No posts for a while

I'm in the process of moving, and seeing how one contract ends today and the other begins on the 24th, I'll be staying at somewhere not here. The place I'm staying doesn't really have internet that I can just plug into, and so because I cannot gaurantee regular updates I will just declare hiatus and call it that.

So from now until around the 24th I will not be updating the blog.

Should I watch Scrubs?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 2001

Bill Lawrence's brainchild started as a parody of hospital drama shows such as ER, but has grown into one of the greatest show on television. It deftly combines humor and drama, starting the show with characters who either didn't know each other or had lasting relationships and mixing them together in such a way that when, in later seasons, they all know each other it was real bonds of friendship, love, and hate, not tacked on relationships just ascribed to the character. Sure there is some contrivance (it's a comedy show) and realism is not always held to a high standard, but it is so charming that they can be easily overlooked.

The show is either still on air or just finished its last season (I don't receive television programming: any series I review has been borrowed on DVD), so it is still fresh in the minds of those who watch it. It is also popular among college kids who grew up when the show first started. It's combination of humor and drama makes it a favorite that gets passed around and shared everywhere.

Scrubs takes place in a hospital, and some of its humor revolves around that fact, but don't worry, there isn't a lot of jargon or tech speak muddling up non-nerds who watch the show. However, a great deal of focus is put on interpersonal relationships, but it isn't done in a horribly cheesy way like some other hospital dramas. There is one relationship that I have trouble believing, but I won't spoil it for you, and you might disagree. Now because this deals with adults in adult relationships there are some naughty jokes, so beware of those, but the show is relatively clean. So if you can't stand any sexual content or don't want to be amused, don't watch Scrubs. But if you want to see a hilarious and yet poignant show about love, laughs, and medicine, than get your hands on Scrubs as soon as possible.

This show is fantastic, I'm not going to lie. If you don't like this show it could only be for personal reasons. Sure it does suffer from some of the sitcom shenanigans, but usually when that occurs it's a lampshade. They're not afraid to play around and lampoon themselves, but the relationships remain true to form throughout it all. The relationship between Turk and JD is my personal favorite-its funny to see two guys who are incredibly close friends, epitomized by the song Guy Love (Guy love/He's mine I'm his/There's nothing gay about it in our eyes). In fact, that song is my favorite scene from the entire show. I can't get enough of it. Their relationship is what makes you start watching, but the ones that branch of from it makes you stay.

Should I read I am Legend?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1954

What's this? An undead apocalypse book? How passe! Oh why would anyone want to read another book like this? Because this is the original. Written by Richard Matheson, I am Legend is the book that spawned 3 movies and the entire modern zombie franchise. This is another case of Gandalf the Grey: it seems like a cliche because it established that cliche. It follows Robert Neville as he copes with the coming of the zombie (well, vampires. This isn't a modern pop culture book so the line is thinner than you'd think-I guess you'll just have to read it!) and with the crushing despair that isolation brings.

The recent Will Smith movie is a lot of people's first introduction to this book, but the book itself is very popular on the cult circuit because of its role in the beginning of the zombie craze. The book has actually had three movies based off of it, although I've heard only the original stays true to the book. The Will Smith rendition is close, but veers off wildly at the end. George Romero credits this book with inspiring his zombie work, so this is the book to read if you're looking for the first modern zombie book (and a modern vampire book that doesn't treat them like day-glow fairies).

Now the book is a zombie book, so it follows the pattern of slow story development pieces perforated with a few action sequences. However, odds are if you're reading the book you're a fan of the zombie mode of storytelling, and its not that different. Now this book deals with isolation and its effects a lot more than the movie, so at some points the action becomes intentionally monotonous to show the dangers monotony has: it is by no means dull, but it is something to be aware of. The book is not nearly as violent as many modern works about the undead, so even the queasy can read it easily. Now if you're looking for a non-stop zombie thriller full of exploding heads and a mortal bad ass fighting the horde, you'll be disappointed. But if you're looking for an "after the world has lost" kind of zombie survival horror with a few social messages, than look no further.

I thought the book was fascinating and worth every minute. I loved watching as Robert had to slowly stop living in the past and move onto the future: it is interesting to note how time wears away at him until he has become a man more fitting of the world in which he lives. I also enjoyed the ending much more than the ending of the latest movie: however, if you have seen the alternative ending apparently it is much closer to the book. Zombie horror thrives on suspense and not knowing the outcome, so I'll stop myself here so I don't give any spoilers. Suffice it to say, I think it is much more satisfying to find out firsthand why "I am Legend."

Should I watch Apocalypse Now?

The long and short of it: Maybe
When was it made: 1979

Famous for its long and arduous production, this Francis Ford Coppola film can be summarized in two words: too damn long. You see? Even my description of it went too long. The movie raises a lot of interesting points and makes you think about a lot of things. But I think that it suffers from that. It puts a whole lot of things in your head, but doesn't develop any of them. Perhaps the movie makes more sense if you were alive for the Vietnam conflict, and perhaps I just went in expecting it to be a shoot-em-up war movie.

This is a Vietnam war movie, which almost automatically grants it some level of immortality as this era of time is defined by controversial wars of assistance. It has a hefty stack of awards at its side and many call it a must see. Robert DuVall's performance is considered one of the most memorable in movie history, and the film is famous for exploring how war changes men.

Being a war movie there is lots of violence, and being a Vietnam war movie means there is a bit of nudity. The movie is dirty, hopeless, and rugged. People you want to live die, and those who live are forever changed. The movie does not really edit anything out in an attempt to emulate real war. If you are looking for a ra-ra America feel good war flick, go find a World War II movie. If you want a tiny window into the hell that is war and are willing to spend a long time doing it, go ahead and watch.

The movie had its good parts and its interesting parts. The beginning is fascinating, getting to see how war has made Willard unable to function when not in combat, and the entire Kilgore scene is gold, to see a man so enraptured with the thrill of victory that he laments the ending of war and "loves the smell of Napalm in the morning." We see people becoming less than human when confronted with horrible conditions, and we see that as Willard journeys further into Vietnam, he also travels further into the dark side effect of men killing men: insanity. You could travel with him and keep your mind intact, but only if you have the endurance to outlast this incredibly long movie.

Should I read V for Vendetta?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1982

Written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd, V for Vendetta explores the political extremes of fascism and anarchy. The main character is an enigma whose origins and state of mind are never fully disclosed. We see a human fighting against 'the man' for freedom, but committing violent atrocities to do so. In true Moore fashion there are no heroes and villains, only people going about their lives--a fact that the movie, although I found it good, missed entirely when they made V a hero.

The 2005 movie has introduced a new generation to the masked man, albeit an incorrect version of him. Hopefully as many as saw the movie have read the book, because although the stories are similar on the outside, they are fundamentally as different as night and day. Also, the Guy Fawkes masks (for those of us who live in America, Guy Fawkes is famous for attempting to blow up parliament with barrels of gunpowder several centuries ago) have made an appearance, being worn by protesters and activists the world over to preserve their anonymity while promoting their cause. Whether these people are the anarchists of the book or the freedom fighters of the movie isn't clear, but it is an interesting phenomenon.

Now the book is definitely a good read, but there are lots of words, so if you read comics because you hate to read a lot, than maybe this isn't for you. The story is also very political, and is a bit more controversial than the movie. In the movie there are good guys and bad guys, but the book is considerably more gray. So if you want a gritty dystopian political commentary, go ahead and read. If you want a simple story or the black and white of superhero comics, than look elsewhere.

I loved the movie (seeing as how much I've mentioned it in this opinion on the book should make that fact relatively obvious) but I dislike how it skewed my perceptions of the book. Their interpretation of V as a hero of the people really hindered my interpretation of his as a more neutral character. I love the books realistic depictions of fascism and anarchy. The old saying "Under Mussolini the trains ran on time, but nobody smiled" really show in a society where the people have peace but not freedom, and the negative effects of anarchy are seen in the crime and violence that explodes during the revolution. My favorite scene is when Evey realizes that V is more than the man behind the mask, but is the idea within the mask: it epitomizes the books use of people as representations of ideals. Those ideals of anarchy and fascism always circle each other in world politics, and V for Vendetta tries to get us to see them for what they really are when we decide under which banner to flock if any banner at all.

Should I watch Afro Samurai?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 2007

Fuminori Kizaki has managed to create an awesome and fun-filled action story in five episodes based on a manga by Takashi Okazaki. Afro Samurai is as campy as you would expect, taking its serious back story and placing that next to sex jokes, violence, and Samuel L. Jackson.

What more hype need I mention than Samuel L. Jackson? The man is himself an industry with a built in fan base. The series has spawned a movie and a video game, and along with Snakes on a Plane can be given as an example of why people love Samuel L. Jackson.

This is a violent show, full of killing. The story itself is little more than a backdrop to the fights. Afro wears the number two headband, meaning that anyone wanting to be the most powerful fighter in the world has to kill him, causing violence to erupt all around. The show has some points that cause introspection, where Afro contemplates the sacrifices he has had to make and losses he has incurred on his path, but whenever that starts to get heavy, he finds someone new to murder. If you want a violence filled fun show with only a few episodes, than get Afro Samurai. If you don't like sophomoric humor or require your stories to revolve around more than violence and the quest for more violence, than head for a different show.

I loved Afro Samurai because it has an incredible story behind it that somehow fits the weird world in which it is set. This is a world ruled not by armies and governments, but by warriors, and the story reflects it. There is a lot of group on one and one on one combat, and Afro always avails. In a lot of stories I would call it a Mary Sue character, but the world allows me to believe one super powered warrior can defeat an army. My personal favorite moment comes when Afro battles Kuma: it fleshes out these characters designed solely to kill more than some characters in serious work are. It is this juxtaposition of serious back story and silly and over-the-top violence that makes Afro Samurai work. Also, Samuel L. Jackson.

Should I watch Blood: the Last Vampire?

The long and short of it: Only if you're familiar with the franchise
When was it made: 2000

Hiroyuki Kitakubo directed the surprisingly short Blood: the Last Vampire. The movie was ok, with some fun lines and some good action, however if this is your first taste of the Blood universe (as it was for me) it is a little confusing and not very complete. The movie is not overly complex by any means, with a simple plot and a bit of killing, but confusion still arises from a lack of exposition.

Blood's hype has come mostly in the anime community, however the recent upward trend in followers of the vampire fandom will make this movie more appealing to a wider audience; in fact the live action adaptation of this series was recently mentioned in a New York Times article about fascination with vampires (I would send you the link, but I read it in the actual paper. You know, that big obsolete thing people use to start fires?). That itself-the live action adaptation, not the article-has generated a bit of hype to see the "original" movie.

We are back to not-for-children-cartoons. Blood is violent and contains a fair amount of, well, blood. The movie is short, less than an hour in length, so it doesn't have the same time investment that other movies have. Unfortunately all that extra time in most movies is used for exposition and universe exploration, of which there is little. Though the movie claims to be about vampires, they aren't really involved: there is only one character who you assume is a vampire that hunts monsters that drink blood, but aren't really vampires.So if you want to see a short violent action anime, check out Blood. If you thrive for exposition or love the classical dark-master-burns-in-sunlight vampire, this isn't for you.

Now that was the major problem to me, that they didn't use conventional vampires yet they expect you to know the rules of the universe. None of the characters are more than a list of character traits and a bubble graph linking certain characters. All you know is that it takes place in an alternate real world, and that whenever it is set there are still American occupational forces in Japan. Everything else is just dumped in front of you. The main character fights things that feed on blood and hide among humans. How do you kill them? You have to deal enough damage with a single blow (I think). However, guns are worthless? Sidearms, maybe, but a man unloading an assault rifle into a monster can cause equivalent bodily harm to a monster as a few sword strokes. Also, apparently the main character (who is a vampire) is seen striding about with no fear of the sun. After seeing that, there was a scene where she's in a burning building, and I didn't know if I should be suspenseful: did fire hurt her or not? I didn't know, because nobody told me how it works. That's what it really comes down to: if you're familiar with the universe, you'll probably love the movie. But the movies short length doesn't allow the exposition required to understand how the world works: you spend the time you should be worried about the action wondering why it matters instead.

Should I watch My Neighbor Totoro?

The long and short of it: Yes if you have kids, Most likely otherwise
When was it made: 1988 (Japan), 1993 (English dub)

Directed by anime superstar Hayao Miyazaki, My Neighbor Totoro is one of the biggest titles put out by Studio Ghibli and in fact the titular character is now their mascot. It is definitely a kids movie, and definitely not a mainstream American title. The story revolves around the situation (or milieu, as the case may be) and how the characters react in that situation as opposed to revolving around the events- this is rare in movies today, as even adaptations of books famous for being milieu stories (The Lord of the Rings in particular) are usually changed to event movies (alright, a lot of movies are question stories, but for simplicity's sake I'm only going to mention event stories). This is both a good and a bad thing: good because it snaps us out of out traditional movie going mindset, bad because the audience will probably not expect a milieu story and that may have a negative effect upon their opinions.

My Neighbor Totoro is noted as one of Hayou Miyazaki's biggest hits. The Totoro and Catbus characters are famous in Japan and have appeared in numerous cameos--Totoro's popularity is such that he has even gotten his way into some appearances in western animation. With the re-release of several children's anime by Disney, My Neighbor Totoro has recirculated the market, making it easily available yet again.

I have heard some people say that My Neighbor Totoro has no plot, but that is not true. Its plot is simply of a different kind. Unfortunately, this is not the action packed thrill-ride kind of plot that most movies deliver. The movie moves at a much slower pace because its rising action does not revolve around conflict, it revolves around exploration. So if you want to see a fun kids movie (yes, this one is actually a kids movie) that gives a peek into the fantastic world of King Totoro and has a happy ending, then watch My Neighbor Totoro. If you can't watch a movie that doesn't revolve around conflict or hate kid's movies and happy endings, than this isn't for you.

Now this is one that I've broken one of my guidelines: I saw the movie as a child in 1993 when the original translation came out. I felt I could make an exception, however, because I didn't really like it then and I don't remember it. Having watched it again, I must say I like it a lot better, mostly because I see so many movies where everybody is killing everybody and the world is going to hell that it's nice to see a few innocent children exploring a fantasy world and seeing that the world isn't all bad. It's also nice to see a side of fantasy that has been almost completely eradicated in this modern age. The rise of franchises such as the Lord of the Rings movies and World of Warcraft have relegated the world of fantasy to action movies with orcs instead of Russians. That's why I enjoy movies like this more than I used to: we get to see a world where trolls exist not to eat children, but to be their friends. To see a fantasy world where the inhabitants are physically completely different from humans, but socially have many human characteristics, and where the interactions between the human world and their world is extended beyond the battleground.

No post tomorrow.

I am going camping with family so there will be no Friday post this week. However, I may do 2 posts on Saturday to make up for it. Sorry for any disappointment, and I'll see you on Saturday!

Should I watch Ghost in the Shell?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1995

Based on the manga by Masamune Shirow, Ghost in the Shell is a post-cyberpunk action movie directed by Mamoru Oshii. That means you get to see cyborgs and robots battling each other with blazing guns and cutting tech, but you don't get the angsty exposition on how the rise of technology will shatter society. Instead you get to follow government agents as they attempt to solve the mystery surrounding the best hacker in the world, replete with explosions and intrigue.

Ghost in the Shell is another movie back from the beginning of the second wave of popularity: in fact Ghost in the Shell has ridden the wave so hard as to spout 2 animated series (even though they include the same cast, it actually does make since to call them individual series), a sequel, and some video games, just to name a few of it's spawn. Ghost in the Shell is renowned for dealing with the nature of the soul and how AI may change our definition of it. Admittedly, this has been done before (the short story Article of Faith by Mike Resnick is my favorite) but there are two reasons Ghost in the Shell is so popular, and they're both on the cover shown above. One is the gun, and the other one, well, let's just say it could be called the other two reasons.

Now Ghost in the Shell is an anime, but it is one of the better ones as far as monologues go. Usually they actually try to have another participant, and I'm ok with rambling exposition as long as two people are doing it. It is also incredibly violent, showing at least one head explosion, some dismemberment, and a few bone breakings-also, boobs. Now this movie gets my vote for best done nudity, because it is never done for sensuality, and they do it in such a way that you never feel like your looking at a naked person, but like your just seeing a naked barbie-it really fits with that whole "what makes a person a person" issue the movie deals with. So if you want an action flick with a good moral that makes you think a bit, watch Ghost in the Shell. If you can't stomach violence and can't stand the sight of boobies, than read Article of Faith or see Short Circuit.

I love this movie. I will admit that every once in a while I just want to see stuff explode and people firing guns, and this movie has that. I also like to see people discuss issues with a deeper meaning, and this movie has that. If you read my Akira review, you'll remember that I discussed that my problem with Akira is that it didn't get me interested enough in the movie to care about the deeper meaning. If you didn't read it, I just gave a synopsis of the pertinent point I am going to reference. Ghost in the Shell has a story that, while convoluted, actually made sense the first time I watched it and made me feel positively towards watching it again. The next time I watched it for the awesome fights, I picked up a layer of meaning, and the movie expanded to me. Then the next time I watched it for the story, I picked up another layer of meaning. And even the last time I watched it just because, I picked up another layer of meaning. If more symbolic movies did this, more people would watch symbolic movies. Ghost in the Shell focuses on giving us a good movie (though I will admit the plot is still a bit too convoluted for my normal tastes) and then allowing us to pick up the symbolism at our own pace, making us actually care about, and therefore think about, what we learned.

Should I watch Akira?

The long and short of it: I don't think so
When was it made: 1988

Directed by co-writer Katsuhiro Otomo, Akira was a perplexing movie to me. I have since read reviews afterward that explained how it was full of symbolism and meaning and that I should have been very impressed with it, but I just didn't see it. That's why I only say I don't think you should watch it: there's a chance that you may watch it and recognize it for the epiphany that it apparently is. I'm not saying it was bad, and in fact when something is as popular as Akira is I believe it is because it is good, but this just wasn't the kind of movie I watch. It suffers from one of the biggest problems with anime, which I will discuss later.

The movie is generally credited for starting the second wave of anime popularity in America, a wave that has expanded to the point of sheer ridiculousnes. It is well received still to this day and Roger Ebert gave it thumbs up, so that's good I guess. Also, because it started the wave, it was one of the first anime titled sold in America, so many people's first anime experience may well have been Akira, and so it gets passed down to those of us newer to the anime scene.

So, should you see it or not? If you are a self-proclaimed anime fan, this is a must see just like Star Wars or Star Trek is a must see for sci-fi fans: love it or hate it, you need to do it to be part of the club. For the rest of us, however, we can be a bit more objective. Once again, this is not a cartoon for children, as it deals with adult issues and is riddled with violence and a little sexual content (for a kid's version check out Happy Harry's American trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jafd97yJFOI. If you've seen the movie it's hilarious). So if you are looking for an anime classic to expand your library, than go ahead and see it. However if you hate it when an anime piles a movie full of issues and makes the story incomprehensible, than avoid Akira.

And that was the issue I referred to earlier in this opinion: too many anime have a story that doesn't make any damn sense, but because they deal with important issues everyone sits around and talks about how great they are. I hate that! You can make an anime that has an actual story and still deals with an issue. Ghost in the Shell is about the nature of the soul and how ever advancing AI affects it. But it's also about a cyberterrorist and the government agencies trying to cover it up. You still get the annoying show stopper monologues, but I'm ok with that because five seconds before there were gunfights and explosions! All I'm saying is that if I'd watched Akira a few more times, maybe that symbolism would have made more sense and it would have been a great experience--maybe that's why it became popular, because when it was one of the only movies around people had to watch it multiple times, or they had to watch it with someone who could explain what was going on. I was alone, though, and the movie gave me no reason to watch it again. It didn't make me want to spend the time to understand it like Ghost in the Shell did (which I may give an opinion of tomorrow, since apparently this is anime week). Honestly, my favorite thing about the movie Akira is that American Akira short I referred you to earlier. It's hilarious to the extreme, especially Kaneda's bike. So maybe you'll get Akira, or you have someone to hold your hand through it, but for me I'd rather watch something that makes sense, and when I come back because I like it I'll look for symbolism.

Should I watch Grave of the Fireflies?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1988

Directed by Isao Takahata, Grave of the Fireflies is based on a novel written by Akiyuku Nosaka. It follows two children and the effect the war has on them and the people around them. I was honestly not expecting this. I assumed it would show the war from soldier's perspectives and show the great tragedies and loss of life caused directly by the war. However it focuses on a little tragedy that goes almost entirely unnoticed in the troubled times surrounding it.

Grave of the Fireflies is one of those Anime movies that has an audience outside the stereotypical market-everyone can sympathize with its message. It is one of the premiere anti-war movies in the world, which I think is made more fascinating by its lack of real world examples-something that our millenia of wars have provided plenty of.

First things first, this is an anime and therefore excluded from a large audience due to the largely American belief that cartoons are only for children (and let me just say that this is not one for little kids). It is not a war movie, and there is very little action. It deals mostly with interpersonal relationships, and it is not a happy movie. So if you want a war flick with plenty of action or are looking for something for the kids, then stay away. If you want a low tempo anti-war movie and don't mind sad movies, then you should see it.

I think the movie was very good. I won't say I enjoyed the movie mostly because that has a connotation that it was happy. It wasn't. It was depressing. That was the point. Often time when we see the catastrophes that occur during wartime we can justify them as being necessary: for example the bombings at Nagasaki and Hiroshima were performed because the United States estimated more lives would be lost in a land invasion (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that, that is simply an example of justification). However, this little event here has no justification. Most memorable to me is how their own aunt begins to turn against them because of her loyalty to the government. I didn't cry during this movie (which does happen) but it did impart a sense of malaise that hopefully I will remember the next time I feel the need to meet any situation with violence.

Should I watch Rambo: First Blood Part II

The long and short of it: No
When was it made: 1985

Hey y'all, remember that review I gave of the first Rambo movie, and how I said everyone should see it? How I assumed Rambo was a sweaty shirtless man killing Charlie in the jungle? How I was wrong to think Rambo was just a stupid action flick?

Well, Rambo II went ahead and fell square into that category of being a incredibly cheesy action flick. It's like the writers sat down together and said "hey, do remember that Rambo movie? That was really good, and the action was kick-ass! We should make another movie that's just Rambo killing people! Oh wait, the first movie had a point and dealt with a pertinent issue in a realistic way? Uhhhhh... POWs! We'll send Rambo after some POWs and tack on a little speech on the end! What? No, don't worry. We won't let the story and character development get in the way of dead Vietnamese people."

Now I have no trouble with stupid action movies-I think that everyone wants a stupid action movie every now and then. But don't take a preexisting character with real depth and emotion and turn him into a cardboard cutout. The first Rambo was a man failing to adjust to civilian life and was shown as a someone the government had made into a killer and an animal but who wanted to go back being a human. The second Rambo is a killing machine with little regret or respect for life.

Alright then, let's ignore the fact that they destroyed the character of Rambo and imagine it's someone else. Do remember that scene in the Weird Al movie UHF, where he's having the daydream that he's Rambo, and he gets in the helicopter and just starts blowing everything up, roaring like a primal beast? Yeah, that actually happens. Or the gag where the soldier is shooting at him while he stands out of cover and shoots the guy with an exploding arrow? Yeah, that actually happens. The ending is so incredibly cheesy that I was laughing the whole time. He went from a semi realistic hero given a little boost to make a good action movie to a god of death spraying arrows down upon the earth. Oh, and that's another thing. He uses a bow and arrow almost the entire time because it's a silent kill, yet for some reason every time he shoots somebody they dub in a loud noise-I guess it's so we can tell the guy who has an arrow jutting from his chest got shot, in case we didn't notice the giant arrow.

Long story short, it is a poorly done sequel to an excellent movie. Instead of establishing a realistic character and dealing with serious issue respectably, they jump on the table, get drunk, and start waving their phalli around whilst yelling " USA! USA! USA!"

Oh and by the way, POWs.

Should I watch Rambo: First Blood Part 1?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1982

Based on a book by David Morrell, First Blood was directed by Ted Kotcheff and is quite honestly not what I expected. I haven't seen the rest of the series, but I had gotten the impression that all Rambo movies were about a sweaty Sylvester Stallone stalking the steamy subtropics (sorry, I'll cease) slaughtering (ok, for reals this time) Viet Cong and waving his American phallus for all the world to see. I haven't seen the rest of the series, but this movie is almost the exact opposite of that (well, he does stalk sweatily). Instead we see a Vietnam veteran just trying to survive in the world he fought to protect in the only way he knows how.

If you've seen a parody of an action movie, than you've seen a man with a bandanna and a machine gun striding shirtless and shooting down enemies of America without getting a scratch-this is a parody of Rambo, though definitely from the later films. The name, if not necessarily the movie, is ubiquitous enough that it has entered the vernacular. In addition Sly Stallone has just recently starred in a new Rambo movie, which may call a few peoples attention back to the original.

The movie has been accused of glorifying violence, but I disagree. There is violence in this movie, make no mistake, but almost all of it is shown in a more serious light. This is not like 300, whose appeal is derived solely from getting to watch 1800 abdominal muscles slaughter Persians. The violence can be a bit unrealistic, but it is not obvious or laughable, just touched up to make the movie more exciting. But in reality, the entire movie is only setting a stage for the final scene-you don't get the final scene without the rest of the movie, but this would be a dumb action flick without the ending. If you want to see a good move that deals with a pertinent issue but that is still enjoyable and exciting, then you need to see First Blood.

I thought the movie was great. I went in expecting something entirely different, but I still got what I wanted. I actually feel a bit guilty-I wanted to see Sylvester Stallone gunning and gutting, killing everyone in his path. I wanted a good ole' action flick. But seeing the characters interact and showing the negative consequences that the respective characters blood lust has made me feel bad for craving that violence. Quite honestly Stallone's last scene really changed the whole movie for me-it's hard to write an opinion for the whole movie because that last scene colored the whole thing for me. But it is probably the best acting I have ever seen Stallone do, and is one of the most powerful scenes I have ever watched. To be quite honest, First Blood is a must watch if only to hear his closing speech and every person who ever mistreated a veteran should be required to watch it.

Should I watch the original Red vs Blue?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: Started in 2003, new series are still made

Made by Rooster Teeth (yeah, if you didn't already know this is not the most intellectually sophisticated property) using games from the Halo series, Red vs Blue follows two sets of incompetent soldiers as they blindly stumble through improbable situations with only their snappy comebacks and swearing to protect them. While the first few episodes suffer from poor sound quality and some long silences, pretty soon things pick up and hilarity ensues almost constantly; out of 100 episodes-the majority of which are only 5 minutes, so don't worry about this taking your life away-I can't find one that doesn't make me laugh.

If you've seen one show made with video games, odds are it was Red vs Blue. It is by far the most famous machinima(movie made with a video game) out there, having made machinima popular before most people even knew it existed. Red vs Blue is also the most successful, making Rooster Teeth into a successful company. Unlike most shows of this kind, Red vs Blue is well shot, has good voice acting, and is well written and timed, making it one of the only machinima worth watching.

Red vs Blue is incredibly hilarious, but the original series is a bit lacking in the plot department. Not that there isn't a story, but it is so convoluted that you shouldn't worry about it, just get the laughs. Now these are adults using adult language, so this isn't for younger people or those offended by swearing. If you're looking for a hilarious comedy with no real thinking required, then watch RvB. If you want a good story and hate swearing, the original series isn't for you, though the newer RvB series have more story to them and are just as hilarious.

I am a big Red vs Blue fanboy, I'll admit. I try to watch every episode, and I have seen most of Rooster Teeth's other stuff too. It really is a great series, and the 5 minute episodes allow you to watch an episode or two even if you're crunched for time. Also, while there is a bit of slapstick and visual humor, a lot of the gags are character or conversation driven, so it makes great background noise, too. There are so many good characters, but for me the funniest will always be Caboose. Tucker's "lady's man" attitude and Sarge's bloodlust are both well played, but Caboose's innocent stupidity-of which he is oddly aware-allows him some of the funniest moments, like when he avoids a pregnant character because "I do not want to catch pregnancy!" The original series is also on YouTube, so there really is no excuse not to at least try the show. I'm sure you'll love it.

Should I read Inferno by Dante?

The long and short of it: Probably
When was it made: Early 14th century

Written by Dante Alighieri, Inferno (Hell) is the first book in the Divine Comedy. The Divine Comedy is an allegorical poem about the redemption of man, following Dante himself as he is guided through Hell, Purgatory, and eventually Paradise. The first book follows his journey through Hell, showing souls in various states of punishment, all of which is explained to him by the Roman poet Virgil.

Inferno is the best known of the Divine Comedy-so much so that some people don't even know the other two works exist. Any western literature class will eventually cover it, and most people hold it as a badge of honor to have memorized certain lines or stanzas. There are references to the Inferno in almost everything, from the oft-quoted phrase "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here," to the names of the Four Fiends in Final Fantasy IV. They are even releasing an action game called Dante's Inferno: just a hunch, but I doubt it will be much like the eponymous work.

Being 700 years old and in Italian, most people will need to get a translated version. It is incredibly important to get a good translation with good notes to help explain the references to pop icons from the 1300s; I recommend the Penguin translations. Now, some people are put off by older books, and others find that the sight of verse sends them into a killing frenzy-I'd recommend trying it, but borrow it from somebody, don't by a copy. If you're looking for a good classical work with some cultural relevance or a fun allegory to bump up your knowledge of religion (be careful, though, the book isn't doctrine to any religion, just an interesting philosophical perspective)(man, I'm a literary fag) than read Inferno. If you are just a beginning reader or really can't stomach older works, than leave it alone for now.

I really loved Inferno, but this is the guy who thinks the Rig Veda is a fun read. It has several different ways to read it and each section has several different layers of understanding. It can be read as a political, social, or religious commentary, and that's only what I noticed. It is absolutely necessary to read the notes, otherwise the majority of the examples will mean nothing to you. The book had its fun moments to, but those are mostly unintentional results of bringing a work with a 1300 mindset to the modern times of political correctness, such as showing every good person who wasn't Christian in the first layer of Hell (there's a good reason and explanation, nevertheless they're in Hell). Overall though, the book has a serious tone, and from the gates to Judecca Dante's punishments are strangely just, giving us insight to the nature of man and of sin.

Should I play the original Final Fantasy?

The long and short of it: Probably not
When was it made: 1987 (Japanese release), 1990 (American release)

Developed by Squaresoft before it joined up with Enix to form SquareEnix, Final Fantasy was the first game in the Final Fantasy franchise (I would say series, but it has it's own line of drinks now, so, franchise). The game has defined RPGs for the last 20 years, establishing the concepts of parties, classes, and levels. Well, ripping them off is more accurate. The game plays very much like video D&D, going so far as having spell levels and spell slots, an interesting system that most future games have abandoned (even D&D has left it in the dust). While fun, this game suffers a lot of the problems of being a first: while the combat mechanics are mostly pretty solid, character interactions are far from complicated. The only time your characters names are even mentioned are in the menus, but at the time that didn't really matter.

The original Final Fantasy doesn't get too much hype, I'll admit. However, the main series is 12 games strong and still going and there are several side projects with multiple games under their belts. This legacy, combined with several remakes, has kindled a little curiosity into some as to what the original game was like, and whether they should play it.

First of all, unless you have a ton of money, you're best bet is to get a rom. The game still sells for 20-60 bucks used, quite a feat considering most NES games go for less than a dollar. Ooh, that reminds me, you'll need an NES too, though more and more independant companies are making new, better consoles that run older cartridge games for those people like me who never sold or threw away the old NES and SNES games. Now, this is an old game, and it runs a bit slow. Combat can get pretty tedious sometimes: to be honest, when I play a rom of this game the fast forward button is my greatest friend. Also, the graphics aren't that great, and because this is one of those older games, they don't tell you where to go. You have a mission, and an overall idea of what you're supposed to be doing, but you had better talk to everybody in town and be prepared to do a lot of exploring-the strategy guide can be your best friend, as can Let's Play videos on youtube (HCBailly is awesome, I'd watch his). So if you really like old games, and you're looking for one with a lot of walking and fighting to spend a good chunk of time on, get the original Final Fantasy. If you want a quick paced no brainer, must have good graphics, or hate older games in general, avoid this game.

Now I personally liked the game. But I am not everyone when it comes to these things. I don't mind sitting around for long periods of time and I don't usually get frustrated when I get stuck and have to go talk to everyone I've met to pick up a missing clue. That being said, most people shouldn't play it. It was great at the time, but a lot of its biggest flaws are those things that plague all older games. If you absolutely must play this game, I would actually recommend a remake. Personally I think FF: Origins is the best remake because it updates a lot of the flaws by improving combat speed, graphics, and dialogue, while leaving the game at it's core mostly untouched. It is still pretty difficult and requires some grinding. I would not recommend the GBA version because they replaced the spell slot system with a MP system, making you able to use way more spells, which then had to be nerfed, and making most of the monsters very pathetic. Those were actually my favorite moments in the original game, when I'd save my Black Mage's spells, rendering him practically useless for a lot of fights, and then a boss would appear and I'd unleash him, turning him from marginally useful to my biggest damage dealer. It really cheapens the experience by taking a game that's difficult in a fun way and making it super easy. So, to wrap this up, if you feel the need to see where it all started, find a copy of FF: Origins to get all the experience with far fewer of the problems.

Should I read Memoirs of a Geisha?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1997

Written by Arthur Golden, Memoirs is a narrative from the first person perspective of a World War II era geisha named Sayuri. It offers a little inside view into the world of geisha and what they actually do-supposedly accurate, but as I am not a World War II geisha I can't confirm or deny that. Mr. Golden is a master of the first person-when combined with the nonexistent translator's note, it took me a while to remember that this was a work of fiction. The characters are realistic and human. They do bad things, and no one is portrayed as truly a saint or truly a demon-except maybe Hatsumomo, but I even ended up empathizing with her a tiny bit.

The book really jumped into the public eye with the release of the movie in 2005 (which had a surprising number of Chinese playing Japanese people). The movie won a few Oscars, which of course jumps up the popularity of the book. Part of this may be the recent American trend to worship all things Far Eastern, but the book stands well on its own, and though I loved the movie the book is far superior.

Now this is not an action book. There are no spies, no knights, no gladiators. The closest you come to action is a few beatings here and there. The book is much more subtle, where the action is found in a smile or a properly timed comment and not in bullet time or epic swordfights. There is also a bit of sex in the book-none of it graphic and none of it tagged on as fanservice-so kiddies beware. If you are looking for a good lighthearted fantasy book filled with swordfights and gunplay or are too young to see a PG-13 movie, keep on moving. If you are looking for an intelligent book to rope you up and keep you enthralled, find a copy of Memoirs of a Geisha (the fun thing about movie books is that there are copies floating around everywhere that people who hate to read but loved the movie bought on a whim, so they can be found for cheap).

I got this book on the 3rd of July. My parents were in town, and we were driving to a nearby town for a celebration-my parents got lost, and when we had finally found our way my father asked "why didn't you tell us we were about to go the wrong way?" all I could answer was "Because Chiyo had just made it to the Natta Okiya!" My nose was so deep in that book that it took the explosions and barbecue of the Independence Day to pull me away-and only then just barely. The characters felt real to me, and although it never brought me to tears it did managed to influence my emotions. The book has kind of a sad feel to it, and is a bit fatalistic, even though the end is technically happy. I have a lot of favorite moments, but one of the big ones occurs during Hatsumomo's breakdown when the blind musician, unaware of the somber mood, asks what just happened. The book is filled with witty banter, though, and it's the intelligence and fun to be found in this book that are definitely worth the read.

Should I watch Alien?

The long and short of it: Most Likely
When was it made: 1979

Alien was directed by Ridley Scott and is one of the most well-known and often parodied monster movies. Let's start out with that: this is a monster movie, and a really good one at that. Taking place almost exclusively on the mining ship Nostromo. It takes advantage of humanity's inherent fear of enclosed spaces and of what we don't understand. This is not a slasher, and there is not gore sprayed around like beer at a kegger. It works much more on the principles of suspense with a few graphic moments which are thematically appropriate. The set up moves a bit slowly, as does the dénouement. However, the middle more than makes up for the ends.

As I mentioned before, Alien has been parodied an incredible amount of times, mostly due to its universality-most people have seen it. It spawned a series of four movies, and the titular characters have moved on to a new series called Aliens vs. Predator-for better or for worse. Almost anybody who sees this movie far the first time will have at least one joke they've seen in the past make more sense-Spaceballs, anyone?

Now, the movie raises a lot of questions and doesn't take much time to answer them. But those questions are the last thing on your mind once the action starts. It is well timed and well written, establishing realistic characters with whom it is possible to empathize. None of the characters are cardboard cutouts or cliches-not that there aren't some familiar characters, but I think they fall in the same boat as Gandolf being a stereotypical wizard:they fit the stereotype because the stereotype is based on them. So if you get nightmares easily or hate scary movies, then Alien might not be for you (and there are enough of these people to drop this from a "yes" in the long and short of it). If you don't mind a startle or two and like space monsters, make this your next movie.

I really liked this movie. There were scenes that were a bit less than interesting, but these were mostly the establishing scenes where we get to view the 1979 version of the future. I mean, yeah, the spaceship itself is very advanced, but the display monitors look like they were made in, well, 1979. But who cares about all that? Nobody, that's who, because the aliens are awesome and the suspense is handled very well. My favorite scene was the first attack: I was so involved that I had actually leaned forward in my chair and had my hands held up near my face in anticipation-and the scene actually managed to deliver, too. This is a very fun movie, so if you have movie night or party coming up, Alien should be somewhere on the queue.

Should I read Wanted?

The long and short of it: No
When was it made: 2003

Written by Frank Millar and illustrated by J.G. Jones, The Sunday Times said that Wanted was Watchmen for supervillains. The Sunday Times also said that Outland was Star Wars for cowboys (I doubt many people will understand that joke, but let me tell you it is both witty and sarcastic). I wouldn't say Wanted is horrible, but it isn't good either. After I had put it down, I simply went on to another book. It didn't raise any real issues that applied to me, and while the introductory concept was interesting you can't make an entire book out of a premise. You need to finish the rest of the story at some point in there. Going back to the Watchmen comment, let me just say this: Watchmen was written in 1986 and is still one of the most relevant works of fiction on the market; Wanted was written 17 years later and was barely relevant then.

Wanted has garnered some attention as mentioned above, but it became much more mainstream last summer when a movie was released with the same name. Some would say the movie was based on the book, but just because the main character shares a name and they both revolve around daddy issues of some kind does not a faithful translation make. The movie is entirely different: different plot, new characters, and better writing (at least it doesn't take itself as seriously as the comic does).

Now, as I said before, the book wasn't unreadable. But I feel I needed to come down extra hard because of all those fans who worship the ground the book walks on. It is filled with violence, sex, and swearing. It is very sophomoric in it's humor, with such award winning characters as a man made entirely of feces or a villainous phallus that forces it's "wielder" to perform his evil deeds. So, if you're looking for an inspiring or revolutionary work, or are considering reading it because you liked the movie, don't read it. If you're looking for a sophomoric book filled with the aforementioned sex, swearing, and violence (which, hey, everybody wants that every once in a while) than go ahead-I'd just recommend borrowing it until you know for sure you want to buy it.

Now, here's the deal: the problem I see with the book is that there is really no empathy or motivation for the horrible things the characters do in the book. They are merely a bunch of sociopaths doing evil deeds for evils sake- it doesn't even have the whole "non-anti-hero" satire that I love Lobo for. As Tycho from Penny Arcade put it, America isn't ready for a protagonist who is an unrepentant rapist. They try to give the characters some human attributes and make Wesley seem somewhat human, but it is too little to late, and completely contradicted by the last page in the book. I personally hated it when Wesley started getting his revenge: there's a line about how his super power is "killing people" and how that makes him the most bad of the bad. My question is, if that power allows him to kill all these villains solo, how come his dad never did the same thing to the heroes? It seems like Frank Millar had his Mary Sue, and it ruined the story. It does have its good moments, though. The only scene in the entire book that is memorable to me is when the Professor describes the rise of the villains. It seems to be the only part that was taken seriously during writing, and the panel with, as I like to call him, "non-superman" sitting and looking out the window is the only part that elicited an emotional reaction from me. Maybe if Wanted had run a bit longer the exposition would have come, but as is I think it suffers from being an incomplete work that had potential to actually be the Watchmen of supervillains.

Should I play Portal?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 2007

Portal was developed by one of my favorite companies, Valve, and follows the adventures of a nameless protagonist and her very special gun. It is a beautiful game with backgrounds that are simple yet expressive. Honestly, I had heard so much about this game by the time I finally got around to downloading it that I was certain there was no way for it to live up to my expectations. Not only did it live up to them, it exceeded them in every way. The game is very short, I'll give that to you, but would you rather have an ounce of gold or a pound of copper? The portal mechanic is done incredibly well, and the game guides you in such a way that it remains intuitive.

I heard about this game entirely through hype. Around the time of its release, I was inundated with companion cubes and bogus cakes from sites that had never before even mentioned video games. It has received critical acclaim for its gameplay and for its story. For a game with zero exposition and only one speaking character, the story is very enjoyable. If someone has quoted a scene from a video game to you in the last two years, there is a good chance it is from Portal.

The game, originally only available through the Orange Box, is now available for PC and XBox, so if you don't game on either of those, find a friend who does so you can play this game. It is a bit short, but the challenge maps adds on a bit of time, albeit without the story and without GLaDOS. It does have some moments that get a little fast and hectic, so if you suffer very easily from motion sickness you may want to play this at an appropriate distance from the screen. If you're looking for a fun game that's well written and designed, go for it. If you hate video games or hate even the simplest of puzzles, you are the only people I wouldn't recommend this to.

I personally think this game is awesome. I did get stuck really bad once, but in this modern age of youtube there is no excuse for not beating the game and enjoying it immensely. Ellen McClain did a fantastic job as the facility AI, and has some of the best lines in any video game. They did it right by hiring an actual voice actor and writers instead of having coders write crappy dialogue and plugging it into a voice program. The mechanics are great, but they establish a great atmosphere. Because the game is so short, it is hard to discuss my favorite moment without ruining a surprise for you, but one I like occurs when you have received the portal gun and GLaDOS nonchalantly mentions how the gun is now worth more than the lives and possessions of everyone in your home town. This game is so different that I don't think it should be the first game you ever play, but if you've played any other video game before the next game you play needs to be Portal.

Should I watch 2001: A Space Odyssey?

The long and short of it: Probably Not
When was it made: 1968

Directed by Stanley Kubrick and co-written by Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 is a sci-fi epic dealing with the origins of man and our future in the stars. In it's time, the special effects were the most extraordinary and realistic of any other movie. Note the caveat, however: in it's time. The visuals were extremely well done: attendants walking upside down, pens floating through the air, all done pre-digital effects, and aside from a few odd movements and bad monkey costumes, it looks very well done. Unfortunately, the tricks of camera required to make these things look realistic without digital effects requires very slow movement. In fact, that is the biggest problem this movie suffers from overall. The whole movie moves slowly. While this is fine in those subplots that are interesting and have a lot to cover, I don't think we need ten minutes following attendants in space. I'm sure in '68 that whole sequence was fascinating, and everyone in the theater was calling Kubrick a sorcerer, but in the modern age of Michael-Bay-made movies driven entirely by effects (as opposed to plots) these effect sequences are incredibly boring.

There is a considerable amount of hype surrounding this movie: it is often called one of the greatest movies ever, of all time. It is one of those few American movies that is considered "culturally significant." In other words, only the truly intelligent and therefore snobby will understand it. It is a viewers badge, and unfortunately it is one of the last big truly sci-fi movies: by no means is this a space adventure or space opera.

Now, for some people, 2.5 hours is a bit long for them to sit and watch any movie, much less one without hot chicks and explosions (I do it for teh lols). Those well versed in the nature of vacuum and zero-gravity will be pleased to see that the movie is one of the most accurate, with only a few problems with lighting and small discrepancies in gravity effects, but these were all things that could not be avoided while shooting the movie in atmosphere and on Earth. If you want to watch an actual sci-fi movie that gets most of the science right (like no sound in space), than go ahead and watch it. If you have to have action and can't sit through two hours of dead time and talking, read the Wikipedia entry and act like you've watched it.

I personally do not think this movie deserves all the positive hype it gets. It has some interesting moments and some great character interactions, but it moves so slowly, and the message it is trying to send is too confusing for its importance. I think if the movie moved a bit quicker, I would be willing to put up with it a lot more. But the fact remains that it was probably impressive back in the day, and history has been kind. I will say this: if you have nothing else to do, or someone you know is watching it, go ahead and do it, but I wouldn't go out and spend money on it or plan an evening around the movie. There were some good parts: I actually thought the first act with the pre-humans was actually pretty fun to watch, and an interesting sci-fi explanation of the "missing link." So, I wouldn't actively avoid this movie, but I wouldn't go out of my to see it, either.

Should I read 1984?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1949

Written by George Orwell, this book is the probably the best known of the dystopian future trifecta. It is a critique of solid modernity (to borrow a phrase from Zygmunt Bauman) and a great example of a disciplinary society: in other words, people immediately think you're smarter if you've read it. This book was nothing like I expected it to be, and I enjoyed it because of that. Mr. Orwell spent a great deal of time building up his world and how it worked, and it comes through in the book, especially in the first part of the book which deals largely with how the world works. I listened to an unabridged audiobook, but I should have read it-I had to stop and go back so many times to re-hear the particularly interesting tidbits like I so often do when reading that it probably would have been faster. I lost track of time often, and lost a few hours of sleep to this book.

Odds are if you have completed high school you have either read this book or A Brave New World. It is considered a must read by most literary circles do to the possibility that such a future might come into being, and in fact some of the polices of Oceania are in play in modern politics. The book is so pervasive that many of the terms for propaganda from the book have spread into real life, and in fact the term Orwellian is used to describe settings similar to that of 1984.

This book is still culturally viable, and because it was written in 1948 it uses the common vernacular, meaning it is easier to understand than the sentence I just wrote. A good deal of it is outright exposition, so if you are opposed to that for whatever reason, it may make the book seem sloppily written. If you want a serious and somber look at the potential future of mankind, read this book. If you want a funny book with a happy ending, keep browsing.

The book was fascinating to me, but that may just be the literary nerd talking. I love different worlds, and for me a milieu can make or break a series more than the characters that inhabit it. Borrowing terms from Orson Scott Card, this book is a great example of combining a milieu story with a character story. I was never kicked out of his world by a blaring inconsistency, but the characters were a bit alien. I loved the concept of doublethink, mostly because while seeming so contradictory, it is far more prevalent in real life than we'd like to think. My favorite moment was when Winston is reading "the book" and how it delves unequivocally into how the world works. This section does nothing to advance the plot, but it does help one understand how such a world could come to be. In the end though, the book was worth reading if only because it is the original and best written "Orwellian" book.

Should I play Psychonauts?

The long and short of it: Yes.
When was it made: 2005

Produced by Double Fine Productions, Psychonauts is an incredibly fun and infuriating experience. A mix of original gameplay, fun story, and hilarious absurdity, it is just a bundle of fun for the money. The first half of the game is relentless. I would start to play after breakfast, go to work, and stride over to the XBox immediately after coming home. I was laughing almost constantly at the antics of the characters, and even my dear old mother would chuckle at snippets of dialogue as she walked past. The humor is character driven to, so you don't have to be a gamer or a certain kind of fanboy to get it and it isn't reduced to puns and fart noises (though there is some word play, like having to literally sort some characters emotional baggage).

The game, though a financial flop when first released, has started to catch on among gamers. It is definitely not a mainstream release, but that's pretty obvious once you notice the presence of wit and the lack of grit. It is available for download on the XBox live marketplace and through Steam, so you don't even have to pry yourself off the couch/beanbag/innertube to enjoy it on PC or XBox 360.

Being a video game, if you don't like video games, you won't like this. Also, it may be light hearted and silly, but it is by no means a casual game. The puzzles require some thinking, but don't break the brain. Some of the levels, especially towards the end of the game, can get incredibly frustrating. The very last level is so frustrating that it almost ruined the game for me. If I didn't consider it a cardinal sin of games, I would recommend playing up to the last level, and then watching the ending on YouTube. The leveling mechanic is interesting and simple, and only once or twice did I get lost. If you want a fun and funny platformer and are willing to put up with some frustrating fights and levels, then this game is a must play. If you are looking for a bloody shoot-'em-up or a more serious title, then this isn't the game.

As I said, this game was hilarious. That may be part of the reason the end became tedious-whereas the difficult platforming in previous levels may or may not have been just as annoying, it was tempered with interesting characters and charming dialogue-I had a hard time with the theater puzzle, but the concept that the mind of an insane diva would be a failing theater dominated by a harsh critic made me love it more for it's difficulty, and made the constant switching of sets contextually relevant. The game had a great mix of light-heartedness laid over a dark subtext, and dealt with it in a unique way. My favorite environment was the mind of a conspiracy theorist, which was a normal neighborhood twisted around and filled with secret agents who would disguise themselves by carrying road signs and saying "I am a construction worker" all the while dressed in trenchcoats and fedoras to hide their features. Each of the minds are a unique crazy-house, and a joy to experience, which is a great way to describe the game as a whole.

Should I read Watchmen?

The long and short of it: Yes.
When was it made: 1986

Written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, Watchmen is by far the best serious graphic novel I have ever read (my personal favorite overall is Bone, but that's neither here nor there). It deals with issues that are still incredibly relevant in today's society, showing that great works have the ability to be timeless regardless of medium. I started reading it skeptically, sure that it would join the stacks of books through which I thumb to feel trendy but have never read entirely, but soon found that the book had swept me up into its world and had rendered me unable to put it down until I had finished it. By soon, of course, I mean eight hours later, the first time I managed to look up from the page.

The book has received considerable hype due to the movie of the same name being released this past winter, but the movie does not even come close to replacing the book, but it follows too closely to be a standalone product. If anything, the movie is a companion to the book, simplifying certain scenes or clarifying meanings with the use of full body language and vocal tones.

The fact remains, though, that this is a comic book. If you hate superhero comics (a pox upon you, sir or madam), be comforted to know that this is quite a different style. The characters behave more like normal people than denizens of the DC or Marvel universes, and superpowers are rare. If you enjoy character development and love a detailed story, this is for you. If you want tons of thoughtless action and dislike extensive reading, you may want to look elsewhere.

My favorite character is the Comedian (I'll wait-it must be shocking to find someone who isn't a blind devotee of Rorschach). Not because of who he is, but what he represents, and how well he represents it. Maybe that's just me being a, to quote Yahtzee Croshaw, "literary fag," but I love how this simple characters is the embodiment of such a profound message. However, the moment that sticks with me the most is from one of the world expanding expositional pieces found at the end of each chapter. "...I never said 'The superman exists and he's American'.[sic] What I said was 'God exists, and he's American'.[sic] If that statement starts to chill you after a couple of moments' consideration, then don't be alarmed. A feeling of intense and crushing religious terror at the concept indicates only that you are still sane. " I love this line because it is a summary statement for the issue at the core of Watchmen, and it would be remiss of you to not experience it for yourself.

The Purpose and Mission of this Blog

No doubt if you've come upon this blog by mistake, the name has probably given you the impression that I am a teenage follower of the Emo clique asking a question concerning razors or ropes tied into certain knots. Hopefully you have realized that this is not the case as the purpose of this blog is far different.

I am not someone who lives on the edge (and I've dumped the suicide analogy, at this point I'm referring to the cultural and technological edge). In many regards I don't even stand close enough to the cliff to see down. I, in fact, have a tendency to live so far away from the edge that the only reason I know it exists is people who are sitting merrily upon it are calling me to tell me how beautiful it is and that I should really come see it. I rarely see anything when it's new, and have a horrible habit of finding something years old, enjoying it for the first time, and bugging off my friends ears until they tell me to shut up and go blog about it.

However, I have found that oftentimes something that was fantastic when new tends to decay in quality as it gets older and older and that by the time I get around to experiencing it, I find it rather dull and a waste of my time. In these situations it is amazing to me that those who have been telling me how awesome something was will continue to call it awesome, their eyes forever scarred by the rose colored glasses they wore in their youth.

And so I come to the purpose of this blog, which is to answer the eponymous question: should I do it? While I do not dare call this a critique or a review (for I will not consistently focus on the negative nor on the positive) it is an opinion piece taken from a more modern context, and generally ignoring the hype given by years of fans wooing over it. I will do this for all types of media: books, movies, video games, et cetera. In general, I will focus on objects fitting the following criteria:

1. Object is over a year old, regardless of medium.
2. I did not experience the object when it was new
3. Object is something famous enough that people would still consider doing(reading, watching, playing, etc.) it-for example, I would consider stating my opinion on The Matrix, but not Zardoz
4. I will have recently experienced the object (note: this does not mean that things I did see a long time ago are out, only that I have to see them again, if only to make sure I am not allowing nostalgia to gather on my opinions)

I do not expect this blog to gain any size or membership, but if those scanty few who happen to wander by have something they have heard about, but never experienced, hopefully my entries can help them decide. Also, if anyone has any requests, I'm always willing to try new things.