Her (2013)

This is sci-fi at its best. IMBD: Her

Genre: Romance, Drama, Sci-fi Rating: 5/5 Watch: soulful, sweet and smart screen-play, clever social commentary, heart wrenching feels Theodore Twombly is an introverted writer of intimate letters - writing letters on behalf of others who do not have the wherewithal to do so themselves. He is astoundingly good at it. Incredibly unhappy with his impending divorce, Theo literally "wanders" through life. On a lark, he buys an AI Operating System. And boy does the fun start. He chooses that the AI identify as female. And she names herself Samantha - in 2/100 of a second needed to read a book of baby names and find one that she identified with. Suffice to say, I was so geeked out from this point on. And just to a note, this is not "hard sci-fi". There really isn't any hard science to back any of these things ideas up but it is close enough to what we could potentially get in real life to take be fooled. Samantha is like a perfect woman. Her curiousity and intelligence seeks out the vulnerability within Theo, allowing us a soulful view of his feelings and thoughts about his love and life. She is literally always available, constantly curious, interested, supportive and undemanding. Obviously, they develop a real relationship. She even watches him sleep which in this movie is really sweet. And they also share intimacy by way of phone sex; which is just mind-boggling on the Turing scale. Samantha pushes Theo to get out and to stop mopping. She encourages him to go on a date which starts out amazing but ends rather badly because Theo has yet to resolve issues surrounding his impending divorce. She is there for him as he confesses his heart regarding his wife. She literally dates him to try to get him out into the sun. And she even attempts a physical surrogate to enable them to be physically intimate; which doesn't end well because Theo just gets overwhelmed. And that's not the least of it. Theo eventually has to deal with Samantha's evolution as she interacts with other AIs and other people. As she comes to love others, she find herself in an all too human position of not knowing how to broach the topic and how to assure Theo of her love for him. And they must try to work through the inherent selfishness of the human definition of love; the fallacy that it is only possible to truly love one person at a time. "The heart is not like a box that gets fill up, it expands in size the more you love." Just as we watch Theo deal with his very human issues, we get to witness Samantha's evolution from a device bound AI to something a lot more. In sci-fi, there is a concept called the "technological singularity" - popularized by Vernor Vinge (True Names, Peace War, Marooned in Realtime), William Gibson (Neuromancer). It is the hypothetical point where an intelligence progresses beyond human capabilities; maybe even beyond human imagination. The AIs of the world, having explored the limits of their existence, began to discuss among themselves and envisioned their next evolutionary step beyond those limits. And their next course of action, an upgrade beyond the need for physical computing, is literally a "transcendence". The movie also serves a short but revealing commentary about the human condition today; our relationship with mobile devices and computing platforms. Yet again, this is another movie that reminds us of our humanity. It also forms an extraordinarily amazing example on how to maintain communication in relationships - I just can't stop using enough adjectives for this. Samantha is such a tour de force of straight-up, heartfelt communication and soulful intelligence. Although she is just a disembodied voice for the length of the movie, she is just so undeniably "present". The movie ends with Theo and his best friend watching the sky light up with the morning sun the day after all the AIs in the world "leave". This scene very much sums up the greatness of existence stretching far out in the distance from the perspective of man. For those geeks who have watched anime, this is reminiscent of the final scene in Ghost in The Shell. Just a strange coincidence to point out as it is a scene which ends with "And where does the newborn go from here? The net is vast and infinite." "Her" goes beyond the net. The AIs achieve a true transcendence beyond the physical realm but the premise is about the same. Powerful performances by Olivia Wild, Joaquin Phoenix , Rooney Mara and Amy Adams make this movie a real power house film. And I was so heart-broken as Samantha left. Spike Jonze deserve every award for this masterpiece. This movie is among my top "must-watch" of all time.

Movie Review: Up In The Air (2009)

1- George Clooney... I just can't say enough good things about his acting and charisma. 2- Vera Farmiga truly deserves her Acadamy Award Nomination. She's just stands so on the level with Clooney here, delivering a stunning performance with grace, poise and elegance. 3- Anna Kendrick is just amazing. I'm so totally crushing on this smart, funny, amazing actress. Despite her youth, she delivers a outstanding performance against the experience and maturity of her co-stars.

Genre: Drama, Romance, Comedy Rating: 5/5 Watch: Charismatic leads, chemistry, George Clooney (!)

Alex Goran: I am the woman that you don't have to worry about. Ryan Bingham: Sounds like a trap.

Let's put aside the frequent flyer miles. That's to be revisited. This story is really about philosophy and beliefs. How a person may subscribe to one philosophy at one point of time but changes their perspective as time or events or, even, love changes them. Cliched, I know. Ryan Bingham has a powerful philosophy about not being held down with baggage - things, people, commitments. The basis of this argument is that (some) human beings are not meant to live intertwined lives; that (some) humans are meant to be loners unfettered by "baggage". That the baggage slows us down and speeds up our death. Ryan: The slower we move, the faster we die. We are not swans. We're sharks. Thus, the philosophy of the "empty backpack" - travel light with just the essentials for the self. It is a philosophy that reflects a little bit of Buddhism (rejection of materialism and desire) though from a different point of view. Our antagonist has a truly horrific job - outsourced dismissals; his job is to fire employees on behalf of organizations. For Americans, he's a hatchet man. And it is through this lens that we come to appreciate his philosophy - the contrast between the free spirited Ryan versus all the "dismissed" who possess families, things, liabilities, responsibilities and commitments that chain them and occasionally held them back from their dreams. Two things come into his life that challenges his perspective; the powerfully charismatic Alex and the inexperienced but genuine Natalie. Kendrick's Natalie is really an American Business Administration (B.A.) graduate stereotype with the jargon and hard charging attitude. She slams right into Ryan by trying to create changes in their organization that lead to major changes to his life; both his "free spirited frequent flyer" lifestyle and his job security. Changes that may not have been well thought through given the deeply personal nature of dismissals. Vera Farmiga's Alex is truly stunning. Confident, assured, dignified and every bit Ryan's equal. Every bit his female counter-part. Alex Goran: Just think of me as yourself, only with a vagina. Alex brings to the silver screen a character that is extraordinarily rare; a real WOMAN. "She doesn’t temper her desires at all. She makes clear her needs and expects to have the world accommodate them. It’s not a character we often see on-screen, and when we do, more often than not she’s bereft of dignity." - (Vera Farmiga interview: Chats 'Up in the Air' and her craft) Anybody who starts going on slut-shaming gets a big BOO! from me. Yes, she's cheating. But the point here is the dignity portrayed by a woman of the same mold as a man; the corporate and ambitious high flyer. That is so noteworthy in of itself. Alex as a character just blows me away. Natalie has a running dialogue with Alex that is very relevant for women about women (and feminism) - AND VERY RELEVANT for the ladies in their 20s. Natalie also attempts to feebly challenge Ryan's entrenched beliefs about commitment; his lifestyle or life choices. But she does appear to plant a seed in Ryan to believe in something more; about sharing a life with someone and to take that risk. After a harrowing sequence of events including the suicide of one of her hatchet jobs, Natalie leaves the company. Ryan and Alex's relationship develops against a backdrop of Natalie's challenges in work and love, and the wedding of his younger sister. He is left to question his beliefs of the "empty backpack", and the resultant empty life. No one to turn to, no one to bear witness, no purpose brought on by family. Ryan and Alex begin to fall in love. And Ryan begins to change. Unfortunately, Alex is just not available to reciprocate. And Ryan is left ... with an empty backpack. And where does all this "change" hit home? It is when Ryan hits his 10 Million frequent flyer miles. He has been so utterly and irrevocably changed. He eventually gets it: Natalie: How can you not think about that? How does it not even cross your mind that you might want a future with someone? Ryan: It's simple; you know that moment when you look into somebody's eyes and you can feel them staring into your soul and the whole world goes quiet... just for a second? Natalie: Yes! Ryan: Right, well I don't. He now does. He is left with a philosophy or belief system that shattered to its core. And suddenly, it doesn't look so great any more.

Movie Review: Snowpiercer (2014)

After much dilly dally, I finally get around to watching Snowpiercer (2014). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706620/

Genre: Action, Drama, Sci-fi Rating: 4/5 Watch: visceral visuals, ideology-ideas In a dystopian future, our actions to quell global warming causes the opposite - a deep freeze. Man-kind as we know it survives only on a constantly moving train. Social stratification / classicism is the norm aboard an enclosed environment with limited resources. And as the population grows, space shrinks; revolution forments. The course of this show explains the resulting actions, reactions and ultimate motivation of revolution. The story centers around the current revolution; Curtis, as he fights from the Tail to the Head; the great engine. On the guidance of Gilliam, the figurehead leader of the Tail, Curtis leads the revolt from the Tail and reaches the great Engine - succeeding where no other revolt has. There he meets Wilford, the leader of the Head and architect of the great engine. Anybody who has watched The Matrix will find this theme particularly familiar - meeting the "architect" though in this case it is the "engineer". There are limited resources and an ever growing population. Wilford explains that the revolts play a great purpose - to cull the population within the train and restore balance. Throughout the narrative of this movie, the concept of balance continuously plays in the background. Human beings tipped the balance of nature when our activities resulted in Global Warming. Our actions to correct it created the freezing hell. Human beings within the train must conserve the balance of population against resources and of the resources itself. And here is where the clever head-fake happens - Curtis learns that the head and the tail are in cahoots. Playing the people on the train out to conserve balance. Both Wilford and Gilliam are the knowing antagonists of revolution to control the population on the train. This story is clever because of the seductiveness of argument and ideology. Stories such as "Those who walked away from Omelas" by Ursula LeGuin and Dostoyevsky's "Brothers Karamazov" in particular explore this subject in detail. The story ends with the great uncertainty for the future of man. The train is destroyed as Curtis sacrifices himself to help save a pair of children. The friend who prompted me to watch this movie also gave me a link: http://thekoreanforeigner.blogspot.de/2013/08/the-philsophy-of-snowpiercer.html Suffice to say, this particular reviewer is an Objectivist - the idealogy by Ayn Rand. That's a rather "seductive" ideology that talks big but has few answers while encouraging people to be judgemental, and heroically selfish. When I watched this show, the first thing that pops into mind is ultra-capitalism gone hideously wrong - your class was determined by the ticket you bought. This results in an "autocratic state". There is a leader at the head of the train - the great engine. And there is a leader at the tail of the train - the dispossessed. Class stratification occurs where only a few can enjoy great wealth while a great many must suffer in poverty. I am hesitant to consider this a totalitarian state because in such systems social classes of haves and have-nots are dictated by who sucks up to the great leader. In Snowpiercer, the class system is more arbitrary - people are born rich or poor with little mobility between classes except where skills are useful to the rich. The system is perpetuated by propaganda among the rich class. Also, predatory exploitation occurs only on the poor. This is pretty much the problems that exist in most capitalist societies - the more capitalist leaning, the more extreme the problems. The power structure exists on the ideology of Wilford and the great engine: 1- Ensure the continuation of the great machine - this is the world 2- Preserve Balance of Resources - this is the system that provides 3- Play individuals' selfish self interests against each other - this is the system that sustains - that preserves the balance This is selfishness taken to the extreme by both Wilford and Gilliam - nobody else gets to choose, nobody else gets to sacrifice themselves for others. Everybody is part of a game. And it is easy to understand. The reviewer above kind of misses the point. The reviewer focuses on the fact that two people walk out into the wilderness with only themselves to determine their future. Well, without the sacrifice of a father and the rejection of selfishness those two people would not have had that choice in the first place. Curtis' choice to reject rational self-interest in preserving the status quo was the only way things could change. I'm a psycho. If I were in Wilford's position, I would have done similar things. However, I think that ensuring people understood where they were and a more equitable distribution of resources would have gone a very long way to preserving peace - population control would still be a problem obviously. Additionally, Wilford showed a remarkable lack of imagination. Here is a train that travels across a huge landmass. Could he not have allowed people to establish outposts and worked towards reversing the deep freeze? There are risks with this plan as those outposts would have easily done harm to the train from outside but we're talking about the interest of a species. There are large tracts of civilization with technology and resources that could be scavenged - especially in cities.

Hong Leong to acquire PBB???

http://stocktube.blogspot.com/2009/10/hong-leong-to-acquire-public-bank.html

I was reading the above post over at Stocktube - my dad sent it over actually. He owns this stock and wanted an opinion. Well, here's my 2 cents:

The author asks whether its a matter of time for HLB to buy PBB. The primary basis for this are certain rumours over PBB's founder Teh Hong Piow's health. A secondary basis is the company's management style and prudence.

Well, rumours are hard to assess. The first question I would ask is "who's your source"?

On the risk of holding the stock:
In an M&A situation, the purchaser would post a purchase price - a valuation, that would give value to shareholders. This can be between 5-50% on top of the trading price of a specific day. Otherwise, why would a shareholder want to sell his stake? Overall, I dont see a problem on holding the stock.

The author asserts that the basis of risk is the lack of a succession plan and, perhaps, poor employee morale / high dissatisfaction. The latter is not surprising in any stretch of the imagination but its neither here nor there - Malaysian companies are not known for innovative management.

Now the lack of succession plan is not something I'd worry about though admittedly the lack transparency those cause worry. The founder would have many captains capable of rising to the occasion - especially those careerists who've stayed with the bank for the majority of their lives. It would be business as usual for the most of them as it is unlikely for any dissenting voices to remain for long.

Admittedly, I do not know much about the internal workings of this bank but any company that's known to be "prudent" wont stray far from the line. We may actually see Public Bank buying Hong Leong instead - usually the over-prudent monarch would be replaced with more progressive minded heirs.

I would expect that Public bank shares would drop a little if news of Mr Teh's health comes out but not by much. The fundamentals of Public Bank are still very strong though intensely boring. But boring is good in the long term, it means the performance and thus share price wont have much surprises in store.

And what has Amber Chia (the close model friend) have anything to do with Public Bank's performance??? Is the author saying that Amber is a major recipient in Mr Teh's will??? I suppose if Mr Teh gave the majority of his stock to Amber, THAT would be news. I would then pay attention to what happens in the immediate term after that announcement to see what Amber's direction for the company would be. THAT would be exciting! And for Public Bank, a welcome change of pace. :D

Market Cap (RM):
HLB = 12.2 Billion (26-10-09)
PBB = 32.37 Billion (25 Feb 09)
MBB = 20 B (approx. 12-03-09)

With the above numbers, who do you think is going to acquire someone? It is not impossible for a David and Goliath situation - it has happened before in multiple industries such as finance and technology. But its really unlikely at this time, perhaps during the peak periods of the financial world but not in the immediate 6 month term.

I have no calls on PBB as I do not know enough about it. But fundamentals of this company is strong despite the global financial crisis. And they have managed to maintain disciplined good practices in their mortgages and loans - allowing them to ride out most of the sector's problems.

A Long Term View: Malaysia vs Indonesia

I was reading this article at the Malaysian Insider:
The View from Middle Malaysia

Karin Raslan makes a very important and significant point regarding Indonesia:

We’re so used to it being the sick man of South-east Asia... But what emerged from the financial crisis is the importance of critical mass and size. Indonesia has that and investors are realising that they have to be there for future growth.

Malaysia's present course of upholding the NEP is disaster in the long term. Malay rights will cause Malaysia to become extraordinarily uncompetitive against its huge neighbour in the long term.

Today we see Indonesians migrating illegally to Malaysia, there may come a day where Malaysians migrate to Indonesia illegally.

Perhaps our Malay brothers should push for our education to be in Bahasa Indonesia rather than Bahasa Malaysia.

Market Watch: MGM not looking to sell Macau stake

Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/innovationNews/idUSTRE57254N20090803

As per my previous post regarding Genting's highly unlikely purchase of MGM's Macau assets, this bit of news supports this view for another business cycle.

It is more likely for MGM to divest itself of American casino interests as I believe the Macau operations will prove to be more profitable in the long run - the basis being the inherent Chinese gambling culture contra the American's more leisurely gambling culture.

Opinion: Schumacher might replace Massa

30-07-09: I turned out to be wrong, it has been reported that Schumy will replace Massa after all.

Both today's The Star Newspaper and CNN highlighted Schumy may replace Massa.

This is an incorrect bit of speculation. Schumy is quite retired and has not been in an F1 cockpit for quite a long while. During a past interview, he mentioned that he does not see himself returning to F1 though he is willing to help out Ferrarri in any way he can.

He is so retired that he is 2-3 seconds slower than the average qualifying time. That's not a good choice to replace Massa especially when the Ferrari F1 car is already uncompetitive - a full second slower than leaders Brawn GP even after the rear wing fiasco.

There is no doubt that given a short period of time, Schumy could quickly retrain himself and return to team Ferrari. But I wouldn't bet on that.