Without even realizing it, I'm on something of a Jeff Bridges kick as of late. It started out with TRON, the original, a couple of weeks ago (in anticipation of Legacy), then Legacy, Big Lebowski (technically, Kelly watched this without me, though I have seen it. Most of it), and culminating with True Grit this past weekend.
Phrases like "Oscar Contender" and "Instant Classic" have been tossed around when talking about the remake/reinterpretation of the 1968 novel of the same name (and 1969 film starring John Wayne). From my understanding, this version is much more faithful to the original novel than the '69 film, but never having read the book, I can only go on what I've read about it and what I've been told.
My question is, was this movie supposed to be a comedy? The trailers and advertisements make it out to be the revival of the Western-drama genre, but it seemed to be more tongue-in-cheek than anything. In a film about revenge and murder, there was an awful lot of joking aound and wordplay.
Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed the film and will undoubtedly add it to my collection when it sees a home release, but I don't think it succeeds in what it set out to do. And that is be dramatic.
***SPOILER ALERT***
For example, Matt Damon's character accidentally walks into the ambush Jeff Bridges has set up for the gang he and the girl (I honestly can't remember the actress' name) have been tracking through the Indian Territory. Unable to warn him in time, Damon is wrangled up and is being dragged around by a horse. Before helping him, Bridges rattles off a joke. And then after the fight is over. And then as he is examining Matt Damon's injuries. And then Damon talks funny for the rest of the film.
***END SPOILER***
At no point did I feel the characters were in any real danger or that they wouldn't complete their task of hunting down the killer and bringing him to justice (JUSTICE!!!). I thought everything in the movie was great: The acting (especially the main girl), the feel, everything. It was just too damn funny. Even when something happens at the end, I didn't find it at all to be serious or dramatic. But maybe that's just me.
Some of you may be wondering why I put the word justice (JUSTICE!!!) in parentheses. It's a game that Scott and I started over Twitter regarding the show Smallville. Each season seems to have a theme, and last season's was justice (JUSTICE!!!). So, anytime a character saysthe word justice (JUSTICE!!!), the viewer is supposed to take a drink. I never did it myself, but I gotta imagine that someone playing would get pretty eff'ed up fast (especially in the episode 'Absolute Justice,' where the word was rattled off every 3 seconds). This season's game is The Darkness. So, for anyone brave enough to try it, watch an ep and take a drink anytime the word darkness is used.
Anyway, the point of that last paragraph is the True Grit drinking game. Take a drink every time the word grit is used. You'll be messed up pretty fast.
Speaking of Oscar contenders, I also took the time to see Black Swan. What a total mindf***. It's billed as a psychological thriller and boy does it deliver. It was beautifully acted and somehow actually made me care about the world of ballet, if only for two hours. Between this and Grit for best picture, I'd definitely take this. And not just because there is a very passionate moment between Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis. I mean, yeah, sure it helps (even if there was some freaky stuff going on besides, well, the freaky stuff). But it was still a very strong film without it.
So yeah, there you have it. I'd take a psychological thriller about ballet over a western starring a one-eyed Jeff Bridges. Whodathunkit?
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
Uncharted The Movie: Fillion's Bane
When I downloaded the demo for the first Uncharted game, booted it up, and watched the intro sequence, I was stunned when the main character, Nathan Drake, opened his mouth and was not voiced by Nathan Fillion (who some of you know as Capt. Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly). That's because it appeared someone at Naughty Dog really had a hard-on for the self-described "ruggedly handsome" actor. Nathan Drake bears a striking resemblence to Fillion and yes, they share the same first name.
Recently, talks have been underway of a movie based on the video game franchise. They have a director and writer who decided that the best idea would be to make the film a family affair. So...instead of getting something akin to Raiders of the Lost Ark, we'll get National Treasure. Fantastic. When it came to selecting an actor to portray Drake, Nathan Fillion himself started a Twitter campaign to get the lead role. So, much to dismay of his and the game's fans, it was announced a few weeks ago that Mark Wahlberg would be portraying the wise-cracking, loner, asshole.
I have nothing against Marky Mark, but I would've loved to have seen Fillion in a role that seemed like such a perfect fit. A lot of people said that the man best known for his role on a super short-lived Sci-Fi Western could not carry a blockbuster action movie, and three years ago, when there was a lot of fan support for Fillion to play Hal Jordan in Green Lantern, I would've agreed. The director has also said that he has never heard of Nathan, and the guy was kind of an ass about it.
And what has Wahlberg done that makes him a box office draw? The Happening? Planet of the Apes? The only film I recall seeing because of Wahlberg was Shooter, and I'll admit he was pretty badass in that.
However, he (Fillion) is now the star of his own prime time drama on ABC. Now in its third season, Castle has managed to survive far past his other shows. Now, I'll admit, I have always been immersed in nerd culture, so I knew of the Fillion long before most ever heard the name, but why can't he star in a bigger movie? Espeically now that he has a lot more exposure with Castle?
And why does it seem like all of the high profile projects that fans want to see (like Uncharted or Transformers) go to people who really don't know anthing about or care about the property? The argument there is that filmmakers make movies to appeal to the general audience, not us nerds who made the property popular in the first place. My counter to that is look at Iron Man. That took a comic book character that a surprisingly large number of people claimed to have never heard of, and made him a household name. And how did they do it? By sticking to the source material.
So here's my advice Hollywood: If you insist on adapting a popular franchise on the silver screen, try to get someone who understands why its popular and make a faithful movie.
Recently, talks have been underway of a movie based on the video game franchise. They have a director and writer who decided that the best idea would be to make the film a family affair. So...instead of getting something akin to Raiders of the Lost Ark, we'll get National Treasure. Fantastic. When it came to selecting an actor to portray Drake, Nathan Fillion himself started a Twitter campaign to get the lead role. So, much to dismay of his and the game's fans, it was announced a few weeks ago that Mark Wahlberg would be portraying the wise-cracking, loner, asshole.
I have nothing against Marky Mark, but I would've loved to have seen Fillion in a role that seemed like such a perfect fit. A lot of people said that the man best known for his role on a super short-lived Sci-Fi Western could not carry a blockbuster action movie, and three years ago, when there was a lot of fan support for Fillion to play Hal Jordan in Green Lantern, I would've agreed. The director has also said that he has never heard of Nathan, and the guy was kind of an ass about it.
And what has Wahlberg done that makes him a box office draw? The Happening? Planet of the Apes? The only film I recall seeing because of Wahlberg was Shooter, and I'll admit he was pretty badass in that.
However, he (Fillion) is now the star of his own prime time drama on ABC. Now in its third season, Castle has managed to survive far past his other shows. Now, I'll admit, I have always been immersed in nerd culture, so I knew of the Fillion long before most ever heard the name, but why can't he star in a bigger movie? Espeically now that he has a lot more exposure with Castle?
And why does it seem like all of the high profile projects that fans want to see (like Uncharted or Transformers) go to people who really don't know anthing about or care about the property? The argument there is that filmmakers make movies to appeal to the general audience, not us nerds who made the property popular in the first place. My counter to that is look at Iron Man. That took a comic book character that a surprisingly large number of people claimed to have never heard of, and made him a household name. And how did they do it? By sticking to the source material.
So here's my advice Hollywood: If you insist on adapting a popular franchise on the silver screen, try to get someone who understands why its popular and make a faithful movie.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Those Were the Days...
The holiday season is upon us. It is a time that one is supposed to put the needs and wants of others first (at least when it comes to buying stuff). It is then, with great reluctance, that I sadly admit that I've spent way too much on myself as of late. Most of it being video games (or video juegos for those in Spanish speaking countries).
The shopping spree began in mid-November with the release of Goldeneye for the Wii (I've talked at length about it already, so go check that post if you want my thoughts on the game itself) and continued through last week where I picked up Super Mario Bros. All-Stars (also for the Wii. And a pain in the ass to find, but I'll save that for a different time), Band Hero (it was less than $10 on clearance), and bought Castle Crashers and X-Men: Arcade off the PlayStation Network. That sounds like a lot, but I had gift cards that covered Mario and the two PSN titles, and, well, Band Hero was on the cheap.
Something I noticed about my buying habits there? Three out of five purchases were motivated by nostalgia, those feelings of a simpler time and more awesome gaming than yearly installments of Call of Duty (yeah, I know, Goldeneye is a CoD clone). And it's four out of five if you count Castle Crashers and the fact that I bought it because it's an awesome lil homage to the beat 'em ups of a bygone era (such as the era X-Men: Arcade hails from).
Mario All-Stars is a collection of the SNES ports of the NES Mario games and I had been holding out for those versions of the game since I got the Wii. X-Men Arcade is, well, the X-Men arcade game from the early 90's. I remember using coupon vouchers for free arcade tokens and blowing it all in 15 minutes on that sucker back in the day. And now I feel old. And sad. Because I'm old. Goldeneye, I purchased because it was an update/remake of Goldeneye.
So my question is: How much does nostalgia really influence our lives? There's a whole niche industry that thrives on kids and adults buying stuff simply because they remember it. Look at stores like Hot Topic. They have walls dedicated to things like Power Rangers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turles, and assorted old Nick Toons. And it's stuff we purchase and wear with pride (even though, at the height of its popularity, most of my classmates wouldn't have been caught did in a Power Rangers shirt).
And I've been guilty of buying this stuff. It wasn't for me, I swear. But I did get a Rocko's Modern Life Tee for the girlfriend.
So why do we do it? With video games and movies, where we can actually go back and play/watch the things we remember, they hardly hold up to our memories. If X-Men wasn't a game that everybody and their grandmas had an emulated version on their PC, I'm sure I would've been disappointed with the PSN release. But I knew exactly what I was getting there. Same with Mario and Goldeneye. But yet, we lay our money down for these products in hopes of capturing those days of our youth (and sometimes these come with spiffy new paint jobs, like the Perfect Dark HD game on XBLA).
There wasn't a huge point to this post. Only waxing intellectual-like. I'd invite others to join in with comments and such, but it annoys me when I read a very well-thought out article on other sites and then having it end with "Why don't you let us know what YOU think, whydontcha?"
Like, thanks guys, didn't know what the text box under the COMMENTS section meant. But that's a different story altogether. I had to beat them to death with their own shoes...
The shopping spree began in mid-November with the release of Goldeneye for the Wii (I've talked at length about it already, so go check that post if you want my thoughts on the game itself) and continued through last week where I picked up Super Mario Bros. All-Stars (also for the Wii. And a pain in the ass to find, but I'll save that for a different time), Band Hero (it was less than $10 on clearance), and bought Castle Crashers and X-Men: Arcade off the PlayStation Network. That sounds like a lot, but I had gift cards that covered Mario and the two PSN titles, and, well, Band Hero was on the cheap.
Something I noticed about my buying habits there? Three out of five purchases were motivated by nostalgia, those feelings of a simpler time and more awesome gaming than yearly installments of Call of Duty (yeah, I know, Goldeneye is a CoD clone). And it's four out of five if you count Castle Crashers and the fact that I bought it because it's an awesome lil homage to the beat 'em ups of a bygone era (such as the era X-Men: Arcade hails from).
Mario All-Stars is a collection of the SNES ports of the NES Mario games and I had been holding out for those versions of the game since I got the Wii. X-Men Arcade is, well, the X-Men arcade game from the early 90's. I remember using coupon vouchers for free arcade tokens and blowing it all in 15 minutes on that sucker back in the day. And now I feel old. And sad. Because I'm old. Goldeneye, I purchased because it was an update/remake of Goldeneye.
So my question is: How much does nostalgia really influence our lives? There's a whole niche industry that thrives on kids and adults buying stuff simply because they remember it. Look at stores like Hot Topic. They have walls dedicated to things like Power Rangers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turles, and assorted old Nick Toons. And it's stuff we purchase and wear with pride (even though, at the height of its popularity, most of my classmates wouldn't have been caught did in a Power Rangers shirt).
And I've been guilty of buying this stuff. It wasn't for me, I swear. But I did get a Rocko's Modern Life Tee for the girlfriend.
So why do we do it? With video games and movies, where we can actually go back and play/watch the things we remember, they hardly hold up to our memories. If X-Men wasn't a game that everybody and their grandmas had an emulated version on their PC, I'm sure I would've been disappointed with the PSN release. But I knew exactly what I was getting there. Same with Mario and Goldeneye. But yet, we lay our money down for these products in hopes of capturing those days of our youth (and sometimes these come with spiffy new paint jobs, like the Perfect Dark HD game on XBLA).
There wasn't a huge point to this post. Only waxing intellectual-like. I'd invite others to join in with comments and such, but it annoys me when I read a very well-thought out article on other sites and then having it end with "Why don't you let us know what YOU think, whydontcha?"
Like, thanks guys, didn't know what the text box under the COMMENTS section meant. But that's a different story altogether. I had to beat them to death with their own shoes...
Saturday, December 18, 2010
TRON: Legacy
My hand hurts. I don't know why, it just does. And it's my good hand. My typing hand. When I lean too far on either elbow (I have a laptop and, therefore, type in bed), that is the hand I use to type. So...I don't know how long this is going to go on for (this particular entry, not the hand pain).
Yesterday, I saw TRON: Legacy at a local theater in super ultra 3DXD with 9.5 Surround Sound. I've never been a huge fan of the original film. I was born in '85, three years after its release, so I didn't grow up with it like others have. And I honestly didn't take the time to sit down and watch it from start to finish until about three weeks ago. So, unlike, say, Star Wars, I don't have any particularly fond memories of watching it with my dad on WGN (a station based out of Chicago, IL) or with friends or anything like that. If I had done any of that, maybe my perception of TRON would be different. But, to me, TRON was/is a film that tried to shoehorn in a crapload of inaccurate or made up techno-babble as a way to make a story for what was essentially the world's first video game film (the film heavily featured those new-fangled game machines all the yunguns crowd around in those dark, loud arcade places to waste their quarters on). That said, I didn't hate it. I try to enjoy it for what it is: a mostly cheesy film used to pioneer special effects produced by computers.
So how was TRON: Legacy? Pretty damn good. The special effects were well done. The acting wasn't terrible (something of a rarity in a lot of movies, it seems). And the story was good enough to keep the viewer involved throughout showing off the new lightcycles and jets and whatnot. My two biggest problems: 3D and the de-aging of Jeff Bridges.
The cost of the ticket was $16.50. This was for being at an upscale movie theater (there's a piano player in the ze lobby), the particular screen it was on (one of the larger in the Midwest, if one is to believe the hype) and the fact it was in 3D. And did 3D add anything to the movie? Not really. Most of the time I didn't even notice if a particular scene was meant to be "Three-Dimensional." There is a disclaimer stating that not all of the film is in 3D, but to keep the glasses on anyway, because, yeah...glasses. 3D. It was kind of awkward, that message. I dunno, just didn't sit right with me. It's like the filmmakers knew they could get way with not even having a 3D movie if they just told everyone that it was in 3D. That, and a lot of 3D films tend to be darker (I mean, come on, it's like wearing sunglasses in a darkened room most of the time), so it was kind of hard to see some of the finer details (like costumes, which overall were pretty damn cool).
Why do filmmakerss keep trying to de-age characters for films? I hear it was used to great success in Benjamin Button. I never saw the film (as I recall it was a horror film), so I can't really say whether it looked good, but here, it didn't. There was something off about the way the lips moved, and at times the face even looked off-kilter. Now, this could be explained away in the digital world, but they also used the de-aged Bridges in the opening, a scene that takes place in the real world (yeah, I know, spoiler alert and whatever).
Still, very minor flaws in an otherwise very enjoyable movie. I will definitely purchase it when it comes to a home release and might even see it again in theaters, though probably not in 3D.
Once again, I can't have an enjoyable theater-going experience. I can see why many are opting to wait for Blu-Ray/DVD releases of films, even if it is partially financially motivated. The last couple of movies I've seen there have been babies in the theater (including TRON, which led to a new 'in-joke' amongst my group), kids/teens texting and/or talking for the duration of the film (seriously, you paid $10+ to tap away at your phone for two hours?) and I can't remember the third point I was going to make (it's late, I'm tired, and my wrist still hurts), but I'm sure it involved the decline of society's values and morals. This time, though, it takes a bit to set up.
You see, the theater I went to has a "VIP" section, where you can purchase the tickets and can choose where in the VIP section to sit, barring anyone else already having taken it. I went with a group of friends, the inviter being the one who purchased the tickets. So we (my girlfriend and I) get into the theater, only to find the only two seats left in the reserved row (I know, fancy and whatnot) are on opposite sides of a food table/stand/thing (about the width of a seat and has cup holders, but can be used to hold popcorn, pizza, whatever), so that sucked. Then, throughout the entirety of the movie, the guy to my right kicked me. Was he an antisocial weirdo who was annoyed that somebody dared to sit next to him? Probably. But still, he kept crossing his legs, and whenever he did that, he kicked me. Not wanting a repeat of The Expendables Incident, I let it go. Then, there was the baby. Who brings a baby to a theater of that magnitude (the theater actually has 7.1 SurroundSound and the screen is very, very large)? Still, the baby, not a huge problem, since the movie is pretty loud and the sound drowned out the child. No, the problem was the guy who kept reacting to the baby. Whenever there was a rare lull in the film, this man (I did not know this man) would yell for the baby to be taken to the lobby.
Our new joke is "take the baby to the lobby." It has a variety of uses. Sexual? Sure. Getting the job done (in a nonsexual way)? You betcha.
So, overall. Fantastic movie. Shitty movie-going experience. Now I'm going to go hope my hand doesn't fall off in my sleep.
Yesterday, I saw TRON: Legacy at a local theater in super ultra 3DXD with 9.5 Surround Sound. I've never been a huge fan of the original film. I was born in '85, three years after its release, so I didn't grow up with it like others have. And I honestly didn't take the time to sit down and watch it from start to finish until about three weeks ago. So, unlike, say, Star Wars, I don't have any particularly fond memories of watching it with my dad on WGN (a station based out of Chicago, IL) or with friends or anything like that. If I had done any of that, maybe my perception of TRON would be different. But, to me, TRON was/is a film that tried to shoehorn in a crapload of inaccurate or made up techno-babble as a way to make a story for what was essentially the world's first video game film (the film heavily featured those new-fangled game machines all the yunguns crowd around in those dark, loud arcade places to waste their quarters on). That said, I didn't hate it. I try to enjoy it for what it is: a mostly cheesy film used to pioneer special effects produced by computers.
So how was TRON: Legacy? Pretty damn good. The special effects were well done. The acting wasn't terrible (something of a rarity in a lot of movies, it seems). And the story was good enough to keep the viewer involved throughout showing off the new lightcycles and jets and whatnot. My two biggest problems: 3D and the de-aging of Jeff Bridges.
The cost of the ticket was $16.50. This was for being at an upscale movie theater (there's a piano player in the ze lobby), the particular screen it was on (one of the larger in the Midwest, if one is to believe the hype) and the fact it was in 3D. And did 3D add anything to the movie? Not really. Most of the time I didn't even notice if a particular scene was meant to be "Three-Dimensional." There is a disclaimer stating that not all of the film is in 3D, but to keep the glasses on anyway, because, yeah...glasses. 3D. It was kind of awkward, that message. I dunno, just didn't sit right with me. It's like the filmmakers knew they could get way with not even having a 3D movie if they just told everyone that it was in 3D. That, and a lot of 3D films tend to be darker (I mean, come on, it's like wearing sunglasses in a darkened room most of the time), so it was kind of hard to see some of the finer details (like costumes, which overall were pretty damn cool).
Why do filmmakerss keep trying to de-age characters for films? I hear it was used to great success in Benjamin Button. I never saw the film (as I recall it was a horror film), so I can't really say whether it looked good, but here, it didn't. There was something off about the way the lips moved, and at times the face even looked off-kilter. Now, this could be explained away in the digital world, but they also used the de-aged Bridges in the opening, a scene that takes place in the real world (yeah, I know, spoiler alert and whatever).
Still, very minor flaws in an otherwise very enjoyable movie. I will definitely purchase it when it comes to a home release and might even see it again in theaters, though probably not in 3D.
Once again, I can't have an enjoyable theater-going experience. I can see why many are opting to wait for Blu-Ray/DVD releases of films, even if it is partially financially motivated. The last couple of movies I've seen there have been babies in the theater (including TRON, which led to a new 'in-joke' amongst my group), kids/teens texting and/or talking for the duration of the film (seriously, you paid $10+ to tap away at your phone for two hours?) and I can't remember the third point I was going to make (it's late, I'm tired, and my wrist still hurts), but I'm sure it involved the decline of society's values and morals. This time, though, it takes a bit to set up.
You see, the theater I went to has a "VIP" section, where you can purchase the tickets and can choose where in the VIP section to sit, barring anyone else already having taken it. I went with a group of friends, the inviter being the one who purchased the tickets. So we (my girlfriend and I) get into the theater, only to find the only two seats left in the reserved row (I know, fancy and whatnot) are on opposite sides of a food table/stand/thing (about the width of a seat and has cup holders, but can be used to hold popcorn, pizza, whatever), so that sucked. Then, throughout the entirety of the movie, the guy to my right kicked me. Was he an antisocial weirdo who was annoyed that somebody dared to sit next to him? Probably. But still, he kept crossing his legs, and whenever he did that, he kicked me. Not wanting a repeat of The Expendables Incident, I let it go. Then, there was the baby. Who brings a baby to a theater of that magnitude (the theater actually has 7.1 SurroundSound and the screen is very, very large)? Still, the baby, not a huge problem, since the movie is pretty loud and the sound drowned out the child. No, the problem was the guy who kept reacting to the baby. Whenever there was a rare lull in the film, this man (I did not know this man) would yell for the baby to be taken to the lobby.
Our new joke is "take the baby to the lobby." It has a variety of uses. Sexual? Sure. Getting the job done (in a nonsexual way)? You betcha.
So, overall. Fantastic movie. Shitty movie-going experience. Now I'm going to go hope my hand doesn't fall off in my sleep.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
So That's What That Does...
If you've seen my blog before, then you may have noticed something new when looking at it today: A giant banner ad running down the right side of the page.
If you've never seen my blog before, and still don't know what I'm talking about: There didn't used to be a big banner ad running down the right side of the page.
On the blogger.com page (where I go to write, look at comments, settings, edit posts, etc.) there is a tab marked "Monetize." I never knew what it did, because whenever I looked at the page, it looked weird and scary. So, today I decided to just go ahead and do it. How intrusive could these ads really be?
Well, as it turns out, not very, and very. The first thing I noticed was that the area for the blog entries seems slimmer. Other than that, it seems ok. Not sure if I like it.
It's supposed to be under AdSense, where the ad program scans your viewing history and shoves ads down your throat based on your preferences. So, why then, when my viewing history is made up almost entirely of video game and movie websites, did I get an ad for Blogger.com when I was testing it out.
I'm not sure if I'm gonna keep the AdSense stuff yet, but I thought I might give it a try. And if an ad pops up that you actually find useful, give it click, why don't ya? I do get hundredths of a penny that way...
If you've never seen my blog before, and still don't know what I'm talking about: There didn't used to be a big banner ad running down the right side of the page.
On the blogger.com page (where I go to write, look at comments, settings, edit posts, etc.) there is a tab marked "Monetize." I never knew what it did, because whenever I looked at the page, it looked weird and scary. So, today I decided to just go ahead and do it. How intrusive could these ads really be?
Well, as it turns out, not very, and very. The first thing I noticed was that the area for the blog entries seems slimmer. Other than that, it seems ok. Not sure if I like it.
It's supposed to be under AdSense, where the ad program scans your viewing history and shoves ads down your throat based on your preferences. So, why then, when my viewing history is made up almost entirely of video game and movie websites, did I get an ad for Blogger.com when I was testing it out.
I'm not sure if I'm gonna keep the AdSense stuff yet, but I thought I might give it a try. And if an ad pops up that you actually find useful, give it click, why don't ya? I do get hundredths of a penny that way...
Friday, December 10, 2010
Senor Coach Chief Captain Awesome McAwesome III
That is my name now. Or, at least it is according the schools I teach at. It started off with a group of 5th graders and an exercise in which we (myself included) had to answer the question "If you could change your name to anything, what would it be and why?" Well, I already like my name, so I just went for silly. And so Captain Awesome McAwesome III was born.
I know what you're thinking. Why Captain Awesome McAwesome III? I'll break it down. I've always wanted to be called captain, because it just sounds important. And cool. And important. And what's more awesome than Awesome? Why, McAwesome, of course. It's like a double dose of awesome. And "III?" Does that mean there are two Captain Awesome McAwesome's before me? No. Adding "the Third" just makes it sound silly.
And what about the rest of the names/titles? Later on in the day, the students were wrapping up a unit on Native American Indians, and part of the the project was to assume a Native American identity. The same goes for the teacher. So that's where "Chief" came from. As for coach. I subbed for a gym class a couple days after that, and for some reason it's just second nature for students to call the gym teacher "coach," even if that person has taught English or Math or whatever. And as for Sr.? Same as the others, a natural instinct to plop Sr. in front of the teacher's name if they're teaching Spanish.
So that's the story of how Sr. Coach Chief Captain Awesome McAwesome III was born. Mind blowing, isn't it? I figured it was something other than a review for whatever movie or game or album I had happened to have watched/played/listened to lately, so there is that.
Also, how awesome would a Call of Duty-style game based on the Max Brooks' book "World War Z" be?
Very, I think.
I know what you're thinking. Why Captain Awesome McAwesome III? I'll break it down. I've always wanted to be called captain, because it just sounds important. And cool. And important. And what's more awesome than Awesome? Why, McAwesome, of course. It's like a double dose of awesome. And "III?" Does that mean there are two Captain Awesome McAwesome's before me? No. Adding "the Third" just makes it sound silly.
And what about the rest of the names/titles? Later on in the day, the students were wrapping up a unit on Native American Indians, and part of the the project was to assume a Native American identity. The same goes for the teacher. So that's where "Chief" came from. As for coach. I subbed for a gym class a couple days after that, and for some reason it's just second nature for students to call the gym teacher "coach," even if that person has taught English or Math or whatever. And as for Sr.? Same as the others, a natural instinct to plop Sr. in front of the teacher's name if they're teaching Spanish.
So that's the story of how Sr. Coach Chief Captain Awesome McAwesome III was born. Mind blowing, isn't it? I figured it was something other than a review for whatever movie or game or album I had happened to have watched/played/listened to lately, so there is that.
Also, how awesome would a Call of Duty-style game based on the Max Brooks' book "World War Z" be?
Very, I think.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Bond. James Bond.
First of all, I'd like to apologize (kind of) for my last entry. The intent was there, but I just don't think my ideas were presented as clearly as I like to think most of my ideas are. So...sorry if my rant against the new Twitter contests was as a jumbled mess as those contests seem to be.
Almost a month ago, Activision and Eurocom released their update/reimagining/remake/reboot of Rare's classic FPS: Goldeneye. Eurocom is the developer responsible for the Wii version of Modern Warfare: Modern Warfare Reflex. So, they had that going for them and with all of the positive reviews for 007, I decided to pick it up.
I decided to spring for the Limited Edition, which comes with a gold version of the Wii Classic Controller Pro. Also, the retailer I bought it from was offering a second Pro controller, so I picked up a second one in black (sadly, the second controller was not offered in gold, though I'm not sure that's really a negative).
Now, I've always had a gripe with most peripherals for the Wii. Namely, they require the Wii Remote in order to function. Got that Guitar Hero or Rock Band game for the Wii? Gotta slap a Wii-mote in the guitar. Got a Classic Controller? Tether it up to the Wii-mote my friend (I don't know about the original Classic, but the Pro's cord is way too short for my liking). And the Wii Zapper? Couldn't they have made one that actually functioned like the old Lightgun? I haven't had much experience with it, but I've found most games to work better without the plastic casing that is the Zapper.
But enough of that and back to Goldeneye. How does it play you ask? Like Call of Duty. Seriously. It's a one-man CoD (yes, there are sections of CoD games that have you by yourself, but on the whole, you play as part of a squad). There are a couple of tweaks, like vaulting over objects instead of just stepping up onto them to crawl over. But overall, it plays so similar that if you handed the controller over to someone who only knew CoD, they probably wouldn't know the difference.
The graphics are as about as good as you're going to find on the Wii. Meaning, it's still not so good compared to what you find on the PS3 and 360. Yes, graphics aren't everything. But, as I said, the gameplay is so similar to Activision's other first person shooter, the only real incentive to play this is a) you only own a Wii b) remember the N64 game so well you could do the speed run with your eyes closed and want to see how this one stacks up or c) have to play everything Bond and already blew through Bloodstone.
I'll address those in order. If you only own a Wii and you're jonesing for an FPS, this is about the best FPS as I've played for the system. I'll admit, my experience is limited to mostly Red Steel and Metroid Prime (which was good). I mostly used the golden Pro for my initial play through. It IS gold in color, so that was pretty sweet. My complaint is that the Pro is kind of light, especially after growing accustomed to the DualShock 3 (which I find to be just right for me) but whatever. It was still pretty responsive and the control was tight. I did try out the Wii-mote, because reviewers boldly exclaimed that that was the best way to play. I immediately went back to the Pro. Same thing happened when I tried the GameCube controller. Could be the age and wear on that one, though, so don't discount that one yet.
My main issue with the Wii-Mote was the trying to move so I could see offscreen enemies. I've never found this to be effective in any game I've played, FPS or not. The response of the Wii-mote just doesn't seem to be able to keep up with me.
But, like I said, the game plays well. So, CoD clone or not, it is a solid shooter. I will say this, it was pretty hard on the second highest difficulty and there were times that I couldn't find the optional objectives without looking it up. SPOILER How the hell was I supposed to know to shoot the painting? I even shot it once. But no. That doesn't do it. It has to be shot THREE times.
How does this compare to the original. There are similarities, yes. But almost nothing is exactly the same. That could be my faulty memory, but I don't think so. The game does start off with that same camera sweep leading up to the damn, but you quickly learn this was not your 64's 007. For starters, the game stars Daniel Craig as Bond. I've heard things from not being able to get Brosnan to sign off on the rights to him being too old to do the motion capture to just wanting something that might appeal to current fans of the series, whatever.
Because of the way this game fits into the movie timeline, there is no jump in years after the opening sequence (which, oddly enough, is no longer after James escapes from the dam, but rather after he does the bungee jump without the cord), because that would put the dam sequence before Casino Royale or Goldeneye would be pushed into the future. Either way, the game continues in a straight narrative rather than the time jump.
I've always found Daniel Craig's voice to be lacking when he does voice over work. I thought the same thing in the Quantum of Solace game and for Bloodstone. Just lacks...emotion, I guess. He's not even the coldblooded, emotionless killer from the films. It's more like someone has a Speak N Spell programmed to sound like him.
The changes work for the most part. It did feel a little "grittier" than before with an added melee system and silent takedowns. However, there were a couple of times the AI was alerted to my presence while I tried to perform these. I was crouched, barely moving forward, and to the best of my knowledge silent. And then the guard would spin around and open fire. Or fire and then turn around, as was often the case.
But, like I said, for the most part everything works well. Just a couple of instances where things don't go smoothly as I already outlined above.
I heard mixed reviews on Bloodstone, the latest 007 offering on the PS3/360 so I'll hold off on buying, but a friend didn't and I got a bit of a hands-on and it seemed ok.
I'd give this game a 3/5 because it's little more than a CoD Bond game (kind of like QoS), there are a couple of glitches that detract from my enjoyment (not enough to make me throw the game down in frustration), and the online component was hacked the day it came out (kind of like CoD).
Almost a month ago, Activision and Eurocom released their update/reimagining/remake/reboot of Rare's classic FPS: Goldeneye. Eurocom is the developer responsible for the Wii version of Modern Warfare: Modern Warfare Reflex. So, they had that going for them and with all of the positive reviews for 007, I decided to pick it up.
I decided to spring for the Limited Edition, which comes with a gold version of the Wii Classic Controller Pro. Also, the retailer I bought it from was offering a second Pro controller, so I picked up a second one in black (sadly, the second controller was not offered in gold, though I'm not sure that's really a negative).
Now, I've always had a gripe with most peripherals for the Wii. Namely, they require the Wii Remote in order to function. Got that Guitar Hero or Rock Band game for the Wii? Gotta slap a Wii-mote in the guitar. Got a Classic Controller? Tether it up to the Wii-mote my friend (I don't know about the original Classic, but the Pro's cord is way too short for my liking). And the Wii Zapper? Couldn't they have made one that actually functioned like the old Lightgun? I haven't had much experience with it, but I've found most games to work better without the plastic casing that is the Zapper.
But enough of that and back to Goldeneye. How does it play you ask? Like Call of Duty. Seriously. It's a one-man CoD (yes, there are sections of CoD games that have you by yourself, but on the whole, you play as part of a squad). There are a couple of tweaks, like vaulting over objects instead of just stepping up onto them to crawl over. But overall, it plays so similar that if you handed the controller over to someone who only knew CoD, they probably wouldn't know the difference.
The graphics are as about as good as you're going to find on the Wii. Meaning, it's still not so good compared to what you find on the PS3 and 360. Yes, graphics aren't everything. But, as I said, the gameplay is so similar to Activision's other first person shooter, the only real incentive to play this is a) you only own a Wii b) remember the N64 game so well you could do the speed run with your eyes closed and want to see how this one stacks up or c) have to play everything Bond and already blew through Bloodstone.
I'll address those in order. If you only own a Wii and you're jonesing for an FPS, this is about the best FPS as I've played for the system. I'll admit, my experience is limited to mostly Red Steel and Metroid Prime (which was good). I mostly used the golden Pro for my initial play through. It IS gold in color, so that was pretty sweet. My complaint is that the Pro is kind of light, especially after growing accustomed to the DualShock 3 (which I find to be just right for me) but whatever. It was still pretty responsive and the control was tight. I did try out the Wii-mote, because reviewers boldly exclaimed that that was the best way to play. I immediately went back to the Pro. Same thing happened when I tried the GameCube controller. Could be the age and wear on that one, though, so don't discount that one yet.
My main issue with the Wii-Mote was the trying to move so I could see offscreen enemies. I've never found this to be effective in any game I've played, FPS or not. The response of the Wii-mote just doesn't seem to be able to keep up with me.
But, like I said, the game plays well. So, CoD clone or not, it is a solid shooter. I will say this, it was pretty hard on the second highest difficulty and there were times that I couldn't find the optional objectives without looking it up. SPOILER How the hell was I supposed to know to shoot the painting? I even shot it once. But no. That doesn't do it. It has to be shot THREE times.
How does this compare to the original. There are similarities, yes. But almost nothing is exactly the same. That could be my faulty memory, but I don't think so. The game does start off with that same camera sweep leading up to the damn, but you quickly learn this was not your 64's 007. For starters, the game stars Daniel Craig as Bond. I've heard things from not being able to get Brosnan to sign off on the rights to him being too old to do the motion capture to just wanting something that might appeal to current fans of the series, whatever.
Because of the way this game fits into the movie timeline, there is no jump in years after the opening sequence (which, oddly enough, is no longer after James escapes from the dam, but rather after he does the bungee jump without the cord), because that would put the dam sequence before Casino Royale or Goldeneye would be pushed into the future. Either way, the game continues in a straight narrative rather than the time jump.
I've always found Daniel Craig's voice to be lacking when he does voice over work. I thought the same thing in the Quantum of Solace game and for Bloodstone. Just lacks...emotion, I guess. He's not even the coldblooded, emotionless killer from the films. It's more like someone has a Speak N Spell programmed to sound like him.
The changes work for the most part. It did feel a little "grittier" than before with an added melee system and silent takedowns. However, there were a couple of times the AI was alerted to my presence while I tried to perform these. I was crouched, barely moving forward, and to the best of my knowledge silent. And then the guard would spin around and open fire. Or fire and then turn around, as was often the case.
But, like I said, for the most part everything works well. Just a couple of instances where things don't go smoothly as I already outlined above.
I heard mixed reviews on Bloodstone, the latest 007 offering on the PS3/360 so I'll hold off on buying, but a friend didn't and I got a bit of a hands-on and it seemed ok.
I'd give this game a 3/5 because it's little more than a CoD Bond game (kind of like QoS), there are a couple of glitches that detract from my enjoyment (not enough to make me throw the game down in frustration), and the online component was hacked the day it came out (kind of like CoD).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)