No geek
is an island

(Here be spoilers.)

JK Rowling must have been watching too much Crime Traveller (i.e. any) when she sat down to write Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The finale is only missing Sue Johnston shouting “Slade!” in a melodramatic way.

Yes, this evening I went to see the new Harry Potter film. I’m not a reader of the books so I didn’t know what was coming; nevertheless, the plot was pretty uninspiring and the twists predictable. Both the acting of the young leads and the special effects have come on since the series began, but the result is that my criticisms lay entirely with the film’s story.

The movie is slow to get going, with much talk of Sirius Black but little action of any clear relevance (although elements turn out to be of vague importance later on). There is a lack of structure: a bunch of stuff happens, but with no real thread connecting each incident to the next, and Harry ends up in the Hogwarts infirmary far too many times. This is, perhaps, the result, as with the previous books, of cramming a school year’s worth of events into a two-and-a-quarter hour film.

There is, eventually, a climax of sorts, as everyone reveals their true intentions in the Shrieking House. So many revelations at once, muddled in with Snape’s unnecessary appearance, make for a bumbled scene. (Most of the revelations are obvious, after being heavily trailed, although one - the identity of Pettigrew - seems something a cheat with only the slightest of hints until Ron gets bitten.) Having reached this climax, we then slow down again in order for Michael French and Chlo&euml Annett - sorry, Harry and Hermione - to go back in time and do it all again. And once Harry has been shown fighting off the Nazgul - sorry, Dementors - we (OK, the kids the film is aimed at) are patronised with a detailed explanation.

The Prizoner of Azkaban is directed with more flair than the first two films, but that can’t make up for a weak story that doesn’t flow. It is entertaining but, lacking in structure, feels overlong. Worth a look, but don’t expect too much.

(PS: For an extra dimension, try watching as if Lupin’s secret is that he is a paedophile.)

For Babylon 5 fans (making this topical in about 1995). Apologies in advance.

Went to see The Day After Tomorrow on Thursday. I’m not a big fan of films built around special effects, of which this is a prime example, but I really enjoyed it. Minor spoilers follow.

The basic premise, of a worldwide catastrophe brought about by global warming, is tremendously propagandist but nevertheless welcome in an age when the world’s biggest polluter doesn’t seem to interested in not destroying the planet. In order to show this devastation, by way of some fantastic CGI (as well as the occasional vista that looks like it had been painted), a story in which “While the weather takes control, One Man searches for his son” was thrown together. His quest achieves absolutely nothing (apart from the death of one of his best friends), since his son would have survived just as well if he hadn’t bothered. However, this flimsy premise provides the weak engine that keeps the tale moving forward, allowing each computer-generated set piece to show itself off.

The performances are competent, even if some the actors are giving it their melodramatic best. Jake Gyllenhaal does particularly well in his first blockbuster lead, albeit having to play a character not designed for the average audience member to empathise with: too-clever-by-half straight A students are not the most likeable characters around (someone should inform the producers of Big Brother too).

There are a number of British characters played by British actors, which is always nice. There is a clear attempt to be authentically, rather than stereotypically, English, although that doesn’t stop Ian Holm inviting Dennis Quaid for a cup of tea. (It is heavily implied, but not stated, that most of the Royal Family freeze to death.)

Some OK acting and a few witty lines aside, the film’s star is undoubtedly the freak weather conditions brought on by some technobabble about Atlantic currents. The water is realistic, the blizzards are believable, and the destruction of Los Angeles is awesome.

If you see one no-brainer disaster movie this summer, make it this one. It has a strong message, but the lack of empathy characters or a strong story mean it’s a message without longevity. You’ll come out of the cinema determined to do more to protect the environment. And five minutes later you’ll be filling up with petrol on the way home…

My favourite (albeit the only one I visit) 24 site: 24 - Handy Diagrams. Be warned: it includes Day 3 spoilers!

I was out in Kirkstall this evening delivering letters to local voters. There are a significant number of students at the Headingley end of the ward and we were explaining to them why they would be better off electing Liberal Democrats. It’s not just our national positions (opposing top-up fees, taking a principled stance against the war) that are popular: on issues closer to home (tackling landlordism, keeping the streets clean, reducing crime), LibDems in Leeds are ready to take action.

Kirkstall is close to my heart as I lived there for two years, during which time I helped to halve Labour’s majority. We have a really good, hard-working team in Kirkstall who deserve to win; and residents in Kirkstall deserve a hard-working team representing them. With the whole council up for election this year and more and more people disillusioned with Labour’s failings, we have a real chance to change things for the better.

Last week, the European Commission agreed to lift the EU’s ban on selling genetically modified food for human consumption by approving the sale of Bt-11 sweetcorn (and there’s a brand name that’ll have tins flying off the shelves).

Much news coverage of this has been slightly misleading as this change in the rules does not affect the planting of GM crops, only their sale. One of the principle arguments against the growth of GM crops is that they may "infect" organic produce and thereby reduce choice for those consumers who wish to be able to purchase "uncontaminated", "natural" produce. But, by the same argument, those who wish to buy GM should be able to do so. GM sweetcorn will be labelled as such and those who are concerned about its effects should avoid it. At the risk of sounding like a free marketeer (and I don’t mean Porthos), if consumers don’t buy GM crops, there will be no point in companies’ producing them. If they do sell, it’s because consumers are happy to eat them, in which case they should be allowed to.

I will be boycotting this Bt-11 sweetcorn myself, as I don’t like sweetcorn.