Uhmmm... Huh. Well, it's "Slapsticky", that's for sure. It is a movie of Fart Humor, plot holes, logical errors, and, um, Mars.
Suspend your disbelief. Then suspend it again. Then be prepared to suspend it again and again and again. As many times as is necessary to get though. This movie works under its own rules, then breaks them, then commits another error that the writers probably didn't know they committed.
And then it makes a joke.
But it is kinda funny, in spite of its flaws. If you want a simple laugh, then you can watch it. It's got all the obligatory things for a simple story such as romance and heroism so it probably wont surprise you once unless your six to ten, which is the intended audience. If your the parent, then there's nothing to keep you interested in the movie. Sorry.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Green and Black's Organic Mint Dark Chocolate bar (food)
I love me dark chocolates! Yeah! Green and Blacks is usually very, very good.
But this bar is "Very Minty" and, for my taste, is far too minty. If that's what you want, however, this is a good dark bar that's mostly mint. I would have appreciated more chocolate flavor being allowed to surface from below the blanketing flavor of the peppermint oil though. It is a very solid bar for having such a small cocoa flavor showing. Not creamy at all, rather a little dusty once it breaks down. It is still a 60% cocoa bar, after all.
Next time, I'll definitely try a different mint if I'm going that way. For G&B, I'll stick with they pure chocolate bars, (And flavors I haven't tried, of course)
But this bar is "Very Minty" and, for my taste, is far too minty. If that's what you want, however, this is a good dark bar that's mostly mint. I would have appreciated more chocolate flavor being allowed to surface from below the blanketing flavor of the peppermint oil though. It is a very solid bar for having such a small cocoa flavor showing. Not creamy at all, rather a little dusty once it breaks down. It is still a 60% cocoa bar, after all.
Next time, I'll definitely try a different mint if I'm going that way. For G&B, I'll stick with they pure chocolate bars, (And flavors I haven't tried, of course)
E.V.O (Super Nintendo)
Out of all the video games that I have thus far reviewed, E.V.O. The Search for Eden is the only one I've completed. And I'm not sure it was worth it. This game had an interesting concept but a poor execution upon that concept, I'm afraid.
You can't "evolve" a vestigial shark-fin without having once had one to begin with for crying out loud. I'm glad that you can "beat" the game without becoming human, but it definately puts us on a pedistle that we don't rightly deserve. The story is really self-serving. It has a little bit of a moral ('don't use intelligence for the wrong things') and you beat up a bunch of people like Humans, but I'm still unsure as to why the "Bad Guy" was really a "bad guy". Why are humans so cool? And why the hell are condors so powerful? are the questions I'm left with.
The battle system is pretty tiresome by the end and leads to my rating of "Arrrggg!" The final boss is a royal pain in the ass and he's not the only character that's just annoying to fight. There are many that once they get you corner, you're pretty screwed. Then, if you get them cornered, they're pretty screwed too. It's overall highly flawed.
I'll never play the game again. But it was interesting for it's first play though and it did keep my attention. Mostly, I think, because I enjoyed trying to figure out what the best creature is to be. I don't really recommend playing though unless you having a high tolerance of frustrating crap and you have an emulator. I never woulda finished it without being able to "save my state" whenever I wanted to.
You can't "evolve" a vestigial shark-fin without having once had one to begin with for crying out loud. I'm glad that you can "beat" the game without becoming human, but it definately puts us on a pedistle that we don't rightly deserve. The story is really self-serving. It has a little bit of a moral ('don't use intelligence for the wrong things') and you beat up a bunch of people like Humans, but I'm still unsure as to why the "Bad Guy" was really a "bad guy". Why are humans so cool? And why the hell are condors so powerful? are the questions I'm left with.
The battle system is pretty tiresome by the end and leads to my rating of "Arrrggg!" The final boss is a royal pain in the ass and he's not the only character that's just annoying to fight. There are many that once they get you corner, you're pretty screwed. Then, if you get them cornered, they're pretty screwed too. It's overall highly flawed.
I'll never play the game again. But it was interesting for it's first play though and it did keep my attention. Mostly, I think, because I enjoyed trying to figure out what the best creature is to be. I don't really recommend playing though unless you having a high tolerance of frustrating crap and you have an emulator. I never woulda finished it without being able to "save my state" whenever I wanted to.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
A Japanese Nightingale by Onoto Watanna (Winnifred Eaton)
My copy of this book was positively beautiful. It was printed in 1902 (or so... I don't have the book with me right now...), was used in the Jewish Hospital of Consumptives, and has watermark images behind the text on every page. Sure they repeat, but it was still a very nice touch. It's falling apart, most of the pages aren't actually attached to the cover anymore, or any of the other pages for that matter, but that sorta added to its charm. For an historical context, it's very interesting as well. It references the town of Nagasaki as a small town which no one outside of Japan would recognize, utterly oblivious to the changes that would happen in Japan a half century after it's publication. It spells Korea "Corea" and Clue "Clew", which I loved.
I wasn't quite so impressed with the actual text. The book reads a little like a Greek tragedy and is worse than Romeo and Juliet. Every character is a slave to their own dismal stupidity and get rather tiresome to read about. And the main characters have the worst relationship ever.
It's a little inconsistent in its style, which is never really expert in my opinion, and it's a little inconsistent in its content. Sometimes, Onoto thought to translate a Japanese word or phrase, sometimes she didn't. Often, she chose the second or third appearance of a word to bother translating it and she did so by putting the translation in round brackets (parentheses). Sometimes a character thought one thing, then Onoto would contradict herself in the next paragraph. For what some consider her best work, I was unimpressed.
This is another story which could have really benefited from an editor! I only really finished it to write this review and movie on with my life. The best reason to read it is from a "Historical" perspective, which makes it very fascinating, but you needn't read to the end if that's your purpose.
I wasn't quite so impressed with the actual text. The book reads a little like a Greek tragedy and is worse than Romeo and Juliet. Every character is a slave to their own dismal stupidity and get rather tiresome to read about. And the main characters have the worst relationship ever.
It's a little inconsistent in its style, which is never really expert in my opinion, and it's a little inconsistent in its content. Sometimes, Onoto thought to translate a Japanese word or phrase, sometimes she didn't. Often, she chose the second or third appearance of a word to bother translating it and she did so by putting the translation in round brackets (parentheses). Sometimes a character thought one thing, then Onoto would contradict herself in the next paragraph. For what some consider her best work, I was unimpressed.
This is another story which could have really benefited from an editor! I only really finished it to write this review and movie on with my life. The best reason to read it is from a "Historical" perspective, which makes it very fascinating, but you needn't read to the end if that's your purpose.
My Neighbor Totoro (1993 Fox dubbing)
There is a reason that Totoro is in Studio Ghibli's logo and it isn't because My Neighbor Totoro is characteristic of most of Ghibli's films. Rather, it is because the film is a departure from what Hayao Miyazaki usually does. This film has a very "Special" place in the Studio Ghibli lineup; I love it. There is no epic battle between good and evil, the forest and man, such as there is in Pom Poko, Princess Mononoke, Howels Moving Castle, and so on, if you were expecting that. It is, instead, a more intimate movie, more uplifting, and shows a reverence for nature which is very, very admirable. It's almost as "Japanese" as The Story of the Weeping Camel is "Mongolian".
There is a scene early in the movie which is kinda representative of the humor and the style of the rest of the film. The daughters, Mei and Satsuki, are told to go open the bathroom, but they are already hyper and excited and have been running around their new home boundlessly. They head off on their quest and run around the house, past the little door to the bathroom. The camera pauses on the door and waits for the girls to come back, which they soon do and unlock the door. They aren't gone for more than a few seconds so it could be easy to miss. It's not a very punch-line-driven joke, it's just situational and quickly passes but it is a beautiful detail which gives this movie its life. It's full of such things. These characters are so full that it's hard to imagine their lives not continuing after the film ends.
The music is just as beautiful as these details and just as full of reverence for the world. There are beautiful visuals and really funny images all through the film. I have heard tell of a few people interpreting sexually deviant and extravagant images in this movie. If you do see such things, you must really be looking hard for them. For shame that you would ruin such a beautiful thing for that. The movie is childish and innocent all the best ways. Reminiscent of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's The Little Prince, which could just very well be the best think you could read on doomsday ('think' being operative).
There's really no room to praise Totoro enough and I can't think of anything to say against it. It may not be the best film ever made, but it's up there. There is no resolution to speak of, besides to the plot begun 5 minutes before the end, but it doesn't really need it. It's not about plot, it's about life and it's about character.
There is a scene early in the movie which is kinda representative of the humor and the style of the rest of the film. The daughters, Mei and Satsuki, are told to go open the bathroom, but they are already hyper and excited and have been running around their new home boundlessly. They head off on their quest and run around the house, past the little door to the bathroom. The camera pauses on the door and waits for the girls to come back, which they soon do and unlock the door. They aren't gone for more than a few seconds so it could be easy to miss. It's not a very punch-line-driven joke, it's just situational and quickly passes but it is a beautiful detail which gives this movie its life. It's full of such things. These characters are so full that it's hard to imagine their lives not continuing after the film ends.
The music is just as beautiful as these details and just as full of reverence for the world. There are beautiful visuals and really funny images all through the film. I have heard tell of a few people interpreting sexually deviant and extravagant images in this movie. If you do see such things, you must really be looking hard for them. For shame that you would ruin such a beautiful thing for that. The movie is childish and innocent all the best ways. Reminiscent of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's The Little Prince, which could just very well be the best think you could read on doomsday ('think' being operative).
There's really no room to praise Totoro enough and I can't think of anything to say against it. It may not be the best film ever made, but it's up there. There is no resolution to speak of, besides to the plot begun 5 minutes before the end, but it doesn't really need it. It's not about plot, it's about life and it's about character.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
The Little Mermaid and The Ugly Duckling by Hans Christian Andersen
Hans Christian Andersen isn't really all that good of a story teller.... He wrote pretty mediocre, sometimes exceedingly short stories which seem to be lumped into the group "Fairy Tales" because they aren't good enough to be anything else. The more of his work I read, the less impressed I am with him. The Little Mermaid, one of his more famous works, is a great example of he does. It isn't good in any reasonable sense of the word: it's filled with oversights, such as references to the mermaids as "tiptoeing" though they don't have toes; it doesn't consider what mermaids would think or believe as a people, they are instead the most one-dimensional characters possible to create; it it's supposed to be a children's story, it's incredibly dark; this man "Needs an Editor"!
Maybe I'm too hard on the children's tale teller, but then I've read some amazing children's literature. Hans does have potential. Maybe this is why adaptations are popular: another artist can take his work and make it into something good by using all the threads he makes but just leaves hanging and then taking out all the crap that doesn't make sense. Editing the hell out of it and you've got yourself a good tale.
The Ugly Duckling the best work of his I have read so far. It's as depressing as everything else he wrote, but it doesn't have quite the internal flaws that characterize most of his work. I'd go so far as to say the Ugly Duckling is "Enjoyable". There are some things he could have used as foreshadowing and used again later and didn't, but it's an overall minor problem constrained to the ending.
I suppose Andersen did write in the mid 1800's, and I suppose he did just write "fairy tales", and part of the problem could be the translation, but I'm not sure any of these are really a good excuse, besides the last, which could be partly to blame, but not entirely.
Then again, he's not any worse than Grimm.
Maybe I'm too hard on the children's tale teller, but then I've read some amazing children's literature. Hans does have potential. Maybe this is why adaptations are popular: another artist can take his work and make it into something good by using all the threads he makes but just leaves hanging and then taking out all the crap that doesn't make sense. Editing the hell out of it and you've got yourself a good tale.
The Ugly Duckling the best work of his I have read so far. It's as depressing as everything else he wrote, but it doesn't have quite the internal flaws that characterize most of his work. I'd go so far as to say the Ugly Duckling is "Enjoyable". There are some things he could have used as foreshadowing and used again later and didn't, but it's an overall minor problem constrained to the ending.
I suppose Andersen did write in the mid 1800's, and I suppose he did just write "fairy tales", and part of the problem could be the translation, but I'm not sure any of these are really a good excuse, besides the last, which could be partly to blame, but not entirely.
Then again, he's not any worse than Grimm.
Super Size Me (video documentary)
This movie is gross. "Really gross". But the reality of it is that it is also true. I admire Morgan Spurlock's bravery in undertaking this, and his determination even in the face of possibly permanent health risks. I'm not sure I could have done it... I know that he's taken a chunk out of McD's business, and a few others, which is totally awesome. It's a pity it wasn't as permanent as it should have been...
That being said, there was a little problem with his method...
I do not think he should have adjusted his exercise regimen from what it was normally. That would have isolated the variable to his diet. His results are thusly inflamed from what they would have been. I would like to know just how much of his health problems were related to the diet and how much was due to lack of exercise. Both are problems in our nation which need addressing; but it would have been good, from a scientific point of view, to have limited himself to one variable in order to draw more direct conclusions for that one variable.
That isn't to say his results are really wrong, per se. Just more indirect.
It is a movie that everyone should see. Since this is free, there is no real excuse not to (unless you don't watch any television and don't use the internet. In which case, you wouldn't be reading this. Not that anyone is anyway.)
That being said, there was a little problem with his method...
I do not think he should have adjusted his exercise regimen from what it was normally. That would have isolated the variable to his diet. His results are thusly inflamed from what they would have been. I would like to know just how much of his health problems were related to the diet and how much was due to lack of exercise. Both are problems in our nation which need addressing; but it would have been good, from a scientific point of view, to have limited himself to one variable in order to draw more direct conclusions for that one variable.
That isn't to say his results are really wrong, per se. Just more indirect.
It is a movie that everyone should see. Since this is free, there is no real excuse not to (unless you don't watch any television and don't use the internet. In which case, you wouldn't be reading this. Not that anyone is anyway.)
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Maxx ("movie" or abridged MTV series, pre-read)
The Maxx has a very interesting short-winded and sporadic, and dark, sense of humor. It is a humor which I appreciate. But along with a dark sense of humor, the cartoon is a dark, brooding drama that I found to be rather depressing. And even more "confusing" that it is morbid. However, the "movie" was missing most of episode 8 of the MTV series, which I watched later and found to be a little enlightening. It makes me wonder if the whole thing would be less confusing if I had watched it in its original episodic form.
Or if I had just read the comic. I assume the comic is the best form. Afforded the luxury of a format which would allow for deeper explanation.
But then, there wouldn't be the sound. Most of the jokes were auditory; delivered by Michael Haley's dry, brooding voice.
The visual style is the most distinctive aspect of The Maxx. It comes in an impressive variety from simple cartooning to computer animation to detailed sketching. There are monsters all throughout which are unrealistic but put in a realistic(ish) world.
The style of the movie forces the viewer to pay attention. If you miss anything, you'll feel even more lost! I suppose that's a valuable technique, but it can be a little frustrating. This movie is not an inexpert abridgment such as The Hobbit movie or the Watership Down movie, but it still feels like an abridgment.
It is very philosophical, with a great variety. There are enough that it's difficult to really hint at many of them without just telling you to watch the damn thing. The mood it conveys is pretty integral to it's interpretation which you wont get without actually experiencing it. I'm not nearly so morbid. Usually.
Or if I had just read the comic. I assume the comic is the best form. Afforded the luxury of a format which would allow for deeper explanation.
But then, there wouldn't be the sound. Most of the jokes were auditory; delivered by Michael Haley's dry, brooding voice.
The visual style is the most distinctive aspect of The Maxx. It comes in an impressive variety from simple cartooning to computer animation to detailed sketching. There are monsters all throughout which are unrealistic but put in a realistic(ish) world.
The style of the movie forces the viewer to pay attention. If you miss anything, you'll feel even more lost! I suppose that's a valuable technique, but it can be a little frustrating. This movie is not an inexpert abridgment such as The Hobbit movie or the Watership Down movie, but it still feels like an abridgment.
It is very philosophical, with a great variety. There are enough that it's difficult to really hint at many of them without just telling you to watch the damn thing. The mood it conveys is pretty integral to it's interpretation which you wont get without actually experiencing it. I'm not nearly so morbid. Usually.
The Story of the Weeping Camel (movie, untranslated)
The Story of the Weeping Camel is a film which will give you a good look into a different world, as long as you're not "Mongolian". It has the feel of a documentary, as if you are looking in on a real families life, almost as if there was never a camera to film it. If do you remember that you're watching a film, you may wonder how in the hell the camera man got the shots they did. I did. It was sorta like watching "Milo and Otis", I am still amazed at the shots achieved in this movie.
And I learned a lot about the culture in the Gobi Desert. Perhaps more so because there were no subtitles. Though I couldn't understand what was being said, I was able to follow the story passably and my attention was allowed to wander around the screen instead of just reading English at the bottom. Because I wasn't distracted I was able to see more details of this mode of life.
However, I also don't have a lot to say about it. It looks like a nice life, perhaps a bit hard, but close and comforting. And very dependent on camels and goats. If you want to know about Mongolian culture, watch this move. Most people will probably want subtitles and most will probably benefit from them. I think I would have preferred subtitles myself, in the end, because, uh, I like language. I like to understand. I'm lazy and wanna be spoon fed! Besides, it would give me more to say about the movie than just "Watch it! It'll be good for you to experience another culture even if it is as remote as through a television screen!"
Perhaps I'll watch it again with subtitles and get the best of both worlds.
And I learned a lot about the culture in the Gobi Desert. Perhaps more so because there were no subtitles. Though I couldn't understand what was being said, I was able to follow the story passably and my attention was allowed to wander around the screen instead of just reading English at the bottom. Because I wasn't distracted I was able to see more details of this mode of life.
However, I also don't have a lot to say about it. It looks like a nice life, perhaps a bit hard, but close and comforting. And very dependent on camels and goats. If you want to know about Mongolian culture, watch this move. Most people will probably want subtitles and most will probably benefit from them. I think I would have preferred subtitles myself, in the end, because, uh, I like language. I like to understand. I'm lazy and wanna be spoon fed! Besides, it would give me more to say about the movie than just "Watch it! It'll be good for you to experience another culture even if it is as remote as through a television screen!"
Perhaps I'll watch it again with subtitles and get the best of both worlds.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The River Why by David James Duncan
The River Why is more than just "inspired"; it is "enlightened". For those who have trouble with my linguistic rating system (as opposed to the standard numerical rating system), that's pretty much the best rating I can give something. Think of it as an 11/10.
Not to say it's "prefect", mind you. 9.9/10 might be more accurate because nothing'll ever get the rating of "perfect" from me; it's just not possible to be perfect. If something is perfect, I'll be ready for the world to end; it'll be just around the corner. There are plenty of things in this book I take umbridge with: it gets laughably sappy in a few places, and tiringly preachy in others. There are some philosophies espoused by the book I'm not entirely in agreement with, but most of those I can still appreciate.
Much better than something I could completely agree with. How boring is that? There'd be no reason for me to keep working if someone else had already said everything I wanted to say in one place.
What first drew me into The River Why was the language. The story is told with such ease and fluidity, I thought it was a memoir before I realized the author wasn't named "Gus". The characters are very well rounded, full of detail and life, and even the 'bad guys' aren't all bad. The style is very natural, yet a little unusual and therefore interesting. And it's funny. Jokes provide an excellent ice breaker, and while they peter out a bit the further you get into the story, replaced by a thoughtful and at times depressing narrative, they remain an engaging relief.
My biggest disappointment had to do with the ending. I was hoping that Duncan wouldn't do what I expected him to do, but he did. However, he also through in a surprise which made the ending very, very satisfying. Almost cloying, but I enjoyed it immensely.
Such things were common as I read The River Why. It bounced in my esteem between "Brilliant" and "Good" and "OK" a lot. I was ready to say the second half wasn't what the first half promised, then there were the "Garden People" and I was ready to call this the best book in the world again. There were sections that made me knock it down a few pegs, but they were followed by such excellence that it would recover its ground.
The overall plot was paced very well. So well that it could pass off as non-fiction. This isn't a novel with a dense plot with multiple threads to weave into a whole, this novel is one thread that you get to know very well as it winds around toward the end. You get to see where it frays, you get to know it's twists, eventually the whole is revealed, and it remains detailed throughout. It never rushes.
Be warned that this book is densely philosophical and spiritual. While I found it to be very moving, I know it's not for everyone; even if it is funny enough that it doesn't take an exorbitant amount of energy to read.
The last thing to say is that I am highly skeptical about the upcoming movie. Not that it would be impossible to make a movie, nor even a Hollywood style 1.5 hour movie; but David James Duncan isn't even credited as having written the book, let alone as an overseeing producer or some such thing. With that distance from the source material rightout out the gate, I assume the movie will get as "What the Fuck was That" from me. But I'll still see it. Eventually. I may not be willing to give them money to see it, in case it is as butchered as I expect it to be, but I'll see it some time.
Not to say it's "prefect", mind you. 9.9/10 might be more accurate because nothing'll ever get the rating of "perfect" from me; it's just not possible to be perfect. If something is perfect, I'll be ready for the world to end; it'll be just around the corner. There are plenty of things in this book I take umbridge with: it gets laughably sappy in a few places, and tiringly preachy in others. There are some philosophies espoused by the book I'm not entirely in agreement with, but most of those I can still appreciate.
Much better than something I could completely agree with. How boring is that? There'd be no reason for me to keep working if someone else had already said everything I wanted to say in one place.
What first drew me into The River Why was the language. The story is told with such ease and fluidity, I thought it was a memoir before I realized the author wasn't named "Gus". The characters are very well rounded, full of detail and life, and even the 'bad guys' aren't all bad. The style is very natural, yet a little unusual and therefore interesting. And it's funny. Jokes provide an excellent ice breaker, and while they peter out a bit the further you get into the story, replaced by a thoughtful and at times depressing narrative, they remain an engaging relief.
My biggest disappointment had to do with the ending. I was hoping that Duncan wouldn't do what I expected him to do, but he did. However, he also through in a surprise which made the ending very, very satisfying. Almost cloying, but I enjoyed it immensely.
Such things were common as I read The River Why. It bounced in my esteem between "Brilliant" and "Good" and "OK" a lot. I was ready to say the second half wasn't what the first half promised, then there were the "Garden People" and I was ready to call this the best book in the world again. There were sections that made me knock it down a few pegs, but they were followed by such excellence that it would recover its ground.
The overall plot was paced very well. So well that it could pass off as non-fiction. This isn't a novel with a dense plot with multiple threads to weave into a whole, this novel is one thread that you get to know very well as it winds around toward the end. You get to see where it frays, you get to know it's twists, eventually the whole is revealed, and it remains detailed throughout. It never rushes.
Be warned that this book is densely philosophical and spiritual. While I found it to be very moving, I know it's not for everyone; even if it is funny enough that it doesn't take an exorbitant amount of energy to read.
The last thing to say is that I am highly skeptical about the upcoming movie. Not that it would be impossible to make a movie, nor even a Hollywood style 1.5 hour movie; but David James Duncan isn't even credited as having written the book, let alone as an overseeing producer or some such thing. With that distance from the source material rightout out the gate, I assume the movie will get as "What the Fuck was That" from me. But I'll still see it. Eventually. I may not be willing to give them money to see it, in case it is as butchered as I expect it to be, but I'll see it some time.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Julie & Julia (2009 movie, pre-read)
"Julie and Julia" entertained me. A bit. It was fun. Sometime. But it was a little like a "kiddie's emotional roller coaster". It didn't really go very high, and though it got lower than it got high, it didn't actually go all that low; but it went between them a lot!
I was never one for roller coasters. Not because they are scary, but because they are boring and get tiresome and aren't worth the line. This wasn't worth the hype.
I personally enjoyed Meryl Streep's Julia Child far more than Amy Adams Julie Powell. Julia Child was fun to watch, her interaction with Paul Child was seamless and unique (not quite so lustful and such). Julie Powell was the angst-y up and down one. I never really cared about her or any of her difficulties which come off as fairly paltry. Julia was up beat and interesting even when she was having difficulties.
Overall, the movie was worth the time I spent watching it, I guess, but I didn't get much in any direction out of it. I don't necessarily recommend it, but it isn't worth avoiding either.
I was never one for roller coasters. Not because they are scary, but because they are boring and get tiresome and aren't worth the line. This wasn't worth the hype.
I personally enjoyed Meryl Streep's Julia Child far more than Amy Adams Julie Powell. Julia Child was fun to watch, her interaction with Paul Child was seamless and unique (not quite so lustful and such). Julie Powell was the angst-y up and down one. I never really cared about her or any of her difficulties which come off as fairly paltry. Julia was up beat and interesting even when she was having difficulties.
Overall, the movie was worth the time I spent watching it, I guess, but I didn't get much in any direction out of it. I don't necessarily recommend it, but it isn't worth avoiding either.
New Super Mario Brothers (Wii, uncompleted)
This is a pretty fun game, for the most part. It's "good". I really enjoy it when playing with four people and it can be just as good with two and with one (but really, it is meant for multi-player!) It can be a good social game as long as you aren't trying to Beat It! If you get frustrated easily, it could be hard on you. But if you just wanna beat up your friend by making them fall into lava (and die more often yourself in the attempt) then it's a blast.
Though I haven't finished it (not even close), I feel safe in saying that it's not quite up to par with the ol' "Super Mario World". It doesn't quite have the longevity, there aren't enough hidden worlds, not as many secrets... The "star coins" could have been used for so many better things than a stupid theater which shows you how much better other people are at this game (I guess it does give access to a last world, too, though, so it's not all bad.) The biggest problem with the game, however, is it's lack-luster use of motion control. It could have used the "B" trigger to better effect instead of a shake of the wand.
Though I haven't finished it (not even close), I feel safe in saying that it's not quite up to par with the ol' "Super Mario World". It doesn't quite have the longevity, there aren't enough hidden worlds, not as many secrets... The "star coins" could have been used for so many better things than a stupid theater which shows you how much better other people are at this game (I guess it does give access to a last world, too, though, so it's not all bad.) The biggest problem with the game, however, is it's lack-luster use of motion control. It could have used the "B" trigger to better effect instead of a shake of the wand.
Pom Poko (anime movie)
I really liked "Pom Poko". But then, I agree with it and this is a movie with a very distinct message, a very distinct agenda, and a very purposeful goal. Like all of Studio Ghibli's films and Hayao Miyazaki's ideas. It's the same one as usual, so beware of it's political slant. But please consider the message and stop having kids.
I do like "Pom Poko" more than other Ghibli films and I attribute this, partially, to it's having a different writer. There is a different style in the way the story was told which I enjoyed. It was a little funnier and a little fresher. But just as unsatisfyingly realistic in the end. I felt really sorry for the tanuki (raccoons) the whole way though, despite how much fun they had. They have such powers, but no idea how to use them effectively. Mostly because they remain the betters of the humans in the movie.
The animation is more fun than one would expect. It is an anime and that usually means a certain characteristic and recognizable style which has become rather popular in the last decade. It doesn't stray too far from this look, but it uses four of them at the same time, each for a different purpose.
"Pom Poko" is not what is called 'brilliant', though the tanuki society is well thought out and consistent. Like a good sci-fi, their society is well developed and makes sense for who and what they are. Other than that, there isn't much to say about it: it purposes it's agenda, it entertains, it ends. It doesn't challenge, it preaches to the choir, it doesn't stand out from the crowd (much), but it is pretty happily what it is. Which is good.
It is very "enjoyable".
I do like "Pom Poko" more than other Ghibli films and I attribute this, partially, to it's having a different writer. There is a different style in the way the story was told which I enjoyed. It was a little funnier and a little fresher. But just as unsatisfyingly realistic in the end. I felt really sorry for the tanuki (raccoons) the whole way though, despite how much fun they had. They have such powers, but no idea how to use them effectively. Mostly because they remain the betters of the humans in the movie.
The animation is more fun than one would expect. It is an anime and that usually means a certain characteristic and recognizable style which has become rather popular in the last decade. It doesn't stray too far from this look, but it uses four of them at the same time, each for a different purpose.
"Pom Poko" is not what is called 'brilliant', though the tanuki society is well thought out and consistent. Like a good sci-fi, their society is well developed and makes sense for who and what they are. Other than that, there isn't much to say about it: it purposes it's agenda, it entertains, it ends. It doesn't challenge, it preaches to the choir, it doesn't stand out from the crowd (much), but it is pretty happily what it is. Which is good.
It is very "enjoyable".
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Donnie Darko, director's cut (movie)
...Bizarre. I... can't quite, um, figure out what everyone likes about this movie. It wasn't what I expected, which I like. However, this is largely because it was compared to the "Butterfly Effect" as its superior. I disagree with both counts: "Butterfly Effect" is the better movie, but there is very little in common between the two. Besides that they are creepy and involve time.
"Donnie Darko" has "mastered" the art of subtle "psycho"logical thrilling. It has also "mastered" the art of bullshit. It claims to be very thought provoking and deep, but it's really just a hoax. It's pretending to be deep by being angst-y. But in the end, everything is pointless. Which, I suppose, might have been the point... while I appreciate the irony, I still don't like the film.
The story is pretty tightly woven and well knit. It is tight, makes sense (for the most part) as it progresses, but it is revealed to have a hundred loose ends around the frayed edges which it simply doesn't tie in. It's best not to think about the mechanics of the movie too much, really, because they aren't explained. Movies involving time-travel have a hard time with consistency and not making a fool of themselves through some paradox and this is no exception.
The characters are a bit bland as well, though they were played well by really recognizable actors. The closer the film gets to the end, the more bizarre they become and the more pointless their roles become. It was overall disappointing. The more movies of Jake Gyllenhaal's I watch, the longer I am waiting for one to be really good. On the contrary, I am becoming more impressed with Maggie Gyllenhaal's roles; she was more fun to watch in this movie.
Despite all my criticism, the movie was a little enjoyable. It did creep me out a bit, so it succeeded it what seems to be it's primary objective. If you like subtle psycholocial thrilling, it's a very good movie.
If you like a movie that's more polished, it's not that brilliant.
"Donnie Darko" has "mastered" the art of subtle "psycho"logical thrilling. It has also "mastered" the art of bullshit. It claims to be very thought provoking and deep, but it's really just a hoax. It's pretending to be deep by being angst-y. But in the end, everything is pointless. Which, I suppose, might have been the point... while I appreciate the irony, I still don't like the film.
The story is pretty tightly woven and well knit. It is tight, makes sense (for the most part) as it progresses, but it is revealed to have a hundred loose ends around the frayed edges which it simply doesn't tie in. It's best not to think about the mechanics of the movie too much, really, because they aren't explained. Movies involving time-travel have a hard time with consistency and not making a fool of themselves through some paradox and this is no exception.
The characters are a bit bland as well, though they were played well by really recognizable actors. The closer the film gets to the end, the more bizarre they become and the more pointless their roles become. It was overall disappointing. The more movies of Jake Gyllenhaal's I watch, the longer I am waiting for one to be really good. On the contrary, I am becoming more impressed with Maggie Gyllenhaal's roles; she was more fun to watch in this movie.
Despite all my criticism, the movie was a little enjoyable. It did creep me out a bit, so it succeeded it what seems to be it's primary objective. If you like subtle psycholocial thrilling, it's a very good movie.
If you like a movie that's more polished, it's not that brilliant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)