Home
Mind of a Fennec [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
JASPIAN

[ website | Jaspain - The Dancing Harem Fox Boy ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Fennec Film Review: Ninja Assassin & Black Friday Recollections [Nov. 29th, 2009|02:43 am]
[Current Location |partman!]
[Current Mood | yiffy]
[Current Music |none]

So Thanksgiving has come and gone. I spent my Thanksgiving with my family and family friends, mostly bored out of my mind. They don't really understand me, and I don't understand them. Probably the finest moment was at the dinner table when I made a joke completely straight-faced, and only one person got it.... they just kept on eating like it was a normal thing to say. That's how disconnected my family is. Unless its about sports, they probably just won't understand. I get the feeling I was adopted...

Anyway - most of the festivities for me happen AFTER Thanksgiving dinner, where my highschool (and even some gradeschool) friends go out and partake in our Thanksgiving tradition - first, we go to see a movie or two. This year it was Ninja Assassin. After this, we go to the local Best Buy and stand in line all night long for the Black Friday Sale.

So now - ON TO THE STORIES

NINJA ASSASSIN

From the beginning I had low expectations of Ninja Assassin. It really didn't have anybody in it of note - figured it would be low-budget, probably poorly-written and generally awful... but as The Dex said when we saw the movie poster, "It will probably suck, but how can we NOT see a film called Ninja Assassin?"

Well, I did end up seeing it, and I have to say, it wasn't bad at all. The acting was weak in places, the story was virtually nonexistent, but the dialog and scenes were brilliant. As one might expect, the special effects were marvelous - better towards the beginning than the end. One thing you will notice is how the ninjas seem to simply appear out of the shadows. Its a very nice effect. Later on in the film, they seem capable of turning into a black mist to move around, which detracts, overall, from the awesomeness of the ninjas. What I mean to say is... it would be cooler if the ninjas were actually so sneaky and stealthy that they're just ordinary people trained so well that they can get anywhere undetected, rather than having any supernatural/magical abilities.

Also - while this was minor - I was a little disappointed in their lack of storytelling actually including any real ninja history, or historical ninja weapons (the blade on the chain might be one of them, but people generally overestimate ninjas and their fighting skills. In real life, ninjas were masters of stealth and poison and trickery - avoiding direct combat at all costs.)

But the movie was plenty-fun. I was entertained from start to finish. There are some laughably-hilarious moments of absurdly gratuitous slayings... always a good thing... and I have to say - Ninja Assassin is the goriest film I've seen since Dead Alive... or possibly even EVER. Thankfully the sheer volume of blood makes it unrealistic enough that I don't think anyone could possibly ever feel ill over it - but even so. If you're affected by lots of blood and guts, do not see this film. If you're offended by violence, don't see this film. If you're looking for a martial-arts film, this one isn't the one you want. If you want a slightly cheesy, entertaining action-flick, you may want to give Ninja-Assassin a try.

One last warning about Ninja-Assassin; the name is a little deceptive. Its not about a ninja who assassinates people. It's about a man who assassinates ninjas. He happens to be a former ninja himself, but regardless... if you wanted to see ninjas killing political figures and drug lords and stuff - it's not in this film. There are a couple assassinations from the time before the main character "goes rogue" but don't expect that as a staple of the film. Its mostly the main character killing ninjas.

I give this film one ear perked, with the other one kinda half-perked. As I said - entertaining, good fight scenes, choreography, cinematography, special effects, dialog. Passable story (there isn't much too it, but there doesn't have to be). Its a decent big-screen movie, but outside of the opening sequence its not vital. I'd recommend either theater of DVD. Both are passable mediums for this film.

The Black Friday Adventures

For the past 4 years running, my friends and I have, as I said before, gone shopping at Best Buy on Black Friday. This year I was somewhat reluctant. The problem is that I had an absolutely abysmal shopping-experience at Best Buy about a month ago, and I resolved to no-longer give them my business. But it seems that tradition overrides my resolution as a couple of my friends admitted that there were items on sale only at Best Buy that they had decided that they wanted to pick up. It wouldn't be fair to them to insist that we go elsewhere simply on my personal preferences - at least not this late. Perhaps next year I should mention it early and try to get the venue changed.

We got there around 11 pm. There were already hardy souls there the first time that we drove past to get to the meeting place before the movie, around 6. The hardcore Black Friday Shoppers were all pitched out in the Best Buy lawn in tents...! Part of the reason why we do this crazy all-night Black Friday pain is that its genuinely fun. The people who do this crazy shit tend to be colorful characters and there are always stories to tell the next day. My friends and I go more for the experience than the deals. This is really the only way not to be disappointed when the night is over. You do it for the experience. Not for any particular item or to get good deals. The item you want might not be there anymore when you get into the store, but the experience of spending the night with a bunch of crazy strangers and people-watching all of the antics will always be with you when you leave. Not to mention - it's good quality time with friends. In today's age, how well do you really know your friends? Most of the time, I am playing video games with them, going to loud nightclubs, going to movies or concerts. We're sharing experiences but not really sharing ourselves. I don't know much more about that friend after the night is over because we weren't able to communicate much. You really know your friends if you can talk for 6 hours in the freezing cold and remain interested in what the other people have to say.

Anyway - it was the mildest Black Friday I've ever been to. It was above freezing, and even rained. As miserable as that is, it certainly beats the year when it was below-zero, plus we had umbrellas. We spent a lot of the evening speaking with Scott - a total stranger who sat behind us in a folding chair and tried to get homework done as he waited. He was a Black-Friday Virgin and had a lot of questions about what to expect. We spelled it out as clearly as we could, being old-hands at this now. Ahead of us there was a saucy latino family ahead of us that unceremoniously verbally eviscerated a meek black girl who seemed to be sneaking into line up where we were (about 100 heads back from the front of the line).

My predictions that this will be a weak Christmas season seemed to be prescient this year. Not only were the sales fairly meager, the number of customers who showed up was far smaller than all of the previous years when we attended Black Friday, and those who did show up didn't shop around. The number of people who were in line for the cash-register by the time we were leaving wrapped almost all the way around the store - meaning that the people came in, grabbed one or two items, and immediately went to checkout. This is opposed to last year, for example, where the line to get into the store wrapped halfway around the mall, and the lines for the cash register were much more reasonable because customers were shopping.

I, for one, am generally satisfied with the stuff that I've got - or more accurately - Best Buy doesn't really carry anything that I feel that I need currently. With my recent purchase of an Android-Smartphone, my collection of consumer electronics is complete. Furthermore - none of the items that I was buying for others was sold at Best Buy, so I ended up buying something that my mother asked me to pick up that she wanted to give to my father.... and that was it. I ended up getting this (Netbook) and leaving the store. Thinking about it on the way home, I really shouldn't have done this. I was the one who waited out all night long in the rain (yes, it rained) to get into the store for the sale, and yet, I took no advantage for myself. I think that I will end up cheaping-out on my Mother's Christmas present and claim that getting her this great deal (saved about $140 over Amazon.com) was my gift to her this year.

Anyway, after that, I went home and SLEPT. Then I got up, met the same friends again, and we played Left 4 Dead 2, completed the first two missions. Gotta say - much harder. Much more frustrating. I am not a fan of some of the new Super-Zombies. They seem less clever and far more powerful (and abundant!) than previous ones. However, I am a fan of the new array of weapons. For the most part, in Left 4 Dead (original) there wasn't anything worth a damn except for the shotguns. While the other weapons could be used, they weren't nearly as effective. In Left 4 Dead 2, there are a wide variety of weapons that are also useful in addition to the shotguns. My favorite new weapon is the "ninja sword". :) I will do a full write-up on Left 4 Dead 2 when I have completed it to the end, but so far - looks promising! :)

Anyway, thanks for reading, and have a good one!

- jaspi
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

Advertisement

PARTY REPORT - FSO Political Party (2008) [Nov. 25th, 2009|01:51 pm]
[Current Location |partman!]
[Current Mood | falafel :)]
[Current Music |Upbeats - Thinking Cap]

I realize that this post is a year late, but I committed myself to posting all of my previous unposted convention and party reports from this past year. I wrote this article slightly after the election, but I just never got around to putting it on LJ. So, better late than never! Here it is, Jaspian's party report from the FSO Political Party!



Jaspian the amazing fennec fox boy: mini adventures – Book 1: the Political Party

Click here to read! )


Thanks for reading!

- jaspi
Link7 comments|Leave a comment

Fennec Film Review: 2012 and Pirate Radio [Nov. 15th, 2009|08:37 pm]
[Current Location |partman!]
[Current Mood | i has a twitchy eyelid]
[Current Music |Truth - Amnesia]

So last night I went to another double-feature at my local cinema.... something which has become a bit of a routine. It's totally going to throw me off when there's a week with no interesting films coming out. I think next weekend is like that.... there's an interesting flick with Nicolas Cage coming out that weekend, but it looks like it's more of the art / indy variety and I might not be able to find a place where its showing. So this might be the last movie post until Thanksgiving.

2012

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I do like the follow conspiracy news because its interesting to understand what people think and why. As such, I was well-versed in the 2012 conspiracy theory stories, and so I was excited when news of the film "2012" reached my abnormally-huge ears.

Personally, I was hoping it would be the Nibiru story (which is also the story I am hoping for with the sci-fi action TV show "V" commented earlier in my LJ). In this, Nibiru, is a planet on a wide comet-like orbit around the sun, which will cause cataclysmic destruction when it re-enters the solar system, due to gravitational shifts.

I was hoping that the Nibiru story would make its way to the silver screen before 2012 and play off of the hype to address this interesting conspiracy theory. The opening shots of the film "2012" even teased me into alluding that this the cause of the global catastrophe in the film 2012. I am not going to announce what causes the widespread destruction in 2012 - the trailers didn't announce it, and I think its better that the viewers find out by themselves. But I will announce that it is not a Nibiru movie... repeat: the destruction caused in "2012" is not caused by Nibiru, nor is the "rogue planet" scenario brought up in the film. While disappointing, 2012 does play off of some of the other conspiracy doomsday-scenarios.

As films go, 2012 is ... expectedly... fairly stock. I went in expecting to see a whole bunch of stuff getting destroyed elaborately and beautifully in high detail on a huge screen, and I got just that. It was a very entertaining film, but... just like most "disaster" films, it wasn't much of a film on its own merit. It was extremely predictable, and very cheesy at times (although not as cheesy as most of the other disaster films of recent years). They repeated the same action sequences almost obsessively (in this case the "we're trying to take off in a plane with the runway falling out from under us" routine, which was done at least 3 times.) I can't go into much more detail without giving away aspects of the film, but I will say that I found the latter half of the film a little disappointing with the old Hollywood cliche "We'll put the future of humanity at risk to save these few people, because it would be inhumane not to!", which, if a real apocalypse situation ever comes, I sincerely hope they do not do.

In the end I give this film one ear perked, one ear drooped. Not a great film, but entertaining. Cheese-factor, and hippie sentiments did affect it for me a little. The last five minutes were sappy and totally lame, but the special effects were top-rate, the suspense was good (I bit off all my fingernails), the acting was surprisingly good for a disaster film, and the pacing was good up until the end when it fell apart a bit. Definitely a big-screen movie... DVD likely won't cut it. If your IMAX is playing it (mine wasn't), I would recommend seeing it there.


PIRATE RADIO

Next up was "Pirate Radio" (aka: "The Boat That Rocked" depending on where you see it) - the film about
a bunch of radio DJs who rebelled against the censorship laws of Britain, who considered Rock music crass and banned it from the airwaves, and took their radio show off the coast of England in a barge, and continued to broadcast. The film was advertised as the DJs entertaining the public as the British government attempts to find a means to shut them down, even though technically they are outside of England's jurisdiction.

Being a bit of an anti-establishment person, this resonated with me. I appall censorship, government bullying, and I applaud people standing up for themselves and for "the little guy" against the crushing force of government power-abuse. However I was a little disappointed that the film really isn't about that. It primarily follows a kid who joins the boat and his life there, and his experiences with the other DJs. The whole "government bullying" angle is really more of a subplot - perhaps even an afterthought.

The pacing was poor - even a little confusing. The acting was mediocre. The dialog wasn't witty or even very well-written. There were a few humorous moments, but overall I can't say I liked this film very much. I liked it even less when I found out that the film was not a true story from a friend who actually lived in England. He told me that there wasn't one pirate radio barge - there were several independent ones - and that they didn't resist the government. The government simply went after their sponsors, made it illegal for them to advertise on the pirate radio barges, and crushed them all financially.

Probably the highlight of the film for me was the costumes, which are impractical, flamboyant, yet utterly adorable. I might even use this film's wardrobe as a template to come up with some new costumes for myself. But it's not enough to save the film. I give it two-ears-drooped, albeit somewhat reluctantly. I was never bored or annoyed by the film, I just felt that by the end I had lost more time and money than I had gained in entertainment value. As a movie-lover, that's hard for me to ever feel.

And so, Pirate Radio is the first film ever to get two-ears-drooped for Fennec Film Review.


Hope you enjoyed reading! Signing off.

- jaspian
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

Fennec Film Review: Double Feature - The Box, & The Men Who Stare At Goats [Nov. 8th, 2009|02:51 am]
[Current Location |partman]
[Current Mood | ty ty]

The Box

A bit of a surprise development, "The Box" sort-of just appeared out of nowhere. It was never detected in-advance on the Fennec radar screen as a film of any note - this is probably due in part to the vague and mundane title.

However, any reservations on my part were dispelled upon learning two important details about the film "The Box". First, it's based on an episode of The Twilight Zone from the 1980's called Button, Button. Automatically, that gives it at least some props, because The Twilight Zone is awesome. But the killer is that "The Box" has been adapted for screenplay and directed by Richard Kelly, the legendary writer and director of the cult classic "Donnie Darko". This perked my attention, and I was sold on seeing it, which I did tonight.

The film follows a suburban family that is down on their luck, and their experience as a man comes to their doorstep and offers them a way out of their woes by giving them the opportunity to use "the Box" - a wooden device with a red button on it. If they decide to push the button, they will receive one million dollars, but some person whom they have never met before will die.

The moral and philosophical conundrum that this film puts the viewer into is... significant - and that is part of the fun of the film. The viewer ends up asking themselves some weighty moral and philosophical questions. "Would I have pushed the button?" "How much is one human life worth?" "Is it really the person pushing the button who kills the innocent person at the other end, or does the person offering the box share some of the responsibility?"

These are just some of the questions I ended up asking myself. I would love to discuss any points with any reader who has seen The Box and wishes to write on it.

The film itself is wonderful. The pacing is fantastic - although they do go off on a tangent in the middle of the film that is totally unnecessary in hindsight (I assume that they needed "filler" to extend the length of the original hour-long screenplay of the original story.) The special effects were fantastic except for some of the "water" effects. The villain's base, for example, is phenomenal, and the guy who delivers the box (who has a horribly scarred face, similar to Two-Face from Dark Knight) is much better rendered than in Dark Knight. The suspense in the film is great, the dialog and writing, the acting was good, and the story was good.

Overall, I highly recommend seeing The Box. I give it two-ears perked, and have omnominated it for the Fennec's Choice Awards of 2009 for best picture. Unfortunately, it has done very poorly in the box-office, probably due to lackluster advertising and the vague forgettable title - so if you want to view it in theaters, I recommend seeing it as soon as you can, because it might not be around much longer.

The Men Who
Stare At Goats


When I found out that "The Men Who Stare At Goats" was being made into a film, especially a mainstream one starring George Clooney, I was thoroughly amused. This is another one of those films that I had prior insight into, from my days of Conspiracy-Theory Interest, I came across the source of the information for this film.

An independently-produced British documentary was produced a few years back called "Crazy Rulers of the World". The first episode of "Crazy Rulers of the World" was called "The Men Who Stare At Goats", available here:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=38921299CF1DC975&search_query=The+Men+Who+Stare+At+Goats

... in which the narrator had heard of some nutty-crazy experiments that the US military had been running to develop psychic powers for information gathering, and as a weapon.

I figured that the film would be a dramatization on the documentary (which is a very fine documentary series, by the way!) However, the film "The Men Who Stare At Goats", although inspired from the documentary and having many of the situations shown in the documentary, is not really telling the same story. Much is embellished for the silver-screen, including the primary plot (where the narrator gets into Iraq as a war-correspondent) . The "true" stuff, IE - the stuff from the documentary, is mostly contained within flashbacks.

While I was a little disappointed at that, I did enjoy the film. The dialog is witty and clever, the pacing is good, and the acting is also good. However, I think that the amount of enjoyment that I had was amplified by having seen the documentary. I DO NOT ADVISE YOU TO SEE THE FILM WITHOUT SEEING THE DOCUMENTARY FIRST. As I said earlier - I believe that this film is a better film with the knowledge gleamed from the source than without it, and my companions tonight agreed. This gives at least some basis from where the viewer can discern where the truth ends and the Hollywood embellishment begins. I would actually recommend that you see both Crazy Rulers of the World episodes 1 ("The Men Who Stare At Goats") and 2 ("Funny Torture"), since topics from both are covered in the film "The Men Who Stare At Goats". Both are available on the multimedia site Veoh (sadly, only Episode 1 is on youTube).

Overall, while I did enjoy the film, I can only give it one-ear perked. Some of the antics just aren't called-for, such as their use of LSD-humor as a crutch. Meanwhile, many of the "true" items from the documentary that were left-out are actually movie-worthy, such as the "Jedi" who would have soldiers run over him with their jeeps to show his hard-body technique, which eventually killed him when someone ran him over too fast. These things are interesting, and I can't understand why they weren't included. Lastly, I am annoyed that the film, which has a British lead actor (Ewan McGregor), has an American lead character, even though the original documentary is produced and narrated by a Brit. I know it seems like a trivial minor detail, but it just seems odd to me that a native brit, is playing an American character that is ripped off from a Brit. Couldn't they have just made it easy and kept him as a Limey? That way Mr McGregor wouldn't have to fake an American accent? Just a thought...

Thanks for reading!

- jaspian



LinkLeave a comment

Fennec Critic Review: V (ABC), Boondock Saints 2 [Nov. 5th, 2009|09:33 pm]
[Current Location |partman!]
[Current Mood | garlic]
[Current Music |-none-]

BOONDOCK SAINTS II -
ALL SAINTS DAY


As many of you know by now, I am a bit of a movie buff, with a special love of anything action or science-fiction-y. As one might imagine, I have a a place in my heart for the Boondock Saints. Not only does the film take place about 20 minutes drive from where I live, and therefore is somewhat special to me, the film is the type of movie that I enjoy watching.

I will now take a moment to gloat and admit that I saw the original Boondock Saints long before it became a cult classic. I like to think that I am one of the "originals" who started passing the film around early and helped make it into a classic. But even though I like to think that way, I can admit to myself that it probably wouldn't have even noticed if I weren't there, in its rapid ascent to popularity.

Even so, I feel a connection to this film, as if its partly my own. As such, I had to see the sequel when it came out. Boondock Saints, somewhat in retrospect, makes my TOP 10 list for films that SHOULD NOT HAVE a sequel. The first one ended on a high note, with a fun tone (the interviews at the end for example), without loose ends to be tied, and in a manner which did not even hint at the possibility of a sequel. The story was told, a sequel could do nothing but ruin it. So, I have to say, I went into this film hopeful, eager to see more Saints, but with a feeling that this movie simply should not exist.

I left the theater somewhat bewildered. Boondock Saints II - All Saints Day is NOT as good as Boondock Saints. The pacing is a little off, the acting is weaker, the story is more confusing, and the characters are not as good (for example: Willem Dafoe as the gay FBI agent is usually considered one of the high points. He has been replaced by a southern girl who isn't nearly as good.) On the flip side, the dialog is wittier, (although they seem to be fixated with anal sex in their insults) and the characters are generally funnier. The fight scenes are slightly better from a technical standpoint, but slightly better from an artistic standpoint, but they rely much more heavily on odd camera angles and varying film speed, which is a little frustrating and disorienting. The film is a little more predictable than the first one - mostly because we know what to expect.

What I liked least about Boondock Saints II is something that they really can't help - everybody got old and fat. Even the saints. Its harder to believe that they're the characters who they are meant to play - young, vital, violent,  shoot-first-ask-questions-later types. Many of the characters I didn't even recognize until they spoke. Most characters were excellently casted for the first film, but don't look-the-part anymore because they've changed so much. Surprised at how old everybody looks - I checked on IMDB after the movie and found that it's been TEN YEARS since Boondock Saints. Anyway - despite the fact that this bothered me, I can't consider it in my review for the simple reason that they really can't help it. The alternative would be to hire other actors who look similar, and that would be even worse.

In the end, I give this film TWO EARS PERKED, and encourage you to see it probably on DVD. The large screen isn't necessary for this picture and might actually detract a litlte by increasing disorientation. However, Boondock Saints II : All Saints Day is NOT in the running for
the 2009 Fennec's Choice Awards.

V(ABC)

I'm fairly certain that I am not alone in the fandom in watching the series premiere of "V" on ABC. The likeness of V's logo to V for Vendetta automatically makes me warm to the show, and of course, a remake of a cult-classic alien-invasion show gets a head start for me, who is easily bored.

I was also interested to see many familiar faces - two from the cult sci-fi space-western FIREFLY, and one from the pop series LOST. (Her appearance in this series leads me to believe that she will NOT survive the atomic explosion on the island of LOST... just a hypothesis, however).

So V starts with props in my book. Did it live up? I'd say "yes". First off, the acting was pretty good for a network TV show. I was a little disappointed in the "familiar faces" not holding up as well in their new show as where they came from, but it is the first episode, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt and let them grow into their new roles. the special effects are decidedly sub-par. Hopefully this will change, as there weren't all that many effects in the first episode. The high point is the ships coming in, reflected in the glass of the skyscrapers. The low point (at least for me) was the F-22 crash-landing, which I thought looked terribly fake. (Anybody know why the pilot looked like he was dead?)

The writing and the dialog is pretty standard, so is the art. Nothing special there. What is special, however, to me, is the LIZARD PEOPLE. I find it particularly interesting that they mentioned "infiltration to cause unnecessary wars". I'm not sure how many of you readers have read into far-out conspiracy theories, but there is one called NIBIRU. Believers in Nibiru think that there is a planet that used to be a sister world to Earth, inhabited by lizard people, who had humans enslaved, and used them to build the pyramids and such. Nibiru (or "Marduk") crashed into a smaller planet, annihilating it, and that caused the asteroid belt. The collision send Nibiru on a long elliptical orbit (somewhat like a comet's) and it went hurling into space, and that this story became the basis of Babylonian mythology. The conspiracy theory goes on to say that some of the lizard people were stranded on earth, had to blend in, even interbred with the humans, which created various "bloodlines" of families that inherently wish to oppress and rule over humans (stated bloodlines include the Bushes and Clintons among others), and that these people will serve the lizard people when Nibiru comes back into the solar system on Dec 21 2012 (which ties in the the Mayan Calendar Doomsday prophecies).

Personally I think it's all a total load of bunk, and even somewhat laughable. But if some media company actually made a show or a movie (maybe '2012 the movie' will be this? I can only hope!) based on this outlandish theory, I would probably cream myself, 'cuz that takes a ton of guts, and I'd totally have a "whoa" moment, and it's actually a good base from which to launch an incredible story, allowing for a lot of expansion since those people who know the Nibiru story have already discounted that much from their suspension of disbelief. It's like making a Jesus story - You already know he's going to do miracles, and so you don't question that far. Of course, for the uninitiated, that would be a little more to swallow.

So I give V (on ABC) a tentative one-ear perked. I will definitely keep watching, since I am currently waiting for season4 of Dexter, and for the final season of LOST, and "Caprica" on Syfy (scheduled to air in January). With nothing better on, V has my attention, and I think it has a lot of potential. It just isn't quite there YET.


Hope you enjoyed reading! Feel free to let me know your thoughts.

LinkLeave a comment

Fennec Critic review Law Abiding Citizen [Oct. 25th, 2009|01:55 am]
[Current Location |partman!]
[Current Mood | ginger]
[Current Music |Bjork - Hidden Places (Evol Intent remix)]

Jaspian reviews: Law Abiding Citizen

So... another movie night, another review in my journal. The film "Law Abiding Citizen" was high on my list ever since I saw the trailer. This should come as no surprise to those of you who know me, as the premise of the film is basically to rip the establishment down on itself. I am a rebel at heart, and I love to see individuals terrorize corrupt, despotic, or irresponsible government fatcats. This film promised just that (one of many films this year in such a vein: however, this was the most overtly-so of the films that I've seen this year).

Basically the premise of "Law Abiding Citizen" is that the main character's family is killed in a robbery, and he was supposed to die as well, but he's rescued by EMTs. However, the DA reduces the sentence of the more horrific of the offenders because he agrees to cooperate. The main character is offended and plans his revenge. He murders the two perpetrators, and is then arrested, but he doesn't stop there. Each day, the "hero" kills more and more of the individuals involved in setting that killer free by elaborate remote traps from his jail cell, and essentially holds the whole city hostage.

Going into the film, I thought that Gerard Butler (main character) was taking out a corrupt legal system, getting vengeance where vengeance is due, as if the perpetrator got off from some good-ol'-boy connection, or organized crime getting its tentacles into the law. However, I was displeased to find out that the people he targets for execution are mostly just innocent people, going to work, doing their jobs, and doing them correctly. That's where my perspective differs from the film: in the film, the law is doing as it should - its following the constitution, and therefore is undeserving of wrath. If the law in the film were like the real world, where laws are not applied uniformly, and the constitution is little more than toilet-tissue, I'd be able to understand where Gerard Butler's character is coming from, but it isn't. In short, the courts in "Law Abiding Citizen" are not corrupt, and he attempts to destroy that system anyway, mostly because they didn't violate the constitutional rights of the killer of his family.

That did take away some of the enjoyment I had for the film. In part because it wasn't what I expected, but also because it seemed to be anti-constitutional propaganda. Vigilantism is promoted, through Gerard Butler's character, but later Jamie Foxx's character ends up adopting some of Butler's hardcore unyielding zealotry. Search and Seizure, Due Process - the film portrays these as flaws of the system, which I cannot disapprove-of enough. We have these things to prevent innocent people from being punished, and sometimes even these are not enough! ...but enough political rambling. What did I think of the film?

The film itself came off as being "just another movie" to me. Nothing really stuck out as being significant. There's a few brutal deaths, but overall it's pretty stock. I will forget that I saw it before the end of the year. Despite its clear attempt to be unique, by having the killer killing FROM PRISON, it really fails at achieving that. The acting is good. The pacing is a little "off". A lot of it seems rushed, and slightly jumbled. Some of the set-work and story is sub-par, such as the Mayor meeting with Federal Law Enforcement in a huge meeting room, and the FBI has those infamous FBI windbreakers on. I hate to state the obvious, but ... in a conference room, the FBI wouldn't send guys in FBI windbreakers, they would have SUITS on when meeting with the mayor. These would be top people - administrators, strategists, logistics, profilers and analysts and the like - office agents. Not field agents. The Dex was also dismayed at Butler's character, who is supposed to be this great planner and strategist, and some of his blunders that would be obvious to any law-enforcement bureau, when, if he were such a genius, he would have at least covered his tracks on the obvious stuff.

Still... neither of these sins are so shocking and appalling for me to lower my rating. The dialog is clever, and believable, and overall the story is well-written, despite some holes. But it all comes back to this: overall the film is unremarkable, unmemorable, and run-of-the-mill. If you have a burning desire to see this film, I'd recommend seeing it on DVD. That doesn't mean it's bad, it's just "meh". It gets "one ear perked".

Thanks for reading!

Link3 comments|Leave a comment

ZOMBITHON - Fennec Critic Takes on Zombieland, Left4Dead Expansion [Oct. 4th, 2009|05:25 am]
[Current Location |partman]
[Current Mood | sleepy]
[Current Music |Wickaman - Anything you say]



Tonight was a bit of an interesting night for me. I have a bit of a connection to Zombies that I'm sure many of you have heard about, some of you in painful and dreary detail. Thing is: I have reoccurring dreams about Zombies. Not dreams about Zombies like I dream about equines, or even my own yacht... more like nightmares. The reason why I call them dreams is because.... I have no irrational fear of Zombies. I have an irrational fear of spiders, but not Zombies. Zombies don't freak me out as much as some of the people I see on the highway or on TV or in the grocery store. But for some reason, my subconscious is fixated on Zombies. I blame eating doritos late at night before bed.... but I'm getting off the point. What I am trying to articulate is that this weekend has some sort of vague meaning to me on some level, since it's the opening weekend for Zombieland, and the release weekend for the new Left4Dead expansion pack (these are probably not a coincidence) and I experienced them both tonight.


Fennec Film Review:
ZOMBIELAND
When I first saw previews for Zombieland, I thought, "Gee... can they really stoop any lower? This is clearly just a bloodier, more violent, and unsophisticated knock-off of the masterpiece Shaun of the Dead. However, I was committed to seeing it simply on those grounds, if not my own personal curiousity. I'm not really fond of Zombie film, but Zombies don't necessarily disqualify a film from being good, in my opinion. Then I heard, in the grocery store of all places, radio personalities discussing this exact take, and how it was wrong. They were talking about how Zombieland is a good film AS A FILM. NOT as a ZOMBIE film. They talked about how, from the trailer, they were expecting a Shaun of the Dead knock-off, and were pleasantly surprised to find something fairly original in the newly-forming subgenre called Zomromcom (Zombie + Romantic + Comedy).

And so I became excited about the release of Zombieland, especially when, as release date approached, more and more positive reviews started to pile up in its favor.

... and they weren't wrong. Zombieland is a masterpiece. It is well-written, well-executed, nice film, well-acted, nice effects, pretty good pacing (it gets a little rougher around the end), its funny, engaging, and all-around a great little film. Top-props on the pseudo-originality, too. It's really taking the Zomromcom genre into the spotlight, and I appreciate that.

On the negative side... I really can't find anything to complain about, except perhaps that the girls at the end are idiots. Their plans are not rational - they make good sense only for a movie, in which funny and interesting situations need to keep an audience interested, but in real life during a Zombie invasion, its pure foolishness. I'm also a little put-off by the lack of humans in the film. There are only a handful, and everybody else is Zombified. I would think that at least SOME people would be able to survive in Zombieland, especially considering the main characters, none of whom I would consider to be particularly capable as a survivalist (especially not the two girls).


Overall, I give this film two ears WAY perked, but it is not quite good enough to be in the running tor the Fennec's Choice Awards 2009. Better luck next time.

Fennec Game Review:
LEFT4DEAD: CRASH COURSE

I also got to play the new Left4Dead DLC : Crash Course. I loved Left4Dead. I think it's one of the best games I've played this year, and it is in the running for the Fennec's Choice Awards Game of the Year 2009. So I was excited when I heard that a new expansion would be deployed for it. This is the earliest I could play it - I heard elsewhere that it came out last weekend, but this was the first chance that I got to play it.

What did I think? It was short. It was easy. And the environments weren't drastically different from the original game. However, these flaws aren't enough for me to hold a grudge against it. The game is still fantastic. One of the main flaws I griped about Left4Dead is the fact that its so damn short. They needed more content, even if it's not dramatically different from the content that they already have. That's why I am not at all disappointed in the lack of variety in environments. Yes, the new mission is short - much shorter than the original missions even. However, the new expansion is also very inexpensive, and I felt that it was worth the cost for the length. Lastly... the easiness: they tried to make it harder. The first zone in the mission had not one, but TWO Tanks. But my crew never got into a situation where we were threatened enough that we might not make it to the end, unlike 3/4 of the original missions. The last area didn't have any really spectacular place to hole up in with bottlenecks for the Zombie rush (my usual strategy), but the final horde wasn't as large and formitable as the original missions either.

Conclusion: Yes, it's worth buying if you enjoyed the first Left4Dead.


I also watched part of Dead Alive today in anticipation of the Zombiethon. If you haven't seen it, you probably should. Its ridiculous and funny. As a Peter Jackson film, if you haven't seen any of his work pre Heavenly Creatures, you might be shocked to find out that Peter Jackson has not always been a respectable director - and its because of films like Dead Alive - which will go down in film history as one of the great classic indie Zombie movies for its sheer absurdity.


Anyway - that's the end of my Zombiethon review. Hope you enjoyed! Thanks for reading!

- jaspian

Link7 comments|Leave a comment

Advertisement

Fennec Film Review: Surrogates [Sep. 28th, 2009|02:23 am]
[Current Location |partman!]
[Current Mood | whaaat?]
[Current Music |Jaspian (megamix) - Classic+Tekstep_DnB_001]

FILM: SURROGATES
Tonight, I saw the movie "Surrogates", which was played up basically as a Bruce-Willis show-piece. The impression I got from the previews was less that this was a film and more of a "watch Bruce Willis doing this and watch Bruce Willis doing that" -sort of film. It really seemed that the story was going to be secondary to the fact that this movie stars BRUCE WILLIS.

Unfortunately, this actually turned out to be the case. The film doesn't really try to stand on its own... it's very "Bruce-Willis-is-Awesome"-centric. As annoying as that may be, it's not necessarily going to make Surrogates a bad film. On the contrary, that formula has worked out extraordinarily well in many cases, the most obvious of which is the film Castaway which was all Tom Hanks and nothing else really mattered. However, in that case it was necessary for the story. Surrogates is actually similar, in my opinion, in that the story us unnaturally main-character-driven by the progression of the plot, which is very "lone-man-on-the-run". That begs the question, however - Did it have to be that way? Or did we write this around Bruce?
Of all the actors who may have deserved such a role, I would honestly rank Bruce Willis pretty high. He's one of the only action-film-stars who's actually a good actor. In short, I will fault Surrogates for being so Brucey, but not overly-so. The main consequence of structuring a film this way, in my humble opinion, is that history will look back on it as "another Bruce Willis film" - which is exactly what it is, since, as I stated earlier, it doesn't stand on its own feet without Bruce.

My review will also be tempered by the fact that most of this film was shot in the city where I was born, and the rest was shot in Boston, which is very close to where I currently live. Another factor is that the story is actually pretty good, once you suspend your disbelief.

In the film, people begin to replace their physical selves with robots called "surrogates" which they control remotely from their homes, basically inhabiting the robot, and going through life as if it were Second Life (strange that this film and "GAMER" should come out so close together and be so similarly themed!). The reason for this is multi-pronged. The surrogates have superhuman strength and agility, can be upgraded for better vision, are more beautiful, ageless, and perfect than humans (myself obviously not factored in), and most of all, if they are destroyed, the owner is not harmed. So the story really starts when a user is killed by the destruction of his surrogate, and the investigation into how that could happen.

There are some nice plot twists and decent dialog in the film. The story seems a little rushed, though, which makes it a little difficult to follow unless it has your undivided attention. There are also some minor inconsistencies in the film itself, but they're not so glaring as to warrant much attention - just minor irritations.

Overall, I reluctantly give "Surrogates" one ear perked, for its story, plot twists, dialog, and Bruce Willis, who's pretty decent in the film. But its not enough to get over the slew of problems that this film has. My recommendation is to only see this movie if you have nothing better to do. It doesn't really require the big screen. It can wait until DVD if you really want to see it at all. If you're not that interested in it, don't bother. It's, as I stated earlier "Just another Bruce-Willis film".


Link1 comment|Leave a comment

I HAS PR0NZ!!!1! [Sep. 25th, 2009|02:43 pm]
[Current Location |Pandora Bread]
[Current Mood | wheee!]
[Current Music |Clipz - Give It to Me]

HEADLINE: New Jaspian Art on FA

In case some of you haven't checked twitter in the past few days, or don't have me watched on FA, there is sum new Jaspian pr0n out by Bonk of Jaspian giving Fuzzwolf some oral action. Here's a little taste (baddum!) ...
... and here's the link to it.

Please fave it if you like it. It makes me more appealing to the artists if they think I'm some kinda celebrity. (Well I am, aren't I? *harumph!* )

Anyway... this image was like 2-3 years in the making. The sketch came out pretty fast and I loved it, but it took awhile to get colored, and then it took FOREVER for Bonk to put the text on it (yes... there's text. It's funny. Give it a click!) Its actually been done (with text) since January or so, but then he never published it to his FA. So if you're wondering why it looks like some of his older work... it is. That's why it looks like his older work.  :)
More on Art...
So I've also signed up about a month ago for the Vorephile art exchange. I should have probably mentioned that yesterday on #vorethursday but it kinda slipped my mind. I've been tasked with drawing vore for taben clearwater. Hopefully I won't drive myself batty trying to draw characters that are new to me over the next few weeks. I don't know who got my pic. He asked questions anonymously (very mysterious!!!1).

FOXMAS: 
Website up & need a few good furs
Web
In other news, www.foxmas.com is up... at least the FTP portion of it. Right now it's just hosting the poster image, but I plan to deploy information tonight. It will be fugly, but informative. Sometime this weekend I plan to deploy the CSS-enabled HTML site, complete with preliminary online registration, and then within the next two weeks after that I'd like to have the flash site up (HTML will still be an option for all you cavepeople out there...) Hopefully the Flash site will force me to establish a template from which I can bang out a website frozen oasis and a personal website for myself.

Volunteering
I am also looking for a few good furs to help with FOXmas. Specifically, I need volunteers to DJ in the dance room. Right now I only have one "maybe". Since we are planning on going all night, (literally), I'm going to need a LOT of DJs. DJing is fun, but it gets tiring after 4 hours straight. So if you want to DJ please let me know. Also, I would like to hear your ideas for convention events. "Cheap" or "Free" is always a plus. Volunteers for panels would also be nice. Unfortunately, being an econo-con this year (pre-reg is only $20!) we can't guarantee compensation in rooms or travel, and we probably won't be able to comp con attendance either unless we cream our attendance forecasts. However, I can offer you a little piece of fame by adding you to our convention conbook, with a little bio on how awesome you are.

If you're interested, email me HERE or hit me up on AIM/YIM/GIM/MSN as jaspianfox or on Meebo as Jaspian. The sooner you get back to me, the more likely I will be able to block time for feasible events.


Thanks for reading!

- jaspian



Link8 comments|Leave a comment

Jaspi Poster, and boring announcement! [Sep. 21st, 2009|02:29 pm]
[Current Location |partman]
[Current Mood | sleepy]
[Current Music |Ewun - Screw Up (Upbeats remix)]


So how is everybody out there? I am stressing my little fennec brain out. I just wrapped up the High Society Party last night, and I am dead tired today for work. Meanwhile, I'm working with the Rochester crew to get FOXmas looking like a real con by December.

To dispel any of the rumors, we have only officially been planning FOXmas since early August, which means its one of the shortest ramp-ups for a convention probably in the entire history of the fandom. So we have to work twice as hard to get things in place... all of this while I have a job, and while I labor at my multitude of creative efforts... none of which seem to be bearing any fruit right now.

So I am gonna tighten the shoes and try to get running with this. Over the next few weeks, I'm going to start posting a year or so of con reports that I just never got around to posting. They've just been sitting on my laptop in a word document forever.

If you don't like reading con reports, I apologize, but this is supposed to be a journal, and I am supposed to be recording my thoughts and activities. Since most of these focus around the furry fandom these days, its only natural that I post about my convention experiences.

I am also posting here with the initial FOXmas poster, courtesy of Bonk, just in case some of those who're subscribing to me don't know that I, along with Soron the Panda, will be running a Christmas-themed furry convention this year (as stated above) called FOXmas. Stare at the art. It is a pretty Jaspian fennec with a candy cane.  -^.^-

I <3 it very much. Hope you like it too.


And with that, I bid you a fair day.

Link4 comments|Leave a comment

Fennec reports on Sunday Night Double-Feature: 9 and Gamer! [Sep. 14th, 2009|03:58 am]
[Current Location |partman]
[Current Mood | molested?]
[Current Music |A Sides - Heavyweight]

Hello and welcome to another Fennec film report! This week I had a double-feature: 9 (the movie), about a post-apocalyptic world where living dolls and twisted recycled garbage monsters are battling for control of whatever is left of earth... and: Gamer, a somewhat dystopian future where people are allowed to control other people in various circumstances... most notably in a game called "Slayers" where players pay to control a death-row inmate in combat.

Now... on to the nitty-gritty..!


9 (the movie)


This film is the continuation of a short by Shane Acker (the director of "9 - the movie"), which is also called 9. (If that isn't confusing enough, there's also another film coming out this year called "nine" (spelled out), and we've already had DISTRICT 9 this year as well!)

I have included a link to 9 (the short) in this article below, for your viewing pleasure.  :)

One of the qualms I had with 9 (the short) is that, while it takes place in a wonderfully-artistic and intriguing dystopian future, that future is somewhat irrelevant to the story. The characters could easily be a cat and a clever mouse in a cartoon.

This is probably the greatest advancement of the movie over the short. In 9 (the movie), the environment matters more, and the nature of the dolls and machines are both more clearly defined in their own right - that is, you couldn't really substitute anything for the characters and have the same plot at the end. That gives the setting more weight and emphasis, and allows us, as an audience, to appreciate the world that they live in.

Another great feature of 9 (the movie) is the animation, which is SUPERB, especially in the case of a few of the machines... most notably, the dreaded Fabricator, which is a wonderful design in terms of sheer imagination, but is animated so well that it becomes breathtaking. The other machine that I was particularly impressed with is the sewing cobra thing. Once more, the design is awesome and frightening, but the sewing animation is very cool to watch.



However, my compliments to 9 end there. I felt that the voice acting was lackluster, and the plot and dialog are both fairly weak... especially the ending. I won't give anything away, but I will admit that I, personally, was extremely unimpressed with the end, and that it affected my appreciation for the film as a whole.

In the end, I give it 1 ear perked, 1 ear drooped. It is worth seeing... probably in theaters, too, because it would benefit from the large screen, but I'd wait until it comes to the cheap-seats.

On the other hand, we have...

GAMER

Gamer was made by those crazy bitches who made the films Crank and Crank 2, namely Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, who're both crazy psychopaths, as far as I can tell.

However, from the trailer, I was lead to believe that Gamer would be different from Crank. For those of you who have seen Crank and / or Crank 2, you probably know what I am talking about. The Crank series is very unique... both in having extremely sick and twisted humor, no-holds-barred graphic violence, and surprisingly innovative filming (wonderful camera angles, transition sequences, etc... both Crank and Crank 2 are masterpieces... if you can stomach the content!) But I can safely say that I was not expecting Gamer to be anything like Crank.

And I was right. Gamer is not Crank, but there is a lot of bleed stylistically from Crank. Gamer is far more professional. It's far more of an action film and less comedic... but that didn't stop a LOT of Crank's morbid humor and outlandishness from seeping through, which was a pleasant surprise for me.

The acting is pretty damn good, the visuals are stunning, the plot is lacking, but the viewer doesn't care so much about that by the middle of the film. Enough disbelief is suspended early-on that the sheer ridiculousness of the plot becomes irrelevant. The dialog is witty and clever, and the pacing was spot on (I'm sure many of you know by now that I am a whore for good pacing!) I was riveted to my seat for the whole film... or at least the parts where I was trying not to pee myself with laughter (I appreciate a morbid sense of humor just a little too much at times...)

So I thoroughly recommend Gamer, but you might have a hard time finding it. Opening weekend was so slow for Gamer that many theaters have already pulled the film from their projectors, which made it hard for me to find a theater nearby that was still showing it only on its third week after release. But if you can find it, and you don't mind gratuitous violence (and I do mean GRATUITOUS VIOLENCE... perhaps even worse than Inglourious Basterds...), then I think you should check it out in the theater while you still can.

Gamer gets 2 ears perked, and is omnominated for the Fennec's Choice Award for Best Picture of 2009.

Link4 comments|Leave a comment

Inglourious Basterds are glourious [Aug. 25th, 2009|02:18 am]
[Current Location |partman]
[Current Mood | ew]
[Current Music |Mt Eden - Daniel]





Once upon a time in Massachusetts...

                         ... I got to see "Inglourious Basterds"...


First off, let me start out by saying that I had extremely high expectations for this movie - expectations that probably could never be exceeded. I consider Quentin Tarantino is one of the world's greatest directors, and in such a role in my mind, it is nearly impossible for Tarantino to surprise me.

... And in this movie, he didn't.

But the strange thing about Tarantino films, at least for me, is he doesn't have to surprise you. These films are carried almost entirely on witty dialog, strong acting, and pacing. Needless to say, Inglourious Basterds had all of that. But no matter how high you set your bar, you still come away from a film like Inglourious Basterds feeling satisfied because its a good film, and nothing more is necessary.

Inglourious Basterds is probably the best film I've seen this year. I give it TWO EARS PERKED and I am putting it in the running for the Fennec's Choice Awards for 2009.

Details details details...

Before you go see this film, be forewarned - it's probably the most violent movie I've seen in a long time - possibly the most violent film I've seen period. In this film lots of people die in gruesome horrific ways, and Tarantino isn't the sort of director to pan away. You see every drop of blood with disturbingly vampiric fascination from Tarantino. Every blunt instrument caving in a skill, every stab, every exit wound is reverently offered to the audience. There is some torture. If you are squeamish about blood, violence, or torture - do not see this film. It is not for you. Even I, who have a pretty tough tummy, and often laugh at horrible deaths in movies, covered my eyes in a few scenes. It's grizzly.

Another thing you should be aware of is that, despite the film's name, the Basterds are not the core focus of the film. There are 3 separate story arcs that are occurring simultaneously - one of the Basterds, one of a movie-theater owner, and one of a Nazi who is trying to ferret out Jews hiding in France. So don't expect to see all Brad Pitt and ambushes.

However, that didn't stop it from being a great film. The dialog (as usual for Tarantino) is fantastic. The acting is top-notch, with a star-studded cast. A name like "Tarantino" calls out the best in acting - where even minor characters are played by major actors in cameo roles, probably just to schmooze the legendary director, And of course the pacing is the best. That's what makes a film satisfying, in my opinion (for example Equilibrium was paced fantastically, Ultraviolet was paced poorly, both had pretty bad stories, fair acting, similar fight scene choreography and even moves (I think they might have had the same fight scene choreographer and director, but I'm not sure)... anyway Equilibrium was a fantastic film, and Ultraviolet kinda sucked... because of pacing.) Best of all is that there is a character named "FENNEC" (spelled "Fenech" according to IMDB), played by none-other than Mike Myers , which pleased me greatly. (Free points!)

Lastly, I'd like to commend Tarantino for his accurate depiction of the Basterds and their little-known sabotaging campaign in WW2. They don't get nearly enough recognition for their contributions, and I think this movie is doing a great service by letting the public know all the great feats that they accomplished during the war. Bravo!

However, there was one negative.... Brad Pitt wasn't very good (wow I can't believe I said that..!), his acting seemed extremely forced. I think he puts a bit of himself into his characters when he acts, but Aldo wasn't really compatible with his personality. He simply doesn't work that well as the "drill sergeant" -type, and his performance ended up feeling very forced. It came out most in his speaking - he spoke too quickly. The pauses between his sentences seemed rushed as if he were reciting rather than acting natural. (which of course he was.... but the point is he's not supposed to sound like he's reciting).  :)


So... in conclusion: 2 ears perked, omnominated for the Fennec's Choice Awards 2009. If you don't mind hyper-violence and gore; see this film.


-^.^-






-jaspi



Link2 comments|Leave a comment

Movie Night - District 9 reviewed! [Aug. 16th, 2009|04:07 am]
[Current Location |partman]
[Current Mood | sleepy]
[Current Music |Portishead - Roads]




So I just back from seeing District 9 - the expansion on the award-winning short film "Alive in Joburg". Here are my thoughts...

Let me start off by stating the clearest difference between District 9 and Alive in Joburg - which I'm sure many of you have presumed, or know beforehand - that District 9 is a movie, not a mockumentary. About 20 minutes into the film, it abruptly (and surprisingly) drops the documentary fascade and becomes like an ordinary film. However - this film is by no means ordinary. It's really pioneering in quite a few areas. For example: the activist "fake documentary" has never really been done in a movie before. The extent of fake documentary films have been comedies like "Best in Show." They have not been films that are mocking serious crisies worldwide. Additionally, we always think of aliens coming to earth as being invaders, or looking for first contact. This is really the first time that a "first contact" scenario has been designed in film with the idea of aliens as refugees, who we would need to take care of. District 9 earns points for pioneering.

It also earns points for visuals. The film is incredibly attractive. While some of the animation leaves something to be desired (mostly the prawns' naked selves), generally speaking it's far beyond average. The exo-suit, and the spaceship, in particular, are amazing. However, they should have stuck to the puppets from Alive in Joburg for the creatures - they are much more convincing.

Acting was good, and the pace was pretty decent. Dialog was passable, and there is some humor for everybody - for example, one man is killed by a flying pig for the slapstick crowd. I found particularly amusing how the humans gave human-sounding names to these weird cockroach creatures with cthulu mouths that speak in pops growls and clicks. (This is an obvious jab at giving American-sounding surnames to American immigrants, especially those from Eastern Europe or Asia.)

One thing to note is that District 9 is rated R and it deserves to be. It's far more violent than the trailers make it out to be. There's mutilation, amputation, tons of gore, including some very horrible deaths, a lot of humans being turned into jelly by all sorts of weapons, executions of unarmed aliens... you get the idea. There's also a lot of the F-bomb. Most particularly disgusting for myself is there's a lot of fluids. Vomiting, pissing, oozing weirdness from the nose and mouth, coughing stuff up, in addition to gore. You may want to eat a big meal before watching District 9 so that you're too full to get popcorn or snacks - you may not feel like finishing them.

To me, the glaring flaw of District 9 is the story. They should have kept the documentary-style format. It had an amazing feel to it. While this would not have made the plot of District 9 (as it stands now) suffer, because the benefit of returning to the mockumentary format adds fewer points than I have taken away for poor storytelling. THERE ARE SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT.... (1) Lets start out by talking about the critical elements of the story: alien refugees on earth. While they are not touted specifically as refugees per-se, it is implied considering the squalor that they arrived in. We are never told what happened on their planet to make them flee the world. This is a vital element because the movie ends with two of the aliens returning to their homeworld. If its so easy to return, why did they leave to begin with? (2) The fuel for their command module turns people into aliens? How does that make sense? (3) Aliens get their fun by derailing trains. They kill people, and cause massive amounts of crime. In the real world, such mischief would have meant napalm. Considering their more advanced technology, and the possibility of it going away if the mothership left, means that the military (at least the US Military...) would probably have wiped out all of the aliens and attempted to reverse-engineer the technology. (4) Humans are bad. Everything that humans do, aside from the main character, paints us as evil. While this isn't really a problem with the story, it is very annoying. (5) When they levetate the command ship at the end, the SAM launcher doesn't try to hit it again. (I also felt that the command module crash after the first rocket attack was mediocre graphically). (6) This movie really needed a down ending. The flow of the film pointed decidedly at a letdown. I was hoping that the ship in the tractor beam would get shot down and the humans would take over the ship, or master their technology and use it against them, or the aliens would conquer the world by sacking each capitol city with their huge powered exoskeletons. It was a bit of a letdown that the ending was so happy.

In conclusion - this movie has a lot going against it. There's a lot that could have been done a lot better. There are plot holes, inconsistencies, and silly things that don't make sense to reasoning people. However, I don't think that it outweighs the novelty of the film itself. I give it two ears perked, but with some reservation. Even so, it is officially in the running for the Fennec's Choice Awards for Film of the Year.




Link1 comment|Leave a comment

Movie night! GI Joe and Public Enemies Reviewed! [Aug. 9th, 2009|05:04 am]
[Current Location |partman]
[Current Mood | zzzzz - *snort* huh what? z-zz]
[Current Music |Burner Brothers - Sinister]


Tonight I had my movie-thon with longtime best friend and movie connoseaur "The Dex". The lineup was Public Enemies, followed by GI Joe. So... into the gap, boys!
Public Enemies - the surprisingly accurate film about the infamous gangster John Dillinger - was the first film I saw tonight. Despite what I would consider to be an "all-star" cast, it was a pretty bland film. I blame the director Michael Mann. When you watch this film, you're likely to notice that the quality of the film itself (the media) is total absolute shit. It looks worse than a made-for-TV movie. It looks like a history-channel reanactment for a documentary. Even worse is some of the camera angles, and some prop malfunctions (such as a squib pack that goes off AFTER a major character has just been shot to death). The lighting is awful and there are a lot of obstructed views in scenes. Ultimately I get the feeling that the director just didn't give a damn - that everything was shot once and kept. It might have even worked, since the acting and script pretty-much speak for themselves.... if it weren't for the quality of the film itself. It turns out that the film is digital. While many people are often duped by that word, "digital" is a curse. It is a representation of a thing - not the thing itself.

Some directors have begun to shoot digital media because its less expensive. It is more tolerant to low lighting, and therefore doesn't need elaborate lighting rigs - and it can be carried in smaller, cheaper cameras. But just because it tolerates low-lighting well, doesn't mean you should shoot in low-lighting. Small cameras doesn't mean you should shoot everything from the shoulder or from the hands. Unfortunately Michael Mann didn't consider these things. A tommygun firing at night, with a long licking tongue of flame erupting from the muzzle, for example, should be extremely bright, and it should be follow each shot with darkness. That's the way it SHOULD look. Digital low-light tolerant cameras don't pick up this effect. It makes the whole thing look ametuerish - and even moreso when so many shots are done shoulder-cam.

Finally, I would like to say that Johnny Depp was a poor choice as Dillinger. He just didn't fit the role. I think that they wanted to cast Leonardo Dicaprio and merely failed. I would also like to note that they failed to note Dillinger's legendary penis, which has been rumored at times to have been as long as 23 inches. While I seriously doubt it was that huge, I still wish they had at least mentioned the rumors as a humorous aside.

Overall, this movie was 'meh'. 1 ear perked, 1 ear drooped.


Next I saw.... GI JOE. Let me start out by saying that I know nothing of GI Joe. My wealth of "Joe"-related knowledge comes from a few public service announcements I saw as a kid, later bastardized in my highschool years to my delight... and from Robot Chicken, which parodied the show at least once.

That having been said, there's probably plenty of stuff that I missed out on, having not followed the show (and further: there's probably a lot of stuff that they changed that I should be upset about, but I'm not!)

What it comes down to is this... GI Joe was not at all what I expected.  I had expected to see Army combat with slightly futuristic gear. I expected HMMWVs and Abrams and Apachies and F22s. What I got was much more "comic book" style. I think they might have followed the show very closely. GI Joe is not a realistic movie - even if one were to jump ahead to the "near future" as they claim.

But what's left over is something that felt very magical and new to me. As far as I can tell, nothing like GI-Joe has been done before. It didn't feel like a war movie, or even much of a comic book (contrary to what I said before)... but more like James Bond with serious futuristic technology. They followed a similar "covert ops", "trail of crumbs", "eccentric characters" (and more) motief, that, as I said before, felt more like James Bond than anything else I can think of to compare it to.

I thoroughly enjoyed GI Joe. It was pretty. The acting wasn't as bad as I'd feared. While it did have its cheesey moments (just how exactly does a particle accelerator weaponize nanomachines? Does that make sense to anybody?), it also had some witty dialog and was thoroughly entertaining.

I've already heard claims that GI Joe is for "the ignorant people of middle America", but, having seen the film, I'd say that right there is the ignorant statement. Right-wingism does not seem to be a high prioraty in this film... except in 3 places that I could detect.
1. Destroying the eiffel tower
2. The database of public images that they search to find people... clear constitutional vioation there, and they're playing it up as being ordinary and helpful. That's something that the Right would love but is wrong.
3. Polar ice caps - they seem to make an intentional effort to show that the polar caps are there, and that there are polar  bears on them. Clear snipe at Global Warming Alarmists.

As weird as this sounds, I am actually going to omnominate GI Joe for the Fennecs Choice Awards best picture of 2009 - although I don't think it stands a chance against "Know1ng" , personally. Either way: GI Joe? 2 ears perked
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

Advertisement

Heading out for Frozen Oasis! [Jul. 31st, 2009|08:58 pm]
[Current Location |partman]
[Current Mood | butterflies]
[Current Music |Pendulum - Propane Nightmares]

Frozen Oasis XVIII is tomorrow at Soron's place in Rochester!

If you can make it, come join us!

For more info visit: The Frozen Oasis community page!

LinkLeave a comment

Transformers 2 – Transformers Transformed into something good [Jun. 24th, 2009|03:42 am]
[Current Location |-nun-]
[Current Mood | wicked sleepy]
[Current Music |partman!]


So I just got out of Transformers 2 in IMAX (as usual). It was the first showing of Transformers in my area, and let me start off by saying, if you are planning to see Transformers 2, you should try to see it in IMAX. There are two good reasons for this…

1- Transformers is a big budget movie with big robots and big explosions. Need I say more?  

2 – The IMAX version has about 15 minutes more content than the standard cut. So if you see it in a “regular” theater, you are seeing an abridged release. The reason for this is probably the 2-hour-15-minute distribution preference that theaters have for studios to make films that line up conveniently for scheduling, and hence, squeeze as many showings in per day as possible, to maximize traffic flow. Unfortunately this means that many films get cut down for theatrical releases. IMAX doesn't have such rigid scheduling standards, and so they have no qualms accepting longer films uncut. This film itself is very long indeed - about 2 and a half hours, but don't worrry - the  boredom dissipates entirely about halfway through the film.  -^.^-

A lot of people liked the old film, so I’d like to compare them, at least from my perspective:

THE OLD

I disliked the original Transformers live-action film because… first off, I felt it was too abstract (the all-spark, specifically, which seemed extremely forced), the dialog was boring - it was filled with immature cliché one-liners, the acting was bad, I felt that the pacing was off, and I felt that they portrayed humans as being pathetically weak. But most of all, I didn’t like the action. It was too shiny, cameras moving too fast, and the complexity of the transformers in terms of detail made it difficult to see what was going on during the battles. The miscellaneous junk in each of the transformers kinda meshed together, blurring the distinct shapes of where one robot ends and his opponent begins. And lastly - Michael Bay used, and abused, the old “no shot for more than 6 seconds” rule.

THE NEW

I came into this movie with low-expectations, thinking that it would be similar to the first film, but I was pleasantly surprised. It was less abstract, the pacing was far superior, and the humans aren’t worthless cannon fodder. The filmmakers seemed like they were trying to make a good movie, rather than filling the giant-bad-guy(s)-destroying-cities-mass-produced-blockbuster film stereotype (a stereotype which I believe the first film fit-the-mold perfectly).

Unfortunately, as a viewer of Transformers 2, you are still stuck with the cliché one-liners (with some new ethnic stereotyped robots… and not in a positive way...), the acting is still bad, and it’s still too shiny - but it is less distracting in this film because, at least in the action sequences that I had appreciated the most, there was less of the jerky camerawork that is so common today in action films. However, Michael Bay still seems to favor the “no shot for more than 6 seconds” rule, to appease all the meth-prescribed ADHD kids, which is just as annoying now as it was in the first film.

MY TAKE

A vast improvement over the original. I give it two ears perked, but it is not in the running for the Fennec’s Choice Awards for Best Picture. Part of my appreciation was probably due to my lowered expectations. Part was probably due to having a 4-story screen (it is really hard to dislike a movie you see in IMAX!). But some of my appreciation was to the films own credit. I genuinely thought it was better than the original.

While I grew up with Transformers, I felt that the original film catered to the fanbase a little too much – making transformers virtually indestructible. They seemed only susceptible to attacks that were unconventional (like the all-spark). In Transformers 2.. (tiny spoiler alert!) there is an epic battle between the humans and the Decepticons where the humans hold their own.  This is tied in with what appears to be a long and expensive advertisment for the US Military and the military industrial complex. They use a large amount of recognizable (sometimes by name) current and next-generation weapon systems. While I would normally consider such propaganda irritating, I was genuinely too enthralled at the hypnotic scenes of robots and buildings exploding, to be concerned about the message that they’re pushing.

Before I wrap this up, I’d like to go on the record and note: The sound engineering was fantastic. As strange as that may seem (one doesn’t ordinarily notice good sound engineering in film), Transformers requires a lot of unique and interesting sounds for all of the strange technology that it portrays, and the sound in this film was veeeeeery interesting. Right away, before the film even starts, there’s some great sounds in the studio and distributor screens, and from there on out, you really notice it.

CONCLUSION

If you want to see a lot of beautiful explosions, coupled with a fairly interesting plot, (I forgot to mention that earlier – I think this movie’s plot is much better than the original's!) without having to think too much, and you can overlook rotten dialog and acting – you will appreciate this film. If you like Transformers – you will probably appreciate this film. If you want something DEEP, you might want to look elsewhere. For those of you who go to see it - I hope you enjoy it!  :)

Have a good night!

 

-jas

 


PS – I found the attendance of the film was a different demographic from films I normally see in IMAX. Usually, geeks are represented overwhelmingly. For Transformers, I was surprised to see, many jocks (I assume they’re car enthusiasts). They were rude and loud, as jocks tend to be. If you don’t like seeing films with people who’ll shout back wisecracks and laugh at testicle humor, you may want to wait for a few weeks before seeing the film.

 

PPS – I ran over a bunny on the way home from the movie. I am extremely sad about it.  :(  It was rainy and dark and visibility was terrible and I didn’t see him until he was about 20 feet away.  Poor guy….

Link2 comments|Leave a comment

"WHY ARE YOU KILLING US?" - the Great Legacy of Socialism [Jun. 3rd, 2009|10:42 pm]
[Current Location |'partman]
[Current Mood | -whine-]
[Current Music |-nun-]









Tomorrow marks the 20th anniversary of the Tienanmen Square Massacre – that infamous morning when forces of collectivism and socialism brutally crushed the nonviolent Freedom movement of China, who asked for nothing more but free speech, free elections, free enterprise and the freedom to live their lives as they see fit.

Instead, they were slaughtered by the behemoth abomination of Central Government, the bodies of the innocent littering the square. Unbiased sources put the final death toll at around 5000, - all protesters butchered in the name of the collective good. Such is the terrible legacy of socialism.

And what of the legacy of those who made the most honorable of sacrifices, (what more honorable death is there but in the name of Liberty?), crushed under the treads of Soviet tanks as they screamed “Why are you killing us”? To us - They exposed the vile injustice of socialism for the entire world to see... a lesson which, I fear, we have been far too quick to forget.

 But what of China? Surely the Tienanmen Square Massacre must have had some influence? It did not. Those brave patriots have had every shred of their existences eviscerated from history. You might ask; How could they cover it up in this day and age, with the internet? Enter: the Great Firewall of China, denying Chinese citizens access to any sites that might contain information about the Massacre – the perfect example of why government should not be involved directly in any industries. And yet today, in America, we are doing the opposite of what History has told us. We have nationalized our lending industry, we are nationalizing our automotive industry, and proponents of socialism are even-now fighting for the nationalization of medicine, energy and the internet. That's right – we are on the verge of having a Great Firewall ourselves. And yet today, the Government already decides what books we can use in school, what we can and can't eat, what we should think, what we can and can't say in media (so much for free speech!), what we can and can't use as medicine... and with each new industry it consumes or possesses, Government gets larger, like a festering malignant tumor killing us slowly with ever-increasing regulations and bureaucracies, stifling the creativity and ingenuity and spirit of the people, slowing the gears of the machine that we call “progress”.

 Tomorrow - all socialists, consider what you're really advocating. Remember those who died in Tienanmen Square rebelling against many of the ideas that you want for America, and consider if that is really what's best for us. Consider that every industry that you nationalize, and every power delegated to the government can be abused, and when used together, that power could become Totalitarian. Consider that someday, a Tienanmen Square could happen here too.

  

I'd like to end this article with a request to all of you. Post references to Tienanmen Square in all of your social networking blogs and forums, and encourage others to do the same. Maybe – if we're lucky – some of them will get past the Great Firewall of China and into the hands of English-speaking Chinese so that they do not wallow in ignorance of their criminal leaders. They deserve to know the evils of socialist national collectivism. Perhaps someday they will break free of their big-government oppressors and join the Free World. At the very least, spreading the word of Tienanmen Square will remind us of the virtues of a Free Society, and why we must defend it – capitalism, hard work, saving, prosperity, speaking freely without fear, freedom from persecution, the right to face your accuser, a jury of peers, and a speedy trial. Innocence until proven guilty and humane treatment even if proven guilty (and so on), and give us the conviction to protect our liberties from any who wish to compromise them.

Link1 comment|Leave a comment

California overturns Prop 8 Challenge – a good day for Democracy? [May. 27th, 2009|12:34 am]
[Current Location |partman]
[Current Mood | naked]
[Current Music |Jaspian - Doomsday Machine (WIP)]


THE NEWS...

Today was a good day for America. The California Supreme Court upheld the passage of Proposition 8 by a 6 to 1 majority, silencing the massive international outcry denouncing Californians, demanding that their franchise should be silenced. You might be shocked that I am pleased with this decision, despite being a bisexual furry Libertarian who supports gay marriage rights.

WHY IS IT GOOD?

VICTORY FOR SELF-DETERMINATION -  While I believe that it is reprehensible that Californians passed Proposition 8 in the first place, it is their right to do what they want in their own state, and it would be the act of a corrupt court to overturn their legitimate legal decision. I do not have to live in California, therefore, my opinion on Proposition 8 does not, and SHOULD NOT, matter one bit. If Californians don't want their gays, we'll take 'em! They'll can take their wealth and business and give it to a state that accepts them for who they are... like Massachusetts... and we will collect their income taxes. And then, everybody's happy: California has no more gays, gays live someplace they're appreciated, and the State that accepts them has more money: everybody wins!

Californians should not have the right to decide how Massachusetts live, and Massachusetts should not have the right to decide how Californians live, provided that they allow anybody who wants to leave the right to do so, and to take with them their property. That's just common sense. What isn't common sense is for some states to decide how another state should be run against their wishes. After all - they don't have to live there.

IT IS AN EXAMPLE OF A JUDICIARY SYSTEM THAT IS NOT CORRUPT – There were simply no grounds to overturn the ruling, except for personal moral principles. It is not the job of a judiciary to make moral decisions (which is the responsibility of Legislators, and in special cases by direct Democracy in states where that is allowed. The courts have no law-making authority, only the powers of enforcing laws), the court is supposed to read the law, and using the law, decide how it applies to the current case.

An unfortunate byproduct of our degenerate society is our current propensity to shape society “by any means necessary”. This is a perfect example: a legitimate (albeit reprehensible) law is passed by legitimate means, and in return the opposition attempts to nullify that law through the court system in the hopes that the judges will overstep their authority and veto it. That's not justice, and what will come from it is nothing but more injustice, because it sets the prescident that it is acceptable for judges to make legislative decisions. Judges that legislate from the bench once were, and should be, immediately removed, as they are clearly abusing their powers. But for decades, we've thanked judiciaries for abusing their powers, as if The End really does Justify the Means... but it doesn't. It never does. It is this prescident that allowed 4 out of 9 US Supreme Court Justices to vote that TORTURE is CONSTITUTIONAL. I mean, clearly they haven't read the Constitution, it's pretty explicit about cruel and unusual punishment. In Seventh Grade I was better at interpreting the Constitution than the highest court in the land! So how are they not dismissed? (The Constitution clearly states that Justices should only hold their post “During Good Behavior”... I'd say that shirking the very document that they've sworn to uphold constitutes “Bad Behavior”, but perhaps I'm the only one thinking straight these days...) Ultimately it comes down to this; small victories like Gay Marriage are not worth compromising our judicial system, because when the Judiciary oversteps its power, it starts to become used to it, and we will no longer a nation of LAWS... we will be a nation of arbitrary DECISIONS from an unaccountable authority.

The judiciary is what protects our rights. It protects us from arbitrary power, and from corporate abuses. They are the branch of government most essential to be just, because they keep all the other branches in check, and yet we are saying to them “Yes... it's okay to abuse your power this time, in the name of... (insert cause here)”. But there's always another cause, and next time, they might not be on your side.

IT UNDERSCORES THE EVILS OF DEMOCRACY – that the many can abuse the few. Fortunately our founding fathers had the foresight not to give us a Democracy – they gave us a Republic, because they were students of History, and knew that Democracy is a bad thing. They saw the flaws of Athens and the relative boons of Rome, where “Democracy” was a cuss, like we think of today of “Autocracy” and “Theocracy”, “Democracy” was lumped in, with a negative stigma attached. Today, Democracy is often mistakenly translated as Demo “People”, Cracy “Rule”, as in “Rule of the People”. Even though this is word-for-word correct, it is a disingenuous translation because it does not preserve the tone of the Latin. Democracy means “Rule of the People”, not in a nice way, but as in “The Tyranny of Mob Rule”. That is, the majority can do whatever it pleases with minority groups, (and we are ALL minority groups depending on your frame of reference,) and therefore, no matter who you are, or where you are, you could become the victim of Democracy... a fact which the homosexuals of California are all-to-aware-of today.

Republics, conversely, tend to protect the few from the wrath of the many. Elected officials want all the votes they can get, and so they tend to appeal to various minority votes: racial, sexual, religious minorities, veterans, homeowners, single parents, and the like. Representatives want all the votes they can get, and so they try to help such groups. This works to keep the many from praying on the few because the desperate need of a small segment of the population often outweigh the passing desire of the entire population. A group lobbies for the one or two things that they need most. In a Democracy, this isn't the case. In democracies, the many take whatever is most advantageous from the few, or at the very least, drown out the needs of those few.

So next time someone talks about democracy – democratizing the Presidential election, or the legislative process, think of this case. It is an excellent reminder of the folly of democracy. Democracy has an appealing luster, but it is simply injustice in a foil wrapper.

THE GAY MARRIAGE MOVEMENT HAS IT ALL WRONG – And hopefully this will be a wake-up-call to all of the Gay Marriage advocates that something is terribly wrong with the system. Gays need to re-examine their assumptions because they are skipping over something so fundamental in trying to achieve their goal... and that is, GOVERNMENT HAS NO POWER TO DECIDE WHOM YOU CAN MARRY. By asking the government to “permit” homosexual marriages, you're conceding that they have the authority to accept or deny your marriage request in the first place... but they don't. I don't know how the public got brainwashed into thinking that they need government permission, but it's laughably ridiculous. How did people ever get convinced that a bunch of paperwork makes a couple married? That's absolutely absurd. You're married if you have a ceremony with family and friends, exchange rings, exchange vows, eat cake and drink champagne and have plenty of sex afterwards (or however you want to celebrate it!). That is what's important. It is the ONLY thing that's important. The government can go cry itself to sleep because marriage law is unenforcible, and the sooner that the homosexual community realizes this, the sooner they will stop groveling before The Man and his imagined powers and get married.

Marriage has been around for a long time – much longer than any government. Since it predates government, one can assume that government permission is not required for it to exist. In fact, the United States didn't even have marriage licenses until the late 1800's... over 100 years of American prosperity without marriage licenses! Gee! How did we ever get along without them? That's the wrong question... the proper question is “why do we have them at all?”

It all started after the War Between the States, when emancipation allowed for the possibility of legal marriages between ex-slaves and whites. The concept of Marriage Licenses was promoted through the Ku Klux Klan to prevent such marriages. It started in South Carolina and spread outward from there, gaining momentum as the Eugenics movement took off (concepts such as “Racial Purity” and “Master Race”), and was advocated by the American Fascist League, which looked at Nazi Germany as a paradigm of virtue up through the 30's. Eventually, when the world realized Hitler was a bad guy, the international fascist movement dried up, and with the discovery of the concentration camps, the eugenics movement died too... and yet, the Marriage License remains even today. Why would you want one at all? It is a symbol of hatred and intolerance even today. If you have a marriage license, you should burn it out of disgust for everything it symbolizes.

The state doesn't decide who you're married to. YOU and YOUR PARTNER decide that you are married, and the State can fuck off.

WHAT HAPPENS FROM HERE?
This case was carried for a long distance by the American Civil Liberties Union – an outfit that I believe is generally good in most cases, but in this case they are using a people's government against them. Bad. Very very Bad. Even so, they are probably the most powerful legal activist group on Earth. I have no doubt that they will attempt to appeal this case to the United States Supreme Court, invoking the “Equal Protections” clause of the 14th Amendment, which is so vague as to mean just about anything, and the Supreme Court will rule in favor of overturning Proposition 8. Before this happens, there is something that both Liberals and Conservatives should heed: don't be a fucking hypocrite. You can't invoke the Constitution for Gay Rights and then call it “outdated” for Gun Ownership. Likewise, you can't dismiss Due Process for suspected Terrorists and then claim States Rights. It doesn't work that way. It must be accepted as a whole, or you're guilty of hypocrisy.

We should all be in favor of JUSTICE first, and ensuring the enduring RULE OF LAW (especially the laws that protect the people from the government and mega-corporations, such as the Constitution). Everything else is secondary. Once you have a fair system, you must trust that the truth will eventually prevail, through the people and their representatives, rather than forcing it through corrupt courts and bureaucracies. And if it doesn't? Then we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Better than paying for someone else's mistakes. Such is the beauty, and responsibility, of self-determination.

I believe that Gay Marriage will be allowed in almost every state within the next 20 years. Younger generations are more responsive to it than older ones. However, you force the issue, the opposition will be backed into a corner and pull stunts like Proposition 8. Let the intolerance die naturally, or risk provoking it longer.

 

 

I am done now. Thanks for reading. Hope it offers some food for thought.

-j

 

Link29 comments|Leave a comment

Does Terminator need Salvation? [May. 23rd, 2009|11:03 pm]
[Current Location |partman]
[Current Mood | why?]
[Current Music |-nun-]



So I just got back from seeing Terminator 4, otherwise known as "Terminator Salvation" and I've got to admit, it was not what I expected... and I mean that in a bad way. While I was never a gung-ho Terminator fan, I always thought that Terminator was stylistically very fun to watch, especially when it came to future technology. The poorly-armed humans in their desperate fight against huge monstrous abominations of war, sort-of touches me on a personal level, considering my rebelliousness. And so, watching the future struggle for life and liberty of humans versus their mechanical oppressors was always the best part for me in Terminator 2 and 3. When Terminator 4 proved to be set in the future, I expected that it would be a whole film of what I considered to be the best parts of previous Terminator films.... but I was wrong.


There was two things I expected: epic human-versus-robot combat, and Christian Bale being an unhappy mofo. Deep inside I sort-of hoped that I'd be able to identify that infamous scene where he just goes off on the lighting director and seals his reputation as being the most terrible actor to work with in the industry.


However, I did not get either of these things. Despite being in the ideal setting for epic human-versus-machine combat, and despite the implication of an epic war in the future (according to earlier films), there is very little epic combat in this film. It actually stays fairly close to the original films where a few primary characters are trying to accomplish some task while being chased around by occasional robots. Very disappointing to me, but probably good if you really enjoyed the other Terminator films. I guess I just expected something different.


Secondly, I could not identify that fateful scene.... so sad.


Furthermore, I was not impressed with the acting. I consider Christian Bale to be one of the greatest pretty actors in the industry. He's clearly better than Tom Cruise, for example. His depiction of Patrick Bateman in American Psycho is brilliant if you can stomach the horrible gut-wrenching violence of the film. His Bruce Wayne, while not fantastic, is at least passable enough that the watcher is convinced that he is Wayne/Batman. However, in this film he does not sell the roll of Conner. It looks like he's faking it, and it really prevented me from being immersed in the story. Worthingston, by contrast, was very good, albeit a comparitively ugly mug.


So... not at all what I expected, but it doesn't have to be exactly what I expected to be GOOD. Was "Star Trek" different than I expected? Yes. Was it better than I expected? YES. Was "Knowing" at all what I expected? Not at all!! Was it better than I expected? Hella-YES. Was Terminator4 what I expected?  No! Was it better?... no.

It didn't flow nicely. It lacked any really outstanding action sequences.... (contrary to the legacy of Terminator2, possibly the best-paced action film of all time... ) and so Terminator ranks a decidedly mediocre "meh" on the fennec-scale. 2 of 4 stars.

*****


On the flip side, I also watched Brazil, at the insistance of one of my non-fur friends. I had heard that Brazil was a dystopian sci-fi film, which it is (that kinda stuff always intrigues me... I also noticed during this film that Brits tend to think of the future in Dystopian terms, while Americans tend to see it in a more positive light. Consider 1984 (Orwell), Brave New World (Huxley), Brazil, V for Vendetta, Children of Men, among others...), but Brazil is also a comedy, which I did not know, nor expect (although I suspected it as soon as I saw it was a Terry Gilliam production).


The film is hilarious, and points out many of the flaws of society, which have been taken to extreme lengths, such as a society that seems to be based around bureaucracy and the sheer inefficiency and waste of it. Also - the imagry is very impressive, and the dialog is wonderful. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it to you.


Thanks for reading!



-j




Link17 comments|Leave a comment

I IS AH DJ [May. 22nd, 2009|06:54 pm]
[Current Location |partman]
[Current Mood | air]
[Current Music |DJ Mauser - Mixtime]



I had wanted to announce this earlier (like before the show)... but I never got to see the poster until the night before the show, and I didn't get a digital copy until a few days later.... ANYWAY... I got my first con DJ gig last Saturday night, at Morphicon.  ^-^   Thanks to Bastian for giving me the opportunity. My set was to be entirely Dubstep. It went pretty well until about 1 am, and then everybody left. That made me sad. I'm not sure if it was just because it was getting late, or if I dropped a track that people disliked so much they they decided to leave...  but anyway. I had fun, and I hope everybody that came had fun as well.

Thanks also to Kyomana for the awesome poster, and thanks again to Bastian for commissioning it.


^.^

Link6 comments|Leave a comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]