Top Five Christmas Movies

Honorable Mention: Die Hard- While it wasn’t at the center of the plot, this film actually was a Christmas movie. John McClaine went to L.A. to see his children and estranged wife for the holiday. There’s even a scene where McClaine is being driven around in a limo and the chauffeur is listening to “Christmas in Hollis” by Run-D.M.C. What’s more joyful than that? Really, if you take away the terrorists, the violence, the nudity, the blood and the language, you have the heart of a very merry Christmas movie. However, it is only an honorable mention because every other movie on my list is specifically centered on Christmas.

5. The Nightmare Before Christmas- This is one of the ultimate movies in the opinion of my generation. It combines Christmas and Halloween, two of the biggest holidays in this country, and creates a mish-mash that’s fun for creepy goth kids and naïve, sheltered children alike. The music is elegant and beautiful at times and spooky and scary at others. My favorite track, “What’s This?” has burrowed a place so deep in my heart that I always listen to it before Christmas. The pull of the movie, though, comes from the hero, Jack Skellington. He’s an icon in his Halloween town, but he still feels emptiness in his heart and tries to mend it by kidnapping Santa Claus and taking over Christmas. How sweet.

4. Scrooged- This is a 1988 comedic interpretation of “A Christmas Carol” starring Bill Murray. Well, it starts off as a comedy when we see Murray as the bitter T.V. exec pitch his idea of a promo for a Christmas special, but it quickly gets depressing like the story “Scrooged” was adapted from. We get to see a homeless person freeze to death, one of Murray’s newly made ex-employees go crazy, Murray’s assistant’s depressing home life and how much Murray’s own family hates him. However, it all ends well with the patented ending of Murray coming back to reality with a new heart of gold.

3. Home Alone- This movie is great for three reasons. First, it allowed me to see what life could be like if I was a kid living in a giant two story house by myself. I never lived in a place with stairs, but after watching “Home Alone” I’ve always wanted to ride a sled down some stairs through the front door and into a snow covered yard. Secondly, it gave me plenty of ideas for booby traps to utilize against my then nemesis. And third, it was a touching. The protagonist kid learned that his neighbor wasn’t a serial killer, but just an old man who wanted to see his granddaughter. He learned that his family, while annoying some times, truly loved him and would always be there for him. Pretty nice sentiments for a movie famous for hitting people in the head with paint cans.

2. Joyeux Noel- This movie, more than any other movie, depicts what I believe Christmas ought to be. It takes place during World War I at a battleground where the French, Scottish and Germans are fighting each other. It was Christmas Eve and in a cautious ceasefire the three groups decided to celebrate the holiday together. These soldiers who were killing each just the previous day were now sharing champagne and chocolate, singing together, playing football with each other and attending mass along side each other. And, to me, the best part of the movie was that the next day the soldiers couldn’t fight each other anymore. They knew they were supposed to, but they couldn’t do it. The feelings they shared on Christmas Eve stuck with them and changed them. They weren’t enemies anymore; they were brothers.

1. Dr. Seuss’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas- Maybe this was a predictable pick, but I have to stay true to myself. I haven’t had a Christmas yet where I didn’t watch this movie. It’s a film that I’ve been watching since I was a kid; since Christmas was still about wonder and excitement. I still sing (and make up my own words for) the song that plays when the Grinch is stealing everybody’s presents. I still laugh at the dog that has to wear a single antler to impersonate a reindeer. And, to be honest, I still get a little teary-eyed when I see the Grinch’s heart grows three sizes. It’s a nostalgic movie for me, and I bet it will be for many more generations.

Transporter 3 and Sonic Unleashed

Transporter 3:

The 80s and 90s were the culmination of action movie franchises. The Die Hard series began in the late 80s and the newest addition came out in 2007. The Lethal Weapon series also began in the 80s with the newest film being released in 1998. It has been a while since a new string of action movies really took off. That's what made the Transporter movies so exciting for me.

The first Transporter film came out in 2002, and it was fantastic. Jason Statham did a great job playing the solitary Frank Martin, and the action scenes were unique and well paced. The sequel was released in 2005, and, it was less than stellar. Abandoning the European locale, this sequel took place in the States and apparently caught a bad case of American-film-itis. The action scenes were choppy, although still mildly entertaining, and the plot went from a slightly preposterous to saving the world from the apocalypse. So, what does the third one have to offer?

The writers, mistakenly, gave Martin more personality than the previous films. Instead of opening the film with Martin performing a job, it opens with him fishing with his detective buddy. This is the wrong way to open up a Transporter film. It is supposed to start with Martin preparing for his job in a parking garage. Even the awful second film got that right. Martin also is forced into giving an uncharacteristic strip tease, but more on that later.

The film took a step back from the second and reduced the impact of the antagonists. Instead of the possibility of the world being taken over by the baddies, only the Ukraine is at risk in this film. And it's threatened by evil, American polluters, no less. I don't necessarily like being portrayed as a villain, but anything is better than the group of villains from the second film. And the lead villain was played pretty well by Robert Knepper. He was the evil counterpart to Frank Martin, always obeying his own set of rules.

The action, again, was better than the second. The fight scenes (there was a whopping two of them) were still choppy and not as interesting as the first film's, such as the oil slick fight, but were well choreographed nonetheless. The heart of the action comes from other stunts. The crowning achievement was a scene where Martin gets carjacked, but has to stay within 75 feet of the car or else he'll explode thanks to a bracelet the villain put on him. It contains elements of parkour and has great pacing.

The only truly unique thing about this film is likely only to pique the interests of feminists. The leading lady, Natalya Rudakova, plays Valentina, a spoiled, privileged Ukrainian party girl who serves as the MacGuffin for the film. In the second fight scene, Martin utilizes his clothes as weapons against a group of baddies. He begins by taking off and using his coat, then his tie and finally his shirt. Valentina, watching from the car, is visually excited watching Martin undress. This is one of the few films I've seen where the Gaze is fixed on the man as opposed to the woman. And later in the film, Valentina steals the keys to the car and makes Martin strip for her in order to get the keys back. Again, seeing the woman in the position of power is rare, so the experience was refreshing.

Altogether, if you are a fan of the previous two films, then you won't be disappointed by this addition. The beginning and and scenes aren't great, but the middle section is above average. It has great action, a decent story and good acting. Watching this movie now is probably a better idea then waiting for the new Punisher movie coming out in December.

Sonic Unleashed:

I've only played several hours worth of the game, so this is more of a first look than a review. And, this first look isn't pretty.

Well, actually, the game is very pretty. I'm a big fan of the graphics. Some of the best I've seen on the Wii. Of course, if you're playing a game for the graphics, then the Wii isn't the console of choice. The Wii is all about the controls.

The controls aren't bad. The game is easy enough to play, but that's when you can actually play the game. The creators decided to deface the Sonic franchise (again) by making the game part point and click adventure. Part of the game is talking to villagers and trying to get information as to the whereabouts of somebody or something. A sonic game is about running, preferably running fast. It is not about talking to random people only to find out they don't have the information you're looking for.

Also, it should be noted you cannot skip the cut scenes. This wasn't a problem at first. I wanted to bask in the gae as a whole, so I watched the first few cut scenes. But it got to the point where it went from point-and-click adventure to cut scene back to point-and-click adventure. Wanting to get to the fast running, I began mashing buttons during the cutscenes, but nothing would let me skip the scene.

And, getting back to the controls, they kind of suck. Playing as the WereHog Sonic isn't fun. There's no enemy lock-on when fighting, so while shaking the Wii remote and nunchuck you have to keep pointing at your enemies. This doesn't sound difficult, but in practice it's a lot harder than it sounds. Also, there's no way to change the camera angle (much like the new Chrash Bandicoot game), so if you have to back track, you'll be running towards the screen, which is disorienting to say the least.

The only true perk I can think of is the actual running parts as regular sonic. If the game was entirely composed of this style gameplay, then I would enjoy the game one hundred times more.

But, alas, this is just a first look. My fingers are crossed that things will get better.

Round Up

Here's what I've been up to with my limited free time:

de Blob:

“De Blob” is a game reminiscent of “ToeJam and Earl in Panic on Funkotron;” it’s a very funky game, and that’s where most of the appeal comes from. The story, while being charming and funny, doesn’t make itself necessary. You could ignore any sign of a narrative, and as long as you followed the prescribed objectives, you’d be fine. There are essentially four types of missions in the game: follow the markers, paint certain structures certain colors, kill the enemies and transform landmarks. Most missions aren’t hard, but some curve balls are thrown from time to time. The game doesn’t getting noticeably difficult until the final boss, who is still manageable. The game is fun though, and considering other Wii games, this one stands out in a positive way.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno:

I had high hopes for this movie, and they were met. This crossing between Judd Apatow’s clan and Kevin Smith’s clique was exactly what a fan of either would expect. The movie was touching, had a good soundtrack and had plenty of laughs. There was a good chemistry between Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks, who played the title characters. Craig Robinson, better known as Darryl on TV show “The Office” played his character perfectly as he typically does. The rest of the cast did a good job as well, but what makes the movie is Kevin Smith’s pen. His knack for writing the perfect dialogue hasn’t left him since “Clerks II.” This isn’t Smith’s funniest movie, nor is it his deepest movie, but if you like dirty humor, then it’s one you shouldn’t miss.

The Color of Money:

This is an old movie (1986), and I only rented it because I watched the preceding film, “The Hustler” (1961). Initially I rented “The Hustler” because it was a pool movie, but then I realized there was more to it than that. “The Color of Money” is similar, but not as good, even with Scorsese directing. “The Color of Money” has some great pool, and the actors (Tom Cruise and Paul Newman) did the brunt of their actual shots. Newman was a joy to watch. Even considering how old he was during this role, he had the energy of a young man. And Cruise, well, he was a young man who had the energy of an even younger man. This was a good movie, but the main problem was that it was directed by Scorsese and it wasn’t amazing. Had anybody else been in charge, then my opinion would probably be different.

Mega Man 9:

I should start by saying I haven’t beaten this game yet, and I am pessimistic that I ever will. I have defeated all of the robot masters, but I can’t make it through Wily’s Castle (if you’ve played a Mega Man game, then you know what I’m talking about. If you haven’t played a Mega Man game, then you probably don’t care about this mini review). The robot masters are what I’ve come to expect from the series, meaning they are equal parts imaginative plus equal parts cheesy. Some levels aren’t very difficult at all, such as Galaxy Man whom I beat with only several tries. Other levels are drastically more difficult, such as the disappearing block challenge in Plug Man’s stage. Mega Man 9 is a fun experience, and I would love to see companies make more games in this fashion.

Disgustingly Adequate

Film, while a passive form of media, has a lot of potential to make people feel a certain way. However the audience feels depends on the movie. If a group of people were watching Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, then the audience is supposed to be laughing and feeling jovial. Film has this power due to both its narrative and the way its filmed. The narrative gets the audience's attention on a conscious level, and the cinematography usually hits at a subconscious level.

As solid as a model most movies are, there's room for improvement. One way to improve upon the model is by filming with a subjective camera, meaning film from somebody's point of view. The first great example of this can be seen in The Blair Witch Project. This movie was blatantly filmed as a fake documentary and meant to put you in the shoes of the "filmmakers." It can be argued as to whether or not it was effective, but manipulation of the audience was the goal.

The newest in the line of these cinema verite (flashy documentary-style filmmaking) is the horror movie Quarantine. In this film we see through the eyes of a camera man who is working with a reporter following a couple of fire fighters around for the night. All was quiet, but then the inevitable happened and they were sent out on a call. They were sent to an apartment where an old woman was sick and acting strange. She attacks one of the police officers, everybody inside the building gets locked in and character after character gets picked off.

More or less, this film is a zombie movie, and, as such, succeeds in a number of ways. The movie begins with enough character development to cause the audience to care when somebody gets killed off. This is especially true in the case of the reporter, the camera man and the two fire fighters. The movie is gross, but significantly less than others of the same genre (i.e. Diary of the Dead). So, instead of relying on gore to carry the film, it relies on the building of suspense to scare audiences. Typically, this is a good thing. Gore is easy to produce, but creating tension takes more work. And while there are some blunt clues, there never is an exact answer as to what started everything.

While the film deserves credit for those accomplishments, that wasn't enough to save the film from mediocrity. Besides the four main characters, not much connection is made between the secondary characters, so when they start dying there isn't much emotional resonance. Also, not falling back on gore to carry the film is admirable, but if the movie is going the route of suspense, then the director ought to be damned sure he can deliver. In this case, he couldn't. Many moments were meant to be scary and full of tension, but often fell flat or became laughable (the young girl "turning" is a great example of that). But the biggest mark this movie missed is in the use of the subjective camera.

Cloverfield is the perfect example of what you should do in a cinema verite film. It gives a first person view of the movie's world, but still allows you to see other things. For example, with the exception of several hectic scenes, you can clearly see what's going on in most of Cloverfield. Whether the characters are in a dark subway station or at a party at somebody's apartment, the viewer can always make out what's going on. Quarantine failed at this. On purpose, too.

Quarantine subscribes to the belief that what the audience can't see is what scares them the most. As a result, the filmmaker decided to make it so the audience couldn't see half the movie. It did add some ambiance to the film, but it took away so much more. It'd be easy for a viewer to spend most of the movie trying to figure out what they're looking at as opposed to paying attention to the events of the movie. This gets particularly frustrating during the last stretch of the film.

Also, Cloverfield used this filming technique correctly. In one scene, where the main party goes back to rescue their friend from a nearly destroyed apartment building, they find the friend pinned down by a piece of metal. The camera man in this movie sets the camera down to help lift her off of it. The camera is left behind a piece of rubble partially blocking the audience's view. So, the audience is left looking at only the friend's legs as she's being lifted off the metal. This builds tension because the audience can hear what happening, and the audience is imaging something worse than what could have been filmed. This sequence could have been easy to mess up, but the director did a good job putting together everything in the frame well.

Quarantine is a mediocre film. It has some jumps, some neat ideas and an interesting story. But all of these qualities only take the film halfway to its mark. Instead of reaching its full potential, it's left in the middle ground of average. In reality, seeing a movie with such potential end up so common is worse than the movie outright sucking.

Jason Voorhees Walks Yet Again

I am a fan of Friday the 13th movies. These cinematic masterpieces are the epitome of slasher films. They all star an indestructible villain, have immoral teens getting butchered and, most importantly, there have been a line of never-ending sequels. Friday the 13th movies are too classic not to love. But, much like an old dog, there's time when something needs to be put down.

The new movie, simply titled Friday the 13th, is coming to theatres February 13, 2009. It is a new member of the long line of horror movies that are being "re-imagined." This is a fancy term the studio uses when it doesn't want to tell the audience that they're being ripped off.

Re-imagining a movie doesn't have to be bad. Many consider Batman Begins to be a re-imagining of the Batman movies, and it was one of the most popular to date. And its sequel, The Dark Knight, has been doing nothing but breaking records since it debuted. So why does a re-imagining of Friday the 13th leave a bitter taste in people's mouths?

Horror movies, as a general rule, aren't great. They are made cheap and easy, and they make back tons in profit. So, if you are making a sub par movie without using any effort, but are reeling in tons of money, then why try to make a good one? Nobody, especially businessmen, want to reinvent the wheel.

The recent remake of Prom Night made $57 million so far, but only cost $20 million to make. House of Wax, which was released in 2005, cost $40 million to make, but earned back $68 million. And one of the most profitable re-imagings in recent history was the 2006 version of The Hills Have Eyes, which had a budget of $15 million, but grossed nearly $70 million. And each of these movies were panned by critics across the country.

Perhaps the most pertinent example would be the 2007 re-imagining of the Halloween movie. Rob Zombie's version of the John Carpenter classic was a commercial success. It cost $20 million to make and has raked in $78 million. However, it too, even with the enthusiasm of Zombie's fans, was a critical flop. Writer for the New York Daily News Jack Mathews claims the Halloween remake shows the laziness of today's horror directors.

"The new breed of horrormeister, Zombie included, works to shock rather than scare, and does it by heightening the imagery of violence rather than by heightening the tension."

In theory, there's nothing wrong with updating a classic for the current generation's audience. Halloween, while regarded as a crown jewel of horror movies, is too slow for some people's attention span. So, why not redo it? The problems come up when the director doesn't remake it for the viewers. When the director sees a classic like Halloween and wonders how to make money off of it today, well, that's when re-imaginings get the stigma hey have today. And with the poor history of remakes as evidence, there's no reason to be optimistic for the new Friday the 13th movie.

Iron Man Versus The Dark Knight

This was a good year for comic book fans (i.e. nerds). Not one, but two good movie adaptations of two beloved characters were released. The first, Iron Man, debuted on May 2 and earned nearly $100 million its opening weekend. Beyond that first weekend, it has grossed $318 million domestically, $571 million world wide (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ironman.htm), and was the year's best reviewed movie until Wall-E was released (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron_man/?critic=creamcrop). And Iron Man’s biggest feat was turning an unknown Marvel superhero into a household name over night.

The Dark Knight, released on July 18, was an even bigger commercial and critical success. In its opening weekend, The Dark Knight grossed $158 million, and has almost made $1 billion worldwide(http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=darkknight.htm). Critically, The Dark Knight easily rivals Iron Man, garnering an equal amount of positive praise(http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/?critic=creamcrop).

Which movie is better, though? Is there a superior movie? Many people have their own opinions (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080901101601AAHtuYk), but let's try to look at this objectively.

Iron Man is about a multi-billion dollar business owner, Tony Stark, who inherited his parents’ business. He went through a traumatic experience, and even though he has no supernatural powers, he decided to use his God-given brain to create a suit and gadgets to fight bad guys.

The Dark Knight is about a multi-billion dollar business owner, Bruce Wayne, who inherited his parents’ business. He went through a traumatic experience, and even though he has no supernatural powers, he decided to use his God-given brain to create a suit and gadgets to fight bad guys.

There seems to be a similarity.

As much as the characters resemble each other, their profiles are where the similarities end. Iron Man is a patriotic film, bordering on nationalistic, about a capitalist business owner seeing the wrongs made in his company’s name. He then exercises responsibility and tries to amend his company’s wrong doings. Tony Stark has a crush on his personal assistant, and his business partner and former mentor, Obadiah Stane, ends up being the evil behind Stark Enterprise's shadowy actions.

Iron Man uses a lot of bight colors for effects and on sets. The colors could be to make the movie more dynamic, to give a certain representation of California and/or Stark as a person, or just to appeal to younger audiences.

The movie was geared towards younger audiences by avoiding graphic violence (although Stark does murder at least a dozen people in the film) but maintaining a continuous pace of action. Also by having a sense of humor made the film child friendly, as well.

The themes in Iron Man are shallow, but they exist. Responsibility is a major theme. As Stark goes through his journey he takes responsibility for what Stark Enterprises has done around the world, and he takes the responsibility to fix what he can. Also, in attempting to be responsible, Stark shuts down the weapons program his company runs.

Besides responsibility, there are other shallow themes such as perseverance, brain over brawns, and ingenuity. These, however, are touched on lightly and don’t add much depth to the film.

The Dark Knight is about Batman trying to clean up Gotham City, as per usual, but being interrupted by The Joker. The Joker, proving to be a devious fly in the ointment, creates a bigger and bigger name for himself until he nearly takes over the city. Bruce Wayne, however, is trying to resolve things with his would-be sweetheart and come to terms with her relationship to the district attorney Harvey Dent.

This movie is the epitome of dark, and considering the subject matter, it shouldn’t have been shot any other way. Batman, as his name implies, works at night. So, there’s a good reason for the film to be dark right there. But the characters are more menacing than run-of-the-mill comic book movies. The Joker, what many claim to be the best part of the movie, is sadistic, and even worse, nihilistic. He stands for nothing, lives for nothing, and is willing to die for anything if it fits his cause. His cause just happens to be destruction, so he’s willing to die for quite a lot in this movie.

The themes in this movie run throughout and have many tributaries that run off. One of the topics the film addresses is the concept of heroes. Does wearing a cape make you a hero, or does going out there and showing your face to the public everyday make you one? Which type is better for the public? And, possibly the biggest theme in the movie is the idea of human nature. The Joker spent most of the movie arguing, and proving, that people are scared, pathetic, and willing to do whatever it takes to save their own hides. Batman believes differently, and shows The Joker the error of his beliefs.

Both movies are great, but to answer which one is better is for you to decide. If you want a movie you can enjoy on a lazy afternoon with some popcorn, then Iron Man is probably your choice. If you’re looking for a movie with great depth, philosophical themes, and complex characters, then The Dark Knight is more up your alley. Either way, it’s hard to go wrong with either of these films.

Who's Afraid of Horror Movies?

Horror movies are lucrative for film companies. Most of them cost less than $10 million to make and earn back about $30 million. That isn’t including the DVD sales and rentals either. For example, The Strangers starring Scott Speedman and Liv Tyler cost $9 million to make. That figure probably includes things such as advertising, too. As of right now, boxfficemojo.com shows it has earned $53 million, and the DVD won’t be coming out until this October.

Because horror movies are so cheap to make, and they almost always make a profit, film companies don’t particularly care about the quality of the horror movies. They look for blood, gore, and nudity, and if all three are present, then the movie is good to go. If the film companies are making money from doing this, then more power to them. However, it’s killing the genre. The artistic ability once required to make a good horror movie has been replace with the overuse of fake blood and CGI effects used to show decapitations. Hollywood has forgotten how to make a good horror movie, so here is a refresher course.

The biggest mistake Hollywood is making regarding horror movies is the dependency on blood and gore. It is understood there was once a time where film companies couldn’t film gory horror movies because they either didn’t have the technology or the social standards at the time wouldn’t allow them to. But, Hollywood is far beyond making up for lost times. Now they are filming gore in excess and completely forgetting what made horror movies great to begin with: suspense.

Sure, see a slasher jump from a bush and attack an unsuspecting teenager is shocking, but it isn’t scary. The ambush will make you jump, but it won’t be the thing that keeps you up at night. Suspense can best be explained by my favorite urban legend. Say there is a young woman babysitting for a family. The babysitter cooks the children dinner, plays with them, and then puts them to bed. While watching TV with a bowl of popcorn in the living room, she gets a call on the house phone. The caller is some creep who is panting into the phone. The babysitter hangs up disgusted. Then the phone rings again. It’s the same creep. His pants and grunts are deeper than before. The babysitter hangs up immediately. She gets a couple of other calls like this throughout the night before she calls the police. The police say they can trace the call if the creep calls again. The creep does and the police call back quickly to inform her that the call is coming from inside the house.

That example may be trite by now, however it still works to show how suspense is built up. It begins slowly. The babysitter was by herself, it was night time, and she was in an environment that she wasn’t used to. Then it started picking up when she got the phone call from the creep. Then it began gaining momentum when the creep called more frequently and started sounded more perverse. Then it climaxed when the cops told her the creep was in the same house as her. Most horror movies released nowadays don’t take the time with the suspense building and jump straight to the “Oh my God!” action, such as The Hills Have Eyes remake and sequel.

Besides taking time to build suspense, another trick to use when making a good horror movie is to not show everything. Yes, seeing a person cut in half is disturbing, but it isn’t scary. Why are people afraid of the dark? Because they can’t see what is going on. To make a good horror movie, this feeling should be duplicated. For instance, in Silence of the Lambs, when Hannibal Lecter escapes from his holding cell, he beats a guard to death with a night stick. But, instead of showing the audience the guard’s head crumbling in on itself, it shows Lecter. It shows small splats of blood splashing on his face, while Lecter has a crazed look. That is scary. And example of the opposite of this can be found in 30 Days of Night. There is a scene near the end where one character is taking an axe to a vampire. It is shot similarly to the scene in Silence of the Lambs, however, it shows you exactly what is happening to the vampire. It shows the axe connecting with the vampire’s body and all of the fore that goes with it. It was gross, definitely, but not scary.

Creating a good plot for a horror movie has gotten more difficult over the past couple of decades. The 80s was the decade of slasher films, and just about every plot can be found in a movie from the time period, whether it being a horror movie set in a summer camp, a prom dance, or just a regular suburban neighborhood. It is important, though, to make the plot relatable to the audience. When you take something a person is accustomed to, such as a summer camp, then you make the experience more real for them. The more real the experience, the scarier the movie. One plot that is overused is the “a traveling group that finds trouble” plot. You can find this in Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes, House of 1,000 Corpses, and many more. This plot is used so much, though, because it works. People, especially teens or young adults, take road trips to far away places. This fact makes the plot relatable. And when they’re out in the middle of nowhere, there’s nobody to help them, whether they need help with a flat tire or rescuing from a maniac with a chainsaw.

And pending on what kind of horror movie you’re making, a good antagonist is important. Once upon a time, Michael Meyers was the best horror movie antagonist because the audience knew just enough about him to make him scary. The audience knew he killed his older sister for seemingly no reason, but beyond that they knew nothing. Meyers just killed, as though there was nothing else for him to do. This blank face of evil was spooky. However, latter reincarnations of the Halloween movies have damaged the franchise and the character. The antagonist should be mysterious, but not random. Jason Voorhees from Friday the 13^th was mysterious. A pig-bear hybrid would be random.

What scares people is different on a person by person basis. Some people are afraid of sharks. Some are afraid of dogs. Others are afraid of goalies with chainsaws. However, people generally share the same basic fears. Dark places are scarier than bright places, and being alone is always scarier than being with a group. If Hollywood were to pay more attention to the basics, then some decent horror movies could be made again. But until then, you might as well look forward to Freddy Vs. Jason II: The Blood and Guts Edition.

House Vs. Holmes

Unique ideas for movies or plays are hard to come by, so if one is going to emulate something, it might as well be something good. For example, the Sergio Leone movie Fist Full of Dollars starring Clint Eastwood was directly inspired by Akira Kurosawa’s Yojimbo. The musical West Side Story is an adaptation of Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet. Even the animated movie Lion King was influenced by Shakespeare’s Hamlet. And currently, Dr. Gregory House from the show House seems to be inspired by the literary character Sherlock Holmes. But while these two characters share a lot in common, they are significantly different.

Both Dr. House and Mr. Holmes work on unique cases. They both need the mental stimulation difficult cases provide, or else they'd be restless. House refuses to accept cases unless they appeal to his sense of curiosity, and probably take his mind off of his leg pain. Also, he tries as hard as he can to avoid clinic hours where he’d have to deal with average individuals with average ailments. Holmes prefers unique cases, and is thoroughly excited when somebody approaches him with a singular mystery, but he isn’t above helping the run of the mill person either. Holmes, however, does need interesting cases to keep his mind stimulated, or else he falls into a cocaine addiction. According to his friend Watson, Holmes craves mental stimulation, and while he prefers cases, he’ll go to drugs when there’s nothing else to turn to.

House and Holmes are both above average intelligence, to say the least. House is a doctor, so a certain amount of schooling and practice is expected. Holmes is a detective, which of course takes brain power, but he is also a scholar, and when he isn’t working on a case, he could likely be found in a chemistry lab running experiments. The origins of these characters’ intelligence come from different means, though. Holmes, as mentioned, is a scholar. He practices chemistry, biology, and physics. He studies cigars and where they are made, and just about any other piece of seemingly trivial information. He keeps up in politics and the legal system on a global level. Watson, through his narratives, explains how Holmes is as intelligent as he is. However, House is not given as good of an explanation. Yes, House is a doctor. He’s one of the best in the show's world. In one episode, Cuddy mentions she and House went to the same medical school and he was a huge figure even then. But all this does is explain why House is good at medicine. For unaccounted reasons, House also knows about foreign cultures and languages (as shown in the episode Whatever It Takes in season four). House contains heaps superfluous of information, which might supposed to be a testament to how smart he is, but a brief explanation occasionally wouldn’t be a bad thing.

House and Holmes aren’t what you’d call "people" persons. There is, however, a great difference. House hates people for a myriad of reasons. He thinks they’re dumb, they’re a waste of his time, they’re boring, etc. These are shallow reasons, but House usually sticks to them vehemently, especially when it comes to avoiding clinic duty. Holmes, rather, doesn’t see a point in creating a rapport with a person unless they have some higher role to fulfill. Besides Watson, which Holmes senses something special in, everybody else either doesn’t matter or only has a limited use. Holmes is hardly ever mean, even to the criminals he snares, but that’s only because it is less efficient to have enemies than it is to have a positive relationship with somebody. Honestly, though, general people bore Holmes just as much as they bore House.

Also pertaining to their general outlook on their clients, House is a general misanthrope. He doesn’t discriminate against hating people. Men, women, Jews, blacks, dwarfs, homosexuals, and the list goes on. Holmes is a bit different. To be fair, in most Holmes stories there aren’t blacks or Jews or many different minorities to discriminate against. Holmes does, however, discriminate against women. He sees them as the fairer sex, and generally not as smart as men. This doesn’t arise too often throughout his tales, but he does note when a woman surprises him with their intelligence. In one story, Holmes comments the only woman he ever could have loved was a thief who actually outsmarted him and escaped the country.

There’s nothing wrong with imitating something. Virtually everything is inspired by something else. And sometimes the new creations can out perform the old inspirations. Or, at the very least, the new creation could be a reincarnation of the old for a new generation. And that is House compared to Holmes. Just with a few personality tweaks.

How to Make a Hero

Creating a super hero isn’t easy work. There’s enough proof of this in the annals of comic book history. For instance, virtually every member of the Great Lakes Avengers from the Marvel universe is a dud. There’s Flatman, whose power is to have a flat body. That's pretty much it. Then there’s Squirrel Girl, who has the ability to communicate with squirrels. She, as some kind of comic book joke, has actually defeated worthwhile super villains, such as Dr. Doom. And also there is Grasshopper, who has robotic grasshopper legs that allow for super-sized leaping. These heroes aren’t quite on the same level as Batman or Spiderman. So, with duds like these, what exactly makes a good super hero?

The origin story is the start. If you’re hero doesn’t have an interesting and believable origin story, then it’ll be that much more difficult for it to take off. Origins can be assigned to different categories. There’s the science origin, like Spiderman, where he acquires his powers by means of scientific happenings. There’s the mutant origin, such as the X-Men, where the heroes are either born with their powers, or their powers develop without external coercion as they grow up. There’s the technology origin, such as Iron Man, who doesn’t have any actual super powers, but uses machinery and gadgets to fulfill his duty. There’s the magic origin, such as Dr. Strange, where the hero’s powers are based in spells and other sorts of mysticism. And lastly, there’s the natural origin, such as Superman and the Punisher. Superman’s powers are natural because where he comes from, Krypton, everybody has those powers (or would if they were in the presence of a yellow sun). His powers are normal for his species, so they would be considered natural. The Punisher also has a natural origin because he has no actual superpowers. Anything he can do anybody could do with the proper training.

The origin of the hero’s powers makes a difference because some origins, such as mutant and natural, are more believable to the audience than other origins, magic and science. Of course, comic books aren’t real, but there is an amount of believability in every comic book, and if that believability is pushed to far, the audience may decide the comic is too preposterous and stop reading.

The second important thing regarding the origin of a super hero is how exactly he or she receives his or her powers, and what instigated the hero wanting to use their powers for heroism. Spiderman is a well put example. He received his spider-like powers by being bitten by a radioactive spider while at a science facility. The science origin works well enough, although slightly pushes the believability. But when Spiderman realizes his powers, he doesn’t want to use them for good. He instead wants to make some money by winning a wrestling match. He doesn’t decide to use his powers for good until his Uncle Ben’s death, which Spiderman felt responsible for. This feeling of guilt and responsibility led Spiderman down the path of becoming a super hero.

So, a popular and effective characteristic when creating a science or technology origin for a super hero is tragedy. The death of Uncle Ben, the murder of Batman’s parents, and Iron Man being kidnapped by terrorists all use tragedy. It makes the character relatable while still granting them super powers. And along the same lines, although slightly different, is the use of prejudice in mutant origins. In the X-Men, people fear the mutants and hate the mutants because they’re different from them. This sense of unjustifiable prejudice is something most people can empathize with, whether it’s a minority facing racism or a fat kid being made fun of his weight.

Besides the origin, the main component of a super hero is his or her power. The power needs to be original, but still be based upon a sort of standard. Robotic grasshopper legs are definitely original, but it strays too far away from the standard. Leaping high is OK and robotic legs are OK, but actually specifying the legs to be “grasshopper” legs is a push too far. Super strength and stamina are necessary for most super heroes, but those powers wouldn’t make the grade by themselves. There is a list of already created super powers, and most of them would be good for a stand alone character. A large pitfall for any super hero, though, is for them to have too many powers. Martian Manhunter and Superman are both examples of this. Having too many powers makes the hero too powerful. If the hero is too powerful, then his ordeals aren’t so dramatic anymore. If there’s no drama, then there’s no pull to keep reading. An ultimate, unbeatable super hero is a nice idea in theory, but would get boring and repetitive fast.

And lastly, every super hero needs a worthy super villain. Some super villains are cool because of their own merit, such as Dr. Doom. But at the very minimal, the super villain must be the antithesis of the super hero. The relationship between the hero and villain must be more than the fact the hero doesn’t let the villain do bad stuff. Every great hero-villain relationship has deep rooted emotion in it. Batman and the Joker, Wolverine and Sabertooth, Superman and Lex Luthor, and Thor and Loki each have their own personal histories with each other. This long term relationship adds more drama into the comic, which creates more interest.

Really, there's no hard and fast rules to making super heroes. Different ideas appeal to different people at different times. Heroes like Flatman and Squirrel Girl might be popular in the future. Also, heroes like Batman and Spiderman may eventually be forgotten. However, for right now, at least, this seems like a good set of rules to follow when making your own super hero.

House Season 3: The Best Yet

Good television is hard to come by. Most of what is aired consists of reality shows. American Idol, Dancing With the Stars, and Flavor of Love are examples of what’s popular now. However, there are gems out there, one of them being House. House, for those of you who don’t know, is a medical show on Fox that stars Hugh Laurie as a very mean, but very brilliant diagnostician. He has a team of three doctors, each member with their own expertise, which handles the patients directly while House stays as far away as possible. House is a good show, as proven by two Golden Globes and a myriad of other awards, and has just finished up its fourth season. Each season was good in its own way; however, season three stands out from the others as the best season.

The first reason why the third season of House is the best is because it starts off with House having his bum leg fixed. House’s leg was the reason he used Vicodin so much. His leg pain was merely intolerable on good days. On bad days he could hardly leave his bed. To manage the pain he popped a pill about once every five minutes. House’s drug use became a major characteristic, and with his leg being fixed, he no longer needed the drugs. The pain didn’t just go away, his leg made a major recovery in muscle growth, too. After a couple of months of rehab House was running to work. He was feeling better than he had felt in years.

However, like every good TV show, you can’t have the main character remain happy too long. The experimental procedure House went through after he had been shot and the end of season two started to wear off. The pain was coming back. It wasn't too long until House started ingesting his favorite pain meds again. By the middle of the season House was hobbling around with his cane again and was as ornery as ever.

Creating this drama was great for the show. It allowed the viewers to see what House would be like with two functioning legs. He was just as mean as ever, but we saw him running places and how happy it made him to be normal again. And then to see House fall back into pain and Vicodin, see him degenerate, was almost painful to watch. This was a great move on behalf of the writers.

Secondly, the third season was the season to introduce us to Detective Tritter. Tritter started off as just another patient House was rude to. But once House was rude with him, Tritter stood up to him, something most other patients wouldn’t dare do. House, not to be out done, embarrassed and insulted Tritter. However, one night shortly after that incident, House got pulled over by Tritter while driving home. Tritter noticed House popping pills and wanted to get after him for drug abuse and drug dealing.

Tritter’s harassment started off relatively small, but became more aggressive. Soon Tritter interrogated Cuddy, Wilson, and even House’s team about House’s actions. Then, to step it up a notch, Tritter began freezing the bank accounts of Wilson and House’s team. Things escalated until it came for House to go to court and defend himself. House, of course, got off thanks to Cuddy lying for him.

Tritter is one of the most important characters of the third season, and possibly the entire show. House is a terrifying figure to some. He is tall, mean looking, and bad-tempered. He intimidates people on a regular basis. However, Tritter is the first character to really challenge House. Tritter was bigger, cutthroat, and clever. He was the perfect nemesis for House. Tritter got Wilson to betray House, the police to raid House’s apartment and confiscate hundreds of pills, and, most shockingly, Tritter got House to go to rehab. Sure, the rehab was rigged, but nobody else has pushed House that far. For that, Tritter will be one of House’s greatest opponents.

And what is House without bizarre cases? The third season had some of the weirdest and most interesting cases to date. Early in the season was the kid who was admitted and claimed to have been abducted by aliens. Tests ran on him were inconclusive, and the kid dug out a piece of titanium from the back of his neck, allegedly put there by aliens. House’s team was confused by this, and when they found DNA in the boy that wasn’t his, the case gets that much trickier.

Another notable case is the one with the CIPA (Congenital Insensitivity to Pain with Anhidrosis) patient who was in a car accident with her mom. They ran tests on her, and even though everything seemed fine, her condition kept getting worse. The fact she couldn’t feel pain made it much harder to diagnose her problems, which made the team resort to more intense exams. One of these tests included having the girl stick her hand in scalding hot water. By the end of the episode, the answer to her problems was one you’d never expect.

And lastly, the third season is the best because it marks the last season House’s original team was together. House, in a fit of anger, fired Chase. Foreman resigned after deciding he doesn’t want to end up like House. And Cameron resigns to be with Chase. This first team carried the show for three years and left a lot for the new team to live up to. So, maybe the best of four seasons isn’t too amazing of an accomplishment, but any new season will have to try hard to beat it.

I Hate Emo Music So Much I Cut Myself

Music, more than any other branch of the media, is subjective. Two people can hear the same song and get completely different messages from it. And besides the meaning of the lyrics, different sounds appeal to people. Some people may really love guitar solos in metal bands. Others love the rhythmic vocals of R&B songs. So, when talking about music, it is difficult to get a large group of people to agree on what is good and what is not. With that said, emo music is pretty much terrible.

I’ll begin with the aesthetic aspect of emo music. The songs just don’t sound good. The vocals are whiny. The Used illustrates this point exactly. Bert McCracken shows how shrill he can be in the song “All That I’ve Got” within the first 30 seconds. Besides the piercing singing, there is also the rasping screaming featured in many songs. A great example of this is in “I’m Not Okay” by My Chemical Romance. It’s featured throughout the song, but can be specifically heard around the 2:50 mark. The screams are as though the singer gave up on being harmonious and just wanted to be loud.

I mean, I kind of get it. The screams are for the parts of the songs where the singer needs to convey extra emotion. They scream for the parts where the lyrics get “deep.” Well, let me tell you about those emotional lyrics. They’re nonsense. In “Silver Bullet” by Hawthorne Heights, the lyrics say, “Got a single silver bullet/ Shot right through my heart/ To prove I can’t survive/ Without you.” I’m not saying songs about lost love are bad. Many great songs have been written on the subject, such as “Now That It’s Over” by Everclear. But it’s the way emo lyrics go about it. Much like the singing, the lyrics sound whiny. There’s no dignity in them. The words clearly say this man is going to die without this woman. His life will be over all because of this one incident. I’ve felt like this before, don’t get me wrong. But I never wrote about it and got rich. I have a bit much self-respect for that.

So emo music sounds bad and the lyrics are garbage. All that is left is the band members themselves, and they are no saving grace. I like to be diverse when speaking on subjects like this to show it isn’t just a band here or there that sucks, but when it comes to band members, there is a specific target I enjoy: Gerard Way. He is the frontman and lead vocalist for My Chemical Romance. He is the first experience I had with the emo genre and I have yet to recover. A friend of mine wanted to watch the making of th video for “I’m Not Okay” a while back, and I, being a good friend, obliged. However, as soon as I heard what the song was, I was in a constant state of agony. Yes, the song was bad, but what was worse was looking at Way. In the video he looks as though he had been sprayed in the face with mace. It isn’t mace, of course, it’s eye shadow. Bright red eye shadow. I’m not saying men can’t wear make-up. I’m saying nobody should wear make-up that makes them look that bad, though. On top of his eye shadow catastrophe, he is the whitest man on Earth with jet black hair (dyed no doubt). And, the cherry on top this fashion nightmare is the fact his hair is greasy. That’s just not okay.

Emo music sucks for more reasons than this, but these are the reasons most closely attached to the music itself. If I wanted to, I could throw in the fashion trends that have been spurred because of the genre, or I could throw in the emotional trends, both shown in this video with clarity. In the end, though, when it comes to taste in music, the music itself is what’s most important. And when it comes down to it, emo music just sucks.

My Week in Media 6/22/08

Everything’s Eventual

Stephen King’s Everything’s Eventual is a collection of short stories published in 2002. There are 14 short stories in the book, and if you like King, most of them are good. He does something different with these stories than he has done with previous ones. The stories in this book aren’t all about the dark and macabre. Instead, there are quite a few “realistic” stories, such as that of a man who is about to be autopsied before he’s dead and the fictional story of the Dillinger gang.

I liked how he departed from the typical spook stories. When reading the autopsy story, I felt as though it wasn’t King writing it. There’s nothing wrong with knowing King wrote the story, but it’s a good thing King can shift his voice after all of these years.

The collection isn’t without King’s usual scary tales, though. One of my favorites is 1408, which was recently made into a movie starring John Cusak and Samuel L. Jackson. The story is about an author who writes reviews on haunted locations but is a skeptic on the subject. So, he’s told about this haunted room in a hotel and wants to stay in it to see if ghosts actually do exist. I won’t ruin it for you, but the room is more than what the author was expecting.

Overall, it was a good short story collection, but not King’s best. If you’re looking for his best, I’d go for Night Shift

Be Kind Rewind

Michel Gondry’s Be Kind Rewind stars Jack Black, Mos Def, and Danny Glover. It is about the owner and employees of a run down video (VHS only) rental store in Possaic, New Jersey where a famous jazz singer was born. The store was going under and while the owner was away, Black’s character accidentally erased all of the tapes due to be magnetized, dooming the small business. Def and Black, desperate to supply a copy Ghostbusters for an old lady, decided to make their own version. This act snowballs into them making many other remakes, and of course, trouble comes shortly thereafter.

I liked this movie a lot, but it was very different than what I was expecting. The synopsis I read for it and the trailer I saw for it both made me believe this was going to be a straight forward comedy, but it’s more heart warming than that. It wasn’t as funny as it was a plain old good movie. It’s a fair trade off, I think.

Cel Damage

The now out of business, Pseudo Interactive’s game Cel Damage is a cartoony vehicular combat game released for the Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube. There’s not a real story to it, but I will try to explain it anyway. The game is about a cartoon show in which the characters battle each other repeatedly. Yeah, that’s the best I got.

I’m a bit partial to the vehicular combat genre, and considering the lack of games in the genre, Cel Damage is a welcomed addition. The main mode is a free for all battle where you have to score 500 points to win. There are 12 different levels, and a large arsenal of weapons to pick up on the battle field. The weapons are cartoon based such as a giant axe, harpoon gun, boxing gloves, holes your enemies can fall in to, and giant saw blades to name a few.

I like the entire cartoon effect the game has. It’s light hearted, but not too childish. It’s easy to pick up and play, but takes time to really get good at using the weapons. Because it’s a rather old game, and an unpopular one at that, I bought it for four dollars. Even if it isn’t the greatest game in the world, it was worth the money I spent.

The Future of Nintendo (Home Console Version)

The GameCube era is gone. That purple lunchbox is a thing of the past. Now Nintendo can live without shame thanks to the Wii. Regardless of what core (“dedicated”) gamers think, the Wii is selling magnificently and is therefore a success. In the year and some change the Wii has been out, it has already outsold the GameCube. So, after more than five years of being ridiculed, mocked, and jeered on the home console front, Nintendo can finally raise its head high and be proud of itself. They developed something innovative and fun, and even after a year and a half of being released, the Wii is still hard to find.

But now Nintendo has the job of keeping its status. It’s easy to be successful for a while, but maintaining success is more difficult. In order for the Wii to remain in good standing with the public, it’ll need to improve online play, develop more mature titles, maintain online content, and release more first-party titles.

Online play is an important facet in gaming. Many gamers won’t consider playing a game if it doesn’t have some sort of online play. Microsoft and Sony have both shown the importance of online gaming, and if Nintendo wants to stay relevant, then they’ll have to push themselves harder. Super Smash Bros. Brawl is one of the first games to fully utilize the online capabilities of the Wii, and it was disappointing.

“For the most part, the non-online part, 'Brawl' is an amazing game. But the online play is lah-ha-ha-ghee,” a gamer said in his blog. “Sometimes Nintendo really makes me wonder. It's as if they assumed no one would want to try out this new-fangled online feature of a game the company has delayed over and over and over.” There’s been more success with Mario Kart Wii, but Nintendo will need to have more than just one game that plays well online if the company hopes to do well.

Since Nintendo targets a wide, family-based audience, it is seen as a childish company. Cooking Mama, Wii Fit, and the myriad of other casual-gamer oriented games have been supporting this conclusion. Unfortunately, this watering-down of video games upsets or disinterests many gamers who want mature content in their games. These gamers look for something along the lines of Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto, Halo, and etc. In order to satisfy this demographic, Nintendo should make some games on the more mature side.

No More Heroes was a step in the right direction, and the recently announced game Mad Mad World looks to be taking a bigger step in that direction. What would be a better idea would be to release a mature game with online play. That way the replay value would keep up, and the mature gamers will spread the good word.

The Virtual Console was a smart move by Nintendo. Many gamers have fond memories of playing their NES, SNES, or N64 games, but can’t any more. This way, for a fee, gamers can play those games again and live up their nostalgia. Nintendo also made the brilliant move of getting the rights to sell Sega, Neo-Geo, and Turbografx games. And if this wasn’t enough, Nintendo out did itself with WiiWare, original downloadable games. WiiWare games must be made with certain graphical and size limitations, but they still get good marks. LostWinds, one of the first released WiiWare games, is a sterling example. The only problem stemming from the Virtual Console is the lack of storage space on the Wii. Nintendo seems to acknowledge this, but gives no real answers.

People love Nintendo because of its franchises. Mario and Link are a part of nearly every gamer’s childhood. And the games that come out are great. Super Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess are both awesome games for the Wii, but this isn’t enough. It was seven years between Majora’s Mask and Twilight Princess. It was 12 years between Mario 64 and Super Mario Galaxy, not counting Super Mario Sunshine. There hasn’t been another true Donkey Kong or Kirby game since the days of the N64.

Nintendo needs to delve into its first party titles more. Not just plaster Mario’s face on a racing game, or Donkey Kong’s face on a rhythm game. If Nintendo were to release one good first-party title a year, then that would be enough to satisfy most core gamers. Mario one year, Zelda the next, then Donkey Kong, then Kirby, then Samus, so on and so forth. That’d give Nintendo at least five years to create another game of a certain franchise.

This isn’t to say Nintendo should give up on the spin-offs. Those are great. Super Mario Strikers is one of the best Wii games out. But they should focus on what made their characters popular in the first place.

Nintendo is having a great run with the Wii, but if they want it to be a long distance run and not a sprint, then they need fix the problems they have. This could be a great era for Nintendo, but that’s in Nintendo’s hands.

Week in the Media 6/15/08

The Regulators:

Ideally, I won’t write about books, or anything for that matter, that came out over ten years ago. However, I read what interests me, and often times that means I read older books. I recently finished Richard Bachman’s The Regulators, which was released in 1996. It’s about a number of families who live on a suburban block in Ohio and the attack they must face together. In the book, the cozy block is attacked by violent Power Ranger types called MotoKops. The thing is the MotoKops aren’t real, they’re TV characters. And if they were real, they presumably wouldn’t be killing innocent people. Then, little by little, the block changes into an entirely different setting.

I won’t go into any further detail about the book itself except to say I liked it. It’s what I would expect of a Bachman book, but this is by far his most mystical. His other works (Roadwork, The Long Walk, The Running man) are all based in physical universe. Nothing unexplainable happens there. Nothing spiritual or magical happens. The Regulators is the opposite. A large piece of the plot is based in the existence in of another realm. This doesn’t make it bad, just different. And in this case, different is good.

House M.D., season 4:

I’m a fair pace behind everybody in terms of TV because I have to watch it on the internet. So it wasn’t until recently I was able to finish off the newest (4^th) season of House M.D. The season as a whole was pretty good, but not fantastic. I liked the game show he ran in order to get his new crew. It let us get to know a number of characters, and since most of them were eliminated, the game show setup kept us wondering who’d be gone next. I was happy with the team he eventually picked. Kutner and 13 were my two top picks, and I preferred Taub to Cutthroat Bitch.

I’m glad the former team members aren’t completely gone. I’ve always been ambivalent to Chase, but the fact Cameron and Foreman are still there is a huge bonus for me. Especially Foreman; he’s my favorite of them all.

The cases were as interesting as ever and this season satisfied me. It just lacked the drama I was hoping for. It’s tied with the 2^nd season for my second place, and season three will forever be my favorite.

The Happening:

A lot of people do not like M. Night Shyamalan. Like, at all. I don’t get it. I think he’s a great director, even if a few of his films aren’t so great. So, when I talk about The Happening, keep in mind I don’t hate the guy.

Compared to the rest of his film catalogue, I’d place The Happening smack dab in the middle. It would place underneath Unbreakable and Signs, but above The Village and The 6^th Sense.

As far as acting goes, everybody was great. Mark Wahlberg, who is in about 90% of the movie, played a science teacher. Wahlberg, more than anything else, is funny in the movie. It’s a dramatic movie, and there’s plenty of drama, but he is a funny character. First, he’s funny in a comical sense. He teases his students and proves his sanity in unique ways. But then he is also funny in a weird way. His character doesn’t seem quite normal. He’s a little quirky.

Zooey Deschanel and John Leguizamo co-star in the film and they’re both good, too. Deschanel is quickly being typecast as a neurotic woman, a role she plays well, but I’d hate to see her limited in such a way. Leguizamo plays a math teacher who works with Wahlberg. He’s pretty funny, too. Funny-funny and weird-funny.

There’s a scene in the movie that I found amazing. It’s been shown on national television, so I don’t feel as though I’m spoiling anything by writing about it. When the group Wahlberg and Deschanel are with travels through a field, they hear another, larger group behind them. The other group is positioned behind a hill, so Wahlberg and company can’t see them. All they can do is hear paced gunfire. Wahlberg’s group stops and tries to figure out what to do, and they all put pressure on Wahlberg to decide. The camera focuses on Wahlberg’s face while his group is panicking and while the gun fires as steadily as a metronome. This scene is my favorite in the movie because I could feel the pressure and stress being put on to Wahlberg’s character. And not being able to see what was happening on the other side of the hill was a lot more thrilling than if the camera had shown it. It was a perfect scene in a pretty average movie.

House of the Dead 2 & 3 Return:

I love rail shooters. They aren’t the deepest games in the world, but they are fun, and a large part of my childhood was spent playing Area 51 and House of the Dead. And now, thanks to the controls of the Wii, rail shooters can make a good showing at home. I had never played House of the Dead 2 or 3 before playing the Wii version. They’re both pretty fun, though.

House of the Dead 2 has some of the cheesiest dialogue in video game history. The characters I save I would rather kill just because of how bad the voice acting is. The graphics are barely better than House of the Dead, if at all. The appeal is in the fact that the game is so cheesy, it’s fun.

House of the Dead 3 is a bit different. The graphics are a lot better in this installment, and a lot of the cheesiness has been taken out. A perk for me is that instead of using a handgun like in the two previous games, you have to use a shotgun, possibly one of my favorite guns to use in a video game. Like House of the Dead 2, I don’t pay attention to the story, though. It’s not worth it. The story is like a poor man’s Resident Evil. If I want a zombie story, I’ll go to the franchise that does it the best.

The games are fun, though. I play them using the Wii zapper. It doesn’t require the nun chuck attachment, so all you need to do is pop in the Wii remote and begin playing. Also, like in the arcade versions, you have to point off the screen in order to reload. This was a particularly nice feature for me, as it adds to the nostalgia factor.

Iron Man Review

I have been a fan of Iron Man since I was a kid. Not of the comics, though. I didn't buy my first comic book until I was 13, and then the first comic I bought was a Deadpool comic. But I loved Iron Man through his toy lines and cartoon series. It amazed me how many different suits one man could have. He had armor for every situation. He had stealth armor, underwater armor, outer space armor, subterranean armor and even armors as specific as Hulk-Buster or Thor-Buster armor. I think the various power suits interested me because of how big of a fan I was of Mega Man, a video game character who also various armors, but who knows.

Finally the day came when I started reading his comics. It wasn't long until I was an Iron Man expert. His comics were interesting to me because I was used to stories where the protagonist was the under dog, but Iron Man was different. Tony Stark, the man behind the mask, was the exact opposite of an under dog. He was an upper dog, if you will. He’s rich, charming, and Republican. What more does a man need to succeed in life? Look at Spiderman. He lives in a slummy apartment or with his aunt. He’s a photographer for the Daily Bugle, so obviously he’s a loony liberal. The X-Men are ostracized by society for being different. All of the money and conservative values couldn't save them from being outcasts. Tony Stark, in the universe the Marvel writers created, sits at the top of the food chain.

I’ll state right now I don’t consider Iron Man a super hero. He doesn't do things for the good of the world. In the original series, he was a crusader against Communism. This is what I consider political rhetoric. Also, he travels the world and fights people who steal his technology. I don’t consider this super heroism; I consider this responsible capitalism. Tony Stark wants to make some money, which is respectable in a capitalistic society, but at the same time, he wants to do it the “right” way. What is right or wrong is subjective, but we learn Stark’s definition of it through his comic books. So, while he may not be a super hero, he at least has an interesting story.

The premise of Iron Man is Tony Stark, a government funded weapons inventor, was testing a new device overseas during the Vietnam War. During the test, Stark was ambushed and kidnapped by the Viet Cong. When Stark woke up, he found himself in a P.O.W. camp and was blackmailed into creating a weapon for his captors. On top of this, a piece of shrapnel was embedded in his chest and was moving closer to his heart. Stark would be dead in less than a week unless he agreed to his captors’ orders. He agreed to build a weapon for the communists, but instead built a suit to save his life and fight his way out of the camp.

Instead of having the film take place during the Vietnam War, director Jon Favreau set the movie a conflict in the Middle East. The terrorist organization is called the Ten Rings, and they have been buying Stark’s weapons without his knowledge and using them for evil. This keeps up with the original idea pretty well. However, this poses a problem for me.

I understand Favreau didn't want to change the origin too much, but the terrorist organization is made up of only brown-skinned people from the Middle East area. I don’t believe characterizations like this should be continued, even if it is to help the accuracy of the film adaptation. In the scenes where Tony Stark was taken back to the caves and filmed, my face actually blushed because I was embarrassed by what was happening. I could only guess how people of Middle Eastern descent felt.

On the other hand, the original Iron Man origin was pretty offensive in itself. The warlord who captured Tony Stark was drawn as a stereotypical Asian with slanted eyes and buckteeth. Maybe Favreau wanted to keep the offensive material, but update it to fit today’s global climate. That isn't meant to be an excuse for Favreau, but a way for me to understand his point of view. Still, after watching the film several times, I would have preferred something along the line domestic terrorists. It would have fit the story well enough and avoided creating a group of “Others.” Maybe then I could watch the first half of the film without getting knots in my stomach.

The next part of the film centered on Tony Stark changing his business practices, throwing away the government weapons contracts, and improving the design of his suit to destroy any of his weapons that may have gotten into the wrong hands. There’s a lot of conflict in regards Stark quitting his weapons program, and there’s a lot of humor involved in Stark developing his suit.

In the final part of the movie, Stark realizes Stane has been responsible for selling weapons to the terrorists, and that Stane is actually working on a power suit of his own. It ends in a one sided but entertaining battle, and then the film wraps up with the greatest press conference ever held. Also, there’s a bonus scene after the film I will go into later.

So, the story as a whole was pretty good. I was a little bored in the beginning when Stark was held captive, but once Stark made it back to the States, all was good. The writing was great, too. I’ll try not to delve too much into the acting aspect yet, but Stark’s one-liners were perfect. The question Stark answered about how many Maxim cover girls he slept with was priceless and fit perfectly with who Stark is. Stane transitioning from loyal business partner to backstabber was great. Had I not known about his character, I would have trusted him until the last third of the movie, give or take a few minutes. Rhodes as the upset best friend worked well, too. The writers did a good job keeping his personality the same from the comics. And Pepper Potts, Tony Stark’s personal assistant, was as strong as I remembered her being, never afraid to put Stark in his place.

The acting was perfect. More than any other character, Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark carried the film. There’s a good chunk of film where it’s Stark by himself, so Downey’s performance was vital. Every quip was perfectly delivered, Stark’s nuances shown through brilliantly, and, most importantly, Downey became Tony Stark. He was exactly how I imagined the character would be if brought to life.

Without a good villain, a good hero means nothing, so onto Jeff Bridges playing Obadiah Stane. In the first half of the film, Jeff Bridges is as lovable as I remember him ever being, granted he has the evildoer hairstyle (bald with a menacing beard). But he acted friendly and had very kind eyes. I would call them terrifyingly kind eyes. He reminded me of my grandpa. But when it was required, Jeff Bridges was able to turn into an actual villain. He would control the scene with his presence. One scene I found him particularly scary in was when Pepper Potts was downloading Stane’s files from Stark Enterprises, and Stane walked in on her. A lot of it was writing, but a lot of it was Bridges’s presence as an actor. He was able to portray that cool, threatening vibe I don’t see in many movies.

The other actors all performed well. Terrence Howard played James Rhodes, Tony Stark’s best friend. He was able to express in few words how close he and Stark were, and how much he cared for Stark when he went missing. And it’s in that lack of words that true friendship is expressed. But also, when it was time to be pissed off at Stark, Howard was able do that too. Gwenyth Paltrow, who played Pepper Potts, was good, too. Pepper Potts doesn't strike me as an easy role. Potts loves Stark, but she can’t show it because he is her boss. Potts is so conservative with herself that she doesn't want to appear like just another knot on Stark’s belt. At the same time, she cares about him and wants to be with him. Potts is very professional and keeps Stark in his place when he needs it. Paltrow was very good at this. She has a sarcastic tone she would use whenever she needed Stark to stop thinking like an adolescent. In a scene where Potts had to help Stark replace the arc reactor in his chest, Paltrow conveyed confusion, worry, fear, anxiety, and panic all in one. Thinking in retrospect, I think Paltrow is the perfect woman to play Pepper Potts.

If Iron Man is nothing else, it is glamorous. Tony Stark is a rich playboy, after all. He should be the epitome of glamour and fame, and this movie doesn't fail. Stark’s mansion is very elegant and modern. His cars, Audi vehicles, look fantastic, as does everything that’s a product of Stark’s lifestyle. My favorite personal touch is Stark’s private jet. The stripper pole that comes from the floor is something I imagine in every private jet.

The most important aspect of this movie is the suit. Iron Man is the suit. If the suit looks terrible, then the movie will be terrible, too. However, Industrial Lights and Magic (my favorite special effects house who also did the effects of last year’s Transformers) blew away all of my prior expectations. There are scenes where the suit is real and scenes where the suit is CGI, but I can hardly tell which is which. The suit was detailed enough that after every flight or conflict you could see small scratches in the armor. After the final fight between Stane and Stark, the suit is especially smashed. This movie cost $140 million and it seems like ever cent was well placed.

So, shockingly enough, I loved Iron Man. Every aspect I can think of was fantastic. As good as the film was, Favreau couldn't leave it there. He had to one up himself. After the credits there is a special scene. It shows Tony Stark arriving to his mansion after the final press conference. Stark enters and his computer system, Jarvis, welcomes him, but its voice warps and fades out. Stark knows there must be an intruder and he calls out to them. Stark sees a shadow in the distance and demands to know who they are and what they want. The figure answers and comes into the light. It’s Nick Fury, the director of S.H.I.E.L.D., played by Samuel L. Jackson. Fury gives Stark a minor tongue lashing for his arrogance, and then mentions a new initiative; the Avengers Initiative. Then it’s over.

Iron Man was a huge part of my childhood. The hours I spent playing with the toys, the mornings I’d spend watching the cartoon, and the few video games that were centered were all integral parts of my past. I never thought I’d be immersed in the child-like wonder I was when I first discovered Iron Man, but this movie did it. The few who saw the movie with me could vouch for that. Every action sequence, every flight, ever repulsor blast; it transformed me to my seven year-old self. And to feel that amazed again, well, it was incredible.

This Week in the Media

Boom Blox:

Boom Blox is a game made for Nintendo’s Wii by Steven Spielberg and Electronic Arts. It is a puzzle game that involves the player knocking over, pulling, sliding, colliding, and blowing up blocks. There are hundreds of puzzles to solve by yourself and many games to play with friends, such as shooting games and a Jenga-like mode. There is also a creation mode where you can build your own puzzles.

Puzzle games are one of my favorite genres of games. That may make me a nerd, but when they’re good, puzzle games can be addictive and lots of fun. And Boom Blox is a good puzzle game. The Single player mode is a lot of fun, mostly thanks to the motion controls of the Wii. The motions to move a block or tile mimics the motion you'd use in real life very well. The game simple and enjoyable, a lot like Tetris. The best part of the game is the Jenga multiple player mode. I have been playing it with my room mate most nights since we got it, and it’s exciting to see who’ll mess up first and make the structure crash. It's as exciting as Jenga is, at least. Bonus note- It makes a fun drinking game, too.

The game is good, but it costs $50, and I can’t endorse that price tag for a puzzle game. It probably cost so much because Speilberg’s name is attached to it. If you’re interested in it, either rent it or wait for it to go down in price.

Choke:

Choke is a 2001 novel written by Chuck Palahniuk, who is also the author of Fight Club. It is about a man named Victor Mancini who purposefully chokes on food in restaurants in order to con the person who saves his life out of money. Victor does this because he works at a terrible minimum wage job and needs the money to keep his mom in the nursing home she is in. Also, Victor is a sex addict. I’d go deeper but I don’t want to give out spoilers just in case somebody reads this and wants to check out the book.

I never read any other books by Palahniuk, but this one hasn’t made a fan out of me. It isn’t bad, though. The story is interesting enough, although I have a slight phobia of nursing homes which made it hard to read at times. Victor being a sex addict and knowing other sex addicts added a lot of interesting material, but in the long run I just didn’t like it.

I don’t like Palahniuk’s writing style. He spends the first chapter telling the reader not to read the book. That’s a unique way of starting off a book, true, but I don’t like being toyed with. If you tell me not to read your book, odds are I won’t. Reverse psychology is dangerous that way. Also, he repeats a lot of things. Stale isn’t the right word, but it’s the first that comes to mind.

Palahniuk was a very popular author amongst my friends, so I guess I was just expecting something more. But like I said, it wasn’t bad, it just wasn’t my style.

Season 1 of Burn Notice:

Burn Notice is a new show on the USA network. I have a long history with USA, and it’s a good history. The War Next Door, a show about Kennedy Smith, a super secret agent who just wants to retire, becomes next door neighbors with his seemingly indestructible nemesis, Kriegman, debuted on the USA network. It was a fun show, but only lasted 13 episodes. As a side note, it was made by the people who created The Adventures of Pete and Pete. Also, USA brought me Monk and Psych, both shows I like a lot. Especially Monk. I watched that show religiously for a while. But anyway, on with Burn Notice.

Burn Notice is about spy Michael Westen who gets fired for an unknown reason. The government virtually banishes him to Miami to start a new life, but Westen wants to know why he was fired. The show is good. It has a great blend of action, intrigue, and comedy. The writing is smart and the actors were well chosen my favorite casting job being Bruce Campbell as the lush best friend. The first season is over, but the second will premiere on July 10, 2008.

World War Hulk:

World War Hulk is a Marvel comic book miniseries that takes place after Planet Hulk. In Planet Hulk, the Hulk was sent against his will to an alien planet where he could live in peace without injuring anybody on Earth. The planet turned out to be ruled by an evil King, and the Hulk led a revolution against him. Once the revolution was won, Hulk was crowned the king and married his love interest. But then the spacecraft Hulk was sent on exploded, killing Hulk’s wife and unborn child. The Hulk suspects the spacecraft was detonated by the people who sent him to the planet, the Illuminati. The Illuminati is made up of some of the most powerful characters in the Marvel Universe, such as Professor X, Blackbolt, Iron Man, Reed Richards, Namor, and Dr. Strange. Enraged more than ever before, the Hulk decides to come back to Earth to get revenge on the ones who did this.

I really liked the story line of the miniseries, and the writing was good enough. It wasn’t the same caliber of the Civil War miniseries, but it was above average. There were plenty of good fights, culminating in the fight between the Hulk and the Sentry. The art was different from what I was expecting, but still good. It was just cartoonier than I was expecting. Overall, if you are in the need of a comic book miniseries, this is as good as any other.

Slow Days

I am officially out of school for the semester, and this will be the first summer semester I've taken off since beginning my quest for higher learning. What this means for you, is that I will be updating more frequently. Eventually. It's going to be a slow start, but I'll work up to a good speed. Scout's honor.

I mean, with The Incredible Hulk and The Dark Knight coming out, how can I not have anything to say. Plus, you can't forget Hancock, Get Smart, and any of the myriad of films debuting this season. Summer is a great time for the media.

By the way, I saw Iron Man. I might have mentioned that before. I'm working on a review of it. I don't it to be some half-hearted pile of words. I want it to reflect my experience. It'll be coming within the week.

One movie I forgot to mention my excitement over is the new Indiana Jones movie, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The Indiana Jones trilogy (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom, and Last Crusade) is the only collection of movies without a weak point. The Jurassic Park, Rambo, original Die Hard, Beverly Hills Cop trilogies, along with others, all had at least one ungood movie. Maybe it wasn't a terrible movie, such as Die Hard with a Vengeance, but it obviously didn't live up to the other two. Indiana Jones is different though. Temple of Doom is hands down my least favorite, but it is still a great movie.

So, I'm curious as to what the next one will bring. Harrison Ford is now older than Sean Connery was when he played Indy's father in the Last Crusade. Will Ford's age effect the quality of the new film. Shia LaBeouf appears to be a main character, and while I think he is a good enough actor, will he fit in to the Jones universe well? Also, the Nazis, Jones's classic adversaries, will be replaced with Russians. So many things are different, I wonder if it'll feel like one of the other movies or not.

If it doesn't feel like one of the classic Indiana Jones movies, it's not necessarily a bad thing. I just hope it is good, in some sense of the word. I hope it's entertaining, thrilling, funny, action-packed, and most of all, nostalgic. Watching Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was a Christmas tradition in my family, and it was the most awesome tradition my family ever had. I grew up watching these movies, and if this one sucks for one reason or another, I will be very disappointed (re: Star Wars Episode I, II, and III).

But enough about things I am looking forward to. What have I been up to? Well, WiiWare debuted for the Wii on May 12, 2008. For those of you not in the know, WiiWare is a channel on the Wii menu where you can download original games made for the Wii. They are small sized games as to save you space on your Wii's hard drive, and they cost, on average, between $10- $15. I played one of the games, LostWinds. In this game, you play as two characters at once. With the Wii Remote, you are a wind spirit. You can blow gusts of wind and move objects and etc. With the nunchuk, you control a kid. You, as the player, have to use both characters to solve puzzles and bring peace back to the game's fictional world. The game cost $10 and was about four hours worth of game play. That works out to $2.50 per hour of game play, which I am okay with.

The game was good. The graphics were surprisingly nice. I wasn't expecting much, so maybe I was easy to impress, but I was put in a minor state of awe all the same. The game play
was smooth. Pushing the kid around with wind was fun, as were the other techniques you learned (I'd prefer not to spoil anything). As far as a puzzle/adventure game goes, this one was pretty good. However, I am looking forward to more of what WiiWare has to offer.

Also, I have been watching past seasons of House, MD. I'm currently in the middle of the second season. The show is good, but it's been on long enough for you to know if you like it or not. I like it, and it's neat to compare and contrast the current season with the past seasons. I'd say they are different shows. House really grows into his crankiness in the current (4th) season. This is a good thing because if House was a nice guy, I wouldn't care about him or the show. In the earlier seasons I like how big of an impact that soap opera House is addicted to has on him and the show. If there is one thing the same between the two seasons, it's that I still love Foreman. Best character in the show. He's smart, not afraid of House, and has a good set of morals/ethics.

Unfortunately, this is all I have for now. Expect to hear from me again soon about the Iron Man movie.

Ranting

Let me speak a moment about video games. This argument has been made by better people than me, but, as far as I can tell, I am one of the stronger proponents of it. Video games need to stop sucking. Well, they don't "suck" per se. At least not in the typical definition. What video games are doing is trying to be overly mature like an annoying younger brother. This recent occurrence is best shown in the fact that colors are disappearing from our video games in lieu of a brown tint. For simplicity, I will entitle this happening as "The Browning."

Video games were born of color, once the technology came into existence. Obviously, Pong was not in technicolor. However, look at games on the Atari 2600, Colecovision, and Intellivision. Every game from Frogger to Bomb Squad contained vivid colors and for more reason than colors are pretty. They were colorful because what the games were depicting were fantasy; just figments of somebody's imagination. Video games weren't trying to be realistic. Developers knew their audience, and their audience wanted to feel like they were tripping on LSD. That is perfectly admirable. But now things have changed.

Video games aren't only for the fat, loser kids who sit alone in their darkened basement trying to beat the next dungeon in Legend of Zelda. Video games are, for lack of a better word, "cool" now. Well, some are. See, games like Mario Galaxy for the Wii or Ratchet and Clank are considered to be either gay or childish. The "cool" games are, of course, sports games (Madden) and games that have succumbed to The Browning. These are primarily first-person shooters, like Crysis and the poster child of them all, Halo. However, The Browing also affects games in the third-person shooter genre such as Army of Two and Gears of War.

I'm not saying The Browning shouldn't exist. I imagine myself feeling the same way if every game was an ocular assault of colors so powerful I went into convulsions. It isn't the fact that these games exist that bother me. It is the fact that these are the games that create the future trends. Halo, with all of its marginally-fun glory, has been a juggernaut in sales. Game developers, as standard human beings, care about money and their own wellbeing, so they take what made Halo so popular and apply it to every game they make from then on.

But, like I said, developers are only doing this to make a buck. If the public would stop buying these games, then they'd stop making them. So, there are two things that need to happen for me to be happy. First, internet game critics need to take their heads out of their rears and judge a game objectively. I know avoiding the media and their hype is difficult to do, but just because WWE.com says Army of Two is going to be amazing, doesn't make it a fact. Hear me Tycho of Penny-Arcade? I love your style of writing and wit, but you have lost your spine when it comes to gaming. I haven't heard you say a bad thing about an over-hyped game in years. Sorry for that tangent, but it had to be said. Anyway, critics need to get back to doing what their job entails: Criticizing.

Secondly, and here is the big one, consumers need to stop buying these games. A game can be perfectly fun without having a dirt-colored tint. Super Mario Strikers, Super Smash Bros.: Brawl, and No More Heroes are all fun games that have many colors. It is you, the consumer, who is stifling the creativity of the video game industry, and, most importantly pissing me off.

To end the video game rant portion of this update, I would like to thank Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation for providing the public with criticisms of games, even those he likes.

Moving on. It is less than two weeks from the Iron Man movie. I am very excited about it, to say the least. Every time I see the trailer I perk up. The action looks great, the acting looks great, the effects look great. This entire movie looks great. I read a review from Australia and they seem to agree. From everything I have been reading, the general public agrees, too. I was very nervous about this movie for a very long time Considering it was first scheduled to be finished by the summer of 2005, I think my anxiety was well placed. However, if you want something done well, it takes time. Look at Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, or Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem. Both of those games had enormous delays, but are considered to be one of the best games for their respective systems. I hope for the best, and if a sequel is created, that it involves either Titanium Man or The Ghost. Both are badass villains, in my opinion.

Even though I am wary of new television series, I will give one a try if it recommended by a friend. So, with said recommendation, I gave Life a try. It is a drama on NBC about a detective who was wrongfully imprisoned for more than ten years and has recently been released and put back on the force. I wasn't a fan of the premise, but I gave the show a shot and watched the first season, and I have to say it was good. It didn't blow me away, and I have small problems with it, such as the weird facial expressions and over0bearing zen-like attitude of the main character, but it is a good show none the less.

Of course, I can't talk about TV without mentioning the recent return of two of my favorite sitcoms, The Office and 30 Rock. The debut episode for both of these shows sucked. The Office was overly dramatic and awkward, and 30 Rock was filmed with a different vibe and hardly even seemed like the same show. However, this last Thursday's episodes were great on both ends. The Office, while still awkward, went back to its roots of taking place at the office. 30 Rock brought back one of my favorite characters, Dennis, and it was a comedic masterpiece.

I saw a pretty weird movie a while ago. It's called Six String Samurai. It takes place in a post-apocalyptic version of the 1950s U.S., and the main character is a martial artist Buddy Holly lookalike with a sword in his guitar. The story is bizarre, but in a good way. The action scenes are actually really well done. A lot better than my expectations. The cinematography was weird, but it went well with the vibe of the movie. If you are an action movie fan, or a fan of weird movies in general, I say you should give it a shot.