Vista RTM is fine on the Mac Mini

I’m pleased to say the RTM release of Vista installs and runs without any problem on the Mac Mini. Glass was enabled on first boot, my network connection was up and running immediately, and the system itself seems to be very snappy. I can’t comment on sound or Media Center performance yet - I only finished installing at about 1am - but I’ll try that later.

For the curious, here’s the Windows Experience Index stats:

• Processor: 4.6 (Dual Core 1.66)
• Ram: 4.5 (1gb)
• Graphics: 3.4 (Intel integrated)
• Gaming: 3
• HDD: 4.4 (stock hard drive)

So a WEI of 3 thanks to the gaming performance, but very reasonable scores for everything else.

Interestingly, in order to fix a Bootcamp problem I had to reinstall OS X. Performing back to back installations of OS X, followed by Vista was an interesting experience. Vista certainly seems to install in a shorter amount of time than OS X.

There’s more to come on both Vista on the Mac Mini, and the future of my little Apple machine.

More Pointless Remake News

Bloody Disgusting - which neatly sums up my thoughts on this - are reporting that Poltergeist is to be remade. If that wasn’t bad enough, In the shot for shot style that served Psycho so well. Repeat after me: what…is…the…point?

And good old Fango have an published interview with Bob Clark in which he talks about Black Christmas, in which he mentions the aforementioned Psycho remake. While he’s pleased that the upcoming Black Christmas remake isn’t a direct copy, it does sound like Morgan and Wong have totally missed the point of the original. And I can’t help but get the impression that Clark sounds somewhat disappointed with the result.

Remakes: They Must Be Stopped!

I noticed on Coming Soon that John Carpenter’s The Thing is going to be remade.

This makes me very angry. It seems that, systematically, every film I love is being remade. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dawn Of The Dead, The Hitcher, Near Dark, Black Christmas, The Wild Bunch (although that one’s gone quiet), and the list goes on. Nothing is sacred. If there’s money to be made, there’s no limit to what a studio will have remade.

Image a modern day remake of The Thing. I’ll give you a minute. Sit back, close your eyes, and try to visualise how this film would look if it were made today. Are you seeing what I’m seeing? Scores of terrible CGI monster effects, pretty, marketable stars that are incapable of conveying any emotion beyond confused, and a score that lacks any of the ominous tension of the original.

It shouldn’t be allowed. The producers claim to see this as “a companion piece” to Carpenter’s original. Why not just make a straight sequel - pick things up after Keith David and Kurt Russell have been left in the snow? Just film the Dark Horse comic from a few years ago. No; none of this is good enough - someone clearly thinks that the world needs another remake/reboot/revisualisation.

And yes, I know Carpenter’s original was a remake. So, surely logic dictates that, if Carpenter’s remake is as phenomenal as it is, then another remake could be just as phenomenal? Even more awesome than the film upon which it’s based? I think not.

Of course, there’s no director attached yet. No cast, no plot, no effects team. There might soon be an announcement that KNB will be doing the effects, there’ll be no CGI used on the film at any time, and that Neil Marshall is going to direct it. Or Christopher Smith. Or Carpenter himself.

They might say that Russell is coming back. That a fleet of magnificent actors will be taking part, in an effort to recreate the magnificent cast used by Carpenter. At which point, I might say “actually, this Thing - pun intended - might not be that bad after all”.

Dad’s Blogging!

Yes, it’s true - my Dad has now started his own blog. With a soupcon of help - and nagging - from yours truly, naturally.

So, point your browsers at The Devil’s Manor.

First off, he’s pointed that high powered perception at Casino Royale.

Welcome to the world of blogging, Dad

Movie Review: Casino Royale

As the saying goes: "they don't make them like they used to". And while that's a line as cliched as the Bond franchise has itself become, it's quite often true. That's not to say that "they" aren't trying; franchise re-imaginings and revivals seem to be all the rage these days, particularly with the superhero fraternity. There's the sense of a conscious effort being made to recapture past glories.

It doesn't always work; it's difficult to describe Superman Returns as capturing the true spirit of its origin, and most attempts at rebooting horror franchises just go horribly wrong. So the prospect of giving Bond a fresh new outlook evoked mixed feelings in me. It could have gone so terribly wrong, but it gives me great pleasure to say that Casino Royale gets things right. Mostly.

The plot revolves around Le Chiffre, banker to terrorists the world over. In order to bring him down, causing financial distress throughout the world's terror organisations, Bond must enter a high stakes card game at the titular Casino Royale. This central element is bookended by the usual Bond set pieces and exposition.

The "usual Bond" set pieces? Isn't this new Bond? It's not accurate to say that the Bond franchise has had a lick of paint; a more accurate description would be that it sports something of a distressed look. Things feel somewhat darker and more dangerous than the series has felt in recent times. There's an undercurrent of tension running through most of the proceedings, even if the scenery and women look as delightful as ever; this is still very much a Bond movie. At times, it feels like the early days, eons - if you'll pardon the pun - from Moore's raised eyebrow, and Brosnan's recent high-tech shenanigans.

There's been much talk of dispensing with the gadgets - there's no Q in this movie - and making Bond more serious. If anyone had any fears over whether Bond's latest outing would remain faithful to its cinematic origins, worry not - fans should find much to like here. From the outset, it's apparent that this is still the James we all know and love. The insane set pieces, occasional wisecrack,  and love for the ladies remain. And yet there's a seriousness, an intensity, to this new Bond that only serves to enhance the character.

Day Of The Dead Remake: Uh Oh

First things first - and this isn’t the point of this post - I’m not really looking forward to the Day Of The Dead remake. Why bother? Yes, I said the same thing about Dawn remake, and I really like that. And the Night remake is a really good zombie movie too - but why keep remaking Romero’s movies? Why not just make some new zombie movies, instead of having to try to cash in?

Anyway - the point. Rotten Tomatoes have posted a slice of news regarding the remake, in which it’s revealed that there will be fast, and slow zombies. Oooh, nobody ever thought of doing that one before - maybe this will be a great remake after all? Feel my sarcasm, zombie fans.

And that’s still not the point of this post. The point is that Rotten Tomatoes have confirmed that the remake will still “portray the character Bud”. Who? You know, Bud: ““There is a Bud character. It’s developed a little differently though but it’s definitely that character of the good zombie is in the film.â€?

Now, for a start, that sentence doesn’t even make sense. And for another thing: IT’S BUB, for Christ’s sake. So, we can assume one of two things from this post: a) The Day remake commits a terrible, terrible sin by renaming the Bub character to Bud - which assumes that you can overlook the even worse sin of including Bub in the remake at all; it’s not going to top the previous performance, is it? - or b) Rotten Tomatoes don’t know what they’re talking about…