The better part of my college days were spent studying the English Language and from those rigorous studies I walk away a changed man. No longer do I have a passive disinterest in our written and spoken tongue, now I am a man who absolutely loathes the damn thing.
Let's be fair, no matter how much you try to justify English it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You can trace the etymology or dissect the meanings of individual Latin roots that are thrown about from one word to another like a ragged pig skin, but the one thing you won't find in your efforts are concrete rules. By the very nature of English there are always exceptions to every rule and there is no definitive argument that one can make to justify why the word "clip" means to both fasten and detach. Still, vitriol aside, the source of all this complication has a lot to do with the amalgam factor. English is nothing more than a collection of different words and sounds that have been disassembled and reconstructed back into some freakish "Reanimator" monstrosity. What we are left with is a stew that has been boiling on the stove for too long, we added too many ingredients and lost track of time, allowing it to congeal into a uniform brown mess.
What's worse is periodically the mice that run the wheels in our heads turn on the power and we get a great idea, something down right genius. The English language presents us with something that eases our pains and demonstrates to us that the universe is not all chaos and that tiny motes of brilliance can be harnessed for good. Then we have to go ahead and screw that up too.
Take the words "A" and "An"; we all know how to use them and their purpose is one of convenience. "A" is put in place before a word that begins with a consonant because it lets the pairing roll together like a gentle stream, it distracts from any sort of odd maneuvering of the tongue and keeps the pace of the sentence in tact. "An" on the other hand is used in place of "A" when the word that follows begins with a vowel. Again, this is mostly done to help us sound things out, if you try to use "A" in place of "An" in these circumstances the speaker usually has to take a slight pause between words while their mouth hangs agape like some slack jawed hill-billy. How glorious it would be if the application of these words were so simple; but we can't have that now can we?
The real issue at hand is that these words are not entirely interchangeable and are designed to fulfill a very specific duty with phonetics. However, it seems as though the real functionality has something to do with the very vowels and consonants themselves. Let's take a look at Acronyms and how they completely fubar this whole design principle.
Believe it or not but the sentence, "I ate a MRE" is appropriate. Not only is it appropriate but its generally considered the only acceptable usage even according to Strunk and White. Sure, it looks well and good on paper but what happens when you sound it out? While the letter M is indeed a consonant, when you pronounce the letter itself it actually begins with a soft vowel sound. If one were to spell the pronunciation of the letter M it might look like "em", or "ehm" for those of us that work at Webster.
This to me is a serious problem because the difference between "A" and "An" is one that entirely has to do with the spoken language, NOT the written one. Why do we have to be so slavish to this rule when it is clearly meant as a means of making dialogue and conversation flow more naturally?
English language I am quite angry with you and I expect a written apology sometime tomorrow morning. Please also provide a decent argument as to why we need the word "flammable" when we had "inflammable" all along.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
"Devil" Review (Actually, More of a Plea to M. Night Shyamalan)
I was going to take the time to talk about "The Town" and how it was the best movie I have seen all year. I was going to carefully construct an analysis that followed the career of Ben Afleck and try to research exactly what it was that transformed him into one of those campy actors to a top tier director who is riding the wave of an early Martin Scorsese. But to paraphrase a great man, what do you ultimately learn from studying a GOOD movie? You just learn how to copy and emulate their styles. A bad movie on the other hand teaches you so much more as it instructs you on what NOT to do - that, and making fun of bad stuff is far more entertaining.
For those of you unaware, there is a little something floating about the airwaves of Americana called the "M. Night Groan"; this little phrase is attached to the seemingly world wide phenomenon that has audiences all across America either: groaning, laughing, or booing at the mention of Mr. Shyamalan's name when it appears on the trailer for his latest movie "Devil".
When I went to see "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World" I saw the very same trailer in theaters and sure enough when M. Night's name hit that enormous black screen, boldly projected at us in bright text, I was bearing witness to the birth of something far more powerful and influential than I knew. A part of me twitched and the corners of my mouth began to rise to form a snarky half-smile, and before I could contain my own glib emotional denouncement of M. Night's work the audience let out with a very audible mixture of disapproval.
I was relieved, I had my faith restored in the rest of the movie attendees. No longer was this hatred I had been building up for years isolated to a few radical fringe groups, it was now catching on like a plague. The world at large was seeing the same flaws and imperfections with Shyamalan's movies that us snooty film heads have been rallying against since the second half of "Signs".
Imagine how shocked I was to then go home and discover a week later that this rejection of Shyamalan's name was blowing up all over the place. Even "College Humor" caught wind of it and made a video detailing the mass hatred directed towards the once brilliant mind who brought us "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable". Something was rotten and I needed to figure out what had happened, what was causing this rapid decline in the quality of his films? Was hubris involved? Most likely, but I think it stems from something deeper, something that I can see slowly make itself whole in the film "Devil".
Before I go any further, it should be stated that M. Night's involvement in the film "Devil" was supposedly very hands-off; he only wrote the original story and produced the thing as part of his "Night Chronicles" or whatever this trilogy of Twilight Zone inspired movies is called. That means another person was sitting in the director's chair for this one, and more shockingly another person penned the screenplay based on M. Night's original work. So is it truly fair to hold this film against Shyamalan and blame its weakness on his shortage of creativity? I'll say yes.
Here's the thing, I don't buy into the fact that Mr. Shyamalan ONLY wrote the original plot. When watching the movie the very dialogue and pacing of many of the written elements of the film seem to carry a heavy burden of Shyamalan influence. Me thinks that perhaps M. Night had his hands in the cookie jar for this one helping to write a lot of the translated work as it transitioned from rough brain storm to 80 page, ready-to-go, script. All the typical trappings are there that we associate with the modern Shyamalan: clunky dialogue, ridiculous twist, and themes that revolve around the ideas of redemption and revelation.
The worst part of all this is that I actually think Shyamalan is a very skilled person when it comes to the creative art of film making, but his talents do not lie in his ability to tell a good story. His strength stems from his uncanny ability to direct a scene. Even in his most atrocious movies (this years "Last Airbender" comes to mind), he manages to set up some really impressive shots that compliment his visual style as a director.
Problem is, M. Night does not see himself this way, he desperatly clings to the notion that he is a top tier story teller. Maybe its his passion to write original stories and share them with the world but at this point most of us have stopped caring. Somewhere in the beginning of his career we helped bolster his ego by claiming he was the next Hitchcock and would grow on to become this force of suspenseful horror. What we discovered was that he was actually just a one trick pony obsessed with trying to shoe horn in one insane plot twist after the next.
Sadly, his pride has now become so super inflated that he has unwittingly found himself on a harsh and desperate road. There is no going back at this point, Shyamalan must walk a painful path to make it out of the briars but he has to move forward in order to do so, possibly hurting himself along the way.
Someone who is not afraid to challenge his authority needs to tell him to step away from film and try something else. "Devil" itself is a movie that belongs on television as a 45 minute "Master's of Horror" episode. He needs to bite the bullet and accept one of two things: A. he may not have what it takes to make successful films or B. just direct and have no say in the story.
So M. Night aside, why is "Devil" so bad? Well, its just boring.
By its very structure, "Devil" happens to be a "bottle film" sort of like "Panic Room", "Phone Booth", or the new Ryan Reynolds vehicle "Buried". These films can work, but in order to stretch them out beyond television run-time standards and take them to the big screen it needs a strong focus on character, which "Devil" does not have. The actors are passable, but nothing about any of their performances truly stands out. Again, going back to the television thing, if this were something I could watch for free on TV it wouldn't be that big of a deal. However, this just happens to be at nearly an hour and a half and require its audience to generously shell over 11 clams. That is not acceptable.
You definitely feel the length of this film at times and it simply doesn't have enough going for it to sustain or justify its feature film presentation. What's worse is that it throws some downright silly ideas at you, courtesy of a hyper religious child-like moral compass crammed into a stereotypical rosary/crucifix toting Mexican. These uncomfortably horrible goofy moments are stupid but not present enough to elevate the film to that much so coveted "So bad its good" achievement.
I could also go on in great detail about the moral message that this film tries to shovel down our throats about redemption and the purpose of the devil, but I won't talk about it since I realize that this blog is already running a bit long as is. I will say that the idea of the Devil has always been something that has baffled me and its presence in this movie causes even more confusion as it stresses some absolutely bizarre incomprehensible logic that makes forgiveness ultimately pointless and spotlights god as the biggest jerk in the cosmic ocean.
Unlike "The Happening", a film that is an unintentional work of comedic genius, you should skip "Devil". Is it the worst movie M. Night has ever attached his name to? No, in fact its several steps above some of his previous work, but it is the most boring. Avoid this one at all costs, seeing it is a sin and you don't want none of that hanging over your soul with the way this film portrays El Diablo.
Go see "The Town"!
For those of you unaware, there is a little something floating about the airwaves of Americana called the "M. Night Groan"; this little phrase is attached to the seemingly world wide phenomenon that has audiences all across America either: groaning, laughing, or booing at the mention of Mr. Shyamalan's name when it appears on the trailer for his latest movie "Devil".
When I went to see "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World" I saw the very same trailer in theaters and sure enough when M. Night's name hit that enormous black screen, boldly projected at us in bright text, I was bearing witness to the birth of something far more powerful and influential than I knew. A part of me twitched and the corners of my mouth began to rise to form a snarky half-smile, and before I could contain my own glib emotional denouncement of M. Night's work the audience let out with a very audible mixture of disapproval.
I was relieved, I had my faith restored in the rest of the movie attendees. No longer was this hatred I had been building up for years isolated to a few radical fringe groups, it was now catching on like a plague. The world at large was seeing the same flaws and imperfections with Shyamalan's movies that us snooty film heads have been rallying against since the second half of "Signs".
Imagine how shocked I was to then go home and discover a week later that this rejection of Shyamalan's name was blowing up all over the place. Even "College Humor" caught wind of it and made a video detailing the mass hatred directed towards the once brilliant mind who brought us "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable". Something was rotten and I needed to figure out what had happened, what was causing this rapid decline in the quality of his films? Was hubris involved? Most likely, but I think it stems from something deeper, something that I can see slowly make itself whole in the film "Devil".
Before I go any further, it should be stated that M. Night's involvement in the film "Devil" was supposedly very hands-off; he only wrote the original story and produced the thing as part of his "Night Chronicles" or whatever this trilogy of Twilight Zone inspired movies is called. That means another person was sitting in the director's chair for this one, and more shockingly another person penned the screenplay based on M. Night's original work. So is it truly fair to hold this film against Shyamalan and blame its weakness on his shortage of creativity? I'll say yes.
Here's the thing, I don't buy into the fact that Mr. Shyamalan ONLY wrote the original plot. When watching the movie the very dialogue and pacing of many of the written elements of the film seem to carry a heavy burden of Shyamalan influence. Me thinks that perhaps M. Night had his hands in the cookie jar for this one helping to write a lot of the translated work as it transitioned from rough brain storm to 80 page, ready-to-go, script. All the typical trappings are there that we associate with the modern Shyamalan: clunky dialogue, ridiculous twist, and themes that revolve around the ideas of redemption and revelation.
The worst part of all this is that I actually think Shyamalan is a very skilled person when it comes to the creative art of film making, but his talents do not lie in his ability to tell a good story. His strength stems from his uncanny ability to direct a scene. Even in his most atrocious movies (this years "Last Airbender" comes to mind), he manages to set up some really impressive shots that compliment his visual style as a director.
Problem is, M. Night does not see himself this way, he desperatly clings to the notion that he is a top tier story teller. Maybe its his passion to write original stories and share them with the world but at this point most of us have stopped caring. Somewhere in the beginning of his career we helped bolster his ego by claiming he was the next Hitchcock and would grow on to become this force of suspenseful horror. What we discovered was that he was actually just a one trick pony obsessed with trying to shoe horn in one insane plot twist after the next.
Sadly, his pride has now become so super inflated that he has unwittingly found himself on a harsh and desperate road. There is no going back at this point, Shyamalan must walk a painful path to make it out of the briars but he has to move forward in order to do so, possibly hurting himself along the way.
Someone who is not afraid to challenge his authority needs to tell him to step away from film and try something else. "Devil" itself is a movie that belongs on television as a 45 minute "Master's of Horror" episode. He needs to bite the bullet and accept one of two things: A. he may not have what it takes to make successful films or B. just direct and have no say in the story.
So M. Night aside, why is "Devil" so bad? Well, its just boring.
By its very structure, "Devil" happens to be a "bottle film" sort of like "Panic Room", "Phone Booth", or the new Ryan Reynolds vehicle "Buried". These films can work, but in order to stretch them out beyond television run-time standards and take them to the big screen it needs a strong focus on character, which "Devil" does not have. The actors are passable, but nothing about any of their performances truly stands out. Again, going back to the television thing, if this were something I could watch for free on TV it wouldn't be that big of a deal. However, this just happens to be at nearly an hour and a half and require its audience to generously shell over 11 clams. That is not acceptable.
You definitely feel the length of this film at times and it simply doesn't have enough going for it to sustain or justify its feature film presentation. What's worse is that it throws some downright silly ideas at you, courtesy of a hyper religious child-like moral compass crammed into a stereotypical rosary/crucifix toting Mexican. These uncomfortably horrible goofy moments are stupid but not present enough to elevate the film to that much so coveted "So bad its good" achievement.
I could also go on in great detail about the moral message that this film tries to shovel down our throats about redemption and the purpose of the devil, but I won't talk about it since I realize that this blog is already running a bit long as is. I will say that the idea of the Devil has always been something that has baffled me and its presence in this movie causes even more confusion as it stresses some absolutely bizarre incomprehensible logic that makes forgiveness ultimately pointless and spotlights god as the biggest jerk in the cosmic ocean.
Unlike "The Happening", a film that is an unintentional work of comedic genius, you should skip "Devil". Is it the worst movie M. Night has ever attached his name to? No, in fact its several steps above some of his previous work, but it is the most boring. Avoid this one at all costs, seeing it is a sin and you don't want none of that hanging over your soul with the way this film portrays El Diablo.
Go see "The Town"!
Friday, September 24, 2010
My Hypothesis Was Wrong. Sorry Anime
Anime has become something dirty these days. Back when the 20th century was coming to a close and anime was on the rise, America was openly embracing the zany animated antics of our eastern friends over in Japan and all seemed right with the world. This wasn't the stuff of Disney, Japan had a loving appreciation for anime and was never afraid to explore more mature subject matter that we here in the states could only laughingly scavenge from abysmal messes like "Heavy Metal" or "Rock and Rule". We were naive and this radical departure from the sickeningly sweet goo that was American Disney and Don Bluth cartoons was just what we needed for our blossoming 21st century culture.
Not all good things last however; somewhere along the path from 1999 to present day anime became ugly. Depraved lolita underage fan service with a little twist of lemon flavored tentacle rape soon invaded our zeitgeist and we haven't exactly been forgiving of anime since. We as a generation of growing pop consumers felt betrayed that there lived such a foul beast somewhere amongst the wide eyed pretty anime peoples. But don't kid yourself, it was always there. Many "old-school" fans who now disassociate with anime will argue that this kind of perversion didn't exist in the volumes it does today but I highly doubt that. With the growing power of the internet age, we are more aware of our surroundings and many Japanese studios are able to release their disturbing fetish projects to the unsuspecting masses.
Now I'm a scientist at heart and every now and then I like to bold bravely into dangerous lands and perform field experiments for the sake of human curiosity. I hypothesized that should I type the word "anime" into an unfiltered google image search I would unearth some of the most horrendous, and probably illegal, sex acts ever inflicted upon an imaginary woman. Well, I was wrong.
Sure, there were a lot of pictures of anime babes in lingerie and bathing suits, and I even found a picture of a girl suggestively fellating a video game controller, but there was nothing truly inappropriate. I continued to go through page after page and still i didn't really find anything offensive beyond some slightly suggestive poses and up-skirt shots (with panties on to boot).
At that point i decided to up the ante. Despite nearly every single picture being nothing more than a shot of an objectified cartoon girl, I decided to redundantly search for "anime girl" to see if it made much of a difference. Nope. To my surprise there was very little change, although it is funny that the word "anime" is synonymous with "anime girl". The only time that I actually did find anything disgusting was when I entered in a specific female character's name into the unyielding search engine, in which case universally the very first photo which popped up had some mature to downright offensive material. However, the same thing happens even when you put American female cartoons into the search engine.
So what's the deal? Is anime really as gross as we've made it out to be? Admittedly, my experiment did demonstrate that the very idea of sexualizing women is stamped into the foundations of anime pop culture, but it wasn't to the point of stomach churning revulsion I originally had thought.
Anime has always been filthy and while I myself don't watch it like I used to I can't bring myself to the point of venom spewing hatred like the rest of my peers. Like any medium it has its good and bad and while I can't forgive it for its unusual sex practices I can admit that I kinda knew it was there all along and am grown up enough to realize that it's not nearly as bad as it seems.
Not all good things last however; somewhere along the path from 1999 to present day anime became ugly. Depraved lolita underage fan service with a little twist of lemon flavored tentacle rape soon invaded our zeitgeist and we haven't exactly been forgiving of anime since. We as a generation of growing pop consumers felt betrayed that there lived such a foul beast somewhere amongst the wide eyed pretty anime peoples. But don't kid yourself, it was always there. Many "old-school" fans who now disassociate with anime will argue that this kind of perversion didn't exist in the volumes it does today but I highly doubt that. With the growing power of the internet age, we are more aware of our surroundings and many Japanese studios are able to release their disturbing fetish projects to the unsuspecting masses.
Now I'm a scientist at heart and every now and then I like to bold bravely into dangerous lands and perform field experiments for the sake of human curiosity. I hypothesized that should I type the word "anime" into an unfiltered google image search I would unearth some of the most horrendous, and probably illegal, sex acts ever inflicted upon an imaginary woman. Well, I was wrong.
Sure, there were a lot of pictures of anime babes in lingerie and bathing suits, and I even found a picture of a girl suggestively fellating a video game controller, but there was nothing truly inappropriate. I continued to go through page after page and still i didn't really find anything offensive beyond some slightly suggestive poses and up-skirt shots (with panties on to boot).
At that point i decided to up the ante. Despite nearly every single picture being nothing more than a shot of an objectified cartoon girl, I decided to redundantly search for "anime girl" to see if it made much of a difference. Nope. To my surprise there was very little change, although it is funny that the word "anime" is synonymous with "anime girl". The only time that I actually did find anything disgusting was when I entered in a specific female character's name into the unyielding search engine, in which case universally the very first photo which popped up had some mature to downright offensive material. However, the same thing happens even when you put American female cartoons into the search engine.
So what's the deal? Is anime really as gross as we've made it out to be? Admittedly, my experiment did demonstrate that the very idea of sexualizing women is stamped into the foundations of anime pop culture, but it wasn't to the point of stomach churning revulsion I originally had thought.
Anime has always been filthy and while I myself don't watch it like I used to I can't bring myself to the point of venom spewing hatred like the rest of my peers. Like any medium it has its good and bad and while I can't forgive it for its unusual sex practices I can admit that I kinda knew it was there all along and am grown up enough to realize that it's not nearly as bad as it seems.
"Brightest Day" Wrap Up
When "Blackest Night" was released I was surprised to find myself enjoying a cross-over comic, something I haven't been able to do in years. "Blackest Night" managed to avoid all the things I hate about cross-over comics and give me a more narrow and well defined narrative story that worked excellent as a companion piece to the "Green Lantern" comics that had been running prior to the big zombie event's release. So when "Brightest Day" was announced I let my guard down and was eagerly anticipating the new DC event to see if they could carry the torch well beyond their earlier efforts. They didn't
Two months ago when i first started picking up the issues of "Brightest Day" I expressed my deep hatred for what I was seeing unfold on each page. I complained about the lack of focus and the agonizing direction of following 10 separate DC heroes across 5-6 story lines. At that point in time I was only on issue 2 so I wanted to be a fair critic and ride this one out. Some times good things just need a little bit of momentum to get up to speed, although I still feel like the biggest problem modern comic writers have is that they don't know how to condense stories in any meaningful palatable way.
As of writing this article I am now at issue 8 and I am done. No honestly, I quit.
I have spent around $24 dollars so far and what do i have to show for it? I have no idea! The story is still aimless, the characters are just now starting to unravel, and the purpose of all this white lantern nonsense is still shrouded somewhere in the mists of pretentious half-baked story-telling.
What "Brightest Day" really needed to do was find some direction. You can still have a comic that follows the lives and events of multiple heroes and heroines, sure, but if you are going to do that you need to unify them and get the reader invested by giving us some clue as to what this is all about early on. They have been dragging their feet for so long now that I couldn't care less about the events that are about to unfold because I feel as though I've been robbed of my time and money.
Now I know there are going to be some DC apologists that I speak to me at the comic store or amongst my group of friends who will take the time to explain to me how this is all used to build tension or something, but they are wrong; and while I normally don't say this, I am confident I can defeat their argument without even having to read the remaining unpublished issues. This comic is being projected as a 26 issue event, when all is said and done I can promise you that whatever the big message is or whatever alteration this causes in the DCU could very well have been edited down to merely half those numbers. 13 issues is getting a bit long in the tooth as well, and unless we're talking about "52", if you have to go over 13 then reconsider your story.
If anyone is reading this that cares, please don't support "Brightest Day". The ends will not justify the means. Maybe the conclusion will be good, maybe it will be the greatest climax ever inked for a DC comic, but doesn't it sort of sour things when the beginning was such a sluggish mess?
Two months ago when i first started picking up the issues of "Brightest Day" I expressed my deep hatred for what I was seeing unfold on each page. I complained about the lack of focus and the agonizing direction of following 10 separate DC heroes across 5-6 story lines. At that point in time I was only on issue 2 so I wanted to be a fair critic and ride this one out. Some times good things just need a little bit of momentum to get up to speed, although I still feel like the biggest problem modern comic writers have is that they don't know how to condense stories in any meaningful palatable way.
As of writing this article I am now at issue 8 and I am done. No honestly, I quit.
I have spent around $24 dollars so far and what do i have to show for it? I have no idea! The story is still aimless, the characters are just now starting to unravel, and the purpose of all this white lantern nonsense is still shrouded somewhere in the mists of pretentious half-baked story-telling.
What "Brightest Day" really needed to do was find some direction. You can still have a comic that follows the lives and events of multiple heroes and heroines, sure, but if you are going to do that you need to unify them and get the reader invested by giving us some clue as to what this is all about early on. They have been dragging their feet for so long now that I couldn't care less about the events that are about to unfold because I feel as though I've been robbed of my time and money.
Now I know there are going to be some DC apologists that I speak to me at the comic store or amongst my group of friends who will take the time to explain to me how this is all used to build tension or something, but they are wrong; and while I normally don't say this, I am confident I can defeat their argument without even having to read the remaining unpublished issues. This comic is being projected as a 26 issue event, when all is said and done I can promise you that whatever the big message is or whatever alteration this causes in the DCU could very well have been edited down to merely half those numbers. 13 issues is getting a bit long in the tooth as well, and unless we're talking about "52", if you have to go over 13 then reconsider your story.
If anyone is reading this that cares, please don't support "Brightest Day". The ends will not justify the means. Maybe the conclusion will be good, maybe it will be the greatest climax ever inked for a DC comic, but doesn't it sort of sour things when the beginning was such a sluggish mess?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Favorite Fights: Man With No Name vs. Ramon, "A Fist Full of Dollars"
When I first started this segment I assured myself that I would only write about melee combat. For whatever reason I just assumed that my favorite fights in cinema were all pugilistic struggles filled with haymakers and brutal carnage. The more I wrote on the subject the more I realized just how much I enjoy other forms of combat as well. Not being the type to hold myself to my own ludicrous expectations I have decided to bring back the long awaited next installment of the "Favorite Fights" with a write-up on a famous western showdown.
Gun fights can be a lot of fun. Seeing the perfect marksman running through town against all odds picking off each of his/her opponents with little effort can provide a decent enough experience for the audience, but you know what's better? The slow and quiet gun fight. A fight that's between just two individuals where the hero completely outclasses the villain and toys with him like a cat batting about a mouse before devouring it whole.
But what's the purpose of a one sided fight? Shouldn't the two opposing forces be equal in power? Where's the tension and drama when the hero is forecast to win?
The devil's in the detail my lovelies.
In previous blogs I commented how pitting two equally powerful forces against each other can caramelize into a juicy cinematic treat. On the other hand I also paid close enough attention to pick out a few where there was no contest; famous clashes where the victor was chosen from the start and made no effort to hide this fact. Sometimes it works, but there has to be a reason behind it.
Ramon, the bad guy, is arrogant, cruel, and single-minded in his quest for personal gain and glory. Throughout the film we see him forming a thin relationship with Clint Eastwood's character only to see that trust betrayed. Ramon is a mean spirited guy who is so assured of himself that he generates this aura of self-imagined invincibility. The cruelty he imposes on the innocent makes us want to see him answer for his crimes.
Towards the end of the film when the stranger walks back into town seeking revenge, the audience is now thoroughly prepared to watch Ramon pay. Rather than picking Ramon off quickly though, the audience gets to indulge as Clint mentally tortures Ramon; instilling fear and doubt with every calculated move.
Once squared off, the man with no name dispatches every single one of the Rojos in one clean sweep but leaves Ramon standing. Both men go for their firearms and before Ramon can even get his rifle readied, the man with no name has his gun trained on it's target. Ramon at this point realizes that Clint could have killed him twice over and yet still he lets him live. The movie stirs a deadly chill as we gleefully get an intimate look into the terror that rocks Ramon's very essence. Sweat pours from his face as he stares down the last moments of his life and we the audience know that he deserves nothing more than to die horribly by Clint's hand.
Above all else, the man with no name wants Ramon to understand that he is inferior. He wants to Humble this deranged murderous outlaw before he takes him down.
The stranger allows Ramon one last opportunity to beat him. In a thunderous flash that forgoes any stylized camera work or idiotic gunkata, the man with no name shoots Ramon. We get a first person point of view as the camera spins and the slow death rattle chokes its way from Ramon's last breath just before he collapses upon the sun bleached dirt.
Ramon claimed that with his rifle no man armed with a pistol could defeat him - oh the irony.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
TV's Where It's At
When I was a kid I watched a lot of television. For whatever reasons I abandoned television (most likely going away to college and being more interested in having fun than cooping myself up in my dorm room)and haven't looked back since.
To be fair, I had some legitimate excuses. Sometime around the dawn of the 21st century there was a noticeable lapse in the quality of television series and channels that I had grown up with; Fox being the prime offender when it destroyed "The Simpsons" and began pumping out garbage like "24". Unable to cope with the loss of one of my favorite outlets of original story telling I adapted to watching more movies and became somewhat of a film head.
Flash forward several years and I've got a pretty decent library of useless movie trivia cached in my brain and almost all the movies I want/need to see have been viewed. Unfortunately, the present state of films is in disarray. With the increasing popularity of Michael Bay and the Seltzer/Friedberg movies I am losing interest in what my local cinema has to offer. Don't get me wrong, I still love going to the movies and there are still movies I want to see. Part of my inner most being blames the sudden sour taste in my mouth on this recent summer season for my sudden lack of enthusiasm for films. When the number of movies that I was genuinely excited for can be counted on a single hand you know things are in a rough state.
But to clarify, I'm not a doomsayer who heralds in the end days of cinema like a lot of hyperbolic film school rejects, I recognize that modern film has a lot to offer and just because we are being dragged through the muck of one bad year worth of film doesn't raise any red flags to me that movies are dead. Hell, '09 and '08 were so good that I can accept a bad year or two as it gives me the time to go back and re-watch all those masterpieces.
Still, I need something else to do besides comic books, novels, and video games to feed my imagination. After scrounging around the internet I read several articles detailing how television has become the new Hollywood. With bigger budgets and more focus from screenwriters and famous directors going to peoples' homes with their HD mini theater systems, there has been a clear drive towards moving creative story telling to the small screen.
And why not? The one limiting factor that both works against and for films is their time constraint. Having a built in run time cap can help bring a lot of focus to a story, but it also has a nasty tendency to leave out character and plot exploration which gets jury rigged into a sloppy sequel years later.
Part of the reason I enjoy comics so much is that they tell a very lengthy story over an enormous span of time giving you tons of ups and downs and allowing the writers a lot of maneuverability to develop extremely deep and compelling character arches.
Needless to say I'm going to give my old pal TV another shot. I'm afraid I already missed a lot of good programming, but in the era of box-sets and Netflix I'll be caught up to speed in a matter of weeks. Hopefully with the added knowledge of television, I'll have something else to post on this blog in the future.
To be fair, I had some legitimate excuses. Sometime around the dawn of the 21st century there was a noticeable lapse in the quality of television series and channels that I had grown up with; Fox being the prime offender when it destroyed "The Simpsons" and began pumping out garbage like "24". Unable to cope with the loss of one of my favorite outlets of original story telling I adapted to watching more movies and became somewhat of a film head.
Flash forward several years and I've got a pretty decent library of useless movie trivia cached in my brain and almost all the movies I want/need to see have been viewed. Unfortunately, the present state of films is in disarray. With the increasing popularity of Michael Bay and the Seltzer/Friedberg movies I am losing interest in what my local cinema has to offer. Don't get me wrong, I still love going to the movies and there are still movies I want to see. Part of my inner most being blames the sudden sour taste in my mouth on this recent summer season for my sudden lack of enthusiasm for films. When the number of movies that I was genuinely excited for can be counted on a single hand you know things are in a rough state.
But to clarify, I'm not a doomsayer who heralds in the end days of cinema like a lot of hyperbolic film school rejects, I recognize that modern film has a lot to offer and just because we are being dragged through the muck of one bad year worth of film doesn't raise any red flags to me that movies are dead. Hell, '09 and '08 were so good that I can accept a bad year or two as it gives me the time to go back and re-watch all those masterpieces.
Still, I need something else to do besides comic books, novels, and video games to feed my imagination. After scrounging around the internet I read several articles detailing how television has become the new Hollywood. With bigger budgets and more focus from screenwriters and famous directors going to peoples' homes with their HD mini theater systems, there has been a clear drive towards moving creative story telling to the small screen.
And why not? The one limiting factor that both works against and for films is their time constraint. Having a built in run time cap can help bring a lot of focus to a story, but it also has a nasty tendency to leave out character and plot exploration which gets jury rigged into a sloppy sequel years later.
Part of the reason I enjoy comics so much is that they tell a very lengthy story over an enormous span of time giving you tons of ups and downs and allowing the writers a lot of maneuverability to develop extremely deep and compelling character arches.
Needless to say I'm going to give my old pal TV another shot. I'm afraid I already missed a lot of good programming, but in the era of box-sets and Netflix I'll be caught up to speed in a matter of weeks. Hopefully with the added knowledge of television, I'll have something else to post on this blog in the future.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Machete Review
Danny Trejo is one of those actors that everyone knows. Maybe the name doesn’t ring a bell, but one look at the grizzled, scarred, tanned leather alien terrain that is his face will have even my grandparents saying, “Oh, THAT guy.”
Trejo manages to be one of those amazing character actors. He isn’t the person who ever appears in the spot light or is contending for any Oscars come February, but he does fulfill a certain niche that is desperately needed every now and then that the audience is familiar with. Character actors like Trejo are the ones that add some much needed relief or depth to a screenplay that uses generic stock heroes and villains to fill in all the gaps.
Needless to say, I love Trejo, and when the “Grindhouse” double feature was released nearly three years ago and featured a fake trailer for a movie that involved Danny as a machete wielding freedom fighter with enough copious amounts of violence and nudity to cause any teenage boy to go into a never waking fantasy of pure awesomeness, I nearly lost my cool. Like many of the other geek enthusiasts who saw “Grindhouse”, there was a part of me that wanted to see Rodriguez’s teaser come to life. I wanted to see Trejo on the big screen in the starring role of his very own cinematic action blockbuster. I waited patiently along with all the other exploitation starved movie nerds until at long last I got what I had been waiting for – or did I?
Sadly, “Machete” just isn’t all that good. Is it entertaining? Yes. Is the action great? Of course! Is there nudity and gore and just about everything else that makes these guilty pleasure films destined cult classics? Hell yeah! So with all the pieces in play and arranged in just the right fashion one has to begin to wonder, what happened? Well, the answer is surprisingly simple. The titular character of Machete gets dragged down by a cavalcade of off the wall side characters and an unusually stupid and forced political message.
Now call me crazy but when I go in to see a movie featuring Danny Trejo as an ex Mexican Federales who was betrayed and wishes to get revenge against his saboteurs in the most gruesome ways possible, the last thing I am looking for is a political message about border control. I know some people will argue that the message was fine and that I just need to be a little more accepting of such a serious hot topic issue; but the message is in no way transparent and has a tendency to dominate the center of the screen waving its arms around like a little kid starved for attention. In the end I couldn’t help but throw up my arms in defeat and roll my eyes into the back of my head from disbelief that my mindless action schlock was being soiled with an amalgam of conflicting CNN, Fox News, and Hollywood liberal rhetoric.
Honestly, I want to love this movie. I want to say that this is the performance we have been waiting for from Trejo, but I can’t. Is it so much to ask that a movie called “Machete” be nothing more than 2 hours of watching Trejo run around killing people in elaborate ways, guided by a paper-thin plot that serves only to drag the character from one set piece to the next? Ok, I’ll admit that seeing DeNiro, Segal, Don Johnson, and Cheech ham it up is great fun and the neatly packaged gift of a naked Lindsey Lohan, a partially nude Jessica Alba, and Michele Rodriguez in the sexiest badass tough chick outfit to ever appear on screen (which I highly encourage all of you young women to dress up as for Halloween this year) is a pure delight, but this all comes at the expense of leaving Machete on the backburner. By the time we get to the finale the movie is such a catastrophe of divergent half baked political stories and character arches that I almost forgot Machete was the star player. To complicate matters the scene that should have been the high point when Trejo faces off against Segal is disappointing and extremely anti-climatic.
Robert Rodriguez is a man who has always put style over substance and I love him for it. His imagination is permanently set to overdrive when it comes to his films and it’s a pleasure to see his granulated visions form themselves in stupid explosions and slick signature battle sequences. However, his downfall as a director is that he may in fact be a little too in love with the characters he creates. They are each memorable and fun, but they have a tendency to step on each others’ toes as they crowd the frame. Sometimes it works well like in “From Dusk Till Dawn” or “Planet Terror” and other times it stumbles around until it breaks its toe against a solid steel door like “Once Upon a Time in Mexico”. Even when it does work, there is a noticeable struggle taking place between the cast and this error still ends up being that single annoying thread dangling off an otherwise beautiful dress.
Sorry Danny, but this movie was just average. There was a lot of fun to be had, but there was a lot of room for improvement. Hopefully the prospects of a sequel as teased at the ending credits is realized, because despite all the complaints I had against this movie I still loved Trejo’s portrayal of Machete and would love to see this character again– so long as we can get focused on the action and steer clear from all those other nasty pitfalls.
Trejo manages to be one of those amazing character actors. He isn’t the person who ever appears in the spot light or is contending for any Oscars come February, but he does fulfill a certain niche that is desperately needed every now and then that the audience is familiar with. Character actors like Trejo are the ones that add some much needed relief or depth to a screenplay that uses generic stock heroes and villains to fill in all the gaps.
Needless to say, I love Trejo, and when the “Grindhouse” double feature was released nearly three years ago and featured a fake trailer for a movie that involved Danny as a machete wielding freedom fighter with enough copious amounts of violence and nudity to cause any teenage boy to go into a never waking fantasy of pure awesomeness, I nearly lost my cool. Like many of the other geek enthusiasts who saw “Grindhouse”, there was a part of me that wanted to see Rodriguez’s teaser come to life. I wanted to see Trejo on the big screen in the starring role of his very own cinematic action blockbuster. I waited patiently along with all the other exploitation starved movie nerds until at long last I got what I had been waiting for – or did I?
Sadly, “Machete” just isn’t all that good. Is it entertaining? Yes. Is the action great? Of course! Is there nudity and gore and just about everything else that makes these guilty pleasure films destined cult classics? Hell yeah! So with all the pieces in play and arranged in just the right fashion one has to begin to wonder, what happened? Well, the answer is surprisingly simple. The titular character of Machete gets dragged down by a cavalcade of off the wall side characters and an unusually stupid and forced political message.
Now call me crazy but when I go in to see a movie featuring Danny Trejo as an ex Mexican Federales who was betrayed and wishes to get revenge against his saboteurs in the most gruesome ways possible, the last thing I am looking for is a political message about border control. I know some people will argue that the message was fine and that I just need to be a little more accepting of such a serious hot topic issue; but the message is in no way transparent and has a tendency to dominate the center of the screen waving its arms around like a little kid starved for attention. In the end I couldn’t help but throw up my arms in defeat and roll my eyes into the back of my head from disbelief that my mindless action schlock was being soiled with an amalgam of conflicting CNN, Fox News, and Hollywood liberal rhetoric.
Honestly, I want to love this movie. I want to say that this is the performance we have been waiting for from Trejo, but I can’t. Is it so much to ask that a movie called “Machete” be nothing more than 2 hours of watching Trejo run around killing people in elaborate ways, guided by a paper-thin plot that serves only to drag the character from one set piece to the next? Ok, I’ll admit that seeing DeNiro, Segal, Don Johnson, and Cheech ham it up is great fun and the neatly packaged gift of a naked Lindsey Lohan, a partially nude Jessica Alba, and Michele Rodriguez in the sexiest badass tough chick outfit to ever appear on screen (which I highly encourage all of you young women to dress up as for Halloween this year) is a pure delight, but this all comes at the expense of leaving Machete on the backburner. By the time we get to the finale the movie is such a catastrophe of divergent half baked political stories and character arches that I almost forgot Machete was the star player. To complicate matters the scene that should have been the high point when Trejo faces off against Segal is disappointing and extremely anti-climatic.
Robert Rodriguez is a man who has always put style over substance and I love him for it. His imagination is permanently set to overdrive when it comes to his films and it’s a pleasure to see his granulated visions form themselves in stupid explosions and slick signature battle sequences. However, his downfall as a director is that he may in fact be a little too in love with the characters he creates. They are each memorable and fun, but they have a tendency to step on each others’ toes as they crowd the frame. Sometimes it works well like in “From Dusk Till Dawn” or “Planet Terror” and other times it stumbles around until it breaks its toe against a solid steel door like “Once Upon a Time in Mexico”. Even when it does work, there is a noticeable struggle taking place between the cast and this error still ends up being that single annoying thread dangling off an otherwise beautiful dress.
Sorry Danny, but this movie was just average. There was a lot of fun to be had, but there was a lot of room for improvement. Hopefully the prospects of a sequel as teased at the ending credits is realized, because despite all the complaints I had against this movie I still loved Trejo’s portrayal of Machete and would love to see this character again– so long as we can get focused on the action and steer clear from all those other nasty pitfalls.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Another Subtle Observation. This Time About David Lynch
The more I examine David Lynch's films, the more I understand our modern American culture. Everything ranging from television and film to the absurdest forms of internet humor seem to be borrowing a lot of creative energy from Lynch's work.
This is a difficult point to argue so I'd rather not go into it. If you really need to know what i mean, then by all means watch "Eraserhead", "Mullholen Drive", "Blue Velvet", "Inland Empire", "Twin Peaks", and even "Dumbland". Sure, its a heavy order, but it will definitely give you a better appreciation, or at the very least, a better understanding of how contemporary narrative art is structured.
This is a difficult point to argue so I'd rather not go into it. If you really need to know what i mean, then by all means watch "Eraserhead", "Mullholen Drive", "Blue Velvet", "Inland Empire", "Twin Peaks", and even "Dumbland". Sure, its a heavy order, but it will definitely give you a better appreciation, or at the very least, a better understanding of how contemporary narrative art is structured.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
A Subtle Observation on Snow
I don't know whether this applies to film, but to any gamers out there reading, have you ever noticed that snowy areas of video games tend to have the most memorable music? Seriously, each snow capped area has some sort of resonating quality to them; almost as if the composers gave a little bit more love and detail to that particular score.
Snow levels or snow areas tend to have a haunting orchestral score with eerie vocals. They're usually slow and methodical yet powerfully dormant in their rhythmic strength. Does the imagery of death associated with winter bring about the sombre emotions of peace and ease of mind? Is it the blanketed cold snow that covers everything in a peaceful ubiquitous shade of white that seems to calm the world?
Maybe I'm bias, maybe I just like winter a little too much. Either way, it's just a thought. Still, I can't help but feel there's a connection somewhere. Winter stirs up some powerful emotions and I think this theory applies to movies as well. You, the audience tell me. Watch a movie with memorable scenes involving snow. What is the music like? What is the emotion that is being conveyed to the viewer? I promise you that whatever song is playing in that scene will be the one that gets caught in your head long after the credits finish rolling.
Snow levels or snow areas tend to have a haunting orchestral score with eerie vocals. They're usually slow and methodical yet powerfully dormant in their rhythmic strength. Does the imagery of death associated with winter bring about the sombre emotions of peace and ease of mind? Is it the blanketed cold snow that covers everything in a peaceful ubiquitous shade of white that seems to calm the world?
Maybe I'm bias, maybe I just like winter a little too much. Either way, it's just a thought. Still, I can't help but feel there's a connection somewhere. Winter stirs up some powerful emotions and I think this theory applies to movies as well. You, the audience tell me. Watch a movie with memorable scenes involving snow. What is the music like? What is the emotion that is being conveyed to the viewer? I promise you that whatever song is playing in that scene will be the one that gets caught in your head long after the credits finish rolling.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Cover the Names
We've all heard the expression, "You can't judge a book by its cover" or "What's in a name". Simple mantras that have been repeated through each generation of English speaking Humans to remind us to look past all the pretty ribbons and packaging to get a better understand of a subject's true nature. Sure, it's pretty and maybe it's poetic, but it is not universal.
Remove this system of thought from actual physical Human beings and we begin to understand that it has little credibility. I recently watched a video about the various covers for the book "Lolita" by the Distressed Watcher and it got me thinking about the implication and meaning behind all covers and titles for any form of popular expression. No matter what the cover is, even if it is nothing more than a solid color with the title and author's name, thought was still put into its construction. Money was spent by the company to choose the correct font, style, arrangement, and even the psychological meaning behind the color before sending it off to store shelves. The question then boils down to, "Why?" Why this hypocrisy? Why go to the lengths of telling people that this stuff has no importance but then make an immediate about-face?
The answer is simple and obvious to most of us. They do it because people in fact DO judge books by their covers. Titles to movies, video games, television shows, songs, and just about everything else gives us a good general idea of what to expect before we go that extra step and field test it ourselves. For me it's different. There's a greater importance to this stuff than meets the eye.
The overwhelming vast-majority of the time, the cover and title is probably all we'll ever know. Even a person who is a movie fanatic or a novel junkie can't read every masterpiece that has ever been created. We have to pick and choose and some things get left behind in the confusion.
Think about it for just a moment. Despite all the efforts the creator put into their work, most of us will never know a thing about it. All the beauty of their universe exists encapsulated within a tiny window of an artist's interpretation, resting upon a dusty shelf. That's it, that's all we'll ever know.
Remove this system of thought from actual physical Human beings and we begin to understand that it has little credibility. I recently watched a video about the various covers for the book "Lolita" by the Distressed Watcher and it got me thinking about the implication and meaning behind all covers and titles for any form of popular expression. No matter what the cover is, even if it is nothing more than a solid color with the title and author's name, thought was still put into its construction. Money was spent by the company to choose the correct font, style, arrangement, and even the psychological meaning behind the color before sending it off to store shelves. The question then boils down to, "Why?" Why this hypocrisy? Why go to the lengths of telling people that this stuff has no importance but then make an immediate about-face?
The answer is simple and obvious to most of us. They do it because people in fact DO judge books by their covers. Titles to movies, video games, television shows, songs, and just about everything else gives us a good general idea of what to expect before we go that extra step and field test it ourselves. For me it's different. There's a greater importance to this stuff than meets the eye.
The overwhelming vast-majority of the time, the cover and title is probably all we'll ever know. Even a person who is a movie fanatic or a novel junkie can't read every masterpiece that has ever been created. We have to pick and choose and some things get left behind in the confusion.
Think about it for just a moment. Despite all the efforts the creator put into their work, most of us will never know a thing about it. All the beauty of their universe exists encapsulated within a tiny window of an artist's interpretation, resting upon a dusty shelf. That's it, that's all we'll ever know.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
"Breath of Fire 3" - part 5
The last week I’ve been suffering at my computer desk trying to think of an interesting way of ending the “Breath of Fire 3” segment. There were thoughts of composing epic romantic poems that spoke of the games loveliness, I juggled the idea of a performance art piece that I could record and post on Bliptv, I even considered taking a programming class and making a modern remake of the title to prove my utter devotion and love. Unfortunately, most of these ideas seemed like an immense undertaking and seeing as how I am a lazy man, I threw most of those thoughts into the trash can alongside my screenplay for a television pilot about a Jewish Frankenstein monster living in New York City along with the pickled head of Hitler. The show was titled “Mein Stein”.
Truth be told, sometimes very little needs to be said when it comes to the things you love. You like them for a reason and that devotion is worn not so humbly on our shoulders. Still, before I give “Breath of Fire 3” a send off, I’d like to comment on the one area of the game that I found lacking; the presentation. It’s only fair.
I’m a little kooky when it comes to storytelling. I can give a pass to an otherwise worthless piece of schlock so long as the visuals and sound are top notch. “Breath of Fire 3” has the exact opposite problem. This isn’t to say that the visuals and music were BAD, but they weren’t anything special either, and that’s the real Achilles heel of the game.
While passable and definitely colorful, the visuals of “Breath of Fire 3” come across as a little under budget. One gets the sense that Capcom didn’t give the development team a huge budget and since it was their first attempt at making a “Breath of Fire” game for the Playstation with cutting edge 3-D technology, their naiveté was exposed just ever so slightly. Again, this problem didn’t bother me all that much, especially since it lead them to create the graphically beautiful follow-up “Breath of Fire 4”, which, for whatever it’s worth, is the most impressively gorgeous sprite based game I have seen on the Playstation and perhaps one of the best to ever grace consoles period.
The music on the other hand doesn’t receive the same leniency. I don’t see how or why a change from the SNES to the Playstation would require such a radical movement in musical themes, but there it is. Populating the various dungeons and intense moments of the game are jazzy piano tunes that don’t feel all that welcome in a medieval fantasy environment. However, despite this criticism there are a handful of tunes that get caught in your mind and will haunt anyone who has played the game for years to come. As a matter of fact, the song that is played towards the end of the game when the player finally confront the big boss is downright eerie and fits perfectly with the emotional direction the game takes at that exact moment.
So yeah, sorry to end on a downer, but whenever I write about games or movies I always try to pick out both the good and the bad. I feel more artsy whenever I do so.
Despite that ONE criticism (which isn’t even all that harsh when you think about it), “Breath of Fire 3” is simply one of those games that succeeds on all counts and does so because of its not so ambitious nature. The game isn’t trying to reinvent the wheel like the “Final Fantasy” series was trying to do at the time, but a game like this was exactly what the gaming community needed to offset that strange cultural movement. “Breath of Fire 3” was an almost perfect throw back to all the things that made previous generations of role playing games great and it added a level of complexity with the character customization and progression that would become the manifesto for future online gaming.
In many ways it was revolutionary, in others it was traditional, and for me personally it is a game that I’ll always remember. To this day I’ll periodically pick up the game after a generous amount of dust has accumulated and pop it into my Playstation to relive a small portion of my childhood. Nostalgia aside, the game holds up, and for anyone that is in love with turn based combat and obsessive levels of character control that can only be trumped by playing games like “World of Warcraft”, this game goes highly recommended.
Truth be told, sometimes very little needs to be said when it comes to the things you love. You like them for a reason and that devotion is worn not so humbly on our shoulders. Still, before I give “Breath of Fire 3” a send off, I’d like to comment on the one area of the game that I found lacking; the presentation. It’s only fair.
I’m a little kooky when it comes to storytelling. I can give a pass to an otherwise worthless piece of schlock so long as the visuals and sound are top notch. “Breath of Fire 3” has the exact opposite problem. This isn’t to say that the visuals and music were BAD, but they weren’t anything special either, and that’s the real Achilles heel of the game.
While passable and definitely colorful, the visuals of “Breath of Fire 3” come across as a little under budget. One gets the sense that Capcom didn’t give the development team a huge budget and since it was their first attempt at making a “Breath of Fire” game for the Playstation with cutting edge 3-D technology, their naiveté was exposed just ever so slightly. Again, this problem didn’t bother me all that much, especially since it lead them to create the graphically beautiful follow-up “Breath of Fire 4”, which, for whatever it’s worth, is the most impressively gorgeous sprite based game I have seen on the Playstation and perhaps one of the best to ever grace consoles period.
The music on the other hand doesn’t receive the same leniency. I don’t see how or why a change from the SNES to the Playstation would require such a radical movement in musical themes, but there it is. Populating the various dungeons and intense moments of the game are jazzy piano tunes that don’t feel all that welcome in a medieval fantasy environment. However, despite this criticism there are a handful of tunes that get caught in your mind and will haunt anyone who has played the game for years to come. As a matter of fact, the song that is played towards the end of the game when the player finally confront the big boss is downright eerie and fits perfectly with the emotional direction the game takes at that exact moment.
So yeah, sorry to end on a downer, but whenever I write about games or movies I always try to pick out both the good and the bad. I feel more artsy whenever I do so.
Despite that ONE criticism (which isn’t even all that harsh when you think about it), “Breath of Fire 3” is simply one of those games that succeeds on all counts and does so because of its not so ambitious nature. The game isn’t trying to reinvent the wheel like the “Final Fantasy” series was trying to do at the time, but a game like this was exactly what the gaming community needed to offset that strange cultural movement. “Breath of Fire 3” was an almost perfect throw back to all the things that made previous generations of role playing games great and it added a level of complexity with the character customization and progression that would become the manifesto for future online gaming.
In many ways it was revolutionary, in others it was traditional, and for me personally it is a game that I’ll always remember. To this day I’ll periodically pick up the game after a generous amount of dust has accumulated and pop it into my Playstation to relive a small portion of my childhood. Nostalgia aside, the game holds up, and for anyone that is in love with turn based combat and obsessive levels of character control that can only be trumped by playing games like “World of Warcraft”, this game goes highly recommended.
Friday, September 3, 2010
What's Up?
Things are starting to wrap up with the "Breath of Fire 3" blog and I've been thinking about my future posts. Every now and then I like to do some thinkin'. Makes me feel smart. Going to post some final thoughts on "Brightest Day" - you remember - that comic I talked about a month ago? How could you possibly forget it? Sheesh, some people, I tell ya. Also going to be starting a new series called "Play This!" to compliment my "Fashionably Late Reviews" and "Favorite Fights".
Speaking of my favorite fights, I have an idea for a new one, so I guess huzzahs are in order. I'll also be applying "Fashionably Late Reviews" to things outside of movies. Going to try my hands at making a "Fashionably Late" review of a video game.
Why wasn't "Breath of Fire 3" listed under FL reviews you may ask? Well, I don't consider that a review so much as a complete adoration of something from my past. As a matter of fact its that brainwashed cultist worship for old titles that is making me start the new "Play This!" segment.
So that's all the lunacy you can look forward within the next week or so. Good to catch up with you. Say hi to you mother for me.
Speaking of my favorite fights, I have an idea for a new one, so I guess huzzahs are in order. I'll also be applying "Fashionably Late Reviews" to things outside of movies. Going to try my hands at making a "Fashionably Late" review of a video game.
Why wasn't "Breath of Fire 3" listed under FL reviews you may ask? Well, I don't consider that a review so much as a complete adoration of something from my past. As a matter of fact its that brainwashed cultist worship for old titles that is making me start the new "Play This!" segment.
So that's all the lunacy you can look forward within the next week or so. Good to catch up with you. Say hi to you mother for me.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
"Breath of Fire 3" - part 4
Oh yeah! I almost forgot about the faeries. This should have gone into yesterday’s post but I’ll file this one under, better late than never.
The enduring legacy of the “Breath of Fire” series is the faerie village concept first developed in “Breath of Fire 3”. To be fair, the implementation of managing a small community was also present in previous installments of the series but in those cases it was always a tad spectral in execution. There was nothing remotely interesting or particularly demanding of the player in those older village mini-games and the feeling of overseeing the growth of the settlements always felt like one’s grip on things was a bit loose.
This problem was remedied of course with the introduction of the faeries in “Breath of Fire 3”. Once the player had advanced to a particular stage of the game they could then assist the buggers by overseeing their productivity and telling them what to do.
There’s nothing immediately useful about the town, but as more and more effort and time is devoted towards its success, the more rewards the player will reap. Rare items can be acquired, games of chance can be played, there’s even some nifty ways of earning money from the sickeningly cute little sprites.
Before the player can start raking in the benefits they have to first figure out some of the basics. Each faerie is born with various gifts: some are strong, some are smart, etc. Depending on what kind of stats they have will largely affect the outcome of the tasks you have them perform. In order for the village to begin to blossom you have to take care of basics like hunting for food and building new homes. A trivial task to be sure, until the player comes to the realization that the faeries can die!
Yes, if not properly trained the faeries can die, and not just from starvation mind you; if you send a weak faerie out into the wilderness to slay deer for meals there is a chance they may never return. Even the supposedly “strong” ones have their bad days and end up riding the long black car to their new exciting cloud cushion in the sky. There’s risk involved sure, but once you figure out a decent enough strategy all will start running smoothly.
Similar to the fishing game this is one of those side missions that the player will actively and eagerly look forward to. There’s something cathartic about taking one’s mind off slaying gods and demons to simply sitting down for a little bit of R&R by simulating the abusive commands of a slave driver against a community of tiny cute woodland critters. If that wasn’t enough, the promise of amassing great amounts of wealth and rare goodies is also rather pleasing.
I honestly can’t tell you how much fun this feature is and I’m sure Capcom was well aware of its popularity since it was included in the following sequels. No, it’s not as involved or complicated as, say, “The Sims’ but you know what? The faeries, with all their cute and adorable anime-esque grotesque cuteness are still not nearly as annoying as those artificial NPC drones. Also, my Sim never sold me axes and plate armor.
The enduring legacy of the “Breath of Fire” series is the faerie village concept first developed in “Breath of Fire 3”. To be fair, the implementation of managing a small community was also present in previous installments of the series but in those cases it was always a tad spectral in execution. There was nothing remotely interesting or particularly demanding of the player in those older village mini-games and the feeling of overseeing the growth of the settlements always felt like one’s grip on things was a bit loose.
This problem was remedied of course with the introduction of the faeries in “Breath of Fire 3”. Once the player had advanced to a particular stage of the game they could then assist the buggers by overseeing their productivity and telling them what to do.
There’s nothing immediately useful about the town, but as more and more effort and time is devoted towards its success, the more rewards the player will reap. Rare items can be acquired, games of chance can be played, there’s even some nifty ways of earning money from the sickeningly cute little sprites.
Before the player can start raking in the benefits they have to first figure out some of the basics. Each faerie is born with various gifts: some are strong, some are smart, etc. Depending on what kind of stats they have will largely affect the outcome of the tasks you have them perform. In order for the village to begin to blossom you have to take care of basics like hunting for food and building new homes. A trivial task to be sure, until the player comes to the realization that the faeries can die!
Yes, if not properly trained the faeries can die, and not just from starvation mind you; if you send a weak faerie out into the wilderness to slay deer for meals there is a chance they may never return. Even the supposedly “strong” ones have their bad days and end up riding the long black car to their new exciting cloud cushion in the sky. There’s risk involved sure, but once you figure out a decent enough strategy all will start running smoothly.
Similar to the fishing game this is one of those side missions that the player will actively and eagerly look forward to. There’s something cathartic about taking one’s mind off slaying gods and demons to simply sitting down for a little bit of R&R by simulating the abusive commands of a slave driver against a community of tiny cute woodland critters. If that wasn’t enough, the promise of amassing great amounts of wealth and rare goodies is also rather pleasing.
I honestly can’t tell you how much fun this feature is and I’m sure Capcom was well aware of its popularity since it was included in the following sequels. No, it’s not as involved or complicated as, say, “The Sims’ but you know what? The faeries, with all their cute and adorable anime-esque grotesque cuteness are still not nearly as annoying as those artificial NPC drones. Also, my Sim never sold me axes and plate armor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
