I really like Daniel Craig as a James Bond character; a pleasant change from Brosnan (*gag*). The car scene at the beginning was appropriately great; good bang 'em up. And the chase scenes on top of, to the side of and through buildings was excellent. I am curious how many of his own stunts Craig does. Very impressive stuff regardless.
But the story was a bit lame. And I have always hated Bondesque boat chases - they are so contrived and nothing resembling reality. Granted, a lot of the movie is that way, but I can live with most of it. But not boat chases. And back to the story.... it just did not grip me at all. Maybe I missed it, but I have no clue what "Quantum" was even supposed to be.
Personally, I rather trade the Brosnan-era, including all the fun gadgets, for the hard-hitting, gadgetless Craig era. I just hope the story writers get with it.
28 December 2008
Sins of a Solar Empire, by Stardock/Ironclad
In light of my earlier post on Stardock, I was playing the demo for Sins. It is a good game, and I am hugely disappointed there is no single-player story. Grrr!!
I cannot help but feel like this game was hugely inspired by Homeworld, with a little bit of Galactic Civilizations thrown in. The graphics are great (not awe-inspiring, but great) and the gameplay is refreshingly easy to grasp. The ships scale well (fighters and bombers are really small, planets are big). The sounds leave something to be desired, and I was hoping more from explosions (it is appropriate that the capital ships leave debris, but they all explode and fragment the same way). Also, as I am only playing the demo, I have read that it is possible for one of the races to upgrade to a level where you can target specific sub-systems. I hate that. This should be something that any race, any ship can do. Even if you only target a physical part of the ship (aft, port, starboard, bow). I was also disappointed by the tech tree - it is not bad, but I want more of out of it, especially since there is no single-player scenario. On the other hand, I was really impressed that some of the games can take hours upon hours; this can be a bad thing, if all you are doing is waiting. The slow pace of the game is good to some degree; or rather, good for certain aspects. It is nice that you can complete a black market deal without having to just close the window and frantically jump to the system that is under attach. The flip side is that the weapons are notoriously weak; it takes a long time to pummel other ships and planets. It is an interesting choice, especially when you figure that genre-setting building blocks like Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica allowed capital ships to annihilate fighters and corvette-class ships with a single shot; even fighters had enough firepower to obliterate another fighter. But not in this game.
The nuance of "persuasion" and "culture" are interesting; I have not yet been able to fully test how effective it is in the demo, but I can at least see my culture spreading.
I am very tempted to buy this game. I like the direction that Stardock and Ironclad are going, but I really miss the single-player element. We will see....
I cannot help but feel like this game was hugely inspired by Homeworld, with a little bit of Galactic Civilizations thrown in. The graphics are great (not awe-inspiring, but great) and the gameplay is refreshingly easy to grasp. The ships scale well (fighters and bombers are really small, planets are big). The sounds leave something to be desired, and I was hoping more from explosions (it is appropriate that the capital ships leave debris, but they all explode and fragment the same way). Also, as I am only playing the demo, I have read that it is possible for one of the races to upgrade to a level where you can target specific sub-systems. I hate that. This should be something that any race, any ship can do. Even if you only target a physical part of the ship (aft, port, starboard, bow). I was also disappointed by the tech tree - it is not bad, but I want more of out of it, especially since there is no single-player scenario. On the other hand, I was really impressed that some of the games can take hours upon hours; this can be a bad thing, if all you are doing is waiting. The slow pace of the game is good to some degree; or rather, good for certain aspects. It is nice that you can complete a black market deal without having to just close the window and frantically jump to the system that is under attach. The flip side is that the weapons are notoriously weak; it takes a long time to pummel other ships and planets. It is an interesting choice, especially when you figure that genre-setting building blocks like Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica allowed capital ships to annihilate fighters and corvette-class ships with a single shot; even fighters had enough firepower to obliterate another fighter. But not in this game.
The nuance of "persuasion" and "culture" are interesting; I have not yet been able to fully test how effective it is in the demo, but I can at least see my culture spreading.
I am very tempted to buy this game. I like the direction that Stardock and Ironclad are going, but I really miss the single-player element. We will see....
Jhegaala, by Steven Brust
I was joyed to see a new book by Brust; I have really enjoyed his other pieces, and looked forward to this one. I have to admit, I was at first a bit confused about where this story in the Vlad timeline, but it became a little obvious once we learned he was carrying Spellbreaker. A little.
I really like the way Brust writes. I like Taltos as a character, especially. As mentioned previously, Vlad is a swash-buckling sort of guy. I also like the intrigue the Brust builds into his story and players. One thing that struck me about Jhegaal was that there was not a lot of ton of action involving the super-powers, or even the warlocks, sorcerror/wizzard types ("elves" or Dragaeran). This was mostly about the Easterners, Vlad's homebodies. And Brust does a great job painting this folk as being more alien to Vlad, which sets the scene for a great little mystery/drama.
One thing that is a little jarring to a reader like me is the months-turned-years wait between reading of the various stories. I am glad I got to read the Amber in one monster volume; reading about Vlad in piece-meal, amidst a lot of other sci-fi (not to mention Real Life) contributes to me forgetting about the Phoenix stone and other artefacts that Vlad has picked up on his brief but illustrous journey. To that end, I can easily see Vlad being a D&D character, for better or worse. When does that come to the PC? =)
I really like the way Brust writes. I like Taltos as a character, especially. As mentioned previously, Vlad is a swash-buckling sort of guy. I also like the intrigue the Brust builds into his story and players. One thing that struck me about Jhegaal was that there was not a lot of ton of action involving the super-powers, or even the warlocks, sorcerror/wizzard types ("elves" or Dragaeran). This was mostly about the Easterners, Vlad's homebodies. And Brust does a great job painting this folk as being more alien to Vlad, which sets the scene for a great little mystery/drama.
One thing that is a little jarring to a reader like me is the months-turned-years wait between reading of the various stories. I am glad I got to read the Amber in one monster volume; reading about Vlad in piece-meal, amidst a lot of other sci-fi (not to mention Real Life) contributes to me forgetting about the Phoenix stone and other artefacts that Vlad has picked up on his brief but illustrous journey. To that end, I can easily see Vlad being a D&D character, for better or worse. When does that come to the PC? =)
Last Argument of Kings, by Joe Abercrombie
I really felt that #2 (Before they are hanged) and #3 (last argument of kings) could have easily been combined into one book (before they argue?). Having finished Abercrombie's trilogy, I can say that I am glad I read his work. His English origins peek through his writing at times, and perhaps, unfortunately, contributes to his phallic interests (what do I know). Other than that, I rather enjoyed his writing. To be honest, I was also a bit bothered by the blood and gore - a bit too much for me.
Another thing I found very interesting is the huge stack or layers of lies upon which the characters are built, specifically Bayaz. At first, we think he is a good guy, but by the end, your perceptions may be challenged. Mine were. But that is not saying much; who is the good guy? I was reminded of Vin Diesel's Riddick character, a force of evil fighting evil.
Throughout, Glotka was a very interesting character; an easy-to-hate, deformed, crippled, ruthless torturer who has a spark of conscience and noble mettle.
Another very minor thing I liked was Joe's choices for titles, not only for the book, but also for the chapters. I like the way he thinks, in that regard. Instead of fantastical conjurations that beg a stretch of imagination, Joe just puts it out there; if someone is going to talk about carrying lots of knives, that is what the title says.
Another thing I found very interesting is the huge stack or layers of lies upon which the characters are built, specifically Bayaz. At first, we think he is a good guy, but by the end, your perceptions may be challenged. Mine were. But that is not saying much; who is the good guy? I was reminded of Vin Diesel's Riddick character, a force of evil fighting evil.
Throughout, Glotka was a very interesting character; an easy-to-hate, deformed, crippled, ruthless torturer who has a spark of conscience and noble mettle.
Another very minor thing I liked was Joe's choices for titles, not only for the book, but also for the chapters. I like the way he thinks, in that regard. Instead of fantastical conjurations that beg a stretch of imagination, Joe just puts it out there; if someone is going to talk about carrying lots of knives, that is what the title says.
Before They are Hanged, by Joe Abercrombie
I really like the small little details that Joe infuses his writing with; all the nitty-gritty details make his story telling come to life. On the other hand, he has a distracting obsession with male genitalia.
I found myself liking and feeling sorry for Logen Ninefingers. He seems to be the most realistic of the cast; ironically, one of his sayings is "you gotta be realistic." The weight of his guilt is heavy, a burden he drags with him everywhere.
I was not all the crazy about the other characters. Bayaz is becoming weak, Luthar is overly pompous (as if Joe is trying too hard to accomplish that). Ms. Maljinn is interesting, bad spirit that she is.
I found myself liking and feeling sorry for Logen Ninefingers. He seems to be the most realistic of the cast; ironically, one of his sayings is "you gotta be realistic." The weight of his guilt is heavy, a burden he drags with him everywhere.
I was not all the crazy about the other characters. Bayaz is becoming weak, Luthar is overly pompous (as if Joe is trying too hard to accomplish that). Ms. Maljinn is interesting, bad spirit that she is.
12 December 2008
The Blade Itself, by Joe Abercrombie
I really like the style with which Joe writes. And "Joe" sounds like a most unusual author name. =)
Anyway, the book has some good points and bad points, but very little in between. Abercrombie is very descriptive, making the world seem much more realistic and easier to imagine. I like the details. He has a strange fascination with "fruit", and I found that a tad distracting. He also like to sprinkle cuss words lavishly like pepper and salt; on the one hand, it does seem relevant for today's society, but I do not find it that entertaining.
It is satisfying that the characters live up to some of their stereotypes, but Abercrombie also tries hard to make sure that some stereotypes are intentionally broken. For instance, the all-powerful wizard is indeed all-powerful. But he's not some old frail guy with a pointy hat and robes. No, we meet this swarthy, bald fellow chopping meat with blood spattered all over his kitchen smock. Ninefingers has a dark reputation, but he comes across as some big dumb brute; his dark side is hidden well, especially since the characters are surprised when they experience it. The nobility is satisfactorily proud and arrogant, the soldiers seem well-trained and able to fight (the King's Own, that is), and the Inquisition is appropriately evil and just rotten to the core. =) The mystery of the older Empire and the elder gods is interesting, as was the walk inside the "Maker's House". Lots of room for exploration, but lots of focus on the main story with a good flow.
Anyway, the book has some good points and bad points, but very little in between. Abercrombie is very descriptive, making the world seem much more realistic and easier to imagine. I like the details. He has a strange fascination with "fruit", and I found that a tad distracting. He also like to sprinkle cuss words lavishly like pepper and salt; on the one hand, it does seem relevant for today's society, but I do not find it that entertaining.
It is satisfying that the characters live up to some of their stereotypes, but Abercrombie also tries hard to make sure that some stereotypes are intentionally broken. For instance, the all-powerful wizard is indeed all-powerful. But he's not some old frail guy with a pointy hat and robes. No, we meet this swarthy, bald fellow chopping meat with blood spattered all over his kitchen smock. Ninefingers has a dark reputation, but he comes across as some big dumb brute; his dark side is hidden well, especially since the characters are surprised when they experience it. The nobility is satisfactorily proud and arrogant, the soldiers seem well-trained and able to fight (the King's Own, that is), and the Inquisition is appropriately evil and just rotten to the core. =) The mystery of the older Empire and the elder gods is interesting, as was the walk inside the "Maker's House". Lots of room for exploration, but lots of focus on the main story with a good flow.
The Well of Ascension, by Brandon Sanderson
Another good read by Sanderson. My one biggest complaint is that we still have no idea what the Well of Ascension actually is. I am not a big fan of a story where the climax just gets started on the last few pages.
I continue to like Sanderson's style of writing; there is something about his story-telling that draws me in, that compels me forward. Ironically, I find it hard to personally identify with any of the characters, but I do find them entertaining. The development of the Kandra background is quite intriguing, and the tie to Koloss makes for a very interesting character soup. The various twists are excellently played out.
The pairings of the allomantic metals is a great concept, but there do seem to be some holes. I like how the author allows the characters to discover things and have the reader learn as the characters do. But there are an odd number of such metals, hence not all of them can have pairs. I found it unbelievable that the Ministry knew nothing about Duralumin, and that Zane was able to duplicate and master it so quickly (even with the Kandra's help).
Overall, I like the story. I did not love it, though. I do look forward to the third book.
I continue to like Sanderson's style of writing; there is something about his story-telling that draws me in, that compels me forward. Ironically, I find it hard to personally identify with any of the characters, but I do find them entertaining. The development of the Kandra background is quite intriguing, and the tie to Koloss makes for a very interesting character soup. The various twists are excellently played out.
The pairings of the allomantic metals is a great concept, but there do seem to be some holes. I like how the author allows the characters to discover things and have the reader learn as the characters do. But there are an odd number of such metals, hence not all of them can have pairs. I found it unbelievable that the Ministry knew nothing about Duralumin, and that Zane was able to duplicate and master it so quickly (even with the Kandra's help).
Overall, I like the story. I did not love it, though. I do look forward to the third book.
08 November 2008
Kung Fu Panda, 2008
Jack Black.... either you love him or hate him. Maybe his appeal to the younger generation is what turns me off. Maybe we should call him Jack "thingy" Black.
I did, however, really enjoy the story. Not to pick on Mr. Black, but I felt he brought way too much American flavor into what is essentially a very Chinese/Buddhist story. The ancient turtle (Oogway) was the quintessential eastern mystic, and Tai Lung was great as the really pissed off, uber bad guy. Did this story remind anyone of Karate Kid? =)
We brought our daughter, and I think the film was a bit too dark, too violent and too serious for her age-group. I did appreciate the wit and some of the more adult themes, but wish I would have not exposed my little girl to this film at this point in her life. I am glad we saw it together, instead of her seeing this piece without me.
The whole thing with the noodle shot was quite good. There were quite a few knowing laughs when the father (a duck) attempts to tell his son (a panda) something about their relationship he has not told him before. I enjoyed the voice acting (with the one noted exception); I almost felt bad for Jackie Chan when I found out he did the monkey.
I did, however, really enjoy the story. Not to pick on Mr. Black, but I felt he brought way too much American flavor into what is essentially a very Chinese/Buddhist story. The ancient turtle (Oogway) was the quintessential eastern mystic, and Tai Lung was great as the really pissed off, uber bad guy. Did this story remind anyone of Karate Kid? =)
We brought our daughter, and I think the film was a bit too dark, too violent and too serious for her age-group. I did appreciate the wit and some of the more adult themes, but wish I would have not exposed my little girl to this film at this point in her life. I am glad we saw it together, instead of her seeing this piece without me.
The whole thing with the noodle shot was quite good. There were quite a few knowing laughs when the father (a duck) attempts to tell his son (a panda) something about their relationship he has not told him before. I enjoyed the voice acting (with the one noted exception); I almost felt bad for Jackie Chan when I found out he did the monkey.
Fireproof, 2008
It is hard to believe that such an obviously Christian film is receiving mainstream time on the silver screen. And it is a very well-done film; the cinematography is very tasteful and shot with high quality, the plot is well-written with a good amount of believable and unbelievable. I was not crazy about all the actors, but for the most part, they did not hinder too much. The bits with Mr. Rudolph are simultaneously humorous and tactful.
Personally, I think this film addresses one of the biggest problems in America today. And I am told that other nations are also struggling with this problem as well. Giving up on your sacred vows is just too easy; worst, the Church is more or less demonstrating that this is ok. I thought the film did a great job showing how an average (a rather upper-middle-class suburbia white kind of average, though) marriage might start to fall apart. My wife and I thought that most of the screenplay was true to life in that regards. Unfortunately so. And even though the main character was tasked with a challenged of winning back his wife, the script writers did an excellent job showing that just going through the steps isn't quite enough. Marriage is hard work. Good marriages are even harder.
I am very curious what the atheistic/agnostic/pantheistic crowd thinks of this film. I can see how it would have a hard time impacting those "outside the church". It may even have a hard time reaching those inside. I could not agree more with the central message, and I am glad it is being told. Obviously, this film will not change America by itself. But at least it is a step in the right diretion.
Personally, I think this film addresses one of the biggest problems in America today. And I am told that other nations are also struggling with this problem as well. Giving up on your sacred vows is just too easy; worst, the Church is more or less demonstrating that this is ok. I thought the film did a great job showing how an average (a rather upper-middle-class suburbia white kind of average, though) marriage might start to fall apart. My wife and I thought that most of the screenplay was true to life in that regards. Unfortunately so. And even though the main character was tasked with a challenged of winning back his wife, the script writers did an excellent job showing that just going through the steps isn't quite enough. Marriage is hard work. Good marriages are even harder.
I am very curious what the atheistic/agnostic/pantheistic crowd thinks of this film. I can see how it would have a hard time impacting those "outside the church". It may even have a hard time reaching those inside. I could not agree more with the central message, and I am glad it is being told. Obviously, this film will not change America by itself. But at least it is a step in the right diretion.
Mistborn: the final empire, by Brandon Sanderson
Another recommendation by Patrick Rothfuss, and a great one at that! The magic system is very different (using metals in one way or another), and I like it.
There is a very interesting, although rather simplistic, dichotomy between the upper- and lower-class, the haves and the have-nots, the masters and the slaves. First, no middle-class. The slaves are called "skaa", although I am not really sure why. And I am not sure why, after centuries of coexisting (barely), the "nobility" even questions whether or not the "skaa" are more or less human. Sanderson went to lengths to show how self-important and ego-centric the privileged class was, but they are ostentaticiously missing some common sense. The skaa on the other hand, are rather ultra-obsequious; even the rebellions do not really amount to much. If there was one thing I did not like about this world, it was that the white-collar folks were too over-the-top.
The overlord character, a tyrant ruler some call a god, has a very respectable shroud of mystery wrapped around him. The author pulled a very clever trick with the journal, and I have a lot of respect for those kind of tricks. And his little army of zealots (obligators and Steel Inquisitors, not unlike the infamous Crusaders in a lot of respects) enforces the trynanical oppression rather well; the Inquisitors are really interesting, both in their background and their abilities.
The terrismen are also very intriguing, and it will be satisfying to learn more about them in other books. I guess one could say that there are technically two different magic systems employed by different races (or perhaps a third if you count the mistwraiths/kandra). So even though this story did a fairly good job at exploring this little pocket of reality, it left a good number of doors open for other lines of possibilities.
Perhaps one of the better things about this book was that I was drawn in right away, and the author kept me going. I like that kind of book. The character developement proceeded at a very satisfactory pace, as well as the action and tension, not to mention several appreciable twists throughout the story. I get the impression that "book 2" is more of a prequel, based on the title. We will see.
There is a very interesting, although rather simplistic, dichotomy between the upper- and lower-class, the haves and the have-nots, the masters and the slaves. First, no middle-class. The slaves are called "skaa", although I am not really sure why. And I am not sure why, after centuries of coexisting (barely), the "nobility" even questions whether or not the "skaa" are more or less human. Sanderson went to lengths to show how self-important and ego-centric the privileged class was, but they are ostentaticiously missing some common sense. The skaa on the other hand, are rather ultra-obsequious; even the rebellions do not really amount to much. If there was one thing I did not like about this world, it was that the white-collar folks were too over-the-top.
The overlord character, a tyrant ruler some call a god, has a very respectable shroud of mystery wrapped around him. The author pulled a very clever trick with the journal, and I have a lot of respect for those kind of tricks. And his little army of zealots (obligators and Steel Inquisitors, not unlike the infamous Crusaders in a lot of respects) enforces the trynanical oppression rather well; the Inquisitors are really interesting, both in their background and their abilities.
The terrismen are also very intriguing, and it will be satisfying to learn more about them in other books. I guess one could say that there are technically two different magic systems employed by different races (or perhaps a third if you count the mistwraiths/kandra). So even though this story did a fairly good job at exploring this little pocket of reality, it left a good number of doors open for other lines of possibilities.
Perhaps one of the better things about this book was that I was drawn in right away, and the author kept me going. I like that kind of book. The character developement proceeded at a very satisfactory pace, as well as the action and tension, not to mention several appreciable twists throughout the story. I get the impression that "book 2" is more of a prequel, based on the title. We will see.
17 October 2008
Not a review
http://www.stardock.com/media/stardockcustomerreport-2008.pdf
Very interesting report from Stardock, of whom I once had I hopes, then gave up on, but now have high hopes for again. Particularly their perspective on DRM and the Gamer Bill of Rights. A very interesting read.
Very interesting report from Stardock, of whom I once had I hopes, then gave up on, but now have high hopes for again. Particularly their perspective on DRM and the Gamer Bill of Rights. A very interesting read.
28 September 2008
Day Watch (Dnevnoy dozor), 2006
When watching previews during my "Phoenix marathon", I came across "Day Watch". I had seen this film before, so quickly wanted to mentioned that I loved this film. The special affects are awesome, the story line is fascinating, the characters are great. Even though it is all in Russian (and not dubbed), the subtitles are extremely tasteful, artful and entertaining in their own right.
Sergei Lukyanenko (the author of the novel) has an amazing story to tell, and the director (Timur Bekmambetov) delivered an excellent rendition of that story. I was blown away.
With Russia making awesome sci-fi games and now excellent fantasy-style movies, I have to wonder what the heck American movie producers are doing.
The chronology of the stories is very confusing. Lukyanenko has written two stories, NightWatch and DayWatch. DayWatch follows the other, chronologically speaking (the Talon of Fafnir follows the Chalk of Destiny). However, the movie is slightly misnamed, since the movie "Day Watch" tells the story of NightWatch. And I hear a third gook is either out or coming out. And Hollywood is picking up the next movie? I sure hope not, they might ruin it!
Just checked Amazon; apparently the third book ("The Twilight Watch") is already out. Amazon also tells me that the movie "NightWatch" came out before "DayWatch", but it is the prequel, and tells a different story then the book. Ay, corumba.
Sergei Lukyanenko (the author of the novel) has an amazing story to tell, and the director (Timur Bekmambetov) delivered an excellent rendition of that story. I was blown away.
With Russia making awesome sci-fi games and now excellent fantasy-style movies, I have to wonder what the heck American movie producers are doing.
The chronology of the stories is very confusing. Lukyanenko has written two stories, NightWatch and DayWatch. DayWatch follows the other, chronologically speaking (the Talon of Fafnir follows the Chalk of Destiny). However, the movie is slightly misnamed, since the movie "Day Watch" tells the story of NightWatch. And I hear a third gook is either out or coming out. And Hollywood is picking up the next movie? I sure hope not, they might ruin it!
Just checked Amazon; apparently the third book ("The Twilight Watch") is already out. Amazon also tells me that the movie "NightWatch" came out before "DayWatch", but it is the prequel, and tells a different story then the book. Ay, corumba.
Flight of the Phoenix, 2004
I did not think about how I was flying to Phoenix when I picked up this DVD. Or perhaps subconsciously I did. Strange.
Anyway, I did not have high expectations for Quaid. He came across pretty well in this one. Ribisi's Elliot character was a great match. A bit awkward at times, but I think that worked in well with the character. And I felt really good about Tyrese Gibson's character, but felt bad he was always walking in Quaid's shadow. And Hugh Laurie.... =) After watching several season's of House, it is almost relaxing to hear what I think is his real voice.
The film as a whole was ok. Very unbelievable at the end, but building up to it was good.
Anyway, I did not have high expectations for Quaid. He came across pretty well in this one. Ribisi's Elliot character was a great match. A bit awkward at times, but I think that worked in well with the character. And I felt really good about Tyrese Gibson's character, but felt bad he was always walking in Quaid's shadow. And Hugh Laurie.... =) After watching several season's of House, it is almost relaxing to hear what I think is his real voice.
The film as a whole was ok. Very unbelievable at the end, but building up to it was good.
Crank, 2006
I like Statham films I have seen so far, and this was another one of his action-packed deliveries. The artistic sense was a bit new, but not wholly undesirable. Having him expose himself so often got a bit old.
While the action was thick and the pace was quick, there was a bit too much swearing and nudity. And unnecessary gore. I did really enjoy the car chases, the bang-ups, the explosions, and the "go go go" race against time.
While the action was thick and the pace was quick, there was a bit too much swearing and nudity. And unnecessary gore. I did really enjoy the car chases, the bang-ups, the explosions, and the "go go go" race against time.
Poseidon, 2006
I do not know why I picked this film out; perhaps because I wanted some good old testosterone blood-pumping suspense and action. There was very little of that. Well, suspense aplenty. And most everybody dies.
Some of the things that really ruined this film. First, I know a little about tsunami's. But they never say "tsunami", but rather a "rogue wave". Yeah, a wave. What is the point of turned a big cruise liner parallel to such a wave? Would hitting it head on have a higher chance of breaking the boat? And I do not buy how a boat like that could possibly stay afloat once flipped over - I don't care about the big atrium in the middle, it would be crushed like a bubble.
Kudos to the actors who did a lot of swimming. That was probably hard work. Unfortunately, it was all very unbelievable, and dissolved any connection going into those scenes. Clear, warm well-lit water with several minutes of breathable air under exertion? *grin* What kind of boat wreck is this?
Some of the things that really ruined this film. First, I know a little about tsunami's. But they never say "tsunami", but rather a "rogue wave". Yeah, a wave. What is the point of turned a big cruise liner parallel to such a wave? Would hitting it head on have a higher chance of breaking the boat? And I do not buy how a boat like that could possibly stay afloat once flipped over - I don't care about the big atrium in the middle, it would be crushed like a bubble.
Kudos to the actors who did a lot of swimming. That was probably hard work. Unfortunately, it was all very unbelievable, and dissolved any connection going into those scenes. Clear, warm well-lit water with several minutes of breathable air under exertion? *grin* What kind of boat wreck is this?
Kingdom of Heaven, 2005
If nothing else, what most inspired me about this film was the utter injustice of the Crusades. "God wills it" is such a mockery of any true faith, and to result in such a massive amount of bloodshed (on both sides) is an embarrassment to Christianity and mankind.
I really appreciated Balian's story (Orlando Bloom). We are led to believe he has a good heart, a concept that is carried through the entire movie with great success. His honor, and defense thereof, propel him forward when all else is lost, and consequently he befriends a most influential Muslim.
The Knights Templar are appropriately evil, especially Guy De Lusignan. It is a good thing he was squashed.
I really appreciated Balian's story (Orlando Bloom). We are led to believe he has a good heart, a concept that is carried through the entire movie with great success. His honor, and defense thereof, propel him forward when all else is lost, and consequently he befriends a most influential Muslim.
The Knights Templar are appropriately evil, especially Guy De Lusignan. It is a good thing he was squashed.
Sahara, 2005
This film raised a few questions for me, questions that detracted from the film. Steve Zahn as an ex-Navy Seal? Are you kidding me? Watching him snap on rounds to an automatic rifle or disarming himself were just painful.
Penelope Cruz as a "brilliant" UN scientist? At least she was a doctor for the WHO, which is a little more believable. A little.
What are we supposed to believe about the ironclad? Did it really sail off to African, or did it slip through some kind of wormhole? That was never clarified. We are led to believe that it actually traveled across the Atlantic, and if so, I find it completely unbelievable that the characters, as smart as they are supposed to be, accept that.
Good action scenes, good suspense. The turmoil in African had an appealing quality merely because it was believable. The picture on the DVD, cruising the Sahara in a make-shift "sand-surfer" is... unforgivable.
Penelope Cruz as a "brilliant" UN scientist? At least she was a doctor for the WHO, which is a little more believable. A little.
What are we supposed to believe about the ironclad? Did it really sail off to African, or did it slip through some kind of wormhole? That was never clarified. We are led to believe that it actually traveled across the Atlantic, and if so, I find it completely unbelievable that the characters, as smart as they are supposed to be, accept that.
Good action scenes, good suspense. The turmoil in African had an appealing quality merely because it was believable. The picture on the DVD, cruising the Sahara in a make-shift "sand-surfer" is... unforgivable.
Life of Brian, 1979
I do not usually dig old movies. But this is Monty Python! =)
I also did not realize it was a parody on the "Life of Christ", so obviously, the whole think smacks of sacrilegious and scandalous bigotry. *grin* Otherwise it would not be Monty Python.
It was humorous, of course. I don't get the whole thing with Brian's mother being a man, nor why all the women want to wear beards.
I also did not realize it was a parody on the "Life of Christ", so obviously, the whole think smacks of sacrilegious and scandalous bigotry. *grin* Otherwise it would not be Monty Python.
A motion picture destined to offend nearly two thirds of the civilized world. And severely annoy the other third.
It was humorous, of course. I don't get the whole thing with Brian's mother being a man, nor why all the women want to wear beards.
Pathfinder, 2007
The preview made me think this film would be interesting, or at least entertaining. I was disappointed.
The concept at least is intriguing; Viking warriors descend upon Indians (go ahead, call them by their PC names) and utterly outclass them, but are stopped cold. The "destiny" of the orphaned child has been played on many times, and I think this film try to raise life from dry bones. Tried and failed. While the Vikings were portrayed as utterly barbaric and bestial, it was too much, over the top. And when the "ghost warrior" is reunited with his enemies/brethren, he automatically understands and can talk with them? Whatever.
I do not know if it was bad acting, or bad screenwriting, or both. But it was bad.
The concept at least is intriguing; Viking warriors descend upon Indians (go ahead, call them by their PC names) and utterly outclass them, but are stopped cold. The "destiny" of the orphaned child has been played on many times, and I think this film try to raise life from dry bones. Tried and failed. While the Vikings were portrayed as utterly barbaric and bestial, it was too much, over the top. And when the "ghost warrior" is reunited with his enemies/brethren, he automatically understands and can talk with them? Whatever.
I do not know if it was bad acting, or bad screenwriting, or both. But it was bad.
Shooter, 2007
I do not recall the last time I saw Wahlberg in a film, but I liked him in this one. The story has such a strong sense of betrayal that you really feel for him. I have never really liked Danny Glover (almost too cutesy or something), but at least he had some grit written into his character, which helped him a bit. And I have never liked Ned Beatty in anything, so I was hoping for him to bite it in the end.
My only complaint is that Wahlberg's character (Bob Lee Swagger?? a redneck?) is just too perfect. Even if he is the creme de la creme, he can take on a half platoon of armed forces or 4 other elite snipers. Or nail someone in the head while standing in a boat, using a plastic pop bottle to muffle the shot? Nope, sorry, lost some credibility there.
But I enjoyed the film.
My only complaint is that Wahlberg's character (Bob Lee Swagger?? a redneck?) is just too perfect. Even if he is the creme de la creme, he can take on a half platoon of armed forces or 4 other elite snipers. Or nail someone in the head while standing in a boat, using a plastic pop bottle to muffle the shot? Nope, sorry, lost some credibility there.
But I enjoyed the film.
Phoenix marathon
No, this has absolutely nothing to do with running insanely long distances. Nothing whatsoever; I do not run.
On a recent trip, I watched 8 movies to pass time. I am going to go over them briefly. =)
On a recent trip, I watched 8 movies to pass time. I am going to go over them briefly. =)
- Shooter
- Pathfinder
- Life of Brian
- Sahara
- Kingdom of Heaven
- Poseidon
- Crank
- Flight of the Phoenix
08 September 2008
Lilith, by George MacDonald
Poor C.S. Lewis might flip in his grave, but I had a really hard time enjoying this book. Perhaps this speaks more about me than either Mr. Lewis or Mr. MacDonald.
MacDonald creates a fantastic universe (or, to play on words, a "Phantastic" universe); both in its scope and its creativity. The problem is it is just too stinkin' thick. The main character, writing from the first person, is given to spouts of metadata, conveying the difficulty he has conveying to his reader what he is experiencing. I give kudos to MacDonald for his command of the language, but I fear his temporal removal from my own bestows upon his effort a sense of antiquity; he is just hard to read for modern folks. His modes, his grammer (and excessive use of commas and dashes) and depth make reading hard work.
And yes, that means I am a lazy reader. Look at what I read for crying out loud.
The story is unique, in its own right. Even though he wrote the book over 110 years ago (egads!!), he touches upon concepts that others have only copied; a man travels to a new place where the metaphysical becomes, for all intents and purposes, the physical. His own identity is questioned, and must be discovered. The issue of being is put under a magnifying glass. For these I applaud MacDonald. I would just hate to have to read it again. *grin*
MacDonald creates a fantastic universe (or, to play on words, a "Phantastic" universe); both in its scope and its creativity. The problem is it is just too stinkin' thick. The main character, writing from the first person, is given to spouts of metadata, conveying the difficulty he has conveying to his reader what he is experiencing. I give kudos to MacDonald for his command of the language, but I fear his temporal removal from my own bestows upon his effort a sense of antiquity; he is just hard to read for modern folks. His modes, his grammer (and excessive use of commas and dashes) and depth make reading hard work.
And yes, that means I am a lazy reader. Look at what I read for crying out loud.
The story is unique, in its own right. Even though he wrote the book over 110 years ago (egads!!), he touches upon concepts that others have only copied; a man travels to a new place where the metaphysical becomes, for all intents and purposes, the physical. His own identity is questioned, and must be discovered. The issue of being is put under a magnifying glass. For these I applaud MacDonald. I would just hate to have to read it again. *grin*
After the Sunset, 2004
I enjoyed "Entrapment" and had a small hope that this might be similar. In some ways it was, in others it was not. The story is supposed to be about a thief who is nearing retirement and takes on one final job, and the FBI agent chasing him. That specific plot has a long, drawn-out buildup. For the most part, I enjoyed the slow developement; the opening scene was great. Except I did not like Woody Harrelson's character (Stan Lloyd) at all. Too immature, in so many different ways.
After investing so much screen time to get to the climax of the story, I felt really let down; the heist itself was really rather basic. The small amount of intrigue was tasteful (and helpful, even critical), but by the time we get to the "Aha, gotcha" moments, you feel as if the best part of the movie happened a long time ago.
After investing so much screen time to get to the climax of the story, I felt really let down; the heist itself was really rather basic. The small amount of intrigue was tasteful (and helpful, even critical), but by the time we get to the "Aha, gotcha" moments, you feel as if the best part of the movie happened a long time ago.
05 September 2008
The Last Unicorn, by Peter S. Beagle
Unicorns have really lost their stature in modern fantasy. Not sure why; Zelanzy tried to bring them back (and did to a degree). Therefore, it was interesting to delve into a story about the "last unicorn".
I like the way Beagle writes. He has a good amount of detail in his environment and characters. I like how he focuses on expressions; eyes, facial, body language, etc. The short story he tells here is full of twists, depth and appropriate action. The bittersweet ending is full of delightful tension, if a little too quick, to short. I will look for other Beagle books.
I like the way Beagle writes. He has a good amount of detail in his environment and characters. I like how he focuses on expressions; eyes, facial, body language, etc. The short story he tells here is full of twists, depth and appropriate action. The bittersweet ending is full of delightful tension, if a little too quick, to short. I will look for other Beagle books.
Neverwhere, Neil Gaiman
Even though Gaiman's "Neverwhere" shares a lot with "Stardust", I felt this story was much more believable, more captivating. Again we have a relatively small "other world" that shares borders with what we know as reality, filled with exotic and esoteric beings, from the sniveling and meek to the powerful and evil. Again we have a somewhat high-placed, important damsel in distress, and a blunder-head guy with some enigma of a connection to this other place who happens to be the hero and eventually experiences that all-important rite of passage. Is Neil projecting that desperately?
It is hard to put my finger exactly on what I liked better about this book. The story is foreign to me, which I liked, with a appreciable (and some that you like to hate) cast of characters. The hard decisions that have to be made are poignant, although somewhat clouded by the context.
It is hard to put my finger exactly on what I liked better about this book. The story is foreign to me, which I liked, with a appreciable (and some that you like to hate) cast of characters. The hard decisions that have to be made are poignant, although somewhat clouded by the context.
Small Favor, by Jim Butcher
I have really enjoyed Butcher's Dresden series (or rather, the "Dresden Files"). Not because it is well-written, but because it is simply entertaining. There is a kind of off-beat Piers Anothonyish flavor thrown in, with a swashbuckling Han Solo-type wizard and a heavy sauce of sci-fi cult movie references. All based in Chicago, a city I know from my own childhood years. And I really like that combination, it works extremely well for Butcher.
The one downside is that he is not a very talented author, IMO. Neither am I. *grin* It is humorous to watch him find some new multi-sylable word in his vocabularly, and then use it twice in two contiguous sentences.
One thing that I also find interesting about Butcher's story line and character development is that he pulls in an interesting array of profiles. We have a young wizard with a ton of potential and a lot of natural abilities who tends to play fast and loose with the rules while somehow pulling off a mostly chivalrous stance towards the women in the book, driving a beat-up old beetle. His half-brother is a "white" vampire who feeds not on blood but romance; a disembodied spirit currently occupying a skull, a Martin "a brain the size of a planet" type entity, but instead of being depressed he is consumed by an appetite for sleazy sex; a God-fearing Christian family, the head of which happens to be a guardian and stalwart warrior of one-of-three holy swords. And the list goes on. Not only that, but the cast seems to grow larger with each book, meeting stranger and stronger entities from possessive demons to mysterious and almost seemingly benign angels, and queens of the Fae who have an unnatural interest in our protagonsit and swap favors like life debts.
With this book, I enjoyed the exciting fireworks as the big boys came out to play. Aside from the fact that Harry Dresden is doomed to always be stuck in impossible situations, yet blessed to always escape them, I enjoy the smaller aspects of his character development. For instance, his growing relationship with The Archive; nobody knows exactly what kind of relationship this is (father-daughter??), but with The Archive being so powerful and all, lots of fun things seem to happen when she is in danger. Butcher also introduced a small host of demons attached to the 30 silver coins in connection with Judas to betrayed Christ, and how these coins encourage power addictions with said demons. The resulting tension is a bit confusing to follow; is Harry really possessed or not, did his friend Michael (the Christian) really purge him of all ties to that dark acquantance? And now that Michael is pretty much out of the near future being almost dead, who will take up stewardship of the holy sword?
I fear that some of those minor plotlines will enjoy an unjust immortality, thus perpetuating the confusion and also detract from what we really like about Harry Dresden. And while I would really love to see him come into his own, I fear that it will happen too fast. It will be interesting to see.
I hear there is a TV series out. Sounds scary. =)
The one downside is that he is not a very talented author, IMO. Neither am I. *grin* It is humorous to watch him find some new multi-sylable word in his vocabularly, and then use it twice in two contiguous sentences.
One thing that I also find interesting about Butcher's story line and character development is that he pulls in an interesting array of profiles. We have a young wizard with a ton of potential and a lot of natural abilities who tends to play fast and loose with the rules while somehow pulling off a mostly chivalrous stance towards the women in the book, driving a beat-up old beetle. His half-brother is a "white" vampire who feeds not on blood but romance; a disembodied spirit currently occupying a skull, a Martin "a brain the size of a planet" type entity, but instead of being depressed he is consumed by an appetite for sleazy sex; a God-fearing Christian family, the head of which happens to be a guardian and stalwart warrior of one-of-three holy swords. And the list goes on. Not only that, but the cast seems to grow larger with each book, meeting stranger and stronger entities from possessive demons to mysterious and almost seemingly benign angels, and queens of the Fae who have an unnatural interest in our protagonsit and swap favors like life debts.
With this book, I enjoyed the exciting fireworks as the big boys came out to play. Aside from the fact that Harry Dresden is doomed to always be stuck in impossible situations, yet blessed to always escape them, I enjoy the smaller aspects of his character development. For instance, his growing relationship with The Archive; nobody knows exactly what kind of relationship this is (father-daughter??), but with The Archive being so powerful and all, lots of fun things seem to happen when she is in danger. Butcher also introduced a small host of demons attached to the 30 silver coins in connection with Judas to betrayed Christ, and how these coins encourage power addictions with said demons. The resulting tension is a bit confusing to follow; is Harry really possessed or not, did his friend Michael (the Christian) really purge him of all ties to that dark acquantance? And now that Michael is pretty much out of the near future being almost dead, who will take up stewardship of the holy sword?
I fear that some of those minor plotlines will enjoy an unjust immortality, thus perpetuating the confusion and also detract from what we really like about Harry Dresden. And while I would really love to see him come into his own, I fear that it will happen too fast. It will be interesting to see.
I hear there is a TV series out. Sounds scary. =)
03 September 2008
River of Gods, by Ian McDonald
Sad to say, I was not able to finish this book. Maybe it was my frame of mind, perhaps my expectations or mental requirements at the time. The book simply failed to capture my interest; it is quite slow, the supposedly intertwined stories too disparate (in fact, rather independent), and way too much emphasis on sex. Ian McDonald explores some bizarre concepts. The placement of a pure Indian (as in south eastern Asia) locale also makes the story seem much more alien.
02 September 2008
Stardust, by Neil Gaiman
I am glad I saw the movie first, in this particular case. I found the book to be overly fluffy, and did not really have the depth I was hoping for. I felt the movie, by going to the big screen, breathed so much more life into the story than what it originally had.
Additionally, Hollywood took the story in a much different direction than Neil did. Not sure how the author feels about that, but I sure enjoyed Hollywood's version more. With exceptions, of course.
Additionally, Hollywood took the story in a much different direction than Neil did. Not sure how the author feels about that, but I sure enjoyed Hollywood's version more. With exceptions, of course.
Declare, by Tim Powers
Tim Powers (from what few reviews I have read) has been compared to John Le Carré; I agree that there is something of a likeness in there, but I enjoyed Powers more.
This was another one in a series of authors I gleaned from another author. Why not? =) The book started really slow. In fact, I almost gave up on it several times. For the record, I did give up on Russia House. The spy genre is not really my cup of tea, I guess. But given that, I thought the book was tremendously well written. It is not often I appreciate the quality of a book without enjoying the story. Is that the difference between objectivity and subjectivity? Jazz is pretty much the same way, no matter how great the performers are, I hate Jazz. And I always give up on Jazz. =)
I really found Power's character development to be powerful, and classically paradoxical - the spy who falls in love with a spy. I loved his command of different cultures, use of languages and regional influences. The best part, in my opinion, about story telling is not forcing a fantastic, perhaps unbelievable, world upon a realistic canvas, but rather allowing (or rather, persuading, urging, beckoning) the reader to voluntarily extend his unbelief to the point that the story could potentially be real, no matter how fantastic it is. Or to put it a bit differently, I would grade a story by how thin the veil is between our world and the universe being fashioned by the author; how smoothly does it draw me in? Tim Powers painted a such a poignant, believable and livable world. Of course, my "standards" are constantly in flux, but, hey, that is my perogative.... *grin*
The "sci-fi" diversion is a bit interesting. I think this is perhaps what drew me on. I call it a diversion but this is what separates Powers from Le Carré - the point at which this is an utterly different and independent excursion. The exploration of a group of deities bound by archaic symbols and responsibilities, sentient, perhaps malevolent, beings that have no place in the natural order of things, but exert such a heavy influence upon that natural order so as not to be completely ignored.
I am glad I finished the book, and I now am firmly convinced I do not like spy books. I am glad I read Tim Powers.
This was another one in a series of authors I gleaned from another author. Why not? =) The book started really slow. In fact, I almost gave up on it several times. For the record, I did give up on Russia House. The spy genre is not really my cup of tea, I guess. But given that, I thought the book was tremendously well written. It is not often I appreciate the quality of a book without enjoying the story. Is that the difference between objectivity and subjectivity? Jazz is pretty much the same way, no matter how great the performers are, I hate Jazz. And I always give up on Jazz. =)
I really found Power's character development to be powerful, and classically paradoxical - the spy who falls in love with a spy. I loved his command of different cultures, use of languages and regional influences. The best part, in my opinion, about story telling is not forcing a fantastic, perhaps unbelievable, world upon a realistic canvas, but rather allowing (or rather, persuading, urging, beckoning) the reader to voluntarily extend his unbelief to the point that the story could potentially be real, no matter how fantastic it is. Or to put it a bit differently, I would grade a story by how thin the veil is between our world and the universe being fashioned by the author; how smoothly does it draw me in? Tim Powers painted a such a poignant, believable and livable world. Of course, my "standards" are constantly in flux, but, hey, that is my perogative.... *grin*
The "sci-fi" diversion is a bit interesting. I think this is perhaps what drew me on. I call it a diversion but this is what separates Powers from Le Carré - the point at which this is an utterly different and independent excursion. The exploration of a group of deities bound by archaic symbols and responsibilities, sentient, perhaps malevolent, beings that have no place in the natural order of things, but exert such a heavy influence upon that natural order so as not to be completely ignored.
I am glad I finished the book, and I now am firmly convinced I do not like spy books. I am glad I read Tim Powers.
11 August 2008
Capacity, by Tony Ballantyne
I noticed that Patrick Rothfuss had a list of authors he enjoyed, so I meandered over to our online catalouge and reserved a few books. Granted, I pretty stuck to the sci-fi genre. So sue me. =)
Capacity is set in 2252, but the concepts are a lot more advanced than that, I think. Personality Constructs that can mimick real life so well that the personality (or personae, or person) cannot tell it is living in a digital world. Not only that, but some great "Transistion" now ensures that all such Personality Constructs are given full human rights.
Lots of interesting things going on in this book. The explosive advancement of Artifical Intelligence is amazing in scope and breadth, such that some supposed super-AI (codenamed the Watcher) is supposedly on par with sovereign, god-like powers, and as such, some folks think this Watcher entity is merely a myth, while others believe it to be the Creator. There is a fantastic questioning of what is free will? Do we actually make any choices that are completely independent of external factors by the force of our own minds, or are we merely a link in a long chain of natural (yet complex) reactions to stimuli? I consider this kind of question good because we take so many things for granted, and questioning helps us uncover truth.
The actual nuts and bolts of science fiction in this piece is also very good. I really enjoyed the deep, hard-core sci-fi of the hypership (so wrapped up in enigma), the plant life that feeds on intelligence, and the afore-mentioned mushrooming AI element. Ballantyne had too much emphasis on the role of sex in an otherwise philosopic context; is this the author's true color shining through as he tries to impress us with hard hitting ideas, or did he just dump it in there to attract a wider audience? Not sure what was going on with that.
I enjoyed the book. I reminded me a little of Vernor Vinge's "A Fire Upon the Deep" mixed with the esoteric, almost-wackiness of William Gibson. A relatively quick read, I am interested in checking out his next book ("Divergence"), and possibly his previous book ("Recursion").
Capacity is set in 2252, but the concepts are a lot more advanced than that, I think. Personality Constructs that can mimick real life so well that the personality (or personae, or person) cannot tell it is living in a digital world. Not only that, but some great "Transistion" now ensures that all such Personality Constructs are given full human rights.
Lots of interesting things going on in this book. The explosive advancement of Artifical Intelligence is amazing in scope and breadth, such that some supposed super-AI (codenamed the Watcher) is supposedly on par with sovereign, god-like powers, and as such, some folks think this Watcher entity is merely a myth, while others believe it to be the Creator. There is a fantastic questioning of what is free will? Do we actually make any choices that are completely independent of external factors by the force of our own minds, or are we merely a link in a long chain of natural (yet complex) reactions to stimuli? I consider this kind of question good because we take so many things for granted, and questioning helps us uncover truth.
The actual nuts and bolts of science fiction in this piece is also very good. I really enjoyed the deep, hard-core sci-fi of the hypership (so wrapped up in enigma), the plant life that feeds on intelligence, and the afore-mentioned mushrooming AI element. Ballantyne had too much emphasis on the role of sex in an otherwise philosopic context; is this the author's true color shining through as he tries to impress us with hard hitting ideas, or did he just dump it in there to attract a wider audience? Not sure what was going on with that.
I enjoyed the book. I reminded me a little of Vernor Vinge's "A Fire Upon the Deep" mixed with the esoteric, almost-wackiness of William Gibson. A relatively quick read, I am interested in checking out his next book ("Divergence"), and possibly his previous book ("Recursion").
05 August 2008
Disappointed with sci-fi themed games
I have read this sentiment in many other places. The developers over in Russia have a strong offering of space-sims; EVE, which I love/hate, Tarr Chronicles and Dark Horizon, etc), but they do not quite fit the bill. I am looking for a new Homeworld. EVE would have been perfect, if only..... I downloaded SEGA's "Space Siege" demo; the cinematic is awesome, loved it to pieces! But the gameplay... ylech! And a 15-minute demo at that, not even enough time to enjoy blowing things up with little Seth Walker. All these games have excellent cinematics; I really dig the big fleets battling each other, and even the side that has overwhelming technology - love it! I like to see how massive the scale is, little fighters panning alongside a gigantic cruiser. Starcraft really screwed up scale in a big way. *grin* I would love to see a game that is hybrid RTS/FPS, able to switch from the cockpit to the fleet HQ, and throw in some RPG to give some sense of accomplishment. The space-sim games out now focus so much on flying around in a impossibly strong, agile and fast single little fighter that can take out every single enemy known to man. DarkStar One was an interesting twist on this allowing your ship to grow (the RPG element hard at work here), but it so repetitive it was sad. I mean, here was an otherwise good game (great graphics, great execution), but it was like "go warp to system x and destroy all enemies", over and over again. Yes, I am simplifying and there are elements in that game that add to the story (and a fairly good story), but I could not shake the bad parts.
Another kicker is that the teasers and cinematics have such groovy, hard hitting soundtracks. Mass Effect was actually low on the totem pole for me, but had some very catch sci-fi sounding soundbytes and tracks.
If only EVE had a single-player element. Yet if I had that, I would want more out of EVE.... If only I could write games (I suck).....
At least our fantasy RPG and RTS games are good. Strange.
Funny how much like Warcraft Quake 3 is turning out to be. Ooops.
Another kicker is that the teasers and cinematics have such groovy, hard hitting soundtracks. Mass Effect was actually low on the totem pole for me, but had some very catch sci-fi sounding soundbytes and tracks.
If only EVE had a single-player element. Yet if I had that, I would want more out of EVE.... If only I could write games (I suck).....
At least our fantasy RPG and RTS games are good. Strange.
Funny how much like Warcraft Quake 3 is turning out to be. Ooops.
23 July 2008
Hellboy 2, 2008
I think the only reason I wanted to see this film was because Guillermo did it. There were things I did, and did not, like about it; hard to say which one won out.
Bad news first. The underworld is way too open to the "real" world. Not that I mind such a flimsy barrier in my sci-fi stories, but the first Hellboy established a thicker wall, I think. Granted, I have not seen/read any of the other additional materials (comic books, animated series), so I have no idea if this is keeping in line with Guillermo's direction or not. The romance between Liz Sherman (pyro lady) and Hellboy are cute, but hardly believable, especially what they produce together. I also do not understand how Hellboy can go head-to-head with Prince Nuada; all Hellboy does is eat candy bars and watch TV. The whole concept of "area 51" (see that big 51 emblazoned in one of the rooms?) and keeping this paranormal research under the covers was overblown, especially the gimmicky way Tom Manning (played by Jeffrey Tambor) deals with the whole thing. Dr. Johann Krauss (the ectoplasmic guy) reminds me of a different comic antagonist, but now I cannot remember who. Anyway, just having him head up the paranormal research was rather dumb. Interesting character, though. A bit heavy on the gears motif.
Good news: I loved the scenes with the elves; beautiful artistic touches, nice design themes, great sense of dying power. It was not until I read a little bit more that I realized that Doug Jones not only plays Abe, but also the Chamberlain and the Angel of Death, as well as the Faun from Pan's Labyrinth and the Pale Man. The way he moves his hands is very similar in each one. I wonder if he ever tires of all the makeup. =) I liked Wink, and the Tooth Fairies were an unexpected twist. I really enjoyed Prince Nuada's swordmanship; made me wonder how we would stack up another trained sword-weilding Hollywood villian like Darth Maul (Ray Park). The questions that Prince Nuada plagued Hellboy with were intriguing and thought provoking; would he really want to kill off the last beings of a species? Not sure if this was mentioned in the first movie, but Hellboy is supposedly the son of the "Fallen One". Could have fooled me. *grin*
Bad news first. The underworld is way too open to the "real" world. Not that I mind such a flimsy barrier in my sci-fi stories, but the first Hellboy established a thicker wall, I think. Granted, I have not seen/read any of the other additional materials (comic books, animated series), so I have no idea if this is keeping in line with Guillermo's direction or not. The romance between Liz Sherman (pyro lady) and Hellboy are cute, but hardly believable, especially what they produce together. I also do not understand how Hellboy can go head-to-head with Prince Nuada; all Hellboy does is eat candy bars and watch TV. The whole concept of "area 51" (see that big 51 emblazoned in one of the rooms?) and keeping this paranormal research under the covers was overblown, especially the gimmicky way Tom Manning (played by Jeffrey Tambor) deals with the whole thing. Dr. Johann Krauss (the ectoplasmic guy) reminds me of a different comic antagonist, but now I cannot remember who. Anyway, just having him head up the paranormal research was rather dumb. Interesting character, though. A bit heavy on the gears motif.
Good news: I loved the scenes with the elves; beautiful artistic touches, nice design themes, great sense of dying power. It was not until I read a little bit more that I realized that Doug Jones not only plays Abe, but also the Chamberlain and the Angel of Death, as well as the Faun from Pan's Labyrinth and the Pale Man. The way he moves his hands is very similar in each one. I wonder if he ever tires of all the makeup. =) I liked Wink, and the Tooth Fairies were an unexpected twist. I really enjoyed Prince Nuada's swordmanship; made me wonder how we would stack up another trained sword-weilding Hollywood villian like Darth Maul (Ray Park). The questions that Prince Nuada plagued Hellboy with were intriguing and thought provoking; would he really want to kill off the last beings of a species? Not sure if this was mentioned in the first movie, but Hellboy is supposedly the son of the "Fallen One". Could have fooled me. *grin*
Hancock, 2008
I love how Will Smith portrayed his character in this film. The posters and the first shots of him are so raw, so grisly, so un-Hollywood, it gave his character a sense of reality. Even when he got all cleaned up, he did not look like the Will Smith we were expecting to see. Which is a good thing, IMO.
I think I really appreciated the emotional depth conveyed by Will Smith's Hancock; you could feel the tension as he grappled with the pain of not being loved or liked, of being abandoned. He defense mechanism is "I don't care", but it is obvious he really does. Which makes the drama that much more pungent as Charlize Theron's character (Mary Embrey) gets more involved on screen.
However, at the same time, when Mary comes out of the closet (so to speak), I think the movie quickly went downhill. Even in the earlier parts of the movie, I was disappointed by the special effects/CG when Hancock flies around with an SUV in his hands, and finally drops it on a spire. It gets worse when Mary and Hancock start going at it. It just comes across as so fake. Part of it is the utter lack of reality. It is one thing for someone to have superpowers, but when natural laws of "cause and effect" are suspended, I start to loose my connection. For instance, flying through the air with an SUV.... that heavy thing is going to fall apart quick. Hitting a kid so hard he flies a couple miles into the atmosphere? And catching him when he lands? Purely cartoonish - the Gs would kill him.
I did like the concept; a superhero type of race that loose their powers when they pair up, thus making population growth a foregone conclusion. The struggle to stay apart, constantly fighting the magnetism of wanting to know one of your own. And the message of using one's powers responsibly was a good one, but not well cemented.
I think I really appreciated the emotional depth conveyed by Will Smith's Hancock; you could feel the tension as he grappled with the pain of not being loved or liked, of being abandoned. He defense mechanism is "I don't care", but it is obvious he really does. Which makes the drama that much more pungent as Charlize Theron's character (Mary Embrey) gets more involved on screen.
However, at the same time, when Mary comes out of the closet (so to speak), I think the movie quickly went downhill. Even in the earlier parts of the movie, I was disappointed by the special effects/CG when Hancock flies around with an SUV in his hands, and finally drops it on a spire. It gets worse when Mary and Hancock start going at it. It just comes across as so fake. Part of it is the utter lack of reality. It is one thing for someone to have superpowers, but when natural laws of "cause and effect" are suspended, I start to loose my connection. For instance, flying through the air with an SUV.... that heavy thing is going to fall apart quick. Hitting a kid so hard he flies a couple miles into the atmosphere? And catching him when he lands? Purely cartoonish - the Gs would kill him.
I did like the concept; a superhero type of race that loose their powers when they pair up, thus making population growth a foregone conclusion. The struggle to stay apart, constantly fighting the magnetism of wanting to know one of your own. And the message of using one's powers responsibly was a good one, but not well cemented.
Wanted, 2008
Don't you hate it when a preview shows you all the action scenes? Fortunately, Wanted was not like that, but it was close. I "wanted" to like this flick, and it was fun to watch it on the big screen. I loved the twists near the end. I hated the final punch at the very end (some cute smaller details, but....). So maybe this was a love/hate movie.
I appreciated the primary actor (James McAvoy); I thought he did a decent job, especially standing up next to some bigger names. He had a great mix of nervous trepidation and overconfident machismo, a perfect picture of an immature kid coming into his own (or in this case, a young man).
While I really enjoyed the special effects, the curving bullets "special power" got a little overused, especially since to engage said power one has to fling one's arm out in a most unhealthy and most inaccurate fashion. I really like the smaller details (and the not so small); the whole build-up with the mice, special messages on the bullets.
The whole thing with the loom was a disaster. 'Nuff said.
I appreciated the primary actor (James McAvoy); I thought he did a decent job, especially standing up next to some bigger names. He had a great mix of nervous trepidation and overconfident machismo, a perfect picture of an immature kid coming into his own (or in this case, a young man).
While I really enjoyed the special effects, the curving bullets "special power" got a little overused, especially since to engage said power one has to fling one's arm out in a most unhealthy and most inaccurate fashion. I really like the smaller details (and the not so small); the whole build-up with the mice, special messages on the bullets.
The whole thing with the loom was a disaster. 'Nuff said.
22 July 2008
His Dark Materials, Robert Pullman
After watching the movie "The Golden Compass", I was intrigued by the story and wanted to know more. Little did I know that there was so much controversy in religious circles about this novel. The more I heard from friends, the more I wanted to find out what all the fuss is about. In the end, I am glad I read the book; even though I hardly agree with everything, I think it was thoughtful, interesting and entertaining.
What I found disappointing about the movie, in retrospect, was that it ended on a note that veered wildly away from where the book was going - very misleading. The movie is based on Pullman's first volume (of the same title), yet there are two other volumes that come after which really dive into the mysteries and complexity of Pullman's story.
I enjoyed his characters, except that the children became way too adult-like to be believable. How come this so often happens in stories involving children heroes? Even if we grant them the right of passage based on bizarre and unusual circumstances, there is just way too much depth to their passion, convictions and persona. However, if one can imagine them being 10 or 20 years older, then everything seems to click in place a bit more readily.
I enjoyed the author's perspective, new to me, when exploring the nature of life and world views. These are so entwined with religious thoughts that we cannot separate them. I found it strange that the author acknowledges so many biblical stories (references to Adam and Eve, Enoch, Apostle Paul, God, angels, fallen angels, Satan, etc), while on the other hand he seems to putting forth the position that there really is no god at all. He acknowledges the enigma of good and bad, right and wrong, love and hate, and some how attributes these to the ultimate Enigma, Dust, his so-called "elementary particle".
What I found rather interesting about this approach is the criticism it has drawn. Christian circles seem to get a bit excited about Pullman's alleged attack on CS Lewis. I do not see it that way. I see a man who is terribly confused about reality, and is exploring his perceptions. True, Pullman paints a picture that might seem to say "there is no God", especially when he sets up a god-like central power figure that is actually a created being, the first angel. It all comes down to "What is Dust?" I saw an interview with Pullman when he emphasized that question and tried to answer it. I do not recall his reply very well (you can find it on the dark materials website), but he classified it as "particles with intent". Kind of a non-answer. His stories paint a picture of all good things coming from the presence of Dust; without Dust, people would go sour and start killing each other. With Dust, love and kindness abounds.
Given Pullman's extreme distaste of the "Church" (or the idea of the Church), I can only surmise that he had one or more negative experiences with such a body of folks. Yet it is obvious that he still struggles with the idea of where love comes from, where evil comes from, and why they wax and wane. Even more curious is Pullman's utter lack of mentioning "the dark one" except in two conspicuous places. The title, and a thought from a religious fanatic a couple pages before he did (mentioning Satan). Pullman obviously subscribes to the universal constructs of good and evil, and is equally perplexed by their ultimate origins and purpose in life.
There is one question that seems to be underlying this concept. "How can a good God allow bad things to happen?" That has been debated over and over. Tied up in that seemingly simple question is the paradox of predestination and free will. If you have an all-powerful being who has stated that he does not want people to do bad things, how come people do bad things? Or even more perplexing, how come bad things happen to "good" people? I get the impression that Pullman has concluded that since such a powerful, good God could not possibly allow such bad things to happen, then such a God must not exist. Or at least not as we traditionally define the concept and character of God.
What I found disappointing about the movie, in retrospect, was that it ended on a note that veered wildly away from where the book was going - very misleading. The movie is based on Pullman's first volume (of the same title), yet there are two other volumes that come after which really dive into the mysteries and complexity of Pullman's story.
I enjoyed his characters, except that the children became way too adult-like to be believable. How come this so often happens in stories involving children heroes? Even if we grant them the right of passage based on bizarre and unusual circumstances, there is just way too much depth to their passion, convictions and persona. However, if one can imagine them being 10 or 20 years older, then everything seems to click in place a bit more readily.
I enjoyed the author's perspective, new to me, when exploring the nature of life and world views. These are so entwined with religious thoughts that we cannot separate them. I found it strange that the author acknowledges so many biblical stories (references to Adam and Eve, Enoch, Apostle Paul, God, angels, fallen angels, Satan, etc), while on the other hand he seems to putting forth the position that there really is no god at all. He acknowledges the enigma of good and bad, right and wrong, love and hate, and some how attributes these to the ultimate Enigma, Dust, his so-called "elementary particle".
What I found rather interesting about this approach is the criticism it has drawn. Christian circles seem to get a bit excited about Pullman's alleged attack on CS Lewis. I do not see it that way. I see a man who is terribly confused about reality, and is exploring his perceptions. True, Pullman paints a picture that might seem to say "there is no God", especially when he sets up a god-like central power figure that is actually a created being, the first angel. It all comes down to "What is Dust?" I saw an interview with Pullman when he emphasized that question and tried to answer it. I do not recall his reply very well (you can find it on the dark materials website), but he classified it as "particles with intent". Kind of a non-answer. His stories paint a picture of all good things coming from the presence of Dust; without Dust, people would go sour and start killing each other. With Dust, love and kindness abounds.
Given Pullman's extreme distaste of the "Church" (or the idea of the Church), I can only surmise that he had one or more negative experiences with such a body of folks. Yet it is obvious that he still struggles with the idea of where love comes from, where evil comes from, and why they wax and wane. Even more curious is Pullman's utter lack of mentioning "the dark one" except in two conspicuous places. The title, and a thought from a religious fanatic a couple pages before he did (mentioning Satan). Pullman obviously subscribes to the universal constructs of good and evil, and is equally perplexed by their ultimate origins and purpose in life.
There is one question that seems to be underlying this concept. "How can a good God allow bad things to happen?" That has been debated over and over. Tied up in that seemingly simple question is the paradox of predestination and free will. If you have an all-powerful being who has stated that he does not want people to do bad things, how come people do bad things? Or even more perplexing, how come bad things happen to "good" people? I get the impression that Pullman has concluded that since such a powerful, good God could not possibly allow such bad things to happen, then such a God must not exist. Or at least not as we traditionally define the concept and character of God.
09 July 2008
Stardust, 2007
I enjoyed this piece. I wasn't crazy about it, but it was entertaining. Robert De Niro as a "moxie" pirate Captain Shakespeare totally rubbed me the wrong way. Ok, I can see some sort of humor in there, but... no.
I like the fantasy idea of a little, not-so-hidden but forbidden magical town with a deceivingly simple wall and a mystical break in that wall. I thought the story was well-written, and having some fresh new faces as main characters was refreshing. Some of the more tenured actors were fun to see around; in the outtakes, Peter O'Toole asked several times, very politely, almost to a fault, "may I do that scene again?". The best part of the movie, IMHO, was when the Star (Yvain) was approaching the wall that would end her life, as she is utterly heart-broken about loosing her new-found lover. However, I thought it was a bit too immature for her lover (Charlie Cox's "Tristan") to so blithely betray her as he did, and then so quickly grow up in a moment of epiphany and dump the "other girl". Given that the audience is in this ride too, it was too much too fast. But that's me. =) I did enjoy the build up to that scene, the depiction of "True Love", and how that change Yvain.
Tristan's connection to the royal blood is extremely sketchy. When watching the movie, it is not clear at all that his real mom (the slave girl) is a princess. Think about it; why would a princess be a slave, and how would nobody know that? That was mighty unbelievable. And then at the very end of the show, we find out that this slave girl is Una, whom all the dead prince ghosts finally recognize. Whatever.
Like I said, quite entertaining. I enjoyed most of the humor. It felt good when Tristan went back to his home town to face the apple of his eye, and to demonstrate that he had grown up and deserved more.
There is something about Claire Danes (Yvain) that reminds me of Gwyneth Paltrow. Hard to say what it is.
I like the fantasy idea of a little, not-so-hidden but forbidden magical town with a deceivingly simple wall and a mystical break in that wall. I thought the story was well-written, and having some fresh new faces as main characters was refreshing. Some of the more tenured actors were fun to see around; in the outtakes, Peter O'Toole asked several times, very politely, almost to a fault, "may I do that scene again?". The best part of the movie, IMHO, was when the Star (Yvain) was approaching the wall that would end her life, as she is utterly heart-broken about loosing her new-found lover. However, I thought it was a bit too immature for her lover (Charlie Cox's "Tristan") to so blithely betray her as he did, and then so quickly grow up in a moment of epiphany and dump the "other girl". Given that the audience is in this ride too, it was too much too fast. But that's me. =) I did enjoy the build up to that scene, the depiction of "True Love", and how that change Yvain.
Tristan's connection to the royal blood is extremely sketchy. When watching the movie, it is not clear at all that his real mom (the slave girl) is a princess. Think about it; why would a princess be a slave, and how would nobody know that? That was mighty unbelievable. And then at the very end of the show, we find out that this slave girl is Una, whom all the dead prince ghosts finally recognize. Whatever.
Like I said, quite entertaining. I enjoyed most of the humor. It felt good when Tristan went back to his home town to face the apple of his eye, and to demonstrate that he had grown up and deserved more.
There is something about Claire Danes (Yvain) that reminds me of Gwyneth Paltrow. Hard to say what it is.
03 July 2008
Mass Effect, 2008
I was intrigued by this game due to its sci-fi RPG niche target. It failed to do either really well; it does a decent job at both of them together. Perhaps one of my biggest disappointments is the heavy focus on the story; the cinematics are great, the little twists are decent. However, since the story itself is rather short, it is a bit unsatisfying when your character can so quickly grasp all the complexities of the situation and eliminate the opposition.
Another big disappointment was the enormous price tag for such a quick game. It is labeled as "open-ended", but I am having trouble understanding how that is so. Perhaps multiple endings? Replay value is astronomically low. Why?
Because there are just so many things wrong with the game. The eye candy is awesome, the sound effects are superb, and the acting is quite decent. But the guts of the game suck. The map blow chunks so large they almost did not find through my monitor; I was actually impressed by how bad the mapping features were. There is no way to tell where you have been, the map is completely 2D, markers do not always show up appropriately, and navigation is an absolute pain in the arse. You can receive a side mission to go somewhere and then have no idea how to get there. Even in a small environment like Citadel, even with the "Rapid Transit", I found myself bumbling around trying to make heads/tails of the stupid map.
While the side missions help distract away from the main story (and make an 8-hour game a 24-hour game), they are all so similar to each other. I got to the pointed where I hated traveling to a rocky planet (where is all the fauna?) bouncing around in my MAKO only to find a "hideout" that had one of three configurations.
I like the MAKO. I hated using it because of the scenarios. The sound effects of the gun punching holes were spot-on, and the cannon's explosive discharge was excellent, and the little click as a new round was slammed into the shaft was just a perfect way to top it off. The handling was a bit cartoonish; I found I could do flips, rolls and flat-out awful face-plants, and the MAKO always bounced back unto its wheels. But it was very prone to climb up the side of things, or spin out in a very unrealistic way. The only fun time I had using the MAKO was when taking out Geth or defensive positions.
I also liked the experience/point system, and building skills. That is RPG, after all. But it all seemed rather limited. I expected a lot more from a BioWare game; NeverWinter Nights had its faults, but limited class and skill growth was not generally among them. Not to mention that after playing Oblivion for a while, I most definitely wanted something more out of Mass Effect.
I hated the inventory. While it is nice not to have a weight limit, and it is nice to be able to morph any item into the moronic "omni-gel", trying to figure out how best to upgrade a weapon, for who and when was a nightmare. Perhaps I paid too much attention to that, and instead micromanaged where I should have been more laid back. The special effects on the guns were not as impressive as everything else, IMHO. Even grenades failed to impress me.
The "magic", or biotech as it is called, is rather impressive, but so dang narrow-minded. Yes, there are two branches, Biotics and Technology, which can be used to confound, harm, heal and do other wonderful things. But just a handful of things, getting bigger and better as the character grows in experience. I wanted more. Something like a chain-lightning effect would have been cool. Or what about mind control? The nemesis was able to control others, but we cannot.
I was also extremely disappointed that I could not have my technology specialist disarm/hack components that were too "hard" for my character. Why have them along in the first place. It is like the old D&D days and having a thief in the party for the sole purpose of picking locks. What if you had no way to tell the thief to pick the lock?
The manual is dismal. I never did figure out how to use the quickslots (didn't spend much time trying to figure it out). Perhaps this is the stamp of EA on the game? Hard to tell.
Some other things I have to get off my chest. The background musak when in the Navigation computer is downright annoying. And while the music in other environments was tastefully sci-fi, the same trak being cycled over and over just made it taste bad. The adrenalin pumping sounds/music and "exotic" new look of the last battle-scenes near the end of the game were great, if only because they broke the tired mold cast by the rest of the game. Collecting the little trinkets (medallions, writings, precious metals, etc etc) reminded me of the Ratchet & Clank little extra doodads one could collect, and just as worthless. Again, the mapping features (or lack thereof) utterly failed to bestow any kind of historical information or keep stats on where one has been.
The Reaper "Sovereign" was enticing; a teaser, really. I wanted to see it do more, and it went down too easily in the end. I wanted something that would compete and be able to go toe-to-toe. But then we start talking about space ships, and this game is not about space ships whatsoever.
There were a couple bugs, but not huge deals. I got stuck in an elevator once; after 20 minutes (I left to go run an errand), I killed the game and came back. I also once was pushed into a narrow crevice by some stairs (a biotic push) with one of my comrades, and the stupid character would not move out of the way so we could both get out of the crevice. Even if I gave instructions to move. Minor things.
I liked the game, but there are a number of serious flaws. It is most definitely not worth the "brand new, just released for PC" price! I would be curious what Halo fans thought of it. I usually do not like FPS (first person shooter) games, and now I have more reason to stay away from them. I am sorry if this is not fair to the FPS crowd; I realize this is allegedly a sci-fi/RPG first, a shooter second.
UPDATE: July 9, 2008
I played through once again to test my theory of replay value; it holds true. The single biggest advantage of replaying the game is if one can remember where things generally are, they can ignore the featureless maps. I continue to be disappointed by the fact that my tech squad members did not contribute enough decrypt skill to unlock all the goodies. I also tried a new task (not mission critical) of "Locating the Keepers". The result was enormously disappointing, especially since it utterly missed a grand opportunity to tie into the main story. I also tried to aim for a couple achievements, like having an Alliance soldier by my side for a majority of the game; I have no idea how I did not get that achievement, since Ashley was there 99% of the time. The achievements in general seem kinda nice, but not enough to entice me to play the game over and over and over. If only there were a way to turn off the cinematics, fast travel (getting better at Rapid Transit, but it is not enough) and vastly improved mapping functions. The game is fun, but in the end it was a waste of money.
Another big disappointment was the enormous price tag for such a quick game. It is labeled as "open-ended", but I am having trouble understanding how that is so. Perhaps multiple endings? Replay value is astronomically low. Why?
Because there are just so many things wrong with the game. The eye candy is awesome, the sound effects are superb, and the acting is quite decent. But the guts of the game suck. The map blow chunks so large they almost did not find through my monitor; I was actually impressed by how bad the mapping features were. There is no way to tell where you have been, the map is completely 2D, markers do not always show up appropriately, and navigation is an absolute pain in the arse. You can receive a side mission to go somewhere and then have no idea how to get there. Even in a small environment like Citadel, even with the "Rapid Transit", I found myself bumbling around trying to make heads/tails of the stupid map.
While the side missions help distract away from the main story (and make an 8-hour game a 24-hour game), they are all so similar to each other. I got to the pointed where I hated traveling to a rocky planet (where is all the fauna?) bouncing around in my MAKO only to find a "hideout" that had one of three configurations.
I like the MAKO. I hated using it because of the scenarios. The sound effects of the gun punching holes were spot-on, and the cannon's explosive discharge was excellent, and the little click as a new round was slammed into the shaft was just a perfect way to top it off. The handling was a bit cartoonish; I found I could do flips, rolls and flat-out awful face-plants, and the MAKO always bounced back unto its wheels. But it was very prone to climb up the side of things, or spin out in a very unrealistic way. The only fun time I had using the MAKO was when taking out Geth or defensive positions.
I also liked the experience/point system, and building skills. That is RPG, after all. But it all seemed rather limited. I expected a lot more from a BioWare game; NeverWinter Nights had its faults, but limited class and skill growth was not generally among them. Not to mention that after playing Oblivion for a while, I most definitely wanted something more out of Mass Effect.
I hated the inventory. While it is nice not to have a weight limit, and it is nice to be able to morph any item into the moronic "omni-gel", trying to figure out how best to upgrade a weapon, for who and when was a nightmare. Perhaps I paid too much attention to that, and instead micromanaged where I should have been more laid back. The special effects on the guns were not as impressive as everything else, IMHO. Even grenades failed to impress me.
The "magic", or biotech as it is called, is rather impressive, but so dang narrow-minded. Yes, there are two branches, Biotics and Technology, which can be used to confound, harm, heal and do other wonderful things. But just a handful of things, getting bigger and better as the character grows in experience. I wanted more. Something like a chain-lightning effect would have been cool. Or what about mind control? The nemesis was able to control others, but we cannot.
I was also extremely disappointed that I could not have my technology specialist disarm/hack components that were too "hard" for my character. Why have them along in the first place. It is like the old D&D days and having a thief in the party for the sole purpose of picking locks. What if you had no way to tell the thief to pick the lock?
The manual is dismal. I never did figure out how to use the quickslots (didn't spend much time trying to figure it out). Perhaps this is the stamp of EA on the game? Hard to tell.
Some other things I have to get off my chest. The background musak when in the Navigation computer is downright annoying. And while the music in other environments was tastefully sci-fi, the same trak being cycled over and over just made it taste bad. The adrenalin pumping sounds/music and "exotic" new look of the last battle-scenes near the end of the game were great, if only because they broke the tired mold cast by the rest of the game. Collecting the little trinkets (medallions, writings, precious metals, etc etc) reminded me of the Ratchet & Clank little extra doodads one could collect, and just as worthless. Again, the mapping features (or lack thereof) utterly failed to bestow any kind of historical information or keep stats on where one has been.
The Reaper "Sovereign" was enticing; a teaser, really. I wanted to see it do more, and it went down too easily in the end. I wanted something that would compete and be able to go toe-to-toe. But then we start talking about space ships, and this game is not about space ships whatsoever.
There were a couple bugs, but not huge deals. I got stuck in an elevator once; after 20 minutes (I left to go run an errand), I killed the game and came back. I also once was pushed into a narrow crevice by some stairs (a biotic push) with one of my comrades, and the stupid character would not move out of the way so we could both get out of the crevice. Even if I gave instructions to move. Minor things.
I liked the game, but there are a number of serious flaws. It is most definitely not worth the "brand new, just released for PC" price! I would be curious what Halo fans thought of it. I usually do not like FPS (first person shooter) games, and now I have more reason to stay away from them. I am sorry if this is not fair to the FPS crowd; I realize this is allegedly a sci-fi/RPG first, a shooter second.
UPDATE: July 9, 2008
I played through once again to test my theory of replay value; it holds true. The single biggest advantage of replaying the game is if one can remember where things generally are, they can ignore the featureless maps. I continue to be disappointed by the fact that my tech squad members did not contribute enough decrypt skill to unlock all the goodies. I also tried a new task (not mission critical) of "Locating the Keepers". The result was enormously disappointing, especially since it utterly missed a grand opportunity to tie into the main story. I also tried to aim for a couple achievements, like having an Alliance soldier by my side for a majority of the game; I have no idea how I did not get that achievement, since Ashley was there 99% of the time. The achievements in general seem kinda nice, but not enough to entice me to play the game over and over and over. If only there were a way to turn off the cinematics, fast travel (getting better at Rapid Transit, but it is not enough) and vastly improved mapping functions. The game is fun, but in the end it was a waste of money.
02 July 2008
Shoot 'Em Up, 2007
I was in the mood for guns and blowing things up. There was not quite the explosions I wanted. And to make up for it, they used a lot of blood. Too much.
There is a very interesting undercurrent; here we have this stranger who, apparently on a lark, decides to save a girl from something bad happening, only to end up with a baby in his arms (and a dead mommy). I say interesting because this is a rough 'n tumble guy, who can miraculously and unbelievably hit a bulls-eye 99% of the time even while he and his targets are moving. Interesting because this stranger/killer actually cares about the baby to some extent and wants it to be safe. It almost feels like the director and producer is trying to rip,wrench and tear some sort of sympathetic concern from this dirty lowlife.
Unfortunately, they overdid it by making the guy's "best friend" a queen of whores. It is almost as if they are trying to send a subliminal message: "See, even the world's worst kinds of people have some amount of human compassion."
While that small aspect of the film was interesting, the overall result is a basic failure to entertain. Granted, I found the artistic aspect intriguing; the "graphic novel" carry-over, reminiscent of "Sin City"; in fact, I was shocked not to see Frank Miller mentioned in the credits. I am not yet a big fan of that genre.
There is a very interesting undercurrent; here we have this stranger who, apparently on a lark, decides to save a girl from something bad happening, only to end up with a baby in his arms (and a dead mommy). I say interesting because this is a rough 'n tumble guy, who can miraculously and unbelievably hit a bulls-eye 99% of the time even while he and his targets are moving. Interesting because this stranger/killer actually cares about the baby to some extent and wants it to be safe. It almost feels like the director and producer is trying to rip,wrench and tear some sort of sympathetic concern from this dirty lowlife.
Unfortunately, they overdid it by making the guy's "best friend" a queen of whores. It is almost as if they are trying to send a subliminal message: "See, even the world's worst kinds of people have some amount of human compassion."
While that small aspect of the film was interesting, the overall result is a basic failure to entertain. Granted, I found the artistic aspect intriguing; the "graphic novel" carry-over, reminiscent of "Sin City"; in fact, I was shocked not to see Frank Miller mentioned in the credits. I am not yet a big fan of that genre.
12 May 2008
Wicked : the life and times of the wicked witch of the West , Gregory Macguire
I rather like this book. While the storyline and some of the details are a bit dark, I am finding the deeper vocabulary and serious approach to human issues quite refreshing; in some ways, it makes my other sci-fi/fantasy reading seem like puff and poof. *grin*
Because there is more attention spent on the characters (and not so much on things like the magic system or how people fight with each other), I feel more pulled into the story. We all know what happens to the "wicked witch of the west", but this perceptive glimpse into the past is extremely intriguing, filled with gall and guile, humility and learning.
Because there is more attention spent on the characters (and not so much on things like the magic system or how people fight with each other), I feel more pulled into the story. We all know what happens to the "wicked witch of the west", but this perceptive glimpse into the past is extremely intriguing, filled with gall and guile, humility and learning.
Iron Man, 2008
I was hugely disappointed with several of the other Marvel-to-movies (eg, Fantastic Four), but the trailers looked good. And I was, finally, not disappointed. Although it gets a little old seeing Stan show up so many times. =)
I thought Robert Downey Jr. made a great Tony Stark. Maybe a little too self-absorbed, but definitely efficacious in playing the part of a hi-tech, toy-crazy, ambitious geek inventor. I am a sucker for "high technology"; I love playing as the Protoss in Starcraft, even though they suck in the early game.
What largely makes this movie work is that it walks the line of tenuous, suspended disbelief quite well. With the huge exception of Obadiah (aka, "Iron Monger"), which I will get to shortly. We have a guy who has been playing with technological advances, and continuously improves upon his own design. After being shell-shocked by being on the receiving end of his own weapons (and this misuse), he appropriately experiences a paradigm shift. The powered exoskeleton is full of wonderful little details, and the CG actually starts to look good for this. Usually. I am not exactly crazy about some of the "learning to fly" scenes, but the little flaps and pieces that move autonomously are wonderful examples of attention at the micro level.
Some other details were flagrantly either ignored or looked over. Some simple matters of physics; I do not care how strong your armor is, you cannot simply hold out your arm and expect to stop a rain of bullets without the resulting momentum driving your arm back. And how did he end up with bullet holes in his first suit, but no bullets? I can forgive all that.
I cannot forgive the Iron Monger. Sheesh. Where to start.... there is this pivotal, critical scene where Obadiah berates a scientist for being unable to minaturize the Arc Generator; the classic response "We are not Tony Stark". So how the heck does he end up with this RoboTech mechnoid? How is it that it just happens to accept an Arc Generator Tony designed for his own suit? How is that Obadiah can apparently master his monster creation faster than Tony, who has the help of "Travis". Puh-lease!
Another annoyance was Tony's house/lab. It is gorgeous, true, but apparently easy to break into. And the helper bots were poorly animated (by some dweeb holding a little joystick?). If they were meant to be comic relief, they failed; more like comic torture.
I felt kinda bad for Gwyneth Paltrow. She just does not have the sci-fi persona. She makes an awesome "administrative assistant", but I had time seeing her having a romantic attachment to Downey's character.
Overall, great flick. Glad I saw it on the big screen.
But the time is quickly approaching when the big screen will be obsoleted, especially if they cannot make the presentation more spectacular, comfortable and user-friendly.
I thought Robert Downey Jr. made a great Tony Stark. Maybe a little too self-absorbed, but definitely efficacious in playing the part of a hi-tech, toy-crazy, ambitious geek inventor. I am a sucker for "high technology"; I love playing as the Protoss in Starcraft, even though they suck in the early game.
What largely makes this movie work is that it walks the line of tenuous, suspended disbelief quite well. With the huge exception of Obadiah (aka, "Iron Monger"), which I will get to shortly. We have a guy who has been playing with technological advances, and continuously improves upon his own design. After being shell-shocked by being on the receiving end of his own weapons (and this misuse), he appropriately experiences a paradigm shift. The powered exoskeleton is full of wonderful little details, and the CG actually starts to look good for this. Usually. I am not exactly crazy about some of the "learning to fly" scenes, but the little flaps and pieces that move autonomously are wonderful examples of attention at the micro level.
Some other details were flagrantly either ignored or looked over. Some simple matters of physics; I do not care how strong your armor is, you cannot simply hold out your arm and expect to stop a rain of bullets without the resulting momentum driving your arm back. And how did he end up with bullet holes in his first suit, but no bullets? I can forgive all that.
I cannot forgive the Iron Monger. Sheesh. Where to start.... there is this pivotal, critical scene where Obadiah berates a scientist for being unable to minaturize the Arc Generator; the classic response "We are not Tony Stark". So how the heck does he end up with this RoboTech mechnoid? How is it that it just happens to accept an Arc Generator Tony designed for his own suit? How is that Obadiah can apparently master his monster creation faster than Tony, who has the help of "Travis". Puh-lease!
Another annoyance was Tony's house/lab. It is gorgeous, true, but apparently easy to break into. And the helper bots were poorly animated (by some dweeb holding a little joystick?). If they were meant to be comic relief, they failed; more like comic torture.
I felt kinda bad for Gwyneth Paltrow. She just does not have the sci-fi persona. She makes an awesome "administrative assistant", but I had time seeing her having a romantic attachment to Downey's character.
Overall, great flick. Glad I saw it on the big screen.
But the time is quickly approaching when the big screen will be obsoleted, especially if they cannot make the presentation more spectacular, comfortable and user-friendly.
11 May 2008
Polgara, David and Leigh Eddings
In the beginning I was looking forward to a retelling of a familiar story from a new perspective. But that did not last long. I think the book could stand well on its own, but when you read all the Belgarath books, you start feeling like the same things are happening over and over again, in a bad way. I mean, even the parenthetical escapes, which I enjoyed before, get old real fast.
I like the way they write as a team. But it is starting to get a bit fluffy. I have another of their books from a different series, so it will be interesting to see how much carries over.
I like the way they write as a team. But it is starting to get a bit fluffy. I have another of their books from a different series, so it will be interesting to see how much carries over.
Sneakers, 1992
Given that this was filmed in the early 90's, I was impressed by the quality of the gadgets and special effects. The plot was interesting, although the film was a bit too slow at times. Sometimes when you see an action movie about illegal activities and high politics and stuff, the background character development just ain't worth it.
The intrigue kept me going for a while. As in some other movies, it is kinda dumb that you have a piece of technology that is developed and instantly coveted by the major powers that be, and for some reason the technology is completely uncopiable.
I liked the cast, except Aykroyd's character did not fit the mold at all. Perhaps I am just not one of his fans.
The computer simulations were interesting, but no where near amazing or realistic in any sense. I know they have braille interpreters (and even better, audio screen readers), but there is no way anyone is going to pull a Matrix and interpret a screen full of machine code. And just as impossible, you don't decrypt a screen full of said characters into a realtime display of graphics. But the concept of having an ultimate code-breaker is expectedly unrealistic, so I was simply entertained by that one. *grin*
The intrigue kept me going for a while. As in some other movies, it is kinda dumb that you have a piece of technology that is developed and instantly coveted by the major powers that be, and for some reason the technology is completely uncopiable.
I liked the cast, except Aykroyd's character did not fit the mold at all. Perhaps I am just not one of his fans.
The computer simulations were interesting, but no where near amazing or realistic in any sense. I know they have braille interpreters (and even better, audio screen readers), but there is no way anyone is going to pull a Matrix and interpret a screen full of machine code. And just as impossible, you don't decrypt a screen full of said characters into a realtime display of graphics. But the concept of having an ultimate code-breaker is expectedly unrealistic, so I was simply entertained by that one. *grin*
Solider, 1998
I was on a search for a good sci-fi flick, and I spotted "Soldier" sitting on a friends shelf. It was not a good sci-fi flick. Interesting premise, but a bit too masochistic, too robotic, too predictable. Altogether forgettable. The little sliver of "space" was too cheesy, and the whole thing was just blah.
30 April 2008
The Spiderwick Chronicles, by Tony DiTerlizzi and Holly Black
This collection of 5 books is a delightful, quick read. Even though they are written like children's books, they are a bit dark and mature at times. Transitioning to a much smaller book (faster pace, fewer details, etc) is a little difficult, as the series seems like the opening act to a much larger epic. It is a strange concoction of idiotic simplicity and complex struggles, but one that I found enjoyable overall.
I am just a little anxious to see how this was translated to a movie.
I am just a little anxious to see how this was translated to a movie.
29 April 2008
Pan's Labyrinth, 2006 (El laberinto del fauno)
I was first enticed by this film when watching the trailer for Hellboy II, and hearing that Guillermo del Toro directed both pieces. Of course, I was quite ignorant about the whole story, first of all not realizing it was in Spanish, and not knowing that it had anything to do with Spain. Thank goodness for closed captions. =)
I really appreciated and enjoyed the fantasy aspect of this film. Guillermo did an amazing job bringing various caricatures to life and weaving them into what would otherwise be a wholly unbelievable story (hence, fantasy). Even though Hellboy has a bit more shallow of a plot, I can see from the trailer where Guillermo left his mark.
I also did not expect the film to be so grisly. The protagonist of the story is cruel, selfish and particulary deranged, as shown by his flair for torture and carelessness with human life. There is another part where the "pale man" captures a couple fairies and bloodily bites off their heads.
While I personally do not enjoy such gluttony for gore, I have to admit the scenes added more depth and desperation to the plight of the heroine. I enjoyed the struggle of the rebellion, and the single-minded Borg-like ruthlessness of the "bad guys" seemed appropriate. I found myself wanting to see more quests, and more interaction with the mystical book given to Ofelia. The faun was one of the better ones I have seen in a while, and while writing up this review I just realized (from the Spanish) that Pan is the faun. Duh!
I really appreciated and enjoyed the fantasy aspect of this film. Guillermo did an amazing job bringing various caricatures to life and weaving them into what would otherwise be a wholly unbelievable story (hence, fantasy). Even though Hellboy has a bit more shallow of a plot, I can see from the trailer where Guillermo left his mark.
I also did not expect the film to be so grisly. The protagonist of the story is cruel, selfish and particulary deranged, as shown by his flair for torture and carelessness with human life. There is another part where the "pale man" captures a couple fairies and bloodily bites off their heads.
While I personally do not enjoy such gluttony for gore, I have to admit the scenes added more depth and desperation to the plight of the heroine. I enjoyed the struggle of the rebellion, and the single-minded Borg-like ruthlessness of the "bad guys" seemed appropriate. I found myself wanting to see more quests, and more interaction with the mystical book given to Ofelia. The faun was one of the better ones I have seen in a while, and while writing up this review I just realized (from the Spanish) that Pan is the faun. Duh!
14 April 2008
The Field Guide (Spiderwick Chronicles), by Tony DiTerlizzi and Holly Black
Having absolutely no idea what to expect not having seen the movie yet and not knowing anything about the authors, I was pleasantly surprised. I did not realize it was a children's book, but found it entertaining and refreshing all the same. While short, the plot is not necessarily simple, making it a good reader for young and old alike. The authors do not shy away from expanding on a simple vocabulary either, which is very good.
As other readers have noted, it is obviously reminiscent of Tolkien and Lewis. Duh! Tolkien and Lewis took notes from George MacDonald, considered to be one of the (if not only) fore fathers of modern fantasy writing. But I consider this to be a good thing. The authors have taken material from a genre and crafted it to their own vision, and I like the vision so far. It is not the heady, meaty stuff I have read from time to time. It is simple and enjoyable. With a slightly dark twist that seems intriguing.
More to follow as I read the rest of the chronicles...
As other readers have noted, it is obviously reminiscent of Tolkien and Lewis. Duh! Tolkien and Lewis took notes from George MacDonald, considered to be one of the (if not only) fore fathers of modern fantasy writing. But I consider this to be a good thing. The authors have taken material from a genre and crafted it to their own vision, and I like the vision so far. It is not the heady, meaty stuff I have read from time to time. It is simple and enjoyable. With a slightly dark twist that seems intriguing.
More to follow as I read the rest of the chronicles...
31 March 2008
Battlestar Gallactica, 2007 TV Series
I was not sure what to expect of this series. I started with the premier (a long, 200 minute affair) and was pleasantly surprised. For the most part, I liked how the plot unfolded, the intrigue, the action.
There is a lot I had forgotten since the original. I did not remember anything about Kobol, nor the 12 (or 13) colonies, nothing about a President Roslin.... perhaps they are all new, but I would not know. I do remember the cylons very well, and I rather miss the boxy shape of the Gallatica; the "newer" model is too rounded for me. I do like the unseemingly ragtag collection of other starships, as that is "just right" from the original.
Starbuck is a girl. Weird, that will take some getting used to. On the good side, she has the right amount of spunk, grit and "get out of my way" attitude. Her facial expressions kinda throw me; I can hear Randy and Paula of "American Idol" saying "What's up with the eyes?!?".
I remember Apollo being a little more mature, but I like the actor they casted for this series. I have to remember that I am over 20 years older now than when I first watched BG. =)
And finally the tech. This has me bamboozled. Granted that sci-fi has changed a lot in the past 25 years, but didn't the original good guys have blasters of some type? Especially on the Vipers. Instead all we see are your run-of-the-mill projectile guns (with tracers, of course). Something seems wrong with that. And the cylons are significantly superior technologically, able to infiltrate computers remotely and have a number of computer-defeating weapons. And the cyborgs! That is outrageous. If anything, the cyborgs ruin the show for me. By the time I got to season 2, half the cast seems like they are now cylons, and that is just wrong. (yes, I am exagerrating about half the cast). That whole dimension just adds way too much weirdness and unfamiliarity.
Perhaps more to follow, but perhaps not.
There is a lot I had forgotten since the original. I did not remember anything about Kobol, nor the 12 (or 13) colonies, nothing about a President Roslin.... perhaps they are all new, but I would not know. I do remember the cylons very well, and I rather miss the boxy shape of the Gallatica; the "newer" model is too rounded for me. I do like the unseemingly ragtag collection of other starships, as that is "just right" from the original.
Starbuck is a girl. Weird, that will take some getting used to. On the good side, she has the right amount of spunk, grit and "get out of my way" attitude. Her facial expressions kinda throw me; I can hear Randy and Paula of "American Idol" saying "What's up with the eyes?!?".
I remember Apollo being a little more mature, but I like the actor they casted for this series. I have to remember that I am over 20 years older now than when I first watched BG. =)
And finally the tech. This has me bamboozled. Granted that sci-fi has changed a lot in the past 25 years, but didn't the original good guys have blasters of some type? Especially on the Vipers. Instead all we see are your run-of-the-mill projectile guns (with tracers, of course). Something seems wrong with that. And the cylons are significantly superior technologically, able to infiltrate computers remotely and have a number of computer-defeating weapons. And the cyborgs! That is outrageous. If anything, the cyborgs ruin the show for me. By the time I got to season 2, half the cast seems like they are now cylons, and that is just wrong. (yes, I am exagerrating about half the cast). That whole dimension just adds way too much weirdness and unfamiliarity.
Perhaps more to follow, but perhaps not.
25 March 2008
Behind Enemy Lines, 2001
This was one of the few Owen Wilson films that I actually liked. In fact, I cannot think of another off the top of my head. A couple times he kinda gets into his Wilsonisms ("Whaddya mean...."), but for the most part, we saw more of Chris Burnett then Owen. I never thought of Hackman as an Admiral, but I thought he did a good job. And even though Joaqim makes a good commanding officer, he is a horrible American commanding officer. Bad casting.
The subterfuge revolving around Joaqim's character (Admiral Piquet) was quite intriguing and I appreciated the plot twists that sprouted as a result. Some of the action scenes were excellent; perhaps I had an overly cynical and pessimistic expectation of Owen's ability to do this type of role well, but I think he pulled it off well. I enjoyed Vladimir's performance of Sasha, but the cloud of mystery and enigma interwoven into his character was a bit too thick. Ok, so he came from a prison camp. What was he doing running around like some kind of loner arch-enemy who can do anything?
I enjoyed most of the cinematography. The action scenes were great, and the stop-motion cuts were tasteful, not to mention the dramatized, granular details of the jet explosion. I detested the scene were Chris Burnett was "sneaking" through the mine-infested industrical area. I hate the "realistic" non-steady-cam, not to mention the fact that absolutely nothing was happening while Owen was pretending to run and hide behind debris in the middle of the field. That sequence added nothing, in fact brought the movie down a notch or two.
The supporting cast was great. I thought Hackman's Admiral character was a bit too gushy at the end, hence unbelievable. But a good movie overall.
The subterfuge revolving around Joaqim's character (Admiral Piquet) was quite intriguing and I appreciated the plot twists that sprouted as a result. Some of the action scenes were excellent; perhaps I had an overly cynical and pessimistic expectation of Owen's ability to do this type of role well, but I think he pulled it off well. I enjoyed Vladimir's performance of Sasha, but the cloud of mystery and enigma interwoven into his character was a bit too thick. Ok, so he came from a prison camp. What was he doing running around like some kind of loner arch-enemy who can do anything?
I enjoyed most of the cinematography. The action scenes were great, and the stop-motion cuts were tasteful, not to mention the dramatized, granular details of the jet explosion. I detested the scene were Chris Burnett was "sneaking" through the mine-infested industrical area. I hate the "realistic" non-steady-cam, not to mention the fact that absolutely nothing was happening while Owen was pretending to run and hide behind debris in the middle of the field. That sequence added nothing, in fact brought the movie down a notch or two.
The supporting cast was great. I thought Hackman's Admiral character was a bit too gushy at the end, hence unbelievable. But a good movie overall.
19 March 2008
10,000 BC, 2008
I had high hopes for this flick, and unfortunately, I fell victim to advertising. Dang, I hate when that happens!
I was really expecting a lot more action; more fights, more war, more battles. Something!
Let's start with the good parts. The scale of the pyramid building was impressive. I am curious how many real people they actually had; there were some scenese were at least 50 were obviously real, but I highly suspect that was it. What else... The decor and motif for the early tribesmen seemed really barbaric, adding to a sense of authenticity. The austere mountain scenery was nice; the remote wastes of those mountains seemed rather savage.
Most everything else I did not like. The egyptian-looking folks were way to advanced for 10,000 BC. And what was up with muxing and flanging the audio for the voices to such extremes? Way too much CGI, and the oversized ostritch-vulture things were a bit out of place. No fighting with the saber-tooth? The acting was forgettable. There was just too much that was unbelievable in the movie.
I was really expecting a lot more action; more fights, more war, more battles. Something!
Let's start with the good parts. The scale of the pyramid building was impressive. I am curious how many real people they actually had; there were some scenese were at least 50 were obviously real, but I highly suspect that was it. What else... The decor and motif for the early tribesmen seemed really barbaric, adding to a sense of authenticity. The austere mountain scenery was nice; the remote wastes of those mountains seemed rather savage.
Most everything else I did not like. The egyptian-looking folks were way to advanced for 10,000 BC. And what was up with muxing and flanging the audio for the voices to such extremes? Way too much CGI, and the oversized ostritch-vulture things were a bit out of place. No fighting with the saber-tooth? The acting was forgettable. There was just too much that was unbelievable in the movie.
18 March 2008
Varekai cirque du soleil, 2003 DVD
Cirque du Soleil is most definitely world-renowned for a dramatic presentation, and Varekai is no slouch. The artistry is amazing, the execution is superb, the skills on stage are astounding and the choreography is mesmerizing.
So why did I blacklist this show? I am a meat & potatoes guy. No, actually, I am just a meat guy. I want action! While the performances were phenomenal (!!), I wished there were more acrobatics. La Vigie was just strange, eccentric in a bad way. Did he do anything other than run around like a dramatic clown? While the story was, or could be, very intriguing, I was lulled by the comic-relief of La Vigie that juxtaposed the meat of the story.
Some of the acrobatics are mind-blowing. The two guys doing the aerial/ground stunts were compelling and vivid. I was struck by how mask-like they affixed their faces, as if their strenuous exercise were but a walk in the park. It was a relief to see them breathe heavy and smile at the end of their performance, just to know they were human. The folks who paired up, the bottom guy throwing and kicking his partner in sometimes graceful movements, sometimes dangerous flips, was awesome! How do they do that?!?
I guess in the end, this was a great show, but I am glad I got it from the library (free!) and did not pay to see it in person. I am sure I would feel differently about other performances. Maybe.
So why did I blacklist this show? I am a meat & potatoes guy. No, actually, I am just a meat guy. I want action! While the performances were phenomenal (!!), I wished there were more acrobatics. La Vigie was just strange, eccentric in a bad way. Did he do anything other than run around like a dramatic clown? While the story was, or could be, very intriguing, I was lulled by the comic-relief of La Vigie that juxtaposed the meat of the story.
Some of the acrobatics are mind-blowing. The two guys doing the aerial/ground stunts were compelling and vivid. I was struck by how mask-like they affixed their faces, as if their strenuous exercise were but a walk in the park. It was a relief to see them breathe heavy and smile at the end of their performance, just to know they were human. The folks who paired up, the bottom guy throwing and kicking his partner in sometimes graceful movements, sometimes dangerous flips, was awesome! How do they do that?!?
I guess in the end, this was a great show, but I am glad I got it from the library (free!) and did not pay to see it in person. I am sure I would feel differently about other performances. Maybe.
Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)
Even though I had not heard much good about this movie, I did have some hopes if for nothing else than the whimsical adventures of the children. To that end, I thought the children were great! They were the highlight of the movie; interesting characters, well played and well written. In fact, I found the plot in general to be well conceived.
But there were many unfortunate factors that caused this piece to slide downhill for me. Jim Carey. While I think he has great talent (and this movie helped him improve his accents a little), his mannerisms are just too strong. But he was not the only problem. I found all the adults to be idiots. Its one thing if you make a children's movie, but this is not a movie for children specifically. It is dark, deep and mysterious. Why do the adults have to be so thick? The children stand out like red blood on newspaper.
My one complain of the children is Sunny - too much CGI. While her character was cute and charming at times, they gave her too much credit and had to adapt for it by synthesizing certain movements and postures. Bad choice, as it makes the character seem unreal.
But there were many unfortunate factors that caused this piece to slide downhill for me. Jim Carey. While I think he has great talent (and this movie helped him improve his accents a little), his mannerisms are just too strong. But he was not the only problem. I found all the adults to be idiots. Its one thing if you make a children's movie, but this is not a movie for children specifically. It is dark, deep and mysterious. Why do the adults have to be so thick? The children stand out like red blood on newspaper.
My one complain of the children is Sunny - too much CGI. While her character was cute and charming at times, they gave her too much credit and had to adapt for it by synthesizing certain movements and postures. Bad choice, as it makes the character seem unreal.
Age of Empires II, Microsoft game
Well, version 2 is definitely better than the original, but I was shocked to realize that some basic issues were untouched between the two. While AoE II is more polished and a few of the annoyances worked out, there is a sharp lack of diversity between the French, English and Scottish armies and buildings. The eastern races have a slight breathe of fresh air in that they at least look a little different. While extremely minor, I did not like how the menu graphics have such poor quality. And the music....
On the good side, I like the improvements made to the game system. Primitive waypoints are introduced, and selecting large groups of armies is a huge advantage. Pulling in the Egyptian architecture and units was a nice touch. And the upper-tech units add some nice variety, with distinct styles of play and unique weaknesses/strengths.
On the good side, I like the improvements made to the game system. Primitive waypoints are introduced, and selecting large groups of armies is a huge advantage. Pulling in the Egyptian architecture and units was a nice touch. And the upper-tech units add some nice variety, with distinct styles of play and unique weaknesses/strengths.
05 March 2008
Age of Empires, Microsoft game
I dabbled with the AoE II demo a while back, so I thought $10 would be a good price to get everything up to an including the AoE II expansion pack. You get what you pay for.
AoE II is definitely more polished than the original. I am playing through the original now and really finding it hard to like. No way points or build queues. My warriors stand around like dummies when an enemy is nearby (I already set Diplomacy to "Enemy"), and the pathfinding algorithms suck big time. Watch towers seem hesitant to fire upon the enemy (fear of retribution?). And how come if I kill an animal with a warrior I cannot harvest its meat?
I am looking forward to playing AoE II again; my memory is a little blurry, but I seem to remember that it was a little more satisfying.
AoE II is definitely more polished than the original. I am playing through the original now and really finding it hard to like. No way points or build queues. My warriors stand around like dummies when an enemy is nearby (I already set Diplomacy to "Enemy"), and the pathfinding algorithms suck big time. Watch towers seem hesitant to fire upon the enemy (fear of retribution?). And how come if I kill an animal with a warrior I cannot harvest its meat?
I am looking forward to playing AoE II again; my memory is a little blurry, but I seem to remember that it was a little more satisfying.
Belgarath the Sorcerer, by David and Leigh Eddings
I like the way these guys write. I like the style and level of detail, I like the way the plot unfolds and the constructs they use.
I like Belgarath. Although he and the rest of the disciples seem pretty dumb given that they live for tens of thousands of years, he has spunk, and I like spunk. The authors make their characters rather consistent, which lends life and believability to their personas. I also like the use of the occasionally parenthical thoughts; they are often used for foreshadowing, but also to develop other characters.
I like the magic system that the Eddings employ, the Will and the Word. Although Polgara seems to use hand motions a little more, the idea is still essentially the same. There is an intersting hierarchy within the gods, all of whom seemed compelled to follow the rules of the Necessity. "Compelled" being a keyword, as it seems it is occasionally allowed to disobey from time to time. It is interesting how we start to see the classic "evil vs. good" near the end of the book. More specifically, how the "evil" is a mistake, and a "good" is coming to correct that mistake. It strikes a very similar, although misguided, parallel to Christian theistic beliefs.
There are not many points of which I regret in this book. The landscape is a little small; folks travel all four corners on a consistent basis. Probably part of what skews the scope is that time is also a little distorted; if you blink, you might skip 3,000 years.
I see that the Eddings have written other things, and I plan to check them out.
I like Belgarath. Although he and the rest of the disciples seem pretty dumb given that they live for tens of thousands of years, he has spunk, and I like spunk. The authors make their characters rather consistent, which lends life and believability to their personas. I also like the use of the occasionally parenthical thoughts; they are often used for foreshadowing, but also to develop other characters.
I like the magic system that the Eddings employ, the Will and the Word. Although Polgara seems to use hand motions a little more, the idea is still essentially the same. There is an intersting hierarchy within the gods, all of whom seemed compelled to follow the rules of the Necessity. "Compelled" being a keyword, as it seems it is occasionally allowed to disobey from time to time. It is interesting how we start to see the classic "evil vs. good" near the end of the book. More specifically, how the "evil" is a mistake, and a "good" is coming to correct that mistake. It strikes a very similar, although misguided, parallel to Christian theistic beliefs.
There are not many points of which I regret in this book. The landscape is a little small; folks travel all four corners on a consistent basis. Probably part of what skews the scope is that time is also a little distorted; if you blink, you might skip 3,000 years.
I see that the Eddings have written other things, and I plan to check them out.
Winterbirth, Brian Ruckley
I read "Winterbirth" and "Left Hand of Darkness" back to back. Talk about a study in diametric opposition. Where Ursula was boring, Ruckley is all about bloodshed. Where Ursula explores, Ruckley spills blood. Get the picture?
I may attempt to pick it up again. All the aggression was a bit too much for my tastes; the story is raw and without grace, but full of testosterone and gristle.
I did enjoy the premise, the concept of the gods leaving and letting the people go about life without their influence, for better or worse. I do like the overriding but subliminal presence of some kind of "evil" that must be fought, in this case, the destiny of the entire planet.
I may attempt to pick it up again. All the aggression was a bit too much for my tastes; the story is raw and without grace, but full of testosterone and gristle.
I did enjoy the premise, the concept of the gods leaving and letting the people go about life without their influence, for better or worse. I do like the overriding but subliminal presence of some kind of "evil" that must be fought, in this case, the destiny of the entire planet.
The left hand of darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin
I have enjoyed other Ursula K. Le Guin books in the past, but this one just did not draw me in at all. There are definitely some interesting concepts, and I like how she develops the characters, but the story lacks engagement. I am finding it hard to say much anything else.
Raisin in the Sun, 2008 TV Movie
As a white person watching this movie, I found it very eye-opening; the topic reminds me of the horrible inequities faced by minority groups in our country, but also highlights the bravery, stamina and raw strength that some people have, no matter what situation they are in.
The cast was excellent and I was drawn in by the acting. The filmography was a bit too dark for me; the graininess I attributed to my TV. =) The story was riveting and very real, from my perspective. I felt Walter's struggle to be a man, amidst so many distractions, challenges and temptations. The day-by-day struggles of this family were amazing, only to be outdone by the strong vision of the mother ("Lena") and the vivacious glue with which she kept the family together.
The subplot about African heritage was interesting as well. I am reminded how much I, and perhaps most Americans, are rather ignorant of general African history.
My heart is torn by this type of drama, mostly because I know it is real and folks are still suffering from it. There is absolutely no good reason for this type of prejudice and racial disharmony; only bad reasons.
The cast was excellent and I was drawn in by the acting. The filmography was a bit too dark for me; the graininess I attributed to my TV. =) The story was riveting and very real, from my perspective. I felt Walter's struggle to be a man, amidst so many distractions, challenges and temptations. The day-by-day struggles of this family were amazing, only to be outdone by the strong vision of the mother ("Lena") and the vivacious glue with which she kept the family together.
The subplot about African heritage was interesting as well. I am reminded how much I, and perhaps most Americans, are rather ignorant of general African history.
My heart is torn by this type of drama, mostly because I know it is real and folks are still suffering from it. There is absolutely no good reason for this type of prejudice and racial disharmony; only bad reasons.
03 January 2008
A Fire Upon the Deep, by Vernor Vinge
I read this book a while back and decided to pick it up again to fill in some gaps (both in my memory and in between reading other stuff).
I had forgotten about some of the things I disliked about the book. Which is a good thing, I believe. The thought of having "zones of thought" in which "normal" laws of nature no longer adhere is very interesting. However, why zones of thought? Strange. But anyway, Vinge fills his galaxy with fascinating aliens (usually aliens are better when they are not very humanoid; how big is the universe anyway?) and appropriately scaled levels of technology. I was fascinated by the "Beyond" and Transcended "Powers". While it is never made clear how this happens or why, there is enough of a mystery to create a kind of allure with these godlike beings. Even his little world that is stuck in the slow region of space he has crafty little sentient beings that work with a hive mind. Vinge pulls it off quite well.
I did not like the 'Net that much. It smacks of the world wide web (itself smacking of old usenets) too much, and puts way too much of a human face on the galactic civilizations. I give credit to Vinge for contemplating something like the 'Net back in the early 90's; for that, I am in awe of his imagination. But it just seems a little dated now. I guess that happens. =)
I did enjoy how the plot grew and the the little twists kept me coming back until I hit the climax of the story. Some of the progression of the old backwater aliens was too much like our Feudal era, but I guess that helps readers to get pulled into the story a little. It was interesting to watch how "high technology" was adapted to work in "slower" zones, to the point that the characters are discussing how best to jumpstart a civilization's tech tree as if there are dusty white papers on the topic floating around. And I do very much enjoy the glimpses of "high technology" that Vinge allows us to see. While I want more, I do appreciate that he had the good sense to enshroud it in enigma so as to allow the reader's imagination to fill in the gaps. Too often I find that the author goes overboard in detail and his imagination limits the story.
I had forgotten about some of the things I disliked about the book. Which is a good thing, I believe. The thought of having "zones of thought" in which "normal" laws of nature no longer adhere is very interesting. However, why zones of thought? Strange. But anyway, Vinge fills his galaxy with fascinating aliens (usually aliens are better when they are not very humanoid; how big is the universe anyway?) and appropriately scaled levels of technology. I was fascinated by the "Beyond" and Transcended "Powers". While it is never made clear how this happens or why, there is enough of a mystery to create a kind of allure with these godlike beings. Even his little world that is stuck in the slow region of space he has crafty little sentient beings that work with a hive mind. Vinge pulls it off quite well.
I did not like the 'Net that much. It smacks of the world wide web (itself smacking of old usenets) too much, and puts way too much of a human face on the galactic civilizations. I give credit to Vinge for contemplating something like the 'Net back in the early 90's; for that, I am in awe of his imagination. But it just seems a little dated now. I guess that happens. =)
I did enjoy how the plot grew and the the little twists kept me coming back until I hit the climax of the story. Some of the progression of the old backwater aliens was too much like our Feudal era, but I guess that helps readers to get pulled into the story a little. It was interesting to watch how "high technology" was adapted to work in "slower" zones, to the point that the characters are discussing how best to jumpstart a civilization's tech tree as if there are dusty white papers on the topic floating around. And I do very much enjoy the glimpses of "high technology" that Vinge allows us to see. While I want more, I do appreciate that he had the good sense to enshroud it in enigma so as to allow the reader's imagination to fill in the gaps. Too often I find that the author goes overboard in detail and his imagination limits the story.
The Changeling Plague, by Syne Mitchell
This book has a very interesting premise and plot; in some sense, it is right up the sci-fi alley. My beef is two-fold:
- has a really slow start
- the ending is just weird
It is almost like the story twists in a exponential way. I did like the concept of systematically mapping and categorizing the building blocks of our DNA, and the possibility of "reprogramming"; just the thought of that is pretty amazing. But I did not really like how the author used a computer hacker to become the genetic engineering guru just by reading a few books. Sure, there are some similarities between the complex systems of a program and the biological instructions stored in protein pairs, but to think that you can simply tweak DNA willy-nilly is quite naive. The author lightly touches on the negative side-affects, but in my mind, it was a gross over-simplification.
As ever, my "litmus test" is that the book did not draw me at all. There was nobody to connect too. There is a hacker who turns his girlfriend into his late sister, the misplaced billionaire who is hated but charitable, and a CDC genetic specialist who is at the forefront of genetic engineering but seems to do nothing productive with it.
- has a really slow start
- the ending is just weird
It is almost like the story twists in a exponential way. I did like the concept of systematically mapping and categorizing the building blocks of our DNA, and the possibility of "reprogramming"; just the thought of that is pretty amazing. But I did not really like how the author used a computer hacker to become the genetic engineering guru just by reading a few books. Sure, there are some similarities between the complex systems of a program and the biological instructions stored in protein pairs, but to think that you can simply tweak DNA willy-nilly is quite naive. The author lightly touches on the negative side-affects, but in my mind, it was a gross over-simplification.
As ever, my "litmus test" is that the book did not draw me at all. There was nobody to connect too. There is a hacker who turns his girlfriend into his late sister, the misplaced billionaire who is hated but charitable, and a CDC genetic specialist who is at the forefront of genetic engineering but seems to do nothing productive with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)