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.