Rating: C-
While this movie makes much more sense than DJ Caruso's Eagle Eye, it is simply too lightweight and fluffy to be taken seriously. Of course, this movie is also catering to the Twilight demographic, you know, the demographic that enjoys watching shirtless pretty boys. Thankfully, there were no shirtless scenes. Haha.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Why the heck does Timothy Olyphant think that grinding his teeth when he talks makes him look tough? And who is this Alex Pettyfer kid and why does he think that he can act? While the first 15 minutes of the movie were decent, and the last 20 minutes of the movie was entertaining enough, there is about an hour and a half or so of this movie that is pure and utter fluff. The entire middle section of the movie was a snoozefest, focusing on teenage puppy love and high school drama that, by the way, disappeared in the blink of an eye.
And I'd say, that without Teresa Palmer, I probably would have given this movie a D. I don't care that she was only in about 15minutes of the movie, but she was hot. Which means, I'm torn about whether or not I want to watch the sequel, which it hints at in the special edition. HAHA.
~Cheers.
Thursday, 30 June 2011
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Game: Green Lantern - Rise of the Manhunters (2011)
Genre: 3rd Person Action
Game Play: 3 / 5
Graphics: 3.5 / 5
Storyline: 3.5 / 5
Re-Playability: 3 / 5
Overall: 3 / 5
Quite honestly, I enjoyed it. I like playing games with heavy story support. And quite frankly, I found the story more compelling than the Green Lantern movie.
I played the PS3 version of the game. After games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted, and Assassin's Creed, I've come to expect some spectacular graphics. Unfortunately, Rise of the Manhunters came just a little short. And I found the entire game to be such. It just came up a little bit short. It was ok, entertaining enough, but there wasn't anything great about it.
You're either running through a pretty linear plane, or flying through the air. When you're in the air, so long as you keep moving, you pretty much can't die, and you'll make it through the section. On the ground, you get to use your ring. There are some super moves that you can use the ring for, called "Constructs". Constructs are available for purchase with experience points. There are enough constructs to buy to play the game MAYBE 2x. But I was really hoping for a whole lot more. There are some puzzles in the game, but none that gave you too much grief.
I did however, encounter a couple of glitches that I wasn't too pleased about. After unlocking one of the doors, it was still locked. I ended up going online to check the walkthrough and found no additional locks for the door. I was finally able to get through it after turning the machine completely off and then back on. Really, it was a bit of a nuisance. I'm not sure if it was just the disc I had that was missing this information, or if it's missing on the PS3 system. There is one piece of key information that, again, I found on the walkthrough that wasn't part of the dialogue in my game. Once I heard that, I was able to get through the level. But it wasn't available on my game at all.
Aside from a few nuisances, the game isn't horrible. Granted, Green Lantern was one of my favourites growing up, so that might have something to do with it. Oh, if you want to beat the game REALLY easily? Have Player 2 jump in. Just to stand there. The AI's for some reason enjoy beating up the decoy more than beating up on you.
~Cheers.
I'm glad that the storyline was separate from the movie tho.
Game Play: 3 / 5
Graphics: 3.5 / 5
Storyline: 3.5 / 5
Re-Playability: 3 / 5
Overall: 3 / 5
Quite honestly, I enjoyed it. I like playing games with heavy story support. And quite frankly, I found the story more compelling than the Green Lantern movie.
I played the PS3 version of the game. After games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted, and Assassin's Creed, I've come to expect some spectacular graphics. Unfortunately, Rise of the Manhunters came just a little short. And I found the entire game to be such. It just came up a little bit short. It was ok, entertaining enough, but there wasn't anything great about it.
You're either running through a pretty linear plane, or flying through the air. When you're in the air, so long as you keep moving, you pretty much can't die, and you'll make it through the section. On the ground, you get to use your ring. There are some super moves that you can use the ring for, called "Constructs". Constructs are available for purchase with experience points. There are enough constructs to buy to play the game MAYBE 2x. But I was really hoping for a whole lot more. There are some puzzles in the game, but none that gave you too much grief.
I did however, encounter a couple of glitches that I wasn't too pleased about. After unlocking one of the doors, it was still locked. I ended up going online to check the walkthrough and found no additional locks for the door. I was finally able to get through it after turning the machine completely off and then back on. Really, it was a bit of a nuisance. I'm not sure if it was just the disc I had that was missing this information, or if it's missing on the PS3 system. There is one piece of key information that, again, I found on the walkthrough that wasn't part of the dialogue in my game. Once I heard that, I was able to get through the level. But it wasn't available on my game at all.
Aside from a few nuisances, the game isn't horrible. Granted, Green Lantern was one of my favourites growing up, so that might have something to do with it. Oh, if you want to beat the game REALLY easily? Have Player 2 jump in. Just to stand there. The AI's for some reason enjoy beating up the decoy more than beating up on you.
~Cheers.
I'm glad that the storyline was separate from the movie tho.
Monday, 27 June 2011
Blogger's Note: 4000 Page Views...
Wow. Another 1,000 page views. Thanks everyone for the support! More amazing, it's only taken 20 days to get from 3,000 to 4,000! At the beginning of the year, I'd said that I was going to aim to post 2x a week for 2011. This will have been my 48th post this year. So I'm pretty much on track. And much of it, I have to thank all of you. It's really encouraging to see the page view numbers every time I log in to put up another post. So from the bottom of my heart, thank you.
5,000 is going to be a bit of a milestone for me. And so, my token of appreciation is going to be a bit bigger. Again, same rules. First person to send a comment that they are the first comment on or after 5,000 page views will get a little gift as token of my gratitude.
Wow. 5,000. I can hardly imagine.While a few of you are following this little blog of mine, I really wish I knew who the rest of you were so I could thank you all personally. So please, feel free to comment lots and often! Thanks again!
~Cheers.
5,000 is going to be a bit of a milestone for me. And so, my token of appreciation is going to be a bit bigger. Again, same rules. First person to send a comment that they are the first comment on or after 5,000 page views will get a little gift as token of my gratitude.
Wow. 5,000. I can hardly imagine.While a few of you are following this little blog of mine, I really wish I knew who the rest of you were so I could thank you all personally. So please, feel free to comment lots and often! Thanks again!
~Cheers.
Movie: Biutiful (2010)
Rating: C+
I generally stay away from watching foreign films. I don't particularly like watching movies where I have to stare at the bottom of the screen because I can't understand the words that are coming out of the people's mouths. But subtitles are a heck of a lot better than poor attempts at dubbing films. But Biutiful was one of those movies that piqued my interest with Javier Bardem in the starring role and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu directing.
Quite honestly, I didn't know what to expect. The trailer doesn't seem to tell you a whole lot, although it makes much more sense after you've sat through 2.5 hours of Uxbal(lead character)'s life spiraling out of control in a downward race to devastation and despair. Bardem's portrayal of Uxbal is flawless and is absolutely the saving grace to this otherwise depressing film. In an otherwise brutal depiction of how devastating the world can be to a person and their family, Bardem's eyes alone tell the tale of a man's love for his family and his struggle to set things right.
But unfortunately, Inarritu tries too hard. Perhaps there are things in Spanish culture I'm missing, but there were so many parts of the movie that I found were absolutely unnecessary. There were storylines that had no bearing on the main storyline itself, as well as relationships inserted seemingly for the sole reason of making the audience uncomfortable. In an otherwise straightforward and painfully beautiful story about a man and his family, these scenes dragged the movie on, and made the movie somewhat arduous to watch.
~Cheers
I generally stay away from watching foreign films. I don't particularly like watching movies where I have to stare at the bottom of the screen because I can't understand the words that are coming out of the people's mouths. But subtitles are a heck of a lot better than poor attempts at dubbing films. But Biutiful was one of those movies that piqued my interest with Javier Bardem in the starring role and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu directing.
Quite honestly, I didn't know what to expect. The trailer doesn't seem to tell you a whole lot, although it makes much more sense after you've sat through 2.5 hours of Uxbal(lead character)'s life spiraling out of control in a downward race to devastation and despair. Bardem's portrayal of Uxbal is flawless and is absolutely the saving grace to this otherwise depressing film. In an otherwise brutal depiction of how devastating the world can be to a person and their family, Bardem's eyes alone tell the tale of a man's love for his family and his struggle to set things right.
But unfortunately, Inarritu tries too hard. Perhaps there are things in Spanish culture I'm missing, but there were so many parts of the movie that I found were absolutely unnecessary. There were storylines that had no bearing on the main storyline itself, as well as relationships inserted seemingly for the sole reason of making the audience uncomfortable. In an otherwise straightforward and painfully beautiful story about a man and his family, these scenes dragged the movie on, and made the movie somewhat arduous to watch.
~Cheers
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Commercial: Glico - Ice no Mi (2011)
Rating: A+
Are you freaking kidding me?! Some of you might already know about the secret behind this commercial, but for those of you who haven't, I CHALLENGE you to figure out what that secret is.
One of the girls in the commercial isn't real. Watch it again. See who it is THIS time? Her name is Aimi Eguchi, and she is, in actuality, the best features of all the other girls. Love it or hate it, it's got people talking about Glico. It's got people talking about their product Ice Nomi. And it's got people talking about the 61 (now 62) member group AKB48.
Still don't believe me? Here's the making of clip:
Great publicity, Great concept, Great gimmick! I wonder if they'll keep Aimi as a permanent 62nd member.
~Cheers.
Are you freaking kidding me?! Some of you might already know about the secret behind this commercial, but for those of you who haven't, I CHALLENGE you to figure out what that secret is.
One of the girls in the commercial isn't real. Watch it again. See who it is THIS time? Her name is Aimi Eguchi, and she is, in actuality, the best features of all the other girls. Love it or hate it, it's got people talking about Glico. It's got people talking about their product Ice Nomi. And it's got people talking about the 61 (now 62) member group AKB48.
Still don't believe me? Here's the making of clip:
Great publicity, Great concept, Great gimmick! I wonder if they'll keep Aimi as a permanent 62nd member.
~Cheers.
Movie: Big Fish (2003)
Rating: A
Tim Burton tells an ebullient story by doing what he does best; bringing reality into a realm of fantasy and wacky wonder. Armed with heartfelt warmth from the likes of Andrew Finney and Jessica Lange, it was probably one of the most touching movies of 2003, and probably my favourite movie from Tim Burton.
Aside from making Danny DeVito unfortunately look like Ron Jeremy, it's hard to think of anything I didn't like about the movie. And if it doesn't bring a tear or two to your eyes and leave you with a smile feeling like a kid again, I've got to wonder if you've got a heart.
This isn't a movie that you want to make sense out of everything. It's like lying in bed as a kid, eager to hear your grandfather re-tell stories of his glory years in a bedtime story form. It's seeing those stories come to life, and never really knowing which part is true and which isn't, and in this movie, seeing all of that come to life. It's sweet, it's sad, it's wonderfully wacky.
~Cheers.
Tim Burton tells an ebullient story by doing what he does best; bringing reality into a realm of fantasy and wacky wonder. Armed with heartfelt warmth from the likes of Andrew Finney and Jessica Lange, it was probably one of the most touching movies of 2003, and probably my favourite movie from Tim Burton.
Aside from making Danny DeVito unfortunately look like Ron Jeremy, it's hard to think of anything I didn't like about the movie. And if it doesn't bring a tear or two to your eyes and leave you with a smile feeling like a kid again, I've got to wonder if you've got a heart.
This isn't a movie that you want to make sense out of everything. It's like lying in bed as a kid, eager to hear your grandfather re-tell stories of his glory years in a bedtime story form. It's seeing those stories come to life, and never really knowing which part is true and which isn't, and in this movie, seeing all of that come to life. It's sweet, it's sad, it's wonderfully wacky.
~Cheers.
Sunday, 19 June 2011
Movie: The Tree of Life (2011)
Rating: B-
OK. I get it. The world is like a tree. And like a tree, it grows and spreads, and splits, and blossoms. Our lives too, reflect that. But in all that imagery and symbolism and beauty and awe, there needs to be some sense of cohesion, flow, and continuity. Somewhere. Anywhere.
Terrence Malick starts the movie off with random shots of the past, the present, and the future with some awe inspiring shots of absolute magnificence that is so randomly perplexing that while some might call it cinematic poetry, I can only describe as a convoluted collection of photographic genius that left me to wonder if this was some randomised National Geographic footage. All that was missing was the Alexander Scourby narration (although I guess these days, it would probably be done by Morgan Freeman. Haha).
Aside from the first 40 minutes where Malick tries to randomly select beautifully crafted footage to symbolise the creation of the world, including shots of waterfalls, volcanoes, and I'm sorry...Dinosaurs(?!)...There is a feebly concocted jagged story of a father (played by Brad Pitt) and his family. While some of the arbitrarily selected snippets showed a boy's struggle growing up, it's a pretty weak collection of memories for the boy to grow up to be so morose and tormented. The boy grows up to look remarkably like Sean Penn, which makes no sense because there's really no reason for him to be in the movie. Oh right...so that they could put his name on the poster.
If, somehow, you're able to see past the arbitrary randomness to the symbolic abstractions, this distorted metaphor for "The Tree of Life" is a visually stunning, cinematically perplexing experience.
~Cheers.
Blogger's Note: I loved the way Mike Ward from Richmond.com finished off his review of the movie:
"I admire “The Tree of Life” – in the same way I admire the white-haired lady in the “Guinness Book of World Records” with 28-foot fingernails. By the way, after “The Tree of Life,” you’ll probably have to cut your nails, just saying."
OK. I get it. The world is like a tree. And like a tree, it grows and spreads, and splits, and blossoms. Our lives too, reflect that. But in all that imagery and symbolism and beauty and awe, there needs to be some sense of cohesion, flow, and continuity. Somewhere. Anywhere.
Terrence Malick starts the movie off with random shots of the past, the present, and the future with some awe inspiring shots of absolute magnificence that is so randomly perplexing that while some might call it cinematic poetry, I can only describe as a convoluted collection of photographic genius that left me to wonder if this was some randomised National Geographic footage. All that was missing was the Alexander Scourby narration (although I guess these days, it would probably be done by Morgan Freeman. Haha).
Aside from the first 40 minutes where Malick tries to randomly select beautifully crafted footage to symbolise the creation of the world, including shots of waterfalls, volcanoes, and I'm sorry...Dinosaurs(?!)...There is a feebly concocted jagged story of a father (played by Brad Pitt) and his family. While some of the arbitrarily selected snippets showed a boy's struggle growing up, it's a pretty weak collection of memories for the boy to grow up to be so morose and tormented. The boy grows up to look remarkably like Sean Penn, which makes no sense because there's really no reason for him to be in the movie. Oh right...so that they could put his name on the poster.
If, somehow, you're able to see past the arbitrary randomness to the symbolic abstractions, this distorted metaphor for "The Tree of Life" is a visually stunning, cinematically perplexing experience.
~Cheers.
Blogger's Note: I loved the way Mike Ward from Richmond.com finished off his review of the movie:
"I admire “The Tree of Life” – in the same way I admire the white-haired lady in the “Guinness Book of World Records” with 28-foot fingernails. By the way, after “The Tree of Life,” you’ll probably have to cut your nails, just saying."
Saturday, 18 June 2011
Movie: Green Lantern (2011)
Rating: C+
Seriously, I'm getting a little tired of movies meandering in mediocrity this year. I've yet to see a single film this year that's blown me away. 2010 was a Smörgåsbord of absolutely brilliant films. Green Lantern, continues this trend of pedestrian product.
Green Lantern is JUST funny enough, JUST presentable enough, JUST entertaining enough, JUST...well...I think you know what I'm getting at. It's a good thing they cast Ryan Reynolds in the lead role, otherwise, I fear this movie would have just fallen flat. I mean, just when I was starting to think that Blake Lively could act (See The Town), she goes back gives a performance that is JUST noticeable enough.
As with X-Men: First Class, and Thor earlier this year, the introduction of the movie takes too long. They don't really have much of a choice, they're trying to introduce everybody and trying to set up the situation, but the movie is (thankfully) only 105 minutes long, but the introduction is unfortunately, too long, too tedious, and too tiresome. It does seem however, that there will be a sequel. If that's the case, I think that they will do a better job of it all. Less flying back and forth between planets and less trying to figure out who I am moments.
To summarise, it's JUST watchable enough.
Just a few more personal thoughts after the Jump....
Seriously, I'm getting a little tired of movies meandering in mediocrity this year. I've yet to see a single film this year that's blown me away. 2010 was a Smörgåsbord of absolutely brilliant films. Green Lantern, continues this trend of pedestrian product.
Green Lantern is JUST funny enough, JUST presentable enough, JUST entertaining enough, JUST...well...I think you know what I'm getting at. It's a good thing they cast Ryan Reynolds in the lead role, otherwise, I fear this movie would have just fallen flat. I mean, just when I was starting to think that Blake Lively could act (See The Town), she goes back gives a performance that is JUST noticeable enough.
As with X-Men: First Class, and Thor earlier this year, the introduction of the movie takes too long. They don't really have much of a choice, they're trying to introduce everybody and trying to set up the situation, but the movie is (thankfully) only 105 minutes long, but the introduction is unfortunately, too long, too tedious, and too tiresome. It does seem however, that there will be a sequel. If that's the case, I think that they will do a better job of it all. Less flying back and forth between planets and less trying to figure out who I am moments.
To summarise, it's JUST watchable enough.
Just a few more personal thoughts after the Jump....
Friday, 17 June 2011
Movie: Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)
Rating: A-
Too many sequels are money mongering excuses to build a franchise, that just regurgitate the same story in a different setting (ie, The Hangover Part 2). Kung Fu Panda 2 is among the select few sequels that might actually be better than its first installment.
The story, while nothing new, is compelling enough to be retold. The jokes actually have some thought put in to them and fitting for all ages. The star studded voice cast did an admirable job.While I would have liked to have seen the supporting cast be more involved, the story would have been far too complex to properly use ALL of them.
I loved the artwork when they were talking about the past, in particular, Po's little stuffed toy. Very adorable. It's great to see them use a different art style to differentiate what is now and what was THEN.
Is it twice the awesomeness as advertised? Yes it is!
Too many sequels are money mongering excuses to build a franchise, that just regurgitate the same story in a different setting (ie, The Hangover Part 2). Kung Fu Panda 2 is among the select few sequels that might actually be better than its first installment.
The story, while nothing new, is compelling enough to be retold. The jokes actually have some thought put in to them and fitting for all ages. The star studded voice cast did an admirable job.While I would have liked to have seen the supporting cast be more involved, the story would have been far too complex to properly use ALL of them.
I loved the artwork when they were talking about the past, in particular, Po's little stuffed toy. Very adorable. It's great to see them use a different art style to differentiate what is now and what was THEN.
Is it twice the awesomeness as advertised? Yes it is!
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Movie: Phoebe in Wonderland (2008)
Rating: B
Watching Super 8 yesterday and seeing how far Elle Fanning has come, really made me think of the first time I noticed this young actress. For one, she's Dakota Fanning's younger sister, and for another, she's a fantastically gifted young actress in her own right.
To be quite honest, some of the 'extra' characters kind of put me off of this movie. And when you watch it, you'll know what 'extra' characters I mean. I found them to be pretty annoying and I think that's why critically, it wasn't extremely well received. But if you put those characters aside, the movie was very touching, and in the end, very delightful.
In particular, Elle's portrayal as young Phoebe was particularly breathtaking. Watching her struggle with the little idiosyncrasies that made her so different was both depressing and heart warming. It totally helps that you have such acclaimed actors in Felicity Huffman and Bill Pullman playing Phoebe's parents. Their warmth, their struggles, and their love really made this movie believable; and perhaps more importantly, made the audience care.
~Cheers.
Watching Super 8 yesterday and seeing how far Elle Fanning has come, really made me think of the first time I noticed this young actress. For one, she's Dakota Fanning's younger sister, and for another, she's a fantastically gifted young actress in her own right.
To be quite honest, some of the 'extra' characters kind of put me off of this movie. And when you watch it, you'll know what 'extra' characters I mean. I found them to be pretty annoying and I think that's why critically, it wasn't extremely well received. But if you put those characters aside, the movie was very touching, and in the end, very delightful.
In particular, Elle's portrayal as young Phoebe was particularly breathtaking. Watching her struggle with the little idiosyncrasies that made her so different was both depressing and heart warming. It totally helps that you have such acclaimed actors in Felicity Huffman and Bill Pullman playing Phoebe's parents. Their warmth, their struggles, and their love really made this movie believable; and perhaps more importantly, made the audience care.
~Cheers.
Monday, 13 June 2011
Movie: Super 8 (2011)
Rating: B
From the director that brought you Alias, Lost, and Fringe; the director that totally, and single-handedly revitalised the Star Trek franchise, J.J. Abrams brings mystery, suspense, and sublime terror to Super 8.
The younger sister best known for playing the younger version of her older sister, I was first impressed with Elle Fanning in Phoebe in Wonderland. And again, she totally shines in this movie. Any scene that she's in, you simply could not keep your eyes off of her.
The story line was too ambitious. And sometimes I think that's what happens when you're used to directing TV. There are episodes in a TV series, and generally you can space it out in 20 hours of broadcast material. In a movie, you have to shrink all that in to 2 hours. And by trying to cram so much into a 2 hour film, you end up with holes and unanswered questions that could have been avoided if they had simply not tried to do so much.
So while there are obvious holes in this movie, Abrams brings you back to the rural innocence of 1979, and taking a page out of Spielberg's ET in a film that makes you care about the characters while continuously building up the suspense around the cargo from the train wreck. Some call it suspension of disbelief, but I think in this case, it's more abandonment of logic. That being said, the kids were definitely the saving grace of this movie. And despite these flaws, Super 8 is still one of the best movies released this year so far.
~Cheers.
From the director that brought you Alias, Lost, and Fringe; the director that totally, and single-handedly revitalised the Star Trek franchise, J.J. Abrams brings mystery, suspense, and sublime terror to Super 8.
The younger sister best known for playing the younger version of her older sister, I was first impressed with Elle Fanning in Phoebe in Wonderland. And again, she totally shines in this movie. Any scene that she's in, you simply could not keep your eyes off of her.
The story line was too ambitious. And sometimes I think that's what happens when you're used to directing TV. There are episodes in a TV series, and generally you can space it out in 20 hours of broadcast material. In a movie, you have to shrink all that in to 2 hours. And by trying to cram so much into a 2 hour film, you end up with holes and unanswered questions that could have been avoided if they had simply not tried to do so much.
So while there are obvious holes in this movie, Abrams brings you back to the rural innocence of 1979, and taking a page out of Spielberg's ET in a film that makes you care about the characters while continuously building up the suspense around the cargo from the train wreck. Some call it suspension of disbelief, but I think in this case, it's more abandonment of logic. That being said, the kids were definitely the saving grace of this movie. And despite these flaws, Super 8 is still one of the best movies released this year so far.
~Cheers.
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Critique: Blue-Ray 3D
Rating: F
Last month, Blockbuster's Canadian Unit filed for bankruptcy protection. With news that Blockbuster would be closing a handful of stores, I went to see if there were any good deals to be had. I saw a copy of Tron: Legacy for Blue-Ray 3D and thought about picking it up. But taking a look at the package, I decided to put it down.
To watch the movie in 3D you need:
- A 3D TV
- 3D Glasses
- 3D Player
- 3D Disc
Really?! Are you kidding me?! While I understand the need for all of these components, I am NOT shelling out for a new TV, at LEAST 2 pairs of 3D glasses, AND a 3D friendly Blue-Ray Player JUST so I can watch a movie. And anyone foolish enough to do so really needs their head examined.
A 3D TV (46")costs roughly $2,500. A pair of 3D glasses will run (depending on which pair you buy) about $150. Each. Unless you plan on watching movies alone, you'll need at least 2 pairs, so that's $300. A Playstation3 console is probably the best value you'll get for a 3D capable player, and that will cost another $300. So before you even consider watching a movie in 3D, you've already spent $3,500.
Watching a movie in 3D at the local cinema will run you roughly $15. Even if you're paying for your date, that will run you $30. You can enjoy over 100 movies in 3D and still be less expensive than BUYING all these components.
OK, fine. You've got a family of 4 and you'd like to watch these 3D movies in the comfort of your own home. But think about it, how much available media is there in 3D? Even at the cinema, only select movies are available in 3D. Television programming isn't yet in 3D. Very select titles in games are available in 3D. If you add up all the available 3D media to date, I doubt you will reach 100 titles! And even if you're currently looking for a new TV, you can get a decent HDTV with 1080p for under $1,000 these days.
Oh, and here's the kicker. Toshiba's already showing off a glasses-less 3D TV. Granted, 40"+ is still likely a few years away, but to spend that much money for stop-gap technology? Give me a break!
~Cheers.
Last month, Blockbuster's Canadian Unit filed for bankruptcy protection. With news that Blockbuster would be closing a handful of stores, I went to see if there were any good deals to be had. I saw a copy of Tron: Legacy for Blue-Ray 3D and thought about picking it up. But taking a look at the package, I decided to put it down.
To watch the movie in 3D you need:
- A 3D TV
- 3D Glasses
- 3D Player
- 3D Disc
Really?! Are you kidding me?! While I understand the need for all of these components, I am NOT shelling out for a new TV, at LEAST 2 pairs of 3D glasses, AND a 3D friendly Blue-Ray Player JUST so I can watch a movie. And anyone foolish enough to do so really needs their head examined.
A 3D TV (46")costs roughly $2,500. A pair of 3D glasses will run (depending on which pair you buy) about $150. Each. Unless you plan on watching movies alone, you'll need at least 2 pairs, so that's $300. A Playstation3 console is probably the best value you'll get for a 3D capable player, and that will cost another $300. So before you even consider watching a movie in 3D, you've already spent $3,500.
Watching a movie in 3D at the local cinema will run you roughly $15. Even if you're paying for your date, that will run you $30. You can enjoy over 100 movies in 3D and still be less expensive than BUYING all these components.
OK, fine. You've got a family of 4 and you'd like to watch these 3D movies in the comfort of your own home. But think about it, how much available media is there in 3D? Even at the cinema, only select movies are available in 3D. Television programming isn't yet in 3D. Very select titles in games are available in 3D. If you add up all the available 3D media to date, I doubt you will reach 100 titles! And even if you're currently looking for a new TV, you can get a decent HDTV with 1080p for under $1,000 these days.
Oh, and here's the kicker. Toshiba's already showing off a glasses-less 3D TV. Granted, 40"+ is still likely a few years away, but to spend that much money for stop-gap technology? Give me a break!
~Cheers.
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Blogger's Note: 3000 Page Views...
It's only been a little over a month and y'all have helped me make this little blog hit another 1,000 page views! Thanks so much! We're actually well over 3,100 now, but I only noticed this morning. It means a lot to me that you come visit this little blog of mine, which is why I've been giving a little thank you gift to the first person to comment after every 1,000 page views. By the way, no one has claimed the 3000th page view token of appreciation yet! Be the first to comment on THIS post, and I'll make sure you get a little thank from me to you.
As promised, I'm going to keep this going for a while yet. Again, same rules. First person to send a comment that they are the first comment on or after 4,000 page views will get a little gift as token of my gratitude. I really do appreciate the support all of you have given me over the past few months. Hopefully I'll be able to keep this going. I said at the beginning of this year, that I was going to try to post 100 entries this year. I've got 37 so far, I need to hit 50 by the end of the month. That's pretty good I think right? =)~
Anyway, thanks for the continued support. And don't forget to help me spread the love! =)~
~Cheers.
As promised, I'm going to keep this going for a while yet. Again, same rules. First person to send a comment that they are the first comment on or after 4,000 page views will get a little gift as token of my gratitude. I really do appreciate the support all of you have given me over the past few months. Hopefully I'll be able to keep this going. I said at the beginning of this year, that I was going to try to post 100 entries this year. I've got 37 so far, I need to hit 50 by the end of the month. That's pretty good I think right? =)~
Anyway, thanks for the continued support. And don't forget to help me spread the love! =)~
~Cheers.
Movie: The Hangover Part II (2011)
Rating: C
Talking with some friends after watching the movie, I dropped the score for The Hangover Part II from a B-, down to a C. While it was mildly entertaining, and it certainly had its moments of hilarity, from what they told me of the first one, this sequel is simply a lazy derivative of the first movie. If I were in to that, I'd probably go read myself a few more John Grisham novels (or watch the movies).
I just don't get Zach Galifianakis. I don't understand why anyone thinks he's funny and I don't understand why he's famous. It's like watching Jar Jar Binks but with different names. Yes, I do find him THAT annoying. Thankfully, this movie has Jamie Chung (she can be my ChiChi anyday...HAHAHA). There really wasn't a reason to bring her up, she's just cute enough to deserve a nod. =)~
The first rendition of The Hangover (2009) was original and innovative in concept; turning an alcohol imbibing, drug inducing hangover that forces the members of "The Wolfpack" to re-trace their steps to figure out what happened. But to follow the same formula all over again, that's just lazy. And even though I haven't watched the first one, The Hangover Part II was only mildly entertaining.
Set in Bangkok, The Hangover Part II seems more of a comedy noire than a comedy. While it has its moments, I found most of the jokes to be low brow, slapstick humour that simply plays on the stereotypes of Thailand. And while some of the footage was quite beautiful, it's pretty hard to mess up the naturally beautiful scenes of the country.
But how do you not watch a movie that features a smoking monkey?
~Cheers.
Talking with some friends after watching the movie, I dropped the score for The Hangover Part II from a B-, down to a C. While it was mildly entertaining, and it certainly had its moments of hilarity, from what they told me of the first one, this sequel is simply a lazy derivative of the first movie. If I were in to that, I'd probably go read myself a few more John Grisham novels (or watch the movies).
I just don't get Zach Galifianakis. I don't understand why anyone thinks he's funny and I don't understand why he's famous. It's like watching Jar Jar Binks but with different names. Yes, I do find him THAT annoying. Thankfully, this movie has Jamie Chung (she can be my ChiChi anyday...HAHAHA). There really wasn't a reason to bring her up, she's just cute enough to deserve a nod. =)~
The first rendition of The Hangover (2009) was original and innovative in concept; turning an alcohol imbibing, drug inducing hangover that forces the members of "The Wolfpack" to re-trace their steps to figure out what happened. But to follow the same formula all over again, that's just lazy. And even though I haven't watched the first one, The Hangover Part II was only mildly entertaining.
Set in Bangkok, The Hangover Part II seems more of a comedy noire than a comedy. While it has its moments, I found most of the jokes to be low brow, slapstick humour that simply plays on the stereotypes of Thailand. And while some of the footage was quite beautiful, it's pretty hard to mess up the naturally beautiful scenes of the country.
But how do you not watch a movie that features a smoking monkey?
~Cheers.
Saturday, 4 June 2011
Movie: X-Men: First Class (2011)
Rating: B
After a couple of abhorrent, abominable, atrocious, and absolutely appalling sequels following a fairly inspired X-Men in 2000, X-Men: First Class is a much appreciated reboot...or pre-boot(?)...that's ambitious, smart, and surprisingly entertaining.
Kevin Bacon? Really?! I can't remember the last memorable role that he was in. Well...Footloose maybe? Haha. And yet, he seems to keep popping up everywhere. OK. Seriously. This movie is really about how Professor Xavier's relationship with Magneto. For the fans out there of the comic series, this prequel really doesn't follow the same story lines. That being said, it more than adequately addresses the beginnings of their relationship, their bond, and their struggles.
Using snippets of actual history, including actual footage of President Kennedy, X-Men: First Class does enough with actual events to make this movie pretty real. But one thing totally threw me off. The appearance of Brendan Fehr. No lines, not even a name! In the credits, they name him "Communications Officer". I tried looking it up, but I haven't been able to find any answers as to the reason he's nothing more than an extra in this film.
That being said, the film is great. It takes a little while to get started, and it does have a couple of slow spots, but other than that, it is fairly well thought out. There are also some brilliantly placed cameos and hints about the origins of some future X-Men characters.
*Ed.Note: There isn't anything to stay for after the credits. Forgot to include that.
~Cheers.
After a couple of abhorrent, abominable, atrocious, and absolutely appalling sequels following a fairly inspired X-Men in 2000, X-Men: First Class is a much appreciated reboot...or pre-boot(?)...that's ambitious, smart, and surprisingly entertaining.
Kevin Bacon? Really?! I can't remember the last memorable role that he was in. Well...Footloose maybe? Haha. And yet, he seems to keep popping up everywhere. OK. Seriously. This movie is really about how Professor Xavier's relationship with Magneto. For the fans out there of the comic series, this prequel really doesn't follow the same story lines. That being said, it more than adequately addresses the beginnings of their relationship, their bond, and their struggles.
Using snippets of actual history, including actual footage of President Kennedy, X-Men: First Class does enough with actual events to make this movie pretty real. But one thing totally threw me off. The appearance of Brendan Fehr. No lines, not even a name! In the credits, they name him "Communications Officer". I tried looking it up, but I haven't been able to find any answers as to the reason he's nothing more than an extra in this film.
That being said, the film is great. It takes a little while to get started, and it does have a couple of slow spots, but other than that, it is fairly well thought out. There are also some brilliantly placed cameos and hints about the origins of some future X-Men characters.
*Ed.Note: There isn't anything to stay for after the credits. Forgot to include that.
~Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
