CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
So yeah. Regular readers will have noticed a distinct lack of normal posting this month. And without off-topic posts, World Of Blackout becomes another film-review blog (which is what I don't want, largely because I don't think I do it well enough for it to be the main thread).
Bottom line is, I'm just not that inspired to write at the moment.
That's just a fact, by the way, I'm not having a teenage sulk. Where my main focus of 2010 was reading more books, and 2011 was all about watching movies, the year's pet-project is Star Wars. All of it.
My thing for 2012 is a little bit of Star Wars every day. For 366 days in a row, I will either watch, read or play something from the GFFA. At the moment, I'm watching an episode of The Clone Wars each day (in chronological story order), and that alone will take me up 'til the end of March. After that, I've got novels, comics and games to go through (some for the first time, many not), and of course The Phantom Menace 3D comes out in a couple of weeks. Add on the figures and the trading cards and stickers, and that's a full time hobby, right there.
Anyway, my point is that it doesn't make for interesting blogging*1, and so I haven't got much to blab about at the moment.
The cinema reviews will continue, mainly as a way of keeping me writing, and I'm aiming to post something more creative every month (although January's project will be posted at the start of February, just to keep it visible on the page for four weeks).
Normal levels of sarcasm and bad taste will resume as the year progresses.
Yen Blackout Towers, 2012.
*1 Although if you want interesting blogging, I'm surprised you're here to be honest.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
The Grey (minor spoilers) 117 mins / Dir. Joe Carnahan
I've been going spoiler-free for cinema viewings recently. By which I mean, I'll see the trailer (if it's shown before a film I'm watching), and that'll be it. No interviews, no featurettes, and no promo-bumf. And I don't read any reviews before I see the film. Part of this is because I like to watch the film with minimal expectations, from a clean-slate as the creators intended. The other part of this is because I see quite a lot at the cinema, and I don't have time to research everything before I sit and watch it. I'm a punter: entertain me.
So having only seen the teaser trailer for The Grey, I'd half expected either a supernatural element to come into play, or a Shayalaman style twist at the end. As you're reading a spoilery review, I'll tell you that there's neither. It's also worth noting that it's not the action-packed survival thriller that the second trailer would have you believe. There are frantic fight scenes, and chases through snowy forests, but for the most part, it's a strangely introspective film.
The Plot: John Ottway*1 (Neeson) works for an oil drilling company in Alaska, hunting wild wolves that would be a threat to the other workers. When their plane crashes in the Alaskan wastes on the way home, only Ottway has the skills to lead the small party of survivors to salvation. But the team is made up of social rejects, and not everyone takes well to his authority. Especially the pack of wolves that are hunting them…
The Good: Some of the ideas are quite nicely explored; The wolves working cohesively as a pack have success in bringing down their prey because the humans won't team together. By the time this is resolved, it's largely too late because fatigue has kicked in. The scene at the crash-site where Ottway talks Hernandez through his imminent death is also beautifully realised. The quiet acceptance of The Inevitable is a recurring theme, and one of the film's greatest strengths. A series of gradual-reveal flashbacks fills us in on Ottway's past, and while there's nothing surprising there, they're executed well enough to work properly.
Also worth noting; there are some beautiful desolate snowscape-shots that had me thinking "Echo Three to Echo Seven, Han old buddy, do you read me?" But you know what I'm like.
The Bad: Well, not bad, but it feels like there was some pressure to make it more of an action film, and it's really not. The adrenaline-pumping plane crash sequence works well as the movie's been leading up to that point, but subsequent chase scenes seem sporadic and out of place. There are plenty of dramatic scenes that work well without the pounding music, and it's a shame that The Grey is trying to be two different things. It's too ponderous to be an action film, but the adrenaline spikes often pull it out of drama.
The Ugly: Neeson's lines are a little mumbled at the start, what with him using his actual accent, and the lines being his internal monologue so they're quite subdued. Other than that, nothing to report.
Worth the Trip? You probably won't lose too much by seeing it on DVD, but the calmness of the photography and intensity of the crash sequence are made for the big screen.
Ten years ago, I'd have hated the end to this film. Today, I love the end to this film.
*1 Yes, his character's actually called John Ottway. When he introduces himself to a character named John Diaz, they both chuckle, but I'm not sure if that's because they're both called John, or they're thinking "yes, like the mental songwriter".
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Never get a job, with an intelligence service, governmental or private. Judging by this film and all the trailers before it, they fuck you over royally. You'd be better off getting a job as a low-level officer on a Star Destroyer, I reckon.
The Plot: A black ops super soldier seeks payback after she is betrayed and set up during a mission.
The Good: It doesn't patronise the audience too much. By which I mean that I expected a dumb actioner, and as such spent a lot of time wondering what the hell was going on. The camerawork is fast and furious, the exposition isn't spoon-fed to you (see 'The Bad'), and the fight choreography is rather nicely done.
Gina Carano is a stand-out in this as Mallory Haywire*1. As aesthetically pleasing as she is (and that's the mildest way I can put it), I'd wondered why I'd never heard of her before. As it turns out, she's a rather good MMA fighter and ex-Gladiator. While that certainly qualifies her for a role such as this, you'd expect her performance to be… well… a bit Arnie? But no, she sold it to me wholesale. Maybe this kind of part will be the extent of her acting ability, but that'll be proved in the future as she'll no doubt be offered a stream of jobs after this.
Oh, and that bit where she shoots the man in the face*2? That made me grin like an idiot. I genuinely wasn't expecting that.
The Bad: Well, not bad, but I've got a section to fill. The story is initially told by Mallory as a series of (lengthy) flashbacks. While I like arriving in media res, and while cutting back to her explaining things to the guy whose car she's stolen excuses the gaps between set-pieces, I'm not sure there was that much to be gained by this. Once the story's been brought up to the current point, her hapless, captive audience is pretty much abandoned. Add on to this that a character such as Mallory (a professional assassin working for a private organisation sub-contracted by the CIA) seems to spill the beans pretty damned quickly, giving this civilian a dangerous amount of knowledge to be walking around with.
On top of this, it's not that the plot is necessarily hard to follow, but the convolutedness feels forced. Almost as if it's trying too hard and doesn't have the credentials to back up its boasts. Although had it not been that twisted, the film would probably have been as dumb as the one I was expecting.
The film's central thread isn't fully explained until the very last scene, but by that point you've pretty much worked everything out anyway. This should feel like a back-pat to the audience for being so brainy, but instead I felt slightly irritated that they'd dragged it out for so long. And if I was a trained killer? I wouldn't just 'leave people to die' the way they do in the movies like that.
The Ugly: Ewan McGregor can't do an American accent. Although Antonio Banderas' impression of Saddam Hussein pretty much makes up for this.
All in all: I wanted to like Haywire more. As engaging as it was, it didn't quite entertain me like the trailer suggested it would. Looking at Soderbergh's directorial list, he's made a career out of cleverer things than this. A spy/action/thriller doesn't really have that much to say. This one certainly doesn't.
But, it's worth a punt once it hits DVD/Sky. Just don't expect a linear ride.
*1 That's right, isn't it? That's her name? *2 See? No spoilers. I haven't told you which man she shoots in the face. Hard. At point blank range. Get in.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
So I took a chance, and braved the crowds to see Mr Spielberg's latest offering. And crowds, there were. Thankfully, the main target demographic of War Horse is grown ups, and although the screen was 4/5 full, everyone managed to concentrate on the film and not dick about on their phones. I could have hugged them for that.
So, anyway. War Horse. I'm pretty sure I enjoyed it...
The Plot: Witnessing the birth of a foal on his father's farm on Dartmoor, a boy begins a unique friendship that will define who they both are, as well as touching the lives of all around them. The film tracks an incredible journey of determination, skill and flat-out luck.
The Good: Despite what I'm going to mention in the next sections, I did enjoy War Horse. All of the cast are on great form (including the titular Ian Horse). It's beautifully shot (for the most part) and scripted, with the real standout segment for me being in the trenches of The Somme. Despite its length, each segment is paced well, and they're tied together with a score that's unmistakably John Williams. I'd thought this was going to be hard work, but given the subject matter, it's very watchable.
The Bad: It's probably a bit too long. And a bit too mawkish. And I could have done without the humour that was scattered around occasionally. The emotional payoffs are in the right place, but as a viewer you really have to work for them. Towards the end of the film where Albert calls to Joey*1 with his owl-whistle, the callback is so forced that you expect someone to walk on-screen with a sign saying "Do you remember that? From earlier?". In other places, the horses (plural) are anthropomorphised to the point where it's almost a Disney film. Thankfully those moments are few and far between, but they are there.
The Ugly: ...can we really only like Ze Germans when they're "being nice to animals"? The first World War was a fucking atrocity for all concerned. I'm not saying everyone on both sides was a really lovely person, but considering the message of the film is that the horse didn't choose sides, he chose friends, it seems a bit late in the day to still be banging on about The Evil Hun. Oh, and you don't get orange sunsets like that on Dartmoor. I've been there.
All in All: Don't let that put you off, though. If you think this might be your thing, it probably is. You may have a bit of trouble suspending your disbelief for two and a half hours, but it's the themes that are important, not the details. The cynic in me thinks that it's a little too knowingly worthy to be deserving of the awards it'll no doubt receive, but it's still a good film, nonetheless.
Final thought: Cry for the men that died, not the horses. They didn't want to be there, either.
*1 I know. How PC is that? Calling a horse Joey. In that accent Devonshire as well. They take the piss out of him for the whole film...
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Did you see Skyline? That's the best direct comparison I can make to The Darkest Hour, good or bad. By which I mean bad. Both films take an initial concept that should work, and manage to fuck it up spectacularly. Planetry-scaled invasion by an alien species that outranks us technologically has been getting people into the cinema since the 1950's. That said, it hasn't always worked, and this is another instance to add to that pile.
And I mean 'pile'.
The Plot: Four young adults*1 are in Moscow, (the guys for business, the girls for pleasure) when pesky aliens invade! Taking an orb-like appearance, they're here to harvest Earth's mineral resources and electricity (and that includes turning people into dust to harvest their low-level charge, too). With no power supply, and a collective IQ of less than 200, our band of heroes has to get out of the city to rendezvous with a nuclear submarine carrying a bunch or survivors. If they fail, they won't be able to survive on their own...
The Good: It's short. Less than an hour and a half, including credits. That's something. In fact, let's save more time: watch the trailer, and you've basically seen the film.
The Bad: A constant bugbear of mine, this film appears to have been scripted by someone doing a GCSE project. It's amazing that a screenplay with so many lines of heavyweight exposition*2 makes so little sense. When the cast aren't explaining plot-intricacies to each other in the way that you'd tell a five-year-old they should be using the toilet on their own, other pieces of drama defy all logic*3. "Electricity gives them away". That bit in the trailer where one of our heroes throws down a layer of bulbs to alert them to the aliens' presence? I don't know if you've ever dropped a bulb four feet onto a carpet, but throwing them 10 feet across a concrete floor isn't going to leave a lot of filaments to light up. Similarly, our team later throw down mobile phones as warning devices, and sure enough; when the aliens are near, the ringtones all start going off! Because that's what happens when you put power through a phone, isn't it? Your phone constantly rings all the time it's switched on? No? Oh.
The Ugly: With the exception of Gosha Kutsenko, for a film set in Moscow, the Russian accents on display are shit. Joel Kinnaman just stops trying after about half an hour. And it's not 'Westernisation' at work, it's 'director not paying attention to the way his cast are speaking their lines'. The backstories for the central characters (however sparsely layered) can't change the fact that I didn't care if they lived or died. I didn't even want them to meet their pixellated doom*4, I just didn't give a shit.
In Other Words: Did you see Skyline? You'll get the same amount of enjoyment out of this, for better or worse. By which I mean worse.
It'd be a 1, but at least the effects are competent. Used for the most pointless purpose I've seen in a long time, but used competently nonetheless.
*1 They could be teenagers, although I doubt it. It's not really mentioned per se, but I think they're meant to be early 20's or so. *2 And not just exposition itself, but clanking great cues for it as well. "How did we find this place again?" [cue 2 minutes of irrelevant backstory which will never be referred to again]. *3 Yes, I know it's an alien-invasion film, but the plot needs to rely on internal logic, otherwise the survival or otherwise of the characters makes no sense. *4 Also; no explanation offered as to why some victims are vaporised on contact, while others get dragged around by an electrical lasso which should, in theory, vaporise them. But doesn't. Pffft.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
I can't honestly say I've got much beef with Margaret Thatcher personally. I was alive when she was in power but I was basically a kid so I didn't take a lot of interest in politics (not that I take much more now). All I know was that in the media at the time, a lot of people were making out she was a massive bastard, and all the grown ups I knew were making out she was a massive bastard. But that's probably because I lived in The North™.
So with that in mind, I went to see The Iron Lady as a film, not a historical document.
The film opens in the present day, with MT as an elderly woman suffering (knowingly) with the onset of dementia. The main symptom of this is that she sees and talks with her husband, Dennis, despite him having died several years earlier, which represents her inability to let go, and also her fear at what she'll find if she does. Her career is told progressively through a series of flashbacks, bringing her to the point where she can finally move on*1.
So, how does it do? As a narrative, it's patchy. Being only partly familiar with the history, it seemed to me that they skipped over key points of MT's career in less time than they deserved. The flashbacks are, for the most part, short and frequent, and seem more like a Greatest Hits than a descriptive re-capping. The bias of the film certainly lies in her favour, with the Falklands War and miner's strikes seeming like a fuss-about-nothing. Even I remember that they weren't.
The film's real strength is in Meryl Streep's performance. She is outstanding in this. Seriously. There were only two distinct and very brief moments where my brain thought 'oh, that's Meryl Streep', but for every other second of that film, she's Thatcher*2. Her present-day portrayal is the most affecting, but she deserves all the accolades she'll undoubtedly pick up for this. The rest of the cast are good enough, but poor old Jim Broadbent only seems to be able to play Jim Broadbent™ these days. Likeable, but always himself. Rather like Bill Nighy in that respect.
All in all, it's difficult for me to say that I actually enjoyed it as such, but I'm definitely glad I saw it, if that makes any sense. It hasn't given me any political insight into the times, nor made me want to research it further. It's one of those films that could have been quite happily made for BBC4 and been broadcast with far less fanfare than it's received, but still won the same amount of respect.
A very solid five. Streep's performance is a straight seven, but her co-stars can't shine like she does.
*1 No, not like that. She's alive at the end, no matter what you were hoping for. *2 Well, okay. She does seem quite like Catherine Tate's Nan character for the last 10 minutes or so...
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
...oh, you didn't think that was my actual review, did you?
And so, January is here. In addition to the self-indulgent last-minute offerings for the Oscars, the traditional post-Christmas release pattern in the UK is for the fucking drivel the studios can't put out at any other time of year because they can't compete with mainstream blockbusters. And there are so many of those that January becomes the graveyard shift for movies. And 2012 is no exception.
Goon is weak. How weak? Look at the poster up there. Go on, click on it and have a look.
Imagine you're in charge of the UK marketing for this one. An also-ran ice hockey comedy starring That Stiffler. I'm not saying that no-one in the UK is into Canadian Ice Hockey, but it is, at best a minority sport. Add in the cinematic qualities of this particular gem, and your only real hope is to market it for the violence. Hence the poster-quotes from Loaded, Nuts, and some website I've never heard of*1. So, apart from the barrel-scraping demographic they're aiming at, even the people who "loved" this film could only bring themselves to give it 4 out of 5. Talk about damning with faint praise.
As for the film itself, as my other*2 review said, it's not really about ice hockey, and even though I know next-to-nothing about it, I get the impression that it's about as faithful to the game as Jurassic Park is to genetic research. The opening act seems to zip by (presumably) months in Doug Glatt's life, where a guy who can't skate somehow gets a place on a hockey team. The main thread of the film comes in fits and starts as we stutter over Rhea's 12-match (ie 12 week?) suspension. Glatt's family are seemingly abandoned half way through the film, and Jay Baruchel's Pat only returns because Baruchel co-wrote the film and wanted to get his face in at the end.
Seann William Scott does bring some charm to the film, but I've seen that so many times before it doesn't really matter any more. Shcreiber's nowhere near as aggressive or wily as his character requires him to be, and he just seems bored for the whole thing. Everyone else stumbles through and phones-in performances, including Eugene Levy as Jewish Dad™, and Jay Baruchel as Swearing, Excited Geek™.
It's not consistently funny enough to be a comedy, and there's not enough feeling for it to be a drama, even when the blood's spraying across the ice. I can imagine it going down slightly better with an actual hockey-crowd, but for the UK market, this should have been straight-to-DVD.
It's not the worst thing I've ever seen (and I'm sure I'll see worse this year), but if you get anything of substance out of it, I salute you.
*2 No offence to heyuguys, I just really haven't heard of you. I'll check you out but, y'know. I only wish you'd been brought to my attention by being quoted over a better film. *2 It was a piss-take. Don't quote me on the fucking DVD packaging.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
And so, January is here. The traditional post-Christmas release pattern in the UK is for the more worthy films to be aired just before the Academy Awards ceremony in February. With the festivities and their associated blockbusters out of the way, now is the perfect time to see actual film at the cinema, and 2012 is no exception.
With Goon, director Michael 'Take Me Home Tonight' Dowse brings us a tale of self-discovery and cameraderie, with the rough-and-tumble of Canadian and American mainstream sport as a background rather than the focus, per se. In many respects, it owes a lot to Rod Daniel's 1985 piece, 'Teen Wolf', with the many individual matches themselves being shown purely from the protagonists viewpoint, and often in a few minutes or less.
Sean William 'Dukes of Hazzard' Scott brings the role of Doug Glatt to life. Glatt finds his way from casual door-security work, onto the professional ice hockey circuit, not by being a gifted player, but rather by virtue of his talents as an enforcer, or the titular 'goon'. His mandate within the squad is to keep his violent counterparts on the opposing team in check. A role which he relishes at first, but with which his character struggles when he begins to extend into actually playing hockey, only to be reprimanded by his own manager and more sportingly talented teammates.
Indeed, this struggle is only one of many as Glatt is something of a lost soul, looking to find his raison d'etre. Raised in an orthodox Jewish family, the film paints him as almost an outcast from the offset, with his parents struggling to accept his job first as a 'bouncer', and later as a hockey player (in fact, the thread with Glatt's parents is never quite resolved in the film, making the dénouement particularly hollow).
Elsewhere, tensions rise within the team as Marc-André 'The Chameleon'Grondin plays Xavier Laflamme, the golden-boy of the team whose own focus and determination on the ice is slipping, and is taking out his frustrations on Glatt, whom he holds partially responsible for his waning star. A particularly touching scene sees Glatt making his peace with his enforced flatmate Laflamme whilst talking through an adjoining wall, reminiscent of two characters talking whilst in neighbouring prison cells. Of course, up until this point, the characters had been in cells, albeit of their own psychological making. Similarly, once Glatt moves north to join the Halifax Highlanders, a romantic interest emerges in Eva, played by Alison 'Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen' Pill, who is similarly confused with her position in life. The two disparate souls are brought slowly together, each being an antidote to the weaknesses and damage in the other's psyche. A particularly poignant touch from the director is the scene they share in Eva's car, with the snow outside representing her crumbling reluctance to commit to a relationship with Glatt, and the plastic cherry suspended from the rear-view mirror representing his implied virginity.
And finally, we have the St John's Shamrocks enforcer Ross Rhea, courtesy of Liev 'Mixed Nuts' Schreiber. Rhea spends most of the film as an observer, having been suspended for gratuitously violent conduct. We see Glatt's rise to fame from his eyes as he studies the matches which take place in his absence, knowing that their paths will cross eventually. Like the best grizzled old pro's, Rhea knows the time will soon come to hang up his boots for good, and it is the culmination of Glatt's story and Rhea's career that brings the film to its heart-stopping climax. As I intimated earlier, the film is less about ice hockey, and more about the violence that accompanies it. Blood is spilled frequently throughout the film, but always sparingly, save the final showdown between the last of the old generation, and the first of the new.
Each drop of blood that hits the ice is a metaphor for tears, sweat and dignity. Ice hockey is portrayed as a sport that is less about numbers and points, and more about agression and raw, primal truth. Goon isn't quite perfect, but it's a thoughtful reminder that the same can be said of any one of us. With determination, we should all strive for the goals within our reach.
I shall be sorely disappointed if The Academy fails to recognise the haunting and touching contributions that Scott, Schreiber and Grondin have made to celluloid.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
At one point last year, I answered a telephone call on the land-line to someone claiming to be working for Microsoft. The gentleman told me (in alarmingly poor English), that Microsoft had tracked several "error messages" back to my computer, and that they could be indicative of malware, spyware and other related problems. If I could sit in front of my computer, he would guide me to a website which would be able to fix the issues.
Before we go any further, I'll summarise the contents of that link. This phone call wasn't from Microsoft. None of them are.
Now, it was the first one of these calls I'd had, although I found out later from friends that they were becoming more commonplace. Being a cynical bastard (at best), I saw through this ridiculous charade as most people would. Well, I say that, but I can't be entirely sure. It saddens me to know that some people are taken in by this, and they then visit a website and install "software" under instruction from a call centre worker, and basically sabotage their own computer, and in some cases even pay for the privilege.
But back to the phone call: One small, but strongly presented question later, and he hung up on me. The malware-salesman... hung up on me.
I've had three more calls since then, all with the same results. And it's not just one question you can ask. There are several others that'll vex them, and waste their time while you insist on an answer.
THE IMPORTANT FIRST RULE: DON'T give them any information they don't already have, and DON'T do anything on your computer that they ask you to. You don't need to be in front of your computer for the following questions to work. Remember, the only info they have of yours is your phone number, and the surname of the bill-payer, as will become apparent...
#1 - Sorry, what did you say your name was again? And your number hasn't come up on my phone; what number can I reach you on in the future?
Always ask for their full name. They'll make one up, of course, but it pisses them off that they haven't got a sheep on the line, and lets them know that this isn't going to be an easy call for them. Similarly with the phone number, they'll just make one up. Working from a call centre, they'll have an idea of how UK (or wherever you are) phone numbers work, but they won't give you a real one. I've done this one twice, and once the number was too long, and the other one was too short. This question is a delaying tactic, but it'll buy you some time to come back to this page, if you need to, or to dig out the piece of paper you've written the other questions on.
#2 - And what IP address did you log the errors coming from?
This is the big one. They'll try and palm over it, at which point you can ask the others; but if you execute this one properly, they'll hang up on you. In short, your IP address is the number assigned to your current internet connection by your service provider. Some people's change often, some rarely, depending on that provider. You can read more about them here if you like, and you can tell (completely safely) what your IP address is by visiting here. The important thing is, that any "errors" etc which would be logged would include this information. That's how they'd be logged. So surely, this "Microsoft Certified" company (or actual Microsoft, depending on their level of bullshit) would have this as the basis of their report? Well, these clowns haven't. They won't be able to tell you either which IP the errors were logged from, or your current IP. If they make an address up (none have with me, so far), just deny that it's your IP address. You don't have to know what yours currently is, because neither do they. If you DO know your current IP do not give it to anyone over the phone. There's no reason to give these people any ammunition which could be used against you.
#3 - Can you tell me which operating system was generating the errors?
This is another one where 1) they won't be able to answer you truthfully, and 2) you can throw them a curveball if they try to make it up. All the information discerable from your IP address is here. There's not a great deal, but your operating system's on that list. As with the IP address, any "errors" which would have been logged would have captured that information. The goons in the call centre (or rather, their employers) are taking a chance that you're using Windows, hence claiming to be from Microsoft. There's a strong chance you might be, of course, but they won't be able to tell you which version. If they have the brass fucking neck to challenge you on this, tell them "well, I have several machines, each running different operating systems, I'd like to know which one the errors came from". Alternatively, if they make up a "oh, Windows 7" answer, you can tell them "Really? That's odd, because my machine's a Mac." Again, if they fluster, press them for an answer. Don't let them move on until they admit they don't know. It's also worth remembering that of all the info captured via your actual IP address, your phone number isn't in there. These folks are working from a phone-list.
#4 - Can you tell me what the error messages are regarding? Only my security-suite hasn't told me anything's amiss...
As above, they won't have this information. They won't be able to give you error codes or descriptions, because those answers are the kind of the thing that they can't just make up. They'll tell you that they "don't have that information", and that your current security software is malfunctioning.
#5 - Can you tell me what dates and times the errors were logged?
Wow, are they still on the phone to you after four questions? Well, if you're doing them in order, this should be the final straw. Ask them when the errors were logged and you'll get "I'm sorry, I don't have that information". Again. Then you can then really get stuck in with a:
"So, you're calling to tell me that my computer has caused errors to be logged with Microsoft (and/or a representative company), one of the world's leading IT manufacturers, and yet you can't tell me which IP address they came from, which operating system I'm running, or when the errors occurred? Are you actually being serious?"
If they're still on the line at this point, after getting nowhere for 5-10 minutes, they'll get pissed off and hang up on you. They haven't been able to back up their credentials or reason for calling, and they know now that they've been rumbled. They've given you a false name and phone number, so there's no comeback on them. They'll go and bother someone else.
In the event of them still persisting, you can hang up on them now. You've made your point.
The main idea is to keep them on the phone for as long as possible because a) they're paying for the call, b) it's stopping this particular piece of shit from currently bothering someone else, who might not be as knowledgable as us, and c) it's fucking amusing to watch people fluster. Especially someone who's trying to get you to install malware on your own computer.
You don't have to know what you're talking about, you only have to sound like you do. If you can master that, you're already one step ahead of them.
Do me a favour, though, and spread the word, yeah? Cheers.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
