|
|
 Posted November 3rd, 2008 at 1:46PM
PRO: My techie side loves the attractive design, unique display, and slim profile. The resurgent luddite inside me loves the simplicity of it all.
CON: Unorthodox menu and messaging take getting used to; some limitations if you text message heavily.
I don’t remember the exact series of events, but the other day I stumbled upon information about the Motorola F3 and got the hankering to buy one. The F3 was released late in 2006 and meant for developing countries like India where the cellphone market is just beginning to explode. The US version followed shortly. $33 off of eBay and a few days later my shiny new phone arrived. So far, I love it. Excerpts from its wikipedia entry:
Motorola FONE F3
physical size: 47 x 114 x 9.1 mm
weight: 68 g
“The F3 is the first mobile phone to use electronic paper in its screen. Motorola uses the term ClearVision to describe the new display, which is manufactured using E Ink’s electrophoretic imaging film. The electronic paper main display allows for the phone’s thinness (no glass), longer battery life, and outdoor viewability (paper-like reflectivity). It has a backlight for the keypad and a slit that projects the backlight onto the screen so the display can be seen in darkness.
The characteristics of the display are fairly restrictive. The text display contains only two lines of six characters each, making the use of data services and text messaging (SMS) less practical than on standard LCD displays.
Since the F3 has only two lines of (fixed) stuff icons on the top and bottom of the display, as well as one line of six 14-segment characters and another line of six 7-segment numbers available on its display, the user interface is very different from the usual menu structure normally found on mobile phones. The only thing resembling a (flat) menu is accessed by pressing left/right on the central button: It allows writing an SMS, reading a saved SMS, call history, choosing the ringtone (out of seven melodies), setting date and time, and setting the alarm clock. The menu is visualized by fixed icons in the bottom row, following the left/right pattern of the navigation button.”
To do anything besides making a call, using your address book, or what’s displayed in the menu mentioned above, you must enter a 3 digit code surrounded by asterisks (for accessing rarely used settings). Want to play games, access the internet, or take crappy 2- or 3-megapixel photos? THIS PHONE CAN’T DO IT.
Long-time readers will know I occasionally get sidetracked by slick advanced smartphones with tons of features I don’t need or necessarily want (iPhone *cough*). I’m somewhat of a halfhearted techie, after all. But truth of the matter is, I’m comfortable with a sub-$50 cellphone and my prepaid AT&T account (which has averaged about $100 a year for the past five years). Using the internet on a phone sucks, and so do the games. I don’t need mp3 ringtones, themes, a camera, or any of the extraneous capabilities they throw into phones these days.
I just want my phone for making calls and the occasional text message. And my dog might want to chew on it, too. OK?
Up to this point, I was stuck with ugly obnoxious phones, as the entry-level / prepaid market isn’t particularly innovative or courted by phone companies. The F3 changes this, sorta. None of the technology is particularly new, but it’s well used. The F3 was, when released, Motorola’s thinnest phone – and it’s still far from clunky. The electronic paper display is attractive and easy to read in any light. The fixed “digital clock” style is retro-cool. Reception and battery strength are clearly displayed up top at all times.
Text messaging is simplified and easy to send / receive – with an important caveat. Messages are restricted to one line and you must scroll right / left to read them, which works out intuitively enough for short user-to-user texts. However, with a long enough message (say, automated ones from your provider with a lot of addendum like “reply to this message”), things can start to become a chore.
Design-wise, the F3 fits in with Motorola’s other slim (literal sense) offerings. In fact, the F3 might be thought of as a baby RAZR. The notable differences being the display and the fact that it’s a candybar design, not flip (spin, slide, or whatever the RAZR does these days). I have always much preferred a candybar-type phone since they’re typically more rugged. The F3′s dimensions are svelte, but the weight belies a sense of sturdiness. The one piece front prevents dust and grime from being trapped between keys or underneath the display. There are four colors available (affecting the face only, the sides and back remain black), I went with blue. Very attractive. The flat face makes the F3 look more like a prop than a functional phone. You know the cardboard computers and TVs found in furniture stores?
Reception is an important consideration since I’m on the fringe of service at home, and fortunately the F3 is as good if not better than my previous Nokia, which as a brand is reputed to have strong reception.
Cost, as stated, was $33 shipped, off of eBay. New and unlocked. I swapped my SIM from my previous phone. One slight grumble here was that the F3 uses its SIM code to save all contacts, while my previous phone used its own internal memory. This meant I had to swap the SIM card back to my old phone so that I could use it long enough to write down any contacts I wanted to save (about a dozen all told). Not the phone’s fault.
In a nutshell, the F3 is an attractive back-to-the-basics phone for anyone, savvy or otherwise. It can also make for an excellent second or starter phone. The unorthodox menu and way of messaging can take some getting used to. But after about half a day, I was comfortable with all functions – all BOTH of them, calling and messaging!
Posted November 20th, 2007 at 11:34AM
After x-mas last year, on a whim, I bought a new set of powered speakers for my laptop. We were in Best Buy, had about $100 in gift cards, and found ourselves in the speaker aisle. Our Best Buy is pretty lazy about hooking up the speakers so that you can try them out, but fortunately this section was golden, and we proceeded to crank each set up to compare / contrast. (I love cranking up audio equipment in Best Buy and leaving. The subs in the car audio section are fun but too easy. I prefer to blast the floor speakers with public or Skidmore radio. The keyboard with the loud metronome is fun too.)
Some of the speakers were really lousy. I mean atrocious. But we were impressed with this Klipsch set. So impressed, we decided to buy.
One year later, and they still sound fine. They’ve been in storage over the summer (ie. unhooked on a shelf, collecting dust), so I was worried they’d be a little crusty. You know – connections that cut out, resonations from the speaker boxes. But as luck would have it, they sound as good as when I shelved them.
Specifications, courtesy of the Klipsch website and Amazon.com
THX-certified, three-piece computer audio system
31 Hz to 20 kHz frequency response range
Maximum acoustic output: 106 dB SPL
Subwoofer: one 6.5-inch (16.51 cm) fiber-composite cone
satellites: one 3-inch fiber-composite cone each and one 0.75-inch Poly-compression driver each in a MicroTractrix horn (90° x 40° radiating area)
Speaker power (RMS): 55 watts/channel @ 1% THD, 200Hz – 1KHz (Note: all channels driven)
Subwoofer power (RMS): 50 watts @ 7% THD, 40 – 100 Hz
Max Burst Power: 200 watts @ 1% THD (Note: all channels driven)
Sound is subjective. I had a set of Sony 3-way 6 1/4″ car speakers. They were good quality but sterile. I would almost say tinny or metallic. I prefer a warmer sound. Blaupunkt car audio has always been more to my liking. Personal preference.
It’s like the difference between CDs and LPs. And the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 are firmly in the latter category. Sound is warm and rich without loosing detail. The subwoofer and satellites match nicely, getting loud without overpowering each other. When turned up to ear-bleeding territory, highs don’t overwhelm the mids and lows – which is a good thing. I want ear-bleeding, not headache-inducing.
As a part-time bass-head, I could use more bass sometimes. When turned up, these Klipschs start to get farty and loose definition. At moderate levels the sub can be a tad too boomy. But in this category and price point, that’s always going to be an issue.
My Klipschs have the sub currently dialed at about 11 o’clock and I have iTunes’ “Sound Enhancer” turned on, which creates a fuller bodied sound without messing around with the equalizer. (I find myself fiddling with equalizers after every song or album. The Sound Enhancer seems to get the job done.) And, as I started out saying, I’ve been pleased with the durability of the set. Going on a year with no problems. My previous 2.1 set – a highly reviewed Yamaha model – started cutting out and loosing clarity about a year in.
For computer and light music use – or to replace your TV’s wretched built-in speakers – a 2.1 set like this works fine. 4 or 5.1 is just adding unnecessary cost and bulk unless you’re spending big $$$ on a quality home theater.
For about $100 (about what I paid a year ago, retail is still $149) I’d say the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 are a deal. They’ll be enough to annoy your neighbors next door.
Posted April 9th, 2006 at 7:12PM
Anthony Hopkins is looking old. Or perhaps he just pulls off a deaf, doddering 68-year-old New Zealander very well. Either way, his performance in The World’s Fastest Indian makes for an entertaining, light-hearted film based on true events. Hopkins plays Burt Munro, an eccentric personality from Down Under, whose sole passion in life is his 1920 Indian motorcycle. The year now is 1967, and Munro’s health is failing. He’s owned and slaved away on the bike for the past forty years. His dream is taking it to the Bonneville Salt Flats, a mecca for speed freaks, because of the miles and miles of flat, smooth surface. Munro wants to set a new land speed record.
Munro faces the sort of hardships one could expect – health issues, finances, getting to Bonneville in one piece (with the motorcycle). The film is safe and conventional, the ending a forgone conclusion. First we see Munro in his element, New Zealand. There is the neighbor kid Tom (Aaron Murphy, narrowly walking that thin line between adorable and nauseating), the young scamp who believes in Munro. Fran (Annie Whittle) is the elderly love interest. The biker gang which eventually gives Munro some “beer money†for the trip over. Munro gets to America, where he (predictably) meets a new eclectic group – the cross-dressing Tina Washington (Chris Williams), the “real†Indian Jake (Saginaw Grant). And in the end? Well, we all know what will happen.
Despite the predictability, Fastest Indian is still an entertaining film. The acting is seamless. The characters spend a great deal of time repeating themselves to Munro, who’s a bit hard of hearing. And we’re eventually left rooting for the guy, hoping he’ll make it. Even if we didn’t want to. (After all, the guy is a serious liability on his bike.) Writer / director Roger Donaldson deserves the most credit here, since the film teeters incredibly close to being overly sentimental. He manages to keep it reined in, however, and we get an amusing, feel-good film as a result. The PG-13 rating is laughable, there’s nothing here to offend even the most puritanical viewer. See The World’s Fastest Indian for some innocent fun.
Posted April 5th, 2006 at 2:48PM
Night Watch is the first in a trilogy, based upon the science-fiction novels of Russian author Sergei Lukyanenko. Working with a budget of around $4 million (exceptionally large for Russian cinema) director Timur Bekmambetov created a popular piece of action film for 2004, raking in one of the largest openings for a Russian film in Russia and catching the eye of Fox Searchlight, which bought the rights to it and the sequel (and is currently financing the third). Those accustomed to Hollywood budgets will be shocked at the CGI eye candy in Night Watch – its special effects can compete with the best, proving that innovation is just as important as a large budget.
But Lukyanenko’s sci-fi universe is terribly convulted for a movie, leaving the viewer puzzled and walking out of the theater wondering what he just witnessed. Combine this with static characters and a limp-wristed ending (even taking into account two more installations, the ending here hurts the film), and you’re left wanting to root for a film that doesn’t really deserve it.
In Lukyanenko’s universe, there’s a conflict between Light and Dark, your typical good versus evil, fought between the Others, seemingly ordinary humans who possess supernatural powers. (Originality in cinema is a pipedream at this point.) Their powers vary tremendously, but oftentimes involve some sort of shape-shifting ability. The Other all have a tendency towards drinking blood, and the Dark (evil) Others are referred to as vampires at various intervals.
After a gruesome battle at the beginning of the film, circa 1342 AD, an uneasy truce is settled upon – the forces of Light will watch the day, while the Dark get the night, keeping each other in check. Several hundred years later, in 1990s Moscow, we meet protagonist Anton Gorodetsky (played by Konstantin Khabensky) in a scene which sets the stage for several of the story-lines. He discovers that he’s an Other after a traumatic event (how they often find out, we learn), and then we flash foward twelve more years. The rest of the film spends equal time attempting to create the universe and setting up the overarching conflict – a final battle between Light and Dark. Little is resolved, and the movie feels more like an introduction to the second part (Day Watch, currently playing in Russian theaters) than a film in its own right. We get a taste for the conflict, and issues are raised – whether the good / evil dichotomy is even valid. But we’re left wanting more.
One of the largest problems with the film stems from this universe. It’s as if Bekmambetov spent too much time telling the overarching conflict and not enough time developing the characters or any of the subplots. Anton Gorodetsky changes little through the course of the film, despite an intriguing (but obvious early on) personal link to the overarching conflict. And a static protagonist does not bode well for the rest of the cast. Anton’s “sidekick,†Olga, introduced halfway through (first played by a stuffed owl in a humorous bit, and then later by Galina Tyunina), is brought into the picture, acts as a possible love interest, and then spends maybe fifteen minutes onscreen total. The only real character development comes between Anton and his neighbor Kostya (Aleksei Chadov), which is still never explored, but left for the next two sequels!
The movie also suffers a bit of schizophrenia at times: the special effects occasionally missing the mark, or the atmosphere jumping from dark and serious to humorous and back. The truck-flipping scene (reminiscent of Hellboy) comes to mind as an unnecessary bit of CGI that doesn’t fit in with the feel of the film. And the humor, while decent, comes seldom at odd intervals, in an otherwise sober movie. Is this supposed to be funny?
The music and atmosphere is gritty, reminding the viewer of any sort of American fare, particulary Underworld. The Russian language suits the film (one entertaining scene has a TV showing Buffy the Vampire Slayer, dubbed) and subtitles are treated novelly – instead of staid lines of text at the bottom, the lines are revealed and disappear behind moving characters or objects, or they might turn red and dissolve, like drops of blood in water.
Like any decent sci-fi dystopia, Night Watch makes the audience wish they were in the universe, taking place in the action. It sparks the imagination. But director Timur Bekmambetov would have better served the movie by spending less time on the special effects, simplifying the overall conflict, creating a greater climax and resolution at the end, and focusing his energy working on character arcs and making the subplots more involved. As is, Night Watch is an admirable effort from Russia – and an entertaining piece of film. But it fails to be especially good. For fans of the genre, be sure to catch it. For people who want something a bit different, try it. But for those wanting to see a high caliber film, you might just want to pass.
Posted February 26th, 2006 at 8:05PM
Eighteen years after their debut album, Public Enemy has put out studio release number 10, entitled New Whirl Odor. This album finds all of the original members back together, sans Terminator X (DJ Lord once again taking over duties on that front), on Chuck’s new label Slam Jamz. The album sounds both similar and different from every previous Public Enemy release, something fans will tend to enjoy while others might not.
The new sound comes from different producers than those used in the past – Johnny Juice and Abnormal Dubose take over major duties, which results in a different sort of Public Enemy. But it’s still Public Enemy, through and through – meaning that it sounds a lot like an album that should have been released 20 years ago.
The biggest failing is the album’s monotony. There are big, fat thumping bass beats, turntable scratches, and synthesized snares, loops, and miscellaneous thumps – in every single track. (Compare “Bring That Beat Back†with “Makes You Blind.†The latter is perhaps a few BPM slower, otherwise they’re nearly identical tracks, with different hooks.) Each track sounds more and more like the last. If this is your thing, Public Enemy brings it in spades. Others might be checking to make sure that their track repeat wasn’t accidently switched on.
Rapping over the beats is Chuck D’s habitually angry, intense flow, blending stabs at current events with nonsense lines more suitable to t-shirts or bumper stickers than politically charged music. Chuck D jumps about any number of topics from line to line, ranging from terrorism and the president to “bio microchips in the arms of pimps†(“Yall Don’t Knowâ€) and the failings of the music industry (“Preachin to the Quietâ€). Flava Flav occasionally injects a line, and Professor Griff has his bits (including the track “As Long As The People Got Something To Sayâ€). These Professor Griff moments are less than spectacular but provide some variety from Chuck D.
And included as always, are those quintessential Public Enemy moments – quotes from black leaders (this time around, Reverend Al Sharpton discussing rap in “…And No One Broadcast Louder Than… (Intro)â€), an interlude with a radio call-in show discussing Public Enemy (“66.6 Strikes Againâ€), and as many references as possible to current events, people, and institutions that Chuck D can lyrically violate in 15 tracks.
New Whirl Odor is a lot like any other Public Enemy release in the past decade. It lacks the relevance and uniqueness of their first few albums, but at the same time sounds as if it were made at the same time – in the Eighties. It’s as if Public Enemy releases albums in a bubble, independent of present music trends. This has a certain appeal, yet it’d still be nice if they grew some. That said, this is probably the best album since Apocalypse ’91…The Enemy Strikes Black.
Public Enemy was one of the original politically conscious rap groups – not to mention the best and most controversial. Now they flirt with irrelevance, all of their tracks and lyrics sounding rehashed, as other rap groups do the political thing better (acts like Dead Prez and Common immediately spring to mind). Yet Public Enemy aficionados will likely enjoy the new album. The uninitiated might, provided they’re not looking for relevant political lyrics, and don’t mind beats pulled from a decade or two ago.
Posted February 9th, 2006 at 11:55AM
Last Sunday, February 5th, millions crowded around their TVs to watch one of the most highly anticipated televised events of 2006. The three hour spectacle promised hard-hitting action, and it delivered. The halftime show was an exercise in brilliance: tightly choreographed and packed with dazzling displays of ability and daring. Yes indeed, Animal Planet crafted another masterpiece with Puppy Bowl II.
Broadcasted before, during, and after that “other bowl†on Sunday, Puppy Bowl II was the animal-lover’s extravaganza, featuring upwards of two dozen puppies playing on a miniature football field. Tons of puppy toys littered the field: stuffed animals, squeakers, knotted ropes. Of course, the most exciting thing for the pups was each other. They all varied between two and a half to three months old, and nipped, jumped, rolled, chewed, pawed, humped, sniffed – and occasionally – peed their way through the three hours. (More involved bowel movements warranted a “Puppy Penalty,†in which gameplay was halted and the offending object removed by a referee.) Lest the puppies be tired out through three hours of play, about half of them were always backstage, (which was – you guessed it – a mock locker room) where they had access to food.
On the field, to combat dehydration, lay two bowls of water, one in each end zone. This also gave way to one of the more interesting aspects of Puppy Bowl II – the “Bowl Cam.†The bottoms of the water bowls were plexiglass, with a camera placed underneath. This allowed the viewer to get a firsthand view of the puppies’ wet noses, and their drinking techniques. Some placed a paw inside the bowl, while others were able to get enough grip by leaning over and into the bowl. Captivating.
The only reprieve? The Bissel SpotBot Kitty Halftime Show – a half hour of kittens playing on a cat jungle gym which was lowered into the center of the “stadium.†This was a delight to animal lovers of the feline persuasion, but everyone could appreciate the hilarity of the halftime finale, when confetti was dropped. The kittens were frightened.
By this point, you might be questioning the sanity of the producers of this special, but make no mistake – it was quality programming. At any one point in time, there would be ten or so pups on the field, and the camera would be sure to follow the most action going on, which usually centered around a few choice miscreants. Barry, a three month old miniature poodle, caught a lot of attention, including several slow-motion replays, which were done before each commercial break.
And yes, as befitting any large televised event, there were commercials geared specifically towards the Puppy Bowl. Major sponsor ads were plastered around the playing field, and during commercial breaks, they brought out the ads. Subaru was one such high-profile company, Pedigree was another (and it was what the pooches ate in the locker room). Yet another big sponsor was Brissell, which makes vacuums. Apparently, “Puppy Penalties†are not limited to on-field accidents.
Throughout it all, was cheesy light jazz playing, a crowd roaring, and “camera flashes†from the mini, mock bleachers (judging by which, I’d say that attendance was fairly high this year). There was also an announcer who spoke during specific moments, such as a penalty or replay, or a shot of the locker room. All of this was in contrast to the first Puppy Bowl, which was a bit more spartan in contrast.
Even so, the original Puppy Bowl last year netted over five million viewers. This year is bound to have met, if not topped, that number. Puppy Bowl II was first aired at 3pm, and then re-shown at 6pm, 9pm, and 12am EST. And if you weren’t able to catch it, you can buy the DVD online. Three hours of puppies playing might just be the most innocent and lighthearted fun that many of us have had in awhile. And really – who couldn’t resist?
Animal Planet’s Puppy Bowl II website – includes overview, film clips, and the ability to vote for MVP (Most Valuable Puppy).
Posted February 2nd, 2006 at 11:26PM
Munich was a worrying film. Steven Spielberg is a great director, to be sure, but his recent efforts – everything from War of the Worlds to Artificial Intelligence: AI – have been lacking. Spielberg’s true opuses were made in the seventies and eighties. Since then, the emphasis seems to have turned more and more to big budget special effects and name recognition (both his and the stars he regularly employs) rather than expert, engrossing storytelling.
But even more worrying going into it was the subject matter of Munich. The film follows a group of five Israeli Mossad agents, assigned to exact revenge for the killing of 11 Israeli athletes during the 1972 summer Olympics in Munich. Those responsible? A militant Palestinian group named Black September. It’s timely, whether because of terrorism broadly, or the fractured Israeli-Palestinian peace process specifically, and that is what makes it such dangerous subject matter.
On the one hand, Spielberg ran the risk of dehumanizing the Palestinians, neglecting to show anything but the brutality of the murderers. And he could have just as easily swung the other way, painting Israel with a thick brush. To his credit, he does neither. In an interview with TIME magazine, in response to a scene in which a Palestinian argues the justness of his cause with lead character Avner (Eric Bana), Spielberg said that without that scene, he “would have been making a Charles Bronson movie – good guys vs. bad guys and Jews killing Arabs without any context. And I was never going to make that picture.â€
And he didn’t. While a few scenes such as that one come off a bit heavy-handed, Munich does avoid that first hurdle, of being overly sensational or one-sided. With that fear allayed, how does Munich rate as a film? In a word, sublime. The cinematography works very well with the mood and pace. While the film does weigh in at a hefty two hours, 44 minutes, it doesn’t seem unduly slow. The shots are closely cropped, giving a sort of urgency during the action sequences. And there is action. Disregarding the historical subtext and all of the other human conflicts, Munich has enough explosions and gunplay for anyone interested.
One of the things really going for the film, is that Spielberg does not go with the high profile stars. The two Toms (Hank and Cruise) that Spielberg often use are nowhere to be seen, and this allows the viewer to become more engrossed in the film (provided none of the actors are immediately memorable from another earlier role – unlikely). Eric Bana plays Avner, the leader of the five person squad chosen to take down the organizers of the Munich killings. Bana works the part magnificently; the mission takes a visible toll on his character. There is a visible character arc for Avner and the others on his team. But none of the roles are especially memorable, and none need be. The actors do their jobs admirably, so you’re left believing that they’re characters, and not actors grandstanding in the hopes of award show glory.
Ultimately, Munich is a well crafted, big-budget (rumored to have topped the $70 million mark) Hollywood flick. The operative phrase here being well crafted. The film avoids most of the pitfalls that Spielberg routinely falls into: sentimentality, ham-fisted dialog, being overly dogmatic – or even simply too safe and “happy.†Spielberg took risks, and it paid off. While it might not be groundbreaking, Munich is still an exciting film that’s worth the price of admission, and by most accounts ranks among Spielberg’s better work.
|
Tags: 
