Category: ngga jelas

So mind twisting… (the advertisement a ‘lil bit annoying though.. kebanyakan sponsor!)

Story
begun with Cris Johnson "Frank Cadillac" that has the ability to see 2
minutes (just 2 minutes!) into his own future. He works a low-level
magic act in Las Vegas with this secret ability and also makes money
gambling. However, an FBI Agent sees his uncanny ability to foresee the
immediate future and tries to get him to foil a terrorist plot.

The
basic plot outline above isn’t wholly exciting. And seeing that it is
in the hands of Hollywood in the form of big budget action vehicle it
will definitely turn many viewers off. The recent highly contrived
sci-fi action movie "Deja Vu" is also another potential unfair strike
against this movie. But, be clear of doubt, this film is actually good
and it succeeds in being intriguing and not cheesy at the same time –
completely unlike the "Deja Vu." "Next" leaves a lot to the audience’s
imagination and certain things are there just for you to accept on the
basis that this is a movie – no lengthy pseudo-science speeches here.
The movie also makes very good use of computer effects – there aren’t
many and the few that there are. Johnson’s clairvoyance is shown in a
clever way and the story takes several nice turns. There is the stock
Hollywood romantic angle here, but cheesiness is mercifully spared as
it is not over done, but actually played out humorously in certain
scenes.

Then the kicker is the ending, which I dare not give
away, and it is a real breath of fresh air. It leaves you a lot to
think about and that ultimately ends this film with, not a bang which
many people might expect from a big-budget action-fest. No, definitely
not a bang, but a hum. That hum will stay with you for a while after
you finish watching as you think about what happened and what may still
happen.

Well, there’s some scenes still annoying my mind then.. =D
First, If Johnson could see what may be happen in the next two minutes only, why he can set up the way he met Liz (and the fact that he can foresee that he will met Liz a week ahead) so he could speak with her. While on the other scene, there’s a plot when Johnson tried to explain Liz about his capability he said that "it (his capability-red) isn’t about set up, but it’s about what will happens next".
Second, the scene that show Johnson splitting off into multiple ‘versions’ of himself, with each version representing a different route during the same two minutes when he and the FBI team tried to save Liz from the terrorist (that scene was so weird remembering that Johnson just can see what will happens in the next two minutes! kenapa juga harus ada adegan itu… huh! Serasa nonton Heroes gue, soalnya jadi keingetan sama Peter Petrelli!).
Third, if it takes Johnson two minutes
to view what happens in the future, won’t the two minutes have arrived by the
time he’s viewed it?
and Fourth, why suddenly these terrorist tried to get Johnson also?? There’s no connection explained (in this movie) between Johnson and the terrorist, and how did the terrorist have known that Johnson would stop them from bombing US?

And finally, yes, I too wish I knew who the heck these terrorists were
and what the heck they were trying to accomplish with their nefarious
plot. But I guess that’s the brave new world we live in. We just don’t
get to hear the bad guys’ dialogue, their reasons for doing the things
they do. In that way Next is giving us another insight, not dropping us
cold as others have complained. The only legitimate beef I agree with
is the entirely unnecessary and just plain goofy Nicholas Cage business
during the final pursuit. It looks like it must have been an idea of
somebody too high up among the moguls to deny, but it is a definite
distraction causing "Huh? What?" moments when the action is at its most
intense.

I think this movie could be happening if it release in 1995, not in 2007!!! =P

My favorite line in this movie was comes out in the end of the movie when Johnson said "There’s something about the future… Every time we see the future, it’ll change, just because we saw it… and it will changes everything else".

Setelah membaca thread yang panjang mengenai batere di id-Mac, gue jadi tergelitik untuk ngecheck performa batere macbook gue di sistem profiler….  Dan ini lah hasilnya:

Jadi inget disalah satu email nya salah satu suhu Mac yang bilang kalo salah satu ciri batere yang sehat adalah yang Full Charge Capacity adalah kurang lebih 5400 mAh.
Nah lhooooo… punya gue ga nyampe segituuuuuu… Padahal udah batere update kemaren ke v1.2.
*mulai panik*

Trus jadi inget lagi di salah satu email yang bilang kalo Mac Data Service lagi mengadakan layanan ganti batere untuk MacBook dan MacBook Pro yang dibeli mulai Agutus 2006…
Hmmmm… jadi pengen nelfon ke Mac Data Service, seengga-engga nya biar ga penasaran gituuuuu… Maka jadilah hari Rabu tanggal 9 Mei kemaren gue telp kesana dan diterima dengan baik oleh seorang Mbak bernama Mila. Sedikit brief dari gue mengenai batere gue, tiba-tiba jawaban dari Mbak Mila sangat mengejutkan… “Iya Mbak, batere nya kita ganti”. Padahal tapi kalo dipikir-pikir lagi performa batere gue oke kok… kalo dicharge masih bisa full sampe 100%, di pake mulai dari full tanpa batere masih bisa tahan sampe 4 jam, dan menurut iStat Pro (dan coconut juga) batere health gue masih 91%. Dan udah 6 bulan juga pake dengan intensitas lebih dari 10 jam sehari, which is dalam sehari bisa 2 kali bolak balik ngecharge, atau kalo pun ga ngecharge lagi batere nya gue pantengin kecolok meskipun indicator lampunya sudah berubah dari oranye menjadi hijau alias sudah 100 %.

Tapi batere gue tetep dicatat untuk diganti… horeeeeeee…
Gue cukup meninggalkan serial number MacBook dan no hape ke Mbak Mila karena batere gue kudu pesen dulu ke AppleStore S’pore (katanya siiiih…).

Selasa pagi kemaren, gue ditelfon sama Mbak Mila yang mengabarkan kalo batere pesenan gue udah ada dan siap untuk ditukar. Barusan meluncur ke bilangan Glodok untuk mengambil batere pesenan gue itu. Gratissss!!!!

Dan sekarang, ini lah performance batere gue (menurut system profiler):

Duuuuh senengnyaaaaaaaa..
Sekarang, dengan batere yang sehat dan diwarranty sampe 2 tahun serta Applecare yang bikin MacBook gue diwarranty sampe 3 tahun, gue makin cinta sama mac gue!!!!

Yes, I saw the movie. Did I like it? Yes… I liked it. Did I love it? Not so much. I think it’s because for me, Gore was preaching to the converted. A lot of it I had heard and seen before. The evidence isn’t new for those of us already in the thick of it. I’m a lawyer, not an atmospheric scientist. I’m just interested in science and lends to scientific study. The movie was powerful because it SHOWED people what is happening while keeping the actual science jargon to a minimum. I think that aspect of it was amazing. What I felt the movie lacked was direction. Okay Gore…yeah…there’s all these problems; now suggest to me what the hell I’m supposed to do. Turning off a few lights is not the answer. When the movie finished I found myself kinda feeling like, "hmmm… interesting and amazing… so what are some ‘action items’ I can take away from that film". The movie could have provided a platform for change rather than a mechanism of promoting fear (but …on a positive note… awareness is there).

I’m happy I saw it and I do think it is something that everyone should see. It does make you think. But how many people have already watched this movie…and two weeks later have forgotten about it? Action and long-term messaging… it was missing it, who’s going to pick up the slack?

PS : I still looking for these Al Gore’s book. Can anyone help me find those book here???

(Salah satu tulisan yang pada akhirnya gue selesaikan juga….)

If you think it’s just a feeling, go back… and look again…

That’s closing words I’ve got from Déjà vu trailer movie (directed by Tony Scott… one of my favorite director.. fufu… :-P) I saw last month when my Apple send me an email about that movie.

and,

If you thought it was just a trick of the mind, prepare yourself for the truth..

That’s the tagline of that movie stated on the poster.

Are both of those sentences disturbing you?? Honestly, I am! That the reason why I saw that movie in the theater a week ago. Not because of Denzel Washington, not because of the trailer or the poster I saw (except of Tony Scott, that’s my guilty pleasure by the way.. hehehe *grin*)… but because of those two sentences!!!

The movie are about Doug Carlin (Denzel Washington) is an ATF agent who is called in to recover evidence in the investigation of a New Orleans ferry bombing. After finding evidence that shows it was terrorism, Doug finds the body of Claire Kuchever (Paula Patton), staged to look as if she too died in the bombing. Investigating the possible lead, Doug heads to her house to gather evidence. While there, he discovers bloody gauze and towels, a message on her refrigerator saying "U CAN SAVE HER," and that, for whatever reason, she called his office shortly before the bombing. Confused, he helps the FBI with the ferry investigation and finds out his partner was also killed in the bombing. FBI Agent Pryzwarra (Val Kilmer) recruits him to participate in a special task force, in the process revealing a futuristic device that allows one to observe anywhere four days and six hours in the past. According to the investigative team’s explanation, the device (which is supposedly a composite of satellite images and other surveillance) cannot be fast-forwarded or rewound due to the immense volumes of data being streamed. In other words, the team has a single opportunity to look into the past before the data is lost. Pryzwarra’s team asks Doug to show them where to look in order to catch the culprit responsible for the ferry bombing. As they wait for the four days to happen so they can see the ferry bombing, Doug has them watch Claire and discovers how she came to be involved; the bomber wanted to buy her car to use for the bombing. Doug grows suspicious of the device when the observed Claire begins to exhibit paranoia and notes that she feels as if "someone is watching" her. Suspecting that the device is more than a surveillance tool, he shines a laser pointer into the screen. Claire notices the beam just before the entire device crashes and is forced to reboot. Doug confronts the team, and demands an explanation for the machine, which he has realized is far more than a computer composite. The team admits that the machine is actually a tool capable of bending or folding time and space. In essence, they direct the flow of time back upon itself, enabling them to view past events through a wormhole. Doug immediately begins to question the possibility of them affecting the past either through a direct transportation, or through the communication of some sort of note or message. The team is initially skeptical but it quickly becomes apparent that there is no concrete theory on how they might influence the past or what they are capable of achieving. Doug persuades them to send a note through the device to the past version of himself, hoping that the ‘anonymous tip’ will lead his previous self to prevent the bombing. Unfortunately, the note reaches his partner in the past (who had been thought killed in the ferry bombing). The team proceeds to watch the chilling scene of the partner attempting to apprehend the suspect, but instead being killed in the process. An argument erupts over whether tampering with the past has just killed a federal agent, but cooler heads argue that he was already pre-destined to die on the ferry. Nonetheless, the evidence the team gathers eventually allows them to identify and catch the bomber. Doug questions the bomber in order to get a taped confession, engaging in lengthy dialog that delves into the bomber’s philosophy and mindset.

Naaaaahh… I won’t tell you the ending… U better watch that yourself fellas, coz I recommended it. Kind of my favorite movie since I can’t guess the ending till the movie’s finish, and successfully make me comment “aaaaah.. that’s the answer…"

Thanks to Della who company me to watch this movie…

Oke, lets talk about déjà vu… in recent years, déjà vu has been subjected to serious psychological and neurophysiological research. The most likely explanation of déjà vu is that it is not an act of "precognition" or "prophecy", but rather an anomaly of memory; it is the impression, that an experience is "being recalled", this is false. This explanation is substantiated by the fact that the sense of "recollection" at the time is strong in most cases, but that the circumstances of the "previous" experience (when, where and how the earlier experience occurred) are quite uncertain. Likewise, as time passes, subjects can exhibit a strong recollection of having the "unsettling" experience of déjà vu itself, but little to no recollection of the specifics of the event(s) or circumstance(s) they were "remembering" when they had the déjà vu experience. In particular, this may result from an overlap between the neurological systems responsible for short-term memory (events which are perceived as being in the present) and those responsible for long-term memory (events which are perceived as being in the past). Many theorists believe that the memory anomaly occurs when one’s conscious mind has a slight delay in receiving perceptive input. In other words, the unconscious mind perceives current surroundings before the conscious mind does. This causes one’s conscious self to perceive something that is already in one’s memory, even though it was in one’s memory only a split second before it was perceived.

So, do u believe in déjà vu guys…?? Or do you ever believe in déjà vu??
I think it’s quite nice to let an unanswered question still left unanswered, then let our heart and our voice within guide our way to seek the truth…

My favorite line in this movie :
:: “What if you had to tell someone the most important thing in the world, but you knew they’d never believe you?”
:: “I’d try.”

My favorite scene :
When Doug Carlin trying to catch Carroll Oerstadt with the Hummer H1. That was so cooooool….!!

 

 

…ini loooh adegan yang keren banget itu…

And still disturbing me : can we really change our past???? (hehehehehehehehe…)