Bullying is an epidemic problem in schools. It's encouraged by peers, ignored by teachers and generally stupidly handled by society as a whole ("Why doesn't 5'2", 85lbs Donny throw a punch back at 6'3" 230lb Billy? That'll teach him to pick on him!"). Anyone who's been through high school knows this shit. But what happens when the bullied get pushed too far?
Dane (Marc Donato) and his friends ("the five"), after having been tortured and bullied for years by their peers, decide they've had enough and to pay back the worst of the worst with one final night of horror and prolonged torture at their hands. They invite their bullies to a fake party, drug them, tie them up and prepare for the night of violence.
The movie is billed as some kind of revenge flick, but the stilted line delivery, forgettable acting and needlessly protracted torture scenes make it feel like the true target of director Joey Stewart's revenge is the unwitting audience. What did we ever do to deserve this movie, Joey?
While i'm certainly not a fan of horror movies depicting graphic violence for the sake of graphic violence, i'm also not one to hate one simply for this reason, either. What really confuses me about this movie is how ridiculously tame the torture scenes come off as. Even after being shanked with a knife to the spine, Justin Arnold's Bradley character does little more than make a funny face. There's no blood and he doesn't even scream!
What the fuck kind of revenge flick is this? I don't even think i recall a harsh word being thrown.
Even when Dane and his friends tie up their tormentors, they do it in the too-dumb-to-live "hands tied in front with the loosest of chains, ropes and over-sized handcuffs" all too commonly used by fictional evil doers on damsels in distress these days. You know, the kind of restraints a determined quadriplegic could escape from?
It's really weird because there's use of a ball gag in the movie, but the actress who wears it seems to only be doing so out of grudging obligation. So, realistic restraints are considered too much, but torture, cold blooded murder and skimpy outfits = a-ok? Remember, this movie's rated R, as in, "ARRR! You 17+ years old?".
The worst thing about this whole movie (besides everything else already mentioned) is how poorly put together it is. Every plot element seems like it's only there as a transparent framing device to show case the torture of the bullies. But since the bullies aren't really tortured in any kind of gory or gruesome way, the build up feels painfully look and the payoff non-existent. As a result, the movie itself feels painfully long with absolutely no payoff. You don't care about the forgettable characters and you probably won't remember them scene to scene.
There's also this kind of weird set up the movie has that seems to suggest the writer thought it was poignant or something, what with the bullies being made ugly on the outside, too. But since you don't really care about the characters (any of them) the point is lost almost entirely. Let me be blunt: i don't care if bully number 6 learns a lesson in what it means to cause pain, because i don't care about bully number 6.
Bottom line is, if you're going to make a revenge flick, make it gory and over the top. If you're not, then get better fucking actors, writers and direction. I'm sure even a B-movie can afford a few dozen litres of fake blood to dump all over the scene. Or better yet, just shoot real bullies of the world (i kid, i kid!) But whatever you do, do not do this.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Happening
Oct 6, 2010 Edit: For some reason my entire review didn't post, leaving out important paragraphs, etc. Fixed now.
Oh my god, what an awful, awful movie!
The Happening, which was written, co-produced and directed by M Night Shyamalan (explains a lot, doesn't it?), is billed as a "thriller", though to call it this seems a fair bit of a stretch. There's nothing really thrilling about it. Of course, i don't think this is the kind of movie that lends itself well to categories. It's not suspenseful, it's not comedic, it's not dramatic - it's pretty much devoid of any kind of entertainment value one could derive from seeing a movie.
I guess if it has to be classified as anything, one could classify it as horror, since i'm literally horrified to know that a movie like this could make $163M!
What, not scary enough? Well, let me remind you: so long as movies like The Happening continue to be financially successful, Hollywood will keep on making them.
The general plot of The Happening is that some mysterious neurotoxin is being released all across the eastern United States. The slightest exposure to this neurotoxin causes the victims to engage in deliberate acts of self-harm, like jumping off buildings, cutting their wrists or watching M Night Shaymalan movies, leaving the survivors as soulless automatons, devoid of personality or charisma.
Ok, so the latter isn't really a symptom of the neurotoxin, but it is the unfortunate (and perpetual) condition of our protagonist, high school science teacher Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg). The closest thing poor Elliot Moore ever comes to having an emotion is when he snaps at a bunch of extras for not giving him a moment to think.
You know, i'm starting to see a bit of a pattern with Shyamalan's movies - and i don't mean the whole "twist ending" bit. This one is much more prevalent and far more insidious. Remember how Mel Gibson's family acted in Signs?
"Creepy vacant stares and slow paced monotone conversations are the norm..."
Yeah, well... The Happening is exactly the same. The closest anyone comes to showing emotion is when they go into a zombie-like trance and kill themselves.
The female protagonist (Zooey Deschanel) is even stated to be someone who "doesn't show her emotions", which is pretty convenient for a character in an M Night Shyamalan movie. Of course, i'm going to give Zooey Deschanel the benefit of the doubt and assume she knows how to emote, but that it's just simply not part of her job description.
(I picture Shyamalan on a directors chair shouting at his actors, "Less emotion! Less! What are you trying to do? Bring me to tears?")
Of course if you can somehow look past the incredibly lifeless acting, what you'll get is some of the most impressively bad writing imaginable. Awe inspiringly bad writing. I'm talking Hackers bad.
For example, at one point in the movie, Elliot Moore is trying to figure out the cause of the neurotoxin. In order to do this he starts spouting off lines like "isolate the variables" and "design an experiment" to himself in a hushed whisper (because he's a science teacher, remember?).
Um... why? Who does that? Who stands around vocalizing pointless phrases related to their profession in order to help them come to conclusions? Nobody! And that's really the worst part about it, isn't it. The dialogue isn't there to explain what Wahlberg's character is thinking. It's just there to let the audience know that Wahlberg's character is thinking (an alien concept to most, i know).
The worst part is, that's not even the worst part of the movie. There are so many other bad scenes i could waste an entire post just outlining them. But i won't, because that would require me writing out the entire movie scene for scene, followed by a paragraph or two about how stupid it is. Don't get me wrong, i'm sure it would be an improvement on the script. But it still wouldn't be anything anyone would want to read.
Anyways i really don't have anything else i want to say about this movie. Every word i type here is only giving too much credit to a film that should never have been made. But i do want to mention one last thing:
I watched The Happening only recently, but it was originally released in 2008 - Friday the 13th of June, 2008. I'm sure Shyamalan thought this a bit of poignant cleverness on his part, but for the original viewers of the film it'll only serve as a reminder that bad things really can happen on Friday the 13th.
Oh my god, what an awful, awful movie!
The Happening, which was written, co-produced and directed by M Night Shyamalan (explains a lot, doesn't it?), is billed as a "thriller", though to call it this seems a fair bit of a stretch. There's nothing really thrilling about it. Of course, i don't think this is the kind of movie that lends itself well to categories. It's not suspenseful, it's not comedic, it's not dramatic - it's pretty much devoid of any kind of entertainment value one could derive from seeing a movie.
I guess if it has to be classified as anything, one could classify it as horror, since i'm literally horrified to know that a movie like this could make $163M!
What, not scary enough? Well, let me remind you: so long as movies like The Happening continue to be financially successful, Hollywood will keep on making them.
The general plot of The Happening is that some mysterious neurotoxin is being released all across the eastern United States. The slightest exposure to this neurotoxin causes the victims to engage in deliberate acts of self-harm, like jumping off buildings, cutting their wrists or watching M Night Shaymalan movies, leaving the survivors as soulless automatons, devoid of personality or charisma.
Ok, so the latter isn't really a symptom of the neurotoxin, but it is the unfortunate (and perpetual) condition of our protagonist, high school science teacher Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg). The closest thing poor Elliot Moore ever comes to having an emotion is when he snaps at a bunch of extras for not giving him a moment to think.
You know, i'm starting to see a bit of a pattern with Shyamalan's movies - and i don't mean the whole "twist ending" bit. This one is much more prevalent and far more insidious. Remember how Mel Gibson's family acted in Signs?
"Creepy vacant stares and slow paced monotone conversations are the norm..."
Yeah, well... The Happening is exactly the same. The closest anyone comes to showing emotion is when they go into a zombie-like trance and kill themselves.
The female protagonist (Zooey Deschanel) is even stated to be someone who "doesn't show her emotions", which is pretty convenient for a character in an M Night Shyamalan movie. Of course, i'm going to give Zooey Deschanel the benefit of the doubt and assume she knows how to emote, but that it's just simply not part of her job description.
(I picture Shyamalan on a directors chair shouting at his actors, "Less emotion! Less! What are you trying to do? Bring me to tears?")
Of course if you can somehow look past the incredibly lifeless acting, what you'll get is some of the most impressively bad writing imaginable. Awe inspiringly bad writing. I'm talking Hackers bad.
For example, at one point in the movie, Elliot Moore is trying to figure out the cause of the neurotoxin. In order to do this he starts spouting off lines like "isolate the variables" and "design an experiment" to himself in a hushed whisper (because he's a science teacher, remember?).
Um... why? Who does that? Who stands around vocalizing pointless phrases related to their profession in order to help them come to conclusions? Nobody! And that's really the worst part about it, isn't it. The dialogue isn't there to explain what Wahlberg's character is thinking. It's just there to let the audience know that Wahlberg's character is thinking (an alien concept to most, i know).
The worst part is, that's not even the worst part of the movie. There are so many other bad scenes i could waste an entire post just outlining them. But i won't, because that would require me writing out the entire movie scene for scene, followed by a paragraph or two about how stupid it is. Don't get me wrong, i'm sure it would be an improvement on the script. But it still wouldn't be anything anyone would want to read.
Anyways i really don't have anything else i want to say about this movie. Every word i type here is only giving too much credit to a film that should never have been made. But i do want to mention one last thing:
I watched The Happening only recently, but it was originally released in 2008 - Friday the 13th of June, 2008. I'm sure Shyamalan thought this a bit of poignant cleverness on his part, but for the original viewers of the film it'll only serve as a reminder that bad things really can happen on Friday the 13th.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Easy A
So i finally went and saw a new movie in theatres and, whaddaya know, it was a movie called Easy A. When i first heard the title, i assumed it was dramady about academic life in university and the pressures of making the grade. I also assumed it would have some tacked on life-lesson about plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty and that that "Easy A" isn't as easy as it may seem. You know, standard dramady fare.
While being the only 28 year old male in the predominantly teenaged girl (and occasional teenaged boy) audience should've clued me into what was going on, it actually wasn't until the movie started that i sensed something was amiss. By the time main character Olive Penderghast (Emma Stone) started talking about her "below average breast size" i knew i had (let's say "accidentally") walked into a romantic comedy aimed at teenaged girls.
Now, there are exactly two things i know about women: they are all emotionally insecure (yes, all of them) and they all think i'm a jerk (and if they didn't before, they certainly do now). How did i come to these two conclusions? Partially real life experience, but partially from how they're portrayed in romantic comedies (or so i heard). So i thought i knew what i was in store for with Easy A.
But it turns out, i was only half prepared. Easy A is not exactly a typical romantic comedy aimed at teenaged girls (or so i heard).
Staring 21-year-old Emma Stone as "so plain she's average" high-schooler Olive Penderghast (yeah i know, just suspend your disbelief), Easy A is about Olive's attempts to become popular by playing the role of the town bicycle; not actually being the town bicycle, just saying she is. How pretending to be easy when not actually putting out makes a girl popularin high school on any planet, i won't know, but that's the plot. Deal with it.
Of course, Olive never actually planned to play this role, it just sort of happens after a lie she tells gets spread around the whole school. The entire school, which is populated entirely by gullible morons (as most high schools are), of course believe the lie in its entirety simply because if they didn't there really wouldn't be much of a movie.
Of course, this isn't so much a bad thing for Olive as she turns her new-found, er... "fame", into a business and starts to sell off tales of steamy sexual encounters to an assortment of male classmates hoping to buy their way out of the shitty lot in life that is going to high school with a bunch of gullible morons. For the most part, it works. That is, it works until it doesn't and Olive finds herself struggling to cope with all the problems she's created for herself.
At this point, you may be thinking, "what the hell, Tipz!? You're supposed to rip into movies and call them all kinds of bad names, safe in your knowledge that no one's reading this!"
So, why have i, to this point, failed to bring and really harsh criticisms? It's not that Easy A is a good movie, it's just not that bad a movie, either. It is The Dark Knight of romantic comedies for teenaged-girls (that's right: come get me, Dark Knight fans!).
Sure, it's not all that funny and the story's a little cliche, but it's good at what it's trying to be. That is, it's good at being not all that funny and a little cliche (at least, not all that funny to embittered movie reviewers).
But, seeing as i am an overly embittered movie reviewer, i suppose i owe it to you to spell out why this movie is less on the side of good than the side of bad.
So let's talk characters:
Olive herself is supposed to come off as charmingly witty, but she's really something more of a wannabe snarker. The best insult she can dish out is "twat" which isn't even racy enough to net this movie anything more than a 14A rating, let alone rile anything more than confusion in the victim. She really only comes off as snarky to her insanely religious enemies who are just as likely to be offended at being mistaken for a Lutheran or Roman Catholic or some other denomination of christianity that they are not.
Olive's overly wacky parents are certainly trying to be funny (oh god are they trying!), but it all just seems a little forced. Not just in movie forced (which it seems is supposed to be the case), but real-life forced. Nothing they say is funny because they're trying too hard to be funny. The comedy of their routine is very much in line with the kind of comedic situations you might describe to a friend only to end your anecdote with some paraphrase of, "i guess you had to be there". For a movie, that's really a sad statement.
Then of course there's Todd (Penn Badgley), Olive's shallow love interest. You can tell he's Olive's shallow love interest because a) you never learn anything about him (incidentally, neither does Olive... not that that's a stumbling block for romantic comedy relationships), b) whenever he is on screen he's either topless or saying nice things to the Olive (you know, setting himself up as the only reasonable character Olive could possibly get with in the end). It's odd they'd even bother hiring an actual actor for this role. Any of the extras would've done just as well.
There's also a whole slew of background characters who play roles that never stretch beyond the importance of a single plot element.
The Christian Club of the high school are supposedly the main antagonists, but nothing really happens to them to make you feel like justice is done. Their leader spends the whole movie being a bitch to Olive (with the sole exception of one fickle day). But the last you ever see of her (or any of her goon squad) is them scowling at Olive during the climax of the movie. That's it. No comeuppance, no cosmic karma, no verbal dressdown, no mudbased catfights. What the hell kind of movie ends like that?
I'll tell you what kind of movie ends like that: a depressing one. That, or a movie clearly not aimed at embittered male movie reviewers. You be the judge.
Anyway, that's Easy A. The writer brags to have written the script in 5 days (presumably after which he said "easy, eh?") and i can believe him. There really isn't much substance in it beyond a slightly different take on the same old cliched story. I wasn't all that enthralled, but it's certainly not all that bad, especially when compared to other romantic comedies aimed at teenage girls (or so i heard).
This movie gets an easyA C.
While being the only 28 year old male in the predominantly teenaged girl (and occasional teenaged boy) audience should've clued me into what was going on, it actually wasn't until the movie started that i sensed something was amiss. By the time main character Olive Penderghast (Emma Stone) started talking about her "below average breast size" i knew i had (let's say "accidentally") walked into a romantic comedy aimed at teenaged girls.
Now, there are exactly two things i know about women: they are all emotionally insecure (yes, all of them) and they all think i'm a jerk (and if they didn't before, they certainly do now). How did i come to these two conclusions? Partially real life experience, but partially from how they're portrayed in romantic comedies (or so i heard). So i thought i knew what i was in store for with Easy A.
But it turns out, i was only half prepared. Easy A is not exactly a typical romantic comedy aimed at teenaged girls (or so i heard).
Staring 21-year-old Emma Stone as "so plain she's average" high-schooler Olive Penderghast (yeah i know, just suspend your disbelief), Easy A is about Olive's attempts to become popular by playing the role of the town bicycle; not actually being the town bicycle, just saying she is. How pretending to be easy when not actually putting out makes a girl popular
Of course, Olive never actually planned to play this role, it just sort of happens after a lie she tells gets spread around the whole school. The entire school, which is populated entirely by gullible morons (as most high schools are), of course believe the lie in its entirety simply because if they didn't there really wouldn't be much of a movie.
Of course, this isn't so much a bad thing for Olive as she turns her new-found, er... "fame", into a business and starts to sell off tales of steamy sexual encounters to an assortment of male classmates hoping to buy their way out of the shitty lot in life that is going to high school with a bunch of gullible morons. For the most part, it works. That is, it works until it doesn't and Olive finds herself struggling to cope with all the problems she's created for herself.
At this point, you may be thinking, "what the hell, Tipz!? You're supposed to rip into movies and call them all kinds of bad names, safe in your knowledge that no one's reading this!"
So, why have i, to this point, failed to bring and really harsh criticisms? It's not that Easy A is a good movie, it's just not that bad a movie, either. It is The Dark Knight of romantic comedies for teenaged-girls (that's right: come get me, Dark Knight fans!).
Sure, it's not all that funny and the story's a little cliche, but it's good at what it's trying to be. That is, it's good at being not all that funny and a little cliche (at least, not all that funny to embittered movie reviewers).
But, seeing as i am an overly embittered movie reviewer, i suppose i owe it to you to spell out why this movie is less on the side of good than the side of bad.
So let's talk characters:
Olive herself is supposed to come off as charmingly witty, but she's really something more of a wannabe snarker. The best insult she can dish out is "twat" which isn't even racy enough to net this movie anything more than a 14A rating, let alone rile anything more than confusion in the victim. She really only comes off as snarky to her insanely religious enemies who are just as likely to be offended at being mistaken for a Lutheran or Roman Catholic or some other denomination of christianity that they are not.
Olive's overly wacky parents are certainly trying to be funny (oh god are they trying!), but it all just seems a little forced. Not just in movie forced (which it seems is supposed to be the case), but real-life forced. Nothing they say is funny because they're trying too hard to be funny. The comedy of their routine is very much in line with the kind of comedic situations you might describe to a friend only to end your anecdote with some paraphrase of, "i guess you had to be there". For a movie, that's really a sad statement.
Then of course there's Todd (Penn Badgley), Olive's shallow love interest. You can tell he's Olive's shallow love interest because a) you never learn anything about him (incidentally, neither does Olive... not that that's a stumbling block for romantic comedy relationships), b) whenever he is on screen he's either topless or saying nice things to the Olive (you know, setting himself up as the only reasonable character Olive could possibly get with in the end). It's odd they'd even bother hiring an actual actor for this role. Any of the extras would've done just as well.
There's also a whole slew of background characters who play roles that never stretch beyond the importance of a single plot element.
The Christian Club of the high school are supposedly the main antagonists, but nothing really happens to them to make you feel like justice is done. Their leader spends the whole movie being a bitch to Olive (with the sole exception of one fickle day). But the last you ever see of her (or any of her goon squad) is them scowling at Olive during the climax of the movie. That's it. No comeuppance, no cosmic karma, no verbal dressdown, no mudbased catfights. What the hell kind of movie ends like that?
I'll tell you what kind of movie ends like that: a depressing one. That, or a movie clearly not aimed at embittered male movie reviewers. You be the judge.
Anyway, that's Easy A. The writer brags to have written the script in 5 days (presumably after which he said "easy, eh?") and i can believe him. There really isn't much substance in it beyond a slightly different take on the same old cliched story. I wasn't all that enthralled, but it's certainly not all that bad, especially when compared to other romantic comedies aimed at teenage girls (or so i heard).
This movie gets an easy
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Expendables
People tell me an action movie is supposed to be stupid. If so, then The Expendables is everything it's supposed to be.
The most amazing thing about The Expendables is that it manages to bring in the audiences, despite it having no story and starring the nearly incoherent Sylvester Stallone. Why do people line up to see him? At his most coherent he sounds like a boxer who's taken one too many blows to the head (which, incidentally, is why Rocky was such a good movie).
The movie is nothing short of one dry, uninteresting action movie cliche after another. It's really hard to imagine a movie with so many explosions and fight scenes being so boring, but there it is. At no time in this painfully long movie did i feel entertained by the overly stereotypical displays of pumping testosterone. And i really can't imagine anyone with any set of objective standards feeling any differently.
The Expendables follows the story of a group of mercenaries with absolutely no endearing personality quirks as they accept a dangerous mission to off a dictatorial general in a fictional island nation. Apparently that's all the plot that seems to be required in order to make a movie like this, because that's all the plot we ever get. It's so shallow, that even the characters who set up the story are only there for cameos.
Of course, i'm told the appeal of this movie is not the story (ya think?), but the, *ahem* "all star" cast of action heroes: Sylvester Stallone, Jet Li, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Bruce Willis, Dolph Lundgren... You know, all the washed up action stars from the 80's and 90's? Who wouldn't pay to see that?
The worst thing about this movie is it's not even interesting to make fun of. It knows it's bad - and somehow it's ok with that. It's just this shitty little movie that's supposed to be fun for all the teeny-boppers of the 90's who never quite grew up enough to accept more complex stories or characters. It makes no attempts and tries nothing new. It revels in what it is and what it is is awful.
When i see movies of the calibre of The Expendables, it really reminds me of how low we as a society have sunk in terms of what we accept as entertainment. It's no surprise that Hollywood is out of ideas (and thanks to nepotism, refuses to let in new ones), but when you have to turn to people like Sylvestor Stallone for movie scripts? This should be a sign that you're industry's in trouble.
It's remarkable in and of itself that a movie like this could ever get made. But you want to know the really amazing part? Stallone's already planning a sequel!. How the fuck do you make a sequel of a movie that has no god damned plot, entertainment value or lasting appeal; a movie whose only real selling point is it's B-List cast? Maybe by stacking it with even more washed up talent? Who knows; maybe they'll even get Vanilla Ice to do the sound track. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
The most amazing thing about The Expendables is that it manages to bring in the audiences, despite it having no story and starring the nearly incoherent Sylvester Stallone. Why do people line up to see him? At his most coherent he sounds like a boxer who's taken one too many blows to the head (which, incidentally, is why Rocky was such a good movie).
The movie is nothing short of one dry, uninteresting action movie cliche after another. It's really hard to imagine a movie with so many explosions and fight scenes being so boring, but there it is. At no time in this painfully long movie did i feel entertained by the overly stereotypical displays of pumping testosterone. And i really can't imagine anyone with any set of objective standards feeling any differently.
The Expendables follows the story of a group of mercenaries with absolutely no endearing personality quirks as they accept a dangerous mission to off a dictatorial general in a fictional island nation. Apparently that's all the plot that seems to be required in order to make a movie like this, because that's all the plot we ever get. It's so shallow, that even the characters who set up the story are only there for cameos.
Of course, i'm told the appeal of this movie is not the story (ya think?), but the, *ahem* "all star" cast of action heroes: Sylvester Stallone, Jet Li, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Bruce Willis, Dolph Lundgren... You know, all the washed up action stars from the 80's and 90's? Who wouldn't pay to see that?
The worst thing about this movie is it's not even interesting to make fun of. It knows it's bad - and somehow it's ok with that. It's just this shitty little movie that's supposed to be fun for all the teeny-boppers of the 90's who never quite grew up enough to accept more complex stories or characters. It makes no attempts and tries nothing new. It revels in what it is and what it is is awful.
When i see movies of the calibre of The Expendables, it really reminds me of how low we as a society have sunk in terms of what we accept as entertainment. It's no surprise that Hollywood is out of ideas (and thanks to nepotism, refuses to let in new ones), but when you have to turn to people like Sylvestor Stallone for movie scripts? This should be a sign that you're industry's in trouble.
It's remarkable in and of itself that a movie like this could ever get made. But you want to know the really amazing part? Stallone's already planning a sequel!. How the fuck do you make a sequel of a movie that has no god damned plot, entertainment value or lasting appeal; a movie whose only real selling point is it's B-List cast? Maybe by stacking it with even more washed up talent? Who knows; maybe they'll even get Vanilla Ice to do the sound track. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
Thursday, August 5, 2010
The Great Global Warming Swindle
I walked into this movie knowing i probably wasn't going to like it. Mostly because i've heard a lot of the climate denial points of interest before and i've heard them soundly being refuted. But since i like to think of myself as an open minded type wanting to hear both sides of the issues, i put aside all my skepticism and decided to give Martin Durkin a chance to make the case for the other side. Hey, it's the least he'd do for climatologists, right? Right?
Alas, far from being an honest and frank portrayal of the climate denial ('scuse me, climate SKEPTIC) side of the debate, The Great Global Warming Swindle starts off with an ironically alarmist message warning about the dangers of (you guessed it) alarmist messages.
But ok, so it's a little alarmist in its message. I'm sure Al Gore's movie, which i haven't seen (and have no interest in seeing) isn't any different. And it's not like Durkin did the whole "compare my opponents to dangerous ideologues" dealy.
Oh wait - that's exactly what they did!
According to The Great Global Warming Swindle the environmental movement is little more than a plot by neo-marxists, who trace their roots right to the USSR, to subvert capitalism and promote communism through the UN.
That's right, the same UN that seems utterly impotent when it comes to to stopping things like: the Iraq War, the Rwandan genocide, the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran, conflicts in the middle east and countless other wars and territory squabbles is behind the single greatest attempt at total world domination in the history of the world! Even the mighty US, that gladly shrugged off UN resolutions to go into Iraq, is powerless to stop the IPCC and the Climatolomarxistnazis!
Only in Climate Denier land.
The thing with this movie is that while it spends a good deal of time deriding the "evil IPCC" for being biased and full of greedy, money-hungry communists (don't ask), it willingly embraces its own biases, flatly declaring uncontested, unsupported lies as if they were reality.
One of the most glaring examples is their statement that volcanoes produce more CO2 than all the factories, cars, planes, etc put together. This is, of course, just demonstrably wrong. And i don't even mean like "kinda wrong" - it's wrong on orders of magnitude, as volcanoes only emit 1/150th of the CO2 as all human sources.
To put this into perspective, that's wrongness on the scale of claiming the US is roughly 30km across from east coast to west (an actual distance of more than 4500km). In other words, really, really wrong.
But, how does one make such a gross miscalculation and then include it into a documentary (that's aimed at criticizing scientists for inaccuracies, remember)? Obviously, they just didn't care.
I should note that Climate Deniers like to think of themselves as skeptics. But i'm sorry: if you fail to fact-check dubious claims simply because the opinion it supports agrees with your political view, you are not a skeptic.
Now, some climate deniers might point out that this is an unfair criticism, as this point was corrected in the theatrical release provided later. But that's completely missing the point! The very fact that this misinformation was ever in your documentary demonstrates how little skepticism you show opinions that already align with your particularly slanted view of the world.
Mind, this isn't even the only piece of bad science in the movie. Oh, there's much more where that came from! But i don't want to bore you with the science... and evidently neither does Martin Durkin; he's much more adept at boring you with lies and spin.
Now, going against the vast amounts of scientific consensus and mountains of scientific journals is a tough job. An honest documentary has to sort out the most important arguments from both sides and weigh the facts and evidence supporting each claim and then demonstrate how the ideas you front are the better options. The Great Global Warming Swindle, however, resorts to your typical strawman fallacy.
"All [climate change] models assume that man made CO2 is the main cause, rather than the sun or the clouds."
All? Really? Every single one?
I'm no climatologist; in fact, i have limited understanding of the field (though evidently, considerably more than the intended audience of this movie), but that's just simply not true. In fact, no climate model claims CO2 is the main influence on climate.
According to The Great Global Warming Swindle, climatologists willfully ignore the influence of the sun on climate. Further, they claim that the sun can account for all the warming we've been noticing. They even give a little graph to show how global temperatures compare to solar activity (sorry for the lousy quality - i just screen capped it).
Well that proves it, doesn't it? The lines match almost perfectly! Case closed! Climate change is a fraud!
But wait. Notice how the orange line stops and the blue line continues on for a bit? Seems like an odd omission. I mean, our record keeping in the past 20 years has gotten better, so it's unlikely our data for average temperature outstrip our data on solar activity by 20+ years.
I wanted to know what the rest of this chart looks like, but since it was painfully clear the climate "skeptics" do not, i would have to do the research on my own. That lead me here. (Note: this guy's actually done quite a few videos explaining the science behind climate change, including at least one video on this very film!)
watch the video, here's the graph we're concerned about (with the more complete data record).
Why, it almost seems like Durkin was deliberately leaving that info out. There's no way he didn't have the corresponding solar activity data for the same 20 year time frame as temperature data. But, if he did have it, why wouldn't he include it?
Isn't it obvious? The neomarxists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had artificially cooled the sun and... no, wait! They used tree rings to... no! The science isn't decided, yet! Except that it's decided that the sun causes global warming.
Well, whatever it is, i'm damn sure Durkin is the guy telling the truth on this one. I mean, who do you trust? A guy just makin' a documentary or the group of commi-scientists at the IPCC? I know where my money is!
Anyway, by this point in the film, i had completely given up any hope for an honest presentation of the material.
But with Durkin's strawmen utterly humiliated and the accusations of bias in the IPCC cast, it was finally time for him to tackle all those unfair "myths" levied at the climate denier side. You know, myths like Climate Deniers getting money from private financers with an agenda. It's absurd.... claims Durkin.
Huh...
That's odd. He can't be serious, right? I'm sure Durkin's heard of groups like: The Cato Institute,The Committe for a Constructive Tomorrow, The Science and Environmental Policy Project and The Heartland Institute. In fact, i know Durkin's heard of these organizations, because half of the damn people in his documentary are involved with them in one way or another.
Each of these organizations are all opposed to the idea of Anthropogenic Climate Change and all of them receive much of their funding from private donors, including those from the energy and car manufacturing sectors. Many also receive money from the tobacco industry and, surprise surprise, they're opposed to the scientific consensus that secondhand smoke is harmful. But that's just a coincidence, right?
But is it any wonder that these scientists who are associated with organizations that receive tons of money from companies like Exxon-Mobil have anti-climate change opinions? Or that Durkin would deliberately hide the fact that these organizations exist and are associated with his selection of climate denying scientists?
Now, Durkin might like to say that the source of the money shouldn't matter (and in fact, he does at one point), but he obviously doesn't really believe that. After all, he went out of his way to try and "dispel the myth" of private financing. Not to mention all the effort he puts into making the vast scientific community who hold the consensus views look like they're only in it for the money.
Durkin knows money speaks and he knows the source of the money determines the outcome of the result. He just didn't want you to know it.
Anyway, that's The Great Global Warming Swindle. It's an insultingly anti-intellectual display of lies, half-truths and propaganda designed to make the watcher question the science. I'll stop short of saying it's fronting an agenda, because for all i do know, maybe Durkin really is this ignorant and simply doesn't understand the facts himself. I mean, i doubt that's the case, but it's possible. Even most climate deniers themselves aren't evil, just misinformed... and it's banal shit like The Great Global Warming Swindle that makes sure they stay that way.
Now, it's not to say the movie is complete trash; it's just mostly trash. It does make some good points, particularly for the alarmist media presentation of Climate Change, which is more often wrongheaded, if not explicitly wrong. But what little it gets right is done no service by the lies and blatant propaganda that makes up the remainder of the movie. It's deliberately manipulative, slanderous and full of lies.
But if you don't believe me, just read what Carl Wunsch, a professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT (who was featured in the film) had to say about it.
"Grossly distorted"? "... as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two"?
Well, that seems a little harsh! But, what do you expect; he's just a money-hungry, neo-marxist-commie!
But wait, if this is like WWII propaganda and the climatologists are the commies, i wonder who the climate deniers are?
Don't see this movie. It's not even a good representation of themore intelligent less stupid climate denial criticisms.
Alas, far from being an honest and frank portrayal of the climate denial ('scuse me, climate SKEPTIC) side of the debate, The Great Global Warming Swindle starts off with an ironically alarmist message warning about the dangers of (you guessed it) alarmist messages.
But ok, so it's a little alarmist in its message. I'm sure Al Gore's movie, which i haven't seen (and have no interest in seeing) isn't any different. And it's not like Durkin did the whole "compare my opponents to dangerous ideologues" dealy.
Oh wait - that's exactly what they did!
According to The Great Global Warming Swindle the environmental movement is little more than a plot by neo-marxists, who trace their roots right to the USSR, to subvert capitalism and promote communism through the UN.
That's right, the same UN that seems utterly impotent when it comes to to stopping things like: the Iraq War, the Rwandan genocide, the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran, conflicts in the middle east and countless other wars and territory squabbles is behind the single greatest attempt at total world domination in the history of the world! Even the mighty US, that gladly shrugged off UN resolutions to go into Iraq, is powerless to stop the IPCC and the Climatolomarxistnazis!
Only in Climate Denier land.
The thing with this movie is that while it spends a good deal of time deriding the "evil IPCC" for being biased and full of greedy, money-hungry communists (don't ask), it willingly embraces its own biases, flatly declaring uncontested, unsupported lies as if they were reality.
One of the most glaring examples is their statement that volcanoes produce more CO2 than all the factories, cars, planes, etc put together. This is, of course, just demonstrably wrong. And i don't even mean like "kinda wrong" - it's wrong on orders of magnitude, as volcanoes only emit 1/150th of the CO2 as all human sources.
To put this into perspective, that's wrongness on the scale of claiming the US is roughly 30km across from east coast to west (an actual distance of more than 4500km). In other words, really, really wrong.
But, how does one make such a gross miscalculation and then include it into a documentary (that's aimed at criticizing scientists for inaccuracies, remember)? Obviously, they just didn't care.
I should note that Climate Deniers like to think of themselves as skeptics. But i'm sorry: if you fail to fact-check dubious claims simply because the opinion it supports agrees with your political view, you are not a skeptic.
Now, some climate deniers might point out that this is an unfair criticism, as this point was corrected in the theatrical release provided later. But that's completely missing the point! The very fact that this misinformation was ever in your documentary demonstrates how little skepticism you show opinions that already align with your particularly slanted view of the world.
Mind, this isn't even the only piece of bad science in the movie. Oh, there's much more where that came from! But i don't want to bore you with the science... and evidently neither does Martin Durkin; he's much more adept at boring you with lies and spin.
Now, going against the vast amounts of scientific consensus and mountains of scientific journals is a tough job. An honest documentary has to sort out the most important arguments from both sides and weigh the facts and evidence supporting each claim and then demonstrate how the ideas you front are the better options. The Great Global Warming Swindle, however, resorts to your typical strawman fallacy.
"All [climate change] models assume that man made CO2 is the main cause, rather than the sun or the clouds."
All? Really? Every single one?
I'm no climatologist; in fact, i have limited understanding of the field (though evidently, considerably more than the intended audience of this movie), but that's just simply not true. In fact, no climate model claims CO2 is the main influence on climate.
According to The Great Global Warming Swindle, climatologists willfully ignore the influence of the sun on climate. Further, they claim that the sun can account for all the warming we've been noticing. They even give a little graph to show how global temperatures compare to solar activity (sorry for the lousy quality - i just screen capped it).
 |
| See? That orange line is solar activity (right side axis), that blue one is average temperatures (left axis not visible) and x-axis is time in years (not visible). |
Well that proves it, doesn't it? The lines match almost perfectly! Case closed! Climate change is a fraud!
But wait. Notice how the orange line stops and the blue line continues on for a bit? Seems like an odd omission. I mean, our record keeping in the past 20 years has gotten better, so it's unlikely our data for average temperature outstrip our data on solar activity by 20+ years.
I wanted to know what the rest of this chart looks like, but since it was painfully clear the climate "skeptics" do not, i would have to do the research on my own. That lead me here. (Note: this guy's actually done quite a few videos explaining the science behind climate change, including at least one video on this very film!)
watch the video, here's the graph we're concerned about (with the more complete data record).
 |
| Blue line is average temperature, orange line is |
Why, it almost seems like Durkin was deliberately leaving that info out. There's no way he didn't have the corresponding solar activity data for the same 20 year time frame as temperature data. But, if he did have it, why wouldn't he include it?
Isn't it obvious? The neomarxists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had artificially cooled the sun and... no, wait! They used tree rings to... no! The science isn't decided, yet! Except that it's decided that the sun causes global warming.
Well, whatever it is, i'm damn sure Durkin is the guy telling the truth on this one. I mean, who do you trust? A guy just makin' a documentary or the group of commi-scientists at the IPCC? I know where my money is!
Anyway, by this point in the film, i had completely given up any hope for an honest presentation of the material.
But with Durkin's strawmen utterly humiliated and the accusations of bias in the IPCC cast, it was finally time for him to tackle all those unfair "myths" levied at the climate denier side. You know, myths like Climate Deniers getting money from private financers with an agenda. It's absurd.... claims Durkin.
Huh...
That's odd. He can't be serious, right? I'm sure Durkin's heard of groups like: The Cato Institute,The Committe for a Constructive Tomorrow, The Science and Environmental Policy Project and The Heartland Institute. In fact, i know Durkin's heard of these organizations, because half of the damn people in his documentary are involved with them in one way or another.
Each of these organizations are all opposed to the idea of Anthropogenic Climate Change and all of them receive much of their funding from private donors, including those from the energy and car manufacturing sectors. Many also receive money from the tobacco industry and, surprise surprise, they're opposed to the scientific consensus that secondhand smoke is harmful. But that's just a coincidence, right?
But is it any wonder that these scientists who are associated with organizations that receive tons of money from companies like Exxon-Mobil have anti-climate change opinions? Or that Durkin would deliberately hide the fact that these organizations exist and are associated with his selection of climate denying scientists?
Now, Durkin might like to say that the source of the money shouldn't matter (and in fact, he does at one point), but he obviously doesn't really believe that. After all, he went out of his way to try and "dispel the myth" of private financing. Not to mention all the effort he puts into making the vast scientific community who hold the consensus views look like they're only in it for the money.
Durkin knows money speaks and he knows the source of the money determines the outcome of the result. He just didn't want you to know it.
Anyway, that's The Great Global Warming Swindle. It's an insultingly anti-intellectual display of lies, half-truths and propaganda designed to make the watcher question the science. I'll stop short of saying it's fronting an agenda, because for all i do know, maybe Durkin really is this ignorant and simply doesn't understand the facts himself. I mean, i doubt that's the case, but it's possible. Even most climate deniers themselves aren't evil, just misinformed... and it's banal shit like The Great Global Warming Swindle that makes sure they stay that way.
Now, it's not to say the movie is complete trash; it's just mostly trash. It does make some good points, particularly for the alarmist media presentation of Climate Change, which is more often wrongheaded, if not explicitly wrong. But what little it gets right is done no service by the lies and blatant propaganda that makes up the remainder of the movie. It's deliberately manipulative, slanderous and full of lies.
But if you don't believe me, just read what Carl Wunsch, a professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT (who was featured in the film) had to say about it.
"Grossly distorted"? "... as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two"?
Well, that seems a little harsh! But, what do you expect; he's just a money-hungry, neo-marxist-commie!
But wait, if this is like WWII propaganda and the climatologists are the commies, i wonder who the climate deniers are?
Don't see this movie. It's not even a good representation of the
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Inception
Before i get into the review of this film, i must remind you that i'm exceptionally difficult to please - i'm not taken in by gimmicky flash-in-the-pan movies the way others so often are. I look at the lasting ability of a movie's story. The level of quality a movie must attain in order for me to regard it as "good" is so high, even movies like The Dark Knight fail to live up to my standards. And yes, i stand by my review of "ok, not good" for The Dark Knight, so merely the fact that Christopher Nolan also directed Inception doesn't mean anything. You disagree, you are wrong.
So, with all that in mind, what did i think of Inception?
...
Yeah, i liked it.
Go see it, you'll be glad you did. But as always, disregard the imbecilic praise of the fanboys first and just let yourself enjoy the movie for what it is.
So, with all that in mind, what did i think of Inception?
...
Yeah, i liked it.
Go see it, you'll be glad you did. But as always, disregard the imbecilic praise of the fanboys first and just let yourself enjoy the movie for what it is.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
And boy is it not allowed! Ben Stein did his damnedest to make sure nothing even approaching intelligence comes anywhere close to this movie. I'm not going to bother wasting my time outlining all the piss poor science in this "documentary"; others before me have already done that and done that much better than i could. Instead i'm going to focus on the other glaring flaws this movie demonstrates and show you exactly why it's such an abysmal excuse for a documentary.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a movie that does nothing right. I well expected bad science, but i did not expect the banal presentation. Did Stein even intend for anyone to be entertained by this?
For starters, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is the most deliberately manipulative pieces of cinematography i've personally seen since Triumph of the Will. And yet, Ben Stein has the audacity to compare evolutionary biologists (or "Darwinists" he calls them - a title deliberately chosen to invoke images of dangerous ideologues) to nazis.
Now i'm not saying Ben Stein is the Leni Riefenstahl of Creationists. Fuck no! Triumph of the Will was propoganda, sure, but it was well manufactured propoganda. Riefenstahl broke a lot of boundaries utilizing new techniques, blending images and music in ways not seen in movies prior to 1935. Even critics of the film's message marvel at its presentation.
But Expelled brings nothing to the table. It certainly isn't good and it's not even bad enough to be comically bad, like The Rocky Horror Picture Show or The Room.
All Stein really offers his audience is stock images of Nazis, Stalin and communists thrown up at opportune times in order to score cheap political points off of Evolutionary Biologists (or EVILutionary biologists! See what i did there? I'm so clever!). No doubt this would appeal to his intended ignorant-as-sin audience, but for anyone else, it just looks and feels awful in every possible way. Sort of like what women having sex with Ben Stein must experience (or men, let's be fair).
Now, one might think that if you're going to be deceptive and slanderous, it's at least beneficial to do so with a measure of subtlety (or humour). The documentary that comes right out and beats you over the head with its message is far less effective than one that carefully walks you through the reasoning.
But as it turns out throwing up pictures of Stalin and the Nazis is Ben Stein's idea of being subtle, because about halfway through the film, he literally abandons all precepts and comes right out and says that evolution lead to the Holocaust.
No, he really says that.
Of course it can be argued that the holocaust and eugenics started from social engineers misappropriating the concept of "survival of the fittest" for their own twisted ends, but Stein does nothing to critique others who do the exact same thing.
What about laissez-faire market types who believe in a completely unregulated market that promotes economic "survival of the fittest"? Where would that leave the "economically unfit" (which, btw, would include many "socially unfit" individuals like the severely handicapped, as well as completely normal people with poor economic prospects and/or networking abilities)? Likely suffering in the squalors of poverty forced to either adapt themselves better for the economic system thrust upon them against their will by learning how to be "good employees"... or die of poverty related causes in a gutter somewhere and decrease the surplus population.
But, c'mon! No one really believes that crap, do they?
Oh dear...
The thing that Ben Stein fails to grasp (in addition to high school level science) is that a documentary, or at least a halfway decent documentary, should do more than state your beliefs loudly then pound away nonstop at your opposing side like a sexually frustrated poodle on someone's leg. A good documentary should at least provide some evidence for why your belief or opinion is the superior one. You say you've found a hole in evolutionary biology? Ok then, how does Intelligent Design (ID) propose we fill that hole? Or are you just going to point at every flaw in every facet of human understanding and simply say "God did it"?
Abiogenesis? God did it. Reconciling Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity? God did it. How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? God did it. How is M Night Shyamalan still making movies? God did that, too (the bastard!).
Stein complains that ID proponents are having their freedom of speech rights infringed upon because they cannot hold creationist views and be associated with respectable scientific organizations and he cites a number of them whom he claims have lost their job as a result.
Why, that's just so unfair! What is this, Communist China? If i wanna teach the next generation of aspiring paleantologists that Jesus had a pet T-Rex named Mr Picklepus that he taught to give him felatio, that's my right as an American citizen (er, Canadian?)! Screw you nazi bastards and your adherence to "educational standards"!
But this isn't a matter of free speech. Organizations are allowed to discriminate against views that are damaging to the organizations overall purpose.
A university can (and should) discriminate against scientists who waste critical funding money studying whimsical theories based solely on ideology. Likewise, an organization would be completely justified in firing anyone who, as a representative of the organization, uses their position to front such erroneous organizationally damaging beliefs, be they creationists, holocaust deniers or white supremicists.
Of course, one wonders if Ben Stein would be so willing to champion up the free speech rights of (say) a Marxist (or hell, even a Keynsian!) who loses his or her job as an economist at the Cato Institute or other laissez-faire market promoting institute?
Something tells me "no".
At one point Stein sits down with noted evolution biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins. The purpose of which seems to be solely to cash in on Dawkins saying that he (nor anyone else) has a coherent idea of how life began, so therefore (in Stein's opinion) it can be by "Intelligent Design".
Checkmate! Score one for the creationists! Take that you pointed headed professors, with your "science" and your "evidence" and your "theories" and your "iphones" and your "modern medicine" and your "microprocessors" and your "marvels of the modern world"!
But let's look at this a little closer, shall we?
You have a small child under your care and you have a cookie jar on a refridgerator. One day you notice the cookies in the jar are gone, but the jar is still in place. The small child has crumbs on their face and a guilty look, so you're fairly certain you know what happened to the cookies in the jar. You approach your young charge and ask them directly, "Did you eat the cookies in the cookie jar?"
To which your clever youngster responds, "no, it was a ghost."
You, not likely to be convinced by this argument (hopefully... i'm not one to judge), point out the reasons you suspect the child had eaten the cookies and note that the "ghost theory" is a silly one.
But this child imagines him/herself to be quite the clever one. "Even if i ate the cookies, that doesn't discount my theory of the ghost stealing them for me," the child protests.
"But ghosts don't exist," you calmly state. "Plus, it's much more likely that you got the cookies yourself."
"But what proof do you have that there isn't a ghost? That jar is on top of the refridgerator, and i can't reach all the way up there."
"But you could've climbed the counter or used a chair or even taken the step ladder from the garage or...."
"Aha!" the child shrieks with delight. "You don't even have a clear idea how i could've gotten the cookies, so it's completely possible that a ghost had stolen them as i claim."
Would you accept this argument?
No?
But it's such a sound argument!
If this isn't acceptable, why is it acceptable to say life was first created by an "intelligent designer", just because our (current) best theories don't have an adequate, "100% guaranteed to be correct or your money back" answer? And more importantly, how is this any different from plain old creationism? Make no mistake, Stein is adament that Intelligent Design is not Creationism, even though his movie is inexplicably lacking in any distinguishing characteristics between the two.
So what's the difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism? To a sane person, there is no difference. Creationism is Intelligent Design and vice versa. There is no difference between saying "God did it" or "an intelligent creator, who may or may not be god, did it" and it's completely fair for everyone else in society to immediately and unequivically dismiss both of these "theories" simply on the premise that it adds nothing to the scientific debate. Even if Creationism were true (big if), it only replaces an "i don't know" with an untestable, undemonstratable and ultimately unneeded answer that stifles further debate and prevents any further knowledge from being gained.
But Stein will never get this and neither will the primary audience of this movie. As far as they are concerned, Christian Americans, all 225+ million of them, are just a persecuted minority... just like the Jews of Nazi Germany. If i were Jewish, i'd find that horribly offensive. But Ben Stein (who is Jewish), doesn't, so what the hell do i know, right?
All in all, this is an awful movie and a poor excuse for a documentary. It's manipulative, disgusting, unentertaining, protracted creationist propoganda. Don't waste your time with it. Just take note of those who rent it and avoid them like the plague. I'm pretty sure stupidity isn't contagious, but you don't want to take that chance!
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a movie that does nothing right. I well expected bad science, but i did not expect the banal presentation. Did Stein even intend for anyone to be entertained by this?
For starters, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is the most deliberately manipulative pieces of cinematography i've personally seen since Triumph of the Will. And yet, Ben Stein has the audacity to compare evolutionary biologists (or "Darwinists" he calls them - a title deliberately chosen to invoke images of dangerous ideologues) to nazis.
Now i'm not saying Ben Stein is the Leni Riefenstahl of Creationists. Fuck no! Triumph of the Will was propoganda, sure, but it was well manufactured propoganda. Riefenstahl broke a lot of boundaries utilizing new techniques, blending images and music in ways not seen in movies prior to 1935. Even critics of the film's message marvel at its presentation.
But Expelled brings nothing to the table. It certainly isn't good and it's not even bad enough to be comically bad, like The Rocky Horror Picture Show or The Room.
All Stein really offers his audience is stock images of Nazis, Stalin and communists thrown up at opportune times in order to score cheap political points off of Evolutionary Biologists (or EVILutionary biologists! See what i did there? I'm so clever!). No doubt this would appeal to his intended ignorant-as-sin audience, but for anyone else, it just looks and feels awful in every possible way. Sort of like what women having sex with Ben Stein must experience (or men, let's be fair).
Now, one might think that if you're going to be deceptive and slanderous, it's at least beneficial to do so with a measure of subtlety (or humour). The documentary that comes right out and beats you over the head with its message is far less effective than one that carefully walks you through the reasoning.
But as it turns out throwing up pictures of Stalin and the Nazis is Ben Stein's idea of being subtle, because about halfway through the film, he literally abandons all precepts and comes right out and says that evolution lead to the Holocaust.
No, he really says that.
Of course it can be argued that the holocaust and eugenics started from social engineers misappropriating the concept of "survival of the fittest" for their own twisted ends, but Stein does nothing to critique others who do the exact same thing.
What about laissez-faire market types who believe in a completely unregulated market that promotes economic "survival of the fittest"? Where would that leave the "economically unfit" (which, btw, would include many "socially unfit" individuals like the severely handicapped, as well as completely normal people with poor economic prospects and/or networking abilities)? Likely suffering in the squalors of poverty forced to either adapt themselves better for the economic system thrust upon them against their will by learning how to be "good employees"... or die of poverty related causes in a gutter somewhere and decrease the surplus population.
But, c'mon! No one really believes that crap, do they?
Oh dear...
The thing that Ben Stein fails to grasp (in addition to high school level science) is that a documentary, or at least a halfway decent documentary, should do more than state your beliefs loudly then pound away nonstop at your opposing side like a sexually frustrated poodle on someone's leg. A good documentary should at least provide some evidence for why your belief or opinion is the superior one. You say you've found a hole in evolutionary biology? Ok then, how does Intelligent Design (ID) propose we fill that hole? Or are you just going to point at every flaw in every facet of human understanding and simply say "God did it"?
Abiogenesis? God did it. Reconciling Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity? God did it. How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? God did it. How is M Night Shyamalan still making movies? God did that, too (the bastard!).
Stein complains that ID proponents are having their freedom of speech rights infringed upon because they cannot hold creationist views and be associated with respectable scientific organizations and he cites a number of them whom he claims have lost their job as a result.
Why, that's just so unfair! What is this, Communist China? If i wanna teach the next generation of aspiring paleantologists that Jesus had a pet T-Rex named Mr Picklepus that he taught to give him felatio, that's my right as an American citizen (er, Canadian?)! Screw you nazi bastards and your adherence to "educational standards"!
But this isn't a matter of free speech. Organizations are allowed to discriminate against views that are damaging to the organizations overall purpose.
A university can (and should) discriminate against scientists who waste critical funding money studying whimsical theories based solely on ideology. Likewise, an organization would be completely justified in firing anyone who, as a representative of the organization, uses their position to front such erroneous organizationally damaging beliefs, be they creationists, holocaust deniers or white supremicists.
Of course, one wonders if Ben Stein would be so willing to champion up the free speech rights of (say) a Marxist (or hell, even a Keynsian!) who loses his or her job as an economist at the Cato Institute or other laissez-faire market promoting institute?
Something tells me "no".
At one point Stein sits down with noted evolution biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins. The purpose of which seems to be solely to cash in on Dawkins saying that he (nor anyone else) has a coherent idea of how life began, so therefore (in Stein's opinion) it can be by "Intelligent Design".
Checkmate! Score one for the creationists! Take that you pointed headed professors, with your "science" and your "evidence" and your "theories" and your "iphones" and your "modern medicine" and your "microprocessors" and your "marvels of the modern world"!
But let's look at this a little closer, shall we?
You have a small child under your care and you have a cookie jar on a refridgerator. One day you notice the cookies in the jar are gone, but the jar is still in place. The small child has crumbs on their face and a guilty look, so you're fairly certain you know what happened to the cookies in the jar. You approach your young charge and ask them directly, "Did you eat the cookies in the cookie jar?"
To which your clever youngster responds, "no, it was a ghost."
You, not likely to be convinced by this argument (hopefully... i'm not one to judge), point out the reasons you suspect the child had eaten the cookies and note that the "ghost theory" is a silly one.
But this child imagines him/herself to be quite the clever one. "Even if i ate the cookies, that doesn't discount my theory of the ghost stealing them for me," the child protests.
"But ghosts don't exist," you calmly state. "Plus, it's much more likely that you got the cookies yourself."
"But what proof do you have that there isn't a ghost? That jar is on top of the refridgerator, and i can't reach all the way up there."
"But you could've climbed the counter or used a chair or even taken the step ladder from the garage or...."
"Aha!" the child shrieks with delight. "You don't even have a clear idea how i could've gotten the cookies, so it's completely possible that a ghost had stolen them as i claim."
Would you accept this argument?
No?
But it's such a sound argument!
If this isn't acceptable, why is it acceptable to say life was first created by an "intelligent designer", just because our (current) best theories don't have an adequate, "100% guaranteed to be correct or your money back" answer? And more importantly, how is this any different from plain old creationism? Make no mistake, Stein is adament that Intelligent Design is not Creationism, even though his movie is inexplicably lacking in any distinguishing characteristics between the two.
So what's the difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism? To a sane person, there is no difference. Creationism is Intelligent Design and vice versa. There is no difference between saying "God did it" or "an intelligent creator, who may or may not be god, did it" and it's completely fair for everyone else in society to immediately and unequivically dismiss both of these "theories" simply on the premise that it adds nothing to the scientific debate. Even if Creationism were true (big if), it only replaces an "i don't know" with an untestable, undemonstratable and ultimately unneeded answer that stifles further debate and prevents any further knowledge from being gained.
But Stein will never get this and neither will the primary audience of this movie. As far as they are concerned, Christian Americans, all 225+ million of them, are just a persecuted minority... just like the Jews of Nazi Germany. If i were Jewish, i'd find that horribly offensive. But Ben Stein (who is Jewish), doesn't, so what the hell do i know, right?
All in all, this is an awful movie and a poor excuse for a documentary. It's manipulative, disgusting, unentertaining, protracted creationist propoganda. Don't waste your time with it. Just take note of those who rent it and avoid them like the plague. I'm pretty sure stupidity isn't contagious, but you don't want to take that chance!
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Triple review: Toy Story 3, Mass Effect 2 and Bioshock 1
Or, as i prefer to call this review: "These things i like..."
I don't like writing positive reviews simply because i don't find them very entertaining. 'Tis far more entertaining to read caustic wit than the idiotic ramblings of the fanboys who are incapable of seeing fault with whatever deeply flawed object of adoration they hold closest to their heart.
However, since times are rough (it's a recession, doncha know), i've limited my funds to entertainment that i'm fairly certain i'll enjoy already. Because i'm such a discerning asshole, this also means that i pretty much only watch/play movies/games that are top notch. Which brings me to the uncomfortable truth that i haven't seen or played anything wretched lately, i'm going to be doing a triple positive review. That way i don't have to spend all that much time talking about positive points of anything.
But even though this is a set of positive reviews, i'll still find the flaws to pick at, even if they are minor details.
So without further ado, let's get down to the review:
Toy Story 3
I'd like to say "people don't like sequels", but i'd be lying. After all, hollywood execs are "people", too (in the loosest sense of the word) and they absolutely LOVE sequels. It's a guaranteed built in audience and movies are more a business than a catharsis, so it's win-freakin'-win, even if the sequel is unwatchable shit.
But beyond the execs of hollywood, who really likes sequels? Not many. However, every once in a while a sequel comes along that is not only as good as the original, but sometimes even better. Shrek 2, for example (despite the number of people who disagree). But a more recent example is Toy Story 3.
While i have always been (and still am) of the mindset that Toy Story could've been the first and last movie in the now-trilogy and still been an excellent film, i must admit that the sequels have actually served to improve the franchise. Toy Story 3's plot, particularly, feels like the natural progression and conclusion of the films. The events of previous films are built on, not rehashed as so many other sequels tend to do. And true to form, Pixar has included their now omni-present touching moments in the climax of the film.
My biggest qualm with this movie is that before it starts you know how it's going to end. Indeed, you know the only way it could possibly end. Since Andy is all grown up now, it's highly unlikely he's going to lapse back into the mental state of a kid and continue playing with his toys, so one of two things must happen: Woody, Buzz and co end up "adopted" by another good hearted child or they end up being destroyed or abandoned or some other horrible fate. Because this is a Disney-Pixar movie, it doesn't take too much to figure out which.
But having a predictable ending does not a poor story make. If there was ever any doubt of this, watch Toy Story 3. This is one of those few movies where the consensus of critics throwing perfect 10s are actually entirely justified. The plot feels like a natural extention of the previous movies and there's just the right mix of comedy, drama and action for it to feel like a well balanced film. Give it a watch if you get a chance.
Next up...
Mass Effect 2
If there's anyone who likes sequels more than movie executives, it's video game company executives. While movies that reach a 4th sequel are rare (and almost always confined to children's movies), some video game franchises have installments well into the double digits: Final Fantasy, Castlevania, the Megaman series, all of Nintendo's games..., the list goes on.
But unlike with movies, a crappy video game sequel is pretty rare, as developers often use the time to improve gameplay and story elements, putting more money - and more importantly, effort - into the sequels than movie executives even care to. After all, a shitty game can sour gamers views on all your wares, while people like M Night Shyamalan (and more shockingly, Uwe Boll) are still making movies. (Seriously, wtf!?)
But enough preamble, how's Mass Effect 2? Well, just as expected, Bioware took their time to improve the gameplay and story. While the first Mass Effect was hardly "bad" (you can read my review of the first Mass Effect here), the sequel improves on it a good deal. Gone are the broken driving segments (and there was much rejoicing) and improved are the combat, story and even basic motions.
Now, you may be wondering what i mean by "basic motions have improved". What the hell does that even mean? Well, it's really only something you notice when directly comparing Mass Effect 2 to Mass Effect 1. When i revisted the first game after having completed the second, i was getting stuck on all kinds of ankle high terrain. It was so bad as to the point of frustration... but i didn't notice it the first time playing through the game. That's what i mean by "improved basic motions".
The other thing that's improved in gameplay is the whole renegade/paragon dynamic. While the first game largely had it as an aesthetic feature that only occassionally allowed for alternative conversation points, ME2 adds in quick time events and a lot more conversation options that depend on your renegade or paragon score. This was a vast improvement over the 4 or 5 conversations in the first Mass Effect that required renegade or paragon points to unlock different conversation options.
Yes, ME2 is certainly an improvement over an already excellent game, but like anything, it wasn't flawless. As everyone has already commented, the planet mining that's needed for all the best upgrades is nothing short of annoying grind work, but the worst, absolute worst aspect of this game has to be the money formula: there will never be a time, in the entire game, where you won't be starved for cash. And don't expect anyone to do anything more than shave a few bucks off max prices for you, either (and only if you intimidate or charm them). Sure, you saved the galaxy in the first game and, yes, you have a financial backer with bottomless pockets and, ok, your mission is so important that failure isn't an option... but there's no free rides here! You're still going to have to buy all your own weapon and armor upgrades, as well as fuel and probes (required to scan planets for resources).
That's right, i said you have to buy your own fuel. While you're supposedly working for a private military contractor, Cerberus, who is constantly telling you how much resources they've put at your disposal, you're still required to pay for your own damned gas. What the hell kind of 2-bit operation is Cerberus running? There are employers with goals less important than "save the galaxy" that pay for their employees fuel charges!
I guess Bioware was trying to make it more "realistic" with consumable fuel, but the only thing they've realistically done is discourage me from exploring the universe beyond the systems i can get to for free. Those credits are too damned important for my weapons upgrades to botherspending wasting on universe exploration!
All in all, though, Mass Effect 2 is an excellent game and worth the time if you like 3rd persion shooters. If possible, it's even more massive effective than the first!
And finally we have...
Bioshock
A three year old game that i've only now decided to pick up and play. Hell, it even has a sequel now.
Bioshock is a game that's mostly all about atmosphere. The gritty dystopian city of Rapture is clearly designed to make you jump in your seat and inch cautiously down corridors as you plod carefully through the story. The game even includes a number of specific triggers that, when hit, cause your screen to fade out briefly, only to return you to the same spot, now surrounded by viscious enemies.
Of course, the problem with this is, any replay is guaranteed not to be as enthralling as your first play through, which is a real pitty because, like Mass Effect (and other games of the time), there's a moral choice system. Naturally, i played through the game the first time like a goody-goody with designs on playing through a second time as a malevolent cock-sucker out for the blood of children. Of course, since the game doesn't change at all in replay (except, what i'm told, is a different ending), there's not much enjoyment to be milked out of having a bloody moral choice system to begin with. I can just as easily watch the "bad" ending on youtube and lose nothing for it.
The other thing that bothers me is that while Bioshock is certainly trying to deliver a clever story coupled with some topical political commentary, it completely gives up halfway through. Many gamers have praised the story's "twist", but it's really not that much of a twist, especially if you've played a video game in your life before. I won't spoil the twist (god forbid!), but suffice it to say, i called it from the start and was more than a little disappointed when the writers choose to abandon their social commentary in the name of such a weak story device.
Oh well, all in all, Bioshock is still an impressively visual game with an intriguing enough story to keep you entertained, if only for a single playthrough. Check it out.
So that's my countdown of the "things i liked this month" review. It's not as witty or comedic as a vitriolic review could be, but again, that's why i hate writing this kind of review. Oh well, perhaps it makes up for my month in absence.
No? Well, tough.
I don't like writing positive reviews simply because i don't find them very entertaining. 'Tis far more entertaining to read caustic wit than the idiotic ramblings of the fanboys who are incapable of seeing fault with whatever deeply flawed object of adoration they hold closest to their heart.
However, since times are rough (it's a recession, doncha know), i've limited my funds to entertainment that i'm fairly certain i'll enjoy already. Because i'm such a discerning asshole, this also means that i pretty much only watch/play movies/games that are top notch. Which brings me to the uncomfortable truth that i haven't seen or played anything wretched lately, i'm going to be doing a triple positive review. That way i don't have to spend all that much time talking about positive points of anything.
But even though this is a set of positive reviews, i'll still find the flaws to pick at, even if they are minor details.
So without further ado, let's get down to the review:
Toy Story 3
I'd like to say "people don't like sequels", but i'd be lying. After all, hollywood execs are "people", too (in the loosest sense of the word) and they absolutely LOVE sequels. It's a guaranteed built in audience and movies are more a business than a catharsis, so it's win-freakin'-win, even if the sequel is unwatchable shit.
But beyond the execs of hollywood, who really likes sequels? Not many. However, every once in a while a sequel comes along that is not only as good as the original, but sometimes even better. Shrek 2, for example (despite the number of people who disagree). But a more recent example is Toy Story 3.
While i have always been (and still am) of the mindset that Toy Story could've been the first and last movie in the now-trilogy and still been an excellent film, i must admit that the sequels have actually served to improve the franchise. Toy Story 3's plot, particularly, feels like the natural progression and conclusion of the films. The events of previous films are built on, not rehashed as so many other sequels tend to do. And true to form, Pixar has included their now omni-present touching moments in the climax of the film.
My biggest qualm with this movie is that before it starts you know how it's going to end. Indeed, you know the only way it could possibly end. Since Andy is all grown up now, it's highly unlikely he's going to lapse back into the mental state of a kid and continue playing with his toys, so one of two things must happen: Woody, Buzz and co end up "adopted" by another good hearted child or they end up being destroyed or abandoned or some other horrible fate. Because this is a Disney-Pixar movie, it doesn't take too much to figure out which.
But having a predictable ending does not a poor story make. If there was ever any doubt of this, watch Toy Story 3. This is one of those few movies where the consensus of critics throwing perfect 10s are actually entirely justified. The plot feels like a natural extention of the previous movies and there's just the right mix of comedy, drama and action for it to feel like a well balanced film. Give it a watch if you get a chance.
Next up...
Mass Effect 2
If there's anyone who likes sequels more than movie executives, it's video game company executives. While movies that reach a 4th sequel are rare (and almost always confined to children's movies), some video game franchises have installments well into the double digits: Final Fantasy, Castlevania, the Megaman series, all of Nintendo's games..., the list goes on.
But unlike with movies, a crappy video game sequel is pretty rare, as developers often use the time to improve gameplay and story elements, putting more money - and more importantly, effort - into the sequels than movie executives even care to. After all, a shitty game can sour gamers views on all your wares, while people like M Night Shyamalan (and more shockingly, Uwe Boll) are still making movies. (Seriously, wtf!?)
But enough preamble, how's Mass Effect 2? Well, just as expected, Bioware took their time to improve the gameplay and story. While the first Mass Effect was hardly "bad" (you can read my review of the first Mass Effect here), the sequel improves on it a good deal. Gone are the broken driving segments (and there was much rejoicing) and improved are the combat, story and even basic motions.
Now, you may be wondering what i mean by "basic motions have improved". What the hell does that even mean? Well, it's really only something you notice when directly comparing Mass Effect 2 to Mass Effect 1. When i revisted the first game after having completed the second, i was getting stuck on all kinds of ankle high terrain. It was so bad as to the point of frustration... but i didn't notice it the first time playing through the game. That's what i mean by "improved basic motions".
The other thing that's improved in gameplay is the whole renegade/paragon dynamic. While the first game largely had it as an aesthetic feature that only occassionally allowed for alternative conversation points, ME2 adds in quick time events and a lot more conversation options that depend on your renegade or paragon score. This was a vast improvement over the 4 or 5 conversations in the first Mass Effect that required renegade or paragon points to unlock different conversation options.
Yes, ME2 is certainly an improvement over an already excellent game, but like anything, it wasn't flawless. As everyone has already commented, the planet mining that's needed for all the best upgrades is nothing short of annoying grind work, but the worst, absolute worst aspect of this game has to be the money formula: there will never be a time, in the entire game, where you won't be starved for cash. And don't expect anyone to do anything more than shave a few bucks off max prices for you, either (and only if you intimidate or charm them). Sure, you saved the galaxy in the first game and, yes, you have a financial backer with bottomless pockets and, ok, your mission is so important that failure isn't an option... but there's no free rides here! You're still going to have to buy all your own weapon and armor upgrades, as well as fuel and probes (required to scan planets for resources).
That's right, i said you have to buy your own fuel. While you're supposedly working for a private military contractor, Cerberus, who is constantly telling you how much resources they've put at your disposal, you're still required to pay for your own damned gas. What the hell kind of 2-bit operation is Cerberus running? There are employers with goals less important than "save the galaxy" that pay for their employees fuel charges!
I guess Bioware was trying to make it more "realistic" with consumable fuel, but the only thing they've realistically done is discourage me from exploring the universe beyond the systems i can get to for free. Those credits are too damned important for my weapons upgrades to bother
All in all, though, Mass Effect 2 is an excellent game and worth the time if you like 3rd persion shooters. If possible, it's even more massive effective than the first!
And finally we have...
Bioshock
A three year old game that i've only now decided to pick up and play. Hell, it even has a sequel now.
Bioshock is a game that's mostly all about atmosphere. The gritty dystopian city of Rapture is clearly designed to make you jump in your seat and inch cautiously down corridors as you plod carefully through the story. The game even includes a number of specific triggers that, when hit, cause your screen to fade out briefly, only to return you to the same spot, now surrounded by viscious enemies.
Of course, the problem with this is, any replay is guaranteed not to be as enthralling as your first play through, which is a real pitty because, like Mass Effect (and other games of the time), there's a moral choice system. Naturally, i played through the game the first time like a goody-goody with designs on playing through a second time as a malevolent cock-sucker out for the blood of children. Of course, since the game doesn't change at all in replay (except, what i'm told, is a different ending), there's not much enjoyment to be milked out of having a bloody moral choice system to begin with. I can just as easily watch the "bad" ending on youtube and lose nothing for it.
The other thing that bothers me is that while Bioshock is certainly trying to deliver a clever story coupled with some topical political commentary, it completely gives up halfway through. Many gamers have praised the story's "twist", but it's really not that much of a twist, especially if you've played a video game in your life before. I won't spoil the twist (god forbid!), but suffice it to say, i called it from the start and was more than a little disappointed when the writers choose to abandon their social commentary in the name of such a weak story device.
Oh well, all in all, Bioshock is still an impressively visual game with an intriguing enough story to keep you entertained, if only for a single playthrough. Check it out.
So that's my countdown of the "things i liked this month" review. It's not as witty or comedic as a vitriolic review could be, but again, that's why i hate writing this kind of review. Oh well, perhaps it makes up for my month in absence.
No? Well, tough.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Robin Hood (2010)
Didn't Robin Hood used to be about a well intentioned thief with a bow?
There are a lot of words that have been used to describe this movie: awful, terrible, atrocious, abyssmal, fucking-awful, fucking-terrible, fucking-abysmal.... But there's really only one word i'd use to describe a movie like Robin Hood: boring. And really, that's the harshest of criticisms i, or anyone, can levy at any movie.
Now, that's not to say the movie's writers' are lazy hacks. Hell, it takes almost a superhuman inability to write to make a movie about eff-ing Robing Hood boring, but apparently it's possible. As an insomniac, i often have trouble finding dreamland in the dead of night. Yet, during the climactic battle sequence of Ridley Scott's Robin Hood, dreamland found me. Thanks, Ridley! $12 well spent!
When i went into this movie, i expected a reinvisioning of Robin Hood. My bad! The movie's about how Robin Hood became who he was. Fair enough. An origin story can always bring some kind of interest. But instead of anything interesting (by any stretch of the word), we, the poorly informed audience, get a protracted piece of nonsense about a war with France that's about as entertaining as watching lenolium curl.
I kid, i kid! Curling lenolium is considerably more entertaining than the festering pile of maneur that is Robin Hood.
Robin Hood is a (painfully long) 2 and a half hour movie that feels a lot like 7. For the first hour or so, i kept wondering "when will they get to the good parts?" Eventually i gave up on this and started wondering when they'd just get to the non-sucky parts. It wasn't long after that that i started wishing the movie would simply end so i could leave the theatre and not feel like i wasted $12. Even that feeling never came.
I wish i could say movies like Robin Hood are a rarity, but they're not. They are the norm of the Hollywood of today. The final death-throws of an industry so in-bred and devoid of talent or creativity that the only ideas left to be wrung from their wretched writers are the shit-fests that are the reinvisionings and origin stories the likes of which no sane human being would want to be subjected to.
The only reason Hollywood continues to survive is thanks to their ability to viral market. But even that can't last forever. Eventually the idiots like me who actually pay to see movies like Robin Hood instead of downloading them will get tired of being ripped off and just give up on theatres all together. And when that happens, the ones who are to blame are the inbred scum-sucking, crap-mongers who create purile trash like Robin Hood for mass consumption.
Don't see this movie - don't even pirate it. It's not worth it. Save your precious money and/or time and read the dictionary. It's guaranteed to at least give you a few moments of entertainment. That's much more than Robin Hood could ever hope.
There are a lot of words that have been used to describe this movie: awful, terrible, atrocious, abyssmal, fucking-awful, fucking-terrible, fucking-abysmal.... But there's really only one word i'd use to describe a movie like Robin Hood: boring. And really, that's the harshest of criticisms i, or anyone, can levy at any movie.
Now, that's not to say the movie's writers' are lazy hacks. Hell, it takes almost a superhuman inability to write to make a movie about eff-ing Robing Hood boring, but apparently it's possible. As an insomniac, i often have trouble finding dreamland in the dead of night. Yet, during the climactic battle sequence of Ridley Scott's Robin Hood, dreamland found me. Thanks, Ridley! $12 well spent!
When i went into this movie, i expected a reinvisioning of Robin Hood. My bad! The movie's about how Robin Hood became who he was. Fair enough. An origin story can always bring some kind of interest. But instead of anything interesting (by any stretch of the word), we, the poorly informed audience, get a protracted piece of nonsense about a war with France that's about as entertaining as watching lenolium curl.
I kid, i kid! Curling lenolium is considerably more entertaining than the festering pile of maneur that is Robin Hood.
Robin Hood is a (painfully long) 2 and a half hour movie that feels a lot like 7. For the first hour or so, i kept wondering "when will they get to the good parts?" Eventually i gave up on this and started wondering when they'd just get to the non-sucky parts. It wasn't long after that that i started wishing the movie would simply end so i could leave the theatre and not feel like i wasted $12. Even that feeling never came.
I wish i could say movies like Robin Hood are a rarity, but they're not. They are the norm of the Hollywood of today. The final death-throws of an industry so in-bred and devoid of talent or creativity that the only ideas left to be wrung from their wretched writers are the shit-fests that are the reinvisionings and origin stories the likes of which no sane human being would want to be subjected to.
The only reason Hollywood continues to survive is thanks to their ability to viral market. But even that can't last forever. Eventually the idiots like me who actually pay to see movies like Robin Hood instead of downloading them will get tired of being ripped off and just give up on theatres all together. And when that happens, the ones who are to blame are the inbred scum-sucking, crap-mongers who create purile trash like Robin Hood for mass consumption.
Don't see this movie - don't even pirate it. It's not worth it. Save your precious money and/or time and read the dictionary. It's guaranteed to at least give you a few moments of entertainment. That's much more than Robin Hood could ever hope.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Ironman 2
I had seen Ironman 1 and i didn't like it. But since everyone seemed to disagree with me, i sort've convinced myself i might be wrong and that a sequel wouldn't be an awful idea.
What a mistake that was! Whatever redeeming qualities Ironman 1 had, Ironman 2 makes a point of dispensing with all of them.
Everything about this movie reaks of stupidity. The plot is an incoherent mess, the humour's contrived and the characters are unendearing morons who never shut the hell up. I don't think there was a single moment in this movie i wasn't wishing i could actively influence the plot by strangling one or another of the characters to death.
There are an inordinate amount of sideline plots all running along at the same time: one involving the villain, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), one involving the other villain, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), one involving Stark's black best friend, Colonel James Rhodes (Terrence Howard in the first Ironman, but Don Cheadle in this one), one involving an undercover agent Natalie (Scarlette Johansson), a minor one for the wooden Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and, of course, one involving Tony Stark, the Ironman, himself (Robert Downey Jr). While a skilled writer would have a very difficult time trying to give appropriate blance to any three of these plot lines, the writers of Ironman 2 have absolutely no chance and what results is a half-assed story that doesn't seem to know what's important and what's not.
In order to accommodate the plethora of needless side-stories and characters, the writers opt to have all the characters have the same annoying personality quirk of talking over each other all the time. This saves the writers from a measured development of plot elements by having them just thrown into the viewers face as fast as possible so the film can get on with more important things (though, i'll be damned if i know what those are).
Probably the most annoying character in the entire movie is Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). It's as if the director simply told Rockwell to act as annoying as humanly possible - you know, the way Rockwell usually acts in all his movies. Rockwell's every bit of dialogue is delivered in a whiny voice that's so aggravating it makes the audience want to jump out of their seats and strangle him to death. That's not to say the other characters didn't have me fervently wishing them all dead; just Sam Rockwell's better at it.
Probably the only redeeming part of this film was watching Scarlette Johansson jump around in tight clothing - but not by enough. Her character is still bland and uninteresting, doing little more than beat people up. A sort of "stereotypical action girl" character - flaws and characterization are for the male folk! She's also the character who gets the most "superpowers as the plot demands" (though she's hardly the only one). How, exactly, was she able to hack Ivan Vanko's (Mickey Rourke) control over the second Ironman suit? She's never hinted to be a genius level hacker who can best Stark, Hammer and Vanko (who is presented as being a genius level hacker). Nor should she have any knowledge of how the ironman suits even work! So how is she able to hack in in less than 30 seconds? Pointless story, right? Who cares how it's done so long as it gets done. Well, at least that's the writer's view on the matter.
Overall i'd say this movie is a waste of time. But don't worry, they're making an Ironman 3 and an Avengers movie. So i'm sure you'll have lots of chance to waste time seeing those if you so choose.
Since i gave Ironman 1, 1 out of 5, it seems only pertinent that i give Ironman 2 zero out of 5. God awful.
What a mistake that was! Whatever redeeming qualities Ironman 1 had, Ironman 2 makes a point of dispensing with all of them.
Everything about this movie reaks of stupidity. The plot is an incoherent mess, the humour's contrived and the characters are unendearing morons who never shut the hell up. I don't think there was a single moment in this movie i wasn't wishing i could actively influence the plot by strangling one or another of the characters to death.
There are an inordinate amount of sideline plots all running along at the same time: one involving the villain, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), one involving the other villain, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), one involving Stark's black best friend, Colonel James Rhodes (Terrence Howard in the first Ironman, but Don Cheadle in this one), one involving an undercover agent Natalie (Scarlette Johansson), a minor one for the wooden Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and, of course, one involving Tony Stark, the Ironman, himself (Robert Downey Jr). While a skilled writer would have a very difficult time trying to give appropriate blance to any three of these plot lines, the writers of Ironman 2 have absolutely no chance and what results is a half-assed story that doesn't seem to know what's important and what's not.
In order to accommodate the plethora of needless side-stories and characters, the writers opt to have all the characters have the same annoying personality quirk of talking over each other all the time. This saves the writers from a measured development of plot elements by having them just thrown into the viewers face as fast as possible so the film can get on with more important things (though, i'll be damned if i know what those are).
Probably the most annoying character in the entire movie is Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). It's as if the director simply told Rockwell to act as annoying as humanly possible - you know, the way Rockwell usually acts in all his movies. Rockwell's every bit of dialogue is delivered in a whiny voice that's so aggravating it makes the audience want to jump out of their seats and strangle him to death. That's not to say the other characters didn't have me fervently wishing them all dead; just Sam Rockwell's better at it.
Probably the only redeeming part of this film was watching Scarlette Johansson jump around in tight clothing - but not by enough. Her character is still bland and uninteresting, doing little more than beat people up. A sort of "stereotypical action girl" character - flaws and characterization are for the male folk! She's also the character who gets the most "superpowers as the plot demands" (though she's hardly the only one). How, exactly, was she able to hack Ivan Vanko's (Mickey Rourke) control over the second Ironman suit? She's never hinted to be a genius level hacker who can best Stark, Hammer and Vanko (who is presented as being a genius level hacker). Nor should she have any knowledge of how the ironman suits even work! So how is she able to hack in in less than 30 seconds? Pointless story, right? Who cares how it's done so long as it gets done. Well, at least that's the writer's view on the matter.
Overall i'd say this movie is a waste of time. But don't worry, they're making an Ironman 3 and an Avengers movie. So i'm sure you'll have lots of chance to waste time seeing those if you so choose.
Since i gave Ironman 1, 1 out of 5, it seems only pertinent that i give Ironman 2 zero out of 5. God awful.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Kick-Ass
Kick-Ass is a movie i expected not to like. Not because of the way the "omg, an 11 year old killing people!" crowd portrayed the film, but because of how everyone else was portraying the film. It seems we live in an age where shallow, uninteresting characters are considered "cooler" the less human they come off - and nothing's less human than an 11-year-old, cold-blooded killer, regardless of altruistic motives.
Also, it stars Nicolas Cage and nothing with Nicolas Cage is ever "good".
First of all, let's get this elephant out of the room - the issue of HitGirl. Whether they love her or hate her, it's the only thing anyone who's seen this fucking movie ever talks about: an 11-year-old girl who kills people. Because the only exposure i had to this movie before seeing it was the media hype, i had the unfortunate position of being between two conflicting and equally stupifying opinions.
From the way the moral guardians talked about it, you might expect some over the top gory blood fest for the sake of shock value. "An 11 year old girl is killing people!? Think of the children!" The way the media presented it, it sounded like HitGirl was going to be engaging in some Tarintino-esque over-the-top fights. Blood everywhere, bodies littering the floor, gory gory scenes that serve no other purpose than to shock audiences. You know, the kind of thing many move goers seem to want to see - but not i. I like violence, but it has to have a point; and, sadly, many of those who try and follow in Tarintino's footsteps fail in this regard.
But more worrying (for me, at least) was the way the fanboys were talking about HitGirl. "An 11-year-old girl who can and does kick so much ass she's ass-kicking incarnate! Lulz!" You would almost expect some kind of personality-less, non-human character in the shell of a body of a little girl who merely roams hallways and kills things, as sadly many of these types of characters end up being.
Fortunately, neither of these sides are right. What HitGirl is is something in the middle of the outrageously cliched and despicable stereotypes (ass kicking incarnate vs corrupting moral force). HitGirl's character is no more shocking than it is unrelatable and bland. She very much is a comic book superheroine who is also just a little girl. She does what she does because it's what her father has trained her to do and she'd do anything her father would ask of her. She's even shown to make mistakes and have human connections with those around her. She just happens to also be a vigilante who kills criminals.
I also expected Hitgirl's fucking swearing to be over the fucking top and gratuitous as all hell in every motherfucking way. But, shit, if it's actually not all that fucking bad. Sure, she swears more than all the other cocksucking characters put together, but not to the goddamn extremes of, say, South Park, which seems to take the fucking stance that swearing in and of itself is "shocking" and a fucking laugh riot (it's not - get over it). Measured use of curse words can add character to otherwise mundane dialogue, while gratuitous swearing just comes off as piss-ass-shitty-cunt silly. HitGirl's swearing is definitely the former.
But enough about HitGirl, let's talk about the other characters:
Aaron Johnson plays the titular hero of Kick-Ass. But even though his name's in the title, it seems a mystery why he's the main character. He's not particularly interesting or inspiring and, despite picking up a few superpowers after losing a fight, his only important ability seems to be to move the plot forward through narration. He spends a lot of time losing fights and getting his ass saved by everyone else. His only real "main character" moment comes at the end of the movie when he predictably delivers the final blow to the villain (and nothing else) before opting out of the superhero lifestyle and settling down with his shallow love interest.
Lyndsy Fonseca plays Katie, the shallow love interest. Really, there's not much to say about her since her character is entirely generic. She's there to get with the main character at the end of the movie. Nothing else.
Nicolas Cage plays the batman-esque superhero "Big Daddy" and true to form, his character is bland and uninteresting. His lines are dry and his personality stilted. You, as the audience, never get a chance to really identify with him because he's completely unidentifiable with. His backstory is unimportant and he's barely on camera enough for it to matter. In other words, another standard Nicolas Cage performance.
There's also the main villain, D'Amico (Mark Strong) and his son, Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), but they have very little personality outside of being "the bad guys". The son comes close, but he's so flippant in his characterization, it's hard to be sure if he's acting the way he is out of some adherence to a grandeur plot or just because the writers require him to. There's also some random cop friend of Cage's that shows up for exactly one speaking role before dropping out of importance.
When it comes right down to it, this movie should've more properly been called HitGirl. She's the one the movie focuses on and she's the one who does the fighting and she's the one that interesting things happen to and she's the one the writers clearly wanted to make this movie about. Even the reviewers (critics and fanboys alike) talk about her... and nothing else.
In the end, Kick-Ass is a just another superhero movie, plain and simple. Sure, it tries to distinguish itself from the genre by claiming the protagonists don't have any superpowers and subverting the occassional superhero trope, but it is still a superhero movie and the heroes are exactly what they claim they are not: super powered. Inhuman ability to feel no pain, bullet dodging, superscience... it's all there in some way, shape or form, but don't expect the movie to acknowledge it, even ironically.
Over all i give this movie, i dunno, a C, C+. The plots entertaining, but the characters do it no real justice. There'll probably be a sequel, but i can't imagine it would add anything.
Also, it stars Nicolas Cage and nothing with Nicolas Cage is ever "good".
First of all, let's get this elephant out of the room - the issue of HitGirl. Whether they love her or hate her, it's the only thing anyone who's seen this fucking movie ever talks about: an 11-year-old girl who kills people. Because the only exposure i had to this movie before seeing it was the media hype, i had the unfortunate position of being between two conflicting and equally stupifying opinions.
From the way the moral guardians talked about it, you might expect some over the top gory blood fest for the sake of shock value. "An 11 year old girl is killing people!? Think of the children!" The way the media presented it, it sounded like HitGirl was going to be engaging in some Tarintino-esque over-the-top fights. Blood everywhere, bodies littering the floor, gory gory scenes that serve no other purpose than to shock audiences. You know, the kind of thing many move goers seem to want to see - but not i. I like violence, but it has to have a point; and, sadly, many of those who try and follow in Tarintino's footsteps fail in this regard.
But more worrying (for me, at least) was the way the fanboys were talking about HitGirl. "An 11-year-old girl who can and does kick so much ass she's ass-kicking incarnate! Lulz!" You would almost expect some kind of personality-less, non-human character in the shell of a body of a little girl who merely roams hallways and kills things, as sadly many of these types of characters end up being.
Fortunately, neither of these sides are right. What HitGirl is is something in the middle of the outrageously cliched and despicable stereotypes (ass kicking incarnate vs corrupting moral force). HitGirl's character is no more shocking than it is unrelatable and bland. She very much is a comic book superheroine who is also just a little girl. She does what she does because it's what her father has trained her to do and she'd do anything her father would ask of her. She's even shown to make mistakes and have human connections with those around her. She just happens to also be a vigilante who kills criminals.
I also expected Hitgirl's fucking swearing to be over the fucking top and gratuitous as all hell in every motherfucking way. But, shit, if it's actually not all that fucking bad. Sure, she swears more than all the other cocksucking characters put together, but not to the goddamn extremes of, say, South Park, which seems to take the fucking stance that swearing in and of itself is "shocking" and a fucking laugh riot (it's not - get over it). Measured use of curse words can add character to otherwise mundane dialogue, while gratuitous swearing just comes off as piss-ass-shitty-cunt silly. HitGirl's swearing is definitely the former.
But enough about HitGirl, let's talk about the other characters:
Aaron Johnson plays the titular hero of Kick-Ass. But even though his name's in the title, it seems a mystery why he's the main character. He's not particularly interesting or inspiring and, despite picking up a few superpowers after losing a fight, his only important ability seems to be to move the plot forward through narration. He spends a lot of time losing fights and getting his ass saved by everyone else. His only real "main character" moment comes at the end of the movie when he predictably delivers the final blow to the villain (and nothing else) before opting out of the superhero lifestyle and settling down with his shallow love interest.
Lyndsy Fonseca plays Katie, the shallow love interest. Really, there's not much to say about her since her character is entirely generic. She's there to get with the main character at the end of the movie. Nothing else.
Nicolas Cage plays the batman-esque superhero "Big Daddy" and true to form, his character is bland and uninteresting. His lines are dry and his personality stilted. You, as the audience, never get a chance to really identify with him because he's completely unidentifiable with. His backstory is unimportant and he's barely on camera enough for it to matter. In other words, another standard Nicolas Cage performance.
There's also the main villain, D'Amico (Mark Strong) and his son, Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), but they have very little personality outside of being "the bad guys". The son comes close, but he's so flippant in his characterization, it's hard to be sure if he's acting the way he is out of some adherence to a grandeur plot or just because the writers require him to. There's also some random cop friend of Cage's that shows up for exactly one speaking role before dropping out of importance.
When it comes right down to it, this movie should've more properly been called HitGirl. She's the one the movie focuses on and she's the one who does the fighting and she's the one that interesting things happen to and she's the one the writers clearly wanted to make this movie about. Even the reviewers (critics and fanboys alike) talk about her... and nothing else.
In the end, Kick-Ass is a just another superhero movie, plain and simple. Sure, it tries to distinguish itself from the genre by claiming the protagonists don't have any superpowers and subverting the occassional superhero trope, but it is still a superhero movie and the heroes are exactly what they claim they are not: super powered. Inhuman ability to feel no pain, bullet dodging, superscience... it's all there in some way, shape or form, but don't expect the movie to acknowledge it, even ironically.
Over all i give this movie, i dunno, a C, C+. The plots entertaining, but the characters do it no real justice. There'll probably be a sequel, but i can't imagine it would add anything.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Hurt Locker
The so-called best picture of 2009. But is it really? I can say with an unequivocal, resounding... NO!
This is one of those films that boggles the mind. Not because it has a deep story or depth of character or because it raises questions and challenges for the viewer, but simply because it won an Oscar in spite of what it really is.
The movie's as remarkably straight forward as a movie can get. The opening sentence of the film sums up not just the main points of, but the entirety of the points of Hurt Locker: "war is a drug" - and it affects everyone differently. While war is certainly hell, there are those who willingly and repeatedly put themselves in harms way, not (just) for the purpose of defence or patriotism or what have you, but because of the rush.
Hurt Locker is the very definition of a "PC movie". The themes are so unbelievably tepid that no one dare criticise them for fear of drawing ire. It's the type of war movie reviewers seem to be afraid to give a negative score to (you know the type!). They look at the troops as people and the conflict as more than challenging and believe that is enough to win Oscars and praise (i guess they're right...). But in doing this, story tellers fail to challenge the viewer to anything beyond the obvious. There is nothing here beyond what you should already know and it's certainly not dressed up in anything more aesthetically pleasing than the cheap veneer of its bland cinematography.
Well, let me be the reviewer to say this movie is all kinds of boring. The plot is non-existent, the action uninteresting, the special effects bland, the characters flat and uninteresting and the themes obvious and unnecessary. How some people found something deep in this puddle of nothing, i'll never know. Perhaps if you live in your own delusions and you've never thought about things before; perhaps if you're a knee-jerk reactionary who simply buys mantras and believes "Support our troops" actually means what it says; perhaps if your view of the world around is defined strictly by stereotypes and simplistic models of human beings as organic robots with a static set of wants and needs identical throughout. Perhaps then you would find something in this movie's pseudo-depths. But not me.
Overall this is definitely not best picture material and anyone who says otherwise is wrong - that includes every dipshit in the academy who voted for it. I don't think Avatar deserved best picture, but i certainly can't see how this or that beat out Precious. A good movie should a) entertain and b) challenge the viewer on some level; a decent movie should at least entertain. Hurt Locker is an abject failure on both accounts. No matter what anyone says, this did not, NOT deserve best picture.
Edit (April 16, 2010): When i reviewed this movie it was based on how boring i found the plot and characters to be coupled with (what i thought was) an oh-so-subtle subtext of propaganda for the US military. I thought this was a picture made to showcase how difficult the US troops have it over in Iraq and why everyone (left and right) should just shut up and tow the line, even if they disagree with the war. And, to a degree, i still maintain this. I think it was intended to be a subtle propaganda pic (and it's certainly boring).
But you know what's funny? You know who else hates this film for the same reasons i outlined above and then some? US military men and women. At least according to the user reviews i've seen online at places like metacritic.
Not only is The Hurt Locker boring, it's completely unrealistic - offensively so! I could've guessed at it's unrealistic portrayal, but it's so much more gratifying to know that that's what the pros are saying, too (which is why i've included this edit update here).
It seems the only thing The Hurt Locker is capable of demonstrating is how far Hollywood has fallen and how painfully out of touch they've become with their perception of what constitutes realism and entertainment.
I also sort of realized i didn't put a "grade" on this one before. But that's pretty easily rectified now: 0 detonated bombs out of a thousand: F minus minus. Well, at least it's better than 88 Minutes (but not by enough).
This is one of those films that boggles the mind. Not because it has a deep story or depth of character or because it raises questions and challenges for the viewer, but simply because it won an Oscar in spite of what it really is.
The movie's as remarkably straight forward as a movie can get. The opening sentence of the film sums up not just the main points of, but the entirety of the points of Hurt Locker: "war is a drug" - and it affects everyone differently. While war is certainly hell, there are those who willingly and repeatedly put themselves in harms way, not (just) for the purpose of defence or patriotism or what have you, but because of the rush.
Hurt Locker is the very definition of a "PC movie". The themes are so unbelievably tepid that no one dare criticise them for fear of drawing ire. It's the type of war movie reviewers seem to be afraid to give a negative score to (you know the type!). They look at the troops as people and the conflict as more than challenging and believe that is enough to win Oscars and praise (i guess they're right...). But in doing this, story tellers fail to challenge the viewer to anything beyond the obvious. There is nothing here beyond what you should already know and it's certainly not dressed up in anything more aesthetically pleasing than the cheap veneer of its bland cinematography.
Well, let me be the reviewer to say this movie is all kinds of boring. The plot is non-existent, the action uninteresting, the special effects bland, the characters flat and uninteresting and the themes obvious and unnecessary. How some people found something deep in this puddle of nothing, i'll never know. Perhaps if you live in your own delusions and you've never thought about things before; perhaps if you're a knee-jerk reactionary who simply buys mantras and believes "Support our troops" actually means what it says; perhaps if your view of the world around is defined strictly by stereotypes and simplistic models of human beings as organic robots with a static set of wants and needs identical throughout. Perhaps then you would find something in this movie's pseudo-depths. But not me.
Overall this is definitely not best picture material and anyone who says otherwise is wrong - that includes every dipshit in the academy who voted for it. I don't think Avatar deserved best picture, but i certainly can't see how this or that beat out Precious. A good movie should a) entertain and b) challenge the viewer on some level; a decent movie should at least entertain. Hurt Locker is an abject failure on both accounts. No matter what anyone says, this did not, NOT deserve best picture.
Edit (April 16, 2010): When i reviewed this movie it was based on how boring i found the plot and characters to be coupled with (what i thought was) an oh-so-subtle subtext of propaganda for the US military. I thought this was a picture made to showcase how difficult the US troops have it over in Iraq and why everyone (left and right) should just shut up and tow the line, even if they disagree with the war. And, to a degree, i still maintain this. I think it was intended to be a subtle propaganda pic (and it's certainly boring).
But you know what's funny? You know who else hates this film for the same reasons i outlined above and then some? US military men and women. At least according to the user reviews i've seen online at places like metacritic.
Not only is The Hurt Locker boring, it's completely unrealistic - offensively so! I could've guessed at it's unrealistic portrayal, but it's so much more gratifying to know that that's what the pros are saying, too (which is why i've included this edit update here).
It seems the only thing The Hurt Locker is capable of demonstrating is how far Hollywood has fallen and how painfully out of touch they've become with their perception of what constitutes realism and entertainment.
I also sort of realized i didn't put a "grade" on this one before. But that's pretty easily rectified now: 0 detonated bombs out of a thousand: F minus minus. Well, at least it's better than 88 Minutes (but not by enough).
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Kingdom Hearts 358/2 days
Kingdom Hearts 358/2 days
Let me start by saying that this is not a game for people who know nothing about the Kingdom Hearts franchise. Despite its release, 358 days over 2 is a bridging game, meant to connect the events of Chain of Memories to the events of Kingdom Hearts 2. If you've not played one of these, or worse, neither of these, you will be confused by the story. I hadn't played Chain of Memories, but i was able to keep up to the story, thanks to having played Kingdom Hearts 2 and having watched some online cutscenes for Re: Chain of Memories to fill in the gaps.
You can really feel the love that went into the game, and not just in the homo-erotic way that made the game franchise a success among a certain breed of female fans - though there's certainly enough of that, too.
But enough mindless pre-amble. Let's talk about the gameplay.
Gameplay and Control
Control is solid. The touch screen is pretty much unused, but if it was used, it would only feel unnecessary.
The biggest flaw in control is the flying controls. While B jumps, it's Y that raises you into the air with B, confusingly, lowering you. It's really quite frustrating, especially in the heat of battle. It would seem that such "unintuitive" logic as "jump button increases altitude always" has completely eluded the programmers of Squarenix.
The overall gameplay's largely fun, though the mission-mode system seems like a considerable restriction over the open-world exploration of the Play Station variants. Of course, it's probably just the limitations of the system, so it's largely forgiveable.
Leveling up, abilities, etc are all handled with a "panel" system that you attach to Roxas to give him abilities. At first i was horrified that this might be a menu-hell gimmick, but thankfully most gear of a similar nature (weapons, for instance) are all sort of shaped the same, so you don't have to waste that much time reconfiguring panels after you upgrade. The downside is that individual magic spell casts, potions and ethers are all taken up by an entire panel, severely limiting how many you get per mission. It ends up working detrimentally and forcing you to limit your magic to those "emergency" cases.
My biggest qualm, in general, not just in gameplay, is that killing stuff just isn't any fun. It's more of a needless chore required to level up or gain valuable drops. Everything has stupid amounts of health and defence, so battles boil down to taking advantage of the same attack patterns for every single enemy. Typically it's nothing more difficult than "attack combo" followed by "avoid enemy/dodge attacks". Repeat until enemy dies. And you do this for every. Single. Fucking. Random. Weak-ass. Enemy. There's never a change! Enemy attacks always have priority over yours, so you can't simply wail on them until they die, and many enemies are simply invulnerable to any kind of attack when they are in their "attack combo", so you just have to block or dodge or stay out of the way until they finish up and go back to harmlessly wandering around or standing still.
What's worse is it's not until considerably late into the game when you get strong enough weapons to kill even weak enemies with a single combo. So even the weakest random foe in the level will be handled exactly the same as a boss, for the most part. After a while, i just started to run past any enemy i wasn't required to kill simply because i couldn't be bothered.
Graphics and Music
Awesome graphics and music. I can't complain here. They do what they can with the system. Squarenix has always had awesome music selection and the Kingdom Hearts series is no exception.
Others have complained that the music is just recycled from the other Kingdom Hearts games, and this is true, but it's not actually as bad as it could've been. Ace Attorney: Investigations recycled less music, but still annoyed me with how over-used what music they did have was. At the very least, 358 days over 2 recycled enough music that you never feel annoyed at hearing the themes.
Story
The story crawls and makes it clear it feels no degree of urgency in getting to the point. The first half of the game's story is essentially "Roxas and Axel are friends". Expect countless scenes of Axel and Roxas alone togethersensually enjoying a popsickle of salty cream - iced cream.
Anyway, by the time the real story starts to kick in, you'll likely already have logged 10 or so hours of gameplay.
The story, as i said earlier, is definitely aiming to bridge the gap between games. How well it bridges the games is questionable at times. By the time i got to the end, it certainly felt like Squarenix was simply beating a path to the ending they wanted whether it was done coherently or not. As a result there are many in-story threads that never resolve and are sort of left hanging for the "future" game of Kingdom Hearts 2.
Still, the story's definitely worth it for Kingdom Hearts fans, but expect a lot of draggy mundanities of "life in the Organization" from Roxas' perspective.
Characters
The characters are well developed. You do get to know the Organization members better and they become more than just a bunch of named nameless enemies. In fact, at times you almost feel like you like them. I liked Axel's portrayal, particularly - overt homosexuality and all. But Roxas did come off as little more than an "emo bitch".
There's also a new character that i found particularly unlikeable. She's sort of central to the story, so i can't say much about her. But suffice it to say, not once did i understand Roxas' deep, personal connection to her dull-as-dishwater personality.
The one problem with all the characters is that in missions where you have an ally, they are almost always in your way. They block you from attacking, they stand in your way, they warp into your path in the middle of long distance jumps, etc. It's really quite frustrating at times. I'm told that you can change some setting to fix this, but i never got around to looking through the settings that much.
Final Comments
While 358 days over 2 is not an awful game, i wouldn't say it's the best of the series. I definitely had a lot of fun with the game, but i have trouble pinning down exactly why. I think it is because i started to appreciate the characters of the game a little more. I used to think Axel was little more than a needy sex-starved individual with a crush on his best male friend, Roxas, but now i think he's sort of an interesting character in his own right.
It was also nice to get some background into Kingdom Hearts 2 which had previously felt like a very disconnected game to me.
All in all, if you like the series, i'd recommend this game. You may not find it is your favourite, but it'll definitely add to the experience of the series as a whole.
Let me start by saying that this is not a game for people who know nothing about the Kingdom Hearts franchise. Despite its release, 358 days over 2 is a bridging game, meant to connect the events of Chain of Memories to the events of Kingdom Hearts 2. If you've not played one of these, or worse, neither of these, you will be confused by the story. I hadn't played Chain of Memories, but i was able to keep up to the story, thanks to having played Kingdom Hearts 2 and having watched some online cutscenes for Re: Chain of Memories to fill in the gaps.
You can really feel the love that went into the game, and not just in the homo-erotic way that made the game franchise a success among a certain breed of female fans - though there's certainly enough of that, too.
But enough mindless pre-amble. Let's talk about the gameplay.
Gameplay and Control
Control is solid. The touch screen is pretty much unused, but if it was used, it would only feel unnecessary.
The biggest flaw in control is the flying controls. While B jumps, it's Y that raises you into the air with B, confusingly, lowering you. It's really quite frustrating, especially in the heat of battle. It would seem that such "unintuitive" logic as "jump button increases altitude always" has completely eluded the programmers of Squarenix.
The overall gameplay's largely fun, though the mission-mode system seems like a considerable restriction over the open-world exploration of the Play Station variants. Of course, it's probably just the limitations of the system, so it's largely forgiveable.
Leveling up, abilities, etc are all handled with a "panel" system that you attach to Roxas to give him abilities. At first i was horrified that this might be a menu-hell gimmick, but thankfully most gear of a similar nature (weapons, for instance) are all sort of shaped the same, so you don't have to waste that much time reconfiguring panels after you upgrade. The downside is that individual magic spell casts, potions and ethers are all taken up by an entire panel, severely limiting how many you get per mission. It ends up working detrimentally and forcing you to limit your magic to those "emergency" cases.
My biggest qualm, in general, not just in gameplay, is that killing stuff just isn't any fun. It's more of a needless chore required to level up or gain valuable drops. Everything has stupid amounts of health and defence, so battles boil down to taking advantage of the same attack patterns for every single enemy. Typically it's nothing more difficult than "attack combo" followed by "avoid enemy/dodge attacks". Repeat until enemy dies. And you do this for every. Single. Fucking. Random. Weak-ass. Enemy. There's never a change! Enemy attacks always have priority over yours, so you can't simply wail on them until they die, and many enemies are simply invulnerable to any kind of attack when they are in their "attack combo", so you just have to block or dodge or stay out of the way until they finish up and go back to harmlessly wandering around or standing still.
What's worse is it's not until considerably late into the game when you get strong enough weapons to kill even weak enemies with a single combo. So even the weakest random foe in the level will be handled exactly the same as a boss, for the most part. After a while, i just started to run past any enemy i wasn't required to kill simply because i couldn't be bothered.
Graphics and Music
Awesome graphics and music. I can't complain here. They do what they can with the system. Squarenix has always had awesome music selection and the Kingdom Hearts series is no exception.
Others have complained that the music is just recycled from the other Kingdom Hearts games, and this is true, but it's not actually as bad as it could've been. Ace Attorney: Investigations recycled less music, but still annoyed me with how over-used what music they did have was. At the very least, 358 days over 2 recycled enough music that you never feel annoyed at hearing the themes.
Story
The story crawls and makes it clear it feels no degree of urgency in getting to the point. The first half of the game's story is essentially "Roxas and Axel are friends". Expect countless scenes of Axel and Roxas alone together
Anyway, by the time the real story starts to kick in, you'll likely already have logged 10 or so hours of gameplay.
The story, as i said earlier, is definitely aiming to bridge the gap between games. How well it bridges the games is questionable at times. By the time i got to the end, it certainly felt like Squarenix was simply beating a path to the ending they wanted whether it was done coherently or not. As a result there are many in-story threads that never resolve and are sort of left hanging for the "future" game of Kingdom Hearts 2.
Still, the story's definitely worth it for Kingdom Hearts fans, but expect a lot of draggy mundanities of "life in the Organization" from Roxas' perspective.
Characters
The characters are well developed. You do get to know the Organization members better and they become more than just a bunch of named nameless enemies. In fact, at times you almost feel like you like them. I liked Axel's portrayal, particularly - overt homosexuality and all. But Roxas did come off as little more than an "emo bitch".
There's also a new character that i found particularly unlikeable. She's sort of central to the story, so i can't say much about her. But suffice it to say, not once did i understand Roxas' deep, personal connection to her dull-as-dishwater personality.
The one problem with all the characters is that in missions where you have an ally, they are almost always in your way. They block you from attacking, they stand in your way, they warp into your path in the middle of long distance jumps, etc. It's really quite frustrating at times. I'm told that you can change some setting to fix this, but i never got around to looking through the settings that much.
Final Comments
While 358 days over 2 is not an awful game, i wouldn't say it's the best of the series. I definitely had a lot of fun with the game, but i have trouble pinning down exactly why. I think it is because i started to appreciate the characters of the game a little more. I used to think Axel was little more than a needy sex-starved individual with a crush on his best male friend, Roxas, but now i think he's sort of an interesting character in his own right.
It was also nice to get some background into Kingdom Hearts 2 which had previously felt like a very disconnected game to me.
All in all, if you like the series, i'd recommend this game. You may not find it is your favourite, but it'll definitely add to the experience of the series as a whole.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Alice In Wonderland (2010)
Or as it should have been called: Alice in Wonderland 2.
Before watching this movie i was sure of two things: death and taxes. After watching it, i am now sure of three things: death, taxes and that there never should've been a sequel to the Disney film, Alice in Wonderland.
I saw this movie in 3D, but i felt the 3d was, much like the film as a whole, an unnecessary addition. It pops up here and there, but really isn't utilized to any meaningful degree beyond having the credits swirl out at you. Curse you, Disney, and your new anti-piracy measure that costs $3 more, but doesn't deliver anything in terms of entertainment value!
One thing to note is that while i did find the movie to be dull and unnecesasry, it did raise a couple of questions. Namely, why is Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter a main character? Also, WHY IS JOHNNY DEPP'S MAD HATTER A MAIN CHARACTER!? It's a completely unnecessary character promotion. Worse still, he ends up overshadowing Alice (you know, the girl from the title?). But not because of a powerful performance on Depp's part, just because the damned Mad Hatter is made far more important to the story for no obvious reason.
Of course Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is still there, she's just reduced to secondary character status. Sure, she's in virtually every scene from start to finish, but her dialogue is largely purposeless and her actions unimportant (for the most part). When she does speak or do anything she adds nothing to the story and it almost feels like the only reason she's there is because it is, in fact, Alice In Wonderland; though Johnny Depp In Wonderland would've been a more appropriate title.
The movie itself rehashes a lot of the original movie's scenes (but in 3d): Alice falling down the rabbit hole, Alice eating cake to grow and drinking tonic to shrink, the tea party, etc - but none of it feels like it's needed. It's just Alice going through the actions, doing everything exactly as before. All because, as we're told later, she thinks it's just a dream she's had many times. In fact, the entire pre-wonderland section of the film is nothing but a not-so-thinly-veiled excuse to get Alice into that rabbit hole as quickly as possible so we can be shown these re-done scenes all in the name of, let's just say, "entertainment".
Overall, the film is just dull and unendearing with the only redeeming part being when Alice fights the Jabberwocky (don't worry, it makes just as much sense in context as out). Of course, it's still preceeded by 1 and a half hours worth of Alice saying she's not going to do it, feverishly stupid scenes that are confusing (but not in the charming "Lewis Carroll" way) and Johnny Depp... i still don't know why he was made a main character. Alice certainly pulls off the "in a suit of armor" look well, thanks to the feminine cut of the armor (where do they get those?).
Though i used to like Tim Burton, he's becoming something of a tired act to follow. His movies have spectacular visuals and (more often than not) Johnny Depp, but there really isn't anything else to them anymore. They all have a creepy nightmarish feel, but that's just not good enough to be called "art" anymore.
I'm desparately waiting for the day when 3D special effects and Johnny Depp are not enough to sell out a theatre. Here's a sobering nightmare for your, hollywood: one day the appeal of these things is going to run out. What's more, you'll be out of remakes and sequels and reinvisionings and everything else you've been living off of for the past decade or so. Then what will you do? Will you gracelessly drift into obscurity and irrelevance clinging to what power elites you still have and rely on viral marketing to save your perpetual flops? Or will you foresee this as a coming problem and break your inbreeding cycle well ahead of time and take a chance on some new blood: fresh artists, actors, writers and directors?
I ask these questions, but they are entirely rhetorical. We all know which path hollywood's going to stick by; it's the one that's profitable in the extremely short term.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Zelda: Spirit Tracks
From the franchise that just won't die, here comes latest installment in the Zelda series: Spirit Tracks, or Stracks. If you've played video games before, chances are you've played a zelda game at least once in your life time. There are a dozen or so with the same basic premise. Now i'm not going to be the one to say "having the same basic premise" is a bad thing; what's so different in any other game franchise? Yet many escape that same criticism mostly because video game critiquing is dominated by fan-boys who are, by definition, morons. Yup, all of you.
I, however, am not a fanboy (one of the few, proud and elite!). But i am a fan. I like the zelda games and it's not because i've got strong emotional attachments to Nintendo, or whatever, but because the games are very consistently good. But this isn't a rant about why i like what. This is a review, so let's get to that.
Gameplay and Control
Ah, control. The controls are largely similar to Phantom Hourglass, but that's not a bad thing. It's still one of the best all-stylus controlled games i've played on the DS.
There's been some improvements over Phantom Hourglass, aswell. The roll attack used to be done by "drawing small circles" (which was difficult for the game to discern, especially in a pinch), but is now done by simply double-tapping the location where you want to roll. This makes it easier to perform the move, but oddly, there's less reason for you to ever need to use the move. This has the paradoxical problem of actually making this improvement of control a negative for control since not only will you never need to roll, but you'll find yourself rolling all over the place in the heat of battle as you tap vigourously all around your screen at the numerous enemies.
Gameplay in general is top notch. Puzzles are fun, killing stuff's fun - the great stuff about the Zelda franchise is all there. Gone, too, are the gimmicky tactics of Phantom Hourglass, like the temple you continuously return to over and over again and needless screaming into the mic at every other turn (and there was much rejoicing). The only downside is sometimes the 3D can screw up puzzle solving.
One example is an item that would raise sand. You use the sand to "roll" giant cubes into their appropriate spots. Thing is, in a small space, it's more likely you'll accidentally roll the wrong cube or the cube you want in the wrong direction since the place you have to point on the screen is actually hidden behind an object in the foreground. The immediate inclination of a player is to point at the visible spaces on the map, so it can become quite frustrating when doing so actually sets you back 2 or three steps in your solution. It's hard to explain, but it's certainly an issue.
The overall challenge level of the game has been increased from Phantom Hourglass. This was done by making the puzzles harder and combat a little more rigourous. I was pleased Nintendo didn't lean too heavily on lazy-programming tactics and fake difficulty, like limiting saves or cluttered gameplay requiring hours of practice to "master" for their challenge. This probably means the "hardcore" crowd will still not be pleased, but getting 2/3rds of the way through the word "fun" (by their definition) is exactly the sentiment they deserve.
The money equation has been fixed, but not to the point of being rebroken. No longer are you swimming in cash as in every Zelda game since Link to the Past, but neither are you starved for basic supplies as in the very first Zelda games.
There's still a number of frustratingly unfun minigames. The rabbit catching mini-game, particularly, is hare-pullingly frustrating! (ed: boo!)
My biggest qualm about Spirit Tracks, however, is the lack of mobility one has in the game. While "train" is certainly an improvement from "boat", i don't feel it's enough of one. It gets remarkably frustrating to ride the rails around the land when all you want to do is check which rare pieces of treasure each shop happens to be stocking today.
The warping is awful. Unlocking all the warp spots is of little value since they act like portals that always lead to the same places. Why can't i enter one portal and then select the portal i want to emerge from? Why do they always lead to the same bloody places?
The short answer might seem to be: "i dunno", but the actual answer is as a point of fake difficulty to increase the "challenge" as the game essentially rail-roads you along the routes the game wants you to take.
Graphics and Music
The music is disappointing. The selection of music is basically: opening screen, file select screen, town theme, temple theme, train theme. They're not even particularly imaginative songs and they quickly drift into the background to a degree so great you might as well mute your DS.
Graphics push the DS to the limits. I know this because there were times when the game would slow down in response to enemies spawning. With the exception of graphics whores everywhere, i can't imagine anyone complaining too much about this aspect. Prove me wrong, graphics whores. Prove me wrong.
Story
The story is slow to pick up, but once it's there it's just as solid as previous recent zelda titles. This is both a blessing and a curse. In one regard, that means it's essentially an excuse to go from temple to temple, but the plus side is for long-term fans of the franchise, the story does in fact seem to be making an effort to fill in some of the timeline holes that currently litter the Zelda universe.
Ultimately, though, if you're expecting Shakespear, look elsewhere. Of course, if you're expecting Shakespear, what the hell are you doing playing video games at all?
Characters
Zelda is fleshed out considerably well. Lots of people quote that she's no longer "just a damsel in distress"... which is sort of erroneous, since she's not been "just a damsel in distress" from about Ocarina of Time onward, having played important rolls in that game, Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass.
However, it is true that Zelda is much more involved in this game with the player gaining explicit control of her at times. The game frames this as "Link" being able to get Zelda to do whatever he wants with only a series of vocal commands. Yup, anything at all. Anything. The only real exception is when rats are involved, at which point Zelda becomes paralyzed with fear.
Most of the other characters get zero character development. The bad guy's not even mentioned by the main characters for most of the game. It's also, er, "surprising" (?) that the last boss is not Ganon, but another demon named Malladus. Not much is known about him, though, since the game goes out of its way to never mention what he's doing for most of the game. Fortunately, whatever he's doing, there's no degree of urgency to head off and stop him and you can spend as much time as you want between temples wandering around completing minigames, finding treasure and using your train to ferry the ungrateful masses between towns.
Final Comments
Spirit Tracks is definitely an improvement over Phantom Hourglass despite what Metacritic's composite rating system seems to think.
With three endings, train cars to collect (which are less annoying than boat components to collect) and 6 temples (including the Temple of Spirits) to go through, the quest is a good length. Increased challenge, better use of characters and a fixed money equation also add to the games list of admirable qualities.
Biggest qualm overall? Less random enemies. There's many more interesting and challenging puzzles in return, but i do miss killing the random enemies that used to litter temples and the over world. Part of this is because much of your travel is via train. But firing at things with a canon is just not as much fun as slashing it with the sword (which is what all the zelda fans want to do, anyway).
2.5 out of 3 triforces. Let's just say that's an A-.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Why i hate anime
Time for something a little more controversial. This post will either implode by blog with a torrent of angry comments... or pass by forever unnoticed into the obscurity of the internet. Either way, there will be no follow-ups. This is a one off thing. I hope it inspires more thought than anger in the readers.
To an average anonymous anime fan,
I used to be a part of your fandom. I really was.
My favourite anime is probably Love Hina (but not the terrible sequel, Love Hina Again). I love Keitaro and the upbeat themesong. I also enjoyed Fullmetal Alchemist, though the ending left me underwhelmed. They, too, had some classic opening themes.
I liked the first arc of Bleach and watched up to the filler eps of Naruto (but not Naruto Shippuden). I didn't continue for the same reason i only watched until the end of the Cell saga for Dragonball Z. The pacing was a tad slow for me. But i liked the lead up stories enough.
I've seen all of Neon Genesis Evangleon, but i do think it's a tad overrated for what it is.
Akira was my introduction to anime, but Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke were significantly better films, the former being my favourite anime movie ever. My Neighbour Totoro, too, was a good little story that's underrated and not easily classified as any particular genre.
I like Ranma 1/2, but admittedly have never seen all of it (only sporadic episodes and movies) - but i liked what i saw and will continue to watch those sporadic episodes until i gradually fill in the whole series.
Death Note was good until Light first gave away the Death Note and i then lost interest. I've heard it gets better again and i do intend to go back and finish it, but i'm the kind of person who is lazy about things like this.
I watched all the Slayers OVA and Tenchi Muyo (actually Tenchi Universe, the 26 episode series). At the time i couldn't find the actual Slayers anime. I watched these in the time before torrents and streaming, when you needed to share more gigabytes than my computer even had in order to have access to the better anime caches.
Cowboy Bebop, Trigun and Ghost In The Shell are exceptional series that anyone who appreciates anime should see. The latter influenced The Matrix, for god's sake! THE FREAKIN' MATRIX!
I got through a large chunk of Rurouni Kenshin (~70 episodes), but in the end i felt the anime was going on longer than it needed to and gave up on it.
Now, this is just a quick list of only some of the animes i've indulged in over my life. I'm now currently watching Fruits Basket at the recommendation of a friend. I'm also at varying places in Ah My Goddess and Excel Saga, but i don't watch as much TV or anime in general anymore, so i've slowed down in my consumption. But the point is, i like the material.
So, why do i say i used to be an anime fan? Aren't i still? I mean, i do still watch anime. So why don't i consider myself an anime fan? Well, the short answer is: it's because of you.
Yes, you, dear anime fan. You have ruined the fandom for me. For a lot of people, actually.
Since the rise in popularity of anime, the fandom has largely transformed from a select group of nerds who simply enjoyed the stories and story telling tactics to a vast, swath of Japanophiles who pepper their speach with japanese words and honoriffics, hold the explicit view that "if it ain't japanese, it ain't any good", harbour an insideous persecution complex and cosntrue anyone who disagrees with their insanely cliquish views as being an "anime hater".
Now, there may be some out there who do "hate anime" for a number of ridiculous reasons, but the ones i've personally encountered are vanishingly rare. Most non-fans simply say "i don't like it" and that's it. Many have very good reasons for why they don't like it, especially considering it is just a form of entertainment and a matter for opinion.
But when i read your fandom forums, they are littered with stories that characterize anyone who simply doesn't like as "hating on anime". Hell, it's a regular topic in anime fora: "why do people hate anime". Often this is accompanied by other fans proclaiming that people "hate" anime because they are just dumber or don't understand or what have you, and that if the hater just gave in to the superiority of anime, they'd abandon their "hate" and become an enlightened anime fan. Some forums even have stories of "anime haters" that sound all but criminally abusive. Many of the posts are not so much "why do people hate anime" but "why do people hate anime FANS" (even though few are actually phrased this way).
Interestingly enough, i don't doubt that anime fans routinely encounter persons who treat them badly. By why is that, i wonder?
Anime fans, themselves, have a strong tendancy to talk down to fans of other media. They don't do it in ways so overt as to call them stupid.
...
No, wait, that's exactly what they do! They freely say things like "anime is the best form of entertainment, period" and "North American cartoons (or movies, or anything, really) are garbage". If you so much as have even passing interest in something not from japan, you're obviously an idiot... in the eyes of this fandom. People have even written "essays" that "prove" anime is "better" citing myopic views and cherry picked examples from whatever anime is supposedly better than and conveniently forgetting that much of their preferred entertainment medium exhibits the exact same flaws (whether they want to see them or not).
They even make categorical statements that cannot possibly be true. Because the world of art and story telling is an ever changing one, you certainly can't say anime is inherently or even fundamentally better than anything anyone else can possibly make - the next best thing can be around any corner in any corner of the world. And yet, this is exactly what they claim. Indeed, anything from Japan is considered innately better than anything from anywhere else, including the language and mannerisms (but conveniently ignoring the cultural sexism).
They've, in essence, detached their fandom from liking a specific set of stories and story telling tactics and attached it instead to an exclusionary "elitist" viewpoint, complete with all the condesention that goes along with it. It's no longer simply liking something, it's a vitriolic dislike of everything else. They even vocally attack the anime fans who do not tow this "party line" as being "Not a Real Anime Fan". I know! I've been called that a number of times!
Then, when another fan or fandom tries to point out why this is not a good position to hold (either by defending their own attacked fandom, or by explaining why they personally don't like anime), they bring out their persecution complex and label the individual as an anime hater. They do this even if their critic also enjoys anime.
These are not the actions of a rational individual who simply enjoys a medium; these are the actions of a reprehensible jerk.
Of course, these same actions can be found in literally any fandom. The problem is, it's become the heart and life-blood of the anime fandom on the internet. It's everywhere! These toxic views are on every anime forum, every anime fansite and every site that even passingly resembles an anime fan site. If the site discusses, or has links to discussing anime, it will have people holding these views in earnest and being championed up for it. I've never seen this attitude, to this extent, in any other fandom i've been a part of.
Of course, many others do not share these elitist douchebag views, including fans of the very same medium. So what's the inevitable outcome when the two sides meet? The time honoured internet tradition of a flame war.
We all know how flame wars turn out: hot-tempers and name calling and irrational arguments and all the good stuff that nobody likes on the internet. This, too, of course serves to cement in the minds of the anime fandom that they are just a persecuted lot, struggling to hold their own against torrents of unenlightened individuals who wipe their ass with manga, watch the stupidest of entertainment mediums and get together for the sole purpose of hating on the anime fans and everything they hold dear.
But, that's not really true, now is it?
No, dear anime fan. People do not hate you because you like anime. They just hate you. So until the fandom as a whole starts to ditch this toxic attitude, i will proudly be an "anime hater" who happens to love anime.
To an average anonymous anime fan,
I used to be a part of your fandom. I really was.
My favourite anime is probably Love Hina (but not the terrible sequel, Love Hina Again). I love Keitaro and the upbeat themesong. I also enjoyed Fullmetal Alchemist, though the ending left me underwhelmed. They, too, had some classic opening themes.
I liked the first arc of Bleach and watched up to the filler eps of Naruto (but not Naruto Shippuden). I didn't continue for the same reason i only watched until the end of the Cell saga for Dragonball Z. The pacing was a tad slow for me. But i liked the lead up stories enough.
I've seen all of Neon Genesis Evangleon, but i do think it's a tad overrated for what it is.
Akira was my introduction to anime, but Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke were significantly better films, the former being my favourite anime movie ever. My Neighbour Totoro, too, was a good little story that's underrated and not easily classified as any particular genre.
I like Ranma 1/2, but admittedly have never seen all of it (only sporadic episodes and movies) - but i liked what i saw and will continue to watch those sporadic episodes until i gradually fill in the whole series.
Death Note was good until Light first gave away the Death Note and i then lost interest. I've heard it gets better again and i do intend to go back and finish it, but i'm the kind of person who is lazy about things like this.
I watched all the Slayers OVA and Tenchi Muyo (actually Tenchi Universe, the 26 episode series). At the time i couldn't find the actual Slayers anime. I watched these in the time before torrents and streaming, when you needed to share more gigabytes than my computer even had in order to have access to the better anime caches.
Cowboy Bebop, Trigun and Ghost In The Shell are exceptional series that anyone who appreciates anime should see. The latter influenced The Matrix, for god's sake! THE FREAKIN' MATRIX!
I got through a large chunk of Rurouni Kenshin (~70 episodes), but in the end i felt the anime was going on longer than it needed to and gave up on it.
Now, this is just a quick list of only some of the animes i've indulged in over my life. I'm now currently watching Fruits Basket at the recommendation of a friend. I'm also at varying places in Ah My Goddess and Excel Saga, but i don't watch as much TV or anime in general anymore, so i've slowed down in my consumption. But the point is, i like the material.
So, why do i say i used to be an anime fan? Aren't i still? I mean, i do still watch anime. So why don't i consider myself an anime fan? Well, the short answer is: it's because of you.
Yes, you, dear anime fan. You have ruined the fandom for me. For a lot of people, actually.
Since the rise in popularity of anime, the fandom has largely transformed from a select group of nerds who simply enjoyed the stories and story telling tactics to a vast, swath of Japanophiles who pepper their speach with japanese words and honoriffics, hold the explicit view that "if it ain't japanese, it ain't any good", harbour an insideous persecution complex and cosntrue anyone who disagrees with their insanely cliquish views as being an "anime hater".
Now, there may be some out there who do "hate anime" for a number of ridiculous reasons, but the ones i've personally encountered are vanishingly rare. Most non-fans simply say "i don't like it" and that's it. Many have very good reasons for why they don't like it, especially considering it is just a form of entertainment and a matter for opinion.
But when i read your fandom forums, they are littered with stories that characterize anyone who simply doesn't like as "hating on anime". Hell, it's a regular topic in anime fora: "why do people hate anime". Often this is accompanied by other fans proclaiming that people "hate" anime because they are just dumber or don't understand or what have you, and that if the hater just gave in to the superiority of anime, they'd abandon their "hate" and become an enlightened anime fan. Some forums even have stories of "anime haters" that sound all but criminally abusive. Many of the posts are not so much "why do people hate anime" but "why do people hate anime FANS" (even though few are actually phrased this way).
Interestingly enough, i don't doubt that anime fans routinely encounter persons who treat them badly. By why is that, i wonder?
Anime fans, themselves, have a strong tendancy to talk down to fans of other media. They don't do it in ways so overt as to call them stupid.
...
No, wait, that's exactly what they do! They freely say things like "anime is the best form of entertainment, period" and "North American cartoons (or movies, or anything, really) are garbage". If you so much as have even passing interest in something not from japan, you're obviously an idiot... in the eyes of this fandom. People have even written "essays" that "prove" anime is "better" citing myopic views and cherry picked examples from whatever anime is supposedly better than and conveniently forgetting that much of their preferred entertainment medium exhibits the exact same flaws (whether they want to see them or not).
They even make categorical statements that cannot possibly be true. Because the world of art and story telling is an ever changing one, you certainly can't say anime is inherently or even fundamentally better than anything anyone else can possibly make - the next best thing can be around any corner in any corner of the world. And yet, this is exactly what they claim. Indeed, anything from Japan is considered innately better than anything from anywhere else, including the language and mannerisms (but conveniently ignoring the cultural sexism).
They've, in essence, detached their fandom from liking a specific set of stories and story telling tactics and attached it instead to an exclusionary "elitist" viewpoint, complete with all the condesention that goes along with it. It's no longer simply liking something, it's a vitriolic dislike of everything else. They even vocally attack the anime fans who do not tow this "party line" as being "Not a Real Anime Fan". I know! I've been called that a number of times!
Then, when another fan or fandom tries to point out why this is not a good position to hold (either by defending their own attacked fandom, or by explaining why they personally don't like anime), they bring out their persecution complex and label the individual as an anime hater. They do this even if their critic also enjoys anime.
These are not the actions of a rational individual who simply enjoys a medium; these are the actions of a reprehensible jerk.
Of course, these same actions can be found in literally any fandom. The problem is, it's become the heart and life-blood of the anime fandom on the internet. It's everywhere! These toxic views are on every anime forum, every anime fansite and every site that even passingly resembles an anime fan site. If the site discusses, or has links to discussing anime, it will have people holding these views in earnest and being championed up for it. I've never seen this attitude, to this extent, in any other fandom i've been a part of.
Of course, many others do not share these elitist douchebag views, including fans of the very same medium. So what's the inevitable outcome when the two sides meet? The time honoured internet tradition of a flame war.
We all know how flame wars turn out: hot-tempers and name calling and irrational arguments and all the good stuff that nobody likes on the internet. This, too, of course serves to cement in the minds of the anime fandom that they are just a persecuted lot, struggling to hold their own against torrents of unenlightened individuals who wipe their ass with manga, watch the stupidest of entertainment mediums and get together for the sole purpose of hating on the anime fans and everything they hold dear.
But, that's not really true, now is it?
No, dear anime fan. People do not hate you because you like anime. They just hate you. So until the fandom as a whole starts to ditch this toxic attitude, i will proudly be an "anime hater" who happens to love anime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)