And the Words Shall Spew Forth

Move Along

2008-10-01T00:50:00.002-07:00

Hey guess what! I've moved! I switched to a new, more powerful, web host. So if you want to continue to get new content then please update your bookmarks to macbezz.com. Hope to see you there!

Puppet On a String

2008-09-30T12:18:00.003-07:00

Today is the release of Forgetting Sarah Marshall on DVD. I highly encourage anyone to go and check it out. But besides that, I always want to encourage people to check out other singing puppets. Things like the play Avenue Q, the original Muppet Show and of course, Sesame Street. So go on out there and find some singing puppets. They're just awesome.

Lucky Ball & Chain

2008-09-29T08:06:00.000-07:00

A horrible romantic comedy:

What Happens in Vegas:

This film is bad on every level. The plot is completely ridiculous (worse than the whole "the judge sentenced him to be my butler plot" from Seinfeld, and that was supposed to be a joke). The cast is just bad. Everything about it is horribly cliched. And yet it was still a moderately successful film financially. I just don't get it. If someone could explain to me why that happens again and again I'd greatly appreciate it.

The scoring:

Writing:
Cliched. Ridiculous. The characters are flimsy. The dialogue is worse. There were a few moments that made me slightly chuckle, but that was all. 0.4/1

Directing:
The film is on 99 minutes long, but it felt much longer. The pace could have picked up considerably. Some interesting visuals would be a plus too. 0.45/1

Acting:
I'm not a fan of Cameron Diaz or Ashton Kutcher. Which means that I just thought their work in this film was wonderful, not (that right there is a joke that's about on the level of this film, just terrible. I'm ashamed to have even written it). The supporting cast shouldn't have to be associated with this review so they'll remain unmentioned. 0.4/1

Technical:
It looks all bright and flashy in the romantic comedy sort of way. Shooting in New York and Las Vegas never hurts in that department. But there isn't anything too exciting. 0.5/1

History:
Nope. 0.1/1

Entertainment:
It's light and stupid enough that it isn't too painful to watch. And thankfully, you'll pretty much forget it once it's over. But not exactly diverting either. 0.4/1

Misc.:
0.1 for "you know why."

Overall: 2.35/6.8

It's terrible. Avoid it please.

The Skin of My Yellow Country Teeth

2008-09-28T09:02:00.000-07:00

The new season of the Simpsons starts up tonight. No matter how long the show goes on, or the inevitable decline in quality that happens, I always enjoy it. Not every episode is a classic, but it's still a consistently good show. So I'll be there watching tonight, just like I have been for years. I recommend it.

Get Back

2008-09-26T22:07:00.002-07:00

I'm back from New Mexico, and should have a post about the trip up within the next little while. But today I'm just too exhausted from the trip. So yeah, back tomorrow.

Love Stinks

2008-09-25T08:30:00.000-07:00

A horrifically unfunny comedy:

The Love Guru:

Wow. This is just a horrible movie. I didn't expect to be very good, but not nearly as bad as it is. Pretty much it's unwatchable. Everything about it is just dumb. I don't know how they thought it was funny when they were making it.

The scoring:

Writing:
It's a whole series of jokes aiming for the lowest common denominator. There isn't any real character stuff, and the jokes aren't really funny at all. The plot is completely ridiculous, even for silly comedy standards. 0.2/1

Directing:
The pacing is decent, if a little inconsistent. The visuals are pretty boring. It's just all over the place. 0.35/1

Acting:
It's one not performances all around. Nothing special to talk about. Jessica Alba does her usual (look hot, but don't act much). Mike Myers is trying to carry the comedy load and failing. No one else is even worth mentioning. 0.35/1

Technical:
There are a couple design moments that are kind of cool, but mostly it isn't great. The effects aren't especially good either. 0.45/1

History:
Other than as a colossol failure, there isn't a bit of value. 0.2/1

Entertainment:
It isn't even in "so bad it's funny territory." I couldn't wait for it to end. And I was at work, so it's not like I had a lot of better options. 0.4/1

Misc.:
0.1 for the voiceover machine. Got a slight chuckle. 0.05 for attempting the Bollywood parody, even if it wasn't good.

Overall: 2.1/6.8

Horrible stuff. Avoid it like the plague. Or like two plagues.

Santa Fe

2008-09-24T08:50:00.001-07:00

I'm going away to New Mexico with Mica for just a short bit. So nothing new today, movie review tomorrow.

Star Wars Songs

2008-09-23T11:33:00.002-07:00

Last night was the season premiere (watch the whole thing online here) of How I Met Your Mother. The Ted/Marshall storyline ended up having a strange intersection with my own life. On the show Ted (Josh Radnor) had recently become engaged to his girlfriend Stella (Sarah Chalke), but had come to realize that he didn't actually know that much about her. Most importantly, he found out that she'd never seen his favorite film of all time, Star Wars. He loves the movie so much that her liking it, or not, takes on a major importance. He doesn't know if he can be with someone that doesn't love Star Wars.

Just yesterday at work I was having a conversation about much this same topic. About whether it's possible to tell what someone is like just from the things they like. If you had a questionairre that talked all about movies, tv, music and books would you be able to tell if someone was compatible with you? Initially, much like Marshall (Jason Segel) and Ted, I was of the opinion that it's hugely important what someone likes. If you can't share the things you love with a person then how much else could you have in common? But over the course of the conversation, I came to realize that it isn't exactly true. How much can you really base on a shared admiration of Star Wars, or anything else? You can't build something lasting on that flimsy of a base. So ulitmately it's really what the person is like, and not what they like that matters. I'm glad that at least Marshall came to agree with me.

Let It Burn

2008-09-22T08:10:00.000-07:00

The latest from the Coen brothers:

Burn After Reading:

I love the Coen brothers' films. Even some of their lesser works (The Ladykillers, Intolerable Cruelty) are still highly enjoyable. Their best stuff (No Country for Old Men, The Big Lebowski) is just plain fantastic. So I was very excited to see this film, and have to say that I enjoyed it. It's certainly not at the same level as their best work, but is solidly in the middle of the pack. It has some of the same sort of feel as Fargo, but without being quite as good. Burn After Reading is the Coen's version of the espionage thriller, which is just highly amusing.

The scoring:

Writing:
The characters are all fools, but they're interesting fools. The Coens have a knack for creating unique characters that are extremely flawed. The plot is at times confusingly complex. The dialogue is quite good. 0.8/1

Directing:
It's well paced, if a little jarringly structured. The visuals are very interesting. It shows their distinctive style (even though they had a new DP for this film). Solid work. 0.8/1

Acting:
It's an all star cast, that's for sure. George Clooney plays a complete buffoon. Which he's pretty good at. Frances McDormand is in her element. Great. Brad Pitt is a fool. Pure and simple. Which is a nice change of pace from what he's been doing lately. John Malkovich is crazy and intense. As per usual. Tilda Swinton is the ice queen. Which oddly enough she's played before. There's nothing groundbreaking here, but everyone does solidly professional work. 0.8/1

Technical:
It's a fairly low budget comedy that gets the most for it's money. The design is good, but there isn't anything super exciting about it. 0.7/1

History:
Made by one of the most well known writer/director teams, who are coming off a Best Picture win. 0.5/1

Entertainment:
There are laugh out loud moments. But the entire thing is more amusing than hilarious. It'll hold your attention though. 0.75/1

Misc.:
0.1 for Malkovich's, "You're Mormon! Everyone has a drinking problem compared to you!" 0.1 for all of J.K. Simmons' scenes. They were the funniest parts of the film for me. 0.1 for riding your bike to the blackmailing. 0.1 for the axe.

Overall: 4.75/6.8

Another solid effort from the Coens.

Love Invincible

2008-09-21T08:11:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading Soon I Will Be Invincible by Austin Grossman. It's a novel that tells the story of a super villain (Dr. Impossible) who's languishing in jail after being foiled in his twelfth attempt at world domination, and the story of a young up and coming cyborg super hero (Fatale) who may just be in over her heard.

It's a fantastically written book. It lets you in on a completely different side of the super powered life. Instead of just seeing the big moments, or the fights the book shows the quieter moments and inner thoughts of the characters. It's like being dropped right down in the middle of a world where super powers actually exist. For a comic book fan like myself, it's completely amazing, but I think that anyone could appreciate the book on a character/story level.

The only problem is that I think it's increasing my identification with the super villains even more. I couldn't really see myself in any of the heroes in the book, but shared a ton with Dr. Impossible. Which probably isn't a good thing, seeing how much frustration he has. Oh well, guess I'm just one step closer to villainy. Better work on my evil laugh.

Pirate Love

2008-09-20T08:17:00.001-07:00

The film that started the recent pirate craze:

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl:

When I first heard that they were making a film based on the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disneyland I was sure that it would be horrible. I mean, there isn't exactly a lot of story in the ride (not that I don't enjoy it, it's still one of my favorites- especially when there are high people wandering around the water- awesome). So I went into it expecting it to just be horrible, but was very pleasantly surprised. I highly enjoyed it. So much so that I went back and saw it two more times in theatres. It never takes itself very seriously, and is just a lot of fun. One of my favorite films of the past decade. Which makes the sequels all the more disappointing.

The scoring:

Writing:
The plot is ridiculous, as is most of the dialogue. The majority of the characters are thinly drawn, but Captain Jack Sparrow has some great depth, and real character moments. There are some highly hilarious jokes too. 0.75/1

Directing:
It's a little slow paced (the film is a bit long at well over two hours). The visuals are all action movie epic. It's solid professional work. 0.75/1

Acting:
Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley are both ok, but not doing anything special. Geoffrey Rush is completely over the top, but in a good way. It's Johnny Depp's performance as Jack Sparrow that carries the film. He manages to create a unique, hilarious character out of what could have just been a throwaway part. His Best Actor Oscar nomination was well deserved. 0.85/1

Technical:
It's got some spectacular desgin. The costumes, sets and props are amazing. The visual effects are quite good. It's a very good technical piece. 0.8/1

History:
5 Oscar nominations (lost them all though). Started a huge franchise. Brought Johnny Depp to the mainstream 0.5/1

Entertainment:
Highly entertaining. It's a light hearted fun time that still manages to grab your attention. There are very few films that I've been more entertained by. 0.9/1

Misc.:
0.1 for the arrival at the dock. 0.1 for all the moments that were taken directly from the ride. 0.1 for "I'd die for her. Oh good. No worries then." 0.1 for "Savvy."

Overall: 4.95/6.8

A highly enjoyable flick. If you haven't seen it, then you must.

Queen Anne's Revenge

2008-09-19T22:55:00.002-07:00

Happy International Talk Like A Pirate Day! Do some piratical nonsense or something of that sort. Arrr and avast ye!

Mannish Boy

2008-09-18T08:49:00.000-07:00

A hero's journey that you wouldn't expect:

Tommy Boy:

Back in high school I had a teacher that used Tommy Boy to teach about the concept of the hero's journey (Joseph Campbell monomyth kinda stuff). It fits surprisingly well. Tommy gets his call to adventure, goes out into the world (attempting to sell brake pads), encounters difficulties and returns. Obviously I'm not going to go through the whole thing (cause it'd take forever), but just think about it a little bit and you'll see it. So even though this is kind of a stupid movie, it's still fun and you can think about it at a deeper level if you really want to.

The scoring:

Writing:
There are some good jokes. The dialogue is fair to middling at best. The characters are two dimensional story tools, except for Tommy. It's not exactly great writing, but it's good enough. 0.65/1

Directing:
There's a nice quick pace that keeps the story moving along. It's perfect for a comedy. The visual style isn't anything special at all. It just looks like every other comedy of this type. 0.7/1

Acting:
Chris Farley is playing the same part he always played. The sort of stupid fat man with a heart of gold. It's not original, but he's good at it. And definitely worth a laugh. David Spade does decent work as the straight man to Farley's madness. The supporting cast doesn't really have much to do. 0.7/1

Technical:
There isn't really anything that stands out from a technical standpoint. It's all solid work that you'd never notice. 0.65/1

History:
One of the few Chris Farley films made before his death. A cult hit. 0.45/1

Entertainment:
It's a light and easy comedy that doesn't really stick with you after you watch it, but it's highly enjoyable when you do. With a high degree of rewatchability. 0.8/1

Misc.:
0.1 for when he kills his sale. 0.1 for destroying the cars (both toy and real). 0.05 for Rob Lowe at his smarmy best. 0.1 for no wind.

Overall: 4.3/6.8

Not spectacular, but very enjoyable.

You Sound Like Your Sick

2008-09-17T22:42:00.002-07:00

I hate allergies! Arrgh. I feel like I've had a cold for weeks now. It only seems to get worse, and nothing helps. So count me as someone that's ready for it to get cold. Let the pollen spreading evil plants plants freeze.

Mambo Italiano

2008-09-16T07:51:00.000-07:00

A remake of a late 60s action flick:

The Italian Job:

This is quite the entertaining film. It isn't particularly smart, or deep, but it knows how to get your attention. I found it to be highly enjoyable, and very rewatchable. It has a very admirable level of energy, which is sadly something that's often missing from this type of heist movies. And who doesn't love a good car chase with minis?

The scoring:

Writing:
It's fairly well written for what it is. There isn't any real character depth. All of the characters serve the plot instead of the other way around. But it is a pretty fun plot. The dialogue is decent, there's some good jokes. 0.7/1

Directing:
There's an excellent sense of pacing. It actually seems quicker than it's 111 minute running time. Which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. It has a fairly good visual style. 0.7/1

Acting:
There's quite a good cast here. Mark Wahlberg and Charlize Theron are good in the lead roles. They don't have the most exciting characters, but they ground the film well. Donald Sutherland is quite good as the elder statesman. Jason Statham, Mos Def and Seth Green are great fun in their supporting roles. Edward Norton is very well cast as the traitorous villain. 0.75/1

Technical:
There are some really fun design elements. There's a high standard of technical achievement. Nothing groundbreaking, but very solid, professional work. 0.7/1

History:
Remake of an old film. A sleeper hit. 0.4/1

Entertainment:
Highly entertaining. I don't think about how much I actually enjoy this film until I see it again. Which is pretty much all you can ask for. 0.85/1

Misc.:
0.1 for the mini car chase. Very fun. 0.1 for "the Napster." 0.1 for "a real bad experience."

Overall: 4.4/6.8

It's a fun, entertaining film.

Inches and Falling

2008-09-15T10:17:00.002-07:00

"Give all of us gathered here tonight the strength to remember that life is so very fragile. We are all vulnerable and we will all at some point in our lives fall; we will all fall. We must carry this in our hearts…that what we have is special. That it can be taken from us and that when it is taken from us we will be tested…we will be tested to our very souls. We will now all be tested. It is these times…it is this pain that allows us to look inside ourselves."

I've come across this quote quite a few times lately. It's from the pilot episode of Friday Night Lights. It's in one of the commerical for the new season (on DirectTv) which is playing in front of some movies in theaters. Plus we watched the pilot at Aubries house last Friday.

The first time I heard it (when originally watching the pilot) it didn't really pop out at me that much, but now that I've heard it a few times it really hits me. It's a powerfully inspirational message. One that seems to be fairly applicable. That's pretty much all I've got to say about that. I just keep encountering it, and felt like sharing.

Betrayal Takes Two

2008-09-14T08:27:00.000-07:00

A decent undercover thriller:

Traitor:

I've always enjoyed the genre of films where somebody goes undercover within some type of criminal organization. In fact, one of my favorite films is like that (The Departed). So I was obviously intrigued by Traitor. I'd have to say that I wasn't disappointed, but it didn't really impress me that much either. It was just kind of average, or maybe slightly above average. Enjoyable, but not anything too special.

The scoring:

Writing:
The dialogue at times gets a bit over the top, but not so far to be cringe worthy. The plot isn't too complex (at least I was able to figure out what was going to happen fairly early on), but is solid. It's well written, but doesn't stand out much from the pack. 0.7/1

Directing:
The pacing at time slows down to a crawl. I think that it could have probably been about 20 minutes shorter and it would have greatly improved. There is a bit of visual schizophrenia going on. It can't decide if it wants to be normal or Paul Greengrass handheld crazy. A bit distracting. 0.65/1

Acting:
Don Cheadle is very good in the lead role. He brings a lot of weight to the story. Guy Pierce was decent as a cop, but his not great Southern accent annoyed me a little. Saïd Taghmaoui (who's pretty much unknown to me) was quite decent as Omar. Neal McDonough was solid. There's an overall high level of acting skill in the film. 0.8/1

Technical:
It had some excellent design elements. The look of the scenes in Yemen was especially impressive. There was some very good location work. Solid technically. 0.7/1

History:
Another in a long line of "war on terror" projects. 0.35/1

Entertainment:
It was interesting, if a bit long. I would say that I was fairly interested throughout, but it didn't completely grab me. 0.75/1

Misc.:
0.05 for the all the chess boards. Some of them were quite cool lookin. 0.1 for "every twelve year old in the county has a Kaleshnikov." 0.1 for the story idea coming from Steve Martin. Never would have thought.

Overall: 4.3/6.8

A decent thriller, but nothing special.

Rise Above

2008-09-13T09:51:00.003-07:00

Based on a recommendation from one of the guys on the GeeksOn podcast I recently picked up the graphic novel Ascend. What intrigued me (aside from the recommendation) was that the book sounded very much like an odd dream I had involving an angel.

Ascend tells the story of two brothers (Sebastian and Gabriel) and a sister (Seraphine) who die, ascend, and join the army of angels. This army has been involved in a war with the underworld for an eternity. They're losing the war so Gabriel decides to start killing humans to add them to the ranks of angels. Which is something of a problem, not so much being allowed. This gets the siblings banished back to earth, forced to live among humanity. Which they all do in a different way. It's all very mythos heavy, and kind of confusing at times.

I can't say that it's a great book. The artwork is amazing, with a look that seems like a combination of great painting and Photoshop. I was very impressed with the art, but the story can be a little confusing (and the dialogue painful). Not having any speech bubbles makes things extra hard to follow. So I'd give in a A for the art and a C- for everything else. Makes it a solid read, but not fantastic.

Smartest Bomb

2008-09-12T08:48:00.000-07:00

A less than enjoyable flick:

Smart People:

This film should have been better than it was. It has some decent ideas, but their execution just isn't that great. I find that all of the characters are just plain unlikeable. There wasn't anyone in the film that I found myself wanting to root for. The most likable one of the bunch is Chuck (Thomas Haden Church), who still gets his underage niece drunk and stoned. And everyone else is pretty much a jerk throughout the entire film. I couldn't understand why anyone would want to spend any time with these people. Made the film hard to watch. The complete lack of chemistry between Dennis Quaid and Sarah Jessica Parker didn't help much either. It isn't a horrible movie, but wasn't that good either.

The scoring:

Writing:
The dialogue is decent. The story is simple, but ok. It's the characters that are the real problem. There doesn't seem to be much actual character growth. They start out as jerks and end the same way, with just a little waffling in between. 0.65/1

Directing:
The pacing can at times be ridiculously slow. Some scenes seemed to go on forever when they really didn't need to. The visuals are solid, not spectacular. 0.65/1

Acting:
There are some decent performances here. Dennis Quaid is good, if a bit one note. Ellen Page and Thomas Haden Church do solid work in supporting roles. I've never cared much for Sarah Jessica Parker, but she isn't bad here. 0.75/1

Technical:
It's all solidly designed and shot in that academic drama sort of way. There isn't really anything that sets it apart on this front. 0.65/1

History:
Probably won't have much lasting impact. It'll soon be forgotten. 0.3/1

Entertainment:
I found my attention drifting quite often. It isn't really boring, but there wasn't much that really grabbed me. 0.6/1

Misc.:
0.1 for David Denman. I'm a fan. He is Skip and Roy after all. 0.1 for the book title, You Can't Read. I might actually consider reading something called that.

Overall: 3.8/6.8

It's just kind of meh. I wish it had been better.

Remember Us

2008-09-11T09:34:00.000-07:00

Vindicated

2008-09-10T08:15:00.000-07:00

A second go round from the web head:

Spider-man 2:

Now that all the exposition and origin story stuff was out of the way, the Spider-man franchise got down to telling a real story in this film. It's an amazing piece of work, probably the best superhero film ever made up until this summer. There's some great character development for Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) and Harry Osborn (James Franco). But the villain is what really makes this film an improvement over the first. Otto Octavius/Doc. Ock is a complex person with real emotions and motivations that's wonderfully played by Alfred Molina. His addition to the film adds a real weight and depth, elevating it above the normal action film level. It's very good work all around.

The scoring:

Writing:
The characterizations are fairly deep. The dialogue can at times still be a little corny, but it's definitely improved from the first film. The story isn't overly complex, but has enough depth to make it interesting. 0.8/1

Directing:
The pacing is spot on, building up to the climax of the film. There are some interesting visuals. Sam Raimi is really comfortable with the world he's working in at this point. 0.8/1

Acting:
Tobey Maguire hits the drama, action and comedy at all the right times. Kirsten Dunst is better here than she is in either of the other Spider-man films. Which isn't really saying much, but at least it's improvement. James Franco is good, but not great. Alfred Molina does great work as the villain, mostly resisting the urge to go completely over the top. 0.8/1

Technical:
The visual effects are improved from the first film. Everything looks less cartoony this time around. Which is a good thing. The design is still excellent. 0.85/1

History:
One of the highest grossing films ever. The best film in the franchise. 0.65/1

Entertainment:
It's very entertaining, with elements that almost everyone should enjoy. I've watched it many times and it never fails to deliver the entertainment value. 0.9/1

Misc.:
0.1 for Bruce Campbell yet again. He's always a highlight of the Spider-man films. 0.1 for the battle on top of the train. Very cool. 0.1 for the scene with Doc Ock in the hospital. Very reminicent of Raimi's horror films. 0.1 for the opening credits. With Alex Ross artwork! 0.1 for the elevator scene. Uncomfortably hilarious.

Overall: 5.3/6.8

It's a wonderful film, and highly entertaining.

Learn to Crawl

2008-09-09T08:30:00.001-07:00

The film that really kicked off the current wave of comic book flicks:

Spider-man:

When this came out it was the best super hero film I'd ever seen. It respects the source material, portrays interesting characters and still manages to have some good action. This isn't to say that it isn't campy, because it definitely is, but it's well made and a lot of fun. Without someone bringing this level of storytelling and acting to the super hero genre we'd never have gotten to see later films (like the Dark Knight) that are amazing in their own right, and not just as super hero comic adaptations.

The scoring:

Writing:
The dialogue can at times be pretty corny, especially for the Green Goblin, but it's not too bad most of the time. The plot is straighforward, but well thought out. The characters are well developed (well maybe not quite as much for Mary Jane, but that's ok), fully realized people. It deftly presents the orgin story of Spider-man, giving us a look not only into how he became a super hero, but also how he became the person he is. 0.7/1

Directing:

The pacing is a little slow in places, but overall it has a very good sense of pace. Sam Raimi's visual style is always good, he has a real feel for how to shoot action scenes while still being able to go for the comedy. 0.75/1

Acting:
Tobey Maguire does solid work as Peter Parker/Spider-man. He handles both sides of the part admirably. Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn/Green Goblin) is chewing the scenery, but that's kind of what people hire him for. I'd have liked it to be a little more real, but it's not completely out of place. I'm just not a fan of Kirsten Dunst's acting, she isn't bad, but doesn't bring much to the table. James Franco doesn't have much to do, but he is good with what he does have. It's a solid cast. 0.75/1

Technical:
There are some very good visual effects, they aren't perfect, but still something special. The design is spot on, except for the Green Goblin, I just don't like his look. 0.8/1

History:
It kicked off one of the biggest film franchises ever, and helped to revive the super hero comic film. 0.7/1

Entertainment:
It's a fine, quite entertaining film. I wouldn't say that it's the greatest thing ever, but it held my attention for the entire running time, but some repeat viewings. 0.8/1

Misc.:
0.1 for casting J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. It's just inspired. He's perfect for the part. 0.1 for Bruce Campbell. He has to be in all of Raimi's films and I just can't help chuckling when I see him. 0.1 for figuring out how to use the web slinging power. Hilarious. 0.1 for "with great power comes great resposibility," it's the iconic line. 0.05 for the people singing the Spider-man theme song. Funny stuff.

Overall: 4.95/6.8

It's a high quality fun time. I always enjoy it.

Highly Evolved

2008-09-08T11:18:00.002-07:00

I've been looking forward to the release of the computer game Spore for a very long time. They announced it a couple years ago and from the very first screen shot and description I wanted to play it. It was finally released on Sunday and I've been highly enjoying it so far.

Spore is a game where you chart the evolution of a species from the single cell stage up through tribes, civilization, and exploring the galaxy. Every change you make at the smallest level will be reflected as you move along through the stages. It's an amazingly addictive experience. Currently I'm in the midst of the space stage and it's just fantastic.

One of the most interesting features of the game is that it's an, "massively single player online game." In other words, even though you don't have any direct interaction with other players, content that they create (like creatures, vehicles and buildings) is uploaded to the Spore servers and then used to populate other people's games. It's interesting to encounter the things that other people come up with.

It's a highly enjoyable game, and I'd recommend it for anyone. Even a casual gamer should enjoy it.

Some Loud Thunder

2008-09-07T06:49:00.000-07:00

The controversial comedy:

Tropic Thunder:

For a film that's all controversial because it's supposed to be offensive, I sure didn't find much to be offended by. It was just an everyday R rated comedy. Nothing more offensive than that. That's also about how good it was. I'm not a fan of Ben Stiller's work, either as an actor or a director, I just don't find his sense of humor particularly funny. I would say that I liked Tropic Thunder more than any of his other directorial efforts, but that isn't really saying much. It's just a slightly above average comedy.

The scoring:

Writing:
It's hit or miss with the jokes. Some of them really work. Others don't even come close. The characters are mostly completely over the top caricatures of different acting archetypes. There isn't a lot of depth there. The plot is fairly straight forward and completely ridiculous. 0.65/1

Directing:
In the second half of the film things become bogged down in the huge action set pieces instead of focusing on the comedy elements which actually worked. There are some very good visuals, but they aren't always serving the story. 0.65/1

Acting:
Robert Downey Jr. is very good playing a method actor that had his skin color changed to play a part. He makes a very difficult part look easy. Jack Black is decent in his little part as a drug addicted comedian. I didn't care for Stiller much. Too much of his mugging for the camera and shouting like usual. But he was much better than Danny McBride, who I don't think I've ever seen give a performance I enjoyed (not even in the Foot Fist Way, which people seem to love for some reason). Nick Nolte is a lot of fun in his part and Jay Baruchel actually gets to be an action hero towards the end of the film. Crazy. 0.75/1

Technical:
The effects and design are very good. The budget of the film really shows in the action sequences. They look just as good as a real big budget summer action flick. 0.75/1

History:
Stirred up some controversy. A hit film. Might have a little bit of a shelf life. 0.5/1

Entertainment:
There were some wildly entertaining sequences. And I wouldn't say that I ever got bored, but the LPMs (Laughs Per Minute) weren't especially high for a comedy. 0.7/1

Misc.:
0.2 for Tom Cruise's and Bill Hader's small parts. They were probably the funny parts in the film. Hilarious stuff. I didn't know Cruise had it in him anymore. 0.1 for the fake trailer for Satan's Alley, that stars Tobey Maguire alongside Downey Jr. It actually made me laugh out loud. 0.1 for The Jeffersons theme song. Who doesn't love the Jeffersons? 0.05 for the bat who ODed.

Overall: 4.45/6.8

It's a decent action comedy with some very funny moments.

Thief You've Taken All That Was Me

2008-09-06T20:49:00.004-07:00

In the mail today I finally got the package for the new camera I ordered a couple weeks ago. The only problem was that when I opened it the camera had been stolen. The bottom of the package had been cut open, the camera torn out of its packaging, and then taped back up. It's extremely frustrating! Like opening a present at Christmas only to find out that it's empty. Arrgh!

Circuit City's customer service says that I should (hopefully) be able to either get a new camera or a refund within the next 3 to 5 business days. So I guess I just have to wait around. Thanks whoever stole it! I appreciate it!