Breaking the rule and possible new posts.

Hey, I originally this blog was supposed to be about older things, but I've decided to convert it to a review site of the vanilla variety. I will still review all sorts of media from and older stuff, but I won't limit myself to reviewing older things. In other news, I may actually start updating again!

Should I play Halo Wars?

The long and short of it: No
When was it made: 2009

I know I've broken my cardinal rule by reviewing something that is only a year old, but I didn't have time for anything older this week, so nya.

Developed by Ensemble Studios, Halo Wars is the odd-man-out of the Halo family as it is the only RTS (real-time strategy) in the series. It is the story of the Spirit of Fire and its crew as they covenant flood explosions... sorry, it's a Halo game. While the universe is incredibly in depth, it has the same story as EVERY Halo game. The saving grace of the Halo franchise is the game mechanics and style of play, which are absent in this game.

The game flew in a bit under the radar, but there is a bit of buzz still surrounding it simply because it is a Halo game. It also holds the distinguished honor of being a console RTS, something that sets it apart from a lot of other games. Now, especially in light of Halo: Reach, people are going back to previous games in the series, and Halo Wars comes up a bit.

This is a real time strategy game, so be prepared to sit up above the action instead of being in it. The game has its moments, but it is a RTS on a console: a game type that is notorious for only being good on PCs. Due to the lack of a mouse, unit selection is a huge pain in the ass, and the lack of a submenu makes unit control even more difficult. The number of times I have screamed at the screen because all of my units started running away because there is no "hold position" command makes my head spin: it also makes the game into a war of attrition instead of strategy. Pump out units, throw them at enemy. Every time. The only reason this game is worth playing is if you have friends playing. So if you have friends who want to play with you and don't mind an RTS on a console, then put in Halo Wars. But if you like RTS because of the strategy and control it gives to your armies, than stick to the PC.

Now I have had fun with this game, don't get me wrong, and it is fun to play with friends, but the fact of the matter is that there are games that play better on consoles and there are games that play better on PCs, and while this is mostly decided on a game by game basis, there is one type of game that is always better on PC: real-time strategy. The game does have its moments, and the game where the enemy sent 3 scarabs after me in one round will live in my group of friends for a long time, and Halo Wars did a good job addressing the major issue consoles suffer when doing RTS, but putting chocolate on a piece of white cake does not devil's food cake make. If you want to play a good RTS with friends, then get a good PC game-no amount of tweaking with mechanics will make a console RTS as good.

Should I play Dragon Warrior?

The long and short of it: No
When was it made: 1986

Developed by Chunsoft and published by Enix, Dragon Warrior is the first of the Dragon Quest games which, while not as popular in America, are still very popular in Japan. This one features a descendant of the hero Erdrick as he ventures forth from Castle Tantegel to rescue Princess Gwaelin and defeat the mighty Dragon Lord. It's story is traditional fare and it features a fun element of exploration, but it's age shows during gameplay. This doesn't suffer from the same problems as Final Fantasy-on the contrary individual encounters are very short-but it's own flaws, namely the hours of grinding and bad interface make this not worth playing to the modern player.

This game is not only famous for starting the Dragon Warrior series, but for being the father of console RPG. It was not the first created, but it was the first to combine many of the features that would become staples of the RPG genre for the next 10 to 20 years. It is also one of the oldest RPGs for the NES system. It's also been remade several times, so some people may want to experience the original.

This game is so by the book that you almost have to flip pages to play it. You rescue a princess from a dragon, you're the descendant of a great hero, you're the only hope, etc. And it does it well, too. The exploration is actually difficult, but there was no point where I needed to look up any hints. However, the interface is very poor, and you have to use a menu to speak, use stairs, open doors, and search, instead of making these functions automatic. Also, leveling goes so slowly that there wasn't a part I didn't have to grind: no dungeon adequately leveled me for the next dungeon (or even the next level in the same dungeon sometimes). So if you want the nerd points of having beat the original, go for it. But other than nostalgia, there is really no reason to play this game.

Don't get me wrong, I liked the game. It was fun to actually have to think and explore the map, but towards the end I was playing it just so I could say I beat it. I knew where the story was going: I was going to save the maid and ride off into the sunset. Duh. I don't think I should have to level grind for 3-5 hours just to get a "congraturations" and a pat on the back. I heard that the re-release for the gameboy fixed this problem, so if you have to play this game play that version. But as for the original, it was tedious to control and tedious to finish. And combat was so repetitive that once you hit a certain level you could play the game with one of those bobbing desk toys. The boss was difficult because he was hard to damage and hit big, not because of any stunning attack combos or clever defenses-it was essentially just Nameless bashing a brick wall until it gave him the Orb of Light. It was cool to have a bad guy offer for you to join and actually let you join instead of a "but thou must" situation, but even then just ending the game instead of giving an evil ending was kind of a cop out. All in all it was good for its time, but that time has gone and let new games with better gameplay and stories take its place.

Should I watch Tron?

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

A film from back when Disney made actual movies, Tron is a cult classic famous for being one of the first films to extensively use computer graphics (which ironically got them disqualified from winning an Academy Award in special effects due to "cheating"). The movie uses computer graphics to create the digital world and backlit photography on all the actors to create a very surreal effect. The movie is not perfect by any means, mostly due to the inane framing device and obsolete graphics. Don't get me wrong, for being polygons the graphics are still pretty smooth and are used better than some of the dribble that gets produced today, but it suffers from the 2001 effect: because it was cutting edge back then it carried its own weight, but nowadays it goes so slowly and is unimpressive. At the same time, though, you do get to see The Dude act the epic sci-fi hero.

This movie is one of the few mainstream "videogame" movies to win an academy award, with the main character being a coder from back in the days when video games were still "cool." Many of the mini-games and the adventures from the movie have been remade as games in there own right, with their collective success far exceeding that of the original people. Chances are that even if you've never seen Tron you have seen one of the movies light cycles being parodied. And now with a supposed sequel on the way, it would be worth seeing the original to be in the loop, if not just to understand a lot of the references made in popular culture.

The movie itself is comprised of two parts: the real-world framing device and the main plot which takes place in the video-game world. The real world framing device is the weakest point of the movie, mimicking programming somewhat but with no accuracy of how computers actually work. Plus the process of taking something physical and turning it's matter completely digital is a technology so pointless that it baffles the mind even as a plot device. These trappings of programming carry their way into the digital universe in kind of a fun way, but even so, I got through the movie by squinting my eyes and pretending this was happening in space. But the story is fun and has some interesting elements which makes the complete and total inaccuracies durable. It follows a very "chosen one saves the day" formula, but tackles it in a unique perspective. It is definitely not too heady, just mindless fun. If you are looking for an in-depth look into the human soul or a cutting edge digital masterpiece, than this movie is not for you. But if you want a little fun with some interesting visuals, than this is for you.

I personally enjoyed the digital part of the movie, which fortunately takes up the majority of the action, but at the same time the concerns with the real-life portion really did drag me down. The ending is so nonsensical it hurts: a printed piece of paper saying "yeah, the bad guy did it" would not be enough evidence to solve anything. If that's all he needed, why didn't Flynn print it out at home? But the digital world carries it out for me. Being produced by a major studio allowed them to get some great actors, and David Warner was fantastic in all three of his roles. I loved how Sark was a real character, showing fear at having to take on a "user" and acting as a competent henchman defeated by an actually superior foe, as opposed to most movies where the hero is an idiot and wins by sheer measure of the villains even lower intellect. All in all if the digital portion of the movie had been a stand alone project (in the same setting or even a space setting) it would probably be one of my favorite movies. As it stands, it is still a pretty good flick worth watching.

Should I play the original Legend of Zelda?

The long and short of it: Probably
When was it made: 1986

Created by Shigeru Miyamoto as an homage to his childhood years exploring the woods and caves around Kyoto, The Legend of Zelda has expanded into an empire rivaling even the Mario games. Although the future games in the series would change the model of play drastically, this first game is notorious for being incredibly open ended and difficult. Fruitless hours may be spent scouring the map, but once you've finally found your way into Ganon's lair and made him esplode (into a mildly disturbing yet hilarious cloud of gore) you will feel a real sense of accomplishment that you just don't get with a lot of the video games today where they lead you by the hand: the game is difficult, but not arbitrary.

Being 23 years old the game may seem like it's irrelevant, however Zelda is one of those titles that every older "hardcore" gamer has beat. People talk about the hours they spent scouring the maps for secret stores and treasure (in fact this game is the reason Nintendo Power exists: before the internet you had only your friends and developer produced hints to guide you). Also, those who have played later entries in the series may want to try their hand at the golden-cartridged god.

This game is your standard 2-D Zelda game, with the sword on B and the Triforce spread across 8 dungeons, but don't let that fool you into thinking this is exactly like those games. First and foremost the story is a bit sparse, with none of the villages common to every other game in the series. Shops are distributed at random throughout the map, but the best ones are under Armos statues or bushes. Also, don't just go gallivanting into every dungeon you find: there is no frame here and so you may end up in the ball smasher dungeon with only 3 hearts and a lot of ambition. Most of the best equipment in the game isn't given to you right of the bat or in the course of normal play, so be prepared to explore every dungeon and all the world map. I don't even remember anyone in the game mentioning using the silver arrows to kill Ganon: I just knew what to do from prior experience. So if you want to run around Hyrule in a slightly lower resolution than you're used to (and with the inability to lift pots and shrubs) and don't mind a steep learning curve and lots of world exploration, grab a strategy guide and go (and trust me, you'll need that strategy guide). However, if you can't stand older games, demand in depth story, or hate exploration, than stick to the more standard modern fare.

I personally really enjoyed the game because the lack of story was replaced by a completely open world where the only thing inhibiting my progress was my lack of knowledge of the world around me, but I can see many reasons that modern gamers would actually hate the game. Many necessary hints are hidden or badly translated (or not given at all) and that makes the game very difficult. As a point of reference, I have played this game twice. The first time I used no strategy guide and only defeated 5 of the dungeons with 23 deaths, no magic sword, and no idea where the last 2 dungeons were (the 6th dungeon I knew where it was but was unable to beat it because I lacked several items). The second time I used a strategy guide and beat the game with every item and only 3 deaths. Now granted, with more time I could have beat it the first playthrough (I found the 8th dungeon on my own in the second playthrough) but I am just illustrating the biggest difference between this game (and most older games) and the modern games many of us are more used to. Keeping this in mind, though, the game is not so hard that you'll never beat it and it was fun to have a challenge in a Zelda game again, something that this series tends to hit and miss on. Also, like-likes are total dicks.

Sorry!

I'm a horrible person, I know. But I decided at the last minute to switch from Tron to the original Legend of Zelda for my review, and I didn't finish Zelda in time for a review today. So next Saturday I will have a Tron review, and sometime before that a Legend of Zelda review (and so you know, I didn't actually play the original Zelda as a kid, I started with Link to the Past.

Should I watch Silent Hill?

The long and short of it: Probably not
When was it made: 2006

Christophe Gans has the potential to be either a fantastic adapter of darker video games to film or the Uwe Boll of horror(and I really hope it turns out to be the first), but his first foray into the video game world, Silent Hill, catches the scenery but not the point. When I watch horror I want one of two things: to be genuinely scared or to receive a new insight into the human condition. Silent Hill delivers the first one for the first bit of the movie and acts like it covers the second during the end of the movie, but neither one really pans out.

Silent Hill is based on a game franchise that is still in existence, so chances are if you play video games you've heard at least the name, and as a gamer I know I try to catch video game movies so I can see how badly they flubbed up the interpretation. With a second movie in the pipeline, some people may be interested in catching up on the first movie or seeing why they're going ahead with a second: although the movie panned out critically it still did make a profit.

Now let me remind you that this is a horror film and while not a gorno it does involve it's fair share of violence and viscera (if you couldn't tell from the picture above). Also, even though I do complain that the movie wasn't very scary throughout, it does have its tense scenes and some rather disturbing visuals, so if you don't like scary movies than back away. They do (kind of?) deal with some religious issues, but I don't think it's a problem: they don't really deal with any real world religions and there are no qualms that it is the people involved and not religion itself that is shown as evil. So if you want a moderate scare and some very good scenery and shot set ups, than feel free to watch Silent Hill. But if you are looking for something absolutely terrifying or a movie up to your eyes with blood and tits, then move along, stranger.

Alright, you can probably guess I wasn't a big fan of the movie, but mostly because it felt like they walked to the precipice of making a great film, looked over the edge, had a picnic, and then went back to mediocre town for ice cream and post production. I'd like to discuss this movie in terms of my criteria for scary media: terror and insight. First, terror. For the first hour, the movie is genuinely terrifying. It uses a great sense of suspense and isolation to create an atmosphere both isolation and claustrophobia: no matter how big the town actually is, there was always a sense that you were alone in a cage. I love that every time the air-raid sirens sounded, I immediately felt scared. I knew that was the time of monsters, when no one was safe and anything could happen. And then they stopped. An hour in, they took what had been the most terrifying feature of the movie, the sense that at any time the world could be devoured by hell, and just stopped using it. Sure, they travel down into "hell" on the elevator, but even that world isn't as scary because you knew it was coming. You knew she was getting on in the real world and exiting in hell, but it was her choice. This is also the point when Rose meets other people and the movie becomes much more about her interactions with them then about her trying to figure out what's going on all by herself, proving that when isolation is a big theme, you don't put in a bunch of extra characters. Now secondly, we have the psychological aspect: what can I take away from this movie? Not a thing. Because this is a movie about monsters (who is the real monster, yadda yadda) the forms these monsters take is of vital importance, and they start out with the best monsters: the crying children monsters represent Rose's both her fear for her daughter and her projected feeling of isolation she knows Sharon must be feeling. And it goes downhill from there. Pyramid Head is here, probably the second best monster because he represents the most potent manifestation of the town's vengeance, but even then they don't use him well: in the final scene (where all the vengeance takes place, mind you) he doesn't even make an appearance. After that we have nurse monsters because, you know... nurses represent lost children and vengeance? All I'm saying is that instead of aping the video games, if they'd actually put a few seconds thought into it they could have created some very good and poignant monsters. Finally, I'd like to address the biggest disappointment, the final scene. I've already mentioned my dismay at the absence of Mr. Vengeance himself, but it goes so much further than that. I'll try to be spoiler free, but suffice it to say that there is a (ostensibly Christian) cult in the town that has pissed off the malevolent spirit (the nature of which is the big "surprise" that I'd figured out 2o minutes in) and at the end of the movie, the malevolent spirit arrives and enacts its Pyramid-Head-free vengeance. Two things: first of all, never base your movie climax on tentacle-rape hentai. Even before I knew it actually was I still felt kind of awkward during that scene. Secondly, you've already made it obvious this is a religious group, why'd you sissy out on the symbolism? When the spirit arrived Gans had an amazing opportunity to have it show up, arms out stretched, cross of living barbwire making it into a twisted version of Christ and the true being that these fallen souls worship. Instead the spirit sits with arms folded, seemingly contemptuous of the many ways this fell short of greatness.

Note: Excuse my rambling rant here, this is just a practice to get me back into the swing of things. Expect a new review on Saturday, hopefully more compressed and with less vitriole!

Starting up Again

Hey guys, sorry that I'm three days late! (Ha, humor.) Yeah, I think I'm ready to finally to start re-updating on Saturday, and I think that will be the norm from now on. I am no longer doing a daily article partly because I don't have time to either write or read/watch the material I'll be reviewing. So I need to find something to write on, but whatever it is it should be up this Saturday.

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.