The Biography of Moving Pictures

Currently...

2010-10-16T13:20:00.005-05:00

I've been super busy, not sure if I like it. School blows, but I'm coping. Haven't been playing games too much, been doing other things (work, school, sports, movies). I've been trying to read more. I have some ideas for articles that I'd like to put up soon, but you know me.

My film company's website is finally up. Hopefully I'll be getting a new template up soon, though. www.industrialgradefilms.com. Hopefully more good stuff will appear there soon, too.

Currently listening to:
MGMT's discography
The Who's discography
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, read by Stephen Fry

Currently reading:
Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions From Facial Expressions by Paul Ekman and Wallace V. Friesen
Inception by Christopher Nolan
Fletch by Gregory Mcdonald

Currently playing:
Cave Story (PC)
Halo Reach (360)
NHL 11 (360)
Sonic 4, Episode I (360)

Currently...

2010-08-11T22:51:00.004-05:00

Currently listening to:
The ArchAndroid and Metropolis: The Chase Suite by Janelle Monae
Game by Perfume
Animals by This Town Needs Guns

Currently reading:
Scott Pilgrim by Bryan Lee O'Malley
The Losers by Andy Diggle and Jock
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Phillip K. Dick
The Film Director by Richard L. Bare

Currently playing:
NHL 10 (Xbox 360)
Kirby Superstar Ultra (Nintendo DS)

Currently...

2010-05-20T09:34:00.005-05:00

Turns out I didn't really like the whole scanning paper thing. Go figure...

Currently listening to:
Prior to the Fire by Priestess
Year of the Black Rainbow by Coheed and Cambria
Dilemmas by Guiltmaker

Currently reading:
Street signs on US 19 between work in Seminole and home in Palm Harbor.

Currently playing:
NHL 10 (360)
Pokemon Fire Red (GBA)

In the News...

2010-03-15T22:45:00.002-05:00

Here's the first post with the new scanning thingamajig. Hope somebody likes it.

This is a Test of the New Posting System...

2010-03-15T22:09:00.002-05:00

I hope this will also give a more unedited edge to my blog and become more personal.

Currently...

2010-03-15T21:34:00.004-05:00

Currently listening to:
Animal by Ke$ha
Hits from the Bow by Arsonists Get All the Girls
Absolute Polysics by Polysics

Currently reading:
Ethics, Movie, and Math schoolbooks by a bunch of teachers.

Currently playing:
Batman: Arkham Asylum (PC)
NHL 10 (360)
Gran Turismo PSP (PSP)
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (PC)

Currently...

2010-01-10T13:25:00.004-05:00

Currently listening to:
The entire catalog of Swift

Currently reading:
A Short History of the Movies by Gerald mast and Bruce F. Kawin
Intermediate Algebra, an Applied Approach by some teachers
Ethics Applied by more teachers
American Government & Policies Today: The Essentials by even more teachers

Currently playing:
Nothing on my 360 because it croaked.
Crayon Physics Deluxe on the PC

Currently...

2009-10-09T14:14:00.010-05:00

Currently listening to:
Back on the MF Street and First Aid Kit by Disco Ensemble
Hello Master by Piestess
Dethalbum II by Dethklok

Currently reading:
The Internet, and believe me, it's not worth it.

Currently playing:
Gran Turismo PSP (PSP)
NHL 10 (Xbox 360)
Need For Speed: Shift (Xbox 360)

Currently...

2009-08-24T15:27:00.005-05:00

Currently listening to:
Ruination by Job for a Cowboy
Shogun by Trivium
The Dark Knight (soundtrack) by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard
Dying to Say This to You by The Sounds

Currently Reading:
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

Currently Playing:
Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII (PSP)
Final Fantasy VII (PSP)
Metal Gear Solid (PSP)
Prince of Persia (Xbox 360)
Need for Speed: Most Wanted (Xbox 360)

Currently...

2009-07-02T10:57:00.006-05:00

Currently Listening To:
The Protomen by The Protomen
Street Fight, Round One by Man Factory

Currently Reading:
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

Currently Playing:
Final Fantasy VII (PSP)
Metal Gear Solid (PSP)
Need for Speed Most Wanted (Xbox 360)
Ninja Gaiden (NES)

The Ballad of John Connor or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Judgement Day, Part 2

2009-05-28T11:37:00.013-05:00

I guess over the years I've seen so many movies that some things that go on behind the scenes become apparent, even when seeing the movie for the first time.

Le'ts talk about Bale's freakout. Apparently the Director of Photography, Shane Hurlbut, was walking around behind the camera making sure the lighting looked good while they were filming, and it was distracting Bale. I can see where Bale's coming from. Having a lot of shit going on behind the camera is tough, but not 4-minute f-bomb tirade tough. After hearing the whole thing via YouTube, I didn't think that Christian Bale was particularly a bad guy for that. I mean, yea, he overreacted, but we all have bad days, and when you're a movie star, everybody knows when you have one.

The rumors that then surfaced about the major changes to the story because Bale demanded them now that he was signed on to play John Connor and how unprofessional he was on the set were getting out of hand. Honestly, when you get a guy like Bale to play the role of John Connor, you expand it because you want to get asses in the seats, let alone because you now have one of the best and hottest (star-power wise) modern actors playing the role.

I encourage you to go to YouTube and listen to this diatribe if you haven't. I want you think about what you hear and what you don't hear. There is somebody trying to speak up over Bale, but he sounds like a little mouse, or a scared child trying to stop an argument between Mommy and Daddy.

That little squeaking? That's the director of the film, McG. The director.

I've watched a few interviews with McG. I can't really say too many bad things about the guy, with the exception of the fact that he's a little delusional as far as his filmmaking ability. So he's got a bit of a douchey attitude, but I can almost say with certainty that it's mostly atrribute to his delusions that he's a great filmmaker. That shows right there, that he doesn't completely know what he's doing when he cannot control two people on his set. Two professionals at their craft, and he can't even get one to sit still long enough and then subsequently can't get Christian Bale to shut up. What's more is that when it's over, McG wants to have Christian take five and cool off, but Bale just screams at him that he's ready and wants to finish shooting the scene.

To me, that kind of sums up the entire movie, philosophically. McG just didn't have control. It was disconnected by the script, the very plot itself. It's somewhat fast pace made it hard to control and show character growth while still advancing the plot at a reasonable enough pace so that it A) Kept the attention of the audience, and B) Concealed the weakness of the script. This, to me, is such a vicious cycle that it really made it hard to see the film as a serious part of the franchise, which is funny considering how pivotal and serious the happenings in the film are to the franchise.

Naturally you ask "whose to blame?" Naturally again you look at the douchey director, McG. But nay, I say, look to the piece, as a whole. Look at the screenwriters, the team that gave us Catwoman, The Net, Primeval, The Net 2.0, and of course, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. I implore you to consider that there were 17 different producers on the film with very limited filmographies. Finally, I ask you to consider the very plot itself. You have 115 minutes to tell a story about one of the first T-units (Marcus Wright), Kyle Reese's introduction, subsequent capture and rescue, and John Connor's story about being a "leader or men", unpopular with the resistance generals because of his almost religous following and the fact that he's right all the damn time about the future. Now you have to take those stories, make sure your characters arc, and then intertwine them in a culmination that sets the stage for the events of the first Terminator film.

Obviously, with 115 minutes, you're going to have to cut some corners. The problem was that story was cut out to make way for the action, which probably wasn't the smartest of ideas. All of these things together made what ended up to be a rather weak movie. Philosophically the movie served it's purpose to further bridge the gap between the future and the past in the franchise, but didn't deliver that in a mental and emotional punch, just a popcorn sort of jab. It also didn't help that we were bombarded with this movie from a PR standpoint.

All I'm saying is that sometimes it's not all the director's or the stars' fault. I'm not saying that you shouldn't not call the movie bad. I'm just saying that after watching the movie, you should think about it for a minute, consider it's purpose, it's intent, what it delivered or didn't deliver, and then make a judgement. And when making that judgement, take a deep breath, relax, and remember: it's just a movie.

A Summer movie.

The Ballad of John Connor or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Judgement Day, Part 1

2009-05-28T10:27:00.020-05:00

On Memorial Day, I went to see Terminator: Salvation with Jimmy and Jared. This flick was hyped all to hell and back and there was some internet buzz created when audio ended up getting leaked that had a very upset Christian Bale chewing out the Director of Photography on the film.

Terminator: Salvation is the fourth film in the Terminator franchise. This is the first film that takes place post Judgment Day. It follows the stories of John Connor, a leader of a group of resistance fighters, and Marcus Wright(played by Sam Worthington), a former convict who's been given a second chance. Without giving too much away, Marcus comes across a teenage Kyle Reese(Anton Yelchin), and he and Marcus attempt to get out of a dilapidated Los Angeles and find John Connor, who is also looking for Reese.

If that sounds like a lot is going on in the story, you're right, that is a lot. Sadly, it doesn't really show in the film. With those two storylines having to eventually merge, the movie goes rather quick and doesn't give you the ability to gain much attachment to the characters unless you're already familiar witht he recurring characters, and even then, they aren't really themselves, at least not in the sense we last saw them. I'm not sure if I could even blame a poor script for this, either. It just feels that they may have tried to cram too much story into two hours worth of movie. There was no real focus on either character, Marcus Wright or John Connor. This left a lot to be desired in the character development. The acting was pretty good, even if the script didn't give them much to work with. You could see that the main characters understood and felt what their characters felt at the right moments, even if the audience didn't, although I'm not really sure why Bryce Dallas Howard(who played Mrs. John Connor) and Moon Bloodgood(playing Blair Williams) were even in the movie. Their characters were kind of to serve two small purposes that could have been done by nearly anyone, so I'm not sure why they were cast, especially when looking at their screen time to star power ratio. Well, maybe not Bloodgood, she fit. Okay, forget I said that at all. Still, you don't get to see certain things in the characters and therefore do not completely understand what is emotionally motivating them. You only see what the story is driving them to do.

The action suffers from being a little bland, and just overall not very exciting. The special effects were good, but with the lack of real intensity in the action, they weren't as creepy or as scary as they've previously been. It seems that Skynet kind of became a little less ruthless than it previously had been as well. There was no real logical hunting pattern for the self-aware machine network, and it seemed that people could hide in the most obvious of places and survive.

All in all, I can't really say the film was particularly bad, it just wasn't too good. It's sort of popcorn feel didn't really help or hurt the franchise, per se, but the overall philosophy behind the Terminator series is a little less deep thanks to failed rescue attempt of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines by Terminator: Salvation.

It's Been Almost Six Years and Maybe I've Finally Stopped Being an Idiot

2009-04-29T10:17:00.022-05:00

I have finished my first semester of college. It certainly wasn't what I expected. I probably didn't do as good as I could have, but I think of this as a test run to see if I would even like school again. Turns out I do like it and plan on staying for a while.

But the reason I'm going is not totally for the education, or the stupid little piece of paper that I'll dive deep into debt for. It was for the challenge, connections, and the experience.

Ever since graduating high school I've spiraled into a sort of social phobia that seemed completely incurable. I felt alone socially, artistically, and philosophically.

Testing the waters of a real job happened after a year or so of working with my father. Sure it was a laid back place and my mother worked there, but it was a legitimate job. I felt comfortable with the people that worked there, but then again, most of them were adults, and adults seem to like me for some reason. At one point, we did have some people fresh out of college, a little older than me at the time, and they scared the life out of me. For some reason, people my age make me nervous. Like I'm not somebody they'd like.

I've always kind of felt that way about the people my age. I still do. I'm not sure I'll ever be over it.

So five years after completing high school I decide it's a good idea to go back to school. It was November 2008, I had just been laid off from only my second legit job I've ever had, and the economy was in the drink, so I figured I didn't really have much to lose.

The interesting thing is that for four years I said I wasn't going to go to school for film. Then I sat in that counselor's office and she asked, "Have you decided on a major yet?"

"Film," I replied.

Because I realized there is nothing else I'd really like to do.

So my first semester started with the basic classes: Algebra, Comp, Humanities, and an elective. This elective, a film study class called Introduction to Motion Pictures, has pretty much changed my life.

It wasn't so much the content, or the teacher. It was pretty much a single person, another student in the class who thought the class was an introduction to producing a movie. His name, Wil Magness.

Wil is like me, a guy who wanted to make movies and maybe thought going to film school would be a good idea. Only real difference between us was that I knew that this class was a film study class. Oh, and that he had made a couple short movies already.

This difference led to his brilliant idea: Use people from the class to make a movie. The teacher also thought it was a great idea, and he commenced with putting together a cast and crew, etc. I told him I could pretty much do any job behind the camera, but the poor audition turnout put me into the unknown territory of being in front of the camera.

I know that I had learned a lot in my four years of theater in high school and all the books about filmmaking I had read, but I still wasn't completely ready to have a camera shoved up my nose. I learned a lot about the mentality of everyone in the crew. I learned about finding things inside and understanding the difference between the way your face feels when you're happy and the way it feels when you're sad.

Most importantly, I learned that I wanted to make movies for the rest of my life.

In a way, making Finals with Wil was an awakening. I learned once and for all that it's really as easy as just going out and shooting. I learned that I have the knowledge, and now it's time to apply it and really become a filmmaker, what I've always wanted.

To be honest, the rest of my classes didn't particularly teach me much else about myself, except that I'm a lazy jerk who should really consider trying for a change.

Currently...

2009-04-24T21:30:00.000-05:00

Currently Listening To:
Crack the Skye by Mastodon
iwrestledabearonce by iwrestledabearonce
Mono's discography

Currently Reading:
Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting by Syd Field
Faranheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller/Klaus Janson/Lynn Varley
Y: The Last Man by Brian K. Vaughn/Pia Guerra

Currently Playing:
Bioshock (Xbox 360)
Final Fantasy (PSP)
Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII (PSP)
NHL 2k9

Things Up Next:
World War Z by Max Brooks
A History of Violence by John Wagner/Vince Locke

Alexander Revisited: Quick Review

2009-04-24T19:52:00.000-05:00

For a film that flopped in the American box office and was panned by American critics, you'd think that over 3.5 million people would have opted to not buy Alexander on DVD. Between that and the three different versions of the DVD that came out, I became determined to sit down and watch the Oliver Stone's "final cut" of the film, which I found for only $5 in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart. I had watched the "director's cut" prior to that, finding it particularly hard to watch, harder to follow, boring, and pretentious. Usually when three versions of a DVD get released, there is a good reason for it.

I'm here to tell you, there isn't one.

So we're all clear on what's what, the film had three DVD versions: A theatrical cut, a "director's cut", which was actually shorter than the theatrical version, and then the "final cut", which director Oliver Stone himself calls the most complete version, and it's 214 minute runtime certainly shows that. The final cut also has many other changes and brings together what Stone said was all the footage that they had shot. Again, at 214 minutes, if there was any film left after this one, fucking burn it so we don't have a fourth DVD, "Alexander's Final Director's Revisited Cut".

So I guess I can't really put off talking about the movie anymore(shit). I would be lying if I said that this cut of the film didn't change anything. It does. Some of the changes and extra footage really change the tone of the film, some of which making it allegedly more historically accurate, too. I'm still not convinced of this movie's brilliance. I will say that I felt this cut was a lot better, but I still felt that isn't saying much. I thought the battles were too clustered, lacked style and flavor. The script was too wordy, didn't let the characters tell enough of the story through action. The action was a little on the stiff and unnatural side. Stone's camerawork and color palettes are uninspiring, even if the film is good looking and colors vivid.

The one good thing I will say about this movie is that the music is great. Vangelis saved this movie from completely suckage, straight up. Anytime the movie starts to lose it's edge or tone, the music is able to bring it back down a little bit.

In closing, if you liked the original cut and aren't afraid of long movies, you'll probably like this longer version. The changes that were made added some much needed depth and chemistry. Too bad it was too little too late for me.

Currently...

2009-03-29T23:40:00.000-05:00

Might be interesting to know.

Currently Listening To:
This is Animal Music by Look Mexico
Incredibad by The Lonely Island
Watchmen: The Official Soundtrack
Crack the Skye by Mastodon
The Fame by Lady Gaga

Currently Reading:
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
The Guerrilla Filmmaker's Movie Blueprint by Chris Jones
Y: The Last Man by Brian K. Vaughn/Pia Guerra
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller/Klaus Janson/Lynn Varley
Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do by Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson
The Byron Review by Dr. Tanya Byron

Currently Playing:
NHL 2K9 (Xbox 360)
Burnout Paradise (Xbox 360)
Street Fighter 4 (Xbox 360)
Bioshock (Xbox 360)
Star Ocean: First Departure (PSP)
Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars (DS)

Things Up Next:
World War Z by Max Brooks
A History of Violence by John Wagner/Vince Locke
GTA IV: The Lost and Damned
Arcade Mania: The Turbo-charged World of Japan's Game Centers by Brian Ashcraft

I'll try to update every time I move onto something new.

Movie Log Project.

2009-03-12T23:26:00.003-05:00

So I got the idea for this when I was thinking about how many movies I'd seen. I then thought about the fact that I have kept about 90% of my movie theater stubs since November 10, 2001. I then remembered that I had all of my stubs from 2009 on my bookshelf. So I decided I wanted to know how many movies I watch in a year. So these spreadsheets were born. I imagine that I may change the fields around a little as I go, but the basic premise is that I'm going to track the movie's title, when I watched it, where I watched it, who I watched it with, whether it was the first time I had seen the movie, and a grade from 1 to 5 on the movie. So hopefully this turns out to be as interesting as I hope.

As promised:

Movie Viewing Log

Theater Going Log

Check up on them from time to time if you want. I'm sure I'll mention the milestones as they arrive.

Update

2009-03-12T15:22:00.004-05:00

I'm sorry to all of my faithful readers who I've let down by not updating in so long.

Yeah, right.

Anyways, I've been busy with all kinds of stuff.

I started college for the first time in January. It's fun. I have a film study class in which we watch movies and then talk about them. Certainly the highlight of my week. Between the movies and the variety people there, it's a blast. My other classes just remind me of my agoraphobia. Like I can only really be myself in the film class.

There is one guy in particular named Wil. He thought the class, called "Introduction to Motion Pictures" was more of a introduction to making movies, which is what he wants to do (like me). He decided to ask if we could make a movie in class. So we did. We spent two weekends making a short film about two college students around the time of final exams. I wanted to help behind the scenes, but we needed presence in front of the camera, so I did what was needed. It was a great experience and I got to interact with a bunch of cool people. I hope I get the opportunity to work with Wil again in the future.

We showed the film to the class and they seemed to like it well enough. Pretty much everyone else I showed it to liked it well enough, too. I'm glad I did okay. Apparently Wil is showing it again this weekend in a small little film fest and has submit it to the Jacksonville Film Fest, too.

So other than school I've been keeping the pen on paper and writing all my usual stuff. Wil has inspired me so I'm hoping to have a short that I've been working on completed and ready to shoot this summer.

Final thing:

The other day I started a personal project. I'm going to create and publish a log that lists every time I watch a movie. Separate from that, I'll have another log of every time I go to the movie theater. I'll try to publish it sometime soon and post a link.

I'll try to come up with more stuff to post.

Review for the Dark Knight

2008-07-17T08:15:00.002-05:00

Go check out my review of The Dark Knight here. It's the condensed version so I hope to have the full one up here by next week.

Don't 'Grow Up', it Makes You a Douche

2008-05-14T09:11:00.015-05:00

You know, this is probably going to read of utter ridiculousness and contradiction, but I don't care, read between the lines.

I'm over all of the garbage about movies that are comprised of what I would call "eye candy" being called bad.

No, I'm not talking about the new What Happens In Vegas...

I'm talking about Speed Racer, Iron Man, Transformers, any movie made by Michael Bay, etc. There are several other articles that I could write about this, like the fact that there is an unrecognized genre of film that I call the "Blockbuster Action" genre. Another name is the "Michael Bay" Genre. Most people just call it crap. The other would be about "re-imagining" something that was once in a different medium and/or comic book movies. All articles that I started to write, but realized that they are mostly exercises in futility, considering the people I'm trying to persuade(the futility of why I write on this thing to begin with is another story, too. I mean really, who reads this thing?).

It seems that grown ups will label a movie "for kids" because they can't suspend their disbelief. I started writing a review for Transformers when it came out. I had to stop at the third page when I realized I was mostly just defending it to the idiots out there. So I've decided that I will do a bit of a miniature review as well as try to quantify my rage and explain why you should always just suspend your belief completely when going to the movies or watching a movie.

As for Transformers, I will sum it up nice and simple for you. Ready?

Transformers, A review:
Transformers was a film which was based on a cartoon that was, in turn, based on a line of toys. The cartoon was subsequently a 22 minute (accounting for commercials) advertisement for the toys. What the fuck did you assholes expect? It's not Citizen Kane(and for all the pricks who didn't like Transformers and haven't seen Citizen Kane, Rosebud's his fucking sled. You deserve that. And Snape kills Dumbledore.), it's a movie about giant robots from another world who turn into vehicles and fight each other. I ask any man to answer this question: What is not fucking awesome about that? I'll tell you. Nothing is not awesome about that. Giant robots turning from car to giant robot and back again whilst fighting each other is completely awesome. If you are male and disagree, please turn in your testicles and man card. After that, close this article and go light yourself on fire, you will serve no purpose here. This movie is step on your neck awesome. It has giant robots, cool cars, explosions, two hot pieces of ass, one of which is barely legal. Besides those two hotties making out, you can't really ask for anything else. Intriguing story, maybe? No, go fuck yourself. There is plenty of story in the film, enough for you to get the basic picture, and that's all you need. Put your brain on cruise control and be amused by the flashing lights and GIANT FUCKING ROBOTS FIGHTING EACH OTHER!!!!!!!

Okay, so that's done. I'm through with that part. Now I'm going to move on to a more technical approach.

The way I see it, as a filmmaker, it should be your responsibility to instill the "reality" into the film. Meaning, as a viewer, I go into the movie theater with close to as complete suspension of disbelief as possible. Then, the movie should then guide you back to its level of reality. To be honest, it's really as simple as that. I imagine that you could argue that the filmmaker didn't do a good enough job, but usually a film's title and trailer can do that for you, let alone a very small amount of reading into the film's subject matter. I direct you again to Transformers.

The other part of it is being in the mood for the movie. If you and your friends are sitting around watching Super Troopers, you probably shouldn't run out to the theater to catch The Passion of the Christ. That being said, if you are someone who doesn't enjoy movies that border on the side of fantasy, you probably shouldn't go see a film like Speed Racer, Transformers, or most any animated feature, for that matter.

This morning I read on CNN about the Indiana Jones films being pure fiction(that was the headline: "Experts: 'Indiana Jones' pure fiction").

Really?

Is it?

I thought it was a documentary. Fucking idiots. Of course it's not serious. Have you ever seen how Anglo-centric ...Temple of Doom is? Or in Raiders... where ghosts come out of the lost ark and kill like twenty Nazis. You mean that didn't/doesn't happen in real life!? The best part is, the movie never portrays itself as serious, as a matter of fact, not only does it make fun of itself, but it also sets the record straight in the ...Last Crusade when Dr. Henry Jones Jr. (Indiana) tells his students "...forget any ideas you've got about lost cities, exotic travel and digging up the world. We do not follow maps to buried treasure, and 'X' never, ever marks the spot." I'm just going to post the excerpt from the article to make my point here.

"In 1989's "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," nerdy Professor Henry Jones Jr. tells students that 70 percent of archaeology is done in the library and advises them to "forget any ideas you've got about lost cities, exotic travel and digging up the world. We do not follow maps to buried treasure, and 'X' never, ever marks the spot."

Trading his classroom tweeds for his leather jacket and fedora hat, his alter-ego Indiana Jones then proceed to smash through crypts, kill scores of Nazis and desecrate a grave by using a human leg bone as a torch. And, in one scene, 'X' literally does mark the spot.

The reality of archaeological field work is not a lone hero dashing into hidden chambers with a bullwhip and a pistol and coming away with a priceless relic. It's large groups of academics and students painstakingly sifting through grids to retrieve artifacts as mundane as pottery fragments.

"It is rather adventurous in a way, because for the most part, you're going to some exotic country and delving into their past. But it's not an adventure with a whip and chasing bad guys and looking for treasure," said Bryant Wood, an archaeologist with Associates for Biblical Research.

"You're working at one site tediously, probably for many, many years and spending more time processing the finds and writing reports than you do actually digging at the site. But that wouldn't make for a very good story, spending 70 percent of the time in a library.""

Are we fucking serious about this? Is this what the APs' top notch journalism is offering us? The author of the article points out that X does mark the spot in one scene of the film, contrary to what the character says. Then it points out that Dr. Jones, in the movie, says the exact same thing that the real archaeologist says. That's irony at it's finest, which the author should be well aware of, writing a article about a film's lack of realism, citing the ironic part of the film and then stating its fictional character proceeds to say the same thing as his real life counterpart. The next paragraph in the article should then be an apology for wasting our fucking time.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if you're going to nitpick about things, don't make them ridiculous things(I'm looking at you too, fanboys). Let's try to keep the whole "that doesn't really happen/exist so it's shit" arguments to a bare minimum. Al Gore and Michael Moore peddle some fiction in their biased documentaries, go fact check them.

I'm sorry I wasted your time.

Iron Man - Review

2008-05-02T10:02:00.010-05:00

So the other day, a friend of mine and I were discussing his review of Batman Begins and what he thought of the film. He had only one major complaint about the film and he likened this complaint to Star Wars, which, to me, unless speaking about Jar Jar Binks, is like saying that you hated the movie for the reason it was most awesome.

The complaint made by the General was that the movie spent more time developing the origin of Batman/Bruce Wayne and we hardly got to see him doing any Batman-ing.

My short argument is that the movie in question is called Batman Begins. The literal translation of the title, in English, is Batman, a comic book superhero whose secret identity is Bruce Wayne, an industrialist heir, philanthropist, and millionaire playboy; and Begins, meaning to come into existence. Pretty basic and self explanatory, I thought.

The long argument is that Batman Begins (as well as Star Wars, The Matrix, the story of Christ, and many, many, others) follows the outline of literature called the monomyth, often called "the hero's journey". Readers, I'm not going to hold your hand through this, as I'm here to review Iron Man, not walk you through Finnegans Wake.

The next part of the argument is the fact that Batman Begins is a franchise reboot. We need to see this new origin as to sever all ties with the other movies that have been made. The fact that so much superhero media (used) to skimp on the origin of the characters, they make sure and do it now so that the audience has more to identify with than just the mask.

But alas, I'm not here to talk anymore about Batman Begins and why it was awesome, I may have to do so now. I'm here to talk about Iron Man and why it was also awesome.

Iron Man is a Marvel comics' superhero that was created in 1963. It's character, Iron Man, is Tony Stark, a billionaire heir, engineering super-genius, playboy, and alcoholic. He is the CEO of Stark Industries, one of the world leaders in weapons manufacturing.

Stark has a bum ticker, so to speak. No matter what era you are reading or seeing Iron Man, his origin is pretty much the same. For the sake of this review, I'll stick with the movie. Tony Stark was doing a demonstration of his latest missile technology for the United States Air Force. On the way back, their convoy was attacked and Stark was taken prisoner. During the attack, shrapnel became lodged dangerously close to his heart and the only thing keeping him from death is an electromagnet installed in his chest installed by another prisoner, a Dr. Yinsen (who is also in pretty much every version of Iron Man as well).

In captivity, Stark is held hostage, being forced to recreate his missile out of Star Industries weapons, which his captors, calling themselves the Ten Rings, have amassed. Instead, he builds himself a new mechanism to protect his heart as well as a suit of armor that will help him escape. Upon his rescue and return, realizing that Stark Industries has been perhaps selling "his weapons" to bad people, he declares that Stark Industries will no longer manufacture weapons. Shortly thereafter, his partner, Obdiah Stane, informs him that the board of directors at Stark Industries has filed and injunction to block Stark from making that move and convinces him to take a sabbatical from the public eye.

During this time, he becomes more determined to make amends and begins tinkering with a new version of his powered suit as well as new version of his "pacemaker", which we learn is a miniature version of a super powerful energy rector, called an arc reactor. His birth as Iron Man comes when he finds out that the terrorist group that captured him has once again amassed Stark Industries weapons, including the missile tech that they wanted him to build.

The difficulty in making a movie based on a comic book is huge. You not only have to give the fans what they want, but you also have to give people who don't know Iron Man comics something they can enjoy as well. I felt that director Jon Favreau did just that. His choice in casting Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark was brilliant choice, as it brought not only a sense of humor, but a realistic depth to the character.

"The best and worst moments of Robert's life have been in the public eye," the Favreau was quoted as saying. "He had to find an inner balance to overcome obstacles that went far beyond his career. That's Tony Stark. Robert brings a depth that goes beyond a comic-book character who is having trouble in high school, or can't get the girl."

I agree with that statement. Downey seemed to have a deep understanding of what Tony Stark on the screen should be as opposed to the Tony Stark on the page, which is an extremely important and incredibly challenging change to make. As I mentioned at the beginning, the story mainly focuses on the birth of Iron Man and the eye opening experience that Tony Stark has. You get to learn about the complexity of Tony Stark and it's known from the beginning of the movie that Tony is not stupid by any means. He learns that he is naive, and takes immediate steps to repair himself and hopefully the world.

It wasn't all about Downey, though. The supporting characters of the film more than held their own. In fact, Jeff Bridges commanded attention when on screen as Obdiah Stane. While the moments between Stark and best friend and Air Force Colonel James Rhodes (played by Terrence Howard) were few, they had a meaning and built what I saw as a close friendship. While Tony Stark is a billionaire skirt chaser, he's not without love in his heart. His budding love interest is his personal assistant, Miss Pepper Potts (played by Gwyneth Paltrow). Their innocent budding love for each other is very cute and their chemistry, to me, seemed undeniable. The script, as a whole, shows humanity, lack thereof, and intelligence, albeit somewhat subtle. Most could cast it out as being stupid or kind of tinny, no pun intended. I would counter that by pointing out it's structure and that the film is really devoid of any overly cheesy or clichéd lines or scenes, even if they do seem short and rather normal. It's five stage monomythic story arcs nearly to completion, leaving plenty of character to be explored with the next possible films in the series (Favreau and the principals have been signed for two sequels).

The action and the effects are exciting and nearly without flaw. Not that I expected anything less from Industrial Light and Magic and Stan Winston Studios. Jon Favreau did an excellent job with the directing of the film, keeping the camera work simple yet aesthetically amusing, accentuating the action with quick cuts and pans and getting the performances from the actors that maintained accuracy to the spirit of the script as well as the source material. The sound effects were basic, with loud explosions and gun fire, etc. The heavily guitar-laden soundtrack fit well enough with the film, but did not particularly stand out in a way that anyone will do more than scoff at.

I loved this movie, but in terms of good or bad, I would label this movie as good. Not Citizen Kane, but not House of the Dead. I mean sure there weren’t giant full scale wars between robotic looking beings, but then again, we've already seen that movie. You can tell that the budget was modest and Favreau did an excellent job with what he had. He made a beautiful opening film to what could potentially be a great story arc and series. It told a complete story, but left you asking questions (one very big question), as well as wanting more. Other than the large hype machine surrounding the film, It was soundly devoid of pretentiousness and seemed fairly grounded in modesty, giving it a sense of realism. I can say that I would recommend this film fans of Iron Man as well as people who seem even slightly interested in it. There is some great material to be enjoyed.

Come For: Guy dressed like a robot blowing shit up
Stay For: A refreshingly smart and unpretentious superhero story

Screw You, Ottawa

2008-04-16T21:09:00.006-05:00

Paybacks are a bitch. See you next season, pussies.

Good Luck Getting Past the First Level

2008-04-16T07:55:00.010-05:00

For those of you on Xbox Live and have been living in a cave(similar to how I've been living when at my dad's with limited internet and playoff hockey on TV), cult classic Japanese top-down shooter Ikaruga is on the Xbox Live Arcade(XBLA) for download.

For those of you who have the 800 M$oft points(about $10), I suggest buying it, as it is one of the best and most impossible games you will ever play. Like I said before, Ikaruga is a top-down scrolling shooter made by Treasure Co., Ltd. Treasure Co. is known for the original Silpheed game(prior to the new one by SETA Corp./Square Enix) and Gradius V on the PS2. Ikaruga was originally developed and released only in the arcades of Japan in 2001, finding its way to the Sega Dreamcast in 2002(also only in Japan), and finally the Nintendo GameCube in 2003.

What makes Ikaruga stand out from traditional top-downs is the polarity game play mechanic. The player pilots the Ikaruga, a ship that can change from white(blue) to black(red) and must destroy enemies of the same two polarities. Unlike in most top down shooters, not all the bullets fired from the enemies can destroy you, only the ones of the opposite polarity. Like your enemies, the Ikaruga will shoot bullets of its current color, causing twice as much damage to enemies of the opposite color. This creates the largest part of the challenge, switching polarity to deal high damage or keep partial invulnerability.

This game is impossible. Not only does it throw hordes of enemy ships at you, but their black and white bullets will mingle about with each other, making it a complete bitch to navigate. In addition, the bosses will usually be one color, but fire tens of thousands of bullets in both colors making every boss battle a sweat inducing twitch fest. When I had the game on Dreamcast, I played once a day for about twenty minutes, and within a week, I was only on the second level. There is also no save function. Like at the arcade, you have to beat that shit the first time or not at all.

I'm pretty sure the game has some sort of plot. Read the wiki yourself if you're actually curious. The wiki also has some great trivia as well as more info if you really want it.

I recommend this game to any fans of top-down shooters or former arcade goers(or current arcade goers, for that matter).

Heath Ledger

2008-01-30T09:44:00.000-05:00

Heath Ledger's death was a tragedy. Read what Christopher Nolan wrote here. Here's a quote from the full article:

"Heath was bursting with creativity. It was in his every gesture. He once told me that he liked to wait between jobs until he was creatively hungry. Until he needed it again. He brought that attitude to our set every day. There aren't many actors who can make you feel ashamed of how often you complain about doing the best job in the world. Heath was one of them."

Also: Daniel Day-Lewis' SAG award acceptance speech dedicating the win to Ledger.

Winter-een-mas is here!

2008-01-25T13:00:00.000-05:00

Happy Winter-een-mas everyone!!!

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - PS3, PC, Xbox 360 Review.

2008-01-02T15:00:00.001-05:00

With the holiday season in full swing, one of the most talked about (and highly rated) games herein is Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. The fourth installment of the Call of Duty franchise, developed by Infinity Ward (the studio that developed the first two in the series) and published by Activision, is without question the best military shooter as well as one of the best FPSs to date. It features an intense single player campaign and a fairly in depth multiplayer.

The is mainly played from the perspective of a British 22 SAS recruit Sgt. John "Soap" McTavish and Sgt. Paul Jackson of the United States Marine Corps 1st Force Recon. The story tells of a Russian ultranationalist named Imran Zakhaev who wants to return Russia to the old ways of the Soviet Union. He has organized a revolt against the government and has seized a stockpile of nuclear weapons. To draw the attention of the U.S., Zakhaev funds a coup in the Middle East, led by ally Khaled Al-Asad. Soap and Jackson, with their respected crews, are trying to stop both Zakhaev and Al-Asad from achieving their goals.

One of the biggest differences in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is in the latter half of the title. The timeline has moved from World War II to modern day. In addition to the updated time period, COD4 has also updated the way the game's plot unravels. The region oriented storytelling has been changed to a more film style, with the fates of the SAS and Marine Corps intertwining (there's even a flashback mission!).

Likewise, with the modern time comes the modern warfare. The characters you control get to use modern weapons, most profound being the FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank guided missile. Infinity Ward's in house game engine features some of the best graphics in console gaming today, with true world lighting, high dynamic range rendering and an amazing physics engine that let's bullets pierce through wood, sheet metal, and just about anything a bullet would be able to go through.

One of the other great things about this game is the addition of "cheats" and the Arcade Mode. Throughout the game are laptops called "enemy intelligence". After completing the game once, you unlock a section in the options menu with "cheats". These cheats including slow motion or having enemies explode into tires when they are killed, activated only when collecting the proper number of pieces of intelligence. The Arcade Mode is also unlocked after completing the game once. This mode allows you to play through on level or the whole game and accumulate a score for all your killing. Both of these modes can be viewed as a cheap way to increase replay value, but I think give slightly more incentive to play through the game a few times.

The multiplayer, while deeper than Halo 3, is not as deep as some of the other shooters on the PC. Achieving a goal or killing an opponent nets you experience points, which eventually get you a higher rank, which in turn leads to being able to customize your character with bigger and better gear. The hard part is keeping up with the guys that already have all the good shit to get there, unless you've been online from day one. While I wouldn't so much say it's a weak point for the game, I will say it's not exactly the strongest selling point.

After having a chance to play this game on the PS3, PC, and Xbox 360, the obvious observation would be that the graphics and controls are much smoother on the PC; but as far as the consoles go, it's difficult to tell the difference and I personally found the controls worked a little better on the 360, but that could be due to my experience with the controller (or my preference). I don't really have any gripes about the game, really. It's probably the best shooter on the console and one of the best on the PC to date.

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is a must own for FPS players.

Single player played to completion on "regular" and "hardened" mode on Xbox 360 and PC. Some single player and multiplayer played on PS3.

Aliens Vs. Predator: Requiem - Movie Reveiw

2007-12-30T17:33:00.000-05:00

On Christmas day I went to see Aliens Vs. Predator: Requiem with Jimmy. The major difference in this movie from its previous installment is the Brothers Strause (Colin and Greg) directing, and thankfully, they don't hate the fans and the franchise like that last guy must have. Although don't get too excited, the property is still owned by 20th Century Fox, and we all know how much they nurtured the Alien franchise. Most importantly, the Brothers Strause decided to bring more credibility to a story that was already almost completely shot to shit with the previous movie and ended up not doing too bad.

I've decided to eliminate any real plot outline. The most important thing to know about the story takes place in about the first five minutes or so, which hit the internet a while ago. Here it is:

If that doesn't look interesting to you, then you probably wouldn't like the movie anyways. The rest of the story really doesn't matter. The only reason you watch it is to see Aliens fight a Predator, which brings me to my first point. I'm going to start by giving some small background on the Alien Vs. Predator franchise. The idea for AvP came about from two Dark Horse Comics writers brainstorming and thinking how awesome it would be to combine the two. In 1989 the first AvP comic was published. Since then several other comics, novels, and even video games have been published.

Keeping that in mind, I knew what I was in store for when I heard about the first Alien vs. Predator movie. Well that's not entirely true, I didn't expect it to be complete garbage, seeing as at the time I thought Resident Evil wasn't bad (which is isn't completely bad, I just maybe should have seen where it was going, especially given Paul W.S. Anderson's filmography). Anyways, I'm not here to review AvP (it stinks!), I'm here to review Aliens Vs. Predator: Requiem. The point I'm trying to make is that a movie of this purpose is made to please fans of the franchises, except the snobby ones, who will rip it apart no matter how good or bad it is (case in point: Star Wars).

Like I said before, the Brothers Strause did not have much to work with after that last film, and 20th Century Fox being who they are, probably didn't want everyone to forget about the last one like we all did, had them make this as a sequel (or as it has been dubbed on the internets here, Alien Vs. Predator: The Apology). Thankfully they abandoned any kind of PG-13 and went right for the R rating as you could probably gather from the clip shown above. That alone brought the film up to the level it needed to be at. The Brothers Strause did not skimp on violence, not in the least. This movie has plenty of the Aliens and Predator being completely kick ass awesome. I can honestly think I don't have much negative to say about the movie, other than some of the camera work was a bit amateurish, although they do get bonus points from me for having the predator enter from the top of the screen literally every time. The Brothers Strause started in the business via special effects, and own their own company, Hy*drau*lx, which is damn decent(even if the movies they do aren't), so those same great effects can be found in this movie.

That's really about all I have to say. If that clip looks interesting, then see the movie, you might like it, just don't let the first AvP movie discourage you too much.

Come for Aliens and a Predator killing shit, stay for...well...Aliens and a Predator killing shit.

Kane & Lynch: Dead Men - Xbox 360 Review

2007-11-19T10:47:00.000-05:00

So this weekend I rented and played through Kane & Lynch: Dead Men for the Xbox 360. The story revolves around two death row inmates who have to work together to do the bidding of a secret sect of assassins, of whom one of the main characters (the one you will be playing as) betrayed. The story and the voice acting keeps you so interested enough. Only problem is that the gameplay isn't always there to back it up.

If you couldn't gather it from the title, our two main characters are Kane and Lynch. Kane is a former hitman who left his family behind to keep them out of harm's way. His only feelings are regret that he couldn't know his family or make things right. On the other hand, Lynch is a seemingly normal human being, who blacks out and has psychotic episodes, which lead to the death of his wife and child. Lynch is contacted by The Seven, the sect that Kane has betrayed, to bring Kane to them and be his watcher while Kane and Lynch retrieve what rightfully belongs to The Seven (or so they say).

I'd like to point out that if you weren't a fan of the Hitman series, you may want to read this review (as well as others) to make sure you want to buy/rent this game. I read plenty of reviews, which is why I went out and rented it (plus I decided to buy Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare instead).

The graphics in Kane & Lynch... are on par with most all of the next gen games out today (save for the standouts this fall, you know which ones they are), with great textures on both the worlds and character models. One thing to note is the amount of the world that can be destroyed in the game. Columns will wilt away when being peppered with bullets. Cement corners will file down, leaving you and your enemies exposed with nowhere to hide.

One of the things in shooters today is the lack of a HUD (heads up display) to keep you posted on the status of your ammo, health, etc. This game is no exception. When taking fire, the screen begins to "bleed" turning more and more prominent red, and the camera even starts to tilt a little, giving a more cinematic feel. Since Kane, the character you control throughout the single player campaign, is always with Lynch, whenever you go down he is there to revive you with a shot of adrenaline (although too much can cause you to overdose and die), granted he can get to you fast enough.

The default controls are a bit clumsy and slow feeling. I turned up the turning and aim sensitivity and turned down the aim acceleration to give controlling Kane a bit of a smoother feel. With a little more tweaking I'm sure it could've been better, but I wanted to get to some killing.

As with most shooters, the premise is simple: Point and shoot. Kane & Lynch... delivers a variety of settings for you to do this, from an office building to jungle, giving it some longevity and desire to complete the game. The downside to this is that the clumsy controls and not so clumsy AI can make completing this game a bit frustrating at times, and may leave you cursing as often as Kane and Lynch in the story's dialogue.

On the multiplayer side of things, Kane & Lynch... features a local co-op, in which the second player gets to control Lynch, but no online co-op, which strikes me as odd and a bit disappointing. Alas, the online multiplayer mode Fragile Alliance more than makes up for it, and possibly the rest of the game's faults. In Fragile Alliance, you and the other players start off as a group of mercenaries working towards a similar goal (and while the exact goal changes, the end stays the same: Money). You'll fight against AI and try to grab as much cash as you can and then get away and the player with the most money at the end of the round wins, and therein lies the fragile alliance (see what I did there?). At the end of a round, you have to split your money with the rest of your teammates who got away with you. So obviously, the fewer there are, the bigger the reward. Most times this happens at the end of the round, waiting for the getaway car, you can choose to betray your teammates. The upside is a bigger cut, the downside is that you have a large orange "Traitor" above your head, and the guy you just killed gets to respawn as a police officer or whomever is trying to stop you during that mission. As a good guy, you get points for recovering cash, killing the bad guy, and getting revenge by killing the guy who killed you. Fragile Alliance left me cursing, laughing, and most importantly, satisfied.

Kane & Lynch... could possibly be called the most disappointing game of the season, but when you're up against Assassin's Creed, Rock Band, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and Mass Effect, what isn't? I enjoyed the single player campaign enough to not feel bad about myself for beating it, and I had a blast with the Fragile Alliance multiplayer mode. I can see how this game could accumulate some die hard fans. I recommend this game for all shooter fans, even if just as a rental.

6.75/10

Rambo IV: The Quest For Peace

2007-10-15T09:58:00.001-05:00

Time's up. Let's do this.

2007-09-12T10:55:00.000-05:00

I do not play WoW. For some reason I think this is hilarious.

My Celebrity Look-alikes

2007-08-15T15:41:00.000-05:00

Review: Rocky Balboa

2007-07-04T08:30:00.000-05:00

“All of boxing is hoping for a warrior that can thrill us with his passion.”

I watched Rocky Balboa a few days ago. I’m impressed. It seems that Sylvester Stallone has learned the finer points or writing and directing and has finally decided to flex his filmmaking muscle with this picture. Rocky Balboa is the sixth and final installment of the Rocky franchise (then again, that's what we said about Rocky V). It follows an older Rocky and his inner struggle with his grip on the past. This new movie has a lot of real drama and centers more around it than the fight. The things that stand out the most are the visual style of the movie and the characters themselves.

The movie opens with a boxing match between current champion, Mason “The Line” Dixon (played by real life boxer Antonio Tarver) and an unnamed opponent. He knocks him out in less than a minute, sparking boos from the crowd and criticism from sports media everywhere.

We then see Rocky. Old and a little out of shape. He visits the grave of Adrian Balboa and tells her brother Paulie (Burt Young) that time goes by too fast. We then see his relationship with his seemingly estranged son (Milo Ventimiglia), who tries hard to not live in his father’s shadow. Rocky owns a restaurant, named Adrian’s, where he tells fight stories to the patrons who want to hear them.

“You’re living backwards, Rocko, change the channel from yesterday!”

At the end of the night, Rocky takes a tour of the places he and Adrian used to go with Paulie, who tells him he needs to stop living in the past. His trip down memory lane leads him to a tavern he used to go to where he meets an old acquaintance, Marie (Geraldine Hughes), a girl he walked home when they were kids. He offers her a ride home. He finds out they aren’t so different, both single parents living in a harsh world. He invites them to his restaurant and leaves.

“There’s always somebody out there. Always…”

Dixon visits his old trainer, who tells him that what he’s missing is his pride and self respect. He tells him that there is a challenge out there waiting for him that will give him what he needs to find those again. The challenge is found in a computer simulated boxing match between Rocky Balboa and Mason Dixon by ESPN. The outcome had Rocky as the victor, with some of sports media agreeing, causing many boxing fans to further question the true skill of Dixon. When Rocky sees the simulated fight the day after, the opinion of one journalist says otherwise, feeling Rocky was overrated.

“What’s crazy about standing toe to toe and saying ‘I am.’?”

Rocky’s mind is stirred and he asks his friends about returning to the ring. Both his son and Paulie think it’s a bad idea. We learn about the more emotional side of Rocky and his struggles with everything else after Adrian and things that aren’t boxing. He applies for his boxing permit and his initially denied, but makes an emotional speech to the athletic commission and changes their mind, and they grant his license. Upon news of this, Dixon’s promoters concoct a plan to challenge Rocky to an exhibition match in an attempt to bring legitimacy back to Dixon’s career. Dixon doesn’t want to do it, but is convinced that it is what he needs to do.

“Yea, but I ain’t interested in getting mangled or embarrassed...”

Dixon’s managers show up in Rocky’s restaurant one night and propose the idea of the exhibition match with a part of the proceeds for charity. Rocky says he needs to think about it. His insecurity about the idea is put to rest after talking with Marie. He accepts the challenge. His son confronts him about living in his father’s shadow and Rocky tells him that he needs to be his own man, like he’s doing with the fight. His friends and family come together for the moral support and Rocky begins his training for the fight.

“Let’s start buildin’ some hurtin’ bombs.”

Naturally there’s a training montage (complete with his jog up the museum steps again), with Rocky building his strength up as much as possible. His age prohibits him from speed training and sparring, so all that’s left is to build his muscles so that when he hits, it hurts. Bad. There isn’t much else to the movie after this point except the fight and I won’t ruin the ending or much of the details for those interested in seeing it.

“Yo Adrian, we did it!”

As far as the Rocky series is concerned, this is probably the best one, save for the first. This film shows an older and more mature Rocky Balboa and not only is it written that way, but Stallone brings that credibility to the character, but still leaves in the classic Italian Stallion charm. The true nature of Rocky, this fighter with a heart of gold really shines in this movie. You feel for him and want him to exorcise his inner demons just as much as his friends and family. The rest of the cast gives a stellar performance, especially Milo Ventimiglia, who shows the same mannerisms and tones that Stallone uses when playing Rocky. Burt Young gives a surprisingly powerful performance as Paulie, the stubborn brother-in-law and best friend of Rocky. A great addition was that of Geraldine Hughes, her interaction with Rocky was pure and innocent, leaving a more sweet attraction between the two and not the usual cheap chemistry between male and female leads.

The script was written by Stallone and I haven’t been able to find anything that says that anyone helped him write it. It’s written to mostly follow Rocky, with very little character development done outside of Rocky’s interaction. I honestly saw intention in this and think it was a good choice in the writing, depending on how you like your movies.

The cinematography was very crisp, most of the movie being shot either at night or indoors. The vibrancies and clarity of the film gives you a clear view of the aging Philadelphia Stallone wants you to see. You feel a part of the city, and you feel the age that Stallone feels. Stallone also had the fight at the end shot in high definition to give it an authentic pay-per-view look to it. The camerawork and directing was top notch, with Stallone showing his incredibly artistic side and his non-conventional filmmaking ability. You feel much like an observer in the film, some parts showing you things without dialogue to accompany it or wide shots to make you feel far away. Along with the script it puts you on Rocky’s side when it seems the whole world is against him.

I can’t say enough about how impressed I am by Stallone’s performance as Balboa and as a filmmaker. He brings this maturity to the film that nobody else could. The fact that he wrote the film he was able to understand the vision he had for the script as well as for the character of Rocky. The no nonsense attitude and good intentions show in full color and emotion from his performance. His knowledge of the mechanics of filmmaking has grown since Staying Alive and Rocky IV and his script writing has more than matured from Cliffhanger and Driven.

I’m not exactly a fan of Rocky, per se. I liked all the movies, including the ones that are considered bad. Something about them still made me watch them and enjoy it. I have a large amount of respect for Stallone and have gained more for him after watching this. If you are a fan, look this film up, you won’t feel so bad about the couple before it. If you’re a sports fan or just a dreamer, you’ll enjoy this movie for the same inspiration that the original Rocky was praised for in 1976. Finally, if you’re a fan of film, you’ll enjoy this movie for Stallone’s intelligent and artistic filmmaking.

The Hypocrolypse

2007-06-07T10:39:00.000-05:00

On June 7, 2007, Paris Hilton was released from jail to serve out the rest of her sentence under house arrest, claiming a 'medical condition'. The world cried injustice.

America - the best justice system money can buy.

It was just the event that the Illuminati, a group of people giving themselves said name, claiming to be spiritual children, needed to start the revolt. It wasn't their surprise when many joined them in their march to the White House. What they were surprised by, however, was their tenacity and hatred.

With guns blazing they took the capital, the president, the house, everything in only three months time. The army conceded, they also wanted no part in the unjust America, where the army doesn't get the money they need to fight the wars, only the rich.

They called for Paris Hilton to be brought before them, and she was, by her own servants, and placed at the feet of the Illuminati. She sobbed and renounced her terrible ways. They looked to the mob, who shouted "kill the whore!"

And they did. Her head rolling down to the crowd, letting it be kicked in triumph.

With the army in tow, the Illuminati set its sights on the next target: Canada.

Canada wanted no part with America, and equally so with the Illuminati, a bunch of fundamental crazies out to cleanse the earth of everything 'unjust'. The true injustice lied within the followers, picking the next target based on shouting of what they thought was so and moving on in blood lust. Desperately, Canada pleaded with the rest of the world, who was ready to forget about that half of the earth, which they really didn't care about anyways.

It was Russia, America's nemesis, who stepped in with the solution. Destroy the destroyers. The nations of the world gathered for a meeting as the Illuminati gained numbers, Canadians and Mexicans joining the cause rather than die.

"Destroy all of it!" Cried Russia.

South America's nations called foul, wanting to not be destroyed.

The mumbles and nods were shared by all, and the nations of the Americas in the South fell on def ears.

Then began the most cooperative act the world has ever seen, the nations of the world, save for South America, lined up it's nuclear weapons and pointed them towards what used to be the United States of America, Canada, and Mexico, and South America.

10

The countdown began, the Illuminati making their own plans to start nuclear war with the rest of the world.

9

Hugo Chavez lined his country's military for deployment in hopes to die fighting.

8

Much of the world's people didn't not condone the actions that were being taken, but they kept their mouths shut, for fear of what was next.

7

Many chanted that the death of the tyrannical America and the destruction of the Illuminati would give way to something worse.

6

Others thought just the opposite. That with the darkness of American out of the way, a new light will sine on the land.

5

Many of the Illuminati followers, sure of their own demise, began to repent, party, whatever they could to make the most of what little time they had left.

4

The leaders of the Illuminati came to a close on their preparations for a posthumous counterattack, if possible.

3

They scrambled the military and tried to ready their nuclear weapons.

2

The coordinates were set.

1

War. War never changes.

The launch of all the world's nuclear weapons and armies, the death of the world was now imminent. People fought without orders, rules, or leaders.

Civilians joined or hid, building shelters, safe houses, gathered supplies, and prepared for the worse.

Once the fighting had stopped, more than two decades later, the dust had settled, and the winter had set in, and was nearly over. The survivors left their shelters in search of anything else that had survived, in their minds a lore, a legend, only imagining what happened. There were only a few left that could remember the true cause of what had happened and they wrote and told everyone they could. For a century people were forced to try to rebuild and replenish a scorched earth, mostly dead. It was all in vain, and they could not have what some had pictures and memories of. Gone was the green grass, blue water and white clouds. The tall buildings were now just tall piles of rubble.

But man adapts. Survivors began this new life above ground, scavenging for anything worth anything to take back with them. Living off the land, and each other, doing whatever they can to survive. Small villages began to form and trade with one another, in peace, respecting each other's territory.

And so it starts again, just as it did in the beginning...

More on the Way

2007-03-20T13:49:00.001-05:00

I'd like to share what I've got coming up. I'll be working on four articles for the next few weeks probably. I'm sure I'll have a little something here and there in between. The majors that I'm talking about are The Art of the Franchise Reboot, which will be about that new Hollywood term that's going around to describe the recent sting of movies that revamp a former franchise; Propaganda as a Theme or a Theme as Propaganda in which I'll talk about how films use propaganda as a central theme as well as movies that use certain themes as propaganda, if that makes sense; The Oscar Popularity Contest, which will probably be a short piece about the voting process for the Oscars and my thoughts on that; and finally Breaking Down Bond, an article showcasing the individual, but not comparatively awesome talents of the actors that have portrayed legendary secret agent James Bond on film.

As it stands right now, expect to see the reboot piece done first, then the Bond article. I'm sure exactly when they'll be completed considering a couple have quite a bit of research needed. I hope they're done soon and I hope I don't lose your interest by then.

More on 300

2007-03-20T09:02:00.000-05:00

I guess some wise guy decided to comment, asking "What parts of 3oo were historically inaccurate?" I started to make a comment to reply, but it got so long, I decided to make it another entry.

Zack Snyder is quoted as saying the film is "90% accurate". From my research I would agree with that. There really isn't much to say on a grand scale that's inaccurate, and honestly, everything herein could probably be called 'nit-picking', but somebody wanted to know.

But before going on, I must say this: I do not care about the inaccuracies of this film. It's a glorious representation of the graphic novel which is a glorious representation of a historical even and it is art in its true form. Most of my research is coming from this thing I watched on the History Channel and Wikipedia, which you will probably find some direct verbiage from. With that said, here I go.

I'll start with what I would call the 'real-life' inaccuracies. The seven foot tall guy with the filed down teeth. Or that Xerxes wasn't six and a half feet tall. Or maybe the fat guy with his arms whittled down to bone and blades attached, or the llama-headed guy playing the violin thing.

The Battle of Thermopylae was to buy time, not only for the message to reach the council in Athens, because Athens already knew what was going on. It was to buy time for Athens to assemble its navy and win the Battle of Salamis, causing Xerxes to retreat back to Asia, leaving only about 120,000 Persians for the final land battle, known as the Battle of Platea.

As for the battle tactics and form, much of that can be labeled as well as argued as 'inaccurate'. According to most I've found, it states that the Spartan phalanx was more like a pushing match than any real strategy, and they would not have broken ranks like they did in the film, which they did because it would look way cooler(and I'm more than okay with that. Pushing matches were so sixth grade). The first row of the phalanx were for blocking only. The other two ranks behind would do the striking with the spears. More than one movie has had the first row of the phalanx lift their shields and strike. There is no record to confirm the exact way the Spartans used the phalanx.

Both the stunt coordinators/choreographers said in the video journals on the site that the fighting style used by the Spartans is a form that they made up from their experiences with the asian styles that they knew since there isn't much record to state exactly how they fought. From that we could speculate that the Persians would have been more likely to fight like that, instead of the immortals drop kicking and hacking like they did, which could be what the seemingly barbaric Spartans would have done.

Sparta was also known for owning slaves, unlike the Persian Empire, which reportedly hired and paid regardless of sex and ethnicity. It seemed that the Persian Empire was much less oppressive than the Greeks(only 14% of population could participate in the democratic government and nearly 37% were slaves), making a lot of the 'freedom isn't free' sentiment kind of inaccurate. This could spark another article based on point of view, not just from a moral standpoint, but from the standpoint of this specific film, as it was told from a Spartan point of view.

Okay, I'm done. I'm pretty sure I said in the previous post that the event laid the groundwork for the graphic novel, and the graphic novel(comic book) took the archetypes, the message, and built it into something fictional. The film is just a representation of that, with the directors own personal touches. Movies based on real events are always better when they're embellished. Reality bites.

300 - A Movie for Men.

2007-03-19T08:55:00.000-05:00

The first post is always the hardest...

I went to see 300 in IMAX with Jimmy and Kevin last night. I'm really disappointed that we had to settle for Parkside for the first time we saw it. Not only did it make me see what I missed the first time, but it also made me feel so bad for not seeing it like this, to be completely blown away the first time.

As for the movie itself, it's a great movie, and I dare say, a masterpiece. I am smitten by Zack Snyder's filmmaking ability and his fanboy-ness, if there is such a word. He said unto himself(taken from the video journal on the 300 official website), 'How can I make this graphic novel a movie? Not a movie as a Hollywood movie, but how can I make that(the novel) live.' And then he did just that. In addition to Zack Snyder's unique filmmaking ability, his desire to show the world what it takes to make a movie come to life is also unlike any other, providing eleven making of featurettes on the website, detailing everything from the training involved to making the ordinary men Spartans to the intricacies of the costume design.

As for what a lot of the critics said, they can die in a fire. In print, critics trashed the movie, saying only Quentin Tarantino and teenage boys would be fond of this much violence. Across the internet was a different story, with critics telling you to see it on the biggest screen possible.

As we all know, it's tough to be perfect, and 300 was far from it in terms of what it could have been. But honestly, anything else than what it is and it would have worse for the wear. For those who don't know, this movie, based on a comic book, is not historically accurate. Comic books take the archetypes of real people and then make them heroes and villains. Zack Snyder did was he was supposed to do, and that was bring the graphic novel to life. I believe he also added his own personal touch, something that he felt would bring more to the lore of the novel, the fantasy portion, the mythos, if you will.

Here's where I must snap back to reality. I loved this movie, and after seeing the credits roll for the second time, I'm afraid to say, those communists at the Academy will give it nothing. I've never been incredibly disappointed or angered by the winners of most the Oscars(some categories I don't particularly care for), but then again, they never really pick the ones I want to have them, anyways(but they are still usually worthy).

Last of all, I'll say this. Go see the movie and make up your own mind. It's not for everyone.

But it was for me and Jimmy, and we were so pumped afterwards that we had to go to the gym at 11:30 at night to try to be as Spartanesque as possible.