trying to make some kind of statement about our over-reliance on technology? It would seem so as, instead of taking his usual approach of playing it for laughs, he appears to be in deadly earnest.Tony: Not exactly sure what happened here. What started out as one of the most ludicrous plots ever seen on Doctor Who suddenly turned into a surprisingly moving piece on loss and loneliness. Quite an impressive achievement. Daniel: The Motorway elements didn't really work; it felt like too much of a forced analogy with today's environmental issues - something that Russell Davies does quite often, I've noticed. However, beyond that (the concept of the planet being wiped out, and the Face of Boe) this was another decent effort.Ian: And why, with a wealth of classic villains to choose from, do we see the return of Patrick Troughton's naff crab monsters: the Macra?Daniel: I suspect it was a bit of fun: RTD stated as much in the Doctor Who Confidential episode that followed "Gridlock".The EffectsTony: Brilliantly effective transformation of Father Dougal (Ardal O'Hanlon) into a cat. Unfortunately The Motorway wasn’t quite so well done. A little over ambitious perhaps?Ian: At times the special effects were quite good; and the ending - with the flying cars zipping around New New York - looked great. Just a shame that the previously crap plastic Macra have evolved into the equally crap CGI Macra.Daniel: The Motorway struck me as a brilliant way to cut costs on this episode: every set's the same (pretty much), the exhaust fumes conveniently fog the front window so you can't see anything, and it's easy enough to film. Admittedly the external jump-y bits - as the Doctor goes all Minority Report and tries to get to Martha - looked quite good, and mucho blue screen must have balanced the cheapness of the interiors.Cast and CrewTony: Even hiding behind the cat prosthetics Ardal O’Hanlon is still eminently recognisable -- great cameo.Daniel: I'd like to see that character again actually: I'm sure Brannigan's got a bit more depth than we got to see here. Tony: Anna Hope did well with the return of Novice Hame. Freema Agyeman manages to improve from the previous episode, finally showing some potential in the closing scene, and Tennant shows once again why he’s one of our best actors: absolutely brilliant.Ian: Yes! Thank God for Tennant and Agyeman! Between them they just about manage to make this mess watchable. With the pair spending much of the episode apart, Agyeman gets to show what she can do out of the Doctor’s shadow and, strange as it may seem coming in such a bad story, this is possibly her strongest performance yet. She even has a very touching moment with Tennant at the episode’s close, managing to get the Doctor to open up a little. Daniel: Agyeman did well, I thought, particularly in the "Old Rugged Cross" scene. But David Tennant was simply stunning in this episode. For a start, he's got to be utterly convincing when talking about his homeworld, Gallifrey, a place the audience has never seen, and chances are will never see. More importantly, Tennant's never seen it, but you believe - totally and unquestionably - that he has. Then he's acting with a large prosthetic head, and actually making us believe and care! I felt genuine grief when the Face of Boe passed away!OverallTony: I thought, after the first ten minutes, that this would be a complete misfire of an episode. An absolutely ludicrous plot contrivance gets things off to a very shaky start; but then, due mainly to a fantastic performance from David Tennant and a very emotional reunion with the Face of Boe, it turns into a bit of a triumph. “You are not alone” -- very intriguing.Ian: With Davies having resurrected the Macra I’m left wondering, “What next, the Zarbi?” Give us the Ice Warriors or the Sea Devils if you must plunder the old series! Still, at least The Face of Boe’s dying message leaves me with the hope one worthwhile villain will make a return this series.Daniel: Ian, you're such a fanboy.Ian: Guilty as charged. Next week brings the Daleks and while that would normally be a cause for excitement, two things have me worried – some very suspect American accents in the trailer and writer Helen Raynor providing her first Who script, after working on the less than spectacular Torchwood. Here’s hoping it turns out all right.Daniel: I agree. I thought this was going to have very little merit, but somehow it managed to turn itself around. It's a testament to the strength of the production team that they could produce an episode like this and make it work. It looks like they're going to need all of their powers next week though -- piggy-headed sewer dwellers, time traveling Daleks, and fake American accents like nails down a blackboard do not bode well. Tony: A good dose of piggy-headed sewer dwellers could be just the thing to take your mind off the comedy accents. I'd much prefer it if the Daleks weren't making an appearance in every series. It really is a case of familiarity breeds contempt.WooWho returns next week with "Daleks in Manhattan".

Daniel Woolstencroft is the brains behind Is There Food? - containing topics as diverse as zombies, Apple, technology, film, and other assorted strangeness.