E3 Wrap

   Ahh, another E3 has come and gone.  This was a big one, too.  Any time new consoles are announced, it brings an extra air of excitement to the expo, but this year was especially interesting.  I've been thinking for some time now that consoles are reaching a "critical mass" point... a time where they are basically nothing more than compact computers, and when that point is reached it will come down to how these consoles can continue to convince us that we should spend money on them instead of just buying another computer.

   Think about it.  Now that these computers have moved over to X86 architecture, they are basically underpowered PCs.  You could probably piece together a PC from Newegg with as-good-or-better specs, and it would cost you about the same (maybe even less) than buying the console.  Still, I do think consoles are very important to gaming in general.

   So, below are my thoughts about what I learned from the E3 coverage.  Sure I could compare the specs between the consoles, but other websites have already done a much better job of that.  I could also compare launch titles, but I think we all know that those are not an accurate assessment of what these consoles are capable of (just look at how far the current consoles have come since launch).  Instead I'm going to look at what the announcements could mean for us, and what I'm hoping to see in the future.

Microsoft

   There were already concerns about Xbox One before Microsoft took the stage at E3.  Their previous announcement scared a lot of gamers with rumors of an always-on internet connection being required, DRM forcing everyone to buy new games and not being allowed to lend games to friends, and Big Brother spying on them through the shifty-eyed Kinect camera.  Unfortunately, Microsoft did very little to address these concerns at the conference.  They've now come through with an announcement that they are changing their policies, but it might be too little too late.

   I for one don't have a problem with the requirements Microsoft was putting on Xbox One.  I believe this was Microsoft's attempt to push gaming into the future.  Cloud computing is coming, whether we like it or not.  And while it does come with some privacy risks, it also comes with a LOT of benefits.  Imagine being able to access your work, your pictures, everything, from any device, anywhere.  Imagine being able to fire up your Xbox One at a friend's house, logging in to Live, and having your entire music collection ready to rock the party.  There were a lot of complaining from gamers who "didn't have internet," which ironically, was all done online, but I believe the number of people who don't have access to internet is rapidly dwindling.  With satellite, DSL, and soon balloons reaching further and further out into the boonies, the only reason for not having internet is to choose to not have internet.

   I also have no sympathy for the used games market.  Stores like Gamestop, which used to be friends to the gamers, have now managed to fine-tune the formula to maximize their profit for used games (which are often priced just a couple dollars less than a new game), while ripping you off on your returns.  And that doesn't even get to the fact that buying a used game in no way supports the people who made the game.  If you're going to burn your hard-earned money on something, wouldn't you rather do it knowing that you're at least helping those developers make their next game?

   This is not to say that I don't have a problem with DRM.  DRM is A terrible nightmare for all of us.  That scenario I just mentioned about going to a friend's house and loading your music up for his party?  That doesn't happen if DRM restricts the locations where you can play that music.  And you can forget loaning games to friends to try out.  DRM is a pathetic money-grab attempt by companies who are already rich but want to get richer, and I believe it actually hurts the very industry they claim they are trying to protect.  When you loan a game to a friend, it's usually with the idea being that they will like it, and then go buy it.  But if you can't loan it, how will they know what they are missing?  DRM also encourages piracy.  Sure, there are people out there who will just pirate stuff for the sake of pirating... it's like a sad addiction.  But there are also plenty of people like me... people who are more than happy to pay for something IF it becomes MINE after paying for it.  I bought it.  You don't get to tell me what I can and cannot do with it.  I liken it to someone following me home from Target after buying new bedsheets and then telling me "oh you can't put those on THAT bed.  It has to be a NEW one."  Bullshit.

   Okay I went off on a tangent there and I apologize.  Back to the business.  What impressed me most about Microsoft was the number of developers they were able to snipe.  They even pulled some of Sony's more popular guys over.  They did lose Bungie as an exclusive developer, but while "Destiny" looks cool -- it also shows me that they are sort of a one-trick pony.  "Destiny" looks like Halo with different characters.  Granted, I will probably play the shit out of it... but I'm just saying it's not a huge loss.  I'm sure this cost Microsoft a pretty penny, but if they can use these new developers along with their much stronger independent and arcade games markets, they could essentially crush the competition with the sheer volume of high-quality games coming to their system.

   I'm also intrigued by the ideas Microsoft has beyond gaming.  I appreciate them allowing us to share our XBox Live accounts... having to pay for multiple accounts on the same box is just ridiculous.  I like the idea of highjacking the cable box and being able to build our own stations based solely on the shows we watch.  They are forcing a-la-carte, something cable companies no doubt despise (but like cloud gaming, it's coming fools).  I can't wait to see what the Kinect can do.  Sure it's not for "hardcore" gamers, but it has been the centerpiece of many a dance party since I bought it for the 360.  That technology is helping us move to the next evolution in gaming: Virtual Reality.

   I gotta hand it to Microsoft... they certainly did make waves at E3.  Good or bad, you have to admit that the XBox One is being talked about a LOT more than the PS4 or the sad, sad Wii U.  I'm not going to say they "won" E3, because their plans for the future are far from perfect (they gotta fix that price point.  Come on guys, learn from Sony).  But I think they have a strong chance at leading the next console generation.

Sony

   While Sony came out of the last console generation just fine, their PS3 announcement was an absolute disaster.  Too expensive, too bulky, and a cocky attitude of "deal with it, it's good enough for us, it's good enough for you," did nothing to encourage loyalty among current fans or bring in new ones.  That said, the PS3 is a formiddable system which often looked better than the 360 in terms of graphics.  And Sony obviously learned from their past mistakes, because the PS4 conference was a much smoother and more positive experience.

   Sony caved on the internet gaming experience, which makes me sad.  Forcing gamers to opt in to the "Plus" version of the online membership is taking them down the path of Microsoft... and in my opinion the pay-to-play method of online gaming is absolutely ridiculous.  Paying should be left up to the developers, much like it is on the PC.  Steam is a great example.  The client is free, and if a developer decides it wants to charge gamers to play online, that's their choice.  The best part is, most of them don't.  I get that the costs of infrastructure and management of these massive online populations is expensive and must be paid for somehow, but it just kinda makes me sad... I was hoping maybe Sony would intimidate Microsoft into going free, not the other way around.

   While Microsoft backtracked on some of their previous forays (like an expandable hard drive), Sony seems to have learned from Microsoft and made their system more consumer-friendly.  They are taking the "nice guy" approach, which has made Microsoft look even more like a big bad bully... it's like a complete flip from the last console launch.  Maybe that's just how these things go, I don't know.  But I do think in this day and age, making it look like you are catering to consumers goes a long way toward generating loyalty toward your brand.  Gamers are smart, but a lot of them THINK they are WAAAAYYYY smarter than they actually are... so tricking them into thinking your their buddy is a fantastic idea.  Make no mistake though.  Sony, like Microsoft, is NOT your buddy.

   Sony has some very strong titles coming to their system, and they at least appear to be making a real attempt at pumping up their independent, smaller game development.  They have some catching up to do, but with their huge audience and because Microsoft has in so many ways shot itself in the foot, this is a great opportunity for Sony to make up real ground.  Maybe most importantly, Sony has never veered from the idea that this is a console made specifically for gamers.  No talk about home theatre setups or changing the way you watch TV.  Sure they have their share of apps, but at its core the PS4 is about gaming.  And at a better price point than Microsoft.

   I would say that Sony was the "winner" of E3.  They had the best conference, the best showing, and I applaud their reaction time to Microsoft's conference.  This video alone is a great example of how Sony is handling things.  But will they win the console launch?  That remains to be seen.  At its core, Sony is still a very prideful, even stubborn company.  Whereas Microsoft has made it clear they are listening to consumers and willing to sell themselves out in order to get you to pay up, Sony tends to be more rigid.  Take their controllers as an example.  They added a screen, but they still haven't changed the design -- even though EVERYONE agrees that Microsoft has found the money when it comes to ergonomics.  If Sony can't even re-position a joystick, imagine what will happen if Microsoft undercuts their price point or comes out with some new groundbreaking idea that Sony will have to be flexible to accommodate.

Nintendo

   Oh Nintendo.  Poor, poor Nintendo.  How the mighty have fallen.  Here's a company that went from owning the market, to consistently coming out with the premier system, to barely hanging on.  The Wii breathed new life into the company, but the resurgence was short-lived.  Now they're stuck with the Wii-U, an underpowered, oversimplified, glorified tablet that no one wants to develop for because it is a huge departure from the two bigger players in the house (Microsoft and Sony, in case you're not paying attention).  And if you think Sony has problems with pride, Nintendo makes them look humble by comparison.

   I've been arguing for YEARS (even before the Wii) that it's time for Nintendo to bow out of the console market.  They simply cannot keep up with behemoth companies like Microsoft and Sony.  No one should expect them to either.  What saves Nintendo is its games.  Nintendo creates AMAZING games.  While their graphics pale in comparison, they are still some of the most fun games to play.  I would pit Mario Galaxy 2 up against ANY platformer on Xbox 360 or Playstation 3.  There simply is no comparison.  Zelda?  Metroid?  Nintendo has some incredible, powerful legacy franchises.  Imagine if they stopped wasting their money on hardware and instead focused on software?  If Nintendo went the way of Sega and started developing for the other consoles, I think you would see a STRONG resurgence.  Hell, even software and peripherals (the Wiimote is a thing of beauty)... but for the love of God, STOP MAKING SHITTY CONSOLES.  Stick to the portables, let them make your money, and use that money to create incredible games which you can sell for lots and lots of American dollars.

   Nintendo didn't even have a press conference.  Instead they tried to show off their games at their booth.  And even then, all they really had to show was a slew of first-party games.  No one wants to develop for them.  Their platform is old, it's on a different architecture, and the audience is too small.  It's a waste of time and money for anyone, and I don't blame them for making that decision.  I would personally buy a Wii before I would buy a Wii U.  It just has absolutely no appeal to me.

   I would say that Nintendo lost E3, but really they didn't even show up.  This is a company in trouble.  It's also a company I love, and if it fails I think it would deliver a terrible blow to the videogame industry.  It's time for Nintendo to make some drastic changes or we may be talking about them in the past-tense very soon.

   What I'm most excited about in this coming generation of consoles is the blurring of several lines.  First, we're looking more and more at a world where PC gamers can play alongside (or against) console gamers.  They're all built on the same architecture now, so what's the difference?  My Xbox Live account is already tied to my Windows Live account... why not just go one step further and bring it all together?  It's going to happen, maybe not in this generation, but soon.

   I'm also pumped to see the cloud gaming phenomenon take off.  Imagine a world where you don't have to buy the super-powerful video card or massive amounts of ram... where you don't have to try to keep up with rapidly changing technology (and empty your wallet in the process).  In this world, all of the heavy lifting is done in the cloud, by computers which could be hundreds of miles away, and all you have in your room is a videobox... a window that lets you see what those powerful computers are churning out at 60fps.  It's going to be a rough road, especially from a privacy and ownership standpoint, but I do think this is also coming.

   And not that you need it, but even if you did I can't recommend either console yet (I'm NOT going to recommend a Wii U).  This is one we're all going to have to watch closely.  Sony and Microsoft put their cards on the table... now it's time for the two of them to re-shuffle their decks.  We'll see what surprises they have in store for us leading up to launch day.  I can tell you this... personally I probably won't buy EITHER console at launch.  Both of these companies have shown that they are more than happy to put out hardware that has serious problems, half-baked ideas wrapped in plastic.  Look how many revisions both the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 have gone through in this generation.  New guts, new chips, new processors, new fans, new cases, they look, sound, and feel nothing like the consoles that launched this generation.  I fully expect that again with the next generation, and I for one don't want to be one of the chumps who bought an original PS4 just to watch the PS4 slim come out three months later.

/nerd.

Super Moonrise

Let's talk movies, shall we?

Moonrise Kingdom

   From Netflix:  Wes Anderson's quirky drama follows the frantic search that ensues in a small New England town when two 12-year-olds fall in love and run away together. As the townsfolk hunt for the vanished kids, a storm causes even more profound communal upheaval.

   My Take:  I've realized that I'm a fair-weather Wes Anderson fan.  By that I mean, I like his movies when they are convenient for me.  "Moonrise Kingdom" is... not... one of them.  Neither was "Fantastic Mr. Fox." Don't get me wrong, both of those movies were good... but they were too Wes Anderson for me.  There's a line that I cannot cross.

   There are certain things I appreciate about Wes Anderson.  I love his attention to detail.  I love how much care he puts into every single shot of his movies.  I love the style that he pushes onto his actors, their delivery, their sort of nonchalant, over-secure, aloofness that just makes a Wes Anderson movie a Wes Anderson movie.  It all comes together magically, and "Moonrise Kingdom" definitely succeeds in that department.  His characters are wacky, almost too silly to believe, and yet filled with an innocent naivety that you can't help but enjoy.

   The performances almost all around were delivered perfectly.  The only two people I had problems with were the kids.  Maybe it was a conscious decision, but these kids couldn't act.  Or they could, but they paled in comparison to the greats like Bill Murray.  I have to think this was a decision on the part of Wes Anderson.  Judging by the rest of the way the movie was put together (more on that in a minute), using "amateur" actors as the main characters was probably his plan all along.
   If the goal was for this to look like a movie that was made in the 70s, they hit the nail right on the head.  Everything -- the colors, the shots, the style, everything was 1970s.  Very impressive.  Seriously, think about it... look at your iphone or your camera at home, and try to think of how you could achieve a 70s look (other than Instagram you lazy bastard).  However, I think in some instances this backfired.  For example, part of what made "Life Aquatic" so great was that it had all these vivid colors, and when Anderson did his trademark long, room-to-room, choreographed shots, it was like everyone was sitting in a toy.  It worked perfectly.  In "Moonrise," this same shot has an awkward and almost uncomfortable effect, because it's not in the same style as something I think you would see back then.  It was the same deal with the clock tower scene at the end.  It just looked completely out of character for the rest of the movie.
   I'm not saying "Moonrise Kingdom" is a BAD movie.  It's still more enjoyable and valuable than 90% of the drivel that lands in theaters.  But I think that while Wes Anderson is probably under appreciated for some of his more formidable works of art ("Rushmore," "Tenenbaums," etc), this is one that is definitely overlook-able in the collection.

Man Of Steel

   From Netflix:  In another revival of the Superman legend, reporter Clark Kent must keep his alien origins and fantastic powers hidden from the world at large. But when the Kryptonian General Zod plans to destroy Earth, the Man of Steel springs into heroic action.

   My Take:  WARNING - SPOILERS AHEAD.  Watch this movie, it's fantastic.  Then read the review.  Okay you've been warned... here we go...

   Superman has always been a quandary for me, in that he is one of the most difficult heroes to make a movie about.  Scratch that, it's easy to make movies about Superman... it's tough to make a good movie about him.  So when I heard Christopher Nolan and Zach Snyder were going to give it a shot, I crossed my fingers and hoped for the best.  What we got was by far the best Superman movie to date.

   The problem with Superman is that he's too pure.  Batman is great for movies because he is a very flawed character.  Rough childhood, sort of ambiguous values, a deep-seated fear/fetish for bats.  Superman is none of those things.  He doesn't remember his parents, but he's raised by two of the most wholesome people you could imagine.  He's invincible, there's no need for him to have fear.  But Nolan and Snyder made what was the best possible decision they could have made: they recreated Kal El to be a lonely, isolated, bullied kid who lacked self confidence and didn't know how to deal with his emotions.  And they did it perfectly.  They didn't touch his Earth parents, they were just as wholesome as ever.  They just changed the way he saw the world, and the challenges that he would most likely face in today's modern childhood.  Bullying, awkwardness, etc.

   Another thing they did extremely well was to paint the back story.  Talk about complicated characters... let's talk about Zod.  That dude was very close to stealing the show.  Great acting, but an even greater character.  Here's a guy who is inherently evil, but in such a way that you almost can't blame him.  In fact, you almost feel sorry for him.  After all, he's just carrying out his genetic code, doing what he was designed to do.  He is the embodiment of the flaw in Krypton's way of life.

   The music was brilliant.  The sound design was top notch.  The graphics were flawless -- seriously, the best I've seen since Transformers.  The battles were absolutely epic... it was like every punch was an explosion.  It was the closest I could imagine to what a fight of this magnitude would be.  The characters were correct and accurate.  I love how they handled Zod's lieutenants... much better than the Christopher Reeves version.

   I really can't say enough about this movie.  It completely blew me away.  Of course... I did have a couple of minor problems.  First of all, the product placement was too obvious and awkward.  Nikon, Microsoft, Ihop.  The Nikon one I can understand, because come on she had to use a camera.  The Ihop one worked because they made it into a joke.  But the phone ones were painfully obvious.  Even the acting in that scene was less believable than the rest of the movie.  It felt forced, and I'm sorry to see that Nolan's backers sold out on what would have otherwise been a near-flawless movie.  My other issue was that they never explained why Superman wears the blue, red, and yellow suit.  Granted it was a badass suit, and to my knowledge that wasn't ever really explained in the comic either... but this was an opportunity.  What if Jor El wore the same colors on his armor?  They had the "S" crest... why not include the "House of El" colors?  It would have completely explained why Zod's people wore straight black and Kal El wore red yellow and blue.  Not a big deal, just a missed opportunity.

   If you read this without seeing the movie, it's okay.  Go see it anyway.  This is by far the best movie of 2013.  Better than Iron Man 3.  Better than Star Trek 2.  It's like on a whole different level.  Fan-freaking-tastic.  And well worth your money.  Enjoy...

   Oh, and also this.

Secret? What Secret?

   "Blown away" is a good descriptor for the way I've felt about the response to this whole phone tap thing.  Or did you not hear about it yet?  Newsflash: the government is spying on us.  Sort of.  The short story is that Verizon signed a deal which allows the government access to all of its phone records, which the government can then use to monitor "suspected terrorist activity."  It was supposed to remain a secret, but someone leaked it out and now everyone is crying Big Brother.

   

   Come on, people.  Are you really that surprised that this is going on?  While I have no hard evidence of course, I would wager that the federal government has been snooping on us as a country in some shape or form for quite a while now... and especially since 9/11.  It's inevitable.  "Privacy" today is not by any stretch what it was even 50 years go, let alone 200 years ago when the whole concept of our right to privacy was first written up.  If the whole Verizon thing shocked you, you may want to fasten your seatbelt.  Google, Facebook, Yahoo, even Microsoft (if all the Xbox One Rumors are true) have all been doing something along the same lines for years.  Why do you think when you do a search for "inflatable beer koozie," all the sudden your facebook page and web ads are full of commercials for booze?  

   

   It's funny to me that everyone is going after the government here.  Has anyone gotten mad at Verizon?  They signed the damn agreement.  Has anyone switched phone carriers?  Has anyone gotten rid of facebook?  Or stopped using Google?  If you're going to blame someone here, it should be these private businesses.  And they are the ones who you can really hurt -- much worse than you can hurt the government.  The one (legal) thing you can do to these corporations is take your business elsewhere.  But if you don't, I won't blame you.  I didn't.  It's amazing what I'm willing to put up with convenience is at stake.

   I give credit to President Obama for addressing concerns about this stuff.  His speech was brief and pretty much what you would probably expect, but still, addressing it makes it look like he is at least in touch with what has people very, very upset in our country.  One thing that really stuck out to me... he mentioned a couple of times that the government is only gathering numbers and length of calls.  No names.  Why?  What could you gain from that?  I mean you could point out specific odd patterns of phone calls I suppose, but you would still need to know who that phone number is attached to in order to go after anyone.  Seems kind of flimsy to me.  Also he pointed out that no one can act on any of this information without a warrant, that nothing more can come of this without due process and everything else that would normally take place in an investigation.  Sure, sure... for now.  I have confidence that, as the President said, the people who are heading up all of this stuff have the constitution in mind and are being very careful.  But what about the people who come after them?  Or after that?  

   My point is, this opens the door to some very dangerous situations down the road.  It was all done for the good of our country, for our protection, and with our hearts and minds in the right place... but I wonder if 50 years from now, we'll look back on this batch of years, this decade or so, and say "that's when it started.  That's when we could have stopped it.  Too late now."

   And what of this guy who exposed everything and fled the country?  The government is going to go after him.  Obama even said so in his speech.  He exposed a national security risk.  But did he?  Or did he simply remind the government that they work for We The People, and not the other way around?  If this guy were a Chinese National who exposed some kind of scheme like this going on in that country, we would be praising him right now.  We'd say "boy that took a lot of courage, standing up to the Chinese government like he did. A blow to communism and oppression, a win for freedom!"  But if it happens here... blasphemy!  Track that bastard down and make him pay for... for... for what?  What did he really do, except let people know that the government was coming perilously close to violating the constitution?  And the government's reaction... does that not just prove the point this guy was trying to make?  You say something against our government and your only option is to flee the country in the hopes that someone will take you in?

   I have to admit, I'm very split on this issue.  

   

   On the one hand, our privacy is very much being violated.  It's one thing for companies like Google to track our behaviors and market things to us based on what they've learned through that process.  After all, they are private companies, and we are using their services.  I look at that is just plain marketing.  However, it's another issue entirely when our government begins to track us without notice or warrant.  That is not their job... or rather, it is a perversion of their job (which is to "protect us" from potential danger).  In some ways I am actually kind of thankful this dude leaked the info.  Unlike the Wikileaks guy, this dude didn't open the door to putting our troops in danger.  He just saw something that really concerned him, and he blew the whistle on it.  Just think if he hadn't exposed it... the phone recordings would be going on right now and we wouldn't even know it.

   On the other hand, the world we live in now is completely different from anything before it.  We are all way more connected, and in a lot of ways more exposed than the founding fathers of this country ever thought we would be.  Put yourself in their shoes for a minute.  Do you think they even fathomed a world where a device in your pocket could connect you to every single human being on the planet?  Or where some moron with depression and sanity issues could cobble together enough elements to blow up innocent people trying to run a marathon?  Sure, the founding fathers were smart... but I think if you asked them to draw a picture of what the world would be like in the year 2013, it would look awesome, but totally different from what we're seeing right now.

   When tragedies like the Boston bombing occurs, who do we blame?  The government.  We say "why didn't you do more?  Surely you could have seen the patterns and stopped these guys!"  Well, that's what they're trying to do right now.  The question is, how much are you willing to sacrifice?  Are you willing to let the government peer in from time to time and check out your phone calls and emails, if it means you will be safer the next time there is a big public event?  Who knows how many attacks they've stopped thanks to The Patriot Act or any of the subsequent "attacks on our freedoms?"  Unfortunately, we only see the ones that get through.  And then there's the even bigger question: if you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care if they are listening in?

   It's an argument of principle, I get it.  Principle and precedence.  By giving another inch, by letting our rights be squished just a little bit more, we are allowing the government to inch closer to total control.  It is absolutely right for us to fear the consequences of that potential future, just like it is absolutely right for us to fear letting robots become self-aware.  But you know what?  If robots DID become self-aware, who would we turn to for help?  ... I'll wait... ... The government!

Movie Service

   I'm going to do you all a favor today.  I'm going to save you from wasting anywhere from 7-15 bucks on a movie that is barely... barely... worth a rental.  And that movie is...

After Earth

   From Netflix:  A thousand years in the future, Gen. Cypher Raige and his young son, Kitai, crash-land their crippled ship on the long-abandoned, desolate Earth. With his father near death, Kitai sets out to find a beacon that will save them from certain doom.

   My Take:  I've heard this movie described as a "good father-son flick."  That may be so, I don't have any kids so I can't say for sure.  What I can say is that M. Night Schmellyface needs to find a new line of work.  You got rich off your first three or four, dude, let it go.  Granted, I haven't seen all of his movies.  "The Village," for example... or "Lady In The Water..." but the reviews from friends and professionals on those were enough.  I did see "The Happening," while I was waiting for a flight to arrive at the airport.  I was in Tampa with absolutely nothing to do until that plane got there, and yet I still almost walked out of the theatre.  The thought of sitting there in the terminal, trying to figure out which disgusting person I was going to get stuck next to on the flight, was actually more appealing to me than sitting through that horrible, awful, waste of a movie.

   And yet, like "The Happening," there is but one redeeming moment in the entire two-plus hours of "After Earth."  There is one line from Will Smith where he talks about fear being something we make up, a story we tell ourselves about a future that does not yet exist.  Two hours for that one line of dialogue.  At least in "The Happening" we had one scene, the scene at the weird old lady's house, that, while weird in the context of that movie, at least was a little scary.  Don't get me wrong, M. Night Whatever tried to wedge in a couple of scary scenes like that here, but they were ineffective at best.  And at worst, they made absolutely no sense (the weird-faced turn from his sister?  VERY dumb).  

   It's a shame, too... because a movie like this could have been really strong.  Instead, it is what it is: a thinly-veiled attempt by Will Smith to launch his son's acting career.  Frankly I'm shocked that "The Karate Kid" wasn't enough.  Oh wait, no I'm not.

   Do not waste your money on this movie.  If your curiosity is just itching at you, send me a message and I will divulge enough of the lame plot and terrible dialogue to make you vomit.  Or, just wait a few months... if these guys are smart, they will get this pile out of the theatres and onto DVD as quickly as possible, before word-of-mouth can kill it.  Of course, these are the guys who green-lit this movie, so maybe they aren't that smart after all.

Dredd

   From Netflix:  In the future, catastrophic wars have transformed Earth into a barren wasteland with the remaining population crowded into megacities, where all-powerful cops -- including the ultraviolent Judge Dredd -- are on the hunt for drug-dealing terrorists.

   My Take:  Anytime a Netflix description uses the word "ultraviolent," you know you're in for a treat.  Yet, "Dredd" is another movie that sort of disappoints... albeit not nearly as bad as "After Earth."  Ugh, I need to just stop thinking about it.

   Anyway, "Dredd" is exactly what it says it's going to be... a lot of shooting and killing, coupled with very little dialogue (who needs it!) or story (waste of time!)  It has huge guns, impossibly attractive heroes, the lowest version of a "sex scene" you can imagine, and lots and lots of blood.  Oh also, it's garbage.

   At least the original "Judge Dredd" embraced its campiness.  It had Sylvester Stallone, who is just ridiculous no matter HOW you portray him, and Rob Schneider rounding out the "buddy cop" stupidity.  Was it dumb?  Absolutely.  But it was also fun to watch because you knew you were getting into something really, really stupid.  Kind of like an old Arnold Schwarzenegger flick.  Sorry I just had to watch that entire video.

   I did not believe Carl Urban as Judge Dredd.  Maybe it's because I've been watching him in Star Trek.  Maybe it's because they couldn't even remove his helmet because everyone knew viewers would be like "wait a minute, he's doughey!"  Don't get me wrong, I think Carl Urban is a great actor... just not for this role.  The girl was hot, but ultimately a complete waste of a character.  And the situations were so over-the-top stupid, that if this was a campy dumb movie, they might have been funny.  Instead they are just disappointing.  Why did the woman judge say "she'll hesitate, I won't," and then go immediately hesitate so that she can get blown away?  How is it that every single person on a floor of the tower can get destroyed by chainguns, but somehow Dredd can survive?  Again, if you're going for dumb and campy, I get it.  But not here.  Not now.

   I guess movies like this will always have a place.  If they keep making terrible Judge Dredd movies, someone will come along and do it justice.  Just like Batman, or Superman, or hopefully the X-Men.  Eventually a good director sees enough of his childhood being ruined that he decides that it's time to stop and take care of business once and for all.  Judge Dredd is a cool concept, that could be turned into a really cool movie.  Or, if you're going to stick to cheesy campy, leave it to someone who knows that he's doing.  Someone like Luc Besson.

This public service announcement was made possible by readers like you.

We're (Ready For) Number One

   Microsoft has some pretty terrible luck.  Not as bad as the poor people in Moore, OK, but bad nonetheless.  It's just unfortunate timing that the launch of the XBox One happened to be on the same day as all of those tornadoes struck.  From what I could tell, it was a pretty decent launch, too.  Better than Sony's anyway.  So now it's out there, and the rumors are already flying.  There's a lot of good buzz, and some not-so-good buzz, which I guess is to be expected with anything like this.  And while I would suggest that you don't take any of those to heart, at the same time I'm going to throw my hat into the ring.  Here's what I'm excited about:

1. Switching to X86 - This is a fancy way of saying that the Xbox is changing it's guts over to be much more like a desktop PC.  Now, true console lovers might freak out about this, or say that it's "killing the console concept."  Whatever.  The processor and innards of the machine make no difference to you, the gamer, whatsoever.  But they DO make a difference to developers, who are already building their product on the X86 system for PC.  Now it's just that much easier for them to directly port those products over to the Xbox.  The end result is a truer representation of the game on a higher-end PC.  More power, more continuity, a better gaming experience.  Sony is also switching over to the X86 system, which leaves only the WiiU on the old Power PC platform.  Poor, poor Nintendo.
2. TV Integration - This is another one that has a lot of console people freaking out.  I for one am looking forward to it... IF it does what it claims.  Supposedly we will be able to run our cable boxes through the xbox, integrating its guide into our xbox experience.  They even say we'll be able to mix and match to create our own TV station, customized with the programs we watch.  I think that's a great concept, and if it works in practice, I'm all for it.
3. Better Kinect - I was skeptical of the Kinect when it first came out.  I thought "yeah that's cool in concept, but we'll just have to see about how well it works in practice."  I was proven wrong.  The Kinect, while not something I have yet seen integrated well with any serious games, is still a very fun diversion (and great for parties).  From what I've read, the new kinect is smart enough that it can see you wink.  It can also detect quite a few more people, and doesn't require as much space to work.  If they can deliver on these promises, I believe we're in for a real treat.

Of course, not everything is perfect.  Honestly my concerns are outweighing my excitement by quite a bit... and I'm not just talking about inevitable changes like the loss of backwards compatibility.  I'm talking about things like...

1. Overheating - This Xbox is bigger, badder, more powerful, and yet Microsoft claims it will be quieter than even the Xbox Slim.  Quieter means fewer fans, which to me means it runs a greater risk of overheating.  I would just hate for Microsoft to go through another batch of recalls and the mess they had on their hands when the 360 first launched.
2. Losing Focus - It's obvious Microsoft is trying to take the Xbox One and make it much more than a gaming console.  That's all well and good, but at its core, the Xbox is built for games, and it would be best for Microsoft to remember that.  Gamers are an angry, vindictive bunch.  Piss them off, and you go the way of Nintendo.
3. Always Online - This is a big one.  I've heard that the Xbox One will not work correctly without an internet connection.  Most of the complaints come from people out in rural areas, but I'm not in a rural area so I don't really care about them.  My bigger concern is over the Big Brother aspect of this.  I don't like the idea of Microsoft knowing I'm online or being able to tell me what I can and can't do from a remote location.  It's one thing to log in to Xbox Live, which I almost always do, but I just prefer to have the ability to NOT log in, or to take my xbox over to a friends house for some system link fun, without having to be online.
4. Beware The Cloud - I know everyone's hyped up about the cloud-based computing concept, but I don't like it being a part of Microsoft's new gameplan.  Once again, it all comes down to control.  If part of my game is running from the cloud, what happens if that company's servers go down?  What happens if my internet goes out?  From what I've heard, even single player wouldn't work then.  That's dumb.  With companies like EA out there who already can't keep their shit together, it poses a major problem for gamers.  And don't even get me started if companies decide they no longer want to keep servers open for older games.  This is just a really, really dumb idea.
5. Xbox Live - Xbox Live revolutionized gaming, and not just on the Xbox.  Think about how many online games you ever played before Xbox Live came out.  Maybe a couple of dial-up Starcraft games?  Maybe a little Halo over XBConnect?  There wasn't much.  But Microsoft charges an arm and a leg for Xbox Live... and they are the only ones charging for this service.  Sure, you get some perks with it -- but most of those you have to pay extra for.  The base charge is always there, and what it turns out being is you paying 60 bucks a year to use Netflix.  This needs to change.  Microsoft has milked all of us long enough.  In most ways, their online system does nothing better than Playstation or even Wii.  Sure their games might take more advantage of it, but don't think Sony isn't going to catch up.  The way I see it, Microsoft has a choice.  They can either milk this cow for as long as they can, and then eventually lose a good portion of their audience to the free alternatives... or they can be everyone's best friend by just dropping the charge now, or creating a free tier for people who don't listen to XBox Music.  The second choice is better, because they will not only retain their current audience, they will gain a lot of loyalty from people who were on the fence.

No matter which way you shake it though, this is going to be one helluva console generation.  Both the PS4 and the Xbox One are worthy successors to the current generation systems.  We may also see in this generation what I've been asking for for a while - Nintendo getting out of the console market and doing like Sega, producing games for both consoles moving forward.  Please, please please please, Nintendo, do this.

   I want to close out this week by saying my heart goes out to the people in Oklahoma, who are STILL getting pounded with Tornadoes every day.  And also to the firefighters who gave their lives trying to save a crummy hotel in Southwest Houston.  It's been a rough couple of weeks.  Hug the ones you love.

Snack It

   Are you a big snacker at the movies?  I tell you, there needs to be a national investigation on the mark-up of that crap.  Six bucks for a bag of popcorn?  Four bucks for a box of Sourpatch Kids?  Get outta here.  I have to admit, though, I am partial to a blue Icee.  I'm not partial to what it does to my insides.

   And that's my intro to talk about movies.

42

   From Netflix:  This biopic focuses on the relationship between baseball icon Jackie Robinson and Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey, who signed Robinson and in 1947 made him the first black Major League Baseball player of the modern era.

   My Take:  I could see this movie going one of two ways.  It would either be an inspiring story of a man who overcame unbelievable odds and lived an inspiring life.  Or, it could get bogged down in the anti-racism message, and fall to pieces.  Ultimately I believe this movie toes that line... but if it had to lean one way, it did lean a little far towards getting bogged down.

   First of all, let me just say that there were wonderful performances from several of the people in this movie.  Harrison Ford especially blew me away.  You could tell he was sold on that character, and trying his best to hide the fact that he is Harrison Ford.  Boseman also played the part really well, and you could tell that the people behind this movie wanted very badly for it to feel like a true epic.

   Unfortunately, this movie died in the writing.  At least, it did for me.  The moment when I decided "nope," was when I saw a father and son sitting in the bleachers at a game.  The son says some terrible, cheesy line like "gee willickers dad!  How many home runs do you think he'll score?" (talking about a relative of theirs).  And the dad replies with the typical cheese response.  Then Robinson comes on the field, and the Dad starts yelling all kinds of slurs and stuff.  The kid looks really uncomfortable, as we slowly zoom in on him, and then  he ultimately succumbs to the rest of the white folks and starts yelling slurs himself.  Now, written there, it sounds like this should be a poignant moment in the film, a telling sign of the times and a deeper glimpse into the continuing racial issues we face today.  But I assure you, it was not.  The acting was so stilted and terrible, it made me physically uncomfortable.  The timing was way off, it just felt sort of amateurish.

   Look, I get it.  There was a lot of racism back then.  This was a defining moment for America's African American population.  This was a big deal.  But if you're going to make a movie about it, do that justice.  There were plenty of opportunities for me to understand the pain and torture Robinson went through.  I don't need you to make a fist out of it and hit me in the face.  RACISM.  I get it.

   I see this being something that started out as a fantastic idea.  A movie that could have gone either way.  A movie that was ultimately handled too much by the studios, who poisoned the message with "MORE RACISM!"  This movie needed people behind it who could tell the studios to shove it.  If Ron Howard had done this movie, we would have had something magical.  Instead that guy is making a movie about... what?  race cars?  Geesh.

Argo

   From Netflix:  In 1979, when Iranian militants seize the American embassy, six Americans slip into the Canadian embassy for protection, prompting the CIA to concoct an elaborate plot to rescue them by pretending that they are filmmakers rather than diplomats.

   My Take:  Oh that Affleck.  I'll be honest, he is the main reason why I didn't watch this movie when it came out.  Oh, I assumed it would be good, that it would be compelling... but Affleck just turned me off.  It's weird, for how awesome Matt Damon turned out, and all the badass movies he has been in, for some reason I just want to punch Ben Affleck in the face.  I don't even know why.  Anyway I heard enough good things about this movie that I ultimately decided I needed to just stomach that and give it a watch.  I'm glad I did.

   The 70s were awesome.  The wardrobe and mustaches in this movie were well worth the price of admission.  What a weird time to live in... I often wonder what the folks from the 60s or 70s would say if they saw the way we live in society today.  But I digress...

   Here was one of those crazy real-life events that beats out any story you could make up in a movie.  An incredibly tense situation where America did some less-than clean things in order to save our own skin.  And a good picture of when another country, Canada (yes it's still a country), really did us a solid.  And then there was Affleck.

   I won't say Affleck ruined the film.  That's too strong.  There were too many other great performances.  And it was expertly directed... I gotta hand it to Affleck that dude can put together a solid movie.  But his acting... well, maybe he should just stay behind the camera.  I don't know, maybe he was trying to portray this real guy.  Maybe the real Mendez was an aloof, I-don't-wanna-be-here kinda guy.  Hard to say.  But that's how Affleck came across.  It was simply not enjoyable to watch.  Everyone else did good, and Affleck wasn't BAD... but he was Affleck.  It makes me wonder if he starred in this movie simply because the only way for him to get a leading role now is for him to direct the movie as well.

   Anyway, "Argo" is a great movie... and even if you're not a huge Affleck fan, I think it's worth your while.  This was a tense time and a different America.  Honestly what those guys were going through back then kinda makes what we're dealing with now pale in comparison.

Star Trek: Into Darkness

   From Netflix:  This sequel returns much of the cast from the Star Trek feature released in 2009, breathing new life into the seemingly ageless space franchise. Led by the intrepid Captain Kirk, the Enterprise crew still includes Scotty, Spock and Chekov as well.

   My Take:  This was a tough one to sell.  The first Star Trek reboot was great because half of it was a casting call.  "Oh, how are they going to do Bones?  What about Spock?"  Blah blah blah.  It just so happened that the story was pretty decent too, and let's not forget about the incredible special effects.  But now that crew is settled in.  We know them.  They can't hide behind "well I'm the new Checkov, gimme a break."  It's go time.  And I have to applaud Abrams and crew for coming out of the gate strong.  SPOILERS ARE AHEAD.  IF YOU PLAN TO SEE THE MOVIE BUT HAVEN'T YET, STOP READING HERE AND GO SEE THE DAMN MOVIE.

   "Into Darkness" hits you right in the face with Kahn, arguably the greatest villain to ever haunt the Star Trek universe.  But, unlike the old Kahn, they took this one in a completely new direction.  I personally thought it was fantastic.  While you could definitely make the argument that it got a little lazy, especially towards the end where they were simply paralleling scenes from the original movie but with their own twist, I believe it was a nice tribute to the original and also kept things quite interesting.

   The action sequences in this movie were fantastic, as expected.  The Klingon fight was great, though maybe a little bit one-sided (I get that Kahn is a supersoldier, but come on, these are Klingons)... and the ship-to-ship fighting was incredible.  I really like the styling and design that this team has come up with for their vision of the future... and I applaud Abrams for (somewhat) limiting the use of lens flares throughout, while still keeping it in his iconic "look."

   But... I wanted more of that, and less of the longing looks, the drama, the ham.  If I had one complaint about this movie, it would be that there was too much of the love story, too much of the emotionally longing looks, too much talk and not enough action.  I wanted to see MORE Klingons, how about a ship-to ship battle there?  I wanted to see MORE of the giant warship that Starfleet had built.  I wanted MORE of a fight with Kahn.  Instead I got a fight between Spock and Uhura, a call to the old Spock which was completely unnecessary, and a punch-you-in-the-face political message.

   Still, as far as sequels go, this one was definitely entertaining.  I appreciate how they are twisting the universe up and changing the way things go.  It was a really good idea, and it's nice to see them taking advantage of this creative license.  The question for me now is, where do we go from here?  Or, more importantly, will we go from here?  

More Than Just Movies...

I've got some TV in here too.  Tricked ya.

The 80's

   When I first saw that the National Geographic channel was creating a series on the 80s, I thought to myself "well, VH1 beat you guys to the punch a while back."  But of course, I was completely wrong.  While VH1's series did have some great moments, it was primarily focused on fads and pop culture.  National Geographic goes at it from a more... adult... direction.

   This is an incredible series about an incredible decade.  The 80s have left a mark on me, partly because I was born there and grew up there, but also because they marked the beginning -- and ending -- of so many eras.  The 80s were, to me, the last decade that had an "identity."  The 60s had hippies, the 70s had disco, and the 80s had... well, lots of things.  Spandex, Reaganites, arcades, music... it was sort of the "best of" before everything went downhill.

   I also think the 80s is when modern technology really started to take off.  Look at video games as an example.  You started with shitty atari games and a world where the only way to play REAL video games was to go burn through quarters at the arcade.  And by the end of that decade we were on the cusp of Super Nintendo, and the first game (in my opinion) that was actually better on console than in the arcade:

cowabunga, motherfuckers.

   The world is completely different now.  Technology has skyrocketed and driven us to a point where nothing has time to establish an identity.  We are too busy rushing on to the next thing.  Will we plateau?  I doubt it... I think it's much more likely we'll screw up and blow ourselves to hell before we stop eating up the technology craze.

   Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Robot & Frank

   From Netflix: Set in the near future, Frank is given a walking, talking humanoid robot programmed to improve his physical and mental health. What follows is an often hilarious and heartwarming story about finding friends and family in the most unexpected places.

   My Take:  You might look at a movie like this and think "no thanks."  I personally love these kinds of movies.  You take a strong actor, and put him in a weird situation, and let the sparks fly.  Here's a guy who is going senile in the future, and instead of putting him in a home, his son brings the home to him -- in the form of a robot.

   Part of it might also be that I can relate to the hard-headedness that Frank displays throughout this movie.  The idea of "I don't need any help" is something I grew up with, and something I believe about myself as well.  And, like in the movie, I find that when I just allow that help, things get much easier and better for everyone involved.

   What I'm not quite sure about is the twist that this movie exhibits.  It could have been a deep story about a family coming together with the help of the robot, but instead they turned it into a heist-style movie.  It's like the screenwriters lost sight of what they were trying to convey with the movie, and unlike some films ("Henry Poole," for example), there was no one holding the reigns to keep it on track.

   It happens.  It was still an enjoyable movie.  It's not for everyone, but if you're interested in this kind of stuff, how technology might shape our future and whatnot, give it a shot.

Surviving Progress

   From Netflix:  This bracing documentary considers whether human "progress" stemming from the Industrial Age could be paving the way for civilization's collapse. The film asks a range of thinkers whether the modern world might be headed for a "progress trap."

   My take:  Hooooo, this is a tough one.  Before I talk about this movie, I think I should set you up with my thoughts on overpopulation.  I believe that Agent Smith was on to something in "The Matrix" when he said humanity more closely resembles a virus than an actual species of animal, in that we spread exponentially with no regard to the environment, food chain, natural way of things, etc.  We just keep popping out babies. And I also believe that this will be our demise.  We are in an age where more and more jobs are being fulfilled by machines, there is less need for human labor, and therefor less ways for humans to make a living.  Our entire economy is founded on the idea that you work so you can make money so you can afford things which other people work for so they can make money so they can afford things and around and around it goes.  If that breaks down, so does our economy, so does our way of life, so does society.  It's definitely a quandary, because I for one am not in favor of controlled populations, birth rules, etc... I mean I want to have kids one day.  But I think we are quickly reaching a point where if we want to survive, we either have to options: control our population, or start spreading out into space.

   Okay, so this movie talks about the overpopulation problem, but also about how the idea of "progress" might not be as good as it sounds.  There were two things I found to be very interesting.  First, it had never occurred to me that all of the advances we've made in medicine, technology, etc, could actually lead to our downfall.  Sure, medicine is letting people live longer -- which from a cold, medical approach is not a good thing.  But the idea that our ipads and smartphones, our processors and wifi, could actually contribute to our downfall.

   This movie put it very well.  They say that for a long time, we were living on mother nature's "interest," which meant that we were using material in such a way that the planet could replenish it at least as fast as we used it.  But in the last couple of decades, we have started to go beyond that and cut into the actual product that nature provides.  We are cutting down trees faster than they can ever hope to be regrown, essentially.  And in the movie they propose that in order for us to get back to an "interest-only" type lifestyle, the human race would have to shrink by two thirds.  Two thirds!  

   The other interesting tie they made was to the concept of debt and how it contributes to society collapse.  They talked about how it used to be the majority of debts were owed to the state, and as such, when debt levels reached a certain point, the state could just hit the "reset" button and start everyone over on equal footing.  The Romans changed all of that by saying "nope, debt is debt."  They then moved forward to present times, where debt is still debt, and how the richest 10% of our population is owed so much money that they are essentially holding the planet hostage.  They also said that this 10% would happily watch the world burn before they would allow those debts to go away.  In other words, it's a Socialist message... but -- and this is coming from a guy who is staunchly anti-socialist -- it was the most compelling argument for socialism that I've ever heard.

   Ultimately, "bracing" is a good word to describe this documentary.  While I usually associate it with words like "enema" for some reason, this documentary definitely opened my eyes and made me think about this whole overpopulation thing from a different perspective.

Django Unchained

   From Netflix:  Accompanied by a German bounty hunter, a freed slave named Django travels across America to free his wife from a sadistic plantation owner. Quentin Tarantino directs this modern-day spaghetti Western.

   My take:  Let me get this straight right off the bat.  I do not like Quentin Tarantino.  I think he's a hack.  Hell, he admits he's a hack.  I think a lot of his movies are over-the-top, ridiculous, and silly.  That said, I do have to admit -- it's obvious that Tarantino and his pals enjoy making the movies they make.  There's something to be said for that, and "Django Unchained" definitely falls within this category.

   It also falls into several others.  Over-the-top comes to mind.  I didn't realize that shooting someone with a shotgun from 15 feet away caused them to explode in a gory goo.  Interesting.  Most of the characters are actually caricatures, but you know what?  It worked.  The acting was actually quite good, and I can definitely see why Christoph Waltz got the award.  He was incredible.

   But like I said, this movie was obviously fun to make.  I know that because it was fun to watch.  It was ridiculous, it was silly, it was explosive, it was WAY bloody... and it was a helluva ride.

   The only thing that worries me is that I think now Tarantino may be reaching a point where he copies himself in his movies.  So is every Tarantino flick now going to end with a ridiculously gory shoot-out that completely breaks the story line?  Are we going to get into a "good guy vs. bad guy" scenario where the entire movie is the good guys trying to track down and finally meet the bad guy in a glorious final battle?  I liked it here, but I'm starting to see a rut form.

   Either way, whether you like or hate Tarantino, "Django" is a good movie to watch on a night when you're bored.  It will liven things up, guaranteed.  It's a fun watch, and surprisingly good underneath all the gore and silly moments.  Enjoy!

Iron Man 3

   From Netflix:  Robert Downey Jr. dons his powerful armor suit again, portraying popular Marvel comic book character industrialist Tony Stark -- aka Iron Man -- who takes on power-mad villains intent on destroying the world.

   My take:  SPOILERS AHEAD.  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.  I am a huge, unashamed Iron Man fan.  I had a ton of his comics growing up (I still have them in a closet somewhere).  My brother and I used to play with his action figures.  He was a rare sight and never got the attention he deserved, but he was my favorite.  I loved the idea of a protective suit of armor.  I loved the technology behind the suit, which back in the days of the comic was way ahead of its time.  So when they first announced the movie, I was really excited -- and nervous.  The first two Iron Man movies did not disappoint, and neither did the Avengers movie.  But without Favreau at the helm, and because now it was all tied together (the world of Iron Man and the world of, ugh, Thor, for example)... I was nervous about this third installment.

   I went into this movie with hopes high, mostly because I had heard that the Silver Centurion would be making an appearance in this movie:

  Pimp.

And he did.  I think.  It's hard to say, because what should have been the most awesome part of this movie was actually one of the more disappointing.

   I get that the idea of this movie was Tony Stark coming to grips with his own mortality, with understanding that the man is what makes the man, not some suit of armor, etc etc etc.  But I paid good money to see a guy in a metal suit beat the everliving shit out of some bad guys...  and Tony spends far less time in the suit than he does running around, downtrodden, trying to get back on his feet.  The suit he did have was a giant piece of shit, breaking apart all the time and hardly working.  It was more of a crutch than anything.

   And yet, all of this could have been saved at the end, when the "Iron Army" showed up to beat the hell out of the glowing folks.  When we finally got to that point, I thought "alright here we go."  But man, what a letdown.  First of all, it was at night, so a lot of the brilliance of these suits was hidden.  Second, they all moved so fast that it was impossible to tell which suit was fighting and how.  None of the suits got to exhibit their special powers (like stealth, or asgardian armor) except for the hulkbust -- or, rather the Igor suit, which had... uh... hydraulics?  My point is, this could have been an incredible scene.  Instead it was a shameless ploy to cram more action figures onto store shelves.  By the time they reached this point in the movie, the credits were eager to roll, so it was like they had to just cram it in before time ran out.  It made sense in the movie, but in this nerdy fan's mind, it was a hugely missed opportunity.

   What I LOVED about this movie was how they handled the Mandarin.  I personally thought Iron Man always got the shaft with his bad guys.  He was sort of a B-List hero, so he got second-rate villains like some green dude with "magic rings."  Get outta here.  And when I saw that the Mandarin was going to show up in this movie, I thought to myself "oh shit."  So try to imagine the relief I felt when the Mandarin was exposed as a fake, and the real bad guy was the much more believable Taggart and AIM.  Well played folks, well played indeed.  Add all the smart one-liners from Downey Jr., the funny moments like the "prodigal son" returning only to break into a million pieces, etc, and you had one wild and funny ride.

   Iron Man 3 is not as good as its two predecessors.  It's not as good as The Avengers.  And unfortunately, this may be Robert Downey Jr.'s last play as Tony Stark.  This may be the beginning of the end, at least until the inevitable reboot, but hey you know what?  If that is the case, then I am still happy.  We got four solid movies that all look incredible.  Iron Man was finally done justice.  I'm just glad I was able to see it in my lifetime.

In honor of Cinco de Drinko Mayo, 

Adios Muchachos.

Consider The North Koreans

   Here we are, just a couple weeks after the terrible Boston bombings.  People are dead, more people are still in the hospital recovering, and even more people are struggling to try to deal with this situation.  If you're like me, you're pissed off.  But you're also hurt.  You're probably asking yourself something like "why in the world would anyone want to do this to us?  What did we ever do to them?  Why are people so crazy?"  You probably have a lot of hatred inside you, but you're not sure what to do with it.  That's understandable.  The assholes who instigated this attack deserve the penalties that have already come and will continue to come to them.  And I do believe there is a special place in hell reserved for them both.

   But I'm about to propose something that, honestly, may cause you to turn some of that hatred towards me.  That's fine.  I'm not asking you to agree with what I'm about to say.  All I'm asking is that you read it with as open a mind as you can find, considering everything we've been through as a country these past couple weeks.  From there you can judge me all you like.

   I am going to ask the same questions that may be on your mind.  Why would anyone ever want to do this to America?  What did we ever do to them?  Well, unfortunately I think the answer in many cases is "a lot."  Now before you start railing off, just hear me out.  I am a die-hard american, I love this country, and I want us to continue to be the best country in the world.  But there are things going on that you and I don't know about, things that I think if you DID know about them, you might think twice about some aspects of your life.  The unfortunate truth is that a lot of the reason why our lives are so great here in America is because life is so shitty for those other parts of the world, many of which hate us so much.

   Consider Afghanistan.  That country bred the people who brought us 9/11.  From what you see on TV, it's a bunch of thugs running around with rocket launchers, ruling by fear and killing over things like religion and tribal affiliation.  It looks like a hellhole.  But did you know at one point we were actually on their side?

   Afghanistan was to the Soviet Union what Vietnam was to us.  It was a proxy war location where the REAL combatants were the Soviets and the US, but it was all fought through the Afghans.  We supplied them with weapons, we armed them to the teeth and showed them how to bring down Soviet fighters and soldiers.  And most importantly, we promised them that we would be there to help the rebuild.  The Afghans pushed the Soviets out, which was a huge victory for them -- but an even bigger one for us.  And then we just left.  No rebuilding, no fulfillment of our promises.  We just gave them the middle finger and came back to our country.

   Now, chances are that had nothing to do with you.  You can say it's stupid or that it's not founded, or that there is no excuse for 9/11 (and you're right there, but we'll get to that).  But the reality is, the hatred that country felt towards us when we abandoned them has played a huge role in the way things have played out.  And entire generation of children grew up thinking of us as the assholes who promised them great things, made them sacrifice their lives, and then bailed on them when it came time to pay up.  Those kids grew up and passed the message on, etc etc etc, and now here we are.

   Movie to watch: Charlie Wilson's War

   Consider Iraq.  Saddam Hussein was a complete prick.  He may not be the worst dictator the world has ever seen, but he was certainly up there.  The things he did to his people were unimaginable, and because America is so awesome, we wanted to rectify the situation.  So it was a nice little blessing when Saddam decided to invade Kuwait.  There was our in, our chance to get into that country and blow the ever living shit out of an asshole.

   That's what we did.  And the Iraqis loved us.  We were their liberators, their heroes.  We were finally going to free them from oppression.  And then, when we had Saddam backed up into his shitty little palace at the end of Desert Storm, what did we do?  We bailed.

   I don't know why we bailed.  Political reasons?  Was there something militarily that we didn't know about?  I don't know, and we may never know.  But once we were gone, what do you think Saddam did?  Do you think he came out of hiding and was like "hey people of Iraq, it's cool, I get what you're saying, I'm going to be a better person having learned a lot from this experience."  Hell no.  He went on the warpath.  And all these people who thought they were going to be liberated, were instead being tortured.

   So you can imagine when we went BACK into Iraq a few years later, the atmosphere was a little different.  How would YOU feel in that situation?  Would you trust us?  Especially knowing that chances are we were really in there for the oil anyway?  Of course they aren't going to welcome us with open arms.  Why would they?

   Movie to watch: Three Kings

   Consider North Korea, Iran, Palestine, anyone else we're "dealing with."  Kim Jong Un is a psychopath.  Amenijad or however you spell it is a whacko.  They have been a thorn in freedoms's side and America's side for a long time, and I am in no way going to make excuses for them here.  But let's talk about their countries for a minute.  Let's talk about their people as a whole.

   We deal with these issues by declaring "sanctions" on them.  We cut them off from money, from resources, from food.  We are basically telling the people of the country "if you want to get out of this hellhole of a life, you need to overthrow your leader and start being a stand-up country."  This mindset comes from a good place.  Here in America, there's no way we would stand for a leader like either one of those guys.  We would overthrow them just like we overthrew the tyrants back in the colonial days.  But see, we understand this concept because we as a country lived it, and taught it to our kids, passed it on, indoctrinated ourselves with it.  It's almost impossible to imagine, but try to understand what it would be like if that type of thinking had never even entered your mind!

   That's the situation we're in here.  Brain washing is a powerful thing -- don't laugh, because in a lot of ways you and I fall for it just like they do.  These people are so lost in their own minds, so convinced that they can never overthrow their leaders, so confused about what America is and who we are and what we represent, that it's almost impossible for us to get through to them.  And in these instances, sanctions actually HURT our chances more than they help.

   Do you think the sanctions are hurting Kim Jong Un?  I doubt it.  He probably still eats good meals every day, lives a fairly luxurious life, etc.  Same with Iran's dude.  But it's the people who are suffering as a result of these sanctions.  They are the ones who can't eat, can't make a living, can't get on their feet.  And while the goal of these sanctions is for them to look at their leaders living comfortably and get pissed off, instead they look at US as the reason they are so miserable.  And they do get pissed off.

   My point is, we are breeding our own enemies.  Am I making excuses for these guys?  Absolutely not.  From what I can tell, it appears these two Russian assholes were just trying to make names for themselves.  There is NEVER an excuse for killing innocent people.  And like I said, I do think America has good intentions abroad.  We are trying to make this world better for everyone who lives in it.  But at the same time, we are abusing our power and position.

   We're like the guy who won the Monopoly game but wants to keep playing.  Our competitors continually land on our properties, and we could break any one of them and force them out of the game... but instead, we say "oh, well, I'll cut you a deal -- as long as you cut me one in return."  Then, when we land on their properties, we don't pay a dime because of the slack we cut them.  Then they land on ours again, we cut them slack, etc etc etc it just cycles in on itself.  The difference is, while in Monopoly you can kick the board and throw it away, you can't really do that with the world.  The only real option for these countries is to try to find a way to start the game over, to get us all back on even footing, and for many of them that means trying to do things like what we saw on 9/11.  It's not right -- it's desperate.

   Back to my point on brainwashing.  If you're still reading this, chances are you have a pretty open mind.  But think about back when Ron Paul started to bring points like this up at a Republican party debate.  He couldn't get six words out of his mouth before the audience started booing.  The look on his face said it all.  He realized this was not a fight he could win, that this was an audience that would never listen to him, and in a lot of ways I think that moment killed any kind of momentum he may have had. 

   But why did the audience boo him there?  Was it because he was wrong?  Or was it because we don't want to hear what he was going to say?  We don't like to think about the darker side of things, especially when it comes to international politics.  If you knew every time you filled up your gas tank that other people were paying six, seven times as much just so it could be cheaper here, would that change your driving habits or what kind of car you owned?  If you knew that buying a diamond potentially promoted a trade where people work terrible jobs and even get killed, would you still be excited to see a rock on that ring?  Do you see where I'm going here?  We have it so easy in this country, and it's easy to take for granted the fact that we're here because we're stepping on the backs of others.  It's much easier to just not think about it, to ignore it so that we can sleep better at night.  Believe me, I understand, I do it too.

   The reality, whether we want to believe it or not, is that Ron Paul was exactly right.  If China, or any other country in the world, tried to treat the United States like we have treated the countries I'm referencing here, we would be exploding the planet right this very minute.  Imagine if Germany decided they wanted to set up a military base in Oregon.  Or if China decided they would perform "naval exercises" in the Gulf Of Mexico. It would be a shitstorm!  And yet these are the kinds of things we do to the rest of the world every single day!  We control the world.  It's good for us, but it's also bad for us, because while we might like to think we're seen as knights in shining armor, an inspiration for the rest of the world, we're more often seen as overbearing assholes who think way too much of themselves.  It's not a positive message.

   I want you to consider this before I stop jabbering.  Consider what would happen if we, as a country, decided to say "F-you" to the rest of the world, and pull ALL of our resources and forces back to within our own border.  Consider what would happen if we no longer had any kind of military presence in Europe.  If we no longer helped Iraq or Saudi Arabia mine their oil.  If we didn't give Africa any money to help educate their populations.  If we stopped backing up South Korea or Japan.   It's very hard to think about that kind of world, isn't it?  Just typing it makes me nervous -- consider how exposed we would be.

   But would we be, actually?  I would wager that if we actually did completely pull back to within our own borders, the world would change quite a bit.  There would certainly be some fighting.  Countries like Israel and South Korea would have a tough time of it without our support.  Countries like China or even Russia might try to take the opportunity to do the same thing they hated us for doing -- controlling the regions around them.  But I would guess most of these guys would leave America itself alone.

   This scenario would never happen of course.  I for one think it would be disastrous, and I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing we basically left entire countries out there to die.  But just think about what it would do, really.  Take the death and unrest out of it for a second, and consider the long-term.  Once things found their balance, the rest of the world would have to wake up and realized all of the good we have done for them over the years.  Their lives would be radically different without us there.  In the meantime, our country would be more defensible than ever.  Our entire armed forces would be sitting here on our shores, basically saying "come and try your luck" to the rest of the world.  We could put a soldier every ten feet on the border -- no need for a fence.  We wouldn't be spending such large amounts of money on our military, think about how that would help the deficit!  We could bring employment back to our country by focusing on our own resources.  We would be fine, and we could sit back and watch as the rest of the world tries to figure out how to function without the Monopoly Winners helping things along.

   It's an interesting, if ultimately unrealistic, idea.  It's what we did at the beginning of World War 2, and when we finally said "alright fine we'll help," boy were the Axis forces sorry.  America is every bit as strong a country now as we were then, the only difference is now we're spread much thinner.  We really ARE the world's police force... and while I would rather it be us than anyone else, is that really what we should be doing?  Are we ultimately setting ourselves up to fail by trying to do to much?  In our never-ending quest to do good, are we actually doing harm?

   I don't know.  I just want you to think about it.  Or don't.

There's Not Much On TV...

...so I've been watching a lot of movies lately.  Sue me.

Everything Must Go

   From Netflix:  Director-writer Dan Rush makes his film debut with this dramedy based on a Raymond Carver short story about Nick (Will Ferrell), a good-hearted but relapsed alcoholic who decides to live on his front lawn after losing his job and being thrown out by his wife.

   My Take:  There were two things that surprised me about this movie.  One, it was shot right here in the Phoenix area, and two, it was way more depressing than I thought it was going to be.  I was expecting something along the lines of "Stranger Than Fiction..." heartfelt, sort of sad at times, but overall something that made you feel like a better person.  I didn't get that vibe from this movie.

   Instead we see a guy who is, I guess as Netflix put it, a good-hearted alcoholic trying to figure out what the hell he's doing with his life.  Now I've never had to deal with a true alcoholic (though I know some people who like to pretend they are), so I can't say for sure how I would act, but don't you think there's a moment where you tell the guy "hey you know what?  I'm gonna lock you in this room without booze until you're over it."  And to top it off, this guy drinks PBR.  That shit isn't even good, I don't care what the hipsters say.

   Still, it's nice to see that Will Ferrell is capable of holding his own in a serious role.  I'm holding on to faith that this means he won't suffer the same fate as Adam Sandler, destined to make shitty half-comedies for the rest of his career.  He was believable, and he also was able to keep some semblance of his sense of humor throughout, so props to him on that.

   Ultimately, I look at movies like this as similar to the one-off action movies that come out every other week.  There's always some little story that I figure some director or producer was like "we're going to make a difference!" and then the movie comes out and barely makes a ripple.  I don't even think this one made it into theaters.  And I certainly wouldn't stack it up against movies like "Henry Poole Is Here."  But it wasn't bad, either.

   So I guess what I'm saying is, if you like Will Ferrell, or if you want to see what Will Ferrell can do when he's not an idiotic anchor man or a stupid race car driver, then check this movie out.  It's not his best (I still prefer "Stranger Than Fiction"), but it's not bad.

Looper

   From Netflix:  In the year 2042, Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a Looper, a hired assassin for the mob who kills people sent from the future. But what will he do when the mob decides to "close the loop," sending back Joe's future self (Bruce Willis) for assassination?

   My Take:  Here's one I that I knew, the second I saw the trailer, I wanted to see it.  The concept is brilliant.  A murder-for-hire who kills people that are sent back in time by some futuristic mob, only to discover that he himself has made the hit list?  Craziness.

   Well, it's not quite what I expected, but it's close enough that I was still more than happy to sit through it.  The idea of the movie, while not what the trailer promised, is still sound: in the movie this is commonplace, and running into your old self is nothing new.  In fact it's a way for you to see that your contract is "up" and you have 30 years to live your life before you are the one getting shot in the face.  Interesting.

   What I loved about this movie was the way the story was told.  So many flash-backs and flash-forwards, showing what the future would have been, or was for each of the people.  I love how they had memories from the young guy carry over to the old guy, along with the injuries.  I love how it all kept a sort of sordid sense of humor (the bit where Bruce suggests that Levitt could have used a shorter name cutting into his arm, great stuff).  The different perspectives were awesome, both visually and from a storytelling standpoint.  I actually wasn't sure how to feel about Willis' mission -- I mean, killing kids, come on.  But when you see what the future holds, that clouds things up a little bit.

   And that ultimately leads me to what bothered me about this movie.  I guess we got a taste of how the director/writer/producer/whoever saw time travel when the two main characters were sitting in the diner.  Bruce Willis yells "IT DOESN'T MATTER."  Well, except it does.  The fact that you guys don't care about time travel doesn't give you the freedom to make a shitty ending.  And that's kind of what we got.  Oh sure it was a nice twist when he says he's going to change the loop.  But if you think it through, that doesn't make sense.  In the previous future, Bruce didn't exist and therefor would not have killed that kid OR his mom... and yet the kid still turns out to be the "rainmaker" or whatever his name was.  So how does breaking the loop change anything?  In reality, breaking the loop would have been killing the kid.  Now my head hurts.

   I'm also not seeing how this great makeup job on Levitt helps him look any more like Bruce Willis.  Don't get me wrong, it was an awesome job of changing his facial features... if I didn't know what that guy actually looked like, I would have thought this was his real look.  But I didn't see the resemblance with Brucey either.   And speaking of Brucey, this was the most like homer simpson I think I've ever seen him look.  Awesome.

   Ultimately, "Looper" is a great flick that is definitely worth seeing.  And no I didn't spoil anything for you here -- the movie still stands even knowing what I've revealed.  Time travel movies are always a bitch, and considering how badly they could have screwed it up, I think this one actually does a pretty good job of keeping everything in order.  Almost.

Oblivion

   From Netflix:  High above a war-torn future Earth, Cmdr. Jack Harper is maintaining the planet's defensive drones when a crippled starship enters his territory. Its sole occupant, a mysterious woman, leads Harper to shocking truths about humankind's legacy.

   My Take:  Because this movie just came out, I'm going to start off this review by letting you know if you should see it.  You should.  Don't fall for the "oh this is just another Tom Cruise Action Flick" thinking.  Yes, it's Tom Cruise, and yes he's in typical form (and yes he even runs at one point).  But this is a beautiful movie with an interesting story, and something you owe it to yourself to see.

   Okay... ***SPOILERS*** beyond this point.

   Easily my favorite part about this movie is how closely it mirrored the styling of "Mass Effect."  That is such a sweet series of videogames, full of incredible artistic design, and while this is not a "Mass Effect" movie (please?  Anyone?)  it does capture a lot of the essence of the style that makes up those games.  The visuals are gorgeous, and I love how the movie doesn't shy away from using iconic or shocking landmarks to show us what happened to the world.  I don't know why that it is, but it just seems like post-apocalypse movies don't show enough of the planet for it to really sink in.  Kudos for that.

   The soundtrack is the same.  So close to "Mass Effect" I was blown away.  A great mix of the orchestral and the tech.  Sound design overall is what really made this movie stand out to me.  The sounds the drones made, the threatening tone they carried, even with Cruise's somewhat stilted acting, you got the uneasy feeling that at any moment those things could turn around and blow you the fuck away.  I would say this movie did an even better job with sound design than "War Of The Worlds," which to this point was my favorite (and also, interestingly, starred Tom Cruise).

   There were a couple of big holes in this movie, unfortunately... and even more unfortunately, those holes had to do with the story.  First of all, I didn't like how they set the whole thing up with a long voice-over monologue from Tom Cruise.  It was completely unneeded, since he essentially says the same exact thing to the survivor when she first regains consciousness.  It was probably some idiot studio executive like "I don't think the audience is going to get it, hit them harder, in the face, with a hammer."  Ahhhhh facepalm.  The only benefit of the opening monologue was that you got to see some sweet visuals, so I guess it wasn't all bad.

   My other big problem was the bad guy.  If that thing was a machine, why in the world did it need to suck up all of earth's water?  Why did it care about the earth in the first place?  Having a non-organic enemy, I think it would have done them better to change the reason why it was there.  Of course, that would also involve rewriting the bulk of the story.  Better to have an organic enemy and leave it at that.  Even though man, the visual effects in that Tet were so sweet.  Also, why in the world would the thing use Tom Cruise against its own race?  Infiltration would have made sense, but having "him, pile out of the ships, by the thousands," as Morgan Freeman says... that just doesn't make sense.  Surely using robots or machines would have been more effective.  

   And finally, if you're going to have #52 come back at the end and be the same guy with the same mindset as #49, why would you also have him fight against #49 so hard when he's trying to stop the drone from coming back online?  Wouldn't #52 be a little more likely to jump on board with #49's cause?  I mean I know that's a fucked up thing to see, yourself, fighting against you, but I'm guessing neither of them had any affinity toward the drones, so why would #52 be so adamant about protecting one that wasn't even his?

   Even with all of that, I thought this was a fantastic movie.  Brilliantly told and portrayed, it takes its time yet has a great amount of action.  Could it have been better?  Yeah I suppose.  But I'd see it again, and even if you are a moron and read my review, thus spoiling a lot of the movie, you should see it too.

Hey guess what?  I'm cooking up another entry that doesn't have anything to do with movies -- but it's sort of sensitive, especially considering what we've gone through with Boston in the past week.  I'll probably write it up for next weekend, so stay tuned...