The weekend is finally here, but the stress isn't going away for the moment. Given the long days and pressure, that's no surprise. The rats moved in last night and are currently hiding in their cage from a very curious Pie: he's never lived with other animals before.

Today, I'm just watching films or TV series. I need to relax. First on the list this morning is Trekkies, a documentary about Star Trek fans. Boy, there are some weird ones, but of course for the most part they're just normal folks who enjoy something enough to become a little obsessive about it. As one person says: "Wearing a football shirt or a basketball uniform all year isn't odd. Why should wearing a Star Trek uniform be any different?"

There's some neat stories from the stars, too - Whoopi Goldberg being influenced by Uhura, Scotty recounting a suicidal fan saved by convention attendance, Bones receiving a rather fruity fan letter and - my favourite - Spock at a party back in the early days. A hand lands on his shoulder and a voice says "You had your ears fixed..." - it was John Wayne.

Did you know that Trekkies (or Trekkers for those who prefer it) are the only people who have the term for their fandom in the Oxford English Dictionary?

Reading the news for once, I happened across this item about the United States' intention to rekindle the space program. Strangely, only yesterday I was watching The Disclosure Project's executive briefing video, in which a lady exec from one of the big aerospace/space tech companies stated her fears for the militarisation of space. When the same government who expresses going to war as "It's Hammer time!" has a desire "to ensure U.S. military dominance in space, especially in the wake of China's first manned space flight last year", I just hope there's no intelligent life out there.

Quite apart from the fact that it would be such a terrible shame to take all the bad things about humanity and push them out into the void (although pushing certain humans into the void without space suits could, of course, be tempting), I don't understand the belligerent attitude. I don't really want to see my home city (or planet) disappear under a plasma bomb just because Billy Joe-Bob thinks he's a patriot, has an itchy trigger finger and thought the Asgard Mothership "looked like one o'them thar Commies."

Speaking of space, I've been watching a lot of UFO-related stuff recently: there's no particular reason, it all just came along at the same time. Some of it is very interesting. Some of it borders on the insane.

The first one I sat through was the "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" show that tries to show all the inconsistencies in the moon landing film, photographs, technology and so on. It's an interesting, if lightweight, piece of television: there are, indeed, many oddities in the photos, film and technology at first glance. Unfortunately, this was a Fox TV broadcast, which means it was full of stupidity, over-dramatisation, bad science and one-sided opinions. There's a rather excellent (if a little ranty) page here that gives the other side of the argument.

The second - and best so far seen - was SciFi's "UFO Invasion at Rendlesham". An unfortunate choice of name, to be honest, but US television does have an overwhelming desire to be dramatic. This was a much better show, not least because it covers events that happened during my lifetime and less than two hours' drive from where I lived in the UK! The presentation's much better, too, being quite simply a lot of people talking about the event and not even attempting pretence of showing both sides of the argument. Regardless of what one personally believes, this one is interesting.

Finally, I sat through the Disclosure Project's executive briefing video. Two hours of it. This is basically a long string of interview snippets (note: I always hate seeing editing in interviews, as it's too easy to cut bits out and change the meaning). Starting out quite simple, with accounts of UFO sightings and odd things happening, things get a little bizarre towards the end. Bizarre as in "there's an alien base on the dark side of the moon" and "I've met aliens lots of times" bizarre. Still, it makes for interesting viewing.

Of course, all this begs the question "Do you believe in UFOs?"

This is, in itself, a stupid question. Of course I do: anything that's flying and unidentified is a UFO. The more pertinent question would be to ask what I think they are, not whether they exist. In a way, I'd love for there to be aliens, to be other life in the universe. Obviously, it'd be nice if they were friendly. On the other hand, I'd just like to know what they are: whether they're military ships, alien vessels, illusions or weather balloons. It'd also be nice if the technology could be shared for something more constructive than military uses.

At the risk of sounding overly sentimental, Little Voice is perhaps one of the most touching films I have ever seen, and also one of the most surprising.

Jane Horrocks, Michael Caine and Ewan McGregor all turn in superb performances, with Brenda Blethyn being a tad melodramatic but remaining within the bounds of believability. It's a real pleasure to see Michael Caine in particular, in a role of a shoddy, second-rate agent who believes he's found his passport to 'the big time' in LV. That man is such a great actor.

Bypassing Jane Horrocks' astounding ability to mimic people, it's also a pleasure to see her on the big screen again: she does a heck of a lot of voice work, but to be honest I haven't seen her in a major role since Life Is Sweet. She's a real star and can play demented, disordered, deranged or simply different people with such style...

As for 'Little Voice', the story is a fairly standard setup: unbearably shy LV has a talent, is discovered by the local agent, the road to riches and stardom opens... but love is in the offing, so which will she choose? That summary, however, is where the similarity to virtually any other 'standard' setup stops: LV does not want stardom. She doesn't even really know she has her talent, which is completely passive. Her choice is not between stardom or love.

Virtually nothing beyond the basic storyline is 'standard' here. There's no "*gasp* Wow!" surprises, but events turn in quite unexpected directions at all times. Many folks even complain at the end because "it isn't an end" or "it isn't what we want". That's another reason to love the film: it doesn't give the viewer a Hollywood (yawn) ending. It doesn't tie up all the loose strings.

It's like life: there's no tidy endings. Look past the obvious images at what's underneath. See the film for what it is, and enjoy.

Tekwar has been sitting here for a while. So long, in fact, that I forgot I had it. I must admit it's almost scary to watch a film directed by Fat Bill (William Shatner, of course) and based upon his own book. I must admit to beginning viewing with too many preconceptions: it must be rubbish, after all, since Captain Kirk isn't exactly a literary genius as far as I am aware. However, having seen that it didn't get completely awful reviews, I thought I'd give it a go.

Basically, it's a cop story much like many others: the usual (small) twists and turns enhanced by inventive use of technology, the expected chance occurences that ensure the bad guys lose and the good guys win, and of course the romantic influence tacked on for good measure.

All in all, it was reasonable viewing. The characters are terribly thin, so I found myself watching mostly for the story, which was viewable if not entrancing. None of the bad guys, or even the good guys, really appealed to me, which is a shame in a cop story - it means I really didn't care that much who won, who died or why anyone was really doing anything. On the other hand, the setting was well-created and stands up to some scrutiny, the effects were appropriate and not horribly over-emphasised as in most lower-budget science fiction.

Fat Bill, however, still insists on bad eye makeup in most things: either that or he has very strange eyes. Gotta love the old toad, haven't you?

I finally watched The Matrix Reloaded yesterday. There are no spoilers, here, fear not. Obviously, I'd heard an awful lot about the film, both good and bad. Primarily, the reviews seemed split between those who found it disappointing and overly heavy on special effects and those who were 'wowed' by it, much like the first.

To start with, one should accept that this trilogy of films is much like the Star Wars trilogy was for my generation: it's the biggest film-changing event in the lives of this generation, much as the latter was for mine. New ways of seeing things, a new idea, new direction methods and special effects that had never been seen before. Consequently, views are split, much as they were for the latter.

As far as I'm concerned, there are three main parts (in order of importance) to the film: the story, the acting and the effects. The first of these was handled surprisingly well. I remember being a bit miffed at the messianic end to the first film, which led to my apprehension of a 'preachy' story in the second. Let's face it, the whole 'The One' thing appeals mostly to adolescent males who want to believe they could be as important as Neo, wear the shades and coat and do all the funky martial arts.

Thankfully, there aren't a whole load of sermons in the film: I was surprised, to say the least. Particularly with Morphius believing in the 'Prophesy', I'd feared that virtually everything he said would be dramatic, important and overly heavy: it wasn't. His speeches are, obviously, a little heavier than others, but they're well-written, well-balanced and don't make the viewer wish he'd shut up!

The story also fits well into the trilogy: the first film could really have been left as it was, but the continuation makes sense, works well and stitches seamlessly in. Much like The Empire Strikes Back, the second episode leaves the viewer wanting to see the completion and, one could say, is not a story in its own right. This is fine: it's intended to be like that.

Secondly, the acting was good. I have a well-known and public disliking of Keanu Reeves, who I consider to be too boring and forced in most of his serious roles. Surprisingly, again, he was quite acceptable: suspension of disbelief almost achieved and wooden personality almost gone! I may have to re-think my opinions of him if he carries on like this. Unfortunately, I personally found the disappointment in this episode to be Mr Fishburne: I don't really know why, but I found him less imposing and less interesting than in the first. Trinity is, of course, still lovely.

Finally, the special effects. Now, we all know that The Matrix is what might be called effects-heavy. That would, of course, be an understatement! The budget for the effects in Reloaded would probably fund a small country for a decade, there's so many. However - and much respect to the Wachowskis for this - it's all somehow appropriate. Bullet-time is not overused and is still used in context (i.e. when there's a seriously life-threatening situation). That pan-round-while-in-freeze-frame effect is also rarely seen and used to good effect. Slow-motion appears often, but makes sense, much as the lack of camera changes in older Jackie Chan films does.

Of course, there's a whole load of new effects, too. I particularly liked the ghosting and shock-waves: it's only after a moment that one realises the stuff in the background is all affected, as it should be in real life.

All in all, I must admit to enjoying the film immensely: it's a lot better than I had anticipated and makes for a lot of fun. And yes, I admit I was wrong in my pre-viewing assumptions!

Spotted this one referenced at Flowerhead's site (in the list on the left, there!): someone posted the AFI (American Film Institute, presumably) Top 100 films of all time, and marked the ones they'd seen. That's a nice idea. Shame the list is made by a bunch of mysogenistic idiots who refuse to include international film, but whatever.

This has inspired me, in a strange way, to produce not one, but three lists: the AFI list as supplied and the IMDB top 100 and bottom 100 films. The latter two make more sense to me, since it's effectively voted for by viewers all over the world. So which ones have I seen? The ones in bold. The ones in italics I own, but haven't yet found time to watch...

And the summary is...

AFI: Seen 35, have another 6 waiting (so 41% in all).
IMDB Top 100: Seen 43, have another 16 waiting (so 59% in all).
IMDB Bottom 100: Seen 30, have another 8 waiting (so 38% in all).

So... I agree much more with IMDB's list than the AFI's (but that's normal, since I enjoy international cinema) and, erm, I seem to have a penchant for bad films!!

France 2 showed The Matrix tonight, followed by the animated prologue (I believe that's what it is) Animatrix. I missed them both, since I was over at Psycho's, propping up her depression at the fact that the world apparently refuses to revolve around her.

I've seen the film, of course - 99% of all cinema/film lovers have, after all - and must say that I enjoy it immensely. It does, however, have its problems. First among these, and the only one really worth noting, is Keanu Reeves. He simply can't act. Yes, yes, I know he's playing "Mr. Anderson", a normal guy and all that, but he could at least have a bit of a personality. I'd also appreciate it if he could lose that stupid 'deep' voice he tries to put on when he's being serious - it just makes him sound stupid. Oh, and learn to fight Kung-Fu style... smoothly. I really detest all the poseur-style move-stop-move-stop crap he comes up with.

Of course, seeing the whole thing dubbed into French would have just been horrific, so I'm not too worried at missing it. Oh, while I think of it... the best stupidity in French dubbing that I've seen since I've been here? Aliens. There's a moment where Hicks is teaching Ripley to use a pulse rifle. She asks what the thing underneath is - it's the grenade launcher. So he teaches her to use it and, at one point, says "And don't forget to duck." The French translation? "Et n'oublie pas les canards."

"And don't forget the ducks."

I can just imagine several million French viewers saying "Huh?"

I finally sat down and watched the (now a couple of years old) film, Me, Myself & Irene tonight. I've had it on DVD for some time now, which in itself is surprising as I am neither a fan of Jim Carrey nor of Renée Zellweger. I suppose I was tempted by a region 1 DVD with Icelandic subtitles. Or not.

To avoid mincing words, Jim Carrey used to annoy the crap out of me. I thought he was excellent in The Dead Pool and in The Mask, but hated the Ace Ventura films and everything he did during that period. What turned my opinion around enough for me to consider watching him again was The Truman Show, which was an astounding piece of work and showed that this stupid-grinned ass had more than a bunch of silly smirks to display. So how was this offering?

Well, I must say I enjoyed it immensely. I expected very little - from the directors of Dumb and Dumber and There's Something About Mary (both of which I chuckled through, I should add), I anticipated some laughs, a simple story and a lot of silliness. However, given a multiple personality story, this one had a touch more potential.

Carrey is excellent in both his roles, as the two personalities of the lead character: particularly towards the end of the film, when he fights himself, he shows remarkable ability and physical talent that I haven't seen for quite some time. The first person who sprang to mind as a comparison was Charlie Chaplin, but that's probably just a mental knee-jerk reaction to physical antics. Admittedly, the story itself is pretty thin, but that's not important - the vital part of the film is the characters, and how they grow and change.

Zellweger unfortunately doesn't get to make much of her role, remaining pretty much a foil to Carrey's twin personalities. That's a shame, as she's a good actress (although I don't particularly like her myself, I can at least recognise that she's not cardboard!). The viewer learns little of her past, and what is learnt doesn't really matter: OK, so this is really a showpiece for Carrey, but I like all my characters fleshed out, thanks very much.

However, the funniest, best and without a doubt the most rewardingly funny parts of the film are those shared by Carrey's character and his three children. Carefully caricatured, while retaining dignity and style, these three black guys are absolutely hilarious, particularly counterpointed by Carrey's oh-so-whiteness. The film is worth watching purely for these scenes, in my opinion.

So, all in all, an enjoyable evening. My recommendation? Buy it if you see it going as a budget title: it's the sort of film one can watch several times with different friends, or purely when one doesn't want a serious, heavy film, but some pizza and chuckles. Top marks to the Farrely brothers for smooth direction, and to Carrey and company for being convincing, charming and funny.

I was watching a French TV film-cum-pseudo-documentary called L'Odyssée de l'espèce (the Odyssey of the Species) last night and had a bunch of thoughts. First off, I should explain that it's a dramatisation of the evolution of the human species, from apes onwards. It has both its positive and negative aspects...

To begin with, the visual effects are impressive: plenty of computer creations of what the predecessors of humans could have looked like, of long-since extinct (or evolved) species of animal, some lovely visuals of mountains forming and so on. Many of the effects are very well produced, although some of them look a little like they come out of computer game cut-scenes, to be honest. In addition to this, there's a lot of fly-by shots of gorgeous places in the world - wide, rolling savannah, mountains and so on.

Secondly, the story - for it is a story in tone as well as content and not a documentary as such, since no one actually knows what happened - is well-written. It flows, it keeps the viewer's attention and it makes sense within its settings. It also presents many aspects of the theory of evolution in a very accessible way. The invention of tools, the reasons for standing on two legs and many other aspects of human evolution are presented as little parts of a big story.

Thirdly, the content is excellent for young people asking where humans came from, or learning about evolution. Nothing major is missed out, from the australopithec to homo erectus, neanderthals and homo sapiens, and the little mini-stories held within contain humour, sadness, adventure and all sorts of attention-grabbing moments.

On the other hand, I really disliked the whole thing. Presenting current theories as fact has always been one of my pet hates: admittedly, it's difficult to put "perhaps" or "probably" into almost every phrase, but simply presenting things as "this is how it was" is not good. It amounts quite simply to a form of brainwashing, for want of a better expression, much the same as forcing people to accept a certain religion or other set of ideas without questioning. Even the "possibles" of why apes first stood on two legs, how they discovered tools and so on are presented with a little too much certainty for my liking.

Some of the visual effects also turned me off somewhat. Specifically, very near the beginning, the still half-ape humans seemed, to me, to show expressions in a fashion that didn't feel right. Now, I'm no expert on apes or on pre-human species, but if for a moment we accept that humans are descended from apes, then I would expect them to act like them. I've read a whole bunch of books on human behaviour and body language in the past, that made a lot of sense, and too many of the film's choices fit more with modern humans than with apes. Admittedly, the producers of the film undoubtedly tried to make a sort of mix of human and ape behaviour in showing expressions and emotions, but there are too many touches of modern bearing for my liking. Given that these creatures are supposed to exists several millions of years ago, I would hardly expect them to show expressions that are much more social and recent.

However, the worst thing in the whole film is the awful narrative. Don't forget, I'm a scientist - the horribly dramatic and supposedly poetic voice-over through the film really had my teeth grating. Of course, it's French, so emotion and drama are expressed differently to the way I am accustomed (being British), but even so it sounded more like a boxing commentator mixed with a Mills & Boon author than anything else. Ick.

All in all, it's a good introduction to the theory of evolution, but I would hate to think of someone watching it without a pinch of salt (or several hundred) handy. Primarily for children who question where we came from, and definitely not for me.