The computer is basically back to life, yay. Need new printer and to fix something stupid I did trying to re-install Windows, but otherwise not bad. Updates should become frequent once more.
Seen Saw
BTW, this damn thing might actually get fixed soon. Yay, fixed.
I'm pretty sure I was done taking the "Saw" movies seriously after #4. It's not a bad franchise, just desperately played-out. #5 is basically 4 all over again: Lots of dull policework, increasingly uncreative traps, too much backstory on Jigsaw. Can this be over, now?
I'm pretty sure I was done taking the "Saw" movies seriously after #4. It's not a bad franchise, just desperately played-out. #5 is basically 4 all over again: Lots of dull policework, increasingly uncreative traps, too much backstory on Jigsaw. Can this be over, now?
W
Hey, look! It's working for another five minutes or so tonight!
I'm going to say that "W" is worth seeing, though it's really not spectacular or incendiary enough to be any kind of classic. It's basically a re-enactment of "big moments" we all remember hearing about, with acors playing the now-infamous big player parts - think SNL meets downtime at an Oscars telecast.
You've heard by now that the supposed "surprise" is how affectionate the film is toward George W. Bush as a character - displaying an obvious fondness for his black-sheep-made-good origin story and treating his self-willed triumph over alcoholism and Christian re-birth in sincere, non-mocking terms - presenting him as a decent if none-too-bright man who dug way, way, WAY over his head in an attempt to please his father. It's all true, but what seems to be missing is how "fair" Oliver Stone's film plays it with nearly ALL of the main-characters. As it unspools, not only Dubya but also Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove (!), George Tenet and especially Collin Powell are the largely-sympathetic "good guys" of the piece while Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice and (of course) Dick Cheney are the villians. Rove's defferential presentation is what stood out the most for me - it's easy to villianize him as a character, but here he comes off as a brilliant yet unfairly-overlooked political nerd for whom a symbiotic relationship with the charismatic but details-challenged Bush was his overdue ticket to the big time.
It's also pretty intriguing how the film ends up in ADORATION of Bush the Elder despite the broader theme of Dubya immolating himself in plea for fatherly approval, setting him up as a Truman-esque missed-opportunity historical figure: The Republican president who shunned the Religious Right and knew the wisdom of not trying to occupy Iraq the first time. Fascinating stuff, overall.
I'm going to say that "W" is worth seeing, though it's really not spectacular or incendiary enough to be any kind of classic. It's basically a re-enactment of "big moments" we all remember hearing about, with acors playing the now-infamous big player parts - think SNL meets downtime at an Oscars telecast.
You've heard by now that the supposed "surprise" is how affectionate the film is toward George W. Bush as a character - displaying an obvious fondness for his black-sheep-made-good origin story and treating his self-willed triumph over alcoholism and Christian re-birth in sincere, non-mocking terms - presenting him as a decent if none-too-bright man who dug way, way, WAY over his head in an attempt to please his father. It's all true, but what seems to be missing is how "fair" Oliver Stone's film plays it with nearly ALL of the main-characters. As it unspools, not only Dubya but also Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove (!), George Tenet and especially Collin Powell are the largely-sympathetic "good guys" of the piece while Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice and (of course) Dick Cheney are the villians. Rove's defferential presentation is what stood out the most for me - it's easy to villianize him as a character, but here he comes off as a brilliant yet unfairly-overlooked political nerd for whom a symbiotic relationship with the charismatic but details-challenged Bush was his overdue ticket to the big time.
It's also pretty intriguing how the film ends up in ADORATION of Bush the Elder despite the broader theme of Dubya immolating himself in plea for fatherly approval, setting him up as a Truman-esque missed-opportunity historical figure: The Republican president who shunned the Religious Right and knew the wisdom of not trying to occupy Iraq the first time. Fascinating stuff, overall.
Popmatters Interview
VERY QUICKLY before this peice of shit computer crashes AGAIN:
A little under 2 months ago there was apparently so little news going on that I was interviewed about the "Game OverThinker" video series by LB Jeffries of PopMatters. The interview - the first time I've ever been interviewed by a national (international, really) publication Internet or otherwise - is now up at their site. Link here: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/64317/the-new-youtube-game-criticism-an-interview-with-moviebob/
No time for any more cleverness on my part except to say... wow, this is pretty cool.
A little under 2 months ago there was apparently so little news going on that I was interviewed about the "Game OverThinker" video series by LB Jeffries of PopMatters. The interview - the first time I've ever been interviewed by a national (international, really) publication Internet or otherwise - is now up at their site. Link here: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/64317/the-new-youtube-game-criticism-an-interview-with-moviebob/
No time for any more cleverness on my part except to say... wow, this is pretty cool.
In honor of "Bioshock" belatedly coming to PS3...
This is going to get me cyber-lynched, but it's a necessary preface: Whatever you think of her philosophical ideas, as a novelist Ayn Rand was kinda scattershot. She had her strong suits - story structure, scope, management of characters, Dickensian bad guy names (Ellsworth Tooey?) and an undeniable skill for stories of slowly-revealed systemic collapse. But, on the other hand, she quite simply seldom - if ever - cared to grasp not only how actual people behave or speak... but how characters in hyper-real books/movies behave or speak. It's one thing to have your characters exist primarily as avatars for philosophical ideals, it's another to have them act like walking speakerphones. Her characters don't speak, they ORATE in every situation regardless of context.
Which is why it was probably NOT the best idea to have her write the screenplay for the (appropriately wacky) 1949 adaptation of "The Fountainhead" and DEFINATELY not the best idea to agree to let her have absolute final-say on dialogue (though, given then theme of the work what the hell else would you expect?) And it's also why the only part of the film where the dialogue and mandated-delivery really WORKS is in the climactic "summation" scene wherein Gary Cooper's Howard Roark defends himself in court for the charge of destroying a building he'd been comissioned to designed after discovering that the agreement that his edgy, ultra-modern design not be altered without his consent has been violated (the book/character are basically a lionizing of Frank Lloyd Wright, if you've not read it.)
It still doesn't FULLY fit - this clearly isn't Cooper's natural diction and it's obvious he (and the rest of the cast, really) are working heavily from memorization. Still, it's quite a moment overall and, while I can't really get behind Objectivism in total THIS one speech is one I find to be a pretty fine presentation of ideas I'm generally pretty down with. Taken as a statement of personal integrity in general and the rights of artists/creative people in particular, I'd even call it somewhat inspiring. In any case, it's been on my mind, it says things I'd like to say better than I can say them, and it IS kinda the only part of the movie anyone needs to see. So, if you've never seen this, give it a watch (it's only about five minutes):
P.S. The YouTube link is the best-quality clip I could find, if you click it and the guy who put it up has other stuff on his setlist that you don't like I'm not endorsing it and I'm not responsible for it.
Which is why it was probably NOT the best idea to have her write the screenplay for the (appropriately wacky) 1949 adaptation of "The Fountainhead" and DEFINATELY not the best idea to agree to let her have absolute final-say on dialogue (though, given then theme of the work what the hell else would you expect?) And it's also why the only part of the film where the dialogue and mandated-delivery really WORKS is in the climactic "summation" scene wherein Gary Cooper's Howard Roark defends himself in court for the charge of destroying a building he'd been comissioned to designed after discovering that the agreement that his edgy, ultra-modern design not be altered without his consent has been violated (the book/character are basically a lionizing of Frank Lloyd Wright, if you've not read it.)
It still doesn't FULLY fit - this clearly isn't Cooper's natural diction and it's obvious he (and the rest of the cast, really) are working heavily from memorization. Still, it's quite a moment overall and, while I can't really get behind Objectivism in total THIS one speech is one I find to be a pretty fine presentation of ideas I'm generally pretty down with. Taken as a statement of personal integrity in general and the rights of artists/creative people in particular, I'd even call it somewhat inspiring. In any case, it's been on my mind, it says things I'd like to say better than I can say them, and it IS kinda the only part of the movie anyone needs to see. So, if you've never seen this, give it a watch (it's only about five minutes):
P.S. The YouTube link is the best-quality clip I could find, if you click it and the guy who put it up has other stuff on his setlist that you don't like I'm not endorsing it and I'm not responsible for it.
It lives
So... the computer which has been DEAD since about Friday is "back," so to speak... and thus so is what passes for my online "presence." Yay.
For what it's worth? "Max Payne?" Don't bother. Y'know what the problem with 90% of video game movies is? It's not that they're based on games... it's that they're based on the WRONG games.
There are PLENTY of games with original or at least uniquely-realized worlds and stories - Mario, Zelda, Bioshock, Dragon Quest, Prince of Persia, Fallout, Sonic, No More Heroes etc. all come to mind. Make a faithful adaptation of any of those and you'll probably get a good one. Trouble is, there are plenty of OTHER games that are basically just unofficial knock-offs of stuff that already existed - popular movies, for example - with the in-game benefit of interactivity. It's not exactly a new thing, either: Rastan, after all, was just Conan but you could PLAY it.
So one shouldn't REALLY be surprised when, for example, you make a Resident Evil movie and you get a Romero-ripoff... thats what Resident Evil IS. Likewise, since "Max Payne" was basically just a (very good) playable composite of every hard-bitten cop cliche from Mike Hammer to Dirty Harry to Martin Riggs, there's really no point in making a movie out of it and expecting anything OTHER than a generic cop thriller.
For what it's worth? "Max Payne?" Don't bother. Y'know what the problem with 90% of video game movies is? It's not that they're based on games... it's that they're based on the WRONG games.
There are PLENTY of games with original or at least uniquely-realized worlds and stories - Mario, Zelda, Bioshock, Dragon Quest, Prince of Persia, Fallout, Sonic, No More Heroes etc. all come to mind. Make a faithful adaptation of any of those and you'll probably get a good one. Trouble is, there are plenty of OTHER games that are basically just unofficial knock-offs of stuff that already existed - popular movies, for example - with the in-game benefit of interactivity. It's not exactly a new thing, either: Rastan, after all, was just Conan but you could PLAY it.
So one shouldn't REALLY be surprised when, for example, you make a Resident Evil movie and you get a Romero-ripoff... thats what Resident Evil IS. Likewise, since "Max Payne" was basically just a (very good) playable composite of every hard-bitten cop cliche from Mike Hammer to Dirty Harry to Martin Riggs, there's really no point in making a movie out of it and expecting anything OTHER than a generic cop thriller.
blegh...
I know it's impolite to ask this, but... Adobe? Guys? Is it possible for Flash 9 to NOT crash Explorer? Just asking.
Sorry for lack of updates this week. Reason: Computer went nutty, had to fix. Still working on that.
Sorry for lack of updates this week. Reason: Computer went nutty, had to fix. Still working on that.
