So what’s this version of the A-Team like? Well, in one word, disappointing. Yes there were some OK moments but these were few and far between. It’s not a bad film but it just didn’t do it for me. I was left thinking ‘why wasn’t that as good as I hoped?’

We pick up the four soldiers in various parts of Mexico half way through a mission. After successfully complete this mission we jump to Iraq where the team have formed a very successful alpha unit with many missions under their belts. They are then asked to perform one final mission in Iraq to recover plates for printing 100 dollar bills that were used to print a billion dollars. They return successfully but the plates are then stolen again at base and the team are accused of stealing the plates, court martialed and sent to different prisons. 6 months later, Hannibal Smith, the team leader, is helped to escape by a CIA agent and asked to retrieve the plates in return for the team’s names to be cleared. Will the team get the plates back, will they clear their names.

So what do you think? Does that sound like an A-team script? I don’t and I think these is the reason that it’s not as good as I’d hoped, it doesn’t sound that bad a script but it just doesn’t sound like an A-Team script. The whole point of the A-Team is they are soldiers of fortune on the run, having been unfairly accused of a crime they didn’t commit. They are guns for hire. In my eyes this film spent too long setting the A-Team up, I never really thought they actually became the real A-Team. I felt the whole film was a set up for a sequel to come and I actual think a sequel could be better than this one. They have quite a few of the right pieces they just need to put them together correctly they just didn’t with this film. I felt the whole back story could have been done in 15 minutes and then the movie could have been about the A-Team, as we know them, carrying out one of their many jobs. I actually think the members of the A-team are pretty well cast and perform their roles pretty well so it’s just disappointing that the film wasn’t great.

Overall it’s mindless entertainment which isn’t bad but I wouldn’t go out my way to see it. I think my view may be distorted because I used to love the TV series and this just isn’t the same, you may have a different opinion if you are coming fresh to the A-Team, but if you use an existing idea, surely you expect that people will have preconceptions of what they want to see and surely you follow what the TV series did.

More information at IMDB

As I heard the cast list slowly announced, my excitement grew as you realized this could be something special (or at least hoped it could be), quality was just oozing from it in all directions. However it’s all to easy to build your expectations too high and then be immensely disappointed with the end result, as I have done once before. So in order to try and avoid doing this I managed to avoid all reviews and comments about what the film was really about, except the very basics that I will share with you later and just caught the trailer. However, as I entered the cinema to see Inception I couldn’t help but feel a little excited, fingers crossed then that it’s good!

Well no it’s not good …….. it’s exceptional! What Christopher Nolan has again produced is an exciting & intelligent thriller of the highest standard. He has pulled together some stunning effects, a great soundtrack, a brilliant cast and most importantly a fantastic story to produce a film that is definitely the best thing I’ve seen so far this year.

Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a thief, but not your usual kind of thief, he is able to steal you deepest, most valuable secrets from you as you sleep. He is able to extract that information from people as the mind is most vulnerable when your dreaming, he enters the subjects dreams and steals the information. Cobb uses his ability to steal in the world of big businesses and corporate espionage. Due to his work he can no longer return home as he is on the run, however when one man offers him the chance to return home for one final job he jumps at the chance. This job is a little different from the others because instead of stealing an idea he must plant one, the process know as Inception….

I’ll leave the set up there, that is all you need to know. I’ll just give you a few thoughts on the film then, without trying to give too much away.

The cast is, as you would expect, great. I don’t really want to single anyone out because it’s an ensemble piece, but you’d have to say Leonardo DiCaprio shows again that he can put in a performance of quality. Cobb’s team of Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Ariadne (Ellen Page), Eames (Tom Hardy), Saito (Ken Watanabe) and Yusuf (Dileep Rao) all put in solid performances and support DiCaprio well and Marion Cotillard is also stunning as Cobb’s wife.

What Nolan does so well is he never overdoes everything, yes there are some fantastic effects but they are not over used and they are done so well because there is a point to them. Too many films have wacky and weird effects which are badly done and because they serve no real purpose they are even more out of place. Nothing in this film jars, it’s there for a reason. The soundtrack adds to the tense conclusion, the film moves at a pretty fast paced but it doesn’t feel rushed, it feels deliberate from the very first scene to the concluding shot everything helps the film along. I can’t believe it’s 2 hrs 20 mins long because it just never seems to drag, there was no break to take a breath. Without spoiling the end too much it’s great, it what makes me love Nolan films and it lead one fellow cinema goer to jokingly shout ‘You’ve got to be kidding!’. I couldn’t take my eyes off the screen, even the grazing of popcorn by other people or the talking by the middle aged lady behind me (who should know better) couldn’t distract me from the spectacle of it all, I was totally involved.

If you have seen a Nolan film before you’ll know what to expect, if you haven’t well here’s something you have to remember, you have to concentrate! With more twist and turns the a country road this movie keeps you thinking, It’s not difficult to follow but you will leave the cinema with unanswered questions, you’ll keep running things through your head and thinking of new questions. Nolan keeps the viewer on their toes and keeps you thinking. I can think of one or two minor gripes with the plot but these are minor and there aren’t the usual glaringly obvious plot holes that you usually get when movies try and get clever. Will Inception be for everyone, No it won’t, if you like your movies to wash over you and not do much then you’ll probably not find it that interesting. Me, well I love this kind of stuff, this is what I go to the cinema for, to be entertained but also to be challenged. I rarely give a film a 10 out 10 but if any film is going to get one then this surely deserves it. Bravo Nolan an outstanding film and an absolute must see!

More information at IMDB

Friendly performances
So first the recently friendly performances. Yes, they weren’t great but lets not slate them, if it was Spain or Brazil or whoever we’d be saying ‘it’s a sign of a good team not playing well and still winning’ if England play the next 8 games that badly and win I don’t think anyone we’ll remember how bad the performances were. Winning is the most important thing, end of!

The only quibble I have with the friendlies is I just feel we need to be better at defending set pieces, I am sure, however, Mr Capello will have put a rocket up certain peoples arses and it will be sorted!

What Mr Capello brings to England
I think he has brought some organisation but more importantly it’s the change of mentality that he seems to have brought to the England squad. When Steve McClaren left could anyone have actually believed we would have a chance of winning the World cup (we’ll discuss that later), I think there was a genuine worry we wouldn’t even be getting on the plane to South Africa. Whether you agree with all the decisions he makes there’s no doubt England are currently in winning ways, I just hope it continues a little longer.

The chosen 23, and the 7 that remain behind
I’m not going to run though the whole squad, just my thoughts on a few players.

Theo ‘babyface’ Walcott really shouldn’t have been near the England squad? I recently wrote that on a friend’s facebook and got slated, the reply was ‘he’s an impact player, it’s Capello’s fault because he should never be played from the start’ Really?? He can run fast but as far as I can see that’s about it, he loses the ball too much and he can’t deliver a consistently good cross. He’s replacing Beckham on that wing who is one of the best deliverers of the ball of all time, yes Beckham wasn’t the fastest but when you can deliver a ball like he could (and still can) then nobody will care. You ask any centre forward if they would like Beckham to cross them the ball? Lennon is the man for that wing he’s pretty quick himself and can get the ball into the box, I honestly don’t have an issue with Walcott not being there.

I’m a little surprised that Warnock got the shout above Baines but assuming Ashley stays fit I can’t see anyone else getting on the pitch in that position anyway. I also think it’s a shame Dawson isn’t there because I think he’s had a pretty good season. Carragher is there as cover and because of his versatility there is no really suprise he is on the plane. I’m pleased to see Jo Cole there as I think he has done wonders for England in the past and I think he has probably done the best job on the left in recent times for England. On that note, my final comment is I think it’s a shame that Adam Johnson isn’t on the plane as a genuine left sided player.

So what about our chances?
Well I heard people say we’ve not got a strong squad but I’m not quite sure I can agree with that, any team that has Rooney, Lampard, Gerrard, etc has a chance. By no means are England the best team at the World Cup, but the best team doesn’t always win. Capello will have to use all his skill to get us over the finishing line, will he do it? I have no idea but can’t wait to find out!

Good luck England!

Returning from the original Iron Man are Stark’s trusted assistant Pepper Potts and army liaison “Rhodey” Rhodes (Now played by Don Cheadle not Terrence Howard as in the original Iron Man). There are also a host of new characters to get your head around to, the main ones being Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) and Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke).

I was a big fan of the first of the Iron man films, it was a bit of a surprise package, slightly different from other ‘super hero’ type films, I also really like Robert Downey Jr. I though he was brilliant as the arrogant, sometimes obnoxious but somehow still very likable Tony Stark, the very dry humor throughout the film was well delivered and the story was both interesting and involving, but that was the first film what about the second, would the inclusion of the new characters help ….

In a word No, not really. Sequels are always very hard, they are always going to be compared to the original so I have a feeling the strong cast of big stars was brought in to try and give it a sporting chance. Overall it’s not a bad film, there are some good action scenes, Downey is again brilliant as Tony Stark and new cast members all stack up well. I was left well entertained after the roughly 2 hour run time and I think if you liked the first one you will enjoy this one, probably not as much, but you should enjoy it.

My problem with this sequel is I was left the with the feeling that there was so much time and plot given to trying to weave these new characters in that you didn’t really get enough time to spend actually looking at Tony Stark, although we followed him for most of the film I just didn’t feel as involved. I can’t really explain why because all the pieces were there, I just think they have been forced together a little.

A good effort overall which has some great moments but as a whole doesn’t quite stack up to the original and feels a little disjointed (not the right word but you’ll know what I mean when you see it!).

More information at IMDB

3D cinema has been around for a while now but it has been only used in specialized circumstances, now with digital projection and other new technology it is trying to break through into the main stream. Before I get going on how it works, I just want to say I still don’t get the fascination with 3D cinema, I’m not a big fan. Can we not tell a story anymore, do we need to hide behind all the smoke and mirrors of CGI, big special effects? I just feel 3D is just another technology we can use instead of actually making a good film with an interesting plot. I will keep going to the cinema if you make good movies, I don’t care if it’s black and white, 4:3, 12.1 surround sound or whatever, make a good movie and I’ll keep watching. Anyway, enough of my moaning how does this 3D stuff work?

Nowadays, 3D films arrive to the cinema on a big hard drive, this is plugged into the digital projector and then a special adapter fits onto the front of a single projector to separate the left and right images. In the case of RealD (which is the chosen format at my cinema and seems to be the most common method, though there are other methods) this adapter is a circularly polarized liquid crystal filter and switches polarity 144 times a second, just one projector is used and so the left and right images are displayed alternatively, obviously so fast we can’t perceive it. The wearer then wears the pair of polarized glasses so each eye sees the appropriate image. I’m sure that’s as clear as mud!

So I’ll try and start with the basics and try and keep it fairly simple but I’m going to warn you this could get complicated quite quickly. Basically light travels in waves, exactly like the waves in water, however unlike a wave in water, light waves travel in all directions. A polarizing filter only allows light through that travels in one direction, so for instance only light traveling in a vertical wave. Lets say that this is the left eye image, the filter then lets the light through that is traveling in a horizontal wave, this is the right eye image. This filter flickers between the left and right image, because it flickers so fast our eye can’t detect it and it looks like a continuous image. The glasses that are then worn by the viewer then also have polarizing filters in to allow the appropriate wave through and so each eye sees the appropriate image. If you take your glasses off during a 3D film you will see what looks like a blurry image, this is in fact the two images superimposed on one another on the one screen. It’s a blurry image as they are in slight different positions, which brings me nicely on to creating the 3D experience.

Just because you have these two separate images doesn’t mean you have a 3D image, you have to do something else. Basically separate them horizontally, the more the images are split the closer (or further away if you cross the images the other way) the 3D image will appear. It’s the same principle that was used for those magic eye pictures that were all the rage 10 years ago. This works because the brain works out how close/far things are by interpreting the slightly different image our left and right eye get of the world, because there is a gap between the eyes we can do this. Try closing one eye and then try and catch a (soft) ball or place you arms in front of you and point each of your index fingers at each one and then try and line them up, it’s hard!! Basically, 3D abuses this to trick our brain into thinking things are in different places by falsely creating this slight different image for the left and right eye.

We now know the theory of what we want, well how do we create it. In very simple terms there are 2 methods really. Either film using two cameras which are separated like our eyes, this would be how I would do it to get the best results but it means twice as much film is need, twice as much camera equipment and a lot more expense. The second way is you fake it using computers, cheaper, but it just won’t give a natural result (in my opinion) and I’m not the only one, Variety recently talked to Jeffrey Katzenberg, CEO of DreamWorks Animation, about the state of 3D film making. He said “all 3D is not created equal.”, I don’t think he was a fan of the work done on Clash of the Titans “We’ve seen the highest end of (3D) in “Avatar” and you have now witnessed the lowest end of it (in “Titans”) You cannot do anything that is of a lower grade and a lower quality [3D] than what has just been done on “Clash of the Titans.” he continues “if we as an industry choose this 2D to 3D post-production conversion, it’s the end. As quickly as it got here, that’s how fast it will go away.” Need I say more except thank you Jeffrey Katzenberg for saying everything I wanted to in such an eloquent and quotable way!

There are so many downsides I can see to 3D cinema which still make me unsure about it, apart from the laziness to actually think of a good story there’s the added expense to us as cinema goers (an extra £2.10 for a 3D film and 80p for the glasses if you need them at my cinema), the darker less vibrant image you get looking through the glasses, the cheap, uncomfortable polarising glasses you have to wear and the fact that not everyone can see the effect.

On top of that I have one final personal gripe, they put signs up (quite rightly) warning epileptics ‘this film contains flashing lights” but they don’t check people can see in 3D before paying out to see a film. In my professional capacity as an Optician I’ve had a couple of patients who have complained they thought the 3D of Avatar was rubbish, when I spoke to them about the fact they have a lazy eye (one eye doesn’t work very well) or a squint (one eye turns in/out) and so they’re eyes don’t work together so can’t perceive the 3D effect. Researching this article I found out one of the original 3D film’s director could not see in 3D, genius, how do you know it works if you can’t actually see it, it would be like a chef with no sense of taste or a composer who was deaf …… wait, hmm Beethoven – forget that analogy!

As you can see there are a lot of pitfalls and from my experience I have only seen 3D used successfully once in Avatar. The 2D to 3D conversion films I’ve seen look fake and don’t offer anything extra to the cinema experience, will 3D movies last, who knows only time will tell I guess. I hope that gives you a bit of an insight into 3D and how it works. I’d welcome anyone else s thoughts on the current 3D fascination.

I would class film as basically a political thriller and so I don’t want to give any twists or turns away by going into to much detail about the plot, but basically as I said we follow the Ghost Writer as he tries to write Adam Lang’s memoirs but as he researches various details he finds things out about the former Prime Minister which may put him in harms way.

Overall it’s actually a pretty good film but I did leave the cinema somewhat disappointed, strange when I say it’s a good film. I liked the look of the trailers and may be built the film up ad I was expected something really good, especially with those involved with making the film. There is no doubt that Polanski is a good director he has shown this numerous time and his talent is evident here with his vision and attention to detail with certain aspects of the film making process, however I felt there were some sections that let the film down. I want to emphasis that it is a good film & by no means am I saying otherwise but I felt there were some major flaws (difficult to talk about without a few spoilers which I won’t do)

I was generally left with a slight feeling that the film never actually got going, I never felt that exciting, nervous feeling that a really good thriller should evoke, it was overly wordy in section which I think was what broke the suspense. I also felt that certain events weren’t dealt with well and were almost treated as throwaway events when actually they were pretty important. My final complaint was I just wasn’t fooled, I saw through the twists and turns so I wasn’t left surprised and I just felt there were some loose ends that needed tied up.

I think I am probably being unduly harsh to this very competent thriller but with exception talent you expect a near perfect film, I was just hoping for a little more, hence my disappointment. Judge for yourself.

More information at IMDB

Overall I have felt that the standard of movies this year has not been as high as last years. Last year I spent a really long but enjoyable night at the cinema where I saw three of the movies up for best motion picture and I thought they were all absolutely brilliant movies and I think any of the 5 nominees could have won it, this year? well I’m not so sure. It’s been a year which has seen 3D movies become more popular, especially with the highly successful Avatar. I’m still not convinced, I’m also not convinced that sequels, CGI, big explosions, etc is what cinema should be about, I’m sure there’s room for them but not every movie. I truly believe going to the cinema is about the experience and as I say that doesn’t mean surround sound, lots of noise, 3D, etc what it means is sitting looking at that big screen with no distraction and being completely immersed, getting involved with the characters, laughing, crying, whatever, I love that feeling when the credits role and I don’t move for a few minutes because I’ve been left kind of speechless, then I know I’ve seen something special.

After this year I am left wondering if we are coming in to an era where the producers only want a sure fire hit rather than making a great movie. I hope this is not the case and the heart isn’t being ripped from movies because of the desire to make money. There is still the odd gem out there that reminds me why I go to the cinema and why I love movies and for every average movie I sit through it’s worth it to discover those gems.

One thought for you before I actually get on with my Oscar thoughts (kind of got a little distracted and off topic!), if you are one of those people who only goes to the cinema occasionally and only goes to watch the big stuff i.e. Avatar. Next time you go to the cinema go and see two films. The one you want to see and one you don’t know much about or you wouldn’t usually see, it won’t always be great I can’t promise you that but every now and then it will and you’ll thank me (I hope!)

So this year’s Oscars. As with last year review I won’t look at every category I will just look at five of the main ones, best Actor/Actress in a leading role and in a supporting role and then the best motion picture, this year there are ten nominees in this category rather than the normal five ……

Performance by an actor in a leading role
Jeff Bridges for ‘Crazy Heart’
George Clooney for ‘Up in the Air’
Colin Firth for ‘A Single Man’
Morgan Freeman for ‘Invictus’
Jeremy Renner for ‘The Hurt Locker’

As usual part of the difficulty in predicting for the Oscars is the fact I haven’t been able to see all the movies yet. I’ve not managed to see A single man or Crazy Heart yet. I thought both Morgan Freeman’s and George Clooney’s performances were excellent in their respective roles. Although Colin Firth picked up the award in the BAFTAs I’m not sure he’ll pick up the Oscar, by all reports it will go to Jeff Bridges.

Performance by an actor in a supporting role
Matt Damon for ‘Invictus’
Woody Harrelson for ‘The Messenger’
Christopher Plummer for ‘The Last Station’
Stanley Tucci for ‘The Lovely Bones’
Christoph Waltz for ‘Inglourious Basterds’

Well this is a real difficult one for me because I’ve only seen 2 of these performances but I do actually think the winner will come from one of those two. I think the Oscars will follow the BAFTAs and give it to Christoph Waltz who was excellent in Inglourious Basterds.

Performance by an actress in a leading role
Sandra Bullock for ‘The Blind Side’
Helen Mirren for ‘The Last Station’
Carey Mulligan for ‘An Education’
Gabourey Sidibe for ‘Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire’
Meryl Streep for ‘Julie & Julia’

Unfortunately I don’t think this will be the year for Carey Mulligan, as that’s who I’d give it to. I thought she put in a great performance in An Education, one of the little Gems of this year I discovered and was talking about. It came and went very quickly at my cinema and all the praise came after it had finished but luckily I took a chance and saw a great little movie with some good performances in it. I don’t believe it should go to Meryl Streep, although it was an OK performance I’m pretty sure it wasn’t an Oscar winning performance. The tip to win is apparently Sandra Bullock.

Performance by an actress in a supporting role
Penélope Cruz for Nine
Vera Farmiga for Up in the Air
Maggie Gyllenhaal for Crazy Heart
Anna Kendrick for Up in the Air
Mo’Nique for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

Penélope Cruz for nine, really?! What did she do, she shouldn’t win. I think the two nominees in Up in the Air show what strong performances there were in that movie. Jason Reitman really seems to bring the best out of his actors/actresses as Clooney also put in a strong performance in Up in the Air. I would actually give the Oscar to Vera Farmiga because I though she was excellent, not sure she will get it though.

Best motion picture of the year
Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air

When I see the list I realize there have been some good movies this year but I’m not sure all of them should be nominated. Up is a definite for the best animated movie but not sure it should win Best Motion Picture. I think Avatar was a great movie experience and those that say “…but take away the CGI and 3D then what have you got” are being narrow minded the Oscars should be about which is the best movie and that may include embracing new technologies to tell a story, however I don’t think it should win, even taking the movie as a whole. My most enjoyable experience was ‘Up in the Air’ I’m becoming a big fan of Jason Reitman, I think he is a talented director who can tell interesting stories very well and bring out great performances. Having said that I think the Oscar will be given to either ‘The Hurt Locker’ or ‘Avatar’ with my tip being ‘The Hurt Locker’.

Well that’s my thought’s for another year, it’s been pretty hard this year because a lot of the movies haven’t been released over here or have not got to my cinema yet, it would be good if they could sort this out so everyone had seen the nominated movies before the Oscars.

For those who don’t know Apartheid was a system of legal racial segregation enforced by the National Party government in South Africa between 1948 and 1994, it was a pretty unfair system which basically gave the majority Black population few rights and maintained a minority White rule.

When President Mandela took charge the country had many issues, it remained a nation that was racially and economically divided. Mandela decides that he can bring the country together through the universal language of sport. As the rugby world cup is in South Africa in 1995, a year after he takes charge, he decides to get behind the South Africa rugby team and try to inspire them and a nation to victory.

Morgan Freeman stars as the inspiring Mandela and although his accent seems to wander from time to time he does do a great job and really becomes Mandela during the movie, Matt Damon also puts in a solid performance as the South African Rugby captain Francois Pienaar.

So you’ve got an inspiring story and a good cast, does that make a good movie? Well not always, I’m certain this could have been an absolute mess of a movie but in the safe hands of Clint Eastwood’s it becomes a good, no sorry, great movie. I did feel that some of the slow motion scenes were a little too much at the end of the movie and I didn’t like the ghostly images of Mandela in the visit to the prison but I understood the point. These minor glitches though didn’t get in the way of a highly enjoyable movie, well worth a watch.

More information at IMDB

When I saw and read about the iPad I was underwhelmed, there’s a lot that’s ‘wrong’ with it, however now I have a chance to mull it over I think I get where Apple are coming from. People were always going to be disappointed with whatever they made, they wanted something revolutionary. I read someone complaint that the text input is by an onscreen keyboard, what else was it going to be? A thought keyboard, where you just think what you want to type? Let’s get real people.

I’ve sat down and tried to imagine the thought process behind the device, first we know things that Jobs doesn’t seem to like:
1. Flash
2. External memory – he likes everything built in to the device
3. Stylus – he doesn’t like having to use a pen like device
4. Buttons
5. Connections – he doesn’t like lots of input/outputs from mobile device

Next let’s look at the market, I believe this is what apple thought and how they came up with the iPad (I could be wrong). If it’s to sit between laptop and Smartphone (which is where the ‘gap’ is, it’s got to be priced between the two. It’s going to be up against netbooks, if that’s where you price it. It’s got to be easy to use, they know what has worked with the iPhone. If someone is going to just quickly check email, check something on net, etc then they’ll just pick up their phone. If someone wants to do some major computing then they’ll pick up the laptop, so what’s the point in competing with either of those markets, they’ve already got arguably the best devices in those categories. So they need to find a market for this device and then fill it and I think they have probably found that by trying to aim it at recreational users, people who want something to carry around when they don’t want laptop or people who want an entertainment device for watching videos, music, ebook reader, etc.

There’s loads they have got right with the iPad which I’m not going to go through but I’m going to look at what people have been complaining about and see if it’s actually a fair complain when thinking about who the device is aimed at.

1. The Besel. The enormous besel is just not what you expect from Apple, it’s not the prettiest but I believe it is a case of them thinking of usability. You’ve got to hold it and you don’t want to keep pressing the screen by accident, where are you going to hold it if it doesn’t have the besel. People would complain if you couldn’t use the iPad, it’s not pretty but I get it. It also acts as a picture frame (I suppose) when viewing photos.

2. No removable memory, yes it’s annoying you can’t share files easily or add more memory. Still you can email to other computers and dock to the base computer. Not a real deal breaker, You’ve never been able to remove memory on iPods or iPhones and well they’ve been pretty successful and not many people seem to complain. I rarely us a memory stick or even a CDrom to share information I tend to email anyway.

3. Flash. I hate flash, I really hate it. I believe any website that is flash should have a non flash version or a way to view content without flash. I also believe that if you really want games, why play online flash games are they that good? You can download better games for free or very little on the iPhone/iPad. Get over it Jobs doesn’t seem to like flash I doubt you’re going to see it on the iPad (you never know though)!

4. Homepage. People are moaning about the bland homepage. It does a pretty good job on the iPhone, why change it. I’d be interested to know how else you would design it. I hate my computer backdrop to be cluttered I want the bare minimum on it.

5. Not widescreen. I can see why people would want widescreen, especially when watching videos but I don’t think it’s a disastrous flaw.

7. No cameras. What is people’s obsession with cameras, I rarely use the camera on my phone, I don’t have a webcam. I don’t need to see someone sitting at a computer staring at a screen when I talk to them. I use a digital SLR camera to take photos because it’s designed to do just that and it does it really well. It’s not like your going to carry your iPad with you to take the occasional picture. The only other use I see for a camera is webcam and as I’ve said above, not a great fan and lets think of Apple’s target market are they really going to be web conferencing?

So all of these issues for me are not actually great issues, when you sit down and think about it. I don’t think it’s going to be a device for everyone but I think they have actually done a pretty good job, there are two other issues that I have one, is minor and one at the moment is the deal breaker for me. First the minor one, the lack of connectors. I would like to be able to plug it into a printer but more importantly it would be nice to be able to plug it in to an external monitor or projector, I think it would be a great device for presentations but just for plugging in to the TV to watch movies from it it would be nice to have the option.

The second fault is the major one. Multi-tasking, it’s a minor problem with my iPhone having to keep logging in and out of messenger when I do anything else but the rest of the time it’s OK with the small screen you can’t really do two things at once anyway. However on this I need to be able to be logged in to messenger while I listen to music, or Twitter while on online or listen to spotify while I do a little work. Please sort this out in OS 4. I think it’s a must for this device to succeed.

Running one iPhone app in the centre of the screen or twice the size just looks silly. However judging by the standard of the iPhone apps that are out there I’m really looking forward to what is produced for the iPad, if they get the multi tasking sorted then it’s the apps that will make or break the device.

Only time will tell as to whether the iPad will succeed but I don’t think Apple are as far off the mark as some people initially thought. One final request please, please Apple sort the multitasking!!

I’d be interested to know what anyone else thinks, will you be buying one?

‘Up in the air’ is about Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), he has a job which involves traveling around the country firing people and ‘preparing’ them for the a new start. He spends his life in hotels, living out of a suitcase most of the time and those few days he does spend at ‘home’ a year he hates. Some would see his life as empty and unfulfilled, he has nothing to do with his family, no real friends, he’s alone…. just the way he likes it. All is well with Ryan’s life until his company try and stop him flying thanks to a young upstart with a fancy degree who thinks she can revolutionise the way Ryan does his business.

There so put to ‘Up in the air’ than I’ve given away in that short synopsis, in fact if you look at the synopsis it doesn’t sound a very appealing movie and in fact sounds quite depressing, how ever in Jason Reitman’s hands it becomes a special, well crafted piece of cinema. It is both amusing and full of drama, the characters are given the respect they deserve and there are some pretty serious messages underlying the movie which give it the depth that it requires without getting too bogged down, it’s just what I call a complete movie, it has everything I want.

Clooney puts in a solid performance as the traveling business man in perhaps a deeper role than I’ve seen him in recently. He shows he can act and that just helps the movie just fly by. It’s not just Clooney though, there seems to be a real attention to the casting which means no one looks out of place and all of the characters are believable and very involving, however small the part is. I’ve read that real people who had recently been fired were used in the firing scenes which I suppose is why their reactions are so believable.

If this is what 2010 has to offer in movie land I can’t wait, more of this kind of movie please. I don’t hand a 10/10 often and well I can’t think of any reason not to with this one, it ticks all the boxes. Go and see it I guarantee you won’t be disappointed.

More information at IMDB