Saturday, May 01, 2010
My D&D Blog
I'm moving most of my D&D-related entries over to my Campaign Journals blog. Partly because I know it bores most of my regular readers (*snicker* "regular readers" heh), and partly just so I can have everything in one place.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen
I'm a bit of a snob.
Back in school, I considered myself superior to my classmates, because I thought my tastes were more refined. Okay, granted, my favorite movie was "Aliens", which is by no means an art film. But the fact that I could enjoy plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, made me think that I was better than other people. I often thought of myself as Diane Chambers from Cheers, the only cultured person in a room full of lowbrow drunks. It wasn't until years later that I realized just how annoying that Diane character was, and that "pretentious" is a bad thing.
But everyone's tastes change when they get older. Some of my formerly-lowbrow friends finally got girlfriends/wives, and amazingly started to enjoy romantic comedies. Or if not enjoy, at least tolerate. Rom-coms are not exactly Shakespeare, but at least it's a step up from only watching action films. Well, a step sideways... either way, it's a broadening of horizons.
Meanwhile my own tastes may be heading in the opposite direction. I still love plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, but I don't need to pay big bucks for them. I'm happy watching my rom-coms on DVD. But on the big screen, I want explosions. That's the only reason to pay the increasingly outrageous theater prices. I want big special effects, giant monsters, space battles, and plots that defy logic. I want the director to build a gigantic technocratic post-apocolyptic city using nothing but CGI and Blade Runner references... then I want him to destroy it with a cybernetically-enhanced radioactively-mutated Cloverfield-esque psycho-monster.
I'm not sitting there to think. I do enough of that at home. When I pop in a DVD, I have a pause button I can freely use when I want to consider the ramifications of what was just said. If I want a deeper plot, I'll read a book. But in the theater I want to see things too big to fit on a home television. In that respect, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is pure win.
I went in to this movie with the knowledge that everyone was blasting it to pieces. Roger Ebert called it "a horrible experience of unbearable length." Well, of course Ebert only likes classy films, right? Except of course he liked the first one. A reviewer from the Bilerico Project (a LGBTQ group) walked out halfway, calling it "Homophobia in Disguise."
Maybe the bad press helped. Maybe it lowered my standards so I didn't expect too much from the movie. I do remember telling KJ a few times going in, "Now this is probably going to suck, so just enjoy the eye candy." But I think I would have liked this anyway.
Transformers: RotF is a fun movie. Now that I've seen it, I agree with everything bad that was said about it. It is too long. It does have touches of racism, sexism, and homophobia. It has a terrible script and some horrible acting. It does not deserve to win any awards.
Why can't more reviewers learn the difference between good and entertaining? I mean, The Exorcist is a wonderful movie. It's wonderfully written, perfectly acted, well-directed, the whole package. It deserves every accolade it's ever received. I'm glad I saw it... in a way, I feel like I'm a better person for having seen it. However, I would rather shave my head with a cheese grater than sit through it again.
I like a lot of good movies, and I like a lot of bad movies. But the most important factor to me is the entertainment factor. The worst thing a movie can do is bore me. A bad script is still interesting if it's really bad. Bad acting can be laughed at. But a boring movie can not be saved, even if it's a masterpiece in every other way.
Anyway, T:RotF is pure Michael Bay, a statement which will immediately either draw you in or send you fleeing. It's filled with slow motion explosions, rock-em sock-em robots, and lots of eye candy. A good portion of it feels more like a tech demo than a movie. It keeps your eyes busy; even when Transformers are just standing around talking, the camera keeps rotating around them just to show off the SFX.
Like the first film, the few minutes of human interactions involve embarrassing parental moments and crude humor, like replacing the first movie's masturbation jokes with humping dogs. They kept a lot of the T1's human cast, even in places where it doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, does everything happen to the same set of soldiers? Are these same soldiers always the closest ones to whatever is happening in the world? And bringing back John Turturro's character was both contrived and pointless, considering that he was one of the things dragging down the first movie.
Now, the offensive stuff... If you recall, the first Transformers had a few silly stereotypes in there, but spread out through the movie's many characters. Most notable was the over-the-top black kid whose dialogue felt like it was written by a staff of white guys trying to talk street. But other elements were there; the foreign phone operator, the Jive-talking Autobot Jazz, etc. One or two references don't bother me. If you have five African-Americans in a movie, and one of them talks like the "Jive Dudes" from Airplane!, it just means that the character happens to talk like that. But when all non-white characters in a movie perpetuate stereotypes, it seems like the director is a racist.
T2 manages to get it out of its system by wrapping up most of the movie's potential offensive elements into a pair of characters. Mudflap and Skids, collectively known as the Twins. They are silly/stupid gagbots, the kind of comic relief I always hate. Why so many writers think every script needs a Jar Jar, I'll never know. The writers do this to make it more entertaining to little kids, but even when I was a little kid I hated all the Orkos and Snarfs and T-Bobs in my favorite cartoons. But the Twins aren't just stupid klutzes like Jar Jar, they also go out of their way to be offensive in as many ways as possible.
But that's okay, because the movie establishes pretty quickly that the characters are stupid jerks. I don't mind if a stupid jerk is also shown to be a homophobe (for example), because that's like the director saying, "See? Homophobes are idiots." Not to apologize for these characters, but I do think the Bilerico Project article took it too hard. The reviewer complains about the use of "pussy" as a pejorative (sexist), and one of the twins taunting a guy with "you gonna go cry to your boyfriend?" (homophobic).
Both are things I do wish people wouldn't say. Accusing someone of being gay is no longer a relevant insult, because society should be trying to reach the point where being gay is no longer something to be embarrassed about. And calling someone a "pussy" as a synonym for wimp is blatantly sexist, and the insult needs to die right now. But in my experience, both insults seem to come more out of ignorance than malice. See Hanlon's Razor.
Labelling an entire movie as homophobic or racist, just because an idiot says something idiotic? That's going too far. The Twins may technically be "good guys", but they're definitely not good people (er... bots). I'll never understand why people get offended when bad people do bad things in movies. If James Bond nemesis Blofeld were to fire missles across Europe, killing millions of people, the audience would say, "Get him, James!" and keep watching on the edge of their seats. But if Blofeld were to use the "N word", people would picket the movie.
Not that the Twins are the only potentially offensive things in the movie (referring to former Oompa Loompa Deep Roy as a "munchkin" comes to mind), but they do manage to consolidate a lot of potential hatred into one place. Some will accuse the Twins themselves of being racial stereotypes, which is bad, but I don't really see it. They do talk some street, but they also talk some redneck, and overall they're like a conglomeration of idiots from all over the place. Think Jar Jar meets Eminem meets Larry the Cable Guy. In any event, they're dumb but forgivable, pretty much like the rest of the movie.
I probably will not buy this one on DVD, at least not until we have a bigger TV. This movie begs for big screens and insane sound systems. Without that, it's would be like watching roller coaster footage. Not totally un-fun, but it just makes you long for the real thing.
To sum up:
From a quality standpoint, that which you would call a "good movie", I give Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen one out of five stars. From a "totally kick-ass good time" standpoint, I give it four out of five stars. It's up to you which is more important.
Now, bring on GI Joe. It looks even worse, so you know it's going to rock.
Back in school, I considered myself superior to my classmates, because I thought my tastes were more refined. Okay, granted, my favorite movie was "Aliens", which is by no means an art film. But the fact that I could enjoy plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, made me think that I was better than other people. I often thought of myself as Diane Chambers from Cheers, the only cultured person in a room full of lowbrow drunks. It wasn't until years later that I realized just how annoying that Diane character was, and that "pretentious" is a bad thing.
But everyone's tastes change when they get older. Some of my formerly-lowbrow friends finally got girlfriends/wives, and amazingly started to enjoy romantic comedies. Or if not enjoy, at least tolerate. Rom-coms are not exactly Shakespeare, but at least it's a step up from only watching action films. Well, a step sideways... either way, it's a broadening of horizons.
Meanwhile my own tastes may be heading in the opposite direction. I still love plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, but I don't need to pay big bucks for them. I'm happy watching my rom-coms on DVD. But on the big screen, I want explosions. That's the only reason to pay the increasingly outrageous theater prices. I want big special effects, giant monsters, space battles, and plots that defy logic. I want the director to build a gigantic technocratic post-apocolyptic city using nothing but CGI and Blade Runner references... then I want him to destroy it with a cybernetically-enhanced radioactively-mutated Cloverfield-esque psycho-monster.
I'm not sitting there to think. I do enough of that at home. When I pop in a DVD, I have a pause button I can freely use when I want to consider the ramifications of what was just said. If I want a deeper plot, I'll read a book. But in the theater I want to see things too big to fit on a home television. In that respect, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is pure win.
I went in to this movie with the knowledge that everyone was blasting it to pieces. Roger Ebert called it "a horrible experience of unbearable length." Well, of course Ebert only likes classy films, right? Except of course he liked the first one. A reviewer from the Bilerico Project (a LGBTQ group) walked out halfway, calling it "Homophobia in Disguise."
Maybe the bad press helped. Maybe it lowered my standards so I didn't expect too much from the movie. I do remember telling KJ a few times going in, "Now this is probably going to suck, so just enjoy the eye candy." But I think I would have liked this anyway.
Transformers: RotF is a fun movie. Now that I've seen it, I agree with everything bad that was said about it. It is too long. It does have touches of racism, sexism, and homophobia. It has a terrible script and some horrible acting. It does not deserve to win any awards.
Why can't more reviewers learn the difference between good and entertaining? I mean, The Exorcist is a wonderful movie. It's wonderfully written, perfectly acted, well-directed, the whole package. It deserves every accolade it's ever received. I'm glad I saw it... in a way, I feel like I'm a better person for having seen it. However, I would rather shave my head with a cheese grater than sit through it again.
I like a lot of good movies, and I like a lot of bad movies. But the most important factor to me is the entertainment factor. The worst thing a movie can do is bore me. A bad script is still interesting if it's really bad. Bad acting can be laughed at. But a boring movie can not be saved, even if it's a masterpiece in every other way.
Anyway, T:RotF is pure Michael Bay, a statement which will immediately either draw you in or send you fleeing. It's filled with slow motion explosions, rock-em sock-em robots, and lots of eye candy. A good portion of it feels more like a tech demo than a movie. It keeps your eyes busy; even when Transformers are just standing around talking, the camera keeps rotating around them just to show off the SFX.
Like the first film, the few minutes of human interactions involve embarrassing parental moments and crude humor, like replacing the first movie's masturbation jokes with humping dogs. They kept a lot of the T1's human cast, even in places where it doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, does everything happen to the same set of soldiers? Are these same soldiers always the closest ones to whatever is happening in the world? And bringing back John Turturro's character was both contrived and pointless, considering that he was one of the things dragging down the first movie.
Now, the offensive stuff... If you recall, the first Transformers had a few silly stereotypes in there, but spread out through the movie's many characters. Most notable was the over-the-top black kid whose dialogue felt like it was written by a staff of white guys trying to talk street. But other elements were there; the foreign phone operator, the Jive-talking Autobot Jazz, etc. One or two references don't bother me. If you have five African-Americans in a movie, and one of them talks like the "Jive Dudes" from Airplane!, it just means that the character happens to talk like that. But when all non-white characters in a movie perpetuate stereotypes, it seems like the director is a racist.
T2 manages to get it out of its system by wrapping up most of the movie's potential offensive elements into a pair of characters. Mudflap and Skids, collectively known as the Twins. They are silly/stupid gagbots, the kind of comic relief I always hate. Why so many writers think every script needs a Jar Jar, I'll never know. The writers do this to make it more entertaining to little kids, but even when I was a little kid I hated all the Orkos and Snarfs and T-Bobs in my favorite cartoons. But the Twins aren't just stupid klutzes like Jar Jar, they also go out of their way to be offensive in as many ways as possible.
But that's okay, because the movie establishes pretty quickly that the characters are stupid jerks. I don't mind if a stupid jerk is also shown to be a homophobe (for example), because that's like the director saying, "See? Homophobes are idiots." Not to apologize for these characters, but I do think the Bilerico Project article took it too hard. The reviewer complains about the use of "pussy" as a pejorative (sexist), and one of the twins taunting a guy with "you gonna go cry to your boyfriend?" (homophobic).
Both are things I do wish people wouldn't say. Accusing someone of being gay is no longer a relevant insult, because society should be trying to reach the point where being gay is no longer something to be embarrassed about. And calling someone a "pussy" as a synonym for wimp is blatantly sexist, and the insult needs to die right now. But in my experience, both insults seem to come more out of ignorance than malice. See Hanlon's Razor.
Labelling an entire movie as homophobic or racist, just because an idiot says something idiotic? That's going too far. The Twins may technically be "good guys", but they're definitely not good people (er... bots). I'll never understand why people get offended when bad people do bad things in movies. If James Bond nemesis Blofeld were to fire missles across Europe, killing millions of people, the audience would say, "Get him, James!" and keep watching on the edge of their seats. But if Blofeld were to use the "N word", people would picket the movie.
Not that the Twins are the only potentially offensive things in the movie (referring to former Oompa Loompa Deep Roy as a "munchkin" comes to mind), but they do manage to consolidate a lot of potential hatred into one place. Some will accuse the Twins themselves of being racial stereotypes, which is bad, but I don't really see it. They do talk some street, but they also talk some redneck, and overall they're like a conglomeration of idiots from all over the place. Think Jar Jar meets Eminem meets Larry the Cable Guy. In any event, they're dumb but forgivable, pretty much like the rest of the movie.
I probably will not buy this one on DVD, at least not until we have a bigger TV. This movie begs for big screens and insane sound systems. Without that, it's would be like watching roller coaster footage. Not totally un-fun, but it just makes you long for the real thing.
To sum up:
From a quality standpoint, that which you would call a "good movie", I give Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen one out of five stars. From a "totally kick-ass good time" standpoint, I give it four out of five stars. It's up to you which is more important.
Now, bring on GI Joe. It looks even worse, so you know it's going to rock.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Why Is This So Popular?
And excerpt from "New Moon", second book of the Twilight series (spoilers):
Bella (the vapid twit who has set feminism back 30 years) and Jacob (the Native American werewolf with anger management issues) are being angsty in the kitchen. The phone rings. Jacob answers, even though it's Bella's house and she's just as close to the phone. But it advances the plot better when Jacob answers. It's Edward Cullen (the hearthrob vampire who inspires lust in all teenage girls, despite never doing anything even remotely romantic). However, for some strange reason Jacob believes it is Doctor Carlisle Cullen (Edward's sort-of vampire father), a misunderstanding which furthers the plot. Edward, who is afraid Bella might be dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot), asks to speak to Bella's father. Jacob answers, "He's at the funeral" (referring to a different funeral). Edward takes this to mean Bella's funeral, which confirms his belief that Bella is dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot). Afterwards, Janet and Chrissy (a pair of unicorns) help Jack (a leprechaun) pretend to be gay so he isn't evicted by Mr. Furley (a zombie), after getting locked in a freezer because of a misunderstanding.
Bella (the vapid twit who has set feminism back 30 years) and Jacob (the Native American werewolf with anger management issues) are being angsty in the kitchen. The phone rings. Jacob answers, even though it's Bella's house and she's just as close to the phone. But it advances the plot better when Jacob answers. It's Edward Cullen (the hearthrob vampire who inspires lust in all teenage girls, despite never doing anything even remotely romantic). However, for some strange reason Jacob believes it is Doctor Carlisle Cullen (Edward's sort-of vampire father), a misunderstanding which furthers the plot. Edward, who is afraid Bella might be dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot), asks to speak to Bella's father. Jacob answers, "He's at the funeral" (referring to a different funeral). Edward takes this to mean Bella's funeral, which confirms his belief that Bella is dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot). Afterwards, Janet and Chrissy (a pair of unicorns) help Jack (a leprechaun) pretend to be gay so he isn't evicted by Mr. Furley (a zombie), after getting locked in a freezer because of a misunderstanding.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Metroid Geek
Huzzah! In a couple of months, they're releasing "Metroid Prime Trilogy" for the Wii! All three MP games, on one disc, updated with Wii controls! I'm a huge fan of the Metroid series, but I never owned a Gamecube, so I missed the first two MP games. Yes, I know the Wii can play GC games, but I'm glad I waited anyway, because I love MP3's control scheme.
The original Metroid for the 8-bit NES was one of my first true loves. The first thing I ever heard about the game was the ending. Um... spoiler alert... the main character turns out to be a woman. That would have been enough to sell me in itself - I always like female leads, and Mulan-type plot devices. But then the game threw in dozens of other cool features. You have a cannon for an arm. You can turn into a ball. Exploration. Multiple weapons. Sci-fi setting. I simply had to own the game.
I remember being very into the game's plot. Now, we're talking about a time when some games actually did have well-developed plots, but those plots were only told through the instruction manual. With Metroid, there's a paragraph of text in the opening splash screen, and another paragraph when you beat it. Everything else is up to you to figure out. But the manual had several pages worth of exposition, explaining where the Metroids came from, and why Samus was hired to defeat the pirates. I won't lie, it was fairly cheesy. But I liked it so much at the time that drew my own comic books based on it.
The original Metroid for the 8-bit NES was one of my first true loves. The first thing I ever heard about the game was the ending. Um... spoiler alert... the main character turns out to be a woman. That would have been enough to sell me in itself - I always like female leads, and Mulan-type plot devices. But then the game threw in dozens of other cool features. You have a cannon for an arm. You can turn into a ball. Exploration. Multiple weapons. Sci-fi setting. I simply had to own the game.
I remember being very into the game's plot. Now, we're talking about a time when some games actually did have well-developed plots, but those plots were only told through the instruction manual. With Metroid, there's a paragraph of text in the opening splash screen, and another paragraph when you beat it. Everything else is up to you to figure out. But the manual had several pages worth of exposition, explaining where the Metroids came from, and why Samus was hired to defeat the pirates. I won't lie, it was fairly cheesy. But I liked it so much at the time that drew my own comic books based on it.
*old geezer mode* Kids these days just don't know how easy they have it. I don't know why they even keep printing those gall-darn instruction booklets, nobody reads them any more. Nowadays the plot is laid out in front of you as you play, and even the controls are taught to you one button at a time in the annoying tutorial mode. Why, the first time I played "The Legend of Zelda", I didn't know who Zelda was, what I was looking for, or how to bomb rocks to find secret entrances. And I didn't have no newfangled internet to look it up, either. I had to make do with my intellect, perseverance, intuition, patience, skills, and several hundred dollars worth of Nintendo Power magazines and strategy guides.
Another thing I liked about Metroid's plot was that it reminded me of the Alien movies. (There's a pretty good comparison at this site.) Alien has long been my favorite horror movie, and Aliens my favorite action flick, and of course they never made an Alien 3... seriously, they didn't... don't make me get the hammer... *ahem* Where was I? Okay, so cosmic jellyfish aren't anything like the creations of HR Giger, but there were a few plot similarities that I found entertaining at the time.
It was also one of the first games I played where the sequels formed a coherent storyline. Okay, there was the issue of, "Why doesn't Samus still have all the weapons she gained in the last game?" But I really enjoyed how the first game's ending led to Samus Aran's Metroid extinction mission in the second game, and how the one surviving Metroid at the end of Metroid II set up the plot for Super Metroid. The three make up a perfect trilogy, and any games after that are just a bonus.
Compare to Zelda - the second game was clearly a direct sequel, but what was with the third? The SNES Zelda was an incredible game, but when did it take place? Was it a sequel or a prequel or a remake? There are dozens of Zelda games now, and some of them are sequels to each other, but it seems like they reboot the franchise every third game or so. I hate it when the sequels screw up continuity like that. Like in Tetris - the pieces used to be called Tetrads, but now they're called Tetrominos. I mean, I can't even keep up with the storyline any more. Did the L-piece survive the war? Did the square-shaped piece ever avenge his father's death? For a while there was even a rumor that the straight piece wasn't really straight, but who can keep track any more?
...but anyway...
My take on the Metroid series, in not-quite chronological order:
Metroid (NES) - The game that started it all was really impressive back when it was released. It practically invented a lot of elements that are still being used in games today. It was one of the first side-scrollers to feature exploration instead of just moving to the right. It was one of the first console games made with the intention of NOT beating it in one sitting, instead giving you a password feature for continuing. The idea of a woman in a power-armor spacesuit with arm-cannon... well, the concept screams "Anime", but this was before Japanese animation was really flooding the States, so to me it was a brand new concept. Really, just having a female protagaonist was pretty new to me. Samus is by no means the first female game character, but she was one the earliest female video game badasses. (And I strongly suspect that Ms Pac-Man was actually Pac-Man in drag.)
However, the game itself hasn't really aged well. I love classic side-scrollers, but for me things really took off around 16-bit. I very much appreciate this game for starting the beloved series, but I will probably never play it again without updated graphics. I hate to say it, but the game's universe is better than the game itself. It's fairly damning to admit that I'd rather re-read the instruction booklet than to play the game.
Metroid II (Gameboy) - In many ways better than the first game, but I wish it hadn't been on the Gameboy. It had better play control than the first, and even had improved graphics (which is surprising, considering the system). But with the black & white screen, it was hard to navigate. You couldn't always tell what area you were in, making it difficult to know where to go next. This problem was compounded by the lack of visible screen area. Even playing it in color didn't improve things much.
Super Metroid (SNES) - IMO, the best video game of all time. Spot-on-perfect play control. The best graphics 16-bit had to offer. Lots of areas to explore, tons of weapons and items to find, and most importantly it was FUN. I do have one complaint, however... there was one special move, where you could bounce off of walls, that was too difficult to pull off. It was made worse by the fact that there was one area you could not pass without using this move. With enough tries you will make it, and once you do, you never have to do it again. But it's tedious, and is an unfortunate black mark on what could have been history's only 100% perfect game.
Metroid Fusion (GBA) - This didn't wow me, but it was nice after all this time to play another side-scrolling Metroid game. Regarding graphics and play control, it's probably every bit as good as Super Metroid, but I didn't really care for the set-up. The way it herds you around different sections of the space station make the areas feel too much like levels, giving the whole game a more "video-gamey" feel. The exploration is still there, but it's just a little too controlled. Enjoyable, if forgettable.
Metroid: Zero Mission (GBA) - This did wow me, but only because I'm such a Metroid geek. Zero Mission is a remake of the first Metroid game, but with SNES-style graphics, better play control, and actual exposition. I thought it was a little short, but a lot of handheld games feel too short to me. My only real regret is that with the release of the DSi (which no longer plays GBA games), that Zero Mission is effectively off the market. I hope it turns up again for another system, perhaps as a two-pack with Fusion. Or maybe they could alter the graphics enough to look good on a TV, and release it for Wii's Virtual Console.
Metroid Prime Pinball (DS) - I'm going to pretend this did not happen.
Metroid Prime Hunters (DS) - A beautiful game considering it's on a handheld system, but unfortunately marred by a complicated play control system. The game actually gives you two completely different control setup options, probably because they realized neither one was very good. Hunters is intended to be played online against other players, so the 1-player mode feels tacked on. However, the online mode is rough on beginners, since you will undoubtedly find yourself in a deathmatch against a pro. So you have to play through the bland single player mode just to learn the controls, in the hopes that you won't get creamed quite as quickly in the deathmatches.
Metroid Prime 1 & 2 (Gamecube) - I'll know in a couple of months.
Metroid Prime 3 (Wii) - A truly wonderful game that makes me wish I was still a kid. The controls feel complicated at first, but within 30 minutes you're Samus Aran. Your right hand is your arm cannon, and you use it just like she does. The nunchuck moves you, and the setup works so well, I never again want to play a First-Person Shooter using two joysticks. Even mouse/keyboard pales in comparison. There is simply no FPS control setup that works more intuitively than the Wiimote/Nunchuk combo. It's like your right hand is playing a "Duck Hunt"-style light gun game, while your left hand is exploring 3D worlds. It might take a little more practice for the stubborn, but it really pays off.
That said, Metroid Prime 3 is not a perfect game. It has some long (but creatitively-disguised) load times here and there, and some of the puzzles are too difficult, and sometimes you feel really lost if you get off track. Some of its features are designed for anal-retentive collectors, those who are determined to probe every square inch of the game. (I used to be one of those people.) And, towards the end, it actually features an escort mission. What idiots put that in? Don't they know that gamers got together a couple of years ago and officially declared escort missions to be the worst thing in the history of the universe?
But despite the flaws, it's still an incredible gaming experience. My nostalgic side still prefers Super Metroid, but the games are so different it's apples-and-oranges.
Related games - Metroids also appeared in Kid Icarus (under the name Komayto), while Samus has had cameos in games like Tetris (NES version), Super Mario RPG, and the Smash Bros series. I mention this only to show off my geekiness.
Minor rant, I was a bit disappointed when Nintendo finally settled on a design for Samus Aran's out-of-suit appearance. They'd featured the occasional unhelmeted drawing before, in places like Nintendo Power or the "Captain N" comic books, but it wasn't until much later that they seemed to pick one version and stick with it. What they picked - a blonde bombshell who looks like a Playboy model - is disturbing to me. She looks more like a "Dead Or Alive" fighter than a space bounty hunter. Is this the most creative they could get? Did they have to make her every 15-year-old's sterotypical vision of perfect beauty? Shouldn't she look tougher? Did she even have to be human? At least they could have made her a cyborg. Don't those watermelon-sized bosoms make it difficult to squeeze into that armor?
In the original game's instruction booklet, they say, "...but his true form is shrouded in mystery." Of course this is foreshadowing that she turns out to be female, but couldn't they have played with that a little? Given her a reason to be mysterious? Sure, her second-quest appearance in the original game looked like a normal human, but the sprite didn't have a lot of detail; they still had the leeway to make her more interesting. I don't hate her because she's beautiful. I just wish Nintendo understood she didn't have to be.
But whatever. I still love the series, even if I don't agree with every decision or play every game. It's going to be a long wait till August.
Update: Shortly after posting this blog, I learned of "Metroid: Other M" that was previewed at E3. Looks awesome, and I can't wait to find out more. I am a little worried about the play control, but I'm sure they'll pull it off.
Update 2: My early impressions of Metroid: Other M are here. I'm no longer sure they pulled it off.
Another thing I liked about Metroid's plot was that it reminded me of the Alien movies. (There's a pretty good comparison at this site.) Alien has long been my favorite horror movie, and Aliens my favorite action flick, and of course they never made an Alien 3... seriously, they didn't... don't make me get the hammer... *ahem* Where was I? Okay, so cosmic jellyfish aren't anything like the creations of HR Giger, but there were a few plot similarities that I found entertaining at the time.
It was also one of the first games I played where the sequels formed a coherent storyline. Okay, there was the issue of, "Why doesn't Samus still have all the weapons she gained in the last game?" But I really enjoyed how the first game's ending led to Samus Aran's Metroid extinction mission in the second game, and how the one surviving Metroid at the end of Metroid II set up the plot for Super Metroid. The three make up a perfect trilogy, and any games after that are just a bonus.
Compare to Zelda - the second game was clearly a direct sequel, but what was with the third? The SNES Zelda was an incredible game, but when did it take place? Was it a sequel or a prequel or a remake? There are dozens of Zelda games now, and some of them are sequels to each other, but it seems like they reboot the franchise every third game or so. I hate it when the sequels screw up continuity like that. Like in Tetris - the pieces used to be called Tetrads, but now they're called Tetrominos. I mean, I can't even keep up with the storyline any more. Did the L-piece survive the war? Did the square-shaped piece ever avenge his father's death? For a while there was even a rumor that the straight piece wasn't really straight, but who can keep track any more?
...but anyway...
My take on the Metroid series, in not-quite chronological order:
Metroid (NES) - The game that started it all was really impressive back when it was released. It practically invented a lot of elements that are still being used in games today. It was one of the first side-scrollers to feature exploration instead of just moving to the right. It was one of the first console games made with the intention of NOT beating it in one sitting, instead giving you a password feature for continuing. The idea of a woman in a power-armor spacesuit with arm-cannon... well, the concept screams "Anime", but this was before Japanese animation was really flooding the States, so to me it was a brand new concept. Really, just having a female protagaonist was pretty new to me. Samus is by no means the first female game character, but she was one the earliest female video game badasses. (And I strongly suspect that Ms Pac-Man was actually Pac-Man in drag.)
However, the game itself hasn't really aged well. I love classic side-scrollers, but for me things really took off around 16-bit. I very much appreciate this game for starting the beloved series, but I will probably never play it again without updated graphics. I hate to say it, but the game's universe is better than the game itself. It's fairly damning to admit that I'd rather re-read the instruction booklet than to play the game.
Metroid II (Gameboy) - In many ways better than the first game, but I wish it hadn't been on the Gameboy. It had better play control than the first, and even had improved graphics (which is surprising, considering the system). But with the black & white screen, it was hard to navigate. You couldn't always tell what area you were in, making it difficult to know where to go next. This problem was compounded by the lack of visible screen area. Even playing it in color didn't improve things much.
Super Metroid (SNES) - IMO, the best video game of all time. Spot-on-perfect play control. The best graphics 16-bit had to offer. Lots of areas to explore, tons of weapons and items to find, and most importantly it was FUN. I do have one complaint, however... there was one special move, where you could bounce off of walls, that was too difficult to pull off. It was made worse by the fact that there was one area you could not pass without using this move. With enough tries you will make it, and once you do, you never have to do it again. But it's tedious, and is an unfortunate black mark on what could have been history's only 100% perfect game.
Metroid Fusion (GBA) - This didn't wow me, but it was nice after all this time to play another side-scrolling Metroid game. Regarding graphics and play control, it's probably every bit as good as Super Metroid, but I didn't really care for the set-up. The way it herds you around different sections of the space station make the areas feel too much like levels, giving the whole game a more "video-gamey" feel. The exploration is still there, but it's just a little too controlled. Enjoyable, if forgettable.
Metroid: Zero Mission (GBA) - This did wow me, but only because I'm such a Metroid geek. Zero Mission is a remake of the first Metroid game, but with SNES-style graphics, better play control, and actual exposition. I thought it was a little short, but a lot of handheld games feel too short to me. My only real regret is that with the release of the DSi (which no longer plays GBA games), that Zero Mission is effectively off the market. I hope it turns up again for another system, perhaps as a two-pack with Fusion. Or maybe they could alter the graphics enough to look good on a TV, and release it for Wii's Virtual Console.
Metroid Prime Pinball (DS) - I'm going to pretend this did not happen.
Metroid Prime Hunters (DS) - A beautiful game considering it's on a handheld system, but unfortunately marred by a complicated play control system. The game actually gives you two completely different control setup options, probably because they realized neither one was very good. Hunters is intended to be played online against other players, so the 1-player mode feels tacked on. However, the online mode is rough on beginners, since you will undoubtedly find yourself in a deathmatch against a pro. So you have to play through the bland single player mode just to learn the controls, in the hopes that you won't get creamed quite as quickly in the deathmatches.
Metroid Prime 1 & 2 (Gamecube) - I'll know in a couple of months.
Metroid Prime 3 (Wii) - A truly wonderful game that makes me wish I was still a kid. The controls feel complicated at first, but within 30 minutes you're Samus Aran. Your right hand is your arm cannon, and you use it just like she does. The nunchuck moves you, and the setup works so well, I never again want to play a First-Person Shooter using two joysticks. Even mouse/keyboard pales in comparison. There is simply no FPS control setup that works more intuitively than the Wiimote/Nunchuk combo. It's like your right hand is playing a "Duck Hunt"-style light gun game, while your left hand is exploring 3D worlds. It might take a little more practice for the stubborn, but it really pays off.
That said, Metroid Prime 3 is not a perfect game. It has some long (but creatitively-disguised) load times here and there, and some of the puzzles are too difficult, and sometimes you feel really lost if you get off track. Some of its features are designed for anal-retentive collectors, those who are determined to probe every square inch of the game. (I used to be one of those people.) And, towards the end, it actually features an escort mission. What idiots put that in? Don't they know that gamers got together a couple of years ago and officially declared escort missions to be the worst thing in the history of the universe?
But despite the flaws, it's still an incredible gaming experience. My nostalgic side still prefers Super Metroid, but the games are so different it's apples-and-oranges.
Related games - Metroids also appeared in Kid Icarus (under the name Komayto), while Samus has had cameos in games like Tetris (NES version), Super Mario RPG, and the Smash Bros series. I mention this only to show off my geekiness.
Minor rant, I was a bit disappointed when Nintendo finally settled on a design for Samus Aran's out-of-suit appearance. They'd featured the occasional unhelmeted drawing before, in places like Nintendo Power or the "Captain N" comic books, but it wasn't until much later that they seemed to pick one version and stick with it. What they picked - a blonde bombshell who looks like a Playboy model - is disturbing to me. She looks more like a "Dead Or Alive" fighter than a space bounty hunter. Is this the most creative they could get? Did they have to make her every 15-year-old's sterotypical vision of perfect beauty? Shouldn't she look tougher? Did she even have to be human? At least they could have made her a cyborg. Don't those watermelon-sized bosoms make it difficult to squeeze into that armor?
In the original game's instruction booklet, they say, "...but his true form is shrouded in mystery." Of course this is foreshadowing that she turns out to be female, but couldn't they have played with that a little? Given her a reason to be mysterious? Sure, her second-quest appearance in the original game looked like a normal human, but the sprite didn't have a lot of detail; they still had the leeway to make her more interesting. I don't hate her because she's beautiful. I just wish Nintendo understood she didn't have to be.
But whatever. I still love the series, even if I don't agree with every decision or play every game. It's going to be a long wait till August.
Update: Shortly after posting this blog, I learned of "Metroid: Other M" that was previewed at E3. Looks awesome, and I can't wait to find out more. I am a little worried about the play control, but I'm sure they'll pull it off.
Update 2: My early impressions of Metroid: Other M are here. I'm no longer sure they pulled it off.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Star Trek Origins: Enterprise
(a.k.a. Lens Flare: The Motion Picture)
This weekend KJ and I saw Star Trek, and we both loved it.
As much as I love nearly all versions of Star Trek, I agree with J. J. Abrams that it was greatly in need of a reboot. But given the nature of Star Trek fans, I was afraid that such an endeavor would be doomed to failure. No, not because it was an odd-numbered Star Trek film (besides, this is zero, not eleven). It's just that sci-fi fanboys love to hate things... I've often said that the difference between a sci-fi fan and a regular person is that the regular person enjoys sci-fi.
The worst is that continuity-obsessed Trekkies insist on incorporating the silliness of the 60's series with the more modern productions. Look, nothing against the original series. It was ground-breaking and ahead of its time. But for me, Star Trek started with Next Gen. When the last TV series, "Enterprise" hit the air, gazillions of fans were livid, because they felt it screwed up the original series continuity. They were wrong, of course, for three reasons:
1. The show made great efforts to explain continuity. Especially in the final season, where they even explained the Klingon head-bumps thing.
2. The Original Series, revolutionary though it was, was full of continuity errors of its own. Not their fault, they just didn't know it was going to take off, so they didn't bother keeping track of everything. But in any event, I prefer to think of the OS as a retelling of events, like a holodeck recreation based on the captain's logs, rather than a perfect video of the story.
3. Enterprise takes place first, so anything it says takes precedence over the original series. It's also 1000 times better, so again it takes precedence over the original series. So if there's any continuity discrepencies between the two, Enterprise automatically wins, and the OS can suck it. My blog, my logic, so there.
I loved Enterprise (well, except for the Xindi season), so it pisses me off to no end that people who consider themselves Trekkies wouldn't even give it a chance. I feel a bit vindicated by the fact that there's an Enterprise reference in the new movie.
So some people will hate the new Star Trek movie no matter what, but I think it will please everyone who is actually capable of being pleased. I'll try to say this without spoilers, but they managed to both break continuity while maintaining continuity, in a way that should please both newcomers and life-long Trekkers. KJ, who knows the Original Series much better than I do, spent the first half of the movie counting the "mistakes" where it didn't agree with the 60's. But thanks to a bit of time-travel and its butterfly effect, every difference is explainable. At the end - okay, I can't avoid spoilers - it's a given that the entire TV series would have been affected in subtle ways... I can't wait to re-watch the DVDs and see if anything's changed. ;)
The casting is spot-on. My favorite was Simon Pegg as Scotty, though I wish he'd had more screen time.
Well, there was a bit of unevenness, IMO, in that some of the players seemed to be trying new takes on their characters, while others were trying to emulate the originals as much as possible, almost to the point of parody. For example, McCoy sometimes seemed like the actor was doing a comedic impression of the original character, while Sulu didn't even attempt to lower his voice. There were a few times when it felt like a bunch of fans playing dress-up for a convention, but most of the time I was able to lose myself in the movie.
I was afraid Kirk would be written as a total badass, someone who can accomplish anything just because he's the goddamn Kirk. But while he does have the "Never give up, never surrender" attitude parodied in Galaxy Quest, he actually gets his ass kicked in most of his fights.
This movie is a bit less family-friendly than previous Treks, but it was time. The squeaky-clean attitude was holding them back, and keeping them from being able to compete with stuff like Battlestar Galactica. To be honest, I've always preferred optimistic futures (like Star Trek) to pessimistic (post-apocalyptic, etc) sci-fi. Mainly because I like to believe that while humankind will always have conflict, overall things will get better and better. Otherwise, what's the point? Shows like the new Battlestar just depress me. But even so, Trek has usually been a little too clean. I think the new movie represents the best balance so far.
I really hope this takes off, and gets lots of sequels. I wish the movie was the pilot for a new TV series, which rewrites the original continuity. But I seriously doubt that's a possibility. Oh well, I'll take this new Trek however I can get it.
Abrams buffs: In addition to the standard Slusho reference, there's also a creature that, while not exactly like the Cloverfield monster, at least looks like it belongs in the same universe. And a question... I've never watched Lost. Is Abrams always so obsessed with lensflare? Every computer, every star, anything with light, makes bright streaks across most of the movie. It's pretty, but it gets a bit distracting after a while.
This weekend KJ and I saw Star Trek, and we both loved it.
As much as I love nearly all versions of Star Trek, I agree with J. J. Abrams that it was greatly in need of a reboot. But given the nature of Star Trek fans, I was afraid that such an endeavor would be doomed to failure. No, not because it was an odd-numbered Star Trek film (besides, this is zero, not eleven). It's just that sci-fi fanboys love to hate things... I've often said that the difference between a sci-fi fan and a regular person is that the regular person enjoys sci-fi.
The worst is that continuity-obsessed Trekkies insist on incorporating the silliness of the 60's series with the more modern productions. Look, nothing against the original series. It was ground-breaking and ahead of its time. But for me, Star Trek started with Next Gen. When the last TV series, "Enterprise" hit the air, gazillions of fans were livid, because they felt it screwed up the original series continuity. They were wrong, of course, for three reasons:
1. The show made great efforts to explain continuity. Especially in the final season, where they even explained the Klingon head-bumps thing.
2. The Original Series, revolutionary though it was, was full of continuity errors of its own. Not their fault, they just didn't know it was going to take off, so they didn't bother keeping track of everything. But in any event, I prefer to think of the OS as a retelling of events, like a holodeck recreation based on the captain's logs, rather than a perfect video of the story.
3. Enterprise takes place first, so anything it says takes precedence over the original series. It's also 1000 times better, so again it takes precedence over the original series. So if there's any continuity discrepencies between the two, Enterprise automatically wins, and the OS can suck it. My blog, my logic, so there.
I loved Enterprise (well, except for the Xindi season), so it pisses me off to no end that people who consider themselves Trekkies wouldn't even give it a chance. I feel a bit vindicated by the fact that there's an Enterprise reference in the new movie.
So some people will hate the new Star Trek movie no matter what, but I think it will please everyone who is actually capable of being pleased. I'll try to say this without spoilers, but they managed to both break continuity while maintaining continuity, in a way that should please both newcomers and life-long Trekkers. KJ, who knows the Original Series much better than I do, spent the first half of the movie counting the "mistakes" where it didn't agree with the 60's. But thanks to a bit of time-travel and its butterfly effect, every difference is explainable. At the end - okay, I can't avoid spoilers - it's a given that the entire TV series would have been affected in subtle ways... I can't wait to re-watch the DVDs and see if anything's changed. ;)
The casting is spot-on. My favorite was Simon Pegg as Scotty, though I wish he'd had more screen time.
Well, there was a bit of unevenness, IMO, in that some of the players seemed to be trying new takes on their characters, while others were trying to emulate the originals as much as possible, almost to the point of parody. For example, McCoy sometimes seemed like the actor was doing a comedic impression of the original character, while Sulu didn't even attempt to lower his voice. There were a few times when it felt like a bunch of fans playing dress-up for a convention, but most of the time I was able to lose myself in the movie.
I was afraid Kirk would be written as a total badass, someone who can accomplish anything just because he's the goddamn Kirk. But while he does have the "Never give up, never surrender" attitude parodied in Galaxy Quest, he actually gets his ass kicked in most of his fights.
This movie is a bit less family-friendly than previous Treks, but it was time. The squeaky-clean attitude was holding them back, and keeping them from being able to compete with stuff like Battlestar Galactica. To be honest, I've always preferred optimistic futures (like Star Trek) to pessimistic (post-apocalyptic, etc) sci-fi. Mainly because I like to believe that while humankind will always have conflict, overall things will get better and better. Otherwise, what's the point? Shows like the new Battlestar just depress me. But even so, Trek has usually been a little too clean. I think the new movie represents the best balance so far.
I really hope this takes off, and gets lots of sequels. I wish the movie was the pilot for a new TV series, which rewrites the original continuity. But I seriously doubt that's a possibility. Oh well, I'll take this new Trek however I can get it.
Abrams buffs: In addition to the standard Slusho reference, there's also a creature that, while not exactly like the Cloverfield monster, at least looks like it belongs in the same universe. And a question... I've never watched Lost. Is Abrams always so obsessed with lensflare? Every computer, every star, anything with light, makes bright streaks across most of the movie. It's pretty, but it gets a bit distracting after a while.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
"It's The Next Harry Potter!"
I finally saw Twilight, but I'm not here to review that. It really wasn't bad enough or good enough for me to care enough to analyze. What I do want to rant on a little is the hype it received when it was hot.
I don't know why this bothers me so much... but...
I hate trendwatchers. Twilight has been called "the next Harry Potter", probably by the same drooling idiots who called Kurt Cobain "the next John Lennon". Frankly, I'm getting sick of every new book being called "the next Harry Potter". Any time a book sells more than three copies lately, somebody labels it "the next Harry Potter." The phrase has very quickly become so overused, that it instantly fills me with rage. They said it about Lemony Snicket - did that really catch on? They said it about Eragon - anybody seen an Eragon T-shirt lately? Bedsheets? Candy bar? No? Why, just the other day I was using my Golden Compass toothbrush while wearing my Spiderwick Chronicles underwear! Seriously, though, none of these are bad properties, and they are perfectly deserving of whatever success they get. But that doesn't mean we'll see conventions and theme parks dedicated to them.
So I wish Twilight a world of success, and I didn't totally hate the movie. I haven't read the books, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume their popularity was well earned. But can we please stop the comparisons? It's apples and oranges. If we're judging it by content, then it should be compared to other vampire stories. But if we're just judging it by success, you might as well call the Nintendo Wii "the next Harry Potter."
IMO, Harry Potter was the next "Chronicles of Narnia" (1950). And Narnia was the next "Wizard of Oz" (1900). See a pattern here? You needn't start looking for "the next Harry Potter" until 2050! Even if you want to call Harry Potter "the next Star Wars", there's still a 20 year gap.
There probably won't be a successor to Harry Potter for a while. Possibly not in your lifetime. Get over it. Get on with your life. Continue to read and enjoy movies, but quit looking for things. Pottermania is the kind of thing that happens unexpectedly, not while you're looking for it, and definitely not when you try to force it. If you try to predict one of these things, I will laugh at you, and I will lose respect for you, and I will steal your car and run over your dog with it.
I don't know why this bothers me so much... but...
I hate trendwatchers. Twilight has been called "the next Harry Potter", probably by the same drooling idiots who called Kurt Cobain "the next John Lennon". Frankly, I'm getting sick of every new book being called "the next Harry Potter". Any time a book sells more than three copies lately, somebody labels it "the next Harry Potter." The phrase has very quickly become so overused, that it instantly fills me with rage. They said it about Lemony Snicket - did that really catch on? They said it about Eragon - anybody seen an Eragon T-shirt lately? Bedsheets? Candy bar? No? Why, just the other day I was using my Golden Compass toothbrush while wearing my Spiderwick Chronicles underwear! Seriously, though, none of these are bad properties, and they are perfectly deserving of whatever success they get. But that doesn't mean we'll see conventions and theme parks dedicated to them.
So I wish Twilight a world of success, and I didn't totally hate the movie. I haven't read the books, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume their popularity was well earned. But can we please stop the comparisons? It's apples and oranges. If we're judging it by content, then it should be compared to other vampire stories. But if we're just judging it by success, you might as well call the Nintendo Wii "the next Harry Potter."
IMO, Harry Potter was the next "Chronicles of Narnia" (1950). And Narnia was the next "Wizard of Oz" (1900). See a pattern here? You needn't start looking for "the next Harry Potter" until 2050! Even if you want to call Harry Potter "the next Star Wars", there's still a 20 year gap.
There probably won't be a successor to Harry Potter for a while. Possibly not in your lifetime. Get over it. Get on with your life. Continue to read and enjoy movies, but quit looking for things. Pottermania is the kind of thing that happens unexpectedly, not while you're looking for it, and definitely not when you try to force it. If you try to predict one of these things, I will laugh at you, and I will lose respect for you, and I will steal your car and run over your dog with it.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Moving In
Note, I'm transferring a lot of my old blog entries from MySpace. If you go to this blog through the main page, you should see my posts in chronological order. But if you are using Google Reader or other such site/program, then my posts might show up in the order I transfered them, which won't make a bit of sense. But from this point on, my posts should show up in a sane order again.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The Cat Burglar
Warning: Cutesy-Wutesy Kitty Story
KJ has been making pendants out of clay. When working with clay, she wooden tools. When she's not using them, she keeps them in a plastic bag, held together by a rubber band:
She keeps this downstairs, on the living room table. For the past few days, Sybil has been picking up the bag and carrying it around the room. I don't know, it must be a cat thing. We just keep taking it away from her, and putting it back on the table. So this morning, our precious Sybil brings KJ this as a present:
The plastic bag, still held together with the rubber band, minus the tools. She brought it to KJ as a gift, the same way a cat might bring its owner a dead mouse. But where were the tools? We looked all over the house, under every piece of furniture. We were dumbfounded. It seemed like there should have at least been a trail. I can picture her playing with them around the house, and losing them under furniture, as she often does with Q-Tips and milk rings. But there's nine tools in that set, we should have at least been able to find one of them.
In the end, it was Sybil who showed KJ where they were. Upstairs, in the bedroom, under some shoes. And neatly organized, for a cat.
Sybil was a bit protective of them, and didn't want to give them up. She kept complaining about us taking away her toy, and she keeps trying to get at them again.
KJ has been making pendants out of clay. When working with clay, she wooden tools. When she's not using them, she keeps them in a plastic bag, held together by a rubber band:
She keeps this downstairs, on the living room table. For the past few days, Sybil has been picking up the bag and carrying it around the room. I don't know, it must be a cat thing. We just keep taking it away from her, and putting it back on the table. So this morning, our precious Sybil brings KJ this as a present:
The plastic bag, still held together with the rubber band, minus the tools. She brought it to KJ as a gift, the same way a cat might bring its owner a dead mouse. But where were the tools? We looked all over the house, under every piece of furniture. We were dumbfounded. It seemed like there should have at least been a trail. I can picture her playing with them around the house, and losing them under furniture, as she often does with Q-Tips and milk rings. But there's nine tools in that set, we should have at least been able to find one of them.
In the end, it was Sybil who showed KJ where they were. Upstairs, in the bedroom, under some shoes. And neatly organized, for a cat.
Sybil was a bit protective of them, and didn't want to give them up. She kept complaining about us taking away her toy, and she keeps trying to get at them again.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Hancock
I'd really rather review the reviewers than the actual movie, if that's okay. Or even if it's not okay - it's my blog, so nyahh!
Dear Tennessean: Next time you don't do your homework, bring a note from your mother.
I read half-a-dozen reviews for this movie, and none of them were very positive. A typical review:
"Hancock starts out as a hilarious anti-hero movie, showing the flipside to the tired comic book formula. Unfortunately, halfway through the movie Hancock finds his morality, and from there it turns into the very type of movie it tried to parody - the standard formulaic super hero movie."
These reviewers are wrong. They're nuts. And worst of all, they're liars - they reviewed the trailer, not the movie. I know this because that's exactly the kind of review I might have written if I'd only watched the trailers. However, this is one of those cases where the actual movie bears very little resemblance to the trailers, which makes the reviewers flat out liars.
Regarding the first half of the movie, the reviewers are fairly close. Granted, they don't say anything you couldn't have found out from the trailers, but they're partly right. The Hancock character is a superhero who isn't very heroic, or rather a drunken slob who just happens to have super powers. There are a lot of gags to be had from this, but for the most part Hancock is just too much of a jerk for the jokes to really be funny. There is a blurry line between grungy anti-hero, and super-villian, but Hancock blatantly crosses it. He could save the world 100 times over, and I'd still want him locked away.
The second half is where the reviewers get it all wrong. From the trailers, I'm sure you thought that Hancock has a magical change of heart, and suddenly becomes sappier-than-Superman, and spends the rest of the movie helping people until he finally saves the world from some evil menace. Apparently the reviewers thought so too, because that's what they wrote. In actuality, it never becomes anything even close to resembling a typical formulaic super hero movie. What it does become is a bit of a mess, something harder to classify. But I will say that rather than fighting a final boss or having to move mountains to save humanity, it becomes more about Hancock's own past catching up with him. Spoiler alert, but how many superhero movies are resolved by having the hero literally run away from his problems (and, where it's actually a noble thing to do)?
It would be one thing if I'd only read people's blogs & message board posts. But a couple of the reviews I read were from actual papers, including my local paper. To be fair, in the case of the Tennessean, it might have been one of those national reviews that the local paper reprints. I've tried to find that paper again to see if that was the case, but it had already been thrown away. But regardless of where the review came from, someone was paid to write it, someone who didn't even bother to see the movie first. I've rarely seen such a clear-cut case of sloppy journalism. Telling people you saw a movie when you actually didn't, is the same as not doing your research on any article.
This is not a case of "I liked the movie, and reviewers didn't, so the reviewers suck." I have a few of those ready (Ask me about Starship Troopers sometime. Or Fantastic Four.), but this isn't one of them. I actually feel about the same way the reviewers did - lukewarm. Hancock is a decent matinee (though we got charged full price for a matinee due to Regal's new policy... but that's another rant altogether). The movie is flawed and uneven, with some cruel humor and some nonsensical plot twists. Some of the character motivations seem forced, as if the writers were so intent on it playing out a certain way, they didn't consider whether a certain character would actually do such a thing. But these flaws are not quite enough to make it a bad movie, and the good stuff makes up for the bad, IMO. Your mileage may vary.
But it doesn't matter that the reviewers and I agreed overall. The point is, that I actually bought a ticket (paying too much, Damn you Regal... *ahem*) and watched the thing, while the other guys got paid to write a review and didn't watch it. Maybe it's because I'm out of Cymbalta, but I think these reviewers should be shot, then fired, then shot again. Personally, I would love getting paid to watch movies and then write about them, and I know several people who would consider it a dream job. Can't these people see how good they have it? I might not be the best writer in the world, but if I were hired, I promise I would actually see the movies I'm paid to see.
Bottom line: Don't trust the reviews. And while we're at it, boycott Regal until they change the matinee times back.
Dear Tennessean: Next time you don't do your homework, bring a note from your mother.
I read half-a-dozen reviews for this movie, and none of them were very positive. A typical review:
"Hancock starts out as a hilarious anti-hero movie, showing the flipside to the tired comic book formula. Unfortunately, halfway through the movie Hancock finds his morality, and from there it turns into the very type of movie it tried to parody - the standard formulaic super hero movie."
These reviewers are wrong. They're nuts. And worst of all, they're liars - they reviewed the trailer, not the movie. I know this because that's exactly the kind of review I might have written if I'd only watched the trailers. However, this is one of those cases where the actual movie bears very little resemblance to the trailers, which makes the reviewers flat out liars.
Regarding the first half of the movie, the reviewers are fairly close. Granted, they don't say anything you couldn't have found out from the trailers, but they're partly right. The Hancock character is a superhero who isn't very heroic, or rather a drunken slob who just happens to have super powers. There are a lot of gags to be had from this, but for the most part Hancock is just too much of a jerk for the jokes to really be funny. There is a blurry line between grungy anti-hero, and super-villian, but Hancock blatantly crosses it. He could save the world 100 times over, and I'd still want him locked away.
The second half is where the reviewers get it all wrong. From the trailers, I'm sure you thought that Hancock has a magical change of heart, and suddenly becomes sappier-than-Superman, and spends the rest of the movie helping people until he finally saves the world from some evil menace. Apparently the reviewers thought so too, because that's what they wrote. In actuality, it never becomes anything even close to resembling a typical formulaic super hero movie. What it does become is a bit of a mess, something harder to classify. But I will say that rather than fighting a final boss or having to move mountains to save humanity, it becomes more about Hancock's own past catching up with him. Spoiler alert, but how many superhero movies are resolved by having the hero literally run away from his problems (and, where it's actually a noble thing to do)?
It would be one thing if I'd only read people's blogs & message board posts. But a couple of the reviews I read were from actual papers, including my local paper. To be fair, in the case of the Tennessean, it might have been one of those national reviews that the local paper reprints. I've tried to find that paper again to see if that was the case, but it had already been thrown away. But regardless of where the review came from, someone was paid to write it, someone who didn't even bother to see the movie first. I've rarely seen such a clear-cut case of sloppy journalism. Telling people you saw a movie when you actually didn't, is the same as not doing your research on any article.
This is not a case of "I liked the movie, and reviewers didn't, so the reviewers suck." I have a few of those ready (Ask me about Starship Troopers sometime. Or Fantastic Four.), but this isn't one of them. I actually feel about the same way the reviewers did - lukewarm. Hancock is a decent matinee (though we got charged full price for a matinee due to Regal's new policy... but that's another rant altogether). The movie is flawed and uneven, with some cruel humor and some nonsensical plot twists. Some of the character motivations seem forced, as if the writers were so intent on it playing out a certain way, they didn't consider whether a certain character would actually do such a thing. But these flaws are not quite enough to make it a bad movie, and the good stuff makes up for the bad, IMO. Your mileage may vary.
But it doesn't matter that the reviewers and I agreed overall. The point is, that I actually bought a ticket (paying too much, Damn you Regal... *ahem*) and watched the thing, while the other guys got paid to write a review and didn't watch it. Maybe it's because I'm out of Cymbalta, but I think these reviewers should be shot, then fired, then shot again. Personally, I would love getting paid to watch movies and then write about them, and I know several people who would consider it a dream job. Can't these people see how good they have it? I might not be the best writer in the world, but if I were hired, I promise I would actually see the movies I'm paid to see.
Bottom line: Don't trust the reviews. And while we're at it, boycott Regal until they change the matinee times back.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Mario Kart Wii
I love my Wii, and I love most of the games I've played for it so far. Of course, the best of the best - Wii Sports, Zelda, Metroid, Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros Brawl - are the ones made by Nintendo themselves. They're the only ones who really know how to get the most out of their system. So it's no real surprise that Mario Kart is a hit.
But what a hit... I can honestly say that this is the most fun I've had on the Wii so far. Of course the game is fun, it's Mario Kart - they could have repackaged Mario Kart 64 with some updated graphics and I'd have been happy. And to some extent, that's what they did - there's really not a whole lot of new content here. But the overall package is so enjoyable, that I can't complain.
Well, okay, I can complain. There are a few major flaws that would absolutely cripple it, if it were a non-Nintendo title.
For one thing, I hate the way you lose your items whenever you crash, get hit, spin out, get electrocuted, fall, burn, blink, sneeze, or think about cabbage. In the older Mario Kart games, it was a good strategy to hoarde the best items when you get them, and use them at just the right moment. For example, if you fell off the course but you happened to have a mushroom boost on you, then you could get going again in a flash. In MKW, falling off the course makes you lose that mushroom. It's so easy to lose your items in MKW, that the best strategy is to try to use your items as soon as you get them, before somebody hits you with their items.
And you will get hit often. Which brings me to my next complaint - the newest items are just too powerful. And since it's now 12 racers instead of 8, items are getting used constantly. The way MKW is programmed, the player in the lead gets the worst items, and those bringing up the rear get unblockable psycho-uber WMDs. In theory this is a good idea. In the older MK games, if you found yourself in 8th place in the third lap, then there wasn't much chance you'd place above 7th. With MKW, there's always hope. Now you can go from last to first in the final stretch of the last lap, just by getting the right powerup. And everybody targets the guy in front. So now, when you're the kart in first place, you spend most of your time flattened and shrunk, with a storm cloud over your head, a shell on your ass, and a squid in your face. You're almost better off staying in second for most of the race until the finish line is in sight.
Sometimes it bothers me that I'm not feeling the speed. Often I don't feel like I'm moving any faster than you can run in any given Mario game. And with some of the game's gimmicks (the one where you bounce off mushrooms comes to mind), I almost feel like I'm playing something besides a racing game. Maybe Nintendo needs to make a "Wii Fan" peripheral that blows air in your face, depending on how fast you're going.
Unless I'm missing something, there's seems to be no two-player GP mode. That's too bad, because I always enjoyed unlocking the cups with a friend. You can still race other people, both online and off. But without working towards something, those kind of matches feel a little empty to me. MKW has a lot of new characters and vehicles to unlock, but you have to switch to single player to unlock most of them. And when you unlock things, it only unlocks for the player who unlocks them. So KJ and I will each have to master every GP and time trial by ourselves, if we both want all the characters and vehicles. There's a lot of stuff to unlock (14 characters and 18 vehicles, I think), so doing it twice is a pain. And from what I've read, a few of the characters/karts are going to be a downright pain to unlock.
But despite my complaints, most of the time I'm having too much fun to care. I've seen some mixed reviews of MKW so far... Well, most reviewers have loved it, but a few have made the same complaints I mention above. Also, Nintendo has been accused of just going through the motions for this one, and saying that this is actually a step down from the much more innovative "Mario Kart Double Dash" for the Gamecube. I never played MKDD, so I can't really say if that's true. In fact, I haven't played any of them since the N64 version, so I can only see MKW as a huge improvement.
Sidetrack - Should reviewers base their reviews on previous games in the series? After all, if MKW is only a disappointment to those who played Double Dash, then how many people is that, really? The Wii console has probably outsold the Gamecube several times over by now. This question has bothered me for over a decade. When Capcom released "Super Street Fighter II" for the SNES, EGM gave it a bad review because they were tired of Capcom re-releasing the same game over and over, with only a few improvements. While I agree with the sentiment, I think a game should be reviewed based on its own merits. If a game receives a high score, then a few months later they release a version that's the exact same except for a few improvements, how can it get a lower score? That's letting personal politics get in the way of your review. There might be someone out there who didn't buy the previous versions of the game, who is trying to decide between the second or third version. Then they see that the second version got a better score than the third version, and don't realize that the reviewer was just trying to punish the game company with a bad review.
Another example, and one that never fails to piss me off: When a game is released for a couple of systems I don't own, and gets killer reviews. About a year later, it finally comes to the system I do own, and every review I find says, "Well, it's as good as ever, with a few improvements even. But we've already played it on Systems A and B, and we've moved on. We've beaten it so many times that we're bored with it now, so we're giving it a low score." WTF? Not everybody owns all three current consoles. How about a review for those of us who haven't played it yet? I'm a late adopter. I tend to wait for the prices to come down before I buy something. So I don't mind playing games with last year's graphics. Heck, I still regularly play games with last decade's graphics.
Anyway, sidetrack over, back to MKW. The online mode is a lot of fun. It's hard to say what's different, except that real people are a lot less predictable than computer AI. And knocking someone off the track is somehow more fulfilling when you know there's another human at the controls, than when it's just another bot.
The wheel works a lot better than I thought it would. I personally do better with the classic controller, as it's what I'm used to after all these years. But I have played with the wheel, and it's pretty responsive and a lot of fun. KJ does great with it, and it's all she uses. I just might have to buy a second wheel when I get the cash.
So if you have a Wii, and you've enjoyed any of the Mario Kart series in the past, you should pick this one up. It's flawed but fun. I wouldn't buy a Wii just for this game, but I wouldn't buy a Wii without it.
Anyway, if any of you also have a Wii, and want to add me to your friends list and whatnot, here's my Nintendo codes. Like Smash Bros, Mario Kart Wii requires its own code, different from the Wii console's friend code. Remember that I have to add yours as well, or nothing will happen. So if you put in my codes, you also have to send me yours.
Wii Console Friend Code:
7045 1920 7172 8881
Smash Bros Code:
4468 0854 8798
Mario Kart Wii:
Matt 0387-9165-2538
KJ 1504-6091-8383
But what a hit... I can honestly say that this is the most fun I've had on the Wii so far. Of course the game is fun, it's Mario Kart - they could have repackaged Mario Kart 64 with some updated graphics and I'd have been happy. And to some extent, that's what they did - there's really not a whole lot of new content here. But the overall package is so enjoyable, that I can't complain.
Well, okay, I can complain. There are a few major flaws that would absolutely cripple it, if it were a non-Nintendo title.
For one thing, I hate the way you lose your items whenever you crash, get hit, spin out, get electrocuted, fall, burn, blink, sneeze, or think about cabbage. In the older Mario Kart games, it was a good strategy to hoarde the best items when you get them, and use them at just the right moment. For example, if you fell off the course but you happened to have a mushroom boost on you, then you could get going again in a flash. In MKW, falling off the course makes you lose that mushroom. It's so easy to lose your items in MKW, that the best strategy is to try to use your items as soon as you get them, before somebody hits you with their items.
And you will get hit often. Which brings me to my next complaint - the newest items are just too powerful. And since it's now 12 racers instead of 8, items are getting used constantly. The way MKW is programmed, the player in the lead gets the worst items, and those bringing up the rear get unblockable psycho-uber WMDs. In theory this is a good idea. In the older MK games, if you found yourself in 8th place in the third lap, then there wasn't much chance you'd place above 7th. With MKW, there's always hope. Now you can go from last to first in the final stretch of the last lap, just by getting the right powerup. And everybody targets the guy in front. So now, when you're the kart in first place, you spend most of your time flattened and shrunk, with a storm cloud over your head, a shell on your ass, and a squid in your face. You're almost better off staying in second for most of the race until the finish line is in sight.
Sometimes it bothers me that I'm not feeling the speed. Often I don't feel like I'm moving any faster than you can run in any given Mario game. And with some of the game's gimmicks (the one where you bounce off mushrooms comes to mind), I almost feel like I'm playing something besides a racing game. Maybe Nintendo needs to make a "Wii Fan" peripheral that blows air in your face, depending on how fast you're going.
Unless I'm missing something, there's seems to be no two-player GP mode. That's too bad, because I always enjoyed unlocking the cups with a friend. You can still race other people, both online and off. But without working towards something, those kind of matches feel a little empty to me. MKW has a lot of new characters and vehicles to unlock, but you have to switch to single player to unlock most of them. And when you unlock things, it only unlocks for the player who unlocks them. So KJ and I will each have to master every GP and time trial by ourselves, if we both want all the characters and vehicles. There's a lot of stuff to unlock (14 characters and 18 vehicles, I think), so doing it twice is a pain. And from what I've read, a few of the characters/karts are going to be a downright pain to unlock.
But despite my complaints, most of the time I'm having too much fun to care. I've seen some mixed reviews of MKW so far... Well, most reviewers have loved it, but a few have made the same complaints I mention above. Also, Nintendo has been accused of just going through the motions for this one, and saying that this is actually a step down from the much more innovative "Mario Kart Double Dash" for the Gamecube. I never played MKDD, so I can't really say if that's true. In fact, I haven't played any of them since the N64 version, so I can only see MKW as a huge improvement.
Sidetrack - Should reviewers base their reviews on previous games in the series? After all, if MKW is only a disappointment to those who played Double Dash, then how many people is that, really? The Wii console has probably outsold the Gamecube several times over by now. This question has bothered me for over a decade. When Capcom released "Super Street Fighter II" for the SNES, EGM gave it a bad review because they were tired of Capcom re-releasing the same game over and over, with only a few improvements. While I agree with the sentiment, I think a game should be reviewed based on its own merits. If a game receives a high score, then a few months later they release a version that's the exact same except for a few improvements, how can it get a lower score? That's letting personal politics get in the way of your review. There might be someone out there who didn't buy the previous versions of the game, who is trying to decide between the second or third version. Then they see that the second version got a better score than the third version, and don't realize that the reviewer was just trying to punish the game company with a bad review.
Another example, and one that never fails to piss me off: When a game is released for a couple of systems I don't own, and gets killer reviews. About a year later, it finally comes to the system I do own, and every review I find says, "Well, it's as good as ever, with a few improvements even. But we've already played it on Systems A and B, and we've moved on. We've beaten it so many times that we're bored with it now, so we're giving it a low score." WTF? Not everybody owns all three current consoles. How about a review for those of us who haven't played it yet? I'm a late adopter. I tend to wait for the prices to come down before I buy something. So I don't mind playing games with last year's graphics. Heck, I still regularly play games with last decade's graphics.
Anyway, sidetrack over, back to MKW. The online mode is a lot of fun. It's hard to say what's different, except that real people are a lot less predictable than computer AI. And knocking someone off the track is somehow more fulfilling when you know there's another human at the controls, than when it's just another bot.
The wheel works a lot better than I thought it would. I personally do better with the classic controller, as it's what I'm used to after all these years. But I have played with the wheel, and it's pretty responsive and a lot of fun. KJ does great with it, and it's all she uses. I just might have to buy a second wheel when I get the cash.
So if you have a Wii, and you've enjoyed any of the Mario Kart series in the past, you should pick this one up. It's flawed but fun. I wouldn't buy a Wii just for this game, but I wouldn't buy a Wii without it.
Anyway, if any of you also have a Wii, and want to add me to your friends list and whatnot, here's my Nintendo codes. Like Smash Bros, Mario Kart Wii requires its own code, different from the Wii console's friend code. Remember that I have to add yours as well, or nothing will happen. So if you put in my codes, you also have to send me yours.
Wii Console Friend Code:
7045 1920 7172 8881
Smash Bros Code:
4468 0854 8798
Mario Kart Wii:
Matt 0387-9165-2538
KJ 1504-6091-8383
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Batblog
There's really no point in making a long blog about The Dark Knight. If you're reading this, you've probably already seen it. If not, you've probably read some of the many glowing reviews of it. If you're on the fence, seriously, see it, you won't regret it. Beyond this sentence, I can't promise there won't be spoilers.
It's very intelligent. Not just "smart for a comic book movie", but smart for any genre. It didn't miss a trick, throwing out ethical questions just as often as explosions. It was a little overlong, but that's my bladder talking. There's not a lot of scenes I would have removed.
The Joker is incredibly well-done. He's morbidly funny, but more importantly, he's crafty and scary. Part clown, part Hannibal Lecter. He is a true psychopath, unpredictable and unremorseful. His machinations are brilliant, making the movie feel more chess-like than most similar attempts I've seen. I can not tell you how much I hate that Heath Ledger died, and how guilty I feel that I'm so glad he finished this movie first, and how selfish I feel for wishing he was still alive for a sequel. It's like saying, "It's okay for most people to die, but not the ones that entertain me." But I didn't know him, and thousands of people die every day, so I can only process his death in the ways that it effects me personally. Still, as much as I admire Ledger's performance, it is copyable. Another actor could do it, with practice. With a thorough enough casting call, they could get another actor to replace Ledger if they're determined to put the Joker in a sequel. It helps that he wore clown makeup for the entire movie.
Two-Face was awesome. Yeah, yeah, the makeup/CGI blend was incredible, yadda yadda, but the writing is the key. He didn't go around pulling two-themed crimes and strapping Batman to giant coins; actually, he didn't have much time to do anything silly. Instead, his tragic tale is told very realistically (given the parameters), and given just the right amount of screen time. Some people were disappointed that his entire story is done as the movie's "B" plot, but I'm glad they did it this way. I don't think Two-Face (at least, post-accident) is a strong enough character to carry a 2.5-hour movie, nor do I think this version of the character had much farther to go. He experiences a tragedy, his mind snaps, and he seeks a quick and violent (though misguided) revenge. A longer movie would have had him become a crime boss, and that's just not what this version of Two-Face was about. His motivations were better served by a quick ending. He probably would have died from infections before too long anyway.
After the realism of the first movie, I was a bit worried that having colorful over-the-top villains would cheapen this one. It doesn't. Though I still don't want them to deluge us with sequels, throwing in every silly animal-themed villian from the Penguin to Killer Croc.
And that's maybe the only problem I have with this series. The movie itself is smarter than the concept. I'm watching the movie and thinking, "Hey, that's a good line... Hey, that's a brilliant plot twist... Hey, that's a deep character... Hey, the hero is dressed like a freaking BAT!" I love Batman, but that is hard to get past. His main schtick is creating an air of superstition around Gotham's underworld, making the bad guys wonder, "Is he real? Is he a man or a monster?" This strategy can only work for the short term. Once Batman gets more exposure - getting caught on film, speaking in public, etc - that part of his career is over. Criminals will no longer be afraid of him, or at least they won't fear him any more than they fear the police. He'd still be an effective detective and prime crime fighter, but at that point he might as well lose the silly ears and wear something more like a ninja costume. Or (*gasp*) become a legitimate detective and fight crime legally!
That's what bothers me about the comics & cartoons. They can start his origin over and over, but any time the same series has lasted long enough to be handled by enough different writers, then eventually the "legend" part dies and he's just another guy in animal jammies. Sooner or later he starts fighting in the day time, working with groups like the Justice League, making television appearances, telling kids not to do drugs, and so on. And that turns him from scary to silly. The comics will have you believe that the Batjet can be seen fighting off an alien invasion alongside Superman and Captain Marvel, as the world watches on TV... then the following week in Batman's own comic, the criminals still fear the mysterious Bat, who may or may not exist, who could be watching them at any time.
So one of the reasons the Dark Knight movie works for me, is that it appears to take place shortly after the first one. Therefore the legend hasn't had a chance to die. If they make a third one, I hope they continue to give it a short timeline. I just can't believe that a fear-based hero would work for very long. In the Dark Knight movie we already see a couple of villains who are no longer intimidated by Batman's song-and-dance, and I have to believe that this familiarity would spread quickly, reducing any fear the criminals have of the Bat.
I would like to see a third movie, but only if they actually have another intelligent story to tell. I don't want them to go into it thinking, "This is a money maker, so we have to hash out something" the way some movies do. I don't know which villian I would want to see. Batman's enemies are too flashy and silly, and while they're great fun, they just don't fit in this movie series. I don't care how serious they make him, nobody is going to fear a crime boss called "The Penguin". The Riddler is just a knock-off of the Joker. Most of Batman's enemies are insane, but we've already done the "Batman fights an insane person" plot. And the ones with super powers like Clayface are right out. First person who suggests King Tut or Egghead gets kicked in the nads.
I wouldn't mind seeing Bane, but only if they do it right. Forget the movie and cartoon versions, and give him the intuitiveness and craftiness he has in the comics. Give him a personality like John Malkovich in Con Air, and don't comically overdo his strength. I want the Bane who was raised by the prison system from birth, the one who figured out Batman's secret identity just by "knowing his enemy", the one who masterminded the Arkham breakout just to make Batman tired. But that's just me. (Edit: I also wouldn't mind Lady Shiva.)
I don't want to see this series turn into another villain-of-the-week battle, the way most superhero movies do. After all, one of the best parts of the Dark Knight movie is that it's not the same plot as Batman Begins. Not to put down other superhero movies; everything has its place. They can make 30 Spider-Man movies for all I care, each one siller than the last, each one the exact same movie with a different bad guy pasted in. I'll still see them all, and have fun doing it. But the Dark Knight isn't about finding flashier enemies and CGI effects. It's about having a great story, and telling it well.
If there is a third movie, I would like an ending that deals a major blow to Gotham's crime problem, thus eliminating the need for Batman. Have Batman retire at the end of the movie, and fade away into legend. Let Bruce Wayne concentrate on corporate means of making the world a better place. Didn't they say that most of Gotham's crime issues come from the corrupt cops? Do you honestly believe Bruce Wayne isn't powerful enough to have these cops removed and replaced with more honest officers? That combination of intelligence and wealth doesn't need a cape & cowl to be scary.
Then... when the time is right... make a fourth movie that takes place 20 or 30 years later, when the Batman is needed again. We could call it something like... "The Dark Knight Comes Back"? No... "The Dark Knight Unretires"? No.... Oh, I don't know, ask Frank Miller.
It's very intelligent. Not just "smart for a comic book movie", but smart for any genre. It didn't miss a trick, throwing out ethical questions just as often as explosions. It was a little overlong, but that's my bladder talking. There's not a lot of scenes I would have removed.
The Joker is incredibly well-done. He's morbidly funny, but more importantly, he's crafty and scary. Part clown, part Hannibal Lecter. He is a true psychopath, unpredictable and unremorseful. His machinations are brilliant, making the movie feel more chess-like than most similar attempts I've seen. I can not tell you how much I hate that Heath Ledger died, and how guilty I feel that I'm so glad he finished this movie first, and how selfish I feel for wishing he was still alive for a sequel. It's like saying, "It's okay for most people to die, but not the ones that entertain me." But I didn't know him, and thousands of people die every day, so I can only process his death in the ways that it effects me personally. Still, as much as I admire Ledger's performance, it is copyable. Another actor could do it, with practice. With a thorough enough casting call, they could get another actor to replace Ledger if they're determined to put the Joker in a sequel. It helps that he wore clown makeup for the entire movie.
Two-Face was awesome. Yeah, yeah, the makeup/CGI blend was incredible, yadda yadda, but the writing is the key. He didn't go around pulling two-themed crimes and strapping Batman to giant coins; actually, he didn't have much time to do anything silly. Instead, his tragic tale is told very realistically (given the parameters), and given just the right amount of screen time. Some people were disappointed that his entire story is done as the movie's "B" plot, but I'm glad they did it this way. I don't think Two-Face (at least, post-accident) is a strong enough character to carry a 2.5-hour movie, nor do I think this version of the character had much farther to go. He experiences a tragedy, his mind snaps, and he seeks a quick and violent (though misguided) revenge. A longer movie would have had him become a crime boss, and that's just not what this version of Two-Face was about. His motivations were better served by a quick ending. He probably would have died from infections before too long anyway.
After the realism of the first movie, I was a bit worried that having colorful over-the-top villains would cheapen this one. It doesn't. Though I still don't want them to deluge us with sequels, throwing in every silly animal-themed villian from the Penguin to Killer Croc.
And that's maybe the only problem I have with this series. The movie itself is smarter than the concept. I'm watching the movie and thinking, "Hey, that's a good line... Hey, that's a brilliant plot twist... Hey, that's a deep character... Hey, the hero is dressed like a freaking BAT!" I love Batman, but that is hard to get past. His main schtick is creating an air of superstition around Gotham's underworld, making the bad guys wonder, "Is he real? Is he a man or a monster?" This strategy can only work for the short term. Once Batman gets more exposure - getting caught on film, speaking in public, etc - that part of his career is over. Criminals will no longer be afraid of him, or at least they won't fear him any more than they fear the police. He'd still be an effective detective and prime crime fighter, but at that point he might as well lose the silly ears and wear something more like a ninja costume. Or (*gasp*) become a legitimate detective and fight crime legally!
That's what bothers me about the comics & cartoons. They can start his origin over and over, but any time the same series has lasted long enough to be handled by enough different writers, then eventually the "legend" part dies and he's just another guy in animal jammies. Sooner or later he starts fighting in the day time, working with groups like the Justice League, making television appearances, telling kids not to do drugs, and so on. And that turns him from scary to silly. The comics will have you believe that the Batjet can be seen fighting off an alien invasion alongside Superman and Captain Marvel, as the world watches on TV... then the following week in Batman's own comic, the criminals still fear the mysterious Bat, who may or may not exist, who could be watching them at any time.
So one of the reasons the Dark Knight movie works for me, is that it appears to take place shortly after the first one. Therefore the legend hasn't had a chance to die. If they make a third one, I hope they continue to give it a short timeline. I just can't believe that a fear-based hero would work for very long. In the Dark Knight movie we already see a couple of villains who are no longer intimidated by Batman's song-and-dance, and I have to believe that this familiarity would spread quickly, reducing any fear the criminals have of the Bat.
I would like to see a third movie, but only if they actually have another intelligent story to tell. I don't want them to go into it thinking, "This is a money maker, so we have to hash out something" the way some movies do. I don't know which villian I would want to see. Batman's enemies are too flashy and silly, and while they're great fun, they just don't fit in this movie series. I don't care how serious they make him, nobody is going to fear a crime boss called "The Penguin". The Riddler is just a knock-off of the Joker. Most of Batman's enemies are insane, but we've already done the "Batman fights an insane person" plot. And the ones with super powers like Clayface are right out. First person who suggests King Tut or Egghead gets kicked in the nads.
I wouldn't mind seeing Bane, but only if they do it right. Forget the movie and cartoon versions, and give him the intuitiveness and craftiness he has in the comics. Give him a personality like John Malkovich in Con Air, and don't comically overdo his strength. I want the Bane who was raised by the prison system from birth, the one who figured out Batman's secret identity just by "knowing his enemy", the one who masterminded the Arkham breakout just to make Batman tired. But that's just me. (Edit: I also wouldn't mind Lady Shiva.)
I don't want to see this series turn into another villain-of-the-week battle, the way most superhero movies do. After all, one of the best parts of the Dark Knight movie is that it's not the same plot as Batman Begins. Not to put down other superhero movies; everything has its place. They can make 30 Spider-Man movies for all I care, each one siller than the last, each one the exact same movie with a different bad guy pasted in. I'll still see them all, and have fun doing it. But the Dark Knight isn't about finding flashier enemies and CGI effects. It's about having a great story, and telling it well.
If there is a third movie, I would like an ending that deals a major blow to Gotham's crime problem, thus eliminating the need for Batman. Have Batman retire at the end of the movie, and fade away into legend. Let Bruce Wayne concentrate on corporate means of making the world a better place. Didn't they say that most of Gotham's crime issues come from the corrupt cops? Do you honestly believe Bruce Wayne isn't powerful enough to have these cops removed and replaced with more honest officers? That combination of intelligence and wealth doesn't need a cape & cowl to be scary.
Then... when the time is right... make a fourth movie that takes place 20 or 30 years later, when the Batman is needed again. We could call it something like... "The Dark Knight Comes Back"? No... "The Dark Knight Unretires"? No.... Oh, I don't know, ask Frank Miller.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Jumper / Vantage Point / Cloverfield
Spoilers abound, so I'll sum up first:
Jumper - Not bad, but not memorable.
Vantage Point - Pretty decent, but it's been done before.
Cloverfield - Awesome, but nausea-inducing.
Jumper:
Nothing memorable - you're not going to go out afterwards and buy the video game - but it's still a pretty good time. Hayden discovers he can teleport. No real scientific explanation is ever given, but random people are discovering they have this power. Sort of like X-Men, except everybody's Nightcrawler. What annoyed me most was the Paladins - a secret society of fanatics who know about the Jumpers, and want to kill them for no particular reason. The motivation of the Paladins was paper-thin - "Because no one should have that much power." - that might be enough to justify a few nutjob vigilantes, but a whole secret society? Plus, the concept that for every secret group, there's another secret group that knows about them. Like the Watchers on Buffy. Or the, uh, Watchers on Highlander. Even Anne Rice's Vampire books have a Watchers-type group.
If you want to see it just to make fun of it, there's plenty of humor potential in the "Anakin Skywalker Vs Mace Windu" theme. Jackson even uses an electric shocker stick that looks sort of lightsabery. Hayden's acting skills have improved some, but he's still not great.
Vantage Point:
This is not the movie I thought it was going to be from the trailers. My Supposition: The president gets shot, investigators find that six people in the crowd had video cameras, the footage is recovered, and the rest of the movie is a dramatic investigation in JFK-style. The Actual Movie: From the TV station's point of view, the President is shot and a bomb goes off. Then the movie rewinds the 23 minutes you've seen so far, and replays the same event from a different character's point of view, this time giving you a bit more insight. Then they do it again. It's the same story six times, from different characters' POVs, each going a bit farther and revealing a bit more of the plot.
Sitting next to me, Bryan kept thinking of that Star Trek episode where the Enterprise keeps blowing up. I kept thinking of Groundhog day, so every time the next segment started, I had to stop myself from singing, "You put your little hand in mine..." And for some reason, I whenever the action rewound to start the next segment, I wanted to say, "Previously on 24"... even though I've never seen 24.
I would call this movie groundbreaking and brilliant, if I hadn't seen the concept done before on various TV shows. I think there's even an episode of the Batman cartoon series that was done this way. And while Vantage Point is a pretty good movie, the gimmick is really all it has going for it. The story isn't very deep or interesting, and if it was shown straight through like a normal movie, it wouldn't have even made it to the theaters.
A pet peeve of mine: The trailer for this movie contains a major spoiler. It shows that the president is actually still alive, even though the movie audience doesn't find out until at least halfway through the movie.
Cloverfield:
This one get summed up as "Blair Witch meets Godzilla", and it's really not much deeper than that. And it's true what they say about the shakiness - if you get nauseous easily, you should definitely take a Dramamine first. Comparing action movies to amusement park rides is cliche, but this time it truly fits. Cloverfield is like one of those roller coasters that really makes you sick, but you ride it anyway because it's worth it. And Cloverfield is definitely worth it. I've seen plenty of "giant monster destroys city" movies, but I've never actually thought they were scary. But seeing it through the victims' eyes really does sell it. Never has a giant monster looked more menacing, because never have I seen a giant monster from this angle.
Some minor nitpicks, because it just wouldn't be me to call a movie perfect: The opening is a bit long. There's some very good reasons for it, and I don't begrudge the director one bit for giving us so much background on the characters. But when this puppy hits DVD, I'm fast-forwarding to the action. Some of the characters show superhuman toughness that can't just be chalked up to adrenaline. And... okay, this is really nitpicky, but... It's two thousand frikkin eight. Is there really anybody out there who has never held a video camera? And even if you've never touched one, are they really that hard to figure out?
Yes, I'm talking about the shakiness. This is the one type of movie where I not only forgive the use of a shakycam, but I even encourage it. But they still overdid it. I understand that when you're being chased by monsters, you're not going to worry about getting good footage. And even when standing still, if you're in a life-or-death situation, you still might have the shakes. But even at the beginning of the movie, when he's just walking around the party, he's shaking it, tilting it in odd ways, zooming badly, and so on. The amateurs on "America's Funniest Home Videos" possessed better camera skills 15 years ago.
But overall, Cloverfield is an awesome movie, and defintely worth a little queasiness. It relies heavily on the "what you don't show is as important as what you do" method of storytelling, and it leaves the audience with a lot of questions - but in a good way. Now I'm hearing rumors of other movies in the works using the same "found footage" format. I hope this doesn't become a genre. Once or twice is innovative, but beyond that it's just annoying.
Jumper - Not bad, but not memorable.
Vantage Point - Pretty decent, but it's been done before.
Cloverfield - Awesome, but nausea-inducing.
Jumper:
Nothing memorable - you're not going to go out afterwards and buy the video game - but it's still a pretty good time. Hayden discovers he can teleport. No real scientific explanation is ever given, but random people are discovering they have this power. Sort of like X-Men, except everybody's Nightcrawler. What annoyed me most was the Paladins - a secret society of fanatics who know about the Jumpers, and want to kill them for no particular reason. The motivation of the Paladins was paper-thin - "Because no one should have that much power." - that might be enough to justify a few nutjob vigilantes, but a whole secret society? Plus, the concept that for every secret group, there's another secret group that knows about them. Like the Watchers on Buffy. Or the, uh, Watchers on Highlander. Even Anne Rice's Vampire books have a Watchers-type group.
If you want to see it just to make fun of it, there's plenty of humor potential in the "Anakin Skywalker Vs Mace Windu" theme. Jackson even uses an electric shocker stick that looks sort of lightsabery. Hayden's acting skills have improved some, but he's still not great.
Vantage Point:
This is not the movie I thought it was going to be from the trailers. My Supposition: The president gets shot, investigators find that six people in the crowd had video cameras, the footage is recovered, and the rest of the movie is a dramatic investigation in JFK-style. The Actual Movie: From the TV station's point of view, the President is shot and a bomb goes off. Then the movie rewinds the 23 minutes you've seen so far, and replays the same event from a different character's point of view, this time giving you a bit more insight. Then they do it again. It's the same story six times, from different characters' POVs, each going a bit farther and revealing a bit more of the plot.
Sitting next to me, Bryan kept thinking of that Star Trek episode where the Enterprise keeps blowing up. I kept thinking of Groundhog day, so every time the next segment started, I had to stop myself from singing, "You put your little hand in mine..." And for some reason, I whenever the action rewound to start the next segment, I wanted to say, "Previously on 24"... even though I've never seen 24.
I would call this movie groundbreaking and brilliant, if I hadn't seen the concept done before on various TV shows. I think there's even an episode of the Batman cartoon series that was done this way. And while Vantage Point is a pretty good movie, the gimmick is really all it has going for it. The story isn't very deep or interesting, and if it was shown straight through like a normal movie, it wouldn't have even made it to the theaters.
A pet peeve of mine: The trailer for this movie contains a major spoiler. It shows that the president is actually still alive, even though the movie audience doesn't find out until at least halfway through the movie.
Cloverfield:
This one get summed up as "Blair Witch meets Godzilla", and it's really not much deeper than that. And it's true what they say about the shakiness - if you get nauseous easily, you should definitely take a Dramamine first. Comparing action movies to amusement park rides is cliche, but this time it truly fits. Cloverfield is like one of those roller coasters that really makes you sick, but you ride it anyway because it's worth it. And Cloverfield is definitely worth it. I've seen plenty of "giant monster destroys city" movies, but I've never actually thought they were scary. But seeing it through the victims' eyes really does sell it. Never has a giant monster looked more menacing, because never have I seen a giant monster from this angle.
Some minor nitpicks, because it just wouldn't be me to call a movie perfect: The opening is a bit long. There's some very good reasons for it, and I don't begrudge the director one bit for giving us so much background on the characters. But when this puppy hits DVD, I'm fast-forwarding to the action. Some of the characters show superhuman toughness that can't just be chalked up to adrenaline. And... okay, this is really nitpicky, but... It's two thousand frikkin eight. Is there really anybody out there who has never held a video camera? And even if you've never touched one, are they really that hard to figure out?
Yes, I'm talking about the shakiness. This is the one type of movie where I not only forgive the use of a shakycam, but I even encourage it. But they still overdid it. I understand that when you're being chased by monsters, you're not going to worry about getting good footage. And even when standing still, if you're in a life-or-death situation, you still might have the shakes. But even at the beginning of the movie, when he's just walking around the party, he's shaking it, tilting it in odd ways, zooming badly, and so on. The amateurs on "America's Funniest Home Videos" possessed better camera skills 15 years ago.
But overall, Cloverfield is an awesome movie, and defintely worth a little queasiness. It relies heavily on the "what you don't show is as important as what you do" method of storytelling, and it leaves the audience with a lot of questions - but in a good way. Now I'm hearing rumors of other movies in the works using the same "found footage" format. I hope this doesn't become a genre. Once or twice is innovative, but beyond that it's just annoying.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Three Movies & Six Minutes
Alien Vs Predator: Requiem
This is the type of bad movie I usually love. Good action, nice gore effects, bad script, bad acting. I had a lot of fun. But there's really not a whole lot to be said about this movie. If you like the AVP universe, it has some nice eye candy. After seeing the Aliens in mostly isolated sci-fi settings, it's pretty surreal to see them running around a modern day city. Spoiler alert (not that this movie has a lot of twists): There's only one Predator in this one, so it's not so much the war scenario we saw in the AVP, and more similar to the hunter scenario of the original Predator movies. And the hybrid Alien/Predator is pretty neat, but the action figure is cooler looking.
Sweeny Todd
According to Wikipedia, the Broadway musical Sweeny Todd opened in 1979. It was based on a 1973 play, which in turn was based on a 19th century legend. Well, I don't care. It was written for Tim Burton. This story fits Burton's style so much, that I can't picture anyone else filming it. KJ and I saw the play about a year ago, and loved every minute of it. However, the movie blows it away... which is not something I would usually say. It's like saying, "The movie was better than the book" - it's just not done, at least not by those who consider themselves intellectual. And I'm sure that we didn't see the best production of Sweeny Todd ever made; it was at a small playhouse with a low budget. But I can't imagine any play being able to capture the mood of Burton's theatrical version.
It's funny, if someone had simply told me, "They're making a movie version of Sweeny Todd", I wouldn't have had any thoughts about the casting. But if someone had told me, "Tim Burton's making a movie version of Sweeny Todd", I would have immediately known: Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter. And they both do fantastic jobs. A warning, the movie is a musical (for those who hate musicals) and it is very, very, very, very bloody. It's an unrealistically bright red blood that artistically offsets the lack of color elsewhere in the movie, but it can still be nausea-inducing for those who don't deal well with gore.
While not my favorite movie of all time, this is one of those few movies I consider "flawless", in that I really can't think of anything I would change.
I Am Legend
Great movie, but I don't think I'll see it again. This is the third movie based on the Richard Matheson novel, but variations of the plot have been used in dozens of other movies. So one way or another, you've probably already seen it. This is one of the better versions of the "last man on Earth fights mutants" story, but it's a little uneven, and I think a lot of the movie will be boring on repeated viewings. Also, the computer effects could have used a little polish. I hear that they decided to use computer-rendered mutants at the last moment (they tried makeup but it didn't look right), and it shows. It wasn't bad enough to pull me out of the movie, but it was bad enough for me to think, "Isn't this 2007?" Overall, I highly recommend the movie, especially if you see it on IMAX, where you'll see...
The Dark Knight preview
As much as I enjoyed "I Am Legend", this six minute preview of the upcoming Batman movie was better. You can find it online if you look hard enough, but seeing it on the IMAX screen was just awesome. It basically shows a bank robbery pulled off by the Joker's gang, with several plot twists already showing how delightfully devious the new Joker is going to be. Based on this preview, I really don't know if they're going to be able to keep the realism that I loved so much in Batman Begins... but I still think this movie is going to rock.
By the way, Happy New Year!
This is the type of bad movie I usually love. Good action, nice gore effects, bad script, bad acting. I had a lot of fun. But there's really not a whole lot to be said about this movie. If you like the AVP universe, it has some nice eye candy. After seeing the Aliens in mostly isolated sci-fi settings, it's pretty surreal to see them running around a modern day city. Spoiler alert (not that this movie has a lot of twists): There's only one Predator in this one, so it's not so much the war scenario we saw in the AVP, and more similar to the hunter scenario of the original Predator movies. And the hybrid Alien/Predator is pretty neat, but the action figure is cooler looking.
Sweeny Todd
According to Wikipedia, the Broadway musical Sweeny Todd opened in 1979. It was based on a 1973 play, which in turn was based on a 19th century legend. Well, I don't care. It was written for Tim Burton. This story fits Burton's style so much, that I can't picture anyone else filming it. KJ and I saw the play about a year ago, and loved every minute of it. However, the movie blows it away... which is not something I would usually say. It's like saying, "The movie was better than the book" - it's just not done, at least not by those who consider themselves intellectual. And I'm sure that we didn't see the best production of Sweeny Todd ever made; it was at a small playhouse with a low budget. But I can't imagine any play being able to capture the mood of Burton's theatrical version.
It's funny, if someone had simply told me, "They're making a movie version of Sweeny Todd", I wouldn't have had any thoughts about the casting. But if someone had told me, "Tim Burton's making a movie version of Sweeny Todd", I would have immediately known: Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter. And they both do fantastic jobs. A warning, the movie is a musical (for those who hate musicals) and it is very, very, very, very bloody. It's an unrealistically bright red blood that artistically offsets the lack of color elsewhere in the movie, but it can still be nausea-inducing for those who don't deal well with gore.
While not my favorite movie of all time, this is one of those few movies I consider "flawless", in that I really can't think of anything I would change.
I Am Legend
Great movie, but I don't think I'll see it again. This is the third movie based on the Richard Matheson novel, but variations of the plot have been used in dozens of other movies. So one way or another, you've probably already seen it. This is one of the better versions of the "last man on Earth fights mutants" story, but it's a little uneven, and I think a lot of the movie will be boring on repeated viewings. Also, the computer effects could have used a little polish. I hear that they decided to use computer-rendered mutants at the last moment (they tried makeup but it didn't look right), and it shows. It wasn't bad enough to pull me out of the movie, but it was bad enough for me to think, "Isn't this 2007?" Overall, I highly recommend the movie, especially if you see it on IMAX, where you'll see...
The Dark Knight preview
As much as I enjoyed "I Am Legend", this six minute preview of the upcoming Batman movie was better. You can find it online if you look hard enough, but seeing it on the IMAX screen was just awesome. It basically shows a bank robbery pulled off by the Joker's gang, with several plot twists already showing how delightfully devious the new Joker is going to be. Based on this preview, I really don't know if they're going to be able to keep the realism that I loved so much in Batman Begins... but I still think this movie is going to rock.
By the way, Happy New Year!
Saturday, November 24, 2007
The Mist
I first read The Mist (as a short story in Skeleton Crew) when I was in 7th grade or so, and it's always been my favorite Stephen King story. I've been wanting them to make it into a movie for years, so this movie had a lot to live up to. I'm glad to say that, for the most part, it matched (but didn't exceed) my expectations. The movie plays out on the screen almost exactly as it played out in my head. Even though I haven't re-read the story in a couple of years, I knew who some characters were right away from their first appearance, just by the way they looked. I don't know if that's a compliment to the casting director, or wardrobe, or even King's writing for being so easily interpreted.
The movie follows the book very closely (except for the ending, which I'll get to in a bit). You know, I think the story is the perfect length to make into a movie: they didn't have to cut much out (other than the ending, I can only remember one scene in the book that wasn't in the movie, and I bet it was filmed), and they didn't have to add much in. Even without the story fresh in my mind, I generally knew what was going to happen next. Because the movie is set in a somewhat rural area, even the setting hasn't changed much since the story was written. The movie could easily have taken place 20 years ago, except for one scene where someone uses a cell phone as a flashlight.
Some of the acting is a little flat, and the whole movie has a little bit of a "made for the Sci-Fi Channel" feel to it, but I'm okay with that. I do wish they'd had a slightly bigger budget, as some of the computer FX could have used a little polish. But that's just the jaded FX cynic in me; if this had come out a few years ago, we would have been amazed. A warning to the easily grossed-out: The Mist does contain a few very good gore effects, some of which made me cringe. KJ had to cover her eyes through some of the bloodier moments, and even complained of nausea at one point.
The monster designs are very cool, and the director really understood the spirit of the story - knowing what NOT to show being more important than what to show. This movie is everything I wished the "Silent Hill" movie had been. My favorite thing about the SH video game was how it felt like I was playing through The Mist short story, and now The Mist movie feels like a better film adaptation of the game than the actual SH movie. One thing I didn't like: If I remember correctly, in the book, the characters put forth a lot of theories about what happened up at the military base ("Project Arrowhead") that caused the mist and everything in it. But they're never really certain, and that adds to the mysteriousness of it all. The movie, on the other hand, has a scene that completely spells out what caused the mist. Sometimes it's just cooler to live with the mystery. It's as if someone said that the Force in Star Wars was caused by microscopic bacteria in a Jedi's blood cells. Or if the immortals in Highlander turned out to be space aliens. I mean, really, who would do that?
The ending... Ohhhhh, the ending... I'm not going to spell it out exactly, but if you want to stay spoiler-free, skip this paragraph. In a word, the ending is cruel. It has an ironic "Outer Limits"-style twist, or at least it tries to. Instead it comes off like the punchline to a sick practical joke. Remember that part in the Bible, where God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and at the last moment an angel yells out, "April Fool!" (And people say God doesn't have a sense of humor.) Okay, now imagine the same joke if the angel had shown up a few minutes later. "Just kidding! You didn't really have to do that! Here, I'll help you clean up..." I realize the book's ambiguous ending wouldn't have translated well to the big screen, but I can think of a few alternatives that would have worked, IMO.
To sum up, I really enjoyed the movie. My favorite Stephen King short story turns into one of my favorite SK movies. I just hope the DVD has some alternate endings.
The movie follows the book very closely (except for the ending, which I'll get to in a bit). You know, I think the story is the perfect length to make into a movie: they didn't have to cut much out (other than the ending, I can only remember one scene in the book that wasn't in the movie, and I bet it was filmed), and they didn't have to add much in. Even without the story fresh in my mind, I generally knew what was going to happen next. Because the movie is set in a somewhat rural area, even the setting hasn't changed much since the story was written. The movie could easily have taken place 20 years ago, except for one scene where someone uses a cell phone as a flashlight.
Some of the acting is a little flat, and the whole movie has a little bit of a "made for the Sci-Fi Channel" feel to it, but I'm okay with that. I do wish they'd had a slightly bigger budget, as some of the computer FX could have used a little polish. But that's just the jaded FX cynic in me; if this had come out a few years ago, we would have been amazed. A warning to the easily grossed-out: The Mist does contain a few very good gore effects, some of which made me cringe. KJ had to cover her eyes through some of the bloodier moments, and even complained of nausea at one point.
The monster designs are very cool, and the director really understood the spirit of the story - knowing what NOT to show being more important than what to show. This movie is everything I wished the "Silent Hill" movie had been. My favorite thing about the SH video game was how it felt like I was playing through The Mist short story, and now The Mist movie feels like a better film adaptation of the game than the actual SH movie. One thing I didn't like: If I remember correctly, in the book, the characters put forth a lot of theories about what happened up at the military base ("Project Arrowhead") that caused the mist and everything in it. But they're never really certain, and that adds to the mysteriousness of it all. The movie, on the other hand, has a scene that completely spells out what caused the mist. Sometimes it's just cooler to live with the mystery. It's as if someone said that the Force in Star Wars was caused by microscopic bacteria in a Jedi's blood cells. Or if the immortals in Highlander turned out to be space aliens. I mean, really, who would do that?
The ending... Ohhhhh, the ending... I'm not going to spell it out exactly, but if you want to stay spoiler-free, skip this paragraph. In a word, the ending is cruel. It has an ironic "Outer Limits"-style twist, or at least it tries to. Instead it comes off like the punchline to a sick practical joke. Remember that part in the Bible, where God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and at the last moment an angel yells out, "April Fool!" (And people say God doesn't have a sense of humor.) Okay, now imagine the same joke if the angel had shown up a few minutes later. "Just kidding! You didn't really have to do that! Here, I'll help you clean up..." I realize the book's ambiguous ending wouldn't have translated well to the big screen, but I can think of a few alternatives that would have worked, IMO.
To sum up, I really enjoyed the movie. My favorite Stephen King short story turns into one of my favorite SK movies. I just hope the DVD has some alternate endings.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The Host
And then the movie loses momentum. The next hour or so of the movie kind of drags, as it centers on the family of one of the victims. It has a lot of comic relief - it's originally Korean, and sometimes it's hard to tell if the tongue-in-cheek humor is intentional or just bad dubbing - but the humor can only sustain you for so long. Even the monster eventually gets boring, which is why most horror movies keep it hidden until the climax - this movie has no "payoff" scene. I kept hoping that they'd kill it, only to find a larger, weirder monster lurking in the shadows. Spoiler alert: Nope.
Basically, the whole movie feels backwards. It's as if you're watching one of those really slow, suspenseful horror movies, the kind filled with long scenes of exposition followed by quick flashes of monster killing someone, until the big-budget reveal scene right before they kill it. Except, you've decided to watch the ending first.
So rent this one, and rent it now. The opening is worth it. But if you start to get bored, and want to hit the fast-forward button, I promise not to tell anyone.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
...Does Whatever An Iron Can...
Yesterday I saw the trailer for Iron Man. So for the past 24 hours I've had Black Sabbath stuck in my head.
It looks a fun movie, but it is getting a little tiring watching them dredge up every super hero they can think of for a movie. Heck, I was surprised they made Ghost Rider. A lot of these movies are too similar to each other. Really, what was in Daredevil that wasn't already in Batman or Spiderman? What's going to be in Iron Man that wasn't in Superman? Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely going to see it, and I'll probably like it very much. I don't really consider Iron Man the bottom of the barrel, but he's close. I just hope they don't get to Sub-Mariner - that's where I draw the line.
It looks a fun movie, but it is getting a little tiring watching them dredge up every super hero they can think of for a movie. Heck, I was surprised they made Ghost Rider. A lot of these movies are too similar to each other. Really, what was in Daredevil that wasn't already in Batman or Spiderman? What's going to be in Iron Man that wasn't in Superman? Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely going to see it, and I'll probably like it very much. I don't really consider Iron Man the bottom of the barrel, but he's close. I just hope they don't get to Sub-Mariner - that's where I draw the line.
Monday, September 03, 2007
The Bourne Redundancy
We saw The Bourne Ultimatum today. To fully appreciate the movie and this review, you need to remember the details of all three movies. To recap:
The Bourne Identity - 2002
Amnesia-suffering former assassin Jason Bourne seeks to reconcile the events of his past, while government agents try to hunt him down and kill him.
The Bourne Supremacy - 2004
Amnesia-suffering former assassin Jason Bourne seeks to reconcile the events of his past, while government agents try to hunt him down and kill him.
The Bourne Ultimatum - 2007
Amnesia-suffering former assassin Jason Bourne seeks to reconcile the events of his past, while government agents try to hunt him down and kill him.
Truly, there hasn't been such a wild variety of unexpected plot twists since the Rocky movies. Which is not to say that The Bourne Ultimatum is bad, but it sure isn't anything new. If you liked the first two, then you'll like this one... but you might not remember which is which. The Bourne Ultimatum is a perfectly adequate action movie. In fact, it's incredibly adequate, mind-bogglingly mediocre, and brain-bendingly bland. In fact, it's so fantastically average, that it would actually have to be worse just to be any better. The movie so unmemorable, that even if every actor had gone through the entire movie in the nude, painted blue, and on fire, I still would have forgotten what I'd just seen by the time I got to my car. And yet, it's still a decent movie. It's just so.... so.... "so-so".
Ben Aff- I mean, Matt Damon (MATT DAMON!!), a.k.a. overrated generic actor No. 235, does his usual adequate job in portraying the untouchable hero devoid of any personality. Since it's obvious they were going for "average" anyway for this series of movies, Damon is probably the best actor they could have gotten. Or "most appropriate" actor, I should say. The words "Damon" and "best actor" should never belong in the same sentence.
By the time I got out of there, I wasn't quite sure if I'd just seen the newest Bourne movie, or one of the earlier ones again. It doesn't really matter; they're pretty much interchangeable. Tell someone you're going to show them the Bourne trilogy, and you can either show them all three in a row, 1-2-3, or you can get creative and show them 2-3-2 or 3-1-1 or 2-2-2. They won't know the difference. You could probably even put them in one of those 3-DVD disc changers, and have it show scenes from all three in random order, maybe even mixed in with with Good Will Hunting or Saving Private Ryan just for the heck of it. Mix it up, it can only make it better.
An Open Letter To Filmmakers:
Using a hand-held shaky-cam was a nice little gimmick a few decades ago, but it's time to move on. Having the film shot by an epileptic Chihuahua doesn't make the movie any more immersive. It doesn't make the movie edgy or raw or interesting. All it does is make the action scenes harder to follow, and makes your audience nauseous. If you can afford to spend 100 million dollars on a movie, you can spend 50 bucks on a tripod. For Gawd's sake, now that the MPAA rating has gotten so detailed that they include every little offensive thing... "Rated R for Brief Nudity, Pervasive Crude Humor, Light Drug Use, Violence, Language, and a Bad Haircut"... could they not start listing things like "Vomit-inducing shaky-cam"? I find that a lot more offensive than nudity.
The Bourne Identity - 2002
Amnesia-suffering former assassin Jason Bourne seeks to reconcile the events of his past, while government agents try to hunt him down and kill him.
The Bourne Supremacy - 2004
Amnesia-suffering former assassin Jason Bourne seeks to reconcile the events of his past, while government agents try to hunt him down and kill him.
The Bourne Ultimatum - 2007
Amnesia-suffering former assassin Jason Bourne seeks to reconcile the events of his past, while government agents try to hunt him down and kill him.
Truly, there hasn't been such a wild variety of unexpected plot twists since the Rocky movies. Which is not to say that The Bourne Ultimatum is bad, but it sure isn't anything new. If you liked the first two, then you'll like this one... but you might not remember which is which. The Bourne Ultimatum is a perfectly adequate action movie. In fact, it's incredibly adequate, mind-bogglingly mediocre, and brain-bendingly bland. In fact, it's so fantastically average, that it would actually have to be worse just to be any better. The movie so unmemorable, that even if every actor had gone through the entire movie in the nude, painted blue, and on fire, I still would have forgotten what I'd just seen by the time I got to my car. And yet, it's still a decent movie. It's just so.... so.... "so-so".
Ben Aff- I mean, Matt Damon (MATT DAMON!!), a.k.a. overrated generic actor No. 235, does his usual adequate job in portraying the untouchable hero devoid of any personality. Since it's obvious they were going for "average" anyway for this series of movies, Damon is probably the best actor they could have gotten. Or "most appropriate" actor, I should say. The words "Damon" and "best actor" should never belong in the same sentence.
By the time I got out of there, I wasn't quite sure if I'd just seen the newest Bourne movie, or one of the earlier ones again. It doesn't really matter; they're pretty much interchangeable. Tell someone you're going to show them the Bourne trilogy, and you can either show them all three in a row, 1-2-3, or you can get creative and show them 2-3-2 or 3-1-1 or 2-2-2. They won't know the difference. You could probably even put them in one of those 3-DVD disc changers, and have it show scenes from all three in random order, maybe even mixed in with with Good Will Hunting or Saving Private Ryan just for the heck of it. Mix it up, it can only make it better.
An Open Letter To Filmmakers:
Using a hand-held shaky-cam was a nice little gimmick a few decades ago, but it's time to move on. Having the film shot by an epileptic Chihuahua doesn't make the movie any more immersive. It doesn't make the movie edgy or raw or interesting. All it does is make the action scenes harder to follow, and makes your audience nauseous. If you can afford to spend 100 million dollars on a movie, you can spend 50 bucks on a tripod. For Gawd's sake, now that the MPAA rating has gotten so detailed that they include every little offensive thing... "Rated R for Brief Nudity, Pervasive Crude Humor, Light Drug Use, Violence, Language, and a Bad Haircut"... could they not start listing things like "Vomit-inducing shaky-cam"? I find that a lot more offensive than nudity.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Wiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!! ...and Stuff.
It's been an interesting wiik. Wii've been having troubles wiith our internet connection since Sunday (a wiik ago today). Every day, our internet has gone out for an hour or two. The cable TV hasn't gone out, so wii don't have a clue what's been causing it. Wii called Comcast a few times, and they gave us their typical newbie solutions (Did you try resetting the modem? Duh. Did you unplug the modem and plug it back in? Double duh. Did you try resetting the router? Duh.) And of course they still try to blame the router (because nothing is ever Comcast's fault), even though wii'd tried bypassing the router and plugging the modem into the computer directly, with no success.
They sent a tech out on Friday to look at it. He fiddled wiith my configuration settings, and declared it fixed. I left for work right as he left, and when I got there, I already had a voice mail from KJ... yep, it was out again. So wii had the tech come back. He gave us a new cable modem.
So this morning I woke up to find our internet out again. Wii called Comcast yet again, and they scheduled a "better" tech to come out this Wednesday (the first two were "basic" troubleshooters, this new guy would have been one of their techmasters). Then, later this afternoon, Comcast calls me back to tell me that there's been an outage in our area all day. So for once, it wasn't just our house (though they could have checked that when wii called this morning).
So wii cancelled the Wiidnesday appointment, whiich is a sure-fire way to guarantii it's going to go out again. Right now, wii're just waiting to sii how long our connection lasts.
Btw, as I mentioned in yesterday's blog: one other thing wii did this wiikend, is wii bought a Nintendo Wii. Whiich miins that now wii both have arm cramps, and I thiink iit's affectiing my spiich.
Seriously, though, I love the new system. If any of you also have one, let me know and we'll trade friend codes. For whatever that does.
Anyway, it's a great system, but it doesn't have a very good library yet. With it we bought Zelda, Metroid, and Wii Play (best way to get a second controller). We especially love the Bowling on Wii Sports, and the Pool on Wii Play, both of which are proof that fun gameplay beats good graphics any day of the week.
What I really don't like is the gimmicky use of the Wii's controls. It's the same speech I keep giving about the overuse of the stylus in DS games: Just because it's there, doesn't mean you have to use it. The wiimote/nunchuck combo actually makes a very natural-feeling controller, and it's much more comfortable than classic gamepads because you can hold your arms apart and rest them however you like. So if a cross-platform game hits the Wii, they really don't need to tack on "shake the controller wildly to punch" functions; it actually makes the game feel less natural.
Which isn't to say I don't like swinging the wiimote around like an idiot. I love it. I love using it like a sword or a gun or what have you. But only if it makes sense in the context of the game. I'm really afraid that the gimmicky-ness is going to mean fewer cross-platform games hitting the system, because of this obligation to use the sensors.
Next gripe... I'm usually the first in line to argue for backwards compatibility. But in this case, I'm really not sure they needed it to play Gamecube games. There's a panel on the system that opens up to reveal four Gamecube controller ports, and another panel that hides a couple of Gamecube memory card slots. Since they were hyping the Wii as the cheapest of the next-gen consoles, surely they could've knocked a couple of bucks off the system if they hadn't included it. Also, the Gamecube wasn't that big a system anyway, at least when you compare it to its peers (PS2 & Xbox). Arguably they would've been better off giving the Wii a cartridge slot for SNES games.
Maybe if they'd left off the Gamecube emulation, they could have used the money to put in a DVD player. Seriously, I'm willing to bet there's more people out there who own DVDs than own Gamecube games. The Wii already uses normal-size discs, as opposed to the Gamecube's minidiscs. And then I wouldn't have to keep my PS2 in the living room along side the Wii just to watch movies. And I wouldn't have had to spend extra money solving the problem of hooking two systems up to my TV.
But anyway. For all that, the Wii is still my favorite of the systems out there. The X-Box 360 and the PS3 are just bigger, better, and prettier versions of what we've already been playing for years and years. I've been getting sort of jaded lately about video games. It just feels like I've played it all before, and most of it wasn't that interesting the first time. Graphics are getting better and better, but that just doesn't make things funner. I still have more fun with the 2D games of the 16-bit era than I do with most of the current stuff.
But that's just me.
Changing gears again...
The night before last I woke up screaming. I dreamed that for some reason, KJ and I were living in my old house on Long Hollow Pike. I don't know if we actually owned it or if we were just guests, but we were staying in the "green room" upstairs, which was a guest room last time I lived there.
I don't remember anything but the end, but I know it wasn't a nightmare until then. It was just a normal dream about us doing normal stuff. I remember I had been reading a Star Wars book, and I only had a couple of pages left. I had to use the bathroom, so I sat down on the toilet in the upstairs hall bathroom and opened my book. In the dream, the shower was to my left (which is the opposite of real life). I was looking at the book's pages, and out of the corner of my eye, I saw my legs. One hairy leg on the right, and one hairy leg on the right. And one more hairy leg on the left, next to mine. I screamed, in the dream and I think in real life.
The leg was sticking out of the shower, bent just like mine but slightly more outstretched, as if the owner was sitting on a chair in the shower. I craned my head around and opened the shower curtain, and my Dad was lying in the shower, dead. I remember his lips were blue-ish. I screamed again.
Then he very slightly started to twitch, and his lips started moving. I screamed until KJ woke me up. That was about 6 AM, and we didn't go back to sleep. On the plus side, there's no line at Pancake Pantry if you go early enough.
Well, I'm off to play some Wii. It's a nice thrii-day wiikend, the best tiime to buy a new system.
They sent a tech out on Friday to look at it. He fiddled wiith my configuration settings, and declared it fixed. I left for work right as he left, and when I got there, I already had a voice mail from KJ... yep, it was out again. So wii had the tech come back. He gave us a new cable modem.
So this morning I woke up to find our internet out again. Wii called Comcast yet again, and they scheduled a "better" tech to come out this Wednesday (the first two were "basic" troubleshooters, this new guy would have been one of their techmasters). Then, later this afternoon, Comcast calls me back to tell me that there's been an outage in our area all day. So for once, it wasn't just our house (though they could have checked that when wii called this morning).
So wii cancelled the Wiidnesday appointment, whiich is a sure-fire way to guarantii it's going to go out again. Right now, wii're just waiting to sii how long our connection lasts.
Btw, as I mentioned in yesterday's blog: one other thing wii did this wiikend, is wii bought a Nintendo Wii. Whiich miins that now wii both have arm cramps, and I thiink iit's affectiing my spiich.
Seriously, though, I love the new system. If any of you also have one, let me know and we'll trade friend codes. For whatever that does.
Anyway, it's a great system, but it doesn't have a very good library yet. With it we bought Zelda, Metroid, and Wii Play (best way to get a second controller). We especially love the Bowling on Wii Sports, and the Pool on Wii Play, both of which are proof that fun gameplay beats good graphics any day of the week.
What I really don't like is the gimmicky use of the Wii's controls. It's the same speech I keep giving about the overuse of the stylus in DS games: Just because it's there, doesn't mean you have to use it. The wiimote/nunchuck combo actually makes a very natural-feeling controller, and it's much more comfortable than classic gamepads because you can hold your arms apart and rest them however you like. So if a cross-platform game hits the Wii, they really don't need to tack on "shake the controller wildly to punch" functions; it actually makes the game feel less natural.
Which isn't to say I don't like swinging the wiimote around like an idiot. I love it. I love using it like a sword or a gun or what have you. But only if it makes sense in the context of the game. I'm really afraid that the gimmicky-ness is going to mean fewer cross-platform games hitting the system, because of this obligation to use the sensors.
Next gripe... I'm usually the first in line to argue for backwards compatibility. But in this case, I'm really not sure they needed it to play Gamecube games. There's a panel on the system that opens up to reveal four Gamecube controller ports, and another panel that hides a couple of Gamecube memory card slots. Since they were hyping the Wii as the cheapest of the next-gen consoles, surely they could've knocked a couple of bucks off the system if they hadn't included it. Also, the Gamecube wasn't that big a system anyway, at least when you compare it to its peers (PS2 & Xbox). Arguably they would've been better off giving the Wii a cartridge slot for SNES games.
Maybe if they'd left off the Gamecube emulation, they could have used the money to put in a DVD player. Seriously, I'm willing to bet there's more people out there who own DVDs than own Gamecube games. The Wii already uses normal-size discs, as opposed to the Gamecube's minidiscs. And then I wouldn't have to keep my PS2 in the living room along side the Wii just to watch movies. And I wouldn't have had to spend extra money solving the problem of hooking two systems up to my TV.
But anyway. For all that, the Wii is still my favorite of the systems out there. The X-Box 360 and the PS3 are just bigger, better, and prettier versions of what we've already been playing for years and years. I've been getting sort of jaded lately about video games. It just feels like I've played it all before, and most of it wasn't that interesting the first time. Graphics are getting better and better, but that just doesn't make things funner. I still have more fun with the 2D games of the 16-bit era than I do with most of the current stuff.
But that's just me.
Changing gears again...
The night before last I woke up screaming. I dreamed that for some reason, KJ and I were living in my old house on Long Hollow Pike. I don't know if we actually owned it or if we were just guests, but we were staying in the "green room" upstairs, which was a guest room last time I lived there.
I don't remember anything but the end, but I know it wasn't a nightmare until then. It was just a normal dream about us doing normal stuff. I remember I had been reading a Star Wars book, and I only had a couple of pages left. I had to use the bathroom, so I sat down on the toilet in the upstairs hall bathroom and opened my book. In the dream, the shower was to my left (which is the opposite of real life). I was looking at the book's pages, and out of the corner of my eye, I saw my legs. One hairy leg on the right, and one hairy leg on the right. And one more hairy leg on the left, next to mine. I screamed, in the dream and I think in real life.
The leg was sticking out of the shower, bent just like mine but slightly more outstretched, as if the owner was sitting on a chair in the shower. I craned my head around and opened the shower curtain, and my Dad was lying in the shower, dead. I remember his lips were blue-ish. I screamed again.
Then he very slightly started to twitch, and his lips started moving. I screamed until KJ woke me up. That was about 6 AM, and we didn't go back to sleep. On the plus side, there's no line at Pancake Pantry if you go early enough.
Well, I'm off to play some Wii. It's a nice thrii-day wiikend, the best tiime to buy a new system.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Fish & Trips
Fish & Trips
Saturday morning we got up very early, and drove down to Atlanta. We went to the Georgia Aquarium, which was very cool but very crowded. It is, according to their website, the "World's Largest Aquarium". However, I'm not exactly sure how they're measuring it exactly. Total building size? Gallons of water? Number of fish? Size of fish?
I only bring this up because KJ and I have been to several great aquariums in the past few years, and while Atlanta's is certainly huge, it didn't keep us occupied as long as some of the others. And a lot of the length was due to the crowds.
That said, it is a great aquarium. We got tons of beautiful pictures there. If not for the crowds, I could have spent several more hours there. If you're people-phobic like me, here's my suggestion: Try to find out when the "off season" is, or wait a couple of years until the furor has died down a bit. For a great aquarium fix in the meantime, I would recommend the Newport Aquarium (http://www.newportaquarium.com/). No, it's not as big, but it's still pretty impressive. Plus, it's not as well-known, so you don't have as many problems with crowds. Why worry about whether or not the tank you're looking at holds 1 or 2 million gallons of water? Without the other people getting in your way and ruining your pictures, you can stare at the same tank for hours and still see new fish swim by.
Ripley's Aquarium in Gatlinburg (http://www.ripleysaquariumofthesmokies.com/) is good too, probably slightly better than Newport, but of course it's Gatlinburg... you're back to dealing with crowds again. Chattanooga's Aquarium (http://www.tnaqua.org/) is just okay... it's nice because it's close, but it's not worth visiting very often. Really, I'd almost rather just eat at the Aquarium Restaurant (http://www.aquariumrestaurants.com/AquariumNashville/) at the mall.
After the Aquarium, we drove to the nearby town of Douglasville to surprise my cousin at work, after which we saw the movie 1408. This movie is based on a short story by Stephen King, from the book "Everything's Eventual". I'm not often satisfied with 50-page stories forcibly stretched into 2-hour movies, but this one is quite good. It's "spooky-scary", not "gory-scary", so slasher fans might want to stay away. It's been a while since I've read the story, but I think it's relatively faithful, except towards the end. It's one of those where the longer it goes on, the farther it strays from the book. But I'm no purist - I believe that movies are movies and books are books, and some things work better in print than on screen. With the exception of about 20 minutes near the end, the director made some very good choices.
I have a hard time recommending 1408 because I'm afraid a lot of people just won't "get it". But the theater audience seemed to have a good time, so maybe that's not really an issue. This movie should be seen in the theater, as the gasps and screams from the audience were almost as entertaining as what's on the screen. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Before the movie, there were a couple of neat trailers I hadn't seen before. "Shoot 'Em Up" is full of mesmerizing (if unbelievable) action scenes, reminiscent of the Transporter movies or Crank... but instead of Jason Statham, this movie stars Clive Owen as an expert marksman, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Also known as "Standard Movie Plot #23", but when you see the action, you won't care about the plot.)
"The Invasion" is yet another remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It updates the plot to make it more timely and less "60's Drive-In" schlock, but there wasn't much else interesting to say about it. I'll probably see it just to compare it with the other versions, but I'm not expecting much.
They also showed the trailer for Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween. I had already seen the trailer a few months ago, but this was the first time on a big screen. I've been reading a lot of debates about this one... it supposedly goes a bit deeper into Michael's mind, which could be good or bad. One of the coolest things about the original was that he was so blank. It made him a force of the unknown, a character with which no one could possibly relate, and in its own way it made Meyers a lot scarier. But I'll reserve judgement until I see this one, because the previews do look pretty darn cool.
Anyway, we stayed in Douglasville for the night. Bit of triva for you. The most annoying traffic light in the country is at the corner of Douglas Blvd and Bill Arp Rd. At least that was my experience - it didn't matter which direction we came from, it was always red when we got there, and stayed red for what seemed like 10 minutes. Coincidence, or does the light just not like out-of-towners?
Sunday morning we went to Atlanta's Pride Parade. I had planned to dress up - same outfit as Nashville Pride, but a different wig - but it was just too hot. KJ and I both got horrible sunburns as it was (we forgot to bring our sunblock). I can't imagine what it would have been like if I'd been wearing a wig.
Anyway, Pride was great. There were hundreds of booths with loads of neat stuff for sale, making us regret our tight budget. Then we watched was the longest parade I've ever seen. We managed to get a spot just a few feet from a group of religious protestors, who held up anti-gay signs and shouted Bible verses through their microphone. Eh, we mostly just laughed at them. I really can't say anything bad about the preachers because they were trying to help their fellow man. If they want to spread their beliefs in a non-violent way, then I have no problem with that.
But the stuff they were saying through their microphone was so incredibly stupid, that any idiot with a Bible and 10 minutes to spare could disprove whatever they said. I just wish these guys would do their research.
But again, the parade was a lot of fun; though I will have to say, the transgender community was woefully underrepresented. Nothing unusual there... I often feel like a minority within a minority that way. Still, there were plenty of unique people there, and while I'm not actually gay (in the man/man sense), I do feel a strong connection with the GLBT community. Seeing so many thousands of fellow freaks in one place makes me feel much less alone in the world.
God, I'm tired. Good night.
Saturday morning we got up very early, and drove down to Atlanta. We went to the Georgia Aquarium, which was very cool but very crowded. It is, according to their website, the "World's Largest Aquarium". However, I'm not exactly sure how they're measuring it exactly. Total building size? Gallons of water? Number of fish? Size of fish?
I only bring this up because KJ and I have been to several great aquariums in the past few years, and while Atlanta's is certainly huge, it didn't keep us occupied as long as some of the others. And a lot of the length was due to the crowds.
That said, it is a great aquarium. We got tons of beautiful pictures there. If not for the crowds, I could have spent several more hours there. If you're people-phobic like me, here's my suggestion: Try to find out when the "off season" is, or wait a couple of years until the furor has died down a bit. For a great aquarium fix in the meantime, I would recommend the Newport Aquarium (http://www.newportaquarium.com/). No, it's not as big, but it's still pretty impressive. Plus, it's not as well-known, so you don't have as many problems with crowds. Why worry about whether or not the tank you're looking at holds 1 or 2 million gallons of water? Without the other people getting in your way and ruining your pictures, you can stare at the same tank for hours and still see new fish swim by.
Ripley's Aquarium in Gatlinburg (http://www.ripleysaquariumofthesmokies.com/) is good too, probably slightly better than Newport, but of course it's Gatlinburg... you're back to dealing with crowds again. Chattanooga's Aquarium (http://www.tnaqua.org/) is just okay... it's nice because it's close, but it's not worth visiting very often. Really, I'd almost rather just eat at the Aquarium Restaurant (http://www.aquariumrestaurants.com/AquariumNashville/) at the mall.
After the Aquarium, we drove to the nearby town of Douglasville to surprise my cousin at work, after which we saw the movie 1408. This movie is based on a short story by Stephen King, from the book "Everything's Eventual". I'm not often satisfied with 50-page stories forcibly stretched into 2-hour movies, but this one is quite good. It's "spooky-scary", not "gory-scary", so slasher fans might want to stay away. It's been a while since I've read the story, but I think it's relatively faithful, except towards the end. It's one of those where the longer it goes on, the farther it strays from the book. But I'm no purist - I believe that movies are movies and books are books, and some things work better in print than on screen. With the exception of about 20 minutes near the end, the director made some very good choices.
I have a hard time recommending 1408 because I'm afraid a lot of people just won't "get it". But the theater audience seemed to have a good time, so maybe that's not really an issue. This movie should be seen in the theater, as the gasps and screams from the audience were almost as entertaining as what's on the screen. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Before the movie, there were a couple of neat trailers I hadn't seen before. "Shoot 'Em Up" is full of mesmerizing (if unbelievable) action scenes, reminiscent of the Transporter movies or Crank... but instead of Jason Statham, this movie stars Clive Owen as an expert marksman, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Also known as "Standard Movie Plot #23", but when you see the action, you won't care about the plot.)
"The Invasion" is yet another remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It updates the plot to make it more timely and less "60's Drive-In" schlock, but there wasn't much else interesting to say about it. I'll probably see it just to compare it with the other versions, but I'm not expecting much.
They also showed the trailer for Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween. I had already seen the trailer a few months ago, but this was the first time on a big screen. I've been reading a lot of debates about this one... it supposedly goes a bit deeper into Michael's mind, which could be good or bad. One of the coolest things about the original was that he was so blank. It made him a force of the unknown, a character with which no one could possibly relate, and in its own way it made Meyers a lot scarier. But I'll reserve judgement until I see this one, because the previews do look pretty darn cool.
Anyway, we stayed in Douglasville for the night. Bit of triva for you. The most annoying traffic light in the country is at the corner of Douglas Blvd and Bill Arp Rd. At least that was my experience - it didn't matter which direction we came from, it was always red when we got there, and stayed red for what seemed like 10 minutes. Coincidence, or does the light just not like out-of-towners?
Sunday morning we went to Atlanta's Pride Parade. I had planned to dress up - same outfit as Nashville Pride, but a different wig - but it was just too hot. KJ and I both got horrible sunburns as it was (we forgot to bring our sunblock). I can't imagine what it would have been like if I'd been wearing a wig.
Anyway, Pride was great. There were hundreds of booths with loads of neat stuff for sale, making us regret our tight budget. Then we watched was the longest parade I've ever seen. We managed to get a spot just a few feet from a group of religious protestors, who held up anti-gay signs and shouted Bible verses through their microphone. Eh, we mostly just laughed at them. I really can't say anything bad about the preachers because they were trying to help their fellow man. If they want to spread their beliefs in a non-violent way, then I have no problem with that.
But the stuff they were saying through their microphone was so incredibly stupid, that any idiot with a Bible and 10 minutes to spare could disprove whatever they said. I just wish these guys would do their research.
But again, the parade was a lot of fun; though I will have to say, the transgender community was woefully underrepresented. Nothing unusual there... I often feel like a minority within a minority that way. Still, there were plenty of unique people there, and while I'm not actually gay (in the man/man sense), I do feel a strong connection with the GLBT community. Seeing so many thousands of fellow freaks in one place makes me feel much less alone in the world.
God, I'm tired. Good night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)