Film Review: Target

Just two weeks prior, I had the utmost pleasure of watching South Korea's tech crime thriller, Target. Now, I say "tech crime thriller", but in all honesty, there's a healthy number of horror elements in the movie. 

Target is a gripping tale of an online commercial transaction gone wrong. Security is compromised, privacy is invaded, and threats to life are carried out as things escalate. This film is actually based on a number of real-life police cases, and hits uncomfortably close to home if you're a frequent user of second-hand online dealing apps.

Warning - blood, violence and spoilers!

Not neccessarily in that particular order.

The Premise

Soo-Hyun buys a second-hand washing machine online through an app, and finds herself the victim of a fraudulent purchase. Outraged, she tracks down the cheat and engages in a war of words, after which she begins to experience breaches of her privacy at the hands of the cheat, now turned online stalker. As threats to her life and safety ramp up, the police get involved and this cumulates in a brutal showdown.

The Characters

Shin Hye-Sun plays the role of protagonist Jang Soo-Hyun, your run-of-the-mill office worker. I can't say enough good things about her performance. Her character was believable and sympathetic, not distractingly beautiful and conveyed a compelling combination of both spunk and fragility. Shin portrayed the increasing paranoia and the psychological breakdown of her character like a pro.

Im Sung-jae as the unnamed killer. With his bulky frame and murderous glare, he cuts a chilling figure when we, the audience, finally see his face.

Kim Sung-Kyun plays experienced and short-fused Detective Joo with jaded weariness. It's a character whose gruff exterior hides an empathetic core, and Kim really sinks his teeth into it. It's nice to see one of the male leads in a Korean movie that doesn't have to be prettier than the actresses to keep you invested in the outcome.

Kang Tae-Oh as Detective Na. Earnest, sympathetic and enthusiastic, Kang did a pretty good job portraying a competent but less experienced detective trying his best.

Lee Joo-young as Soo-Hyun's buddy Oh Dal-Ja. I liked her in the role, but I'm not sure it was all that necessary. She just didn't have that much to do. She was pretty funny, though!

Lim Chul-Soo as Soo-Hyun's boss. Goofy wannabe Romeo to Soo-Hyun, who's a lot less charming than he probably thinks he is, Lim had the thankless task of trying to play a rather unlikeable character who did not have much to offer the plot except act as a red herring and later get killed off.

Geum Sae-Rok has a small but significant role as one of the killer's former victims, showing the audience that Soo-Hyun isn't overreacting. Geum's fear was almost palpable through the screen.

The Mood

The movie begins somewhat light-heartedly, with colorful screencaps superimposed over the footage to show what users are buying and selling. There's a little bit of comedy thrown in here and there, but the first clue you get that this isn't a rom-com, is when the first victim gets murdered.

As things develop and Soo-Hyun starts getting stalked, it starts getting increasingly creepy. Disquieting doesn't even begin to describe it.

Car chase scenes and brutal fistfights, though, round things out with plenty of tension in the final quarter of the movie.

What I liked

No one does movie violence like the Koreans. No one! The shaky cam car chases, the visceral feel of life-or-death fisticuffs, the sound of knifeblades entering flesh. If it's violence you seek, you can't go wrong with Korean.

The acting in there was top-notch. By my abysmally low standards, anyway. I gasped, I cringed. I cheered. Emotionally, this movie had me by the balls.

The fact that this movie deals with the dangers of online commerce, and its realistic take on police protection, is a huge plus.

Those guys that the killers send over to pester Joo-Hyun are suitably creepy. It did feel corny at first, but the execution was sublime. From the telltale bleep of Joo-Hyun's door being opened by a total stranger who thinks he's there to answer a booty call... the premise doesn't sound scary when I say it, but it's really something you'd need to watch for yourself.

I really love all the detective work thrown in by Joo-Hyun and, well, the detectives.

What I didn't

Why did the killer attack Detective Joo first instead of just running off? That made no goddamn sense.

The killer was just a tad too Terminator-like in his sheer determination to fuck everyone up. Like, how much punishment should a man take before he finally just fucking dies? That ruined believability for me.

And why wasn't the trap better laid? Why did it had to come down to a fight to the death? Seriously, this felt sloppy AF.

Conclusion

For all its flaws, and believe me, there are plenty, Target is one helluva ride from start to finish. It's a cautionary tale of trusting online strangers with your money and information, and the many ways systems like these can be abused. And then this is taken up several notches. You don't have to be a techie to enjoy this one - if you just like a good old serial killer movie, this does just fine.

My Rating

8 / 10

Are you sold on this movie yet?
T____T

Film Review: Black Mirror Series Three, Redux (Part 3/3)

The last episode, Hated by the Nation, is styled like a police procedural and reminds me strongly of movies like Se7en, with a tech bent. It also boasts a really large cast.

This is the quintessential Black Mirror in the sense that the evils of Social Media and cyberbullying is central to the plot. In fact, it's like a violent and explosive version of The National Anthem.

The Premise

It's a few years into the future, and the extinction of bees has given rise to a tech creation known as Autonomous Drone Insects (ADIs). These tiny robots are used as an instrument for murder, with Social Media as a trigger. A nasty twist at the end ensures that few remain unscathed, either physically or psychologically.

The Characters

Kelly McDonald as Karin Parke. She's a jaded and cynical veteran of the force, and a divorcee. Every sarcastic quip and world-weary expression McDonald throws out is gold. For real, the dialogue is excellent. And McDonald delivers like a pro.

Liza: What about the others who chipped in? Are you going to tell them off too? I didn't do anything!

Karin: Start a thread about it.

Now that was a performance I truly enjoyed. She puts a lot of people in their place just with a look or a carefully-placed stinging remark. Which makes it all the more poignant when it's quite obvious that the events have somewhat broken her.

Faye Marsay as Blue Coulson. A former idealist who wants some field experience. Coulson is tech-savvy and does a lot of the investigation regarding how the "Game of Consequences" works. She's a great foil to the bitter jadedness of Karin Parke.

Benedict Wong as Shaun Li from the National Crime Agency. I just about fanboyed out loud when the Sorceror Supreme appeared on screen! In here, he's a straight-laced, growly-voiced semi-antagonist, serious as a heart attack.

Jonas Karlsson plays the ADI engineer Rasmus Sjoberg. He provides, with earnestness, most of the exposition around the ecology of ADIs and the tech behind it.

Joe Armstrong as Nick Shelton. Other than being a victim, I'm not sure what use he was to the plot.

Elizabeth Berrington as Jo Powers. She's a provocative journalist who writes vicious articles that punch down, and punch down hard. This makes her a publicly hated figure, and she's the first victim of the hashtag. Berrington plays her as a woman with an extremely thick skin who weathers the constant vitriol hurled her way, letting everything roll off her.

Charles Babaloa as Tusk. An obnoxious black rapper who becomes the next target of public hate and thus dies a grisly death.

Ben Miles makes a delightfully foul-mouthed appearance as Tom Pickering, the slimy and heartless politician. We see him burst into expletives under pressure, and it is so fun to watch.

Holli Dempsey as Clara Meades. She's presented as a feckless young woman who earns public hate due to a silly and disrespectful prank.

James Larkin as Simon Powers, Jo's husband. Now, this role is tragic. Larkin plays him as a traumatized husband who had to watch his wife kill herself in violently crazed fashion.

Georgina Rich as Tess Wallander. She's a soft-spoken individual who was a victim of cyber-bullying, and the original inspiration for the deadly hashtag.

Duncan Pow as Garett Scholes. Some psycho who dispenses what he calls justice... but with the tech skills to actually make it happen. We don't see much of him except toward the end, and even then there's not all that much of him to form a strong opinion.

Vinette Robinson as Liza Bahar. She's a pre-school teacher who is found to be using the hashtag without really understanding the consequences but otherwise does not seem to be a horrible person. Later on, Scholes delivers her comeuppance and I can't help but feel that perhaps it was a bit much. It was probably deliberate, to show us just how disproportionate extremism can be.

Esther Hall as Vanessa Dahl. What was she even doing taking up space on-screen? What a waste. She existed for no other reason than to be the verbal punching bag for other characters, mostly Karin.

The Mood

It's a big city vibe, but with grim undertones to it. Karin and Blue pretty much nail it with their conversations while driving. The surroundings are bustling and lively and the investigative feel of the entire episode is pretty pervasive.

What I liked

The red herring in the form of Jo's cake was clever. And yes, like her husband said, "very creative".

The scene where Karin and Blue initially have a conversation in the former's car, contains a reference to the Series Two episode, White Bear. And it carries the same vibe that Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman had in Se7en, with Kelly McDonald playing the part of the jaded veteran, and Faye Marsay being the earnest newbie who just wants to make the world a safer place.

I thought Tusk's death was particularly creative. Gotta see it to appreciate it.

I like the display where several ADIs fly in formation to form Granular's logo. It even rotates!

The screenshot doesn't do it justice, but the interior of Shaun's NCA-issued car is really impressive!

That sequence of the ADIs leaving their hive to wreak bloody murder, is both poetic and terrifying.

That entire episode, along with the final twist, is very characteristic of Black Mirror. The horrors of Social Media, and how people are utter dicks to each other. In particular, how people don't stop using the hashtag even after finding out what it does, and actually pile it on. This makes it really hard to sympathize with them later on.

And later on, when Karin and Blue wander through that hall filled with bodybags of victims, the sheer bleakness of the shot is iconic.

What I didn't

The format of having the episode framed by Karin as a narrator, felt unnecessary. The ending was also pretty ambiguous. This episode could have worked better as a full-length movie, with perhaps a proper resolution. As it was, it was already about 90 minutes in length.

Wait, if the ADIs attack based on facial recognition, couldn't potential victims just mask their faces for protection? Isn't that exactly what Scholes does at the end? Why the need for that sequence regarding the bunker to protect Pickering? This seems like quite the plot hole.

Conclusion

This final episode really rounded up Black Mirror Series Three really well. While the cast just seemed a little larger than it really needed to be, the snappy dialogue and tension-laced action absolutely did it for me. This is a great addition into the franchise despite some totally superfluous bits.

My Rating

9 / 10

Final Thoughts on Black Mirror Series Three

I liked Series Three as a whole. After the slight disappointment that was Series Two, Black Mirror came back strong with plenty of content, all the while staying somewhat true to what came before.

San Junipero was the standout, though in terms of storyline and vibe, it was very different from the entire Black Mirror universe. Still, it was a sweet love story that strongly resonated.

A close second was Nosedive and Shut Up and Dance. These were episodes that were very typical of Black Mirror, showcasing the ugliness of humanity, amplified by advanced (or in the case of Shut Up and Dance, not all that advanced) technology. Men Against Fire and Hated in the Nation were both strong action-packed offerings and gave me a satisfying conclusion to Series Three. And while Playtest wasn't (in my opinion) as good as the others, it was by no means a weak episode.

All in all, this was very, very satisfying.

#DeathToBlackMirror (heh heh)
T___T

Ten Inspirational Film Moments For A Web Developer

Tech movies are great and all, but it may surprise you to know that I do watch other movies, and TV shows. And while film is, for the most part, simply mindless entertainment to me, there have been odd times when certain scenes in them inspired me in my web development career.

Today, I will be sharing some of the scenes in movies and TV shows that struck that note. And here they are, not in any order of significance.

1. True Detective Season 2

A crime thriller series where crime boss Frank Semyon (Vince Vaughn) is holding court with his subordinates during the very first episode.

True Detective Season 2

Some serious shit has gone down, and one of Frank's stooges suggests a desperate course of action. Frank shuts him down with the following line:

"Never do anything out of hunger. Not even eating."

This singular truth can be applied to so many situations. Never wait till you're hungry to eat - you'll end up eating things that aren't good for you, or eat too much. Never wait till you're thirsty to drink water - if you're thirsty, you're already dehydrated. Never wait till you're unemployed to start monitoring the job market - you'll end up taking any old job.

Basically, never do anything out of desperation. Because when you're in dire need, you tend to make sub-optimal choices. You tend to take what's available instead of what's best in the long run. When I attend a job interview without actually needing a job, I can negotiate (or not negotiate, as is my style) without feeling any pressure to capitulate. I can afford to weigh my options carefully. And most significantly, I can make choices that I will not regret later.

Don't do anything out of hunger. You'll probably end up doing something really stupid.

2. Unfinished Business

Vince Vaughn again, and this very tepid comedy, while utterly forgettable, had one scene that struck me deep.

Unfinished Business

In it, Dan Trunkman (Vince Vaughn) and his employee, the unfortunately named Mike Pancake (Dave Franco), are sitting around a little group passing a bong, when Dan starts talking about why he wants to send his son to private school - to avoid bullies. And Mike, while normally managing to sound like a total retard, has this surprising little pearl of wisdom.

"You know the worst part with teasing? My dad would say, forget about it and ignore it, son. But he doesn't understand because in his day, kids would get teased at school all day but then they could go home. And nowadays, you come home and there's Facebook, and there's Instagram, and the bullies can get at you through all of that stuff. And it never really stops."

That was a truth about cyberbullying that thoroughly resonated. With the rise of tech, our lives have changed. Including school bullying. School bullying is no longer "school" bullying because people can now bully you wherever you go, as long as you're logged in. And we all need to understand that.

The solution? Don't let them.

Look, I know it's easier said than done, but hear me out. If you accept the fact that people are going to be total assholes every time you log on, the solution is not to stand up for yourself and have the last fucking word... because you should have higher standards. Some people have nothing more meaningful in life to do than win battles on the Internet. That's on them. You can quietly pity them, but don't be an idiot and validate their existence by joining them.

3. The Intern

I watched this movie originally because there was nothing else showing. It's about an old guy who signs up to be an intern at an up-and-rising startup, and ends up imparting wisdom and friendship and all that jazz.

The Intern

It was OK, but the one thing that stood out, aside from a very tasty-looking Rene Russo (hey I'm a seventies kid, so fuck you), was the scene where the titular intern Ben Whittaker (Robert De Niro) is shooting the breeze with some of his much younger colleagues, Jason (Adam DeVine) and Lewis (Jason Orley).

Jason: Wait, so you're saying you shave every day?
Ben: Yes.
Lewis: Even on Sundays?
Ben: Every day.
Jason: OK, and even if you know that you're not gonna see anyone that you know?
Ben: Yes.

See? Ben has a routine. Granted, it's a very minor one, but he keeps to it. And he does it even when nobody's looking. That's integrity and discipline. Sure, this three-second scene didn't make me start shaving every day (because sometimes I like a little fuzz on my chin) but when you apply it to other things, it holds just as true.

When I code, I'm obsessive about the spacing - both horizontal and vertical. The indentation. The casing. I try to keep things as visually neat as possible. Why, you may ask? The laypeople don't care as long as it works, and the techs aren't likely to notice. Well, if recognition is what you're going for, great. But I'm doing this because it's the right thing to do, or possibly because I'm OCD.

It may seem like a really small thing, just like shaving. But I firmly believe that if a professional can't be trusted with small things, then that professional can't be trusted with bigger things.

4. Captain Marvel

This is a superhero movie, and despite the controversy Brie Larson stirred up, I actually didn't hate it. Aside from some very cringey in-your-face feminist moments where I felt the film-makers were trying just a wee bit too vigorously, it met my KPIs for mindless fun.

Captain Marvel

Still, there was some inspiration to be taken from this particular scene. In it, Yon-Rogg (Jude Law) challenges Captain Marvel (Brie Larson) to a good old-fashioned fist fight, to prove to him that she can beat him without using her powers. Instead, Captain Marvel summarily hits him with an energy blast, and as she stands over his stunned body, utters the following line.

"I have nothing to prove to you."

Now, let's be clear: I think the character did the right thing. The stakes were too high to let her ego get in the way, and she did what was both sensible and efficient. She did not play Yon-Rogg's game, but simply did her own thing. But that line... for the love of God, what a stupid line. See, when you really don't have anything to prove to people, you don't do something counter-intuitive like defiantly declare it in the manner of some rebellious teenager. That was what Captain Marvel came off as, and this particular line inspires me not to do something this dumb. If you don't have anything to prove, make your decisions accordingly and don't waste time pointing it out.

A couple years ago, some loudmouth at work asked me what I was doing for the weekend. In all seriousness, I told him I would be trying to render a pie chart using CSS. He laughed and told me that was a waste of time, and I should be looking up new and cutting-edge technologies in my spare time, just like him.

Damn, someone was trying really hard to impress me there. Perhaps too hard.

Did I play his game? Hell, no, I did not. The next time he asked what my plans were for the weekend, I merely said I'd be screwing around with QBasic, and let him think he'd won. Like Captain Marvel, I did my own thing and didn't let anyone bait me into playing some meaningless game of one-upmanship. Unlike Captain Marvel, however, I had so little to prove to this dude that I didn't even feel the need to inform him of that fact.

Less is more, Captain Marvel.

5. Goldeneye

Back in 1995, I watched my first Pierce Brosnan-led Bond movie. And it was so good. Mindless actions? In spades. I remember it as the first time I ever saw Femke Janssen on screen as a hammy psycho chick, and it was so, so good.

Goldeneye

But the thing that really stood out for me was the computer nerd Boris (Alan Cumming) who had this habit. Whenever he accomplished something via his programming skill, he would pump his fists and dramatically declare...

"Yes! I am invincible!"

I've had similar moments while working. Successfully resolved a bug? Got some code to run? Output was exactly as expected, with no surprises?

Yes! I am invincible!

And yep, I would even do it in Alan Cumming's adorable Russian accent. Though, these days, I'm happy to occasionally say I am inevitable, just like Thanos.

6. Justice League

Another superhero movie, and while I generally think DC superhero movies aren't as good as the Marvel ones, there was an inspirational moment tucked away in this one.

Justice League

Flash (Ezra Miller) and Batman (Ben Affleck) are having a little conversation as they head off to hunt down the supervillain Steppenwolf. Flash is experiencing some panic and self-doubt, and Batman gives him some sage advice.

Flash: Okay, here's the thing. See, I'm afraid of bugs, and guns, and obnoxiously tall people, and murder. I can't be here. It's really cool you guys seem ready to do battle and stuff, but - full transparency - I've never done battle. I've just pushed some people and run away!
Batman: Save one.
The Flash: What?
Batman: Save one person.
The Flash: Uh... which one?
Batman: Don't talk, don't fight. Get in, get one out.
The Flash: And - and then?
Batman: You'll know.

This is actually very sensible advice. I've been in situations where I had to learn a new piece of tech - programming language, DevOps, API calls - and I had no goddamn clue how to do anything. And every single time, it was a similar mantra that got me started. Do something simple. Accomplish one basic objective, nothing else. Finish it, then go from there.

It could be a Hello World program. Playing around with an interface. Copy-pasting code, and then changing it to see what happens. Nothing significant, or spectacular. Just something to get me started.

The lesson to learn here is, many things look intimidating until you roll up your sleeves and just dive right in. I've learned a lot of stuff this way. Sure, I may not have gone very deep into those things, but at least I'm a lot less intimidated by them than when I practically knew nothing about them. And that's something.

Save one. Get in, get out. You'll know what comes next after you do it. You just need to take that first step.

7. Narcos Season 1

Narcos is a docu-drama about the life of infamous Colombian druglord Pablo Escobar (Wagner Moura), and the agents who try to bring him down, Steve Murphy (Boyd Holbrook) and Javier Pena (Pedro Pascal). It's a glorious smorgasbord of violence, sex and utter testosterone-laced badassery on all sides. I loved everything about this show, especially the fact that it's set in the sixties and seventies. Nothing like a little retro, eh?

Narcos Season 1

In the show, not everyone likes Boyd Holbrook narrating the scenes. But I do, and below is one of those times his lazy drawl hit me like a thunderbolt.

"When you kill someone, you lose all your leverage the moment they're dead. Now, you take someone's children away from them, you'd be amazed what they'd do to get them back."

Now, this is a little dark, but I like to think of it every time I'm being chewed out for something I did at work. Miswrote code, got caught napping during a meeting, spent too much time on my phone, or whatever. It's tempting to get demoralized when that happens, but really, that's probably when you're least in danger of getting fired.

Employers generally don't waste time warning employees that they're planning on dismissing. They just dismiss them, period. You're getting that warning because they still value you as an employee; either that, or replacing you on short notice is going to be a gigantic pain in the ass. That's not to say you don't have to check yourself, but going all Chicken Little the moment you're verbally warned, is an overreaction.

What employers do want (and expect) to see after you've been warned, is for you to visibly buck up. They expect you to react as though your kids have been taken away and you want them back. So do that. Whereas if you were to be fired, they can't reasonably expect to get any extra performance out of you.

8. True Detective Season 1

It's a buddy-cop crime thriller where the story spans decades. I enjoyed this one thoroughly, and I'd totally recommend it if you're into psychological thrillers.

True Detective Season 1

Rustin Cohle (Matthew McConaughey) and Martin Hart (Woody Harrelson) reunite after several long years to team up on an investigation, and they're starting to ask each other how things have been. Then Rustin drops this gem in Matthew McConaughey's trademark Southern drawl.

"Life's barely long enough to get good at one thing. So be careful what you get good at."

I'm in my forties now, and truth be told, there are many years which I spent unproductively, getting experienced in things that don't matter professionally. Like how to carry yourself in shady nightclubs. How to stack a Dungeons And Dragons character till he's basically unkillable. How to say the right things to a woman to get into her knickers.

I'm not saying that only professional skills matter... but damn I should have concentrated more on them when I was younger. Programming languages. Frameworks. Databases. Tech trends. As opposed to doing only stuff that was fun. Like, why the hell did I work so hard on being good in bed? It's not like I was training to be a gigolo. And twenty years on, that shit is no longer going to matter.

9. The Master of Tai-Chi

An example from Hong Kong! A Cantonese martial arts period drama I used to watch. This show is about a martial arts practitioner Mo Ma (Vincent Zhao) and his rivalry with Tuen Hiu-Sing (Raymond Lam). At first, Hiu-Sing kicks Mo Ma's ass in a fight, but as the show progresses and Mo Ma grows in maturity, he unlocks the secrets of Tai-chi. Mo Ma and Hiu-Sing eventually become friends as they work together to overcome a Police Chief, Chai Wai (Wilson Tsui).

The Master of Tai-chi

There's nothing really memorable about this show. It's painfully formulaic and pretty trite when you take away the action scenes. However, one thing stood out for me. Chai Wai, the show's villain, has hired a mercenary, Moon Yau-Ngo (Derek Kok). Yau-Ngo is supposed to get a shady task done, but he refuses. When Chai Wai asks him why, he declares...

"大丈夫有所为，有所不为。"

Don't bother running this through Google Translate, because it'll make no goddamn sense. It barely even makes sense if read in Mandarin. It's a Cantonese phrase, which basically means: there are things a true man can do, and there are things a true man can't do.

That was what made the character interesting. Yau-Ngo is under no illusions here that he's anything but a bad guy. But he also thinks of himself as a true man. The two aren't mutually exclusive, unless you have totally no sense of nuance. From Yau-Ngo's point of view, he's an accomplished martial artist, and can kick ass. Certain actions are so craven that he considers himself above them. Chai Wai wasn't impressed with Yau-Ngo's statement, but does Yau-Ngo give a shit? Nope.

Everyone needs an ethical bottom line like our villainous friend there. I'm not saying I won't lie. But I won't make rash promises and once a promise is made, I'll do my dardest to keep it. I won't borrow money frivolously, or allow myself to forget about paying it back. And I won't pretend to be sick just so that I can have a day off from work to attend a job interview. Those are just a few of my personal bottom lines. And I don't care if anyone's impressed by those rules, because, again, those are my bottom lines.

10. The Karate Kid

No, not the original classic. This is the remake in 2010, which was inexplicably named the same despite the martial art in question being Chinese Kung-fu, not Karate.

The Karate Kid

The movie wasn't spectacular, but it was serviceable. What really helped was the part when Mr Han (Jackie Chan) is training Dre (Jaden Smith) for the first time during an iconic scene, and ends the lesson with an impassioned speech.

"Kung-fu lives in everything we do, Xiao Dre. It lives in how we put on a jacket, how we take off the jacket. It lives in how we treat people. Everything is Kung-fu."

Everything is Kung-fu. Words to live by. When Mr Han incorporated Kung-fu into actions that Dre was familiar with, the learning process became a whole lot clearer.

This mantra helped a lot in my tech learning process. Everything is web development. In some small part, it's also the inspiration behind the phrase work is part of life.

Let's stop thinking of tech as this oh-so-mystifying thing and realize that its roots are steeped in everyday life. Technology is not some unfathomable mystery. It is an extension of everything we know. A whole chunk of it is based on logic and common sense. Apps that solve everyday mundane problems (maps, bus schedules, pizza delivery) are built because mobile devices and the Internet exist. Rows and columns were a thing long before there were databases. Tech terms are words that had other meanings before the first computer was produced.

Being able to see parallels in the world around me, and use analogies while trying to understand the principles behind another aspect of technology, has helped me make sense of what I was learning.

And that's all!

The film moments that inspired me were mostly innocuous. But we all take inspiration from the strangest places. In fact, arguably, the ability to do so is pretty damn important. Because, you know, everything is Kung-fu.

I am invincible!
T___T

Thoughts about the LearnToCode Hashtag

Hashtag "LearnToCode" has been trending on Twitter since the beginning of this month. I don't use Twitter at all, but somehow this came to my attention via news feeds and YouTube videos.

Apparently, this came in response to a number of staff being offloaded by the US media such as Huffington Post and BuzzFeed. Some of these journalists tweeted their newly unemployed statuses, and this was replied by several variations of "Learn to code", with the hashtag and very snarky undertones. Some of those tweets are pretty damn funny, though I'm detecting a certain amount of hostility mixed with the snark.

What's the reason for all this?

Back as far as 2014, President Barack Obama started shutting down coal mining operations. When the now-jobless coal miners, who had been doing this for decades, protested, they were told (rather condescendingly as it turns out) by these reporters to "learn to code", echoing Obama's campaign.

Coal mine.

It's now 2019, and the shoe's on the other foot. Media jobs are being cut, and many of these reporters are freshly unemployed and being told, just as smugly, to "learn to code". Payback's a bitch, ain't it?

Advising others to "learn to code"

I'm of the opinion that people outside of the tech industry, i.e, people who have never coded for a living, have no business giving career advice of this sort. The reporters might have been well-intentioned, but they came off, at best clueless and tone-deaf; at worst, smug and narcissistic.

It's just a very douchebaggy thing to say to someone who has just lost a job he's been doing the past few decades and doesn't know anything else. Yes, theoretically he or she could learn to code. What, then? Simply learning to code is not an end in itself. Software development is not only about coding (though a sizeable part is) and anyone who thoughtlessly simplifies it to merely "coding" does us all a disservice. Even more so, when the people giving this advice, aren't even part of the industry. Yes, Mr Obama, this includes you.

Just shut up already.

So, before you tell others to "learn to code", you'd be well-advised to have done it yourself first, and actually done it professionally. Otherwise, do us actual devs a favor and just shut the hell up.

That said...

I've been laid off before. Twice. And it's never pleasant. (OK, I wasn't being entirely truthful there. The first time I was laid off, it came as a huge relief because the company had become a gigantic pain in the arse. But still... not pleasant.)

Kicking these recently unemployed journalists while they're down, is just needlessly cruel. They've got families to feed, bills to pay and mortgages to service. I've been there. It sucks.

Am I saying I'm sorry that BuzzFeed, HuffPost, et al, had to restructure due to poor revenue? Hell, no. After all the stunts they pulled during the tumultuous 2016 US Presidential Elections, publishing heavily biased news and trying to force the narrative to fit their opinions, I have an exceedingly low opinion of these publications. If this translates to them taking a hit, great! Maybe this will inspire them to raise the level of their so-called journalism.

Trash publication.

Is it a good thing that these journalists (and I'm using the term loosely) no longer get paid to publish their crap? Oh absolutely, yes. The profession deserves better.

On the other hand, is it sad that suddenly a lot of people are jobless? Of course it is. Even if said people are a bunch of feckless assclowns who dabble in the politics of outrage.

So no, I wouldn't shit on them while they're down. Firstly, I'm not a Twitter user and have better use for my time, And secondly, it's just... petty. These ex-journalists may be dicks, but that doesn't mean we need to adhere to their abysmal standards. I'm not saying they don't deserve it, because they damn well do. I'm saying that we should be better than this. And, let's face it, being an ex-employee of a rag like BuzzFeed is already punishment enough.

Reactions

Apparently, Twitter received a lot of complaints about the #LearnToCode hashtag, because Twitter then announced that it would be considered "harrassment" to Tweet "learn to code" (or any variation thereof) to an ex-journalist from BuzzFeed, HuffPost, et al.

Seriously, this boggles the mind. If I were laid off, my topmost priority would be to land another job, pronto. The last thing on my mind would be Twitter trolls and my own hurt feelings. Then again, these are the infamous shit-stirring rabble-rousers from BuzzFeed we're talking about, so this could be some kind of occupational hazard, or something.

Really, take a look in the mirror. Of course it sucks that people are kicking you while you're down. But whose fault is it that people hate you that much?

So what if all this is really, as claimed by Talia Lavin, a harassment campaign by 4Chan users? Lady, you're out of a friggin' job. That should be your first and primary concern. Here's some advice for people who obviously can't handle Social Media: Get. Off. The. Internet.

Editor's Note: After an online search, it appears that this Talia Lavin was the same bright spark who caused a disabled US Marine to be falsely accused of being a Nazi. Who would've thought?

Conclusion

I think people need to lay off that hashtag for a while. It's getting tedious.

As for the newly unemployed, you may want to re-evaluate some of your life choices. I'm not saying you should learn to code, but... perhaps journalism just isn't your thing, if your work in BuzzFeed or HuffPost is anything to go by.

0100110001100101011000010111001001101110
0101010001101111
01000011011011110110010001100101
T___T

Online Lynch Mob Activated!

It's all over the Internet and Social Media. A group of five - historian PJ Thum, activists Jolovan Wham and Kirsten Han, cartoonist Sonny Liew and former Singapore citizen Tan Wah Piow - headed out to meet Tun Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia, for a chat about democracy, gay rights and all that jazz. PJ Thum posted a photo of him and Dr M on Facebook, urging him to "take leadership in South-east Asia for the promotion of democracy, human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of information". Considering Dr M's unfriendly attitude towards Singapore, both past and present, this looked suspiciously like a middle finger from Thum cast in the general direction of Singapore's ruling party, the People's Action Party (PAP).

The photo in question.

PAP MP Mr Seah Kian Peng responded with an insinuation that Thum harbored ill intentions for Singapore, and threw some shade about why the other two (Jolovan Wham and Kirsten Han) were associating with such a malcontent. Within a day, the Internet was up in arms with cries of "treason" echoing through Facebook. And from there, things started getting messy. Instead of shutting the hell up like a good boy, Jolovan Wham chose to double down with this decidedly defiant response.

The thing is, treason involves heinous acts like selling state secrets or helping outsiders to overthrow the Government... things that none of them are in any position to do even if that had been their intent. And if one wishes to argue that their intent was treasonous, I'm pretty sure openly committing treason and posting the evidence on Facebook goes against all conventional logic.

Now, all of this is Singapore politics. Ill-advised as I think the antics of the five were, this is a tech blog and I'll leave dissection of their actions to more political minds. What I would like to focus on, are the actions of Mr Seah Kian Peng in this entire debacle. Because this concerns the Internet, and all the riff-raff that go with it. I speak today, not as a fanboy of either side (I'm far too busy being awesome to be any kind of fanboy, period) but as a concerned citizen. And as a web developer, surprise, surprise, I happen to know a thing or two about the Internet.

When Mr Seah accused Thum  - and Kirsten Han and Jolovan Wham by association - of harboring ill intentions, people jumped on the bandwagon. There were cyber screams of righteous outrage, a great deal of chest-thumping, name-calling and accusations of treason (yes, there's that word again), capital punishment and stripping of citizenship. Kirsten Han reported that death threats had been made against her and Jolovan Wham. Mr Seah then put up a statement.

"Whilst we have different points of views, I call on all to maintain a certain decorum in our comments and we should not get personal or abusive. We can all agree to disagree and be civil about it. It is regretful that I see all kinds of abusive remarks that are made by many different individuals (and trolls) against each other. I do not support such types of comments, regardless of what views or positions they take."

On the surface, it was a nice gesture. Gentlemanly speech. Hit all the right notes and even managed to sound sincere. Unfortunately, it was a case of too little, too late. It amounted to a mild admonishment, coupled with an attempt to distance himself from the extremists among the PAP fan club. The damage had been done. He had stirred up an online lynch mob which was baying for blood, and now that he had publicly distanced himself from the unpleasantness, this gave them carte blanche to do as they pleased without fear of implicating the PAP. Arguably, it made things worse, not better.

A mob.

OK, maybe that's just a wee bit too cynical. I'm going to give Mr Seah the benefit of the doubt and assume he wasn't doing this deliberately. The situation simply got away from him. That would be adequate mitigation in most cases... except that Mr Seah is both a Member of Parliament and member of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, a position which, one might say, requires a certain amount of savvy with the Internet. And that makes this entire situation unacceptable. As a public figure, one has to take responsibility for the impact of his words uttered in public, especially when these words stir up such furor.

It's not enough to say he didn't know better, because a man in his position should know better.

Instead of merely saying he did "not support such types of comments", I submit that he should have gone a step further and warned his audience that he neither condones nor tolerates Hate Speech, and that such would be investigated by the police regardless of whose side they're on. Because, you know, some people are awfully brave when they think there are no consequences for their words.

Final Thoughts

To be clear, I'm not worried about the clowns who are screaming self-aggrandizing rubbish like "if I was there, I would punch that traitor's face". All this is hot air and faux-patriotic bluster, nothing more. This is Singapore, and as much as I love her, she's filled with chickenshit keyboard warriors who talk a good game behind a computer screen but totally lose their nerve when their bluff is called.

No, I'm more concerned about the ones who are getting quietly stirred up. You'll never see them coming.

Remember Amos Yee in 2015? There was some loser who came out of nowhere and slapped Amos Yee while he was exiting the courtroom. He didn't post on Facebook and say "I'm gonna slap that punk". No, he just came right out and did it. Substitute "slap" with something more violent, like "stab", and Amos Yee's name with any of the three currently under fire - PJ Thum, Kirsten Han or Jolovan Wham - and you see how we might have a problem.

Is Mr Seah going to take responsibility for something like this? Someone has to. Like it or not, this is 2018, and this is the Internet. If this gets out of hand, perhaps we need more capable hands.

You see, I have shockingly low moral standards for leaders of my country. They don't have to be of sterling character - they can be utterly annoying, perverts or even ruthless bastards. But what I cannot - will not - condone, is incompetence. That's a hard, non-negotiable line. And if this was a misstep by Mr Seah, it's not quite gross incompetence, but it's close. On the other hand, if Mr Seah had engineered and intended this outcome, I can only say - congratulations and well-played, Sir. I approve.

That's all from me. Heading out for lynch... I mean, lunch!
T___T

Rise of the Handphone Vigilante

Last month in Parliament, on 26th of January, a statement was made, of which I have mixed feelings regarding. MP of Marine Parade GRC, Mr Seah Kian Peng, addressed an incident where an argument between a civil servant and a constituent was caught on camera and went viral.

"I have noticed a recent rise of self-administered vigilante justice among members of the public. The weapon of choice - the handphone; judge and jury - the social media public. This has to change. On the flip side, I have also seen some very bad responses by civil servants, the very few which give the Government as a whole a bad name. This is not who we are. This is not what we dream of becoming."
- Mr Seah Kian Peng

I both agree and disagree with that statement. In order to clarify why, let's first take a look at the phenomenon of Handphone Vigilantism.

What is Vigilantism?

A vigilante is generally defined as "a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)", or more broadly, "a self-appointed doer of justice".

Batman, Spider-man, the Punisher and other comic book heroes fit this profile to cartoonish extremes - they fight crime outside of the boundaries of the law.

What is Cyber Vigilantism?

Wikipedia defines it as "the phenomenon of vigilante acts taken through the Internet (the communication network or its service providers) or carried out using applications (World Wide Web, e-mail) that depend on the Internet".

The Hacker Group Anonymous certainly qualifies, with its activism in counter-terrorism.

Perverted-Justice is a vigilante group that goes after pedophiles online.

Cyber Vigilantism in Singapore

On the other hand, here in sunny Singapore, this is what passes for cyber vigilantism - online lynch mobs.

Amy Cheong became famous in October 2012 due to a racist rant on Facebook. The resulting uproar, which included death threats and other verbal abuse, resulted in her leaving the country.

An online group SMRT Feedback pranked Jover Chew for his cheating cases in the Sim Lim Square saga, which I discussed here last month, and worse - revealed his address and phone number.

Before the case above, Anton Casey's details were leaked by this very same group and he was hounded out of Singapore by enraged netizens.

There are other cases, but to list them all would be excessive at this point.

Am I alone in thinking that Singaporeans come off as silly and pathetic in comparison with their counterparts in the USA? In the USA, vigilantes take down terrorists and pedophiles. In Singapore, we take down racist ranters, crass idiots and scam artists.

Handphone Vigilantism

Handphone Vigilantism is a subset of Cyber Vigilantism. Instead of a computer, the vigilante uses a mobile phone. From this tool, the would-be executor of justice takes photos or a video of the offender and uploads it on a Social Media platform such as STOMP or Facebook, where reactions range from moral outrage to an outright witch hunt.

A few years ago in 2012, news of a spat between a young woman (known as "Huina") and an old lady on the MRT raged through the internet, due to this video. Note that midway through the video, the old lady whips out her mobile phone and threatens to take a photo of the young woman and shame her online.

More recently, a disagreement between a Ms Celine Chia and a Mr Syn Kok Meng made the news, again, in the MRT, when Mr Syn declined to give up his seat upon request by Ms Chia.

What do these incidents have in common? Other than the fact that these incidents (and Anton Casey's case) happened on the MRT, you mean? To be honest, I've never quite figured this out. What is it about train commuting that brings out our inner vigilante? More food for thought, for another day.

Anyway - in these cases, the handphone was used as a tool to shame people. In the first case, the old woman who took the seat threatened to take Huina's picture and use it to shame her in the papers. In the second, Celine Chia did just that, posting Syn's picture online, along with a dramatic and invective-filled, decidedly one-sided account as to what had transpired, in order to get people on her side to join in flaming Syn.

How is this different from sharing someone's post on Facebook and criticizing it?

This has been done on occasion, when Xiaxue makes a blogpost, for example. Someone sees it, and shares it online, publicly disagreeing with that post. If it stops there, it's not cyber vigilantism.

The difference is, the original poster's intention is to share an opinion on public domain. And if one wishes to share an opinion, he or she should be prepared that there will be people who will publicly disagree. It's hard to make an argument for an ill-considered post. This is the Internet, and in order for the post to appear, one has to first type it. This requires a premeditated effort. The argument "I got caught up in the emotion" doesn't cut it. You had time to think it through; you merely chose not to.

In Syn's case, he was not looking to share his opinion - he was minding his own business and defending his consumer rights (albeit in a decidedly dickish manner) upon being bombarded with Chia's attempts to impose her moral standards on him, and didn't have time to consider his response. Chia, apparently fuelled by her righteous indignation, decided unilaterally to escalate it on Social Media.

How is this different from loan sharks publicizing details of those who owe them money?

It's not.

This is public shaming in a bid to put pressure on those unfortunate individuals. This constitutes harassment, and is against the law.

Some have expressed the opinion that if you behave badly in public, you deserve to be shamed online for it. I call bullshit. Children, stop reading so many comic books. It rots your brain. Being a vigilante only looks cool in the cartoons. I'll probably be unpopular for saying this, but - Amy Cheong, Anton Casey, et al have some things in common with us - they have rights. Yes, even big-mouthed bigots and racist shrews have rights. And by participating in the witch hunt, by even encouraging it, you are trampling on those rights.

My opinion

Many have described those two incidents as cases of "handphone vigilantism", some lauding it, some decrying it. I'd like to respectfully disagree.

Sure, it all looks similar and I can certainly see how people would get confused. But make no mistake - this was not done out of any misguided sense of justice. The old lady didn't want to shame Huina because she felt Huina needed to show more respect to the elderly. She wanted to shame Huina because Huina pissed her off. Not because Huina disrespected the elderly. Because Huina disrespected her.

Likewise, Celine Chua's holier-than-thou act is just that - an act. A thin veneer of social-mindedness on top of a very simple agenda - Syn pissed her off, and he had to pay. It was personal.

This is not vigilantism. Vigilantism on its own is repugnant enough, but this is worse. This is a personal witch hunt disguised as vigilantism.

Back to Mr Seah Kian Peng's statement...

"This is not who we are. This is not what we dream of becoming."

Why I agree with Mr Seah

This ought not to be the way.

If the person has committed a crime and you go vigilante on his ass, you are guilty of a crime. If the person has done something that is perfectly legal but contradicts your morals... who are you and why should your moral standards have any bearing on the situation? Who decides what society's moral standards are? I'll give you a clue - it won't be some jackass pursuing perceived justice with a mobile phone.

Fancy yourself one of these?

Why I disagree

Unfortunately, this is who we are. Singaporeans have grown into a timid, repressed lot who somehow come alive on the Internet due to the delusion of anonymity. We've come far as a Nation, but we, as a people, have not caught up with our blooming economy. In many ways, we're still the same kampung villagers in sarongs and stilt houses - only armed with mobile phones and the Internet instead of pitchforks and torches. And "handphone vigilantes" is exactly what some of us seem to dream of becoming. Some of us aspire to be heroes. Not the kind who run into burning buildings to save lives, but the kind who lead or incite lynch mobs to take down those they deem undesirable. Social justice warriors.

Technology's misuse

As a practitioner of technology, as someone who makes his living via Internet technology, it disturbs me profoundly to see said technology being used for things like that. Now that is disrespect. The mobile phone was not built in any one person's lifetime. It is an amalgamation of the evolved work of Alexander Graham Bell and the logical wizardry of Ada Lovelace. The phone and the computer, combined in one. How many engineers and technicians have spent their lives slaving over these technologies, refining them, and assembling them into that wondrous little piece of plastic you hold in your hand today?

Web and mobile technology have made many great advances over the years, and is still in the process of breaking new and exciting ground. And all we want to do with it is publicly shame people who piss us off? That's like buying the latest, fastest computer on the market just to surf porn.

We stand on the cusp of greatness. Please, please don't waste this on some petty garbage.

Just my train of thought,
T___T

The Tragic Case of Izabel Laxamana

A couple weeks ago in May, a teenager in Tacoma, Washington, committed suicide by jumping off a bridge apparently after a public shaming video of her was posted up by her father on Instagram.

It's a tragedy on multiple levels.

If indeed the sole cause of her suicide was the video - which, in all fairness, cannot be proven at this point - it does seem a ridiculously tiny thing to end your life over. It's trivial, some say. It's insignificant. It means nothing in the larger scheme of things. Hair will grow back. The memory will fade with time.

All valid arguments, all logical. To an emotionally balanced adult, at least. But Izabel was freshly in her teens. And like the typical teenager - young, impressionable, vulnerable, filled with confusion and conflict, chock-full to the brim with barely manageable hormones. And the typical teenager cannot be expected to face these things the same way an adult would. Earlier this year, I posted a movie review for the horror film Unfriended. In my review, I mentioned that I could not wrap my mind around the fact that the suicide victim took her own life over what apparently was a trivial matter of a video of her which went viral.

I take that all back. As an adult, it was hard for me to understand. I had totally neglected the fact that the character in question was a teenager.

Also, let us take into account the scope of the shame. When we were kids, our parents probably disciplined us. Raised voices, harsh words, the occasional beating. And let me assure you, all respect to my long-suffering parents, it did me a world of good. You may feel differently. But my point here is that all of it was in private. Even if I was screamed at in public, the only people to take note of it would be those in the immediate area, who'd probably had the same experience growing up. Barely worth a second thought.

But this girl had her hair cut off, and the experience was shared with the world. A teenager having to deal with humiliation on a global scale.

Why does this interest me?

Yeah, well. This is a tech blog, right? Why am I blogging about the suicide of a teenager halfway across the world?

The reason is simple.

Along with the wonders of the Internet and how you can create really cool stuff with web technology, I'm also interested in how web technology is being used in this day and age. Social media, for good or ill, has its own entire sub-culture. The advent of the Internet has expanded everyone's world, and in the process, ironically, it has made the world a much smaller place.

It has also given us a great deal of power, and not everyone, least of all Izabel's father, handled that power wisely.

Should Mr Laxamana be charged for child abuse?

To what end? Assuming it could actually be proven that Izabel's suicide was directly caused by the video, does this constitute child abuse? Cyberbullying comes closest, and last time I checked, it was not a crime.

Mr Laxamana was merely trying to discipline his child. Unfortunately, he got a little too creative. Perhaps he was emulating some of the other parents who had gone that route before, one notable example here. All he's guilty of, at this point, is making a mistake that possibly pushed his kid over the edge. A mistake he will have to live with for the rest of his life. Charge him for child abuse? Let's not kick a man when he's down. It probably sucks to be him, right this moment.

(Editor's Note: Some of the comments and anecdotes in the comments section of certain articles hint at domestic abuse and bullying at school. But until those are proven, my opinion remains so.)

In contrast, here in sunny Singapore...

This is what people call "cyberbullying". Pathetic much?

It's not about who took suicide and who didn't. A bunch of people talking behind your back hardly constitutes "bullying". My friends are lovely, but I'm pretty sure they say things behind my back from time to time. Does anyone see me being in a hurry to claim the status of victim? Grow up.

That's not to say Singapore doesn't have a cyberbullying problem. STOMP, anyone? But that's another topic, for another day.

Moral of the story

Be very careful the next time you shame somebody on the Internet. Especially if that person in question is very young and fragile. Internet technology has certainly made this word a far richer place, in terms of culture and experience. It has built new bridges to human communication, but its misuse is a cause for concern.

Remember - virtual bullying, real consequences.
T___T

Film Review: Unfriended

Unfriended, known in some circles as Cybernatural, is a horror movie in found footage format with social media as the theme. And while I'm not a big fan of the found footage genre (they make me giddy, and then some) the computer-based theme of the trailer was enough to pique my interest.

Technically, it's more of a variant of the found footage format, in the sense that the main narrative isn't told from the point-of-view of a handheld camera. Instead, the entire story takes place on the computer screen of the main character, with interaction among the other characters in the story taking place via chat  and webcam windows.

But make no mistake - this film is as much about cyberbullying as it is about technology. And in this case, the two are interlinked.

The Premise

A girl has a humiliating video of herself posted online, and it goes viral. She takes suicide. A year later, on the anniversary of her death, a group of teenagers are in a group chat when they are suddenly joined by an unknown user. All manner of attempts to evict the user, who identifies herself as the girl who killed herself, fail and the teenagers start getting picked off one by one.

Warning: Definite spoilers ahead!

This is a horror movie. And half the scare is in the unknown. If you're planning to watch it, you may want to skip all the way to the end.

The Characters

Shelley Hennig as Blaire Lily. The range of emotions she portrayed was entertaining - from seductive/virginal to peacemaker, to hysterical, to mortified, and finally guilty.

Moses Jacob Storm as Mitch Roussel, Blaire's boyfriend. A horny teenager who's best friends with Adam, which is the source of many more twists down the road. His performance was blah, and only merits a mention because the character had the second-most screen time in the movie. The Chekov's Gun in the shape of a knife, was a nice touch.

Will Peltz as Adam Sewell, tall. dark and brooding. With anger-driven impulses. I found the character more compelling than Mitch. Overacted a little near the end, but I can live with that.

Jacob Wysocki plays Ken Smith, the fat stoner dude who also happens to be the group's tech whiz. I liked this guy, but the moment he started being the one to come up with solutions to evict the ghost, I knew he would be among the first to die.

The rest of the cast were... bland. Their characters were typical bratty self-centered teenagers with no inkling of the consequences of their casual cruelty.

The Mood

Started out light-hearted and  - dare I say - banal, but quickly upped the tension and the creep factor as things progressed.

What I liked

Foreshadowing. "I GOT HER" was a nice touch.

The study in human behavior online. You'll see this in things Blaire, the main character, chooses to say to the group, in private to others, and things she initially wants to say and then retracts. And if you have enough of an eye for detail to look around what's shown of her desktop, you'll get a stunning amount of insight on her character.

You'll also see this in the way the characters use their perceived anonymity online to participate in malicious attacks on each other. And the scary thing about this is - it's based on things people do, and do on a regular basis.

What I didn't

The humiliating video taken of the vengeful ghost did not seem enough to warrant her suicide. Sure, honey. You got filmed passed out and soiling yourself. So what? Then again, I've never been a teen girl brought up in today's viral cyberworld, so...

Which brings me to my next point - this film will hit you particularly hard if you are a teenager brought up in today's viral cyberworld. Even to people like me, who grew up without the internet but have adapted to this way of life, this hits us more or less where we live. And if not, this may just look like some overlong advertisement for Skype, Facebook, Google, Instagram and YouTube. Oh, not to forget iTunes.

Also, the fact that the ghost of Laura Banks forces people to kill themselves, came off as a little trite.

Conclusion

I was entertained. Unfriended is a work of art, and the first of its kind. Hopefully it's the only one of its kind, not because it's bad, but because its appeal lies in its originality. Any follow-up clones would serve only to lessen the impact of the original.

My Rating

8 / 10

I give this flick one huge and heartfelt Like.
T___T