EvilZone is "Simple and Remarkable". Easily one of the best fighting games I have every played even though it used a directional pad and two buttons.
Yep, that's it. Two whole buttons. You could port the thing to the master system if you didn't mind the grotesque loss in graphics. It does use depth of field a little.
There are a lot who wouldn't like it, I realize, but I found it rather elegant. I'm not good at it or anything, but it is surprising how many things can be done with those two buttons (block and attack) with four directions and a lot of double tapping. It's a lot like othello: "a minute to learn, a lifetime to master" concept. There are parts that are a little clunky and odd, but there is a lot to balance. Not considering so many possible moves frees your mind up to consider what moves would work best. Then you just need the skill to instantly go into that move.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Elephant Engine Highdive Revival (slam poetry)
Performance Poetry! Can be a lot of fun, and can be a whole lot of not fun. Elephant Engine High Dive Revival very accurately hits the former. I'm glad I went there instead of Vinotok at Crested Butte (suckers). They have a lot of fun on stage, and it is obvious. They are comfortable and experienced on stage, as is also obvious. They are great poets, which is the whole point.
The Elephant Engine High Dive Revival are Buddy Wakefield, Anis Mojgani, Derrick Brown, & Shira Erlichman (Joined when I saw them September 19th at Western State by Robbie Q. Telfer). The Elephant Engine is poignant. They speak about personal issues that apply to pretty much everyone. They awaken the emotion. They are serious poets! But what makes it good, is that they are also entertaining. They don't overload with hard-pressing, rather depressing issues. They make it funny, too. Which is very important, I think.
My favorite poet of the night was the temp: Robbie Q. Telfer. In the words of Wakefield (from stage) "[he's] so fuckin' weird, man." I bought his book sale flower (first book sold! Wooo!) His style had more diversity than the other four who were on stage and he was the funniest. That's important to me. He also had the same ability as the others to get serious.
Wakefield is the most known to me. He has an incredible energy on stage. At one point during that performance, he said "excuse me" and shook out away from the mic because he got so excited. He's a funny guy.
Derrick Brown was the least interesting to me that night, though he always worked with music. His poems stayed the most similar to each other. Anis Mojgani told one poem to the most perfect possible background music. Which made the piece very moving. But my second-favorite performer had to have been Shira Erlichman. Again, because she succeeded in being very funny while being more.
Like most poets, they make a lot out of a lot of things. Some of which are just like: "The wind! It moves a hair" (paraphrased from one of my own poems) and some which are more like: "Suicide sucks" (Questionable Content theme, comics 500 to ~600). And others which are more like: "The Foam! If it were a movie, it'd be written in big bleedy letters!" (Robbie Telfer, also paraphrased).
If you ever have the chance to see any of the performers, or the entire Elephant Engine, I recommend seeing it. They are "Wonderful".
The Elephant Engine High Dive Revival are Buddy Wakefield, Anis Mojgani, Derrick Brown, & Shira Erlichman (Joined when I saw them September 19th at Western State by Robbie Q. Telfer). The Elephant Engine is poignant. They speak about personal issues that apply to pretty much everyone. They awaken the emotion. They are serious poets! But what makes it good, is that they are also entertaining. They don't overload with hard-pressing, rather depressing issues. They make it funny, too. Which is very important, I think.
My favorite poet of the night was the temp: Robbie Q. Telfer. In the words of Wakefield (from stage) "[he's] so fuckin' weird, man." I bought his book sale flower (first book sold! Wooo!) His style had more diversity than the other four who were on stage and he was the funniest. That's important to me. He also had the same ability as the others to get serious.
Wakefield is the most known to me. He has an incredible energy on stage. At one point during that performance, he said "excuse me" and shook out away from the mic because he got so excited. He's a funny guy.
Derrick Brown was the least interesting to me that night, though he always worked with music. His poems stayed the most similar to each other. Anis Mojgani told one poem to the most perfect possible background music. Which made the piece very moving. But my second-favorite performer had to have been Shira Erlichman. Again, because she succeeded in being very funny while being more.
Like most poets, they make a lot out of a lot of things. Some of which are just like: "The wind! It moves a hair" (paraphrased from one of my own poems) and some which are more like: "Suicide sucks" (Questionable Content theme, comics 500 to ~600). And others which are more like: "The Foam! If it were a movie, it'd be written in big bleedy letters!" (Robbie Telfer, also paraphrased).
If you ever have the chance to see any of the performers, or the entire Elephant Engine, I recommend seeing it. They are "Wonderful".
Herencia Mexicana de Vail (dance performance)
For being a rhythm and tap style of dancing, Herencia Mexicana de Vail is "Very Quiet and Sloppy". I watched their show at Western State College and was fairly disappointed. I have previously performed in Mexican Folklorico dancing, and we were sometimes pretty lost on stage, but I don't remember losing place quite so often. If we had a problem, we stomped too loudly, not too quietly. They commonly got out of step with each other (which was especially noticeable in the Nayarit set with Machetes), and barely moved their legs.
Even viejos dance was disappointing. They didn't look nearly crippled enough.
But I did enjoy it for the nostalgia. But that is pretty exclusive to someone who had once danced Folklorico and no longer does much.
Even viejos dance was disappointing. They didn't look nearly crippled enough.
But I did enjoy it for the nostalgia. But that is pretty exclusive to someone who had once danced Folklorico and no longer does much.
The Color of Magic by Terry Pratchett
Terry Pratchett is a funny, funny, man. It is a pity, after reading his first book, to know that he has Alzheimer's and is no longer writing. The Discworld is a marvelous place to go. The first in that series, The Color of Magic was "Enlightened Episodic Entertainment".
The Color of Magic is a little different from the other three Pratchett books I have read (two of which were with Vimes in Ankh-Morpork). Pratchett's first book is very episodic. It is also a little less poignant than the other three which has a central theme he was parodying. In The Color of Magic, he pokes fun at Economics and the concept of insurance early on, but it doesn't quite follow the whole way though. He continues to make fun of tourists, and fantasy on the whole (while continuing to be one of the quintessential installments of the genre), but for the most part, it is just funny.
There are a few parts that are a bit hard, it loses the fluidity of the normal narration, such as a part near the beginning when it's a little unclear why Twoflower follows Rincewind out of the city (I'm not sure it's ever explained), but it's a pretty minor aspect. Considering the book is fundamentally zany. There are also a few paragraphs were Terry gets into the unexplainable parodoxical metaphysics of the Discworld, and it is well-neigh un-followable. But it is really part of the fun. The book doesn't stop being fun and funny. It makes fun of fantasy while being one of the most quintessential installments in the genre.
Terry Pratchett was one of the best comedians in literature. For fantasy what Douglass Adams was for Sci-Fi. Any of his books should make a real treat. The Discworld is always full of hilarity, a wit has a purpose and parodying some of the more insane ideas that keep popping up on our spherical world.
The Color of Magic is a little different from the other three Pratchett books I have read (two of which were with Vimes in Ankh-Morpork). Pratchett's first book is very episodic. It is also a little less poignant than the other three which has a central theme he was parodying. In The Color of Magic, he pokes fun at Economics and the concept of insurance early on, but it doesn't quite follow the whole way though. He continues to make fun of tourists, and fantasy on the whole (while continuing to be one of the quintessential installments of the genre), but for the most part, it is just funny.
There are a few parts that are a bit hard, it loses the fluidity of the normal narration, such as a part near the beginning when it's a little unclear why Twoflower follows Rincewind out of the city (I'm not sure it's ever explained), but it's a pretty minor aspect. Considering the book is fundamentally zany. There are also a few paragraphs were Terry gets into the unexplainable parodoxical metaphysics of the Discworld, and it is well-neigh un-followable. But it is really part of the fun. The book doesn't stop being fun and funny. It makes fun of fantasy while being one of the most quintessential installments in the genre.
Terry Pratchett was one of the best comedians in literature. For fantasy what Douglass Adams was for Sci-Fi. Any of his books should make a real treat. The Discworld is always full of hilarity, a wit has a purpose and parodying some of the more insane ideas that keep popping up on our spherical world.
Bridget Jones's Diary (the movie, post-read)
This movie is somewhat elegantly done. Somewhat. The beginning was very true to the book, including quotes and similar, and even improves on some elements (Darcy's embarrassing shirt was a Christmas reindeer rather than just diamonds). Handwriting is placed over the screen and is always funny, and includes Bridge's obsession with her weight and how many cigarettes she's smoked, and alcohol she's consumed. As the movie progresses, it slowly parts further and further from the book, as is necessary for the change in medium. However, I was disappointed in what was dropped out of the story. As it departs the source material, it approaches the tried movie cliche that is the "chick flick". It doesn't continue to put hand-writing up on the screen and it doesn't convey Bridge's obsession with her weight and such.
The book was nice because it was not the formula. The movie disappoints. It ignores Bridget's friends, turning them into three heads who act the same character. Refusing to give any background on them at all (in better cases) and changing them into drones (poor Shazzer...) There is also very little about Bridget's mother.
In my opinion, one of these side stories should have been kept: her relationship with her friends, or her crazy mother. But neither fruits anything.
The one thing this movie has are two beaus and it can keep the viewer guessing which Bridget will fall for. (The behind-the-scene joke of Mark Darcy being the same actor as Mr. Darcy is great, too.) But in the end, it is "Only slightly more than the chick-flick formula".
The book was nice because it was not the formula. The movie disappoints. It ignores Bridget's friends, turning them into three heads who act the same character. Refusing to give any background on them at all (in better cases) and changing them into drones (poor Shazzer...) There is also very little about Bridget's mother.
In my opinion, one of these side stories should have been kept: her relationship with her friends, or her crazy mother. But neither fruits anything.
The one thing this movie has are two beaus and it can keep the viewer guessing which Bridget will fall for. (The behind-the-scene joke of Mark Darcy being the same actor as Mr. Darcy is great, too.) But in the end, it is "Only slightly more than the chick-flick formula".
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
You Suck by Christopher Moore
You Suck is a Laugh-out-loud funny book (at times) making fun of everything that is Goth, Emo, "Twilight" and "Vampyre" at the same bloody time. It is filled with moral ambiguity, awfulness, whores, the word "fuck" in many incarnations, and undead murderous bastards.
Make no mistake, the book is not expertly crafted. It gets better the further you are through it, but there are times in the beginning where it is just a little halting because transitions blow. At other times, he is just trying a little too hard to be funny on a tight timeline as the book seems to have been bashed out in a few days. But you can read it in about 7 or 8 hours, so you wont suffer much if you don't like it.
There is no point behind this book other than to laugh. But it does have sections which, don't promote animal cruelty, but certainly don't admonish it. The same goes with its depiction of prostitution. If these offend you, steer clear of the book.
I'm not going to personally recommend it for all of these reasons, but that being said, it's "Awful, But Not Bad", though I didn't think I would say that at chapter 10.
Amendment:
The end does have interesting things happen between the main couple. Their personalities are different and they react to vampirism differently. I don't want to ruin anything (ever), but I have come back to thinking of the problem posed to them in the end and have gained a little more respect for the book.
My rating stands: It isn't a bad book, perhaps it's even good, but it is filled with awfulness. I still like the phrase. I have been recommending it to some people, though, so take that a little be better than it was originally intended without this amendment.
Make no mistake, the book is not expertly crafted. It gets better the further you are through it, but there are times in the beginning where it is just a little halting because transitions blow. At other times, he is just trying a little too hard to be funny on a tight timeline as the book seems to have been bashed out in a few days. But you can read it in about 7 or 8 hours, so you wont suffer much if you don't like it.
There is no point behind this book other than to laugh. But it does have sections which, don't promote animal cruelty, but certainly don't admonish it. The same goes with its depiction of prostitution. If these offend you, steer clear of the book.
I'm not going to personally recommend it for all of these reasons, but that being said, it's "Awful, But Not Bad", though I didn't think I would say that at chapter 10.
Amendment:
The end does have interesting things happen between the main couple. Their personalities are different and they react to vampirism differently. I don't want to ruin anything (ever), but I have come back to thinking of the problem posed to them in the end and have gained a little more respect for the book.
My rating stands: It isn't a bad book, perhaps it's even good, but it is filled with awfulness. I still like the phrase. I have been recommending it to some people, though, so take that a little be better than it was originally intended without this amendment.
Bridget Jones's Diary by Helen Fielding
I haven't read the original column, but Bridget Jones's Diary is pretty entertaining as a book. And stylish. It successfully reads like a diary even though it has extensive dialog sessions (which I don't imagine show up in most peoples' diaries) and has a few instances of irrational times Bridge is supposedly writing in it. It achieves this by adding unnecessary words such as "Humph" once in a while and taking out unnecessary words such as "I" and "it" and whatnot occasionally.
It was also interesting to me because it is from Britain and they talk differently there. Hee Hee.
Many people (mainly males) may pass up this book because they fear it is a chick-flick in book binding. There were a few times I was made fun of while reading it, because I am not a chick. If this is too much for your masculinity to handle, put a Dan Patterson jacket over it and enjoy the book anyway. It's funny, it is interesting, it is aesthetic. Thus I recommend it. It is a bit chick-flickie (just in case you simply can't stomach any of that) in that it's largely about relationships and largely about romantic relationships, but it isn't the standard tried formula. You are given a window into the schizo mind of a woman who is trying to be proud of being single, while still trying to not be single.
It is somewhat standard fare in that regard. The book has engaging characters, and interesting (sometimes larger-than-life) situations which last a month or so (half a month, mostly). It doesn't have a large sociopolitical or psychological message (besides that Bridget isn't really alone in her problems), so if you require your books to have meaning (whatever that is), pass it up. If it would annoy you that Helen Fielding is trying to be the next Jane Austen, and apparently wants this to be the next Pride and Predjudice, pass it up. But if you want a "Fun" book, read it.
Now to watch the movie...
It was also interesting to me because it is from Britain and they talk differently there. Hee Hee.
Many people (mainly males) may pass up this book because they fear it is a chick-flick in book binding. There were a few times I was made fun of while reading it, because I am not a chick. If this is too much for your masculinity to handle, put a Dan Patterson jacket over it and enjoy the book anyway. It's funny, it is interesting, it is aesthetic. Thus I recommend it. It is a bit chick-flickie (just in case you simply can't stomach any of that) in that it's largely about relationships and largely about romantic relationships, but it isn't the standard tried formula. You are given a window into the schizo mind of a woman who is trying to be proud of being single, while still trying to not be single.
It is somewhat standard fare in that regard. The book has engaging characters, and interesting (sometimes larger-than-life) situations which last a month or so (half a month, mostly). It doesn't have a large sociopolitical or psychological message (besides that Bridget isn't really alone in her problems), so if you require your books to have meaning (whatever that is), pass it up. If it would annoy you that Helen Fielding is trying to be the next Jane Austen, and apparently wants this to be the next Pride and Predjudice, pass it up. But if you want a "Fun" book, read it.
Now to watch the movie...
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
White Noise by Don DeLillo
Don DeLillo's "break out book" White Noise is interesting if nothing else. Every character proposes their own weird, "post-modern" theory. From society, to psychology, to the nature of knowledge. Or they exhibit some behavior which is rather exaggerated from the norm, but based on some odd thing which lots of people do.
I don't really like the main character, which is to say, every character as the story is a large internal debate from the perspective of Jack Gladney. Therefore every character sounds like Jack Gladney. Thus, it was difficult for me to keep reading. It did not "keep me up at night" as many reviewers claim, but rather made me put it down over and over and over again. Yet even as it did so, it succeeded in enticing me finish it. And I am glad I did. It was "A Little Annoying, but Interesting".
The meat of the book are the conversations between different characters. An early one between Jack and his son Heinrich is very interesting, Heinrich essentially taking the side that you can't really know anything. However, in the end he makes an assumption on the same par (or higher) than the ones his father had been making: anything an animal does is automatically more natural than what humans do. Supermarkets are really big and important to Jack, his family is really big, extended and complicated due to marriage, divorce, re-marriage, procreation, and divorce again.
The main issue dealt with in the book was Death, and the fear of it. But in the end, it doesn't spur a lot of thought in me, though it obviously wanted to. I am not reminded of it, or a theory in it, ever. But it has been interesting trying to decide whither or not one or another person (like my Mom, or Sister, or crazy neighbor) would like the book. I am very curious to know how correct each of my predictions are.
Post-Modern is a hard term to define, but this book is a pretty good illustration of what it is: everything, and at the same time, nothing at all, and usually a little annoying.
I don't really like the main character, which is to say, every character as the story is a large internal debate from the perspective of Jack Gladney. Therefore every character sounds like Jack Gladney. Thus, it was difficult for me to keep reading. It did not "keep me up at night" as many reviewers claim, but rather made me put it down over and over and over again. Yet even as it did so, it succeeded in enticing me finish it. And I am glad I did. It was "A Little Annoying, but Interesting".
The meat of the book are the conversations between different characters. An early one between Jack and his son Heinrich is very interesting, Heinrich essentially taking the side that you can't really know anything. However, in the end he makes an assumption on the same par (or higher) than the ones his father had been making: anything an animal does is automatically more natural than what humans do. Supermarkets are really big and important to Jack, his family is really big, extended and complicated due to marriage, divorce, re-marriage, procreation, and divorce again.
The main issue dealt with in the book was Death, and the fear of it. But in the end, it doesn't spur a lot of thought in me, though it obviously wanted to. I am not reminded of it, or a theory in it, ever. But it has been interesting trying to decide whither or not one or another person (like my Mom, or Sister, or crazy neighbor) would like the book. I am very curious to know how correct each of my predictions are.
Post-Modern is a hard term to define, but this book is a pretty good illustration of what it is: everything, and at the same time, nothing at all, and usually a little annoying.
Monday, September 7, 2009
District 9 (movie)
Distric 9 film loosely (very, very loosely) reminiscent of Apartheid in South Africa and produced by the now infamous Peter Jackson. The Apartheid reference was the only reason we risked seeing this movie. Would it be an intelligent look at Apartheid? Using aliens as a tactic to get people to see it and learn about a unpalatably awful even in human history? Or would it take advantage of this unpalatably awful event to score a few bucks.
Well, my official rating is "I'm So Upset!", so that should answer that question. The movie was horrific. Aweful. Actually, I can't think of one film I have ever seen which is quite so bad. Even Very Bad Things (a supposed comedy) wasn't as bad as this... thing. Everything that was wrong in The Lord of the Rings, what was similar between it and King Kong, is present in this movie. Between the three projects, I have a beautiful outline of who Peter Jackson is and I don't think I need to actually see another one of his films to know everything about it.
Watching the movie was a little like watching I Love Lucy in that you sat in the chair saying, "Oh, come on. Don't do that. Don't. You'll-- You did it! Gaw!" But Lucy was more enjoyable. A little less frustrating and not so infuriating from start to finish. So that you can relax and truly notice how bad the movie is: the kid doesn't die. He gets to go home. Putting him in peril is just the gimmick used to keep you interested and not paying attention to anything else.
Actually, I am being a little over harsh. There were elements in the beginning, when the camera was still shaky documentary-ish, which were very intriguing. Frustrating, to be sure, pure debauchery, yes. But Apartheid was debauchery. It wasn't without merit. But everything that was interesting were dropped in favor of big guns and gooie explosions of human and alien body parts. It was as if the writer got some bad blockage going on and instead of working through it, he just quit, went to play Halo and that was the rest of the movie. The cinematics here aren't so much reminiscent of a documentary, but reminded me of the first time I watched Braveheart. They got so obsessed with fake blood they splashed the camera a few times; but it was quick and they changed camera so quickly, it seemed an accident. It happened very frequently here and is obviously no accident.
Then it gets all overdramatic. With the following idiotic scene: guns and bullets and explosions are everywhere. People are injured and retreating. One of them has a huge suit of armor and thinks he can stop the attack (which he could have 30 minutes ago if he was half as intelligent as a flaccid sea-creature) So the two heroes stop and turn to each other.
"Go on without me!" says one.
"No I won't leave you" says the other.
"Yes you must!" says the first.
"No!" repeats the other.
And somehow they are not killed. Pah! It was like watching Frodo make the zillionth 'I'm in pain' face by the half-way mark in the first and least pain-filled (for him) LOTR.
The movie may have had promise, but rather than delivering on it, it sadly devolves into an assortment of clichés. That's all there is to it.
Well, my official rating is "I'm So Upset!", so that should answer that question. The movie was horrific. Aweful. Actually, I can't think of one film I have ever seen which is quite so bad. Even Very Bad Things (a supposed comedy) wasn't as bad as this... thing. Everything that was wrong in The Lord of the Rings, what was similar between it and King Kong, is present in this movie. Between the three projects, I have a beautiful outline of who Peter Jackson is and I don't think I need to actually see another one of his films to know everything about it.
Watching the movie was a little like watching I Love Lucy in that you sat in the chair saying, "Oh, come on. Don't do that. Don't. You'll-- You did it! Gaw!" But Lucy was more enjoyable. A little less frustrating and not so infuriating from start to finish. So that you can relax and truly notice how bad the movie is: the kid doesn't die. He gets to go home. Putting him in peril is just the gimmick used to keep you interested and not paying attention to anything else.
Actually, I am being a little over harsh. There were elements in the beginning, when the camera was still shaky documentary-ish, which were very intriguing. Frustrating, to be sure, pure debauchery, yes. But Apartheid was debauchery. It wasn't without merit. But everything that was interesting were dropped in favor of big guns and gooie explosions of human and alien body parts. It was as if the writer got some bad blockage going on and instead of working through it, he just quit, went to play Halo and that was the rest of the movie. The cinematics here aren't so much reminiscent of a documentary, but reminded me of the first time I watched Braveheart. They got so obsessed with fake blood they splashed the camera a few times; but it was quick and they changed camera so quickly, it seemed an accident. It happened very frequently here and is obviously no accident.
Then it gets all overdramatic. With the following idiotic scene: guns and bullets and explosions are everywhere. People are injured and retreating. One of them has a huge suit of armor and thinks he can stop the attack (which he could have 30 minutes ago if he was half as intelligent as a flaccid sea-creature) So the two heroes stop and turn to each other.
"Go on without me!" says one.
"No I won't leave you" says the other.
"Yes you must!" says the first.
"No!" repeats the other.
And somehow they are not killed. Pah! It was like watching Frodo make the zillionth 'I'm in pain' face by the half-way mark in the first and least pain-filled (for him) LOTR.
The movie may have had promise, but rather than delivering on it, it sadly devolves into an assortment of clichés. That's all there is to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)