Google Picasa

I'm trying out Picasa 3 for the PC, which is made by Google. There are a couple new interface ideas unlike anything I've seen before in this photo-viewing and editing application. For instance, there's a scroll bar on the right... or so you think. Turns out it's actually a control that lets you scroll. It stays in the middle, and when you pull it up, everything scrolls up. If you scroll it down, everything scrolls down. Pull it further up or down to make it scroll faster. Let go, and it'll go back to the center. You can see a kind of 'shadow' on the same bar that tells you where you are on the page.

Now I like interface changes like these. They show lots of creativity in Google. But if you're going to have a way to make an interface, how about you keep it the same in all of your applications? Google Chrome (Google's web browser), for example, doesn't use this scrolling technique; it uses a regular old scroll bar. It also has many unique interface changes that it has and Picasa doesn't, such as lack of the "File Edit View" bar on top. In my opinion, this is a bad thing to do with your applications. If Google ever makes an OS, it may be confusing to use all the different applications Google makes since they all have different ways of using them. Compare this to Apple; they have a universal interface for finding files that started in iTunes, spread to iPhoto, to Finder, and is now a base for navigating OS X. See, keeping it simple is the best way to do it.

I like this a lot though. It displays all the pictures really well. It even has some unexpected features, such as showing only the pictures with face(s) in them. It doesn't work that well, as it showed a MacBook prototype leak as a face. But it does work okay. Overall, I like this much better than "Windows Photo Gallery" (what a stupid name) and is far more original. I say if you have a PC, check it out. I also hear there will be a Mac version soon.

-Derek

Google Chrome

Google Chrome is a brand new internet browser available only for PC. That "only PC" part immediately doesn't sound good to me, since Macs are better, but let's take a look anyway.

It installs after a while (it advertises that it installs in 'seconds'), and then I open it. Immediately it looks different from any web browser you're used to. You know the 'File Edit View History...' thing at the top of your window? That's not there at all. There's also no top part that says what web page you're at. It gets rid of a lot and relies on simplicity of use. I have to say, it looks pretty cool. If Google made an OS, I think it would look cool too.

When you open it, it has one tab. Even when there's only one tab open, you can see the thing on top that shows the different tabs. It's hard to explain, but it appears that tabs are the main idea of the web browser.

You have all the standard buttons: Back, Forward, Refresh, and some preferences and 'control the current page'. There's the address bar, which by itself doubles as a search bar. And that's it. It reminds me of what Safari set out to do: get rid of all that useless crap on the top of the window and as Steve put it, "let the actual web pages speak for themselves". After all, isn't that what web browsers are for? Viewing the web pages?

But now it's time to put it to the challenge, test it at what to me is most important for a browser: speed. I'm going to open another tab on the Safari (the fastest web browser I've used) window I'm using to make this blog post. That should give Chrome a head start.

Apple.com: Uh oh. It's not the speed I'm uh oh-ing about. It seems Chrome is lacking something very important: a loading progress bar. In Safari, the progress bar is right on the address bar, but for chrome, it doesn't look like it's anywhere. It's going to be hard to see if it actually loaded the whole page, but I'll just go by instinct. Let's try again... It's a tie. One point of interest, though: Chrome doesn't load every item on the page until it is finished. It loads the entire page at once. It's an interesting technique for revealing the web pages.

Let's try a page with lots of stuff on it...

NYTimes.com (New York Times): Safari is slightly faster. But it's so small that it hardly even matters. You can really see that Chrome loads the entire page instead of the different items here. It starts as a white screen for a second, then it reveals the entire page.

Derek's Tablet: Safari wins again. But it's not a bad lose for Chrome; it is a difference you don't notice when you actually use it.

Basically, Safari wins with speed, but by a little. As for interface... I don't know if Chrome's is better yet. I have to try to adjust to it. I'm not sure if I'll even try to do that at all. Overall, kudos to Google for trying something new, not just copying other browsers and slapping the Google brand on it. Nice job. I'm probably going to keep using Safari though. Sorry. It's nothing personal. It's just that I love Safari, and I don't think I want to change to something slightly more unfamiliar. Seriously, don't feel bad. I like your Blogger service. I like your search bar. But I just don't feel like using your browser. Okay? Are we cool? Awesome. See you later.

-Derek

Review: "Viva La Vida" by Coldplay

"Viva La Vida" is a big album right now, and Coldplay is pulling out all the stops to get it seen. So I bought it on iTunes, and how is it? It's fantastic. This album is absolute gold, and it will certainly go down in history as one of the great albums of the early 2000's. Let's look at its songs.

I think it's core makeup is the songs "Lost!" and "Lost?". They are essentially the same song, but the first one appears as the third song of the album, and the second appears as the album's finale. "Lost!" is a hard-rocking song, but "Lost?" is a quiet piano song with the same basic musical skeleton as the first. The songs open with the inspirational lyric "Just because I'm losing / doesn't mean I'm lost". Now listen to how this is said in the song. The words themselves are ingenious, but listen to how the haunting melody absolutely interlocks with the mood of the words. As a fellow musician, I can tell you that being able to do that takes pure skill. The way the songs are placed in the album sets the theme for the album, and it reminds me of "In The Flesh?" and "In The Flesh" by Pink Floyd in their rock opera epic, "The Wall".

"42" is a great song, the title probably reflecting Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".

But the shiniest gem of the record is the title track, full of soaring vocals, poetic lyrics, and brilliant dynamics. The song is complete with a beautiful orchestra and chorus that makes the music sound extremely colorful and almost seems to make it sparkle. If you have a brand new iPod with brand new headphones, this is a spectacle to listen to on it.

Overall, it's a five-star album. It's been a pleasure to listen to, and I highly recommend it. This is a must-have for your iPod, and an iPod is a must-have because of this.

-Derek

Ed Wood

"Plan 9 From Outer Space" is infamous as a bad movie, and it is often called the worst movie of all time. Now I really disagree. I didn't have a hard time watching it; I love watching it just because of how bad it is! It definitely entertains me. It's so bad it's good. I would much rather watch "Plan 9" than some movies that are out there, which are just plain painful to watch. It's good for a nice laugh. But I didn't just laugh. I was intrigued. I was intrigued at the idea of this. How could a man direct a movie like this and not realize that it's terrible? How could he be so blind that he doesn't know that the continuity problems, terrible acting, ridiculous special effects, and laughable concept don't exist?

Edward D. Wood gained cult status long after his death when "Plan 9" was named the worst movie of all time, and Wood the worst director. People loved him and saw him as an inspiration for some reason, and now I can see why that is.

Tim Burton made a movie in 1994 that was simply titled "Ed Wood". It was the true story of an eccentric director who followed his passion despite all of the problems he faced. Tim Burton himself has said many times that Edward Wood is a huge inspiration to him, and Burton looks at Wood with sympathy and recognition. The first thing I thought of when I heard about the movie "Ed Wood" was, "What's there to make a movie about? He's a bad director and he made a bad movie. What else is there?" But the second thing I thought was that Tim Burton is an amazing director, and therefore he should be good at picking out another great director.

What makes Burton's films grab the attention of people like me is that they all have one common theme: an outcast. Whether it's Batman, Edward Scissorhands, or even Pee Wee Herman, most of them deal with a person who thinks, acts, or feels different from everybody else and can't fit in with society. I think Tim Burton can relate to these characters as he is an eccentric person too, as I can be. So I watched "Ed Wood" hoping that it would be a good addition to this collection of misfits.

So how was the movie? In a word: amazing. It was simply amazing. I can't believe how great it was. I would have never guessed that the director of such a goofy movie ("Plan 9") could have such a compelling and inspirational life story. Now I realize that a lot of the character may be fictional in order to add feeling to the movie, but it's mainly based on reality.

The movie stars Johnny Depp in possibly his best role ever, as Ed Wood. Ed is struggling to get his movies made and has to make deals with second-rate companies who don't care about making good films. As Ed makes more and more films, he gains more and more creative control over them. I think Depp absolutely nailed the character, because he is so interesting to watch. He speaks fluently and in a way that's almost comically artificial, like a 50's business man.

Just like the real man, this Ed Wood is overly optimistic about every movie he makes no matter how low the budget is or how terrible the odds are. Every single time he is seen shooting a scene in a movie, he shoots it once and says, "That was perfect!" despite it being an obviously bad take. People working with him keep questioning his filmmaking abilities, as Ed dismisses them all, believing what he is making will "be seen by millions and touch the world".

Ed is a very eccentric person for many reasons, the most obvious of them being that he likes wearing women's clothing, though he's quick to point out that he's heterosexual afterwards. The film follows his making of his three most well-known films: "Glen or Glenda," "Bride of the Monster," and of course, "Plan 9 From Outer Space".

If you don't think anything in this movie can top Depp's acting, you obviously haven't taken a glance at Martin Landau's stunning performance as Bela Lugosi (the actor of Dracula, and an actor in many Ed Wood films). It was captivating the whole way through, and Landau definitely did the great actor he's portraying justice. His Hungarian accent is absolutely spot-on, his character is so interesting to watch, and he performed many emotional scenes based on Lugosi's use of illegal substances. Which one is the most haunting? Is it the one where he is in the hospital, strapped to a chair, screaming? How about the part where he recites the line, "Home? I have no home!... I will build a race of human beings, and I will use them to take over the world!" with amazing feeling and depth, as if he was under the influence when he recited that cryptic Ed Wood line? Or even the scene in which he attempts suicide? No, I have to settle for one that most people probably don't remember: the scene where Lugosi is fresh off of injecting himself with morphine and drinking a bottle of whiskey, and he has to act like he's being strangled by a fake rubber octopus that didn't move at all. I don't know about anybody else, but that part was so haunting. For at least 15 or 20 seconds, he flails around in the arms of the octopus, screaming so intensely and hauntingly, as if the drugs are actually making him insane. That had to be the most memorable part of the movie.

As the movie progresses, Wood and Lugosi build a great relationship together as director and actor, and Depp's and Lugosi's acting just compliments the other's. The movie offers us new, fictional details about how the movies really came about. For example, there is one scene where Wood is telling Lugosi about his role in "Glen or Glenda", which is to be "a kind of god-like character. You know, a puppet master?" to which Lugosi enthusiastically replied, "Ah yes, I pull the strings!" And thus, the "Pull the strings!" dialogue from the beginning of "Glen or Glenda" is conceptualized.

The entire movie is filmed in black and white, which looks great. It is also filled with inside-jokes about the Edward Wood movies. There's all kinds of clever humor as well, including one scene where Wood shows a man two shirts of different colors and asks how they are, and the man replies that he's color-blind and can't tell what color they are. Just like us!

What's important about "Ed Wood" is that you can feel the whole movie. You can feel the pressure Wood is under when he's making these movies. His wife leaves him because of his terrible movies and his cross-dressing, Lugosi dies, Wood becomes broke, a group of religious people try to take control of his movies' direction; everything basically becomes overwhelming for him. But what matters to him most is that he does what he's passionate about: he finishes his films, despite impossible odds (and budgets). By the time he's making "Plan 9," the movie he considers his pride and joy, the audience is already in love with the character and the actual man. If the audience wasn't, I know I was.

What it all comes down to is this: Edward Wood was an artist, like me. He didn't make his movies for money or fame. He made them for the sake of making them. It was his passion. It was his life. And thus, both the man's life and this movie teach what's probably the most important lesson of all: that passion is the key to life. You have to be passionate about what you do in life, and for Ed Wood, his passion was making movies. And for following his one passion, I salute Edward D. Wood.

It is an inspirational story for absolutely anybody. I mean, absolutely anybody age 17 and up; it's rated R. So if you're 17 or up, or you think you can handle the language, go watch. And while you're at it, watch some "Plan 9" too. You'll laugh. Five stars.

-Derek