Apple iPad Mini Event – Do We Really Need That?

On the 23rd of October, Apple held an event as usual telling the world that they’ve got “a little more” to show you. Now Apple is never very subtle regarding these things and from the rumors before, it was beyond all reasonable doubt that the Cupertino giant was going to release a smaller iPad.

The event started in usual Apple fashion with a whole bunch of statistics pertaining to why their company is the greatest. Three million iPod sales, 200 million devices running iOS 6 (not mine) and over three billion iMessages sent. Awesome.

A more significant statistic was the fact that Apple has sold over 100 million iPads in two-and-a-half years. Apple revealed that Apple sold more in the June quarter (Q3) more iPads than any PC maker has actually sold units.

Smile!

So up came Phil Schiller, and the moment everyone was waiting for: the iPad Mini. The device has a screen measuring 7.9 inches and has a resolution of 1024×768. No retina here. However, having the same resolution as the iPad 1 and 2 means that most apps will work fine. The iPad Mini also has virtually the same specifications as the iPad 2 with the same A5 CPU, same GPU, same RAM and storage options. In fact it would probably be easier to highlight the things that aren’t the same such as the cameras, whereas the iPad 2 has VGA front facing and 720p rear facing, the iPad Mini has 720p front facing and 5 megapixel rear with 1080p video, which I suspect is the same hardware found in the 4S. Another feature the Mini has over the iPad 2 is 4G LTE.

Really big cup of coffee...

The great question is, why would you buy a iPad Mini? If your iPhone 4S/5 is too small and your iPad is too big then you have problems. The way I see it, most people buying this will be the iSheep who will buy an iPoo without question because it was made by Apple. The other customers will probably include those who want to have an eReader sized tablet that has a bit more functionality than your everyday Kindle. I have serious suspicions over the lack of retina level resolution and I think that Apple may be gearing up themselves for a refresh that brings the higher resolution display. Hey, what can I say apart from ‘mo’ money’. The evolution of Apple mobile products is humourously demonstrated in this photo:

Take that religion!

From that track record, these devices much mean in the middle so I predict a Apple iPod Touch Note (Samsung reference totally intentional) measuring in with a 5.5 inch display.

One happy family...?

The event was not just about the Mini but also about Apple’s other products. The regular iPad got a minor spec bump to the 4th generation. The newer New iPad has a quicker A6X chip with an updated front facing camera, LTE improved WiFi and 10 hours of battery life whilst maintaining the same price as the original New iPad that it replaces. Now you can buy either the iPad 2 or the better specced iPad Mini for less or the 4th gen iPad. That’s the amazing kind of logic that sees the 6th iPhone named as the iPhone 5.

Wait what happened to the Air?

After the 15 inch MacBook Pro with Retina display, it was only a matter of time before we saw the same design and features to grace the smaller versions. In the same event, Apple unveiled the 13 inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display. This new iteration has the same slimmer body structure as it is void of any disc drive and with a very high resolution display of 2560 x 1600. The same amount of pixels as was in the once popular Apple 30″ Cinema Display. Apple’s decision of maintaining the same 16:10 aspect ratio will always be constant topic of debate. This will always be confusing for many new customers as the 11″ MacBook Air is 16:9, any of the 13″ or 15″ MacBook Air/Pros are 16:10 and the iMacs are 16:9. Totally logical, I know.

Chin is still there...

Finally, the Apple iMac was given a much awaited refresh. The 21.5 and 27 inch models have received a complete redesign. The back of these All-In-One’s have a surface that tapers so much that it gives the illusion that the iMac is much thinner than it actually is. The very sides of the new iMacs are a mere 5mm thick but much thicker in the middle. The new iMacs also introduce new graphics cards from nVidia with the top end one being the GTX 680MX, effectively a slightly downclocked desktop GTX 680 which is decent to say the least. However that particular GPU is still a mobile GPU and I expect modern gaming laptops will start shipping with those soon. The new iMacs also introduce some new storage technology called Fusion Drive that seeks to use SSDs and HDDs in tandem to increase performance while maintaining drive size…wait isn’t that what Seagate had as their Hybrid Drive? I seem to remember that Fusion io had something similar, oh and what about Intel Caching technology? Hmm…

And to finish, a closing word – sucks if anyone bought an iPad 3. Actually, sucks for anyone to have bought an Apple product this year at all. With slowing innovation in their mobile line and general overpricing of their other products (some of which I personally think are good in terms of hardware specs), I might genuinely have to think about moving my music library from iTunes to another provider…

The Best Coffee in Town

Like a good many of us, I enjoy a nice cup of coffee – straight up black, with milk or cream, latte, cappuccino, espresso – they all work for me depending on my mood and/or the time of day. Until recently though, I’d had to head out to my favourite shop in town in order to really find a satisfying cup (instant coffee being anathema to the true coffee lover), and even then, it was a bit hit and miss and seemed to depend on the barista on duty and certain other factors that I could never quite put my finger on. Sometimes my drink would taste bitter, too strong, not strong enough, too watery etc and often a cappuccino or latte would be far removed from what it should be. A good coffee is a thing of beauty and we can all probably recall a time when we’ve had the perfect cup; it sticks in the memory like a great meal or a superb bottle of wine.

How pleased was I then to be discover Nespresso Magimix coffee machines via a friend who had recently purchased one. My goodness, what a revelation! A wonderful cup of coffee every time and all without the need to step out in the rain and pay £2 or more for a drink that may or may not disappoint. Of course, the machine itself is a bit of an outlay (£200 give or take) but if you’re serious about your coffee, I tell you, it’s money well spent. Looks great on the kitchen counter too. Fill the machine’s tank with water, pop in the capsule of your choice, push a button and ‘Voila!’, a great cup of coffee is yours in the time it takes to get the milk out of the fridge. You want a cappuccino or latte? No problem. Just pour some milk into the heated frother, push another button and whizz it up to your desired frothiness. What could be simpler?

The range of coffees available is amazing too and whether your preference is for an intense espresso shot or a mild and aromatic latte, you’re sure to find a blend that will satisfy. I never really appreciated the subtle yet unmistakable variations in the different beans and the way they are prepared and roasted. The complexities of the coffee they make are as apparent as those in any fine quality beverage, be it wine, whiskey or even tea. And price-wise, compared to one of the high street coffee shops, a machine makes great fiscal sense too. Consider purchasing a coffee every day of the week for a year from say, Costa – that’s going to set you back over £700! In those terms, purchasing a machine of your own and enjoying cups that cost less than 50pence each sounds like good sense. Yes, I realise I’m omitting the social aspect – that is, of getting together with friends and catching up over coffee and croissants (who doesn’t enjoy that?), but aside from that, if you wish you could drink barista-standard coffee at home then, take my word for it, a Nespresso machine would be a worthwhile addition to your kitchen. Just don’t complain when your coffee-drinking friends start coming round more.

 

The Results of ‘Skyfall’

Well, well, well. Look who came back from the dead with a vengeance! James Bond, a franchise that lasted years in the world of cinema, seen highs, seen very lows, proves once and for all that the world’s favourite spy is not about to keel over and retire like Bruce Willis in Red. No, there is no exit strategy, no pension plan and certainly no plans to escape in a remote beach and drink and fuck to oblivion. This Bond will always report for duty and, to the joy of every fan, Daniel Craig returns from the dead to do his job and do it well!

If you read my previous post, you know what my expectations were. I was waiting for violence, fast-paced action, genre focus and a villain you can shake in front of. I expected a remorseless Bond and an even more remorseless killer on his trail with the charisma to charm and terrify an audience at the same time. I expected realism in characters such as Q and humanity in characters such as M. Were my expectations met? You betcha they bloody were!

There is no doubt that this movie has been a completely different project from the start. After four years of budget issues, scripts and production failures, this Bond has become the most publicised chapter of the British Spy since Casino Royale. As I sat in the theatre and the adverts came on, I knew this was not a regular Bond film. Heineken, Nokia Lumia, perfume, cars, Sony Vio, Omega, all products you see in the movie, advertised non-stop for at least 15 minutes and at some point I was sinking in my seat in despair. What had this franchise become if it sold out so much to major companies? But then again, no franchise that has lasted 50 years can run on its own. It needs money and unfortunately had to swallow its legendary pride and try to support what would become its most celebrated chapter yet.

Sam Mendes took up the challenge of directing and pushed to make this Bond the most memorable one yet and it shows in his work. For a man who has American Beauty, Jarhead and Revolutionary Road in his curriculum, he made this film very much his own. One of my expectations, especially coming from Mendes, was the fact that such a talented director could turn this Bond into a film with heart. It is quite obvious that most Bond films have the action, have the girls, have the drinks but some have just lacked the key characteristics of most spy and film-noir movies. The use of shadows, music and camera focus, all these things have been lacking since Roger Moore, with a few exceptions in the early Brosnan era, so Mendes, a man who manages to play with genre in magnificent ways, brought back the shadows to suit the spy. His way of filming has never been seen in Bond before as he shot magnificent set pieces but never took his camera away from Bond. The place has to be owned by the man, not the other way around. His use of shadows and light is truly gripping, culminating in a final scene when a massive fire in the background seems to reflect the mood for every surrounding character, in one way or another. The sets are sublime either way and one of them, the surprise of the film, is just breathtaking and bigger than life. However, as big as it is, Bond still owns the ground he walks on, only by sheer force of presence and Mendes makes damn sure of that. The director has said in interviews that he put all his efforts into this film and because of that, he does not want to do another. I say that he has done his job in a fantastic way and that he left the director’s chair with enough material to make more Bond films for the next 10 years at least. For that, well done Mr. Mendes.

Now, without too many spoilers, I would like to get into the content of Skyfall. I had many questions as I walked into the cinema. The eternal ‘what’s Skyfall?’ question, followed by the intrigue surrounding Javier Bardem’s villain and the ever rising question of M’s past in MI6. Well, needless to say, all questions were answered and no further questions were raised. The entire movie is completely separate to the previous two, kickstarting the franchise in the most nostalgic way possible. In this film, if you are like me, a huge fan of 007, you will laugh and you will not believe your eyes. Old friends are back, friends thought dead since the 90s, new friends arrive and look ready to follow Craig to the next adventure and Bond looks like his old self again. As a friend said, ‘This film was written by the ultimate fan-boy’ and even though I hate to agree, he has a point. This is an hommage to Ian Flemming’s work and goddamnit, its just beautiful to see.

Craig and Dame Judy Dench hold the reins of this movie more than any other character and it’s about time M got a voice and a gun to shout and shoot her opinions away. Dench, playing M since Goldeneye, did not just play a sour, old woman that hates men. She portrays M as strong because she battles against invisible demons everyday and Bond seems to be the only one by her side who sees them and fights with her. In Skyfall, M’s demons are no longer invisible and they are the most terrifying yet. We finally see M crumbling under her past and struggling to keep a hold of her work before it is take away from her. Dench and Craig have shared incredible chemistry onscreen ever since he got the role and they seem to maintain a mother-son relationship in this chapter that becomes the heart of this film. Dench’s M will remain one of the most memorable characters that grew in darkness, awakened by the ballsiest woman ever to grace the screen within this boy’s world. There ain’t nothin’ like that Dame!

Since Alec Trevelyan in Goldeneye, MI6 has not experienced evil from the inside but this time evil has come seeking revenge, in the form of Silva, a ghost, like Bond, who wants to materialise again to kill the person who made him the monster he is now. Javier Bardem is no stranger to villain roles, one of them got him an Oscar! With the most appalling haircut in the history of cinema, he scared entire audiences with his role as Anton Chigurh and now he is back to make us shake in our boots. His performance fully lived up to my expectations! The poise, the charisma, the traumatic background story, the mannerisms and that smile, on the corner of his mouth, just made him hands down one of my favorite Bond villains. There is one scene in this film, approximately in the end, where Silva walks forward, a trail of utter destruction left behind him, yet he just does not notice it like we do. To him, this is not destruction but only a means to an end and his end-goal is much more important to him than Bond, MI6 or even his own life. This purpose is made grand and even justifiable at times, as Bardem gives logic and sense to this demented man. He makes him sound and look like a martyr and till the end, that’s what audiences will see him as. A martyr and a victim, tormented by the people he most loved.

As mentioned in my previous post, the Bond girls in this movie are not vital in any way. Naomi Harris’ Eve does not start the plot by shooting Bond, it was M who gave the order. The same goes for Berenice Marlohe’s Severine so it is quite obvious that the only Bond girl in this film is M herself. With the most screen time and the call to action, M is the one woman who can team up with Bond and stand up to him like a man. Truly a wonderful turn to the role of M and a duet that does not cease to amaze. Ben Wishaw, the man that has been in the shadows of cinema, waiting, participating in mostly independent films like Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, I’m Not There and Bright Star, took Q and made him cool again. Since the late Desmond Llewelyn, there has not been a Q (let’s all collectively forget John Cleese and his buffoonish portrayal) since Die Another Day. Now, then new, young and kinda cocky Q is about to get seriously techy with 007. Since the Quartermaster needs to keep up with the latest gadgets to give to agents (return the equipment in one piece, my ass!), it is only natural that this generation’s Q looks and sounds like a nerd. Ben Wishaw made that nerd the most interesting new character in the movie, along with Ralph Fiennes, who seems to look angrier and angrier as he gets old. His role is minimal but vital and he provides intrigue within MI6 and the lasting question of whether he can be trusted or not. But then again, the spy genre wouldn’t be very good if questions didn’t arise every couple of minutes to keep audiences on their toes.

Finally let’s talk Craig. The man who returns from the dead and looks like absolute shit. Well, we get to see a lot more of our legendary spy and just like I expected, he is broken down and made to look closer at his friends and his superiors. Draped with lies and deceit, his life is still a mystery to the audience and M might just have something to do with it. Craig lets the audience in on secrets that even Flemming might not have thought of, and that is to the credit of the scriptwriters and Craig himself, who goes much further into his character than his predecessors. He gives a stellar performance, even though his lines seem to be way too cheesy at times, thus ruining the mood in certain scenes. In a way, he tries to emulate other Bonds again, something he rightly chose not to do, so hopefully this is not going to become a habit. This movie has cemented him as one of the best Bonds in the movies and hopefully the next outing will not take four years! We fans do not want to wait that long after such an ending!

Has this film exceeded my expectations? Nope, it answered them and that is rare in a film nowadays. Everything I could hope for was there, amazed me and now I cannot wait for this franchise to continue. Even if Craig decides to leave Bond, he will always be remembered as the man who gave it new life and a new image that fits our generation and for that we all have to, at least, show him gratitude. As my last comment, I would like to leave you with this clue (SPOILER ALERT): The credits and the song? Linked to the film in a major way!! Enjoy the show!

My Expectations of ‘Skyfall’

Right, so tomorrow I am going to see the new James Bond movie, directed by Sam Mendes and starring Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judy Dench and Ben Wishaw. It has garnished very good reviews so far but I have not read any of them. With this movie, I am not leaving anything to chance! I need to go in clear-minded and as neutral as I can be. I have read some interviews here and there but for some reason, I had no desire to know more than the snippets of information I got from the trailer and the few words exchanged by Mendes and Empire magazine. The story goes thus: Bond is accidentally shot by Naomi Harris on the roof of a train, he fakes his death to drink a lot and play with scorpions and Judy Dench has to write his eulogy. Then out of the blue, MI6 is compromised, bombed and sensitive information on all agents is leaked on YouTube. The man who did so is called Silva and has a major grudge against M, something Bond does not like so he returns to England to save the day. However he really looks old and weak. Is he a match for the evil Silva and is he brainwashed by M? What’s Skyfall? Who is Silva? Why is Q using realistic technology? Hmmmm…the questions seem to multiply as I type.

So what are my expectations on this movie? What Bond movie do I expect from this day and age? What things am I hoping they improved after Quantum of Solace?

I have a confession to make. I was never a Daniel Craig fan until very recently. When I saw he would take the mantle from a very confusing Pierce ‘Bond’ Brosnan (remember Die Another Day), I was very sceptical. Actually who the hell am I kidding? I hated the idea! I was absolutely repulsed at the guy. He was not handsome like Connery, he looked too old and too noticeable (in that he was built like a house). All that muscle seemed to somehow make his brain smaller by each passing frame. My mom used to describe the great Hercules as ‘All muscles and a brain like a sesame seed’. I am afraid my mind only screamed that saying when I saw Craig in the first shot of Casino Royale. And yes, I was one of those people that had something against the blonde hair! Yes, I, like a lot of people, am a creature of habit at times and when that habit is broken I start complaining. Like you can sit here, reading this, and tell me that never happened to you. Plus, I can say that the concept of a prequel depicting how Bond got his 00 status was not that intriguing to me. I was born and bred on Connery and Moore, already seasoned spies that have been in the fucking and killing business for a long time. Why would I want to see a character that had started so high in his career go down 10 levels and be a rube again? But then again, I pride myself in giving a second chance to anything that I feel I might have not understood or had disapproved of, from the start. I also pride myself in this particular case to have made the right decision. If not I would not be sitting here writing about Skyfall.

My Bond has always been Sean Connery. Primitive, smooth but not very discreet, resourceful, witty (but not as much as Moore) and seemingly motivated by selfish reasons. If you look at his missions they all seem to end up on a beach most of the time, kick-started by a girl or a photo of one (Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Thunderball) and not once has he shown any sign of actual patriotism. He did this for the fun of it and the kicks (chicks) he got out of it. His look defined a generation of spies. The tuxedo, the signature drink, the cigarette at the end of his lips as he utters his name, like it’s a gift from God (not him, just his name). He had the fighting skills to beat up his enemies, had the talent to land a falling plane safely (although Timothy Dalton took the whole plane stunt to a whole different level in The Living Daylights), attach himself to a harness and grab the girl before flying away thanks to a taxi-plane, had the luck to be let out of an incinerator just in time, and had a Nemesis in Ernst Stavro Blofeld, SPECTRE mastermind and bad guy to the bone! Not many Bond nemeses would come along later on that would be as amazing as this man. Meddling in Cold War relations, NATO nuclear missiles, the diamond business, stealing whole spaceships with another spaceship that is hidden in a fake volcano. The dedication alone is just beautiful. Shame he had to leave the stage so early on and in a less than adequate way for his persona(For Your Eyes Only).

After Connery, the forgotten and underrated George Lazenby took over, however I will be completely honest, he has not left any particular trademark as Bond. I was very young when I saw On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and was very sad that Bond got married, until the obvious little glitch on the way to the honeymoon. Lazenby was not a big part of my idea of Bond and realistically neither was Roger Moore. Something just did not sit right with me and his Safari suits, his little one liners and his weird missions. However, Moore had the immense privilege to be in films where the focus was put on the villains. Yep, all sorts of villains and megalomaniacs but hell, they were the pinnacle of sneaky, malicious, crazy, napoleonic figures  and had the best henchmen. Don’t believe me? Let’s tally: Kananga and Baron Samedi (Live and Let Die), Fransisco Scaramanga and Nick Nack (The Man with the Golden Gun), Carl Stromberg and Jaws (The Spy who Loved Me), Hugo Drax and The Cat (Moonraker), Aristotle Kristatos and Locque (For your Eyes Only), Kamal Kahn and Gobinda (Octopussy) and finally Max Zorin and May Day (A View to A Kill). I remember all of them as clear as day; Hugo Drax setting the dogs on Corine Dufour, Jaws chewing some cable car wire in Rio, Nick Nack loyal to his master till the end, Gobinda crushing dice in his fist, reducing them to powder in front of a very worried Moore. If the Connery era defined the spy, the Moore era defined the villain.

Who combined both? My close favorite and the Bond I found the most gritty till Craig came along, Timothy Dalton. It took two movies and one Colombian drug lord to show that Dalton knew how to deal with trash. He fed rotten CIA agent Killifer to a great white shark and ignited Franz Sanchez to the sky to avenge his best friend. There was not that much dedication to avenging his dead wife was there? That’s probably because in the 80s there was no room for tact within a spy’s lifestyle. This was a time of violence and Timothy Dalton was the violent Bond. The one that looked like a remorseless killer, the darkest side of Bond yet. Brosnan took the darkness to the next level but his movies suffered from scripts that could not cope very well in the post-Cold War era. The last great Bond in my opinion can only be Tomorrow Never Dies because it contained a realistic Bond and an extremely plausible villain in Elliot Carver (read Rupert Murdoch. Huh? Who said that?). The death of Paris Carver shocked me when I first watched it, as well as the frigging monster of a man that killed her! It was also surprisingly the first Bond I ever saw in English because all the VHS copies we had at home were all dubbed in French. To this day I can quote you From Russia with Love in both English and French. Funny how that turned out!

Then came Craig. Following my six years of objecting, complaining and turning down all positive reviews about the actor’s portrayal, I looked at him differently. I scrapped all the Bonds from my mind and looked at a man, a spy, a borderline sociopath working for an organization that does not approve of him but believes in him (God bless you M) and battling the enemies of the country that trained him and made him a ghost for the rest of his life. Craig played just that. He played the man all of the previous Bonds could not play because of time, place and context. For every era comes a different hero and Daniel Craig successfully embodies this generation’s anti-hero with a heroic purpose.

For Skyfall my expectations are simple. Craig’s Bond almost lost credibility with the latest outing but through no fault of his acting. Surrounding issues such as script, villain and Bond girl made this 007 chapter bearable but I expect Skyfall to take Casino Royale and transpose the major characteristics of the other movies. So far, the villain looks properly old-school and it helps that Bardem, like a lot of kids, grew up with Bond. If his villain reaches the charisma the previous ones had (namely Emilio Largo, Max Zorin, Franz Sanchez and Elliot Carver) then that would culminate to an unforgettable character like Ledger’s Joker in the latest Batman franchise. The arrival of a new Q deserves attention as well, since that means that this shit is about to get technological, something Craig’s movies have not explored yet. From the trailer, I am thinking Big Brother surveillance and tracking to get to Silva. M and MI6 look like they have a lot more secrets than a regular secretive agency and they all look human, prone the error (only their errors seem to have graver consequences than the regular Joe). This humanity culminates with Bond. I want to see him suffer, confused, double-crossed and run down, not for any other reason than to see him rise up from the ashes and stand, proud and angry. I do not hold much hope for the Bond girls. This seems to be a man’s adventure with little around him to distract him long enough from his ultimate goal. Finally, I expect from Mendes to turn this film into a thriller, fast-paced, structured, respectful of its genre and a film that you would want to see like you would want to see Dr.No, again and again. But this time Craig has to face real an present evil that would terrify you, me and the whole audience. I want a Bond you hate to love, a Bond that will laugh at his enemy because he does not care whether he lives or dies so long as he gets the last word! A Bond that represents this era of confusion, violence and fear, that he vanquishes through fire and blood, because in the end, it is the only way this current world deals with its evils.