The Premise: Grindhouse takes it's name from the nickname given to old rundown movie theaters in the 70's and 80's that would "grind out" non-stop double features of B-movies and exploitation films. These films were usually campy, over the top, and often bloody as hell. Grindhouse the film is a collaboration between directors Robert Rodriquez and Quentin Tarantino meant to be an homage to the bygone days of grind house cinema. Each film maker directs their own film and in between the showing of each, guest filmmakers were invited to create fake movie trailers for imaginary grind house films of their own.
The first film is Planet Terror by Robert Rodriquez. It's your typical B-movie zombie flick with the only significant difference being that these zombies aren't really dead. Their simply infected with a mysterious pathogen (created by the military of course) that turns them into brainless, brain eating monsters. Like all good zombie flicks, there are a few survivors that must fight off these monsters, get to the bottom of what caused it all, and finally find a way to stop it.
The second film is Death Proof by Quentin Tarantino which is an interesting spin on the classic slasher film. In this story, the bad guy hunts his prey with his "death proof" car rather than your typical bladed weapon. Like all classic slasher films the hook of the story isn't about who's going to die, but rather who will survive.
Thoughts: Starting off with Planet Terror probably wasn't the best idea for this movie experiment. It's not that Planet Terror is bad; far from it. The problem is that it's so over the top and so much fun that you are kinda let down when it's followed up by the much more serious and slow moving Death Proof.
Planet Terror captures the cheesy zombie genre perfectly, but it goes one further. It actually succeeds as being just a good film. The only bad things in the film are things that were done on purpose as an homage to the genre. There's a part where the film skips ahead about 20-minutes due to a fake missing reel which would destroy any other film, but Rodriquez does it in such a way that it actually makes the film better! In most films of this type, there is a collection of survivors that just randomly seem thrown together. In Planet Terror, Rodriquez could have easily gone that route and it still would have been enjoyable, but surprisingly each character has background depth and has a real purpose being in the story like what you'd expect from quality cinema.
In this reviewers opinion, this is the best film Rodriquez has ever done. It's certainly his best script which has previously been one of his weak spots. He's managed to make something campy and ridiculous without it being stupid. Planet Terror even dares to go beyond it's straightforward, splatter fest core. Hidden beneath all the camp and gore lies a surprisingly thoughtful story of self discovery.
Death Proof on the other hand is a bit of a downer. Don't get me wrong it isn't bad, and I wasn't expecting Pulp Fiction. This is Grindhouse so I should expect shallow exploitation right? After seeing this film I realize that unlike Rodriguez, Tarantino has been doing grind house flicks the whole time and they are all better than this entry.
Death Proof has it's moments. Several times I found myself comparing this film to Spielberg's underrated masterwork thriller "Duel," and that's saying something. Other times I found myself wondering how the car chases in this film would stack up amongst the greatest car chases ever put on celluloid. To even consider that it belongs in that crowd is high praise. Death Proof has some awesome car action and some serious nail biting thrills, but it doesn't deliver much beyond that.
The problem I find is Tarantino is becoming more and more indulgent with each film he makes. The guy just doesn't know how to cut superfluous footage. Tarantino may have a gift for gab, but even so his scenes drag on way too long. Many scenes have no point at all. Death Proof suffers from way too much set up. By the time the pay off comes, you wonder if it was really worth it. The set up definately makes the thrills stronger in this film, it's just that once the necessary development is taken care of, Tarantino keeps going and going and going.
Ironically, while Tarantino's indulgence means suffering through unnecessary development of side characters, the villain of the story has almost no development. We see plenty of scenes of Stuntman Mike talking and behaving yet none of them help you as the audience learn who he is as a character or why he does the things he does. The antagonist of the story serves to deliver the conflict only with no rhyme or reason. Even with the multiple fake missing reels, Death Proof is way too long. It's enjoyable, but it would have been even better with another reel or two missing.
One thing I really appreciated about the whole Grindhouse experience was how Rodriquez and Tarantino took a page from Frank Miller's Sin City and created Grindhouse as if it were it's own world and both films take place in that world. Some characters and locations cross over between both films even though both are so completely different. I still think Death Proof would have worked better had the audience not already sat through a full length feature before it, and given that chronologically the events in Planet Terror happen after it would have made more sense from that aspect.
The Verdict: Grindhouse is one of the "funnest" movie going "experiences" I've had in ages. Leave the stick-up-your-ass at home when going to see this double feature. This is a film for people who want nothing more than simple enjoyment and aren't too discerning about other cinematic qualities. However, that's not to say that Grindhouse is Hollywood crap either (far from it). It's just as likely to appeal to astute film buffs as well. If you're not a fan of the genre, come with an open mind. You might just be surprised at what you've been missing.
**** 1 = Awful 2 = Not Very Good 3 = Average/Ok 4 = Good 5 = Excellent
I thought I'd take a moment to write about my thoughts behind movie reviews and how to interpret my reviews.
Review Theory Reviewing film is not a science, but neither is it purely opinion. Film is an artform, but it's even more so a craft, and all crafts can be judged on quality. Ironically, I hate most film reviewers. Not because they are smug, anal retentive, wannabe art snobs (though many of them are) but because they do nothing but simply express their subjective enjoyment of a given film, as if their enjoyment of a film means more than anyone else. Don't get me wrong, I'm not adverse to hearing someone's opinion of a film, but express it as such. If you simply say whether you liked a film or not, no problem, but don't try to tell me whether the film is good or bad based on whether you liked it or not. A film is good or bad based on it's own merits not whether a certain person enjoyed it.
Everyone has different ideas on how a review should be conducted. In my opinion, a good movie review is one that talks about qualities and failings of a film in relation to the craft. No one can tell anyone else whether or not they will like or dislike any given movie. There is a certain amount of responsibility of the reader to understand their own subjective tastes. Then they can compare that knowledge with the information that the reviewer imparts.
It's ok for the reviewer to insert subjective opinion in their reviews so long as they and their readers both understand that it's opinion. I mean let's face it. There is simply no way to guage many aspects of a film's entertainment value. I can tell you that Borat is brilliantly creative and original and that Cohen pulls off some unbelievable comedic feats, but how can I be sure you'll find it funny? I can't. I can only express how funny I found it and why I found it to be so. At this point the reader has to weigh in their own tastes. Do they normally like this style of humor? Do they find my personal taste on this subject matter often matches their own?
I rarely try to persuade readers in my review. I know they'll hate films I love and they'll love films I hate. I know most people prefer to watch crappy films like The Fanstic Four rather than your typical Best Picture winner. Just because a movie is a five-star film (using my metrics) doesn't mean that everyone is going to enjoy watching it. On the flip-side, the hollywood slasher/horror genre wouldn't even exist if so many people didn't find enjoyment of some pretty bad films. My goal in a review is to try to give as much relevant information about a film (without spoiling it) as possible that will help an average reader make an intelligent decision for themselves whether or not they will enjoy the film. It's not my job to tell them what to like.
I believe you can separate (though most don't) your rating of a film's quality from your personal enjoyment of it. The worst movie I saw last year was Ultraviolet. It just wasn't a good film on so many levels. On the other hand, I didn't hate it. I rated Shooter an average 3-star rating however I'm eager to see it again. I really enjoyed it, but a lot of the things that a lot of good reviewers are saying about it are true. The thing is, those particular points didn't matter to my enjoyment of the film.
My Thoughts on Ratings Systems Lots of people use lots of different ratings systems. There's the popular "tumbs up/down" system, the report card system, the four-star system, the five-star system, the 1-10 system, the out-of-100 system, just to name the most common. Whatever system a reviewer uses, the one thing they almost all have in common is that they are point based.
After much experimenting, I thought long and hard what was the best system to use. I decided that since reviewing film wasn't a science it was silly to try and nail down the quality of a film to the exact rating between one and a thousand (which is what people who use hundred point systems with decimals do). How does one really claim that a film deserves a score of 86.6 anyway?
I decided a film review should be simple. I mean after all a film is either good or bad right? The most well known review system is arguably the "thumbs up/down" system started by Siskel and Ebert. Here's the problem. Fight Club received a thumbs down (believe it or not), but so did Norbit.
I realized that slightly more variation was needed simply good or bad, but I still believed in the principle. So I stopped thinking of ratings systems and instead started thinking of what classifications I wanted the ratings to indicate. Yes, films are either good or bad but how good or how bad? What about the films that seem to walk the fine line of not being bad but neither succeeding in being good? In the end I settled on the idea that bad films should be separated between the horribly bad and the ones that are just not-so-good. Excellent films should be separated from those that are merely just pretty good. Finally you have left the films that help set the barometer (so to speak); those that walk the middle of the road.
How to Interpret My Ratings Many people use a five-star system. It's become the system to use just about everywhere from Amazon.com, iTunes, MediaPlayer, Flixter, etc.. The thing is when you add in half-stars you really have a 10-point system. Why say 3 1/2 stars when you could just say 7 out of 10? I figured since the system was so widely used, I would use it also. Since I only have five ratings to give I would just not use half-stars.
The only problem I have is people being so used to the 10-point 5-star system that they misinterpret my ratings. Just because I give a film 5-stars does not mean I thought it was a perfect 10 out of 10. Every film I gave 5-stars to last year would be considered a 9 out of 10 by me (or 4 1/2 stars).
So why not use half stars? It goes back to the five different grades I want to give films as well as movie reviewing not being a science. If I say a movie is pretty good but not great, it actually says a lot more to the average reader than trying to convince them of the exact level of "goodness" the film achieved. When normal people talk about movies (without using ratings systems) they most often describe the film as being really bad, kinda bad but not awful, just so-so or average, pretty good but not great, or it was fantastic. Most people don't go into the details of how "kinda bad" a film was. Most people besides anal-retentive film critics don't want to analyze a film that much.
In order for a rating to be effective in my opinion it must resonate with the reader. The "thumbs up/down" method is so popular I believe because most people can relate to it. If I say The Departed deserves a thumbs up, it's hard to refute that. It's definately a thumbs up film. However, if I say the same film deserves a 89.8/100 I'm gonna get just about everyone disagreeing even though 89.9 is definately a thumbs up.
When you see my ratings try to forget the stars and instead see the meaning behind them.
1 = Awful 2 = Not Very Good 3 = Average/Ok 4 = Good 5 = Excellent
I'm way behind on my reviews. I still have films from last year to review, but '300' is such unique film that I simply had to get my review of it out first. I'm sure that anyone who reads my blog has not only seen the film but also read a million reviews for it already so this isn't going to be anything special to you, but here are my thoughts...
The Premise: Quite a few years back, legendary comic book writer/artist Frank Miller (Sin City) decided to tackle the story that turned him onto writing about heroes in the first place; the 300 Spartans. It was a 5-issue mini-series called '300' that largely came in under the radar (for a Miller title) due to it's subject matter; most comic book fans aren't interested in sword-and-sandal epics especially when the male heroes of said epics are running around in full frontal nudity. However, those that read it were privy to yet another masterful story with stunning artwork by Frank Miller.
For those unfamiliar with the history, the story is about the king of Sparta, Leonidas (Gerard Butler), and 300 Spartan warriors along with a few thousand Thesbians making a stand against one million (true historical accounts vary) Persians led by the god-king Xerxes at a small strip of land in Greece called Thermopylae. Never before or since have so few stood against so many.
The film opens with a lone, one-eyed, veteran soldier telling a group of other soldiers the story of King Leonidas and his stand against Xerxes. The film then transitions to showing us that story until it's ending where it transitions back to him finishing the story.
Thoughts: Even though Frank Miller clearly knows the history of the 300 Spartans, he is not an historian. He's a storyteller. As such, it's quite fitting that '300' is a story about the event rather than an historical account. Many have complained at it's historical inaccuracies, but they fail to see the point of this film. '300' is told from the perspective of the people of the time. It's how they may have told it, and how they may have imagined it. Right from the beginning, when young Leonidas confronts a wolf in the wild, and that wolf is computer generated to look more like a monster more than any real species found on earth it's obvious that this story is meant to be a tall-tale, not a history lesson.
Director Zack Snyder does an unbelievably amazing job at adapting Frank Miller's story from the page to the screen. It's an even better adaptation than Sin City which suffered from being a carbon copy squeezed into a new medium. Snyder understands that graphic storytelling (ie comics) and film, while similar, are not the same, and simply cutting-and-pasting from one to the other isn't the best way of adapting. Concessions and changes must be made, and Snyder does it perfectly. I've never seen a more accurate adaptation brought to screen.
The first thing that stood out and impressed me about this film was the visuals. Film at it's very core is a visual medium. Hollywood understands this which is why the big summer blockbusters are chock full of big-budget special effects. But the American film industry has seemingly lost touch with the creative artistic side of the medium. Look at films such as Amelie or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. They simply do not make films with that same visual artistry in the States. I can't say that any longer. '300' is one of the most beautiful and majestic films I've ever seen. When Spielberg made dinosaurs look real it was cool and all, but I hope future film makers realize why paintings are more cherished than photographs.
I could go on about the more traditional aspects of film such as how acting performances are all great and how awesome Gerard Butler is as King Leonidas (absolutely brilliant casting), but what is the point? One might go see a film such as The Queen to see what an awe inspiring performance Helen Mirren gives, but people do not come to see a film like '300' for that. They come for entertainment and visual spectacle, and this film delivers in spades. The action is intense and the fight scenes feel fresh and new. But make no mistake, this is not a shallow action extravaganza. '300' features a strong story about heroism and what real heroes are.
The film isn't perfect. While the film makes a strong case for it's heroic characters it fails with it's villains particularly with one corrupt council member of Sparta who's character is the epitome of cliche. His behavior is way too slimy and his motives are way too superficial. Xerxes himself is magnificent but stands as an icon of what Sparta fights against rather than a real character.
The Verdict: '300' is an action epic unlike you have ever seen. It's wildly bold and creative with it's breathtaking visuals, and it's innovative and original with it's action. The story is over-the-top in a way a good tall-tale should be. It's tense, exciting, and inspiring. What's also great is that it's a macho story that women can and do love. No ridiculous testosterone buffoonery here. Bloody, gory, and violent, and also glorious, beautiful, and majestic! '300' is a visual masterpiece and a stunningly imaginative example of what films can be. It is utterly amazing.
***** 1 = Awful 2 = Not Very Good 3 = Average/Ok 4 = Good 5 = Excellent
A few months back, being the stupidass that I am, I downloaded a file embedded with a nice little virus/trojan along with it. Seemingly this virus/trojan did one thing and that was to completely corrupt and make inoperable my computer's ability to network. Everything else seemed to work fine. Just my computer couldn't talk with any other devices (which included my router and/or cable modem).
I wasn't sure at first the cause of the problem. I mean I knew I had been infected; my virus software told me so (unfortunately it couldn't fix the problem which always seems to be the case), but simply not being able to connect to the internet didn't necessarily mean that was the reason. Maybe my wireless network card went bad. Maybe my router (which is an old wireless-b) was bad. Maybe my shitty ass ISP was to blame (It's Comcraptic!). Unfortunately hardware issues are hard to diagnose without new parts to replace the old for trial-and-error testing. And with me being in a financial bind, I didn't have the money for that.
The other issue was that maybe it was software related and maybe reformatting and reinstalling fresh would fix the problem (the only real way to rid yourself of viruses). Unfortunately that required a copy of Windows I didn't have. Boy would I love to buy Vista but not only is $150.00 ridiculous for an upgrade but if you don't have a legit windows disk you gotta buy one. The most basic version of Vista is $200.00 for the full version (the only version you can buy full aparently). $350.00 to beta test Microsoft's new bug riddled operating system wasn't in the cards for me.
So.... my computer sat. My Xbox360 saw a lot more use (my gamerscore is now over 3000! Woot!). I'm sure some people were like, "what the fuck happened to Ash?" Others were probably like, "who cares?" Well that's the short story.
To wrap up, I've "acquired" a new copy of Windows XP, reformatted my system, and here I am (so it turns out my hardware is fine). I'm completely overwhelmed by how behind I am in all the blogs I subscribe to so I don't know how much I'll be writing myself right away. I apologize to anyone who tried to contact me and went ignored.
The Premise: Much like Batman Begins was for the Batman franchise, Casino Royal is not only a reimagining of the series but the long awaited origin of our hero as well.
In this film, Her Majesty's Secret Service is out to capture a ruthless banker (who knew bankers could be ruthless?) named Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who does business with terrorist organizations all over the world. In typical Bondian fashion, since the banker is a James Bond villain, he's more than a simple bean counter who got involved with the wrong crowd. Indeed, Le Chiffre is every bit as evil as the people he deals with.
Le Chiffre uses the money his clients bank with him to finance his own side investments. One such investment sees him spending $110 million of his client's money on put option stock (meaning betting the stock price will go down) of an airline company. He then attempts to perform a terrorist attack against the company and destroy it's new prototype airliner which would cause the stock price to plummet and presumably make him vast amounts of money. Unfortunately for him, James Bond has to say something about that.
With his plans foiled, Le Chiffre desperately needs to make back his client's money who are of course now asking for it. There is an extremely high stakes poker tournament taking place at the famous Casino Royal that features a $10 million buy in and conveniently a winning purse of $110 million. Le Chiffre is a mathematical genius and intends on winning the tournament.
James Bond (Daniel Craig) is the best card player in the service and is staked by the British government to enter the tournament with the idea that if Le Chiffre loses, he'll be on the run from his enemies where MI6 can then offer him protection in return for information he has. Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) is an accountant working for the British government assigned to work with Bond and is in charge of the money.
The film is much more involved and detailed than the premise I lay out here, but there is no point detailing that much of the story that is much better gleamed from watching the picture. Throughout we get to see origins of famous Bond trademarks such as where he got the famous Aston-Martin of his, where the name Moneypenny comes from, why a vodka martini shaken and not stirred, and more including the reason why there aren't a million Bond Jr's running around the world.
Thoughts: When I first heard Daniel Craig was to be the new James Bond a year or two ago, I like most people cringed at the thought. It's not that I disliked Craig or even thought of him as a bad actor. It's just that I had come to have a pretty set interpretation of who James Bond was, and Pierce Brosnan was it. No, seriously, I pictured James Bond as the "tall, dark and handsome" type; suave and sophisticated. But that was because that's the way the movies wanted us to see him. Roger Moore started us with that perspective. Pierce Brosnan encapsulated it.
Daniel Craig by comparison is a brute, and I couldn't be happier. It's taken Daniel Craig's interpretation of Bond to remind me of why I liked Sean Connery so much, and I dare say I like Craig even better. Yes, Daniel Craig is probably the best Bond ever, and to make that kind of impression after only one film is an astounding feat.
As for the film, I'd say Casino Royal lives up to the hype. It immediately ranks up near the top of the list as one of the best Bond films simply because it does something no other Bond film has. This film adds depth of character to our hero. In no other film have the writers delved into bringing out who James Bond is. He's simply been a tool with which to create action/adventure plotlines. In Casino Royal, we see Bond as human. We see and feel his vulnerabilities. We can empathize with his motives. He feels real, not like a comic book character. I expect having Paul Haggis (Million Dollar Baby, Crash, Flags of Our Fathers) help write the screenplay had something to do with this. But don't let me fool you into thinking Bond has gone soft. Oh no, in this film James Bond is as bad ass as ever, and dare I say even more manly.
Some have faulted this film as being too long, and I can see where people who are looking for the traditional, shallow James Bond action/adventure might think so. However, I believe in the idea that a good movie is never too long, and Casino Royal is a good movie. It's got plenty of action to satisfy the traditional Bond fan, and it goes deeper with stronger character development and emotional storytelling for those who've found previous Bond films too trite.
The Verdict: This is James Bond at his very best. Where I once thought this franchise was doomed and dying a slow death, I now see it as better than ever. Daniel Craig brings a credibility to Bond never seen before. The writing and acting performances are better than any of the previous films. I liked previous James Bonds. I love this one.
**** 1 = Awful 2 = Not Very Good 3 = Average/Ok 4 = Good 5 = Excellent
The Premise: Deja Vu is one of those films (The Sixth Sense, Memento, Soylent Green, etc..) where the less you know about it going in, the better. It's not necessarily that there is a big plot twist to conceal, but rather part of the fun of this film is learning what the plot is about. To reveal what Deja Vu is about strips away most of the point of the film.
If you've seen any previews to this film, no doubt you recall seeing one of the big money shots over and over in which a ferry boat explodes. While I recommend avoiding the trailers to this film, fortunately this scene alone doesn't spoil anything as it occurs in the first few minutes of the film. Indeed, it's the serves to set up the premise of this film.
Deja Vu at it's heart is a very clever spin on the whodunnit formula of mysteries. Doug Carlin (Denzel Washington) is an ATF agent on the case to investigate the explosion of this boat. He comes to the conclusion pretty early that this is no accident but rather a deliberate act of terrorism. But who did it? And why?
One of the bodies that turns up in the investigation is that of Claire Kuchever (Paula Patton). However, when forensic study shows her death to have occured approximately one hour before the explosion, new questions start to be raised. This is when the FBI steps in to enlist Carlin to assist with their investigation of the bombing using a procedure thought to be impossible.
Thoughts: I've long considered Tony Scott to be one of the best, if not the best, directors of popcorn films, but lately we've seen his filmmaking evolve and lean a bit more towards being serious, critically accepted stuff as with Man on Fire. Two of Scott's best films have been with Denzel Washington so it's not surprising to see Scott work with the megastar yet again. The result? Another winner.
Deja Vu is a very plot driven mystery so there is very little to do with character development, but I don't fault that. Like all good mysteries, the point of the film is unravelling it so characterization normally takes a backseat in these circumstances, and Deja Vu is a pretty darn good mystery. Not only is it good, but it adds a pretty compelling plot device into the mix that adds a fair share of twists and turns without over complicating the plot. It's hard to talk about a film like this without spoiling it for those that haven't seen it. Let me just say, pay attention to everything that happens in the film. As the film's title suggests, what you've seen before is very important.
Deja Vu mostly excels at what it's trying to do. The story is more than interesting and Scott tells it superbly. Even though it's a bit tiring to see Denzel Washington cast yet again as a cop/detective/federal agent, he masterfully slips into the role and makes us forget about that for a few hours. The rest of the cast hold their own, and it's nice to see Val Kilmer getting some work.
The most impressive thing about the film is how it unravels. Films of this type often walk a fine line of spilling the beans too early and thereby ruining the ending or saving all the reveals till the very end thereby leaving the rest of the film less interesting as a whole. Deja Vu allows the audience to figure things out in small doses at a nice pace. It truly is like putting pieces of the puzzle together and it keeps you engaged as a viewer.
The main fault with the film is the ending. It's not bad, but it feels off. This is where Jim Caviezel's character comes into play. He seems to have a strong connection to the films central plot device and you're expecting this connection to be revealed at the end, but it's not. It's impossible to clearly communicate what I'm trying to say without spoiling the film, so let me just say, in a film where everything is so interconnected it feels wrong to have one of the main character's purpose in the film end up being so random.
The Verdict: Deja Vu is one of the best mysteries I've seen in a long time. It's nice to see a film of this sort tie everything together without leaving any glaring plot holes. In an era where crime scene investigation shows dominate the airwaves, this film more than deserves a look. It's like an CSI on steroids with a dash of sci-fi to spice things up.
**** 1 = Awful 2 = Not Very Good 3 = Average/Ok 4 = Good 5 = Excellent
My Absence...
Current mood: sick
Category: Blogging
A few people have written me asking about my lack of activity on MySpace (my blogging in particular). Well the answer to that is that I've been busy and I've been sick. Two things that do not go well together as I'm sure you know. I've been down about my inability to go out and see films, and ailments have caused me to be less than ambitious when it comes to staying active on myspace.
I hope to get better soon, and I really hope to see some films. I also hope to be less busy so I can write about them and continue to read and comment on your blogs as well. Thanks to all who were concerned.
So the long awaited Playstation 3 is finally out, and it seems that all the things Sony fanboys used to bash the original XBox when it came out are now things to be praised! It's huge in size and it costs craploads more than the competition.
It seems that Sony can do no wrong.
The biggest news about the new PS3 is that, surprise, it can't play games in hi-def! At least not yet. Currently the PS3 can only render games in 480p max resolution. Considering the original XBox could render games in 760p right out of the box, that's pretty unacceptable to me. That's right, the original XBox can deliver true high definition gaming while the PS3 can't. This is pretty amazing considering how Sony tried to bash the 360 for it's inability to render games in 1080p (instead going to only 1080i which is the max my top-of-the-line-for-2005-Sony HDTV will display anyway), and now the 360 has an upgrade that will allow it to render in 1080p and the PS3 can't even do hi-def games at all!
When the original XBox came out, even though it was miles ahead of the PS2 in technology, naysayers dismissed it for it's lack of games. The PS3 not only has a lack of games, but the launch titles are about as uninteresting as could be. Almost all of them are available on the XBox 360 (with the exception of two), and so far the list of upcoming games are all games that are already available on the 360 as well.
Why are people willing to spend $600 (before games and necessary cables) on this? People argue that for a Blu-Ray player, it's very cheap. I suppose that is true, but that's only because Blu-Ray players are so over priced as to make me sick. Anyone who's willing to pay that kind of price for a Blu-Ray player probably has a nice (not just mediocre) HDTV. If that's the case, don't you want to play your games in HD? I just can't understand why someone would wait an extra year to pay a greatly higher price, for a game system that plays games at lesser quality resolution.
Then there are the millions of people who don't even have an HDTV. Seriously, I can't understand why these people are willing to spend all this money on a device that will not give them a better experience when the could instead be $200 closer to getting an HDTV and having a console that will actually make use of it.
Final note: At last check, PS3's were going for an average of $2,700 on eBay with some topping the $5,000 mark.
I very much do not like the Democratic party. I loathe ultra-liberalism. However, as a centrist moderate who sides most with the Libertarian party, I find myself almost happy that the Dems took control of congress. I say almost because while I feel it is high time someone stop the Neo-Republican party from steering this country down the road to fascism, I can't help but expect the Democratic party to show why I don't like them by not stepping up to the plate and getting their hands dirty to fix the problems.
The Executive branch (ie the President) of our government has for too long not been subject to checks and balances, and far too much power has been handed over to it. It has now become so powerful that it has complete and unchecked power to violate the Bill of Rights on a whim. Without rights, all laws become nothing more than a means of oppression and subjegation. Until these unconstitutional executive powers are repealed, we are not living in a free country.
I believe the Democratic party to be a bunch of baby kissing, say-what-we-want-to-hear politicians who will promise everything and deliver nothing. To me it doesn't matter what their platform is because I haven't seen a Democrat have the balls to fight the good fight, or stand up for what they believe in for that matter, since Jack and Bobby Kennedy.
Now they got the power in Congress at a point where our country is in more dire need of saving than any previous point in history. Now is the time where they prove their party is just words, and their leaders all bark with no bite. Now is the time where I've never hoped more to be proven wrong.
You won, Democrats! Now take your dick out of your assistant's mouth and for all our sakes, save this fucking country before it's too late!
[Alternative ending: if the last paragraph contained a bit too much profanity for your taste, please feel free to substitute it for the following.]
You won, Democrats! Now, as all the millions of illegal immigrants you support and have American taxpaying citizens pay for would say, grow a pair of cajones, do your job, and make this country free again!
Last night, I watched one of the most eye openning and equally harrowing documentary films I've ever seen. It's called Hacking Democracy, and it's currently airing on HBO. If you are an American and you are concerned at all about your freedom or care at all about this country, you simply must see this film.
This film isn't an agenda pushing propoganda film like what Michael Moore usually puts out. Even though it's topic is political, it's non-partizan. This isn't a liberal or conservative issue. It's an American issue, and hopefully it will make you as sick and disgusted as it made me.
Many remember the Bush/Gore race of 2000 and the scandelous voting fraud claims in Florida. If you ask, most people will tell you the issue was about punch cards and the inability to read some of them as they weren't punched all the way through. What very few people, including me, know is that the bigger issue was another county in Florida, Velutia County, that turned out negative 16,000 votes for Al Gore. This county used electronic voting machines, but because the nature of these machines leaves no trace of where votes come from, nothing could be done other than speculate as to what happened.
This issue sparked a Seattle woman named Bev Harris on a quest to find out how elections are run. What she found was a horrificly widespread web of secrecy, lies, and deceit. She discovered that no one really knows how these electronic votes are tabulated because it's against state and federal law to open up any of these machines to see how they work. Let me make this clear. Not even the government officials in charge of running the elections are allowed to know how their machines work.
ARE YOU FUCKING CRAZY??
87% of votes cast today in America are run on these machines and not one single government official has raised an eyebrow to the fact that no one but the company making the machine is allowed to know how it works?? I've never seen a bigger red flag warning in my life!
There are several different companies that make voting machines. This documentary focuses on one of the biggest and most well known: Diebold. Fortunately for us, the idiots at Diebold posted the code for their machines on the internet. But this is also scary as hell. Now instead of just the fear of elections being cheated by corrupt corporations like Diebold without anyone ever knowing (because it's conveniently against the law to check), now we have to fear independent hackers who now obtained code and passwords from the company off their own public FTP site.
As I said it was fortunate that these dipshits did this however, because without it, Bev Harris would never have found it and been able to bring to light this issue.
All this is only the tip of the iceberg. Just because there is a security flaw that can allow for fraud doesn't mean there is fraud right? Right, which is why Bev Harris travels to Velutia County Florida to get public record of the signed vote count tapes. Velutia County not only fails to provide the original records (instead they print new ones), but Bev video documents the County illegally trying to dispose of signed vote counts. Now why would you want to dispose of these documents and break federal law by doing so unless you were trying to hide something? And what could you be possibly trying to hide? Bev matches the tapes she was originally given to the signed tapes from the day of the election and matches the counts. Shockingly but unsurprisingly, the vote counts don't match. In fact, the difference is about twice as much.
This is all shocking enough, but the documentary doesn't stop there. The fact that there is a FUBAR of epic perportions is bad enough, but the real question now lies: why isn't anyone doing anything about this? If counties like Velutia County are breaking federal law, why isn't anyone stepping in? Why are counties continuing to spend tens of millions of dollars on voting machines by Diebold? Why isn't Diebold tried for treason (or at least voter fraud) when there's more than enough evidence of them not only deceiving the American people but also intentionally inhibiting election security?
This documentary made me sick not at the monumental mistake of using shitty electronic voting machines, but at the government actively covering up evidence of voter fraud.
At the end of the documentary, the filmmakers show how easy it would be to not only fix an election but how the fix would never be evident on the system nor would any tampering be traceable.
No description from me can do justice to the message this film communicates. It goes much more in depth and makes it's points much more clearly and eloquently than I do. Even if you get HBO just for one day (cost only $0.50), you need to see this.
Our founding fathers saw fit to ensure one of our rights as an American citizen was the right to bare arms. This amendment in the Bill of Rights has often been construed to mean we should be free to own guns because they're cool, and some people use them to hunt. To not have that right would be infringent on freedom to defend yourself and your home. This is all fine and good, but the real intention of that amendment was to ensure that no government would ever again have power over the people again. Our forefathers understood that no government was uncorruptable, so they installed many checks and balances. The right to bare arms is one of those checks and balances meant to keep the government accountable to the people.
I bring this up, because that's the effect this film has on me. Seeing Hacking Democracy makes me think it's time to get some guns.
My new weekly rant about the most ridiculous show on television!
I originally gave my impression of CBS's new show Jericho here. If you haven't read it, I suggest you do in order to better understand where I'm coming from.
I started watching Jericho because it had the coolest, and ballsiest concept for a TV show perhaps ever. It's only a matter of time before suicidal islamic extremists have the ability to blow themselves up, taking as many of us with them as they can, with nuclear weapons. 19 of them killed themselves by kamikazi'ing airliners into the World Trade Center and The Pentagon in an attempt to kill as many of us as possible. Anyone who thinks these groups wouldn't stoop to using nukes in order to vastly improve the efficiency at which they perform "Allah's will" is just fooling themselves.
I firmly believe that if those 19 terrorists had 19 nuclear bombs (1 each) that we'd now be living in the world Jericho supposes. It's awful to think of, but it makes for not only an intriguing premise for a story but an important one as well. The only reason we haven't had a crazed terrorist set off a nuke in one of our cities is because they lack the ability to. God help us when they do.
So it's with this grave concept that the story of Jericho is based, but anyone who witnessed what happened to this country in the days following the collapse of some buildings in New York can't help but laugh at just how perpostorous the people in this show react to 90% of the country being completely and utterly destroyed by nuclear holocaust.
The producers of Jericho don't seem to want to tell a gutsy and engaging "what if" story about how American's would react and how we'd survive. They seem only interested in rehashing the formulaic night time soap set in a rural town.
My girlfriend and I have been watching the show since the beginning. I stuck with it originally hoping it would live up to it's concept, but week after week, each episode just seems more ridiculous than the next. Now Jericho has become a joke in this house. We watch it simply to see how stupid it's gonna get next.
I'm gonna call the characters by my nicknames for them since I can't be bothered with their real names and it wouldn't matter much to people who don't torture themselves with this show anyway
This week's episode follows the tradition of celebrating the holiday it airs on (or close to). If it's Halloween in the real world, so must it be everywhere in TV land. So in Jericho it's happy Halloween. The show opens up in the middle of town with pumpkins everywhere, and everyone seems to be gathered there to pick out their pumpkins for Halloween. As soon as I saw this, I shouted at the TV, "there better not be any fucking trick-or-treaters in this episode!" Then I'm thinking, there's no way I'm carving up some pumpkins to make jack-o-lanterns. Don't these people realize there's no more food coming in??
Speaking of food, dumb, bitch IRS Lady who's been staying with Corn Fed (the guy who's farm she was gonna take for failing to pay taxes) is eating some Corn Flakes sans milk when Corn Fed comes in having just freshly milked some cows. He pours some into her bowl in a kind, albeit rustic, gesture and naturally she gets disgusted by the idea of warm milk freshly milked from the cow. This might be the last box of Corn Flakes in existence and these people may soon be on the verge of starving to death, but god forbid this lady drink warm milk.
Meanwhile, Simple Minded Shoplady who runs the only food market in town has finally stopped selling her groceries for worthless pieces of government issued paper. Now she's bartering for items. One items she barters for is an antique jewel box from Brat Girl who trades it for a case of diet soda. Later, Brat Girl finds her parents might still be alive so she tries to trade back for the jewel box which belonged to her mother only to have Simple Minded Shoplady lie and say she already traded it to someone else. Loser Kid, the boy who works in her store, has no family and no home since the burning down of his trailer, finds the box in her store and returns it to Brat Girl. Simple Minded Shoplady is furious at Loser Kid. How could he do that to her when she let's him sleep in her store? Never mind that she doesn't pay him for his work and every thing in her stock was provided by him since he found an abandoned freight train 5-miles away. He's fed up with her simple mindedness and quits. Brat Girl is so touched she finally offers him a couch to sleep on in her mansion. Ohhh the drama!!
Brooding Anti-hero, the main character of the show, is forced to deal with his past. These end up being a bunch of seedy characters who are living on the outskirts of town, exploring the roads and nearby towns and hoarding all the supplies they can. The show of course villifies these guys, but I look at them as being the only smart people in the show. They are the only ones who seem to realize the world as we knew it is gone!
Back to town, we see the whole town celebrating! Yay! It's Halloween, and there's the goddamned trick-or-treaters!! Jesus H Stupid! Is this Dawson's Creek or is it the end of the fucking world??
I can't wait to see how ridiculous this show gets for Thankgiving.
Every month, Hollywood is busy releasing, or re-releasing, or re-re-releasing, DVDs. It's huge business these days. So much that a movie doesn't need to succeed at the box office anymore. As such, we are inundated with craploads of releases week after week.
Choice DVDs is an installment I've come up with to put in my two cents on what the...well...choice DVDs are for that month to help you sift through all the crap. Now of course I'm not going to list every DVD you might be interested in. The idea is, that if you are a big fan of something I don't list, you shouldn't need me to tell you about it's release on DVD. This feature is for bringing attention to the good stuff that arguably belongs in every DVD collection.
Every year, more and more computer animated films come out thanks to Pixar showing what a cash cow they can be, and every year Pixar films reign supreme. With the exception of the Shrek series, no other computer animated films even come close. Perhaps the studios failed to realize that the success of Pixar films isn't due to the fact that they are computer animated. Pixar just makes great freakin' movies! Cars was to mark the last film under it's contractual agreement with Disney, and many (including myself) were eager to see what Pixar would do out from under the Disney Umbrella. Unfortunately, Disney bought Pixar outright so we'll never know, and now instead of Pixar films made for Disney, Pixar films will be Disney. This doesn't bode well for the future. In the present however, this film is simply a must own to complete Pixar's amazing seven film run of nothing but great films.
Ok, I know some of you are thinking, "why the hell is Superman Returns listed as a Choice DVD?" C'mon man, it's the freakin' return of Superman! Seriously though, Choice DVDs isn't a column on how to build the most elitist film snob collection. I'm always going to list pure fun popcorn fluff when it deserves it. Having a Choice DVD collection is having a library that would impress anyone, not just the AFI. Besides that, Warner Bros. is releasing some sweet versions of the old Christopher Reeve films, and this ties in nicely.
The first release of the original Christopher Reeve is also the sweetest. It features all four of the original Superman films in their finest incarnations (see more about Superman I and II below). It also includes Superman Returns for good measure. But that's not all. This set totals a whopping 14-discs!
DVD Features:
Available Subtitles: English, Spanish, French
14 disc-set includes:
Superman: The Movie (Four-Disc Collector's Edition)
Original 1978 theatrical version with soundtrack in Dolby Digital 5.1
Commentary by producer Pierre Spengler and executive producer Ilya Salkind
Theatrical trailers and TV spot
2000 expanded edition movie with commentary by director Richard Donner and creative consultant Tom Mankiewicz
Music-only audio track
Three documentaries:
-Taking Flight: The Development of Superman
-Making Superman: Filming the Legend
-The Magic Behind the Cape
Restored scenes
Screen tests
Audio-only bonus: additional music cues
Vintage TV special "The Making of Superman: The Movie"
1951 movie Superman and the Mole-Men, starring George Reeves
Nine Fleischer Studios Superman cartoons mastered from superior vault elements: Superman, The Mechanical Monsters, Billion Dollar Limited, The Arctic Giant, The Bulleteers, The Magnetic Telescope, Electric Earthquake, Volcano, Terror on the Midway
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut
Richard Donner's cut includes footage shot but never used, including a never-before-seen beginning, a never-before-seen resolution, 15 minutes of restored footage of Marlon Brando as Jor-El, and more
All-new introduction by Richard Donner
Commentary by Donner and creative consultant Tom Mankiewicz
New featurette "Superman II: Restoring the Vision"
Additional scenes
Superman II (Two-Disc Special Edition)
The theatrical cut of the film
Commentary by executive producer Ilya Salkind and producer Pierre Spengler
Theatrical trailer
Vintage TV specials "The Making of Superman II" and "Superman 50th Anniversary"
New featurette "First Flight: The Fleischer Superman Series"
Eight famous studios Superman cartoons mastered from superior vault elements: Japoteurs, Showdown, Eleventh Hour, Destruction Inc., The Mummy Strikes, Jungle Drums, The Underground World, Secret Agent
Superman III (Deluxe Edition)
Commentary by executive producer Ilya Salkind and producer Pierre Spengler
Vintage TV special "The Making of Superman III"
Additional scenes
Theatrical trailer
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (Deluxe Edition)
Commentary by screenwriter Mark Rosenthal
Additional scenes
Theatrical trailer
Superman Returns (Two-Disc Special Edition)
Bryan Singer's Journals (Extended Edition)
Look, Up in the Sky!: The Amazing Story of Superman
Here's the definative version of Superman: The movie. You get both the original cut as well as the 2000 extended Richard Donner cut plus two more discs of more special features than even Peter Jackson would include. You even get an old George Reeves Superman movie. The reason to get this is if you completely despise the Superman sequels and you don't want to own everything in the 14-disc package above.
DVD Features:
Available Subtitles: English, Spanish, French
Available Audio Tracks: English (Dolby Digital 5.1), French (Unknown Format)
Disc 1:
Original 1978 theatrical version with soundtrack in Dolby Digital 5.1
Commentary by producer Pierre Spengler and executive producer Ilya Salkind
Theatrical trailers and TV spot
Disc 2:
2000 expanded edition movie with commentary by director Richard Donner and creative consultant Tom Mankiewicz
Music-only audio track
Subtitles: English, Français, Español & Português (feature film only)
Disc 3:
Three documentaries:
-Taking Flight: The Development of Superman
-Making Superman: Filming the Legend
-The Magic Behind the Cape
Restored scenes
Screen tests
Audio-only bonus: additional music cues
Disc 4:
Vintage TV special "The Making of Superman: The Movie"
1951 movie Superman and the Mole-Men, starring George Reeves
Nine Fleischer Studios Superman cartoons mastered from superior vault elements: Superman, The Mechanical Monsters, Billion Dollar Limited, The Arctic Giant, The Bulleteers, The Magnetic Telescope, Electric Earthquake, Volcano, Terror on the Midway
This is only a single disc release however this is the Richard Donner cut of the film and not the Richard Lester (Superman III) credited theatrical version so that alone makes this film worth owning. Superman Returns is the sequel to this film.
DVD Features:
Available Subtitles: English, Spanish, French
Richard Donner's cut includes footage shot but never used, including a never-before-seen beginning, a never-before-seen resolution, 15 minutes of restored footage of Marlon Brando as Jor-El, and more
All-new introduction by Richard Donner
Commentary by Donner and creative consultant Tom Mankiewicz
New featurette "Superman II: Restoring the Vision"
In a world where 95% of the comedies churned out by Hollywood are utter crap and overly sanatized so as not to be offensive to family-friendly crowds, thankfully there is Kevin Smith keeping the hard-R comedy alive. Clerks II is foul and disgusting at times, but those who have shed their tight-ass inhibitions recognize this as an instant comedy classic.
If you like movies and pop culture and if you like comedy, by all means you need to see Kevin Smith's hilarious DVD called An Evening With Kevin Smith. It's technically highlight footage of him answering Q & A sessions at various universities around the country, but it plays off more like a stand-up comedy routine that's funnier than just about any comedian I've seen. It was this DVD, not any of his movies, that convinced me he was one of the funniest people alive. The DVD pictured above is the long awaited sequel. Every good DVD collection deserves to have at least a few classic stand-up routines, and they don't get much better (or rewatchable) than An Evening With Kevin Smith.
I'm guessing I'm going to take some flak for having no critically acclaimed masterpieces, but as I explained, Choice DVDs isn't about the best movies of all time. It's about great entertainment on DVD in all sorts of genres. Now go better your DVD collection!
The Premise: Ben Randall (Kevin Costner) is a Coast Guard rescue swimmer. In the Coast Guard, rescue swimmers are considered the best of the best. Of rescue swimmers in the Coast Guard, Ben Randall is the best of the best.
At the start of our story, Ben's wife Helen (Sela Ward) decides to leave him after presumably many, many years of marriage and nearing the eve of his retirement as a rescue swimmer, for no other reason then she can't take it anymore that he's more in love with saving lives than with her. To top things off, he's just had a near death experience and lost his entire crew during a rescue. She's been with him all these years, but picks now to leave him.
Needless to say, he's an emotional wreck and his commanding officer recognizes this offering him two choices: either retire now, or take a teaching position. Obviously he takes the teaching position.
Jake Fischer (Ashton Kutcher) is a state champion swimmer with scholarships to any university of his choice, but for some reason he's decided to join the Coast Guard and become a rescue swimmer. Randall thinks he's just a young punk with something to prove and doesn't buy his desire to save lives. In predictable fashion, he pushes Fischer (nicknamed "Fish" how clever) harder than anyone else. The movie proceeds to show whether Fischer can take it and what his true motivations really are.
Thoughts: The Guardian has been described as Top Gun meets the Coast Guard, and it's completely accurate. The Guardian follows the Top Gun formula (which admittedly makes for a good movie) almost to a tee. It's been a while since the Top Gun formula has been pulled out of the studios' closet so I wasn't too bothered.
Surprisingly Ashton Kutcher delivers a dramatic performance that surpassed my expectations. He's not going to win any oscars, but he's fully believable and enjoyable in the role. Costner really helps carry the show. Not only is he good, but he's charismatic and commands the attention of the audience. Every other character sadly has little or no bearing on the story. This movie is all about Randall and Fischer; a figurative father and son story.
The Guardian does a good job bringing you into the world of the Coast Guard. It spends a good amount of time in the training scenes to help deliver a sense of what it's like to become a rescue swimmer. The actual rescues themselves carry a strong amount of tension, and the special effects are as good as they come for this type of film.
The Guardian was never going to be an incredible film, but it could have been a better one. The biggest problem the film has is all the contrivances. Contrivances are when things happen for no apparent reason other than the script says so. Randall's wife leaving him after all these years made no sense. The guy was not only a legend in their town, but he was a true hero who saved lives. She's not upset because what he does is dangerous. She leaves him because he likes it too much. Huh? I really wanted to see her drown out in the ocean because another Coast Guard rescue swimmer didn't like what he did enough to try hard enough to save her. There are plenty more in the film such as the cliche'd love interest, and most importantly the end. I don't wanna spoil the film for you but one of the big events at the end of the film makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and I completely don't buy it. But the script wants it to happen to make a certain impact, so it happens. The
sick
infuriated
