Cherish Your Life: Saw (2004) Review

Conclusion
A grizzly tale, but not a gory one in the horror-porn torture porn gorno tradition of Hostel. Saw is strictly driven by suspense and intricate plot. Highly entertaining and with more twists in the plot than in a koeksister. A beacon of original light shining through the darkness of politically correct angsty teen creature features.




One of Tannie Marie's koeksisters. Tannie Marie ships koeksisters all over America, bringing a touch of Boere culture to the new world.

Plot
Two men find themselves in a locked bathroom, while on videotape. No, it's not George Michael and a member of the Village People. It is Dr Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) and photographer Adam Faulkner (Leigh Whannell). They find a corpse between them, which holds a tape recorder and a gun. Talk about a silver lining. They each find a cassette in their pockets, with their names on it. The cassettes instruct Dr Gordon to kill Adam within a given time frame.

Of course doctors usually save lives, with the notable exception of the South African minister of health, Dr Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who rather saves witch doctors and their superstitions. Dr Gordon is persuaded to join the dark side of Dr Tshabalala-Msimang and Dr Hannibal Lecter when he finds out that his family is kept hostage by an evil man.

Review

• For some reason, Saw is grouped with Hostel and Devil's Rejects in the torture porn or gorno (gore + porno) genre. This genre is described as being devoid of suitable metaphor for its explicit scenes of nudity and violence. Personally, I found Saw to have many suitable metaphors and the version I have on DVD is bloody but not gory. Not that I mind blood and guts for the sake of blood and guts, but just to prove the point, Saw features no nudity that I can recall.


• Since it is claimed that the Jigsaw Killer never actually kills anyone himself, the film is highly original. The exception is photographer Adam Faulkner, but I won't give away anything.


• Saw has an excellent plot. I pride myself in identifying the killers in this sort of film early on. Of course, I was right, but only half right. I love being outsmarted.


• The Jigsaw Killer, so named because he leaves the imprint of a jigsaw puzzle piece on his victims, is hailed as the new Freddy Krueger. This antagonist of the Saw series is a person with a terminal illness who wishes to teach his victims the value of their lives by placing them in virtually inescapable situations. They could learn the same valuable lesson by waiting in line at customs instead. The irony here is the victims have a choice between their lives or the lives of others, whereas the Jigsaw Killer has no choice.


• This film attempts to answer the question of what one would do when one is faced with the options of acting civil for the greater good, or acting in your own best interest at the peril of strangers in a life or death situation. For this reason, the Wikipedia article on the Jigsaw Killer identifies certain Darwinian, Nietzschean and Deleuzian traits in the methods of the Jigsaw Killer.


• In contrast with other excellent serial killer films like Manhunter, the focus here is on the psychological ordeal of the victims instead of on the complications of the personality of the killer. This is not a case of finding a new mask and a new weapon for a generic mass murderer and ticking his victims off one by one. The character of the Jigsaw Killer is carefully crafted, but the viewer is not forced to be a fanboy with trading cards. Excellent film!

Director
James Wan

Cast

• Cary Elwes


• Michael Emerson


• Danny Glover


• Monica Potter


• Leigh Whannell

Rating

DNA proves the existence of God

This is a bold claim by Perry Marshall, whose definitions of code and pattern I have used here. Note that Marshall is not a biologist, but an information specialist.

For this post, I will outline the argument Marshall makes for the existence of God. After that I will prove him wrong. At the time of going to press, God could not be reached for her comment.

The difference between a code and a pattern

A pattern is a random sequence that does not need the aid of a designer. Marshall claims snowflakes and tornadoes are examples of patterns.

Codes are defined as patterns that carry information. Codes we know the origin of are designed by an intelligent designer. Patterns do not have embedded information, whereas codes do carry information. Marshall lists music, computer programs and DNA as examples of codes.


Is this mama? Did aliens design DNA? If they did, why didn't they keep the good DNA for themselves?

Marshall's proof that DNA was designed by a mind

Marshall claims the following for DNA:

• DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern, but an information storage mechanism. Since it is a pattern which carries information, DNA is a code


• codes we know the origin of were created by an intelligence. Codes are created by conscious minds


• therefore, DNA was created by a conscious mind

Marshall then proposes five possible origins of DNA:

1. Humans designed DNA.


2. Aliens designed DNA.


3. DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously.


4. An undiscovered physical law creates information, and by extension DNA.


5. A superintelligence, who Marshall calls God, designed DNA.

Some DNA. Somewhat puzzling. Especially to Perry Marshall.

Consideration Marshall gives each proposal:

1. For humans to design DNA, we would require time travel or infinite generations of humans. Since we have no time travel and according to Marshall, finite generations of humans, this proposal is refuted.


2. Aliens may have designed DNA, but this explanation "only pushes the question back in time".


3. That DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously is a possibility, but it is not a process that could be repeated.


4. An undiscovered natural law could have created DNA, but it would only be proved once someone observes a naturally occurring code.


5. A superintelligence, who Marshall calls God, designed DNA.

Marshall claims scientific reasoning can prove anything, and DNA is proof of its own intelligent designer.

Proof that Marshall is misleading, and by misleading I mean wrong

The syllogism
Marshall's proof that DNA was designed by an intelligent designer rests on a syllogism.

A syllogism is a logical argument that is used to infer a conclusion. The syllogism is comprised of three parts:

• a major premise: "DNA is a code."


• a minor premise: "Codes are created by conscious minds."


• a proposition, in other words a conclusion: "Therefore, DNA was created by a conscious mind."

Fun fact: Aristotle is generally credited with the invention of the syllogism.

There are fundamental flaws in Marshall's syllogism:

• "DNA is a code." That depends on which level you are looking at DNA. From the level of conscious minds, it would appear as if DNA is a code read by cells to produce a magnificent organism.
  
  However, at a molecular level, DNA is a nucleic acid. Genes store a particular sequence of DNA, and this sequence determines how the genes interact with each other and its environment. The DNA sequence is never read or interpreted as information at this level. Physical, chemical properties of DNA determine which traits are conserved, expelled or just there.
  
  An allele is an instance of one of multiple viable possible instances of a gene. To clarify, a gene exists for creating eyes. An allele determines whether your eyes could be blue. The nature of this allele is determined by interaction of the gene with other genes and its environment.
  
  For the sake of Marshall's argument, let us assert that DNA is a code carrying information as he envisages it. The jury is still out on that one, but let's give Marshall the benefit of the doubt.


• The minor premise: "Codes are created by conscious minds." Marshall is not so lucky with this premise. Marshall specifically states that "all codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind" (bold text mine). We do not know the origin of DNA.
  Since we do not know the origins of DNA, we can not assume that DNA is a code that was created by a conscious mind.
  
  There are many plausible explanations, mostly pointing to Marshall's third conclusion, namely that DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously. In any event random is not that random upon closer investigation, since as we have seen genes rely on interaction with each other and interaction with their environment to determine exactly how alleles form.
  
  Furthermore, planetary orbit around the sun is not random at all. It is a pattern, but it is still a code, since from our perspective on the third rock from the sun, this movement transfers information we interpret as the passage of time.
  
  We do not know the origins of this pattern, but we do know the origins of this code of time. It is indeed a conscious intelligence.


• The proposition: "Therefore, DNA was created by a conscious mind." The problem with this proposition is that an amoeba has DNA. An amoeba does not have a conscious mind. Amoeba were not created with the intervention of the only conscious minds we know, namely human beings.
  
  Marshall also proposes the idea that aliens created DNA. It should be noted that we have made contact with aliens, but they were cellular organisms. We have not discovered intelligent consciousness besides ours on earth, but we have discovered aliens that came into being without the intervention of intelligent consciousness as we like to define it. Could it be that the process of randomly occurring DNA is repeated, in space no less?

This syllogism suffers from the classic mistake of an illicit minor. This mistake has the following form:

• All A are B ("all DNA is a code")


• All Z are C ("all codes we know the origins of were designed by a conscious mind". If it were "all codes were designed by a conscious mind", the minor would have the correct form All B are C.
  
  At face value, it seems that Mr Marshall proposes the correct form, however his minor is still illicit, because this claim is false. At first, Mr Marshall incorrectly claims that all codes we know the origins of were designed by conscious minds. Then, when it comes to constructing his key argument, he conveniently forgets that his requirement is that we have to know the origins of the code, which we don't for DNA. Either way the words are minced, the minor is an illicit one.)


• Therefore, all A are C ("therefore, DNA was designed by a conscious mind")

In closing, the larger argument here is a classic example of the god of the gaps, as described in layman's terms in the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Since we can not disprove that god designed DNA, it has to be true. To mister Marshall: Epic fail. Thank you for playing.

To the rest of us: since we can not disprove that Cthulhu will swallow your soul, it has to be true. Cthulhu Ftaghn!

Related links

• Can you prove that god exists? Convince Jim Randi and get a groovy million benjamins for your efforts in proving a supernatural phenomenon. Thanks to mampara Jacob Zuma, that's worth about eight million "bokke en blare", and it is bound to get more.


• If you can read this, I can prove that God exists. Perry Marshall's reasons for joining the fellowship and tithing. Tithing is the fellowship's reason for accepting you.


• Inmagine stock images, where I got the royalty free stock images.


• The Genetic Genealogist, highly recommended.


• The Wikipedia page on DNA.


• The Wikipedia page on genes.


• The Wikipedia page on illicit treatment of the minor term.


• The Wikipedia page on junk DNA.


• The Wikipedia page on syllogism.

The Apostasy (2007) by Behemoth Review

Conclusion

Want to know the definition of apostasy? Read on.

The usual blackened death or deathened black sound of Behemoth executed with some interesting production ideas. A band that keeps pushing themselves, this is their strongest release yet. Inferno spent quality time with the drum kit. Classical Polish pianist Leszek Możdżer and Nevermore singer Warrel Dane guest star. Brutal.

Review

apostasy
Main Entry: apos-ta-sy
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural apos-ta-sies
Etymology: Middle English apostasie, from Late Latin apostasia, from Greek, literally, revolt, from apistasthai to revolt, from apo- + histasthai to stand.
Date: 14th century

1. renunciation of a religious faith


2. abandonment of a previous loyalty

From the Merriam-Webster definition of apostasy.

ennui
Main Entry: en-nui
Pronunciation: \än-'wē\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from the Old French enui annoyance, from enuier to vex, from Late Latin inodiare to make loathsome.
Date: 1732

1. a feeling of weariness and dissatisfaction


2. the feeling I get when I see people giving definitions when they are hardly necessary

From the Merriam-Webster definition of ennui. Sort of.

brutal
Main Entry: bru-tal
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French, from Medieval Latin brutalis, from Latin brutus.
Date: 15th century

1. archaic: typical of beasts


2. befitting a brute: as a: grossly ruthless or unfeeling (a brutal slander) b: cruel, cold-blooded (a brutal attack)


3. heavy metal

From the Merriam-Webster definition of brutal. Sort of.

video
Main Entry: vid-eo
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin vidëre to see + -o (as in audio).
Date: 1937

1. the visual portion of television


2. videotape: as a: a recording of a motion picture or television program for playing through a television set b: a videotaped performance of a song often featuring an interpretation of the lyrics through visual images


3. a recording similar to a videotape but stored in digital form (as on an optical disk or a computer's hard drive)


4. just watch the video and know that the Apostasy is brutal

From the Merriam-Webster definition of video. Sort of.


Some guy made this video for At The Left Hand Ov God, a single of sorts from the album. It has gargoyles and other grotesque statues in it. No, I'm not going to post the definition of a gargoyle too. Look it up you buffoon! For more words to look up, try my Shakespearian insult monger, but if you need definitions like these all the time you might want to find out who Shakespeare was first.

Track listing

1. Rome 64 C.E.


2. Slaying the Prophets ov Isa


3. Prometherion


4. At the Left Hand ov God


5. Kriegsphilosophie


6. Be Without Fear


7. Arcana Hereticae


8. Libertheme


9. Inner Sanctum


10. Pazuzu


11. Christgrinding Avenue

Personell

Adam “Nergal” Darski: lead vocals; electric and acoustic guitars.
Tomasz “Orion” Wróblewski: bass guitar; backing vocals. Also try Vesania.
Zbigniew Robert “Inferno” Promiński: drums; percussion.
Patryk “Seth” Sztyber: guitars; backing vocals.
Leszek Możdżer: piano.
Warrel Dane: guest vocals.
Graal: shitload of photoshop filters for the cover and the booklet.

Rating

Related Links

• Behemoth on Myspace.


• My Vesania review.


• The official Behemoth website.

Ripper, letter from hell (2001) review

Director
John Eyres

Cast
Kelly Brook
A.J. Cook
Daniella Evangelista
Bruce Payne
Emmanuelle Vaugier

Plot
Molly Keller (A.J. Cook) survived a serial killer incident which cost her her parents and nearly all of their insurance money to replace boats. She is now a student of forensic psychology under a famous author in the field. Surprisingly, her ordeal of a few years ago is not over. A Jack the Ripper fan starts hacking teens in her class. In her class of mostly foreign exchange students, the tension runs almost as high as their suspicions of each other in their quest to find the killer.

Review
I feel sorry for Molly Keller. She has stereotypical teenage angst, she gets all the cheesy lines and she has to pretend she is hardcore. I would say the dialogue is the single worst feature of this film.

Another weird aspect is the police officer working on the case. Yes, you read right. There is a serial killer running amok, but the authorities assigned only one police officer to the case. He has to corner off crime scenes, gather evidence and babysit Molly. No wonder they don't catch the guy all that quickly. Plus he looks like Jack the Ripper himself!

Moving on to the positive aspects: the first murder scene is done very well. Buckets of blood, lots of suspense, looks feasible enough for you to think it is one of your own parties gone horribly wrong. Did I mention buckets of blood? Yes, there are buckets of blood, but only in the first killing.

The actors are largely unknown, but most of them did a splendid job with lacking dialogue. Especially the scream queens - remarkable screaming, remarkable panic attacks.

The ending is a little bit inconclusive. This is not a problem, but on a budget like this it is unlikely that there would ever be a sequel. From the unknown actors used, to the blood that looks like paint, to the fake Rammstein and fake White Zombie bands on the soundtrack, everything spells this is your one shot at making a slasher movie. I would rather make one kick-ass slasher flick, even though it is a genre product, rather than try to be arty with open endings.

Conclusion
The intentional gaps in the plot could be forgiven. However, the unintentional gaps in the plot need attention. This is a slasher genre film, and as such is slightly worse than Valentine. Having a Jack the Ripper copycat killer is interesting to begin with, if they stuck with the genre formula, it could have been better. Still entertaining, but not great.

Rating

IBM invents DVD advertising for The Man

I read about this on the Pure Distortion blog. It is a very impressive blog and rightly won a blog of note entry recently. It is written by the geek for the geek, so enjoy.

"A method wherein contents of DVDs may be restricted based upon purchased certificates is provided. The certificates allow for secured information on playback. Specifically, whenever a DVD is to be played, a certificate is consulted to determine whether the content of the DVD should be played with or without commercial interruptions. If the certificates provide for commercial interruptions, then commercials can be obtained from an online service that renders commercials on demand, or from the DVD itself. In such a case, the content of the DVD may be interspersed with commercials."^[1]

Now that is useful. Considering that I do not go to the cinema nor watch television because I dislike advertisements I can't control. Considering that I built a collection of DVDs partially because the DVD rental shops in my area think I am a shady character and because I would like to own the untainted films in all their DVD quality splendour - sans ads.

I have been an IBM fanboy to some extent. They build super dooper computers and then run Linux on them. They provide the Joker to Micro$oft's Batman. Or at least they did. This is outrageous, and like all the other industries where they tried insane technological hampers (particularly CDs, I still dare you to ask me about rootkit software), it will only serve to piss a dwindling consumer market off even further.

They are planning this little word from their sponsors on HD-DVD systems. Since one of the specs for a compatible HD system is an Internet connection, they see no problem with using that connection for pausing your movie, then downloading certain advertisements^[2], shoving them down your throat and then proceeding with your HD-DVD. You know, the one you paid for because it has better digital quality than your local cinema could ever muster with their analogue reels. The one where you thought you could determine your own bathroom breaks and adjust the volume level as you see fit. The one you bought because the television screenings have advertisements every 10 minutes and you are tired of little old ladies with their cell phones next to you or some lonely housewife with her hell-spawn offspring deciding the cinema is a good place to have a feud.

So now you upgraded your television monitor to a HD compatible one, you purchased a HD player, you have the whole thing set up according to the specs with an ethernet connection and 5.1 surround sound, only to see Now for a word from our sponsors "insert brand names here".

To add insult to injury, South Africa has among the most expensive bandwidth rates in the world. We do not have free Internet here - even our dial-up lines are sucking us dry. In effect, we pay for HD advertisements by buying an HD version of our favourite film, and then pay for the advertisements again by paying Telkom's ransom. Ransom, because they hold your paid-for line ransom. You can hardly call that rental or payment for services rendered. Have you ever tried to phone Telkom's customer care line? The panpipes will cause an instant angina.

I have been vocal about piracy in the past. It is unethical and all that jazz, but from a consumer perspective, if I download a cracked version of my favourite film, I get all the benefits of having a DVD copy minus all the inconveniences like region encoding, dual-layers that none of my DVD-ROM drives can grasp, trying to play MPEG format on Linux (that comes from my masochistic side so I take full credit for that), paying through my nose (new DVDs sell here for about R200 or roughly $29, with older titles going for about R80 or roughly $12) and soon - advertisements. If they carry on like this, the list of minor inconveniences will outweigh the list of conveniences sooner or later - in fact, they already do and we haven't even seen a full acceptance of the HD/Blu-Ray format on our shores. Sooner or later, the pirates will have the last laugh.

References
[1] Zats Not Funny! Blog
[2] Ars Technica - no, not butt cheek technology