Wednesday, March 30, 2011

The Ghost and the Darkness

So I'm not entirely sure this movie had much of an impact on me when it first came out: I definitely did not see it in the theatre, but certainly shortly afterwards when it came out on video. It was solid, don't get me wrong, but there is no way I could foresee the urge I would experience in wanting to see it, time and again. It certainly doesn't help the situation when my good friend seems to adore it and talks about it occasionally; it's like it comes out of the darkness and bam, you're reminded of this movie and the passionate way he talks about it forces me to watch it again. Every time I revisit the film, the more I appreciate it: I really think they nailed this film on many levels, making it timeless.

For those of you who don't know, or have simply forgotten (it was 1996, after all), this movie is about an engineer (Kilmer) named Patterson who is building a bridge in Africa. Shortly into the project, two lions start attacking the small camp/settlement, throwing fear into the workers. The two lions, the ghost and the darkness, seem to operate at a different level than your normal lion: they hunt man, they hunt together, and they seem malicious about it. They kill and terrorize, even when they are not hungry. The blood lust has settled in, for sure, but something else could be going on here too. They almost seem intelligent, and for a time, as I watched this the other night, I got thinking about evolution. Cats are smart, for sure, but can they be this smart? Perhaps some mutation that has given these two in particular an edge, and introduced something that seems limited to the human race so far: villainy. These lions are just jerks. So after a threatened walkout, the company brings in a revered expert hunter (Douglas), to bring an end to the lion menace. I won't spoil the rest for you.

What we get is a pretty interesting, and true story. Apparently these events did happen, and the two lions were killed in the end (ok, spoiled) and are on exhibit at Chicago's Field Museum (they may have been moved to Africa since). I was there just two years ago and don't remember seeing them, but there's a good chance I glazed over them like I did most of the exhibits (the fossil and rocks sections were the best). But this is great: apparently the only thing that was 100% fictionalized for the film was Douglas' hunter character: Patterson was so bad ass in real life he killed the lions on his own. He went on to write a series of books about them, which could have easily been exaggerated, but they seem to be the best accounts we have to go on. It's estimated these two lions killed a hundred or more humans in a relatively short amount of time. We see a cave full of human bones and remains in the film, and the horror should set in as this is not behaviour of lions we come to expect.

Either way you point it, the film is addictive and features a good cast: a young and trim Kilmer, a sufficiently gruntled yet wise Douglas and the rest: Tom Wilkinson, Emily Mortimer, Bernard Hill and more. Actors you just see in things all the time now. I don't feel like they tried to make things too deep here: one scene gets a little cheesy but it's kept pretty basic. You get a little taste of life back in 1898, and when you step back to think about it, the railroad really was epic.

Mahina: You know, I also have killed a lion.
Angus Starling: How many shots did you need?
Mahina: I used my hands.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Two Turntables

I think the first pieces of vinyl - if you can even call it that - was a set of ALF Burger King promotional records. The combination of ALF and Burger King was something that no nine-year old Ryebone could resist. They probably got some spin time on my sister's record player, which could have been a Fisher Price; regardless, it was big, beige and very plastic. Now, I don't remember my parents having a turntable, but I do remember my father's vinyl collection. He had it stored at the bottom of the stairs, just off the living room in an ottoman type device that we would sit on while putting on our boots. It was this light green colour, and the inside housed a few dozen records; not once did I go in to admire the big artwork or become curious what they were. They simply existed.

Back in those days I had a couple of cassettes, and my dad was just getting a CD player (perhaps 1989 or 1990); my dad and sister would be visiting music stores and buying music, but I just wasn't into it. Give me some video games to look at, great, but music, not so much. I think if the album wasn't a movie soundtrack to something I enjoyed, like Ninja Turtles or Batman, I would have none of that. Over time my musical interest matured, but I would always have a consistent focus: quality. I can recall recording Mega Man 2 with my parents' boombox from the television speaker, to upgrading to line inputs, getting the NuReality 3D (sorry, no link - I couldn't find the exact device online...although it was an early product featuring SRS technology) and experimenting with different speaker setups. I would embrace the digital world, downloading MP3s when they first came around (and weren't blatantly illegal). I would encode my entire CD collection not once, but twice with different quality settings, and experiment with lossless audio a few times.

But during this time, I would occasionally see vinyl records in stores: typically very old, beat up and featuring artists that I had zero interest in. But then I would see some new bands releasing records, and I became curious. Do they still make turntables? They must. The only one I would ever see is the lonely Sony model in what else: the Sony Store. The price of records seemed reasonable, but what about the quality? I don't even want to get started on this, as it's practically a subjective thing: people hear differently, some better than others. I'll say it now, I can't really tell the difference between CD and vinyl, or even a well-encoded MP3. When I listen to my CDs, I feel like they have more depth and presence but put me into a blind listening test and I'm sure I would never hear the difference.

So, over the years I've toyed with getting myself a player, and a few records. It's not a big investment, and I feel good buying a record for an artist I truly enjoy: I get more physical product than the CD counterpart, and these days, all records come with codes to download the digital version for free. So it's win-win. I would go ahead and buy a few records: The National's Boxer, Wolf Parade's Apologies to the Queen Mary and the latest Interpol.

Our local Sony Store was going out of business, so I bought the display model of their standard record player at a nice little discount. I brought it home, got it connected and the sound was just horrendous. Scratching, noisy and messy. I couldn't make out the music at all. Over the next hour I would learn a lot about how these things work, and it was exciting. So mechanical, so simple and fun. I can see what parts you can replace, and how to do it. But this record player was finished; I returned it.

For quite some time, I subsided with nothing, until my recent birthday when my parents purchased me a Denon DP-29F. Looks like a fairly well built, standard player that will do the trick and what do you know, it does. I broke it in with Boxer; placed myself in the sweet spot and just listened. All the little cracks, pops and hisses were there, just like they said it would be. Did it sound better? Like I said before, I don't think so. But I took contentment in what was happening: the disc spinning steadily, the needle traversing the surface and magically transforming this disc into full, rich music. I love the large format; the big album artwork and the full size inserts. They are all pieces I would have no problem hanging on my wall, and putting on display. Finally, my system is complete with the addition of this turntable and I'm excited to get into this niche market.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Fallout 3: Completion

What better way to ring in your 30th birthday than to plow through some Enclave soldiers and beat the main storyline in Fallout 3? This also marks the fourth Fallout post in four weeks: Fallout Friday seems to be official, but without a main quest to journey through, I can't imagine there will be many more. Then again, there are a number of expansions...we shall see. I've already installed Broken Steel; apparently it was the first expansion released and for good reason as it's the only way to continue the game after beating it. It goes like this: once you start the very last quest, there is no turning back. You complete it, credits and video roll, and you are booted to the main menu. You can reload a previous save, but you can't really exist in the world after beating it. Broken Steel continues - so to speak - the main quest and if you have it installed, the game continues and the world is your plaything.

Broken Steel also raises the level cap from 20 to 30, although after just a few hours more of playing I am now at level 22. I was at level 20 and not thinking I was close to the end of the game when I was very near, which speaks to the length of the main quest. It's short. I spent 55 hours traversing the Capital Wastelands and only doing main story here and there, surely there had to be more, right? Not so much; the quest was interesting, but not difficult (thankfully). In contrast to the 150 hours I put into Oblivion, you could ask what's missing here? Well, all I can say is that Fallout 3 is tighter. Exploration is not as tedious, and the side quests seemed more relevant. Those guild quests from Oblivion can feel like grinding, as they just seem to go on forever without much variety.

So what else is there to say about the finish? This game has me in complete addiction. Do I want it to end? There are a few things I want to do, many of which just revolve around the achievements. Earlier this week I collected all the bobbleheads (I had about 12 throughout most of the game - there are 20 in total). I finished a couple of side quests and I'm starting to install the other packs. From what I understand they are not incredibly long, which is nice. This means tighter gameplay and story. Remember Shivering Isles? It was good, yes, but I could live without trudging through a mushroom infested multi-colour cave again. I don't feel that same attachment as I did in Oblivion, and you can blame that on the world. Nobody wants to live in the Wasteland; Cyrodill looked pretty appealing: colourful, lush and vast. Oblivion was a world I wanted to go back to; I have no urge to play through Fallout in its entirety again, but I will be very eager to jump into a Fallout 4.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Chrome

Well, with the recent release of Chrome version 10, it's about time I revisited the blog with a technology oriented piece. Of course, in speaking about internet browsers, I'm going to have to force you to read through the story of my life's involvement in these pieces of software. You love it; it's why you come back...or do you? Basically I first got onto the internet in the early to mid-nineties. In this form, I was using Compuserve; I remember the day my dad came home with an e-mail account, but none of us knew what to do with it.

Compuserve was a pretty controlled piece of internet real estate, and they eventually let us browse the world wide web using Spry Mosaic. I'm not entirely sure on the following decade, but I'm sure I would go on to use variants of Netscape and Internet Explorer. Speed ahead to my university days and I would experience my first little browser war as Mozilla comes out and provides some features that Internet Explorer couldn't. I recall Mozilla introducing tabs, which concreted it as the browser of choice for an incredibly long time. IE would only be used for compatibility and testing, but it was always the joke. Speed ahead another few years and Firefox jumped out (I believe it was an offspring of Mozilla, indeed, it was "Mozilla Firefox" for some time, I think) and would proceed to take the way to the mainstream.

But then Google jumped into the ring with Chrome, just a few years ago. Excited by these browsers (which seems like a terrible thing) I decided to try it out, just as I tried Opera a while back too. Unfortunately it just didn't cut it; I couldn't easily find favourites/bookmarks and the minimalist design wasn't enough for me. During those days I was using Firefox with all sorts of plug-ins enabled. Firefox became a beast of a system to use, and I didn't feel like Chrome could cut it. So I put it away.

All of a sudden, version 2, 3, 4 and 5 were out. Did the browser really advance that much so quickly? I tried it out again but wasn't overly interested in the whole matter anymore. But something was happening to my Firefox: it looked like crap. IE was really advancing and because I had to use it at work (custom applications) I was really appreciating the modern graphics. Firefox was focused on the system itself and I think is always a problem with open-source programs: the graphical user interface is always the last thing to get attention. So, I tried Chrome again, and at that time, it was leaps and bounds above itself from just a year previous. The absolute killer feature was syncing my bookmarks to my Google account. You can sync much more than that now, and it's integration into my Google account is absolutely key, as I have fully embraced Google and it's cloud based services. I could recall sending favourites to myself through e-mail from work to home, or vice versa. Now, I could just bookmark it and it would magically appear on all my computers, anywhere I went.

The real beauty of Chrome, I find, is the UI. As my web needs become simpler, I find that Chrome is a better fit. It's simple, yet elegant. There are nice themes to apply, and tabs going on top of the address bar, as opposed to being under, makes so much sense it's scary. No need for an entire strip across the top of the window for useless menus: hide them away where I visit them every three months. There are many things Chrome does that seems to fit my current browsing lifestyle. At work, I still use IE primarily, but always have Chrome opened in the background. Browsers have come a long way, and it's interesting to see what they come up with next. I've been into technology for a very long time, but have never paid attention to them before, but now you have to pay attention as their market share and growth statistics are reported on, practically on a weekly basis. You just want to get online and surf. Chrome let's me consume the web in the way I need to.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Reign Over Me

Adam Sandler is not the type of actor that comes to mind when you think of strong, emotional character driven movies. But he's done a decent share, and I have to admit I've enjoyed his more serious turns. We all - and perhaps this aging me horribly - loved Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore; I'm not sure how they've stood up to the test of time but they were the highlights and bar for any Sandler movie I would go see later on, but it didn't take long to become disappointed over and over again, to the point where I gladly ignored any movie of his to better spend my time staring into the void. But, I did watch Punch Drunk Love (which I enjoyed then, and presumably would appreciate now moreso that I've "matured" a bit) and I may be one of the few that enjoyed Funny People.

Reign Over Me initially blipped onto my radar because of the gaming blogosphere lighting up with mentions of Shadow of the Colossus. A "serious" Sandler film where he portrays a video gamer? Where he portrays a grief-stricken father working through depression after his entire family is lost in the events of 9/11? That trifecta can't possibly intermix, and I'm not sure I heard much more on the film. But I watched it the other night, and I have to say, I was gripped the entire time. At first, and sometimes I do this, I plan to watch a movie in two parts: typically after I come home from work and I'm eating dinner. When I'm done eating, I'll stop the movie and pick it up again the next day. So, I stopped the movie forty five minutes in, and after going for a walk in the cold, I came home and immediately watched the rest of the film.

Sandler's character is damaged, quite severly and understandably. He's surrounded by enablers until his old college roomate runs into him a couple of times and they begin rekindling their friendship. It's said by one of the characters that the only reason that Charlie (Sandler) lets Johnson (Cheadle) into his life is because Johnson didn't know Charlie's later life: his life with his family, and after college. Therefore, he won't ask questions, or his questions can be easily avoided. Unfortunately it's not that simple, but what we have here are two friends helping one another out. To a degree, Charlie is free from everyday commitments, such as tending to his wife's needs. It's something that Johnson is struggling with as he begins to fall into love with old habits of staying out late, being spontaneous and going to bed after 10:30pm. What the two characters do is teach one another how to communicate: Charlie is able to open up and get to a point - however fragile of a state that point is - where he can stop pretending the past fifteen years of his life haven't existed. Indeed, when they first run into one another, Charlie (pretends) to not have any idea who Johnson is, even though they lived and shared their personal lives together for two years.

Johnson has communication problems, and lets people walk all over him at both home and business. Charlie is able to - inadvertently of course - help Johnson grow a bit of a backbone, but more importantly, to make him realize how damaging his lack of communication is to his family. What he mistakes as a nagging wife is actually a caring one, one who is trying in her own way to get him to speak and share with her.

When Johnson first goes over to Charlie's place he is incessantly playing Shadow of the Colossus; he talks about it beforehand and if you've never played the game, you may have the same reaction: it's just a video game. But it's definitely much more than that, and it's not chosen at random. This is not The Wizard, which basically served as ninety minute commercial for Super Mario Bros. 3. Shadow follows the story of a young man who loses his love, and through an agreement with an unknown entity, must "fall" a dozen or so colossi: giant, lumbering creatures that dwarf the main character. It's a story of adversity, of love, of blindness. The protagonist in the game doesn't now the effects of what he's doing: from an outsider's perspective he's going around killing perfectly friendly, giant creatures. Charlie is able to become immersed in the game's world, paralleling his own desire to bring back his family, but never being able to realize the goal as reality stumbles in to the way.

The game also allows the two to become closer as they play, watching one another battle each colossus. I can definitely relate to this as it's a memorable way of playing, and with a game like this, can become more of a bonding experience than playing a game split screen simultaneously or together online. I wish I had thought of this, but it was not my idea: the fact that Charlie is bringing down these colossuses over and over is no doubt a mirror of what plays out in his mind as he sees the towers - two colossuses upon themselves - coming down over, and over.

There are a lot of great actors in this film, and they all do an incredible job. Of course, the most surprising and enjoyable is Sandler's. As I mentioned before, he does not take the "serious" role very often and I don't see how he could pass up a film like this. You feel for him, and although I can't relate to what the characters has gone through (perhaps relating more to Johnson), I can feel for him and his incredible presence. There are moments when he becomes unbuckled, and a darkness overcomes the scene; it is weighty and you're terrified, just as you should be.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Fallout 3: Difficult Times

One of the things that prevented me from getting into this game when it first came around was The Hump. There's not better way to describe this than to say that for a time, you will be frustrated out of your mind. This happened in Oblivion too. It's strange: you're at a level, and because the game scales the levels of enemies to match your own awesomeness. But sometimes, they up the level of the enemies to a point where you just have a rough go at beating them. You can't explore the vast wonder of the world without fear of dying over and over again. This happened for a bit as I travelled to Rivet City for the first time; now granted, that was an ambitious journey, and required lots of saving, but I made it.

But The Hump reared it's head and I couldn't go anywhere without dying, and reloading. And I found it was getting in the way of my enjoyment of the game; I love going to new places, seeing how the world has evolved and to a lesser degree, meeting some interesting characters. I've been immersed in this game for nearly forty hours now and the major thing that almost prevented me from continuing on was The Hump. But even when I could trudge my way through the environment, ammo and health were always dangerously low. I was saving every minute, fearful of the next dark corner. You never know, you could hit a land mine and have three of your limbs crippled. At that point, it's easier to load instead of going through the "proper" way. You're supposed to use stimpaks, see doctors and whatnot.

So, here's what I did: I put the difficulty down to "easy." Some would consider this cheating, and to that, I must argue. There is some technical fault there: the setting is in the game, so why not use it? Would increasing the game to "hard" be cheating too? Rock Band gives you the no fail option, providing you the option to just play through the music. For some people, that's all they want to do. I just want to play through Fallout, enjoy the story, the world. In some games you may be penalized, or motivated - depending on the way you look at it - to play on harder difficulties through the awarding of achievements and various in-game items. I certainly don't feel like I'm getting less of an experience here, and I'm not feeling guilty for doing it. There are plenty of games to test the challenge: remember in Goldeneye, where you started off on the easiest difficulty? You couldn't tell while playing, until after you beat the level and opened up the harder difficulties. But here's the real key: not only did your enemies get harder, but you had more objectives. More things to juggle, and to me, that should be the de facto standard for difficulty scales.

When you beat a game like that, you feel accomplished, then you can go back and play more becase there are additional objectives to reach. They are harder, but there is that compulsion to do them. The difficulty slides up at a nice rate, not making impossible leaps; this keeps you coming back. Rogue Squadron did the same thing, and in doing so, increased re-playability greatly. Will lowering the difficulty increase re-playability on Fallout? Will I be compelled to go through the game again? The sheer number of hours is enough to dissuade me from such an act, but I can see the appeal for some: go through the game with different stats, do quests in a different order and choose different outcomes. Unfortunately, that's not for me: I want to go through the game once and move on: there's a backlog of games waiting to be enjoyed.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Risk: Godstorm

It's not often I feel compelled to recount the activities in my adventures into board games, but the other night deserves some commentary, simply because it was epic: I won. First, a little history of me and risk. I don't like it. I played once or twice as a kid, as I'm sure everyone does, because when I found myself confronted with friends in high school, I "knew" how to play it. The strategy game is so classic that it has permeated everybody's knowledge, just like Monopoly: anybody can sit down and start playing the game. Because you're playing the game doesn't mean you're actually playing it though, and this couldn't be more true for Risk, simply because there is some degree of strategy involved. I guess my previous statement could be negated: you don't necessarily need strategy, but as I think about playing, I become overburdened with the stress of preemptively determining a strategy, and the stress comes from not being a strategist at all.

So we would play the vanilla edition of Risk in high school, and while I remember playing the game, I don't remember it being an ordeal or anything; I couldn't tell you if I was good or not. We played a few times in university but not without a fight. I can recall playing once, an edition of Risk I had not experienced, with naval routes and whatnot, and actually coming out on top simply because I was so inept at the game. You don't heed the underdog that much, and in the sake of gamesmanship, you don't want to knock somebody clear out of the game early on and I think the pity went far into my eventual return to conquer, in that case, at least. I wonder how often this "strategy" works for Risk players.

And that's always been a problem with Risk: knocking people out, and having them observe for potentially hours afterwards as the game continues. Same thing with Monopoly; a game that can go on for what seems like infinity, where not everyone gets to play. Recent board games would go onto rectify that situation, and Risk, getting long in the tooth and wanting to get modern, released a couple of new variants, one of which is Godstorm. There are plenty of modifications from the core game, but the big one is the number of turns, or epochs in this case: there would only be five. It doesn't sound like much, but our game last night was three and a half hours long, and there were comments thats turns were going about quickly. They managed to find a happy medium where everybody was occupied, keeping their minds busy and thinking about the game but not how long it was going on for. You can strategize a couple of turns in advance if you wanted, but every turn was new: with the additions of cards you can obtain, the game can take a turn in any direction very quickly.

Now, it's not completely random, of course, because you have to choose carefully when to "cast" your cards: some destroy random territories, armies, or provide an extra die in combat, adding surprise defenders or attackers, or even swapping all the armies in two territories. If your opponent has cards, you must be prepared for just about anything. And because there are only five turns, your hand is forced into action almost every turn: if you don't move, your opponent will, and before you know it, the game has ended. And as always, stretch yourself too thin and you'll find yourself with a severe lack of territories. There are some interesting dynamics which take experience to learn, and the more I play this game the more I like it. There are god units you control, which have different effects, such as winning on all ties, or re-rolling 1's on the die, and of course, when two gods clash, you have yourself a god-war.

Now, to spare you much of the intricacies of the game, I'll just get right into last night's outing. I'm always a firm believer in randomly assigning territories: it just seems fair. It so happens that I ended up with the belt of Europa at the very beginning, as well as a few scattered regions. You can see the board taking shape, and once everybody starts placing the rest of their units, things get interesting. Already the strategy wheels are present: somebody is making a clear run for Atlantis and Asia Minor; Hyrkania is plague-ridden and questionable, but somebody could make a move for it. As always, Germania will be a hotbed of action, and Europa was largely, left alone. I put a lot of armies in there, but it's not a strategy that I like: I don't want to be the focus. Instead, I typically try to stay strong with smaller regions. Europa is worth the most in the game, at 7, and is typically impossible to hold.

Click on the map for a more detailed view of the game board
This game was no different. In a couple of turns I had managed to capture Europa, but a rather valiant run through the plague lands coming from Hyrkania meant I would not get the bonus. With a big target on my back, my temple in Graccia was overrun and in just one turn, I was completely powerless. There was no way to come back from this, and for a time, I was without hope. Now, I'm not sure why my attacker didn't proceed with the wipeout, but it probably comes from the pity I mentioned earlier where you want to be fair and not take somebody completely out of a game, but they also did not want to spread themselves too thin, or the next superpower could just waltz in. With only two turns left, I didn't have much to do but fortify, build armies in Roma and bide my time, hoping something happens. Then, I pick up a card that would be the basis of strategy. I don't think I'm a strategist, and in Godstorm you never know how things are going to work out, but this card would give me a chance.

I had three gods out, a decent number of armies and my opponents were making a run for control of continents as the five epoch was underway. The underworld was rife with battle and insanity as the board was mostly cleared of armies: indeed, many territories only had a single defender sitting on them. This is typical in the last epoch, as there is not a lot of sense in keeping armies around for the next, and netting territories and continents is what gives you the points needed to win the game at the end (winning is based on a tally of victory points for various things in the game, the most coming from the territories you are in). Also, every epoch, you determine play order through a bidding system, and I needed to go last. Because on my turn, once everyone was spent and had ruled me out, I played a card that would reverse time: we were going back an epoch. This meant to everyone: insanity. They had spent themselves dry, thinking it was the last turn.

It was almost like my opponents were confused at to what to do: they weren't getting enough armies in the last turn to do anything of note, and they knew it. They finished up some battles and vendettas that were started earlier in the game, but I was left to take back Europa. It wasn't easy, of course, as the dice were not in my favour for most of the evening. I believe it came down to a one on one battle for control of the last territory, and my opponent is known for rolling incredibly well. Not this time: I roll a four, and he rolls a two. Victory in Europa. I had managed to take it back, and in being the last one to go, I knew retribution was non-existent. A skirmish in the underworld secured another couple of points towards my victory.

The four of us playing could talk for hours on what happened during the course of the game, and therein lies one of the best aspects of the Risk series: retrospect. We could talk about this game for ages, just as I like to talk about Cale's epic run through two plague lands to take away my control of Germania, from a game ages ago. There is a certain elegance in the simplicity of the game, as the core mechanics make it deeper than it seems at first. If you are able to get a good group of people together, you are in for a good time.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Barbarella

This seems like an odd choice to watch: I'm not a teenager anymore (although that may be questionable in some regards). However, I do like science fiction, and this seems like a prominent piece of cinema history. Perhaps I'm fooling myself though. I swear recalling seeing this movie on the shelves in those old video stores (look at me, talking like video stores are antiquated relics of an old society - perhaps they are) amongst the sea of VHS. Perhaps I even saw it on Beta: I feel old. But the cover is so alluring: scantily clad, beautiful woman holding some kind of space weapon, surrounded by promises of flying ships, warriors and exotic cities, amongst other marvels.

As a kid you couldn't resist something like this: it was right out of the comics. It also appeals directly to pubescent psyche: sex sells. And it's so weird in this movie. It basically begins with the title character receiving a mission of sorts to investigate a missing scientist; she goes into a deep sleep for the long journey, and lands on this planet where the insanity begins. Her ship needs fixing, and through a series of events, she receives help and the guys reward - he asks directly for it - is to make love. Well, she obliges but is not certain on the way of doing it. She hints at a pill that they should be taking, as that's how it's done on Earth. He's unfamiliar with this and they proceed, off camera and cut away, as are the rest of the sex scenes - basically. Every time Barbarella has sex with somebody, and she does often enough, she has a complete wardrobe change, progressing into more revealing, creative and bizarre outfits every time. Not to mention whenever she is attacked, say, by ravenous birds or a group of creepy dolls, her clothes are torn apart which forces another outfit change.

This is appealing for obvious reasons, but if you step back you have to admire the costumes, sets and in general, the eye candy. Extremely colourful, creative and interesting, you can't take your eyes off the screen as you want to see what type of world they get into next. You want to see Jane Fonda, true, but she's only a piece of this movie. The world they are in is the main attraction; the absurd plot seems random but it's there, providing witty dialogue, getting deeper and more interesting - as deep as you can get as you scratch the surface. Focusing back on the grand sets and ideas coming to life in front of you, it's easy to see this movie this movie snowballing a respectable cult following, and even providing a full blown homage, that is, CQ, which becomes that much more relevant and interesting.

Friday, March 11, 2011

Fallout 3: Rivet City

Last weekend was a marathon; borderline addiction, perhaps, but it happened. I just need to say that my personal life (what little there is of it) did not suffer. I may have added eight hours onto the time spent clock on Saturday alone. More hours would follow; as of this writing (Tuesday night) I just surpassed twenty five hours.

The focus here though is about Rivet City. Early on in the game (early being relative here, I guess) I had two quests pointing me to the floating city. One involved searching for my father, and the other was finding a rogue android. Now, as I was prepared and heading out of my home in Megaton, a lady got my attention and provided me with an android component that would prove the rogue was dead. Seems simple enough.

I begun the journey and was quickly blocked by a group of raiders living under a bridge. I must have died four times before clearing the group out, and continuing my journey. Time are tough: no stimpaks, a little bit of food and barely any ammo. I was only halfway there. I ran across the Brotherhood of Steel's Citadel but they offered no assistance. This is the point in the game where I realized that I would need to save often. Now I have hundreds of them, and they certainly came in handy.

Reaching Rivet City was great; once I got in, I began exploring and felt some stability. Previous to this, I wasn't sure how the game would play out, but now I was in a structured environment, with lots of characters and things to check out. Dr. Zimmer got a hold of me early on and I gave him the component, proving the android was dead (although he really isn't) and getting my good karma and achievement points. I would later discover that I missed a big component of the quest: there was a perk that I could have gotten if I chose another route. Well, this was upsetting, but also a testament to the many avenues available to you in the game. You can end the quest early, getting very little reward (50 caps in this case) or go full out and get some pretty nice things.

Now I had a decision: load up a previous save and replay two hour of game, or just keep going? As it turns out, it was an easy decision and I reloaded an older save and started playing. One thing is for sure though, it did not take long to catch up as you don't have to go through every conversation choice and didn't have to root through every container. I would jump off the end of the sip and swim through irradiated water, fight giant lobster-creatures and work my way through booby-trapped halls. But the reward was there: I got a great plasma rifle that absolutely vapourizes enemies, and a nice perk to add to my skills. I have to step back and wonder, in the grand scheme, if the time spent doing this was worth it. Depends on how far you scale back, but I may be missing the point: is anything you are doing, that you are having fun with, a waste of time? The Replicated Man was a nice quest, and really got me into the game. It proved that Fallout is not screwing around, it has depth and interesting things to do. It's full of interesting characters, and little back stories. Rivet City seems to have some decent history, and the world you're in is extremely rich.

Wednesday, March 09, 2011

I Am Number Four

My first trailer experience with this movie left me a little curious: it starts out with the narrater telling us that the previous three of nine were killed, and he was Number Four. Now, after re-watching it, I thought the trailer ended with the words "I Am Number Four" and did not continue to show us Number Four doing some stunts and teasing us with seconds of film. Regardless, the film looked like another Jumper or Push, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just not my thing (perhaps something I should reconsider).

Months later I would have the opportunity to see this on an IMAX screen, which gets me excited already because this means the movie - and the special effects - will be in focus, making the extra few dollars admission worth it. In that department, I was not disappointed. But I'll get into that in a bit. The intro of the movie starts off the dark jungle, with the murder of a previous number by what looks like a giant alien bulldog. We then cut to the sweet life, Number Four, enjoying the what I believe was Key West but disaster strikes and his leg starts glowing. He's forced onto the road again, and that's all we get: there are creatures chasing The Numbers, and The Numbers are on the run.

So these people have been forced off their planet? These aliens want something from them? It's pretty unclear, and there are no answers. It's not a terrible thing, I guess. Instead of some epic montage at the beginning of the movie explaining who these two parties are, or even some dialogue sprinkled throughout, we cut right to the chase, right? Wrong. What we get is some teen soap opera, that wreaks of Twilight's influence. Not until halfway through, or even later on, do we get right down to the point (and more unanswered questions). I actually felt like I was watching the first seasons of Smallville; one scene was mirrored almost perfectly. In Smallville, Clark is in class, and accidentally uses his heat vision for the first time, setting the screen at the front of the room on fire. He rushes out and is all confused, puberty will do to a young male. Here, John's hands begin glowing uncontrollably, and he rushes out of class, confused again.

So what we get is a teen discovering his powers, which I found boring: if I wanted to see this I would re-watch Smallville, or even the original Superman, which was much more sweeping and relevant (note that nostalgia could be rewriting the truth here). But in retrospect, this movie delivers to the target audience, I'm just not in that target anymore. It was definitely a dream of mine to develop crazy-great powers and do spectacular things; fall in love with the ideal girl and defend nerds, all the while feeding off the fear of jocks and jerks alike. OK, perhaps not all those things, but you get the idea.

So the last half hour of the movie is this special effects extravaganza, that was really, truly impressive. Every laser blast lit up the screen and rumbled my seat. Action was fast but I wasn't losing track of what was going on. The characters were weighty and the explosions were really happening. I'm not sure how else to convey it to you, except to say it was fun. And in the end, that was how I felt: the movie was fun and simple. We don't get big back story - perhaps it helps to read the books - but perhaps we don't need any.

Monday, March 07, 2011

Unknown

Liam Neeson is on fire; seemingly, the guy can do no wrong. But I don't feel like I've really noticed him in movies before Taken, at which point, I direct myself to his filmography on IMDB and realize this guy has been on fire for a very long time. I'm not sure what the tipping point is in Hollywood that defines when stars become big, but Liam certainly seems to have hit it. I read somewhere that Unknown banked more at the box office than I Am Number Four on opening weekend, and for some reason, that surprises me. With Taken gathering a cult following, it's no surprise: when you're a fan you go see this movie hoping for Taken 2.

In that regard you may be a bit disappointed. It is not the non-stop action extravaganza the trailer promised, but it's also much better than what I thought it was going to be. Perhaps I didn't see the whole Taken 2 thing surrounding the movie, but I recall forgetting entirely about this movie after watching the trailer, and even forgetting the trailer itself.. Just the fact that I remember seeing the trailer now was like being put in the tank and delving deep into the unknown recesses of my mind and extracting it.

So the whole concept, is that Neeson's character has been replaced by somebody else: they have effectively taken over his life. His wife doesn't recognize him; the other guy has just slipped in and taken over, knowing everything he does and able to produce old family photos with Neeson replaced. I don't explain it entirely well, but after you watch the trailer you may understand better. I really thought I was seeing a science fiction piece, or at least an inkling of that in the movie, but alas, it's not to be. I won't go ahead and spoil it, as the movie is still quite fresh. It stars the striking Diane Kruger (one of my favourites) and a great role from Bruno Ganz as a retired German secret-police/cold war spy.

There is some formula involved in the movie, and it's not as gripping and involved as Taken was - what movie set in Europe isn't complete with a high speed chase through narrow streets - but it is still entertaining. It doesn't drag on and offers some decent thrills. I found the ending was a bit morally ambiguous (if you put your mind to it) and perhaps too gift-wrapped. I half expected to hear Moby's Extreme Way when the credits started rolling but alas, that would be putting too much pressure on this film to be that good. Instead, we get a pretty decent, if not standard, thriller.

Friday, March 04, 2011

Fallout 3: Big Town

It's a little pre-emptive to post about a game that I'm only seven hours into, but do you really want to wait until I'm done a hundred hours before posting? Also, I'm late to the party: the game has been out for quite some time and I'm just getting around to playing it now. Why is that? I blame Oblivion: the game I sunk 150 hours into, and was so addicted to (emotionally too) that I'm afraid to get into another game that offers up similar gameplay.

Of course, you know the same studio has done both series, and the similarities between the two titles are prevalent. But the environment is so vastly different, and it's because of the world itself, I'm not sure I want to continue playing. To say the world you are exploring is bleak would not be doing it justice, but it's rather fitting and accurate. This is how a post-apocalyptic world would look. Ruined buildings, decaying roads, no plant life: just shades of grey and brown. Hardened people, wandering gangs and towns built out of junk. The graphics are amazing, but depressing. It's a different experience to Oblivion's lush, green landscapes and clean people.

But perhaps what really got me was some of the difficulty: I had animals randomly attacking me and killing me. I don't stand a chance. What hope do I have on a mission to rescue people from super mutants? I don't even feel like trying. Because I spent so much time with Oblivion, I had forgotten that similar things happened: you are, for a time, very underpowered. It takes patience and some skill to "get good" and take on the more daunting tasks. Keep in mind you just have to punch through missions, save often and you will be rewarded. At this point I'm completely hooked, and actively looking for trouble; it only took a few hours.

Now, before I delve into other game aspects - to be done in other posts - I like to share some in-game stories. This blog started as a Halo 2 online storytelling sesssion, and if I was into blogging at the time, Oblivion would have dominated and generated posts every day. I'll try not to do that with Fallout 3, but you can expect some stories in the next little while.

I went exploring, and discovered this sad sack of a town called Big Town. There were only a few residents, including Pappy, who greeted me at the gate. Everybody is down on themselves and they have accepted death by super mutants or raiders, both of whom have been terrorizing them for a while. I meet Bittercup, who doesn't accept my advances, and accept a mission to go rescue some kidnapped townspeople from a settlement of super mutants. The people don't hold out much hope that I'll be successful. I don't either.

Once I left the town and headed north a short bit, I was attacked by my first super mutant. He was tough, and I barely scraped through the battle. My right arm was crippled, and I was out of stim packs. I ate terrible food but it wasn't enough. Immediately upon looting the corpse, I was attacked by another mutant, who seemed to be shooting grenades or rockets at me. Forget about that, I run. I run back from the direction I came from, and run right past the towns gates. I can hear the guard from Big Town shooting at the super mutant, but I kept running. I looked behind me, and I was no longer being chased, but I could hear the people of Big Town fighting this super mutant. Pillows of smoke erupted from behind the buildings as the mutant slammed explosives into the town. I paused, and thought of going in for the rescue, but I know I would not survive. Surely, if I kept going Big Town would be ok; the game wouldn't kill those people whom I just accepted the mission from, right? I kept walking.

It would be quite some time later, after doing some other quests, before I returned to Big Town. Things were grim, and I knew, through my inaction, I had failed them. Pappy was in pieces at the front gate. The guard's limbs were sticking out of the water. Another fellow lied dead in the centre of town. All the town members, save Bittercup and somebody in the infirmiary, were dead. I felt responsible. Immediately I set out to lay waste to the super mutants responsible. And to my surprise, I was able to complete the mission; at this point I was powerful and skilled enough to weave my way up to the old police headquarters and rescue two Big Town residents. We traveled back to Big Town where they were re-united with what remaining villagers were there. There was a glimmer of hope but so much had been lost already; I feel bad, and that is the trappings of these games: the odd emotional attachment we get to these digital characters.

Wednesday, March 02, 2011

127 Hours

Hollywood loves true stories; nay, they are obsessed with true stories. From a primarily marketing standpoint, you want to be able to paste on the poster "based on a true story" or something similar: "based on actual events" or even "inspired by a true story." Slap that on and Average Joe raises an eyebrow and asks "really?" Now I could be speaking entirely out of line here, but it seems like an old trick used to mask Hollwood's inability to be original. That being said, there are lots of great, original ideas and movies coming from the machine, but when you are in a year where there are more sequels being released than any year that has passed so far, it's a pretty fair statement. Factor in all the movies that are based on something else - like the Smurfs movie, based on the original television series - and you get even less "original content."


I could go into more on originality but will save that for another post, as I want to focus on one sub sect of the greater matter: deriving originality from true events. 127 Hours is based on a book, which is based on true events. Indeed, the story of Aron Rolston becoming trapped by a boulder, and utilizing the will to live through a grotesque escape did actually happen. He then wrote a book about it, Hollywood picked it up, and in this case, they turned it into a fantastic, character-rich film that didn't even necessitate the "based on true events" title card at the beginning of the film.

Every movie that is based on actual events forces the viewer to step back and watch the film from a different perspective: the entire time, you are questioning the facts. Unless, the movie pulls a fast one over you and doesn't tell you it's origins until the very end, which is always a bit of a hard slap on the back, knocking you forward and presumably making you want to see it over again from the proper perspective. We are trying to disseminate what we are watching, and wondering the entire time where Hollywood has strayed off and took dramatic license. Regardless, we always go back after the movie and instead of talking about the characters, plot and themes with our friends, we discuss what may have been true, and what may not have been. We research the "actual event" and sometimes, left with a bad taste.

In other cases, such as 127 Hours, I'm left even more amazed. There is one quote from Ralston which to summarize, basically says this movie is so accurate, that I can draw the conclusion that Danny Boyle perfected the set to match the actual location. Indeed, Franco has come out saying that he grew claustrophobic after extended periods of filming. Imagine spending north of a hundred hours in a cramped space, with only yourself to keep you company; it seems that Franco was able to pull this from the source material and delivered a great performance.

I feel like 127 Hours transcends the "based on actual events" stigma as I recall the events as they happened. It was all over the news and I had interest in the book (but would never pick it up). Curious, if this was my first exposure to Ralston's story, that I would have perceived the film differently. If you didn't see any of the trailers, marketing or Internet blurbs about the true story behind the film, would the movie be better, worse, or simply just different?

Regardless, what Ralston did was absolutely amazing, and terrifying. Could you do it? That's the question you walk away from, and for me, I'm going to have to say I wouldn't. Honestly though, I think it's one of those situations where you just don't know until you live it. As you begin to hallucinate, and dream of your loved ones, you may find yourself making the leap for the impossible. One of the things I wanted to circle back on was original content: while there is nothing particularly wrong with basing movies off actual events, I think Hollywood takes a mallet and beats the actual story into a pulp - injected with pure fiction - and leaves us with a mass that has lost something. There are a lot of good stories out there from interesting people, 127 Hours is one of them, and are worth telling. They don't need to be injected with gimmicks to make them more entertaining, they just need to be told in the right way. 127 Hours nails it.