Monday 27 February 2012

Call From Duty? Tell Them I'll Get Back To Them.


(Please note: the following blog was originally posted on my old blog Why Yes I Am Quite Random, Why Do You Ask?, a blog I can no longer access for some unknown reason. This is being put at the start of each blog I'm uploading, in case anyone comes across the blog and accuses me of plagiarism. This is explained further in my introduction blog.

The following was originally posted on Tuesday, November 8th, 2011 at 5:36 pm)


So, Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (or MW3 to most) came out a couple days ago. I would not have known this if it weren't for a conversation I had with a customer at work. He mentioned he had purchased the game 30 minutes previous and was on his way home to play it, stopping by for energy drinks to keep him going. Now, I work overnight and this was 12:30 am. So, it came as a surprise to me that gaming stores actually had midnight openings for newly released games like that. I mean, I knew cinemas did this for some of its biggest releases and when the later Harry Potter books came out, people flocked out in droves to get their hands on a copy (though I didn't have any trouble getting my copy of Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows).

To be honest, a part of this surprise is due to the fact that I've never closely followed the Call Of Duty series. Hell, if you asked me how many games the series had, I'd shrug my shoulders and say "Uh... five?" Yeah... turns out, including expansions and such, there are at least eighteen. So, I would be way off-base. Though even if I were to exclude the titles that are spin-offs or portable versions and stick with the main series, I'd still be off by a few.

I've only played one game in the franchise, and I think it was the first Modern Warfare. The graphics were superb, the atmosphere engaging and the voices for the soldiers didn't distract from the experience and made it authentic. I got into the game and found it to be a really impressive first person shooter, which isn't easy, considering how it appears to be the predominant game type these days. That, or general sandbox games (personally, I'm hoping to see a resurgence in the survival horror genre in a big way).

But I can't help but wonder why the franchise has grown as large as it has. My theory is it comes down to the realism. Besides the obvious game mechanic of respawning (I mean if anyone bought a game where you died once and your game could never be played again, that would be the single dumbest thing you could ever do in a game. Well, besides doing a crossover with Echo The Dolphin), just about everything else simulates a war-like experience, right in the comfort of your own home. You're in the trenches, fighting with your buddies, defending the world against the enemy. Immersion is key to many a good game and COD seems to have gotten that down to a science.

But the relative realism might not always be the best thing for a game. Sometimes, we look to entertainment as the gateway to another world, a world that's sometimes not quite the same as ours or to other worlds and dimensions. Granted, we may get realism in movies (or as close as we can) when they lack sci-fi or fantastical elements, but the big difference is that we're watching characters grow and develop. In video games, YOU are the protagonist. And there's nothing you really need to develop, because once the game ends, that's it.
What I'm saying is, sometimes we like the idea of strange lands, of worlds beyond the stars. Or possible futures with technology we can only dream of. Whether it's exploring space with Samus Aran, killing monsters with Simon Belmont, fighting robots with Mega Man, trekking through Silent Hill or climbing the ranks through Mortal Kombat, we're less concerned with realism and more about what we can discover from these strange and foreign lands. Lands like Hyrule and the Mushroom Kingdom.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with realism in a game, it all depends on the game itself. Obviously, I can't expect Halo to adhere to the same rules as Haze and vice-versa. But realistic games also suffer from that fact that there aren't many surprises in store, because if they were to break away from that realism, people would assume it was a gimmick. Unless it was a game that was essentially labeled as "like our world, but..." very much like the Resistance series has the label of "like our world in the past, but with aliens".

All in all, I've got nothing against the COD series, though like I said, I've only played the one game. But I've got to admit, I'm perplexed at what makes this franchise so popular. Is it the settings? The feeling of taking out bad guys and using it as a release from the stress of the world?
And, more to the point, is it really that good that it makes you want to wait at midnight for the latest game?

Eventually, I will get these games and see if I can recapture that same feeling from when I first played. But I don't think I'll be waiting at midnight for the next game. I didn't even do that for Arkham City and I've been looking forward to that game all year (and it's glorious, too).

So, I put it to anyone reading this blog: have you ever waited outside a store for a midnight opening for a brand new game? Or movie? Or even a book? Hell, has there been anything you've waited for, late at night, camped out, in a long line?

Have I Got A Story To Sell You

(Please note: the following blog was originally posted on my old blog Why Yes I Am Quite Random, Why Do You Ask?, a blog I can no longer access for some unknown reason. This is being put at the start of each blog I'm uploading, in case anyone comes across the blog and accuses me of plagiarism. This is explained further in my introduction blog.

The following was originally posted on Sunday, November 6th, 2011 at 5:01 pm)

Word of warning, this won't really be a fun blog. Nothing really nerdy or geeky to discuss. This will be me getting up on my soapbox and ranting about a recent event down here in Australia. Granted, it's not like I have many readers at this point but if someone should stumble across it somehow, they should have fair warning. This is just my opinion, based on whatever information I've come across on this, and I don't know every little intimate detail.

For any overseas reader, here's the situation: over in Bali, a fourteen year old boy vacationing with his parents was arrested for buying drugs, in an alleged sting operation. He's facing at least 12 years in prison if convicted.
Now, I'm not blogging that he should be released, far from it. I mean, his defense at the time? "He said he [the dealer] needed the money". If I had a poster of someone facepalming right now, that would be the most appropriate response. Then it emerged he had a recurring drug habit before entering Bali. Yeah, now your story looks real credible now, kid.

I'm also not blogging about how we've cared more for getting him back than another convicted Australian in Bali. OK, I'm not commenting one way or another on whether or not I think Schapelle Corby is innocent, but my point is, Australia did very little to try and help her. The government's response basically amounted to "Um, we have a letter. Will that help?"
But for this boy (who has not been named, nor have his parents as far as I know, it's almost like he'd been kidnapped and the government will send in the air force! Why him? Is it because of his age? Never mind the fact he knew exactly what he was doing. He's old enough to be willingly buy drugs, he's old enough to await his fate in the hands of the justice system of Bali.

No, what gets my goat even more that any of that is the fact that his parents are trying to sell the rights to this story, like it's something that's destined to be a heartwarming triumph over adversity that NEEDS to be a telemovie.
Look, I have no problem with television networks offering large sums and telemovie deals to people, if the people involved have had something happen to them that wasn't through fault of their own.

For example, the survivor of the Thredbo landslide of 1997, Stuart Diver. The lone survivor, he was trapped under debris for over 65 hours. He had courage, determination and great willpower to survive. As he was pulled from the wreckage, his first words were "That sky's fantastic!" and he gave new hope that more survivors would be found, though tragically, it would not be the case.
He would later have his story turned into a made-for-TV drama called Heroes Mountain, in which he was played by Craig McLachlan.

Or to use another Australian example, the Beaconsfield Mine collapse of 2006. A small earthquake caused an underground rock fall, trapping three miners, one of whom died in the disaster. Brant Webb and Todd Russell were rescued after two weeks, maintaining their sense of humor and spirit throughout. The media down here went nuts from start to finish. Hell, even Dave Grohl knew about it when he found out they were huge fans based on a request from the miners to have the Foo Fighters' music on their MP3's sent down (so for anyone who wasn't sure what inspired Ballad Of The Beaconsfield Miners, there's your music history lesson for the day). They were offered several lucrative deals and they deserve it.

So, what's my point in all this? That this is the kind of thing that will inspire the wrong message in people. That you can misbehave and commit all sorts of crimes and people will just throw money at you for being a delinquent. I know its his parents shopping the story around but its his antics that started this off.
And you can't tell me "oh, it's for his legal defense", that will make it look worse.

Quite frankly, he would be getting off light if he's able to come back here and go to rehab, which if that's not a buzzword these days, it's on its way. Rehab is not some "super instant magical cure", it requires a discipline that needs to be maintained once you leave. And if he doesn't have the discipline to not buy drugs in a foreign land, or to not buy drugs at all, I highly doubt rehab is the way to go.

Anyway, that's enough ranting from me. I apologize if anything I've said has offended anyone but that's just how I feel.
Next time, I'll go back to something low-key or nerdy.

Scary Monsters (And Super Creeps)

(Please note: the following blog was originally posted on my old blog Why Yes I Am Quite Random, Why Do You Ask?, a blog I can no longer access for some unknown reason. This is being put at the start of each blog I'm uploading, in case anyone comes across the blog and accuses me of plagiarism. This is explained further in my introduction blog.

The following was originally posted on Thursday, November 3rd, 2011 at 9:00 am. )


Halloween may have passed but horror is not chained to one mere time of the year.
It’s always with us, infiltrating our daily routines, often in small ways and in ways we can’t ever expect. However, Halloween does seem to have an affinity for horror and it appears to be more in force around that last October week, with people reminiscing of trick-or-treat sessions long past or movies to watch around that time.

Well, that’s what we’re here for today. Below are my top ten horror films and thus, the ones I would watch around Halloween.
Being the odd sort person that I am, I have self-imposed rules for this list. I’m explaining this now so that no one writes in the comments asking why particular films didn’t make the list.
First, though this mostly applies to the honourable mentions, only one film per series is accepted. Otherwise, if this was a top twenty or higher, it would probably be flooded with entries from the Nightmare On Elm Street series or Romero films involving zombies.
Second, for this particular list, the villain must be one of the following:
- supernatural in origin. No serial killers or mass murderers or people that just snapped, mainly because I’ve always felt it’s more of a thriller when the antagonist is human. Even with high body counts and true scares, stuff like the Scream series may be horror but it's borderline thriller because the Ghostface killers are all human, with human motivations. Same with Leatherface and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise (one day I'll very possibly do a horror list involving human villains)
- if not supernatural, aliens or science will be accepted. It may have more of a sci-fi slant but wouldn’t you be scared if you had a Facehugger all up in your... well, face? Likewise, humans turned monsters through science also works due to the loss of humanity and in fact, makes for a great study on whether or not a human can maintain their sense of self when undergoing transformations and such. Body horror can also count if there is no real supernatural/alien force, because it often does involve horrifying imagery and things that couldn’t really be achieved in a thriller.
- a human CAN be the main antagonist, however, as long as the film has some kind of supernatural force driving them or involved somehow (for example, if you altered It so that Pennywise was more a corrupting force for Henry Bowers but never had a personification and made Henry the main villain, it would be accepted. Though I should point out It was never ruled out anyway)
Finally, the film can mix with other genres but it must be mostly horror or at least not let its horror atmosphere be severely undermined.

Now, for the honourable mentions and films I highly recommend even if they missed the top 10: 28 Days Later, Asylum (1972), The House That Dripped Blood, The Beast Must Die!, Ginger Snaps, The Vault Of Horror, Tales From The Darkside: The Movie, Hellraiser, Dawn Of The Dead (1978), A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, Demons (1985), Suspiria, Fright Night (1985), Alien and Evil Dead 2.

OK, with all that out of the way, I just have one thing left to say: besides entry number 1, these aren’t in any particular order.
So, let’s begin with number 10

10: In The Mouth Of Madness- Sam Neill plays John Trent, an insurance investigator who has been assigned to locate missing horror author Sutter Cane and bring his latest manuscript to his publishing company. His search takes him to the very places we try to avoid.
The third in a thematic trilogy directed by John Carpenter, this film could be a contender for one of the most mind-screwiest films there is.
It's a little hard to talk about this film without spoiling it or the atmosphere but the film works great at exploring the darkness that resides in the mind and of the darkest horrors ever thought up, these taking the forms of Cthulhu-esque abominations. I really love Sam Neill's performance in this and it is my favourite role of his, perhaps closely followed by his work in Memoirs Of An Invisible Man.

9: Tales From The Crypt (1972)- a British anthology film, from Amicus Productions, based upon the comic of the same name. The framing device is a mysterious man describing to five strangers the manner in which they die, with each segment then letting us see the events around it.
Curiously, only two of the five segments are based on actual issues of the Tales From The Crypt, with the others being lifted from other horror titles. That aside, it's the best horror anthology I've ever seen, in part due to some of the make-up and props being damn near scary (segments two and three having the best examples, particularly on Peter Cushing towards the end of the third), for some of the twist endings being really chilling (though the fourth contains a glaring plot hole or two) and because, as mentioned above, it has Peter Cushing, a horror icon. This might be his most sympathetic role, which in turn comes from the fact that his wife had passed away around the same time and he was never the same without her. The saddest part is reading what he did on the night she died and it's clear he was a very devoted and loving husband.
A great precursor for things to come, even if the movie is only related to the wonderful TV show by name.

8: Pet Sematary- the Creed family move to a new house, right near a pet cemetery and a dangerous stretch of road. Louis (Dale Midkiff) learns of the dark power of the burial ground near the pet cemetery but severely underestimates its effects.
One of the most potent forms of horror is what is known as the “adult fear” (Hell, an image of this movie is the picture for the TV Tropes page!) The adult fear style horror is one where the horror is all the more terrifying because it COULD happen in real life and for bonus horror points, sometimes maybe it HAS (think of the child victims on Law And Order: Special Victims Unit to help get a better grasp on the term). Without going into too much detail about the book or film, I remember when I first saw the film, I actually went pale. The scene was played out so well and so horrifyingly that I was in shock for some time after that. All I will say to keep its secrets is this: that dangerous stretch of road? I mentioned it for a reason. Even if you know what's coming, your body still goes into shock.
It's works like this that reaffirm my belief in the mastery Stephen King has in his craft.

7: Silent Hill- Rose (Radha Mitchell) and her adopted daughter, Sharon (Jodelle Ferland) are traveling to Silent Hill, but get into a car crash as they approach. When Rose comes to, she discovers Sharon is missing and sets off after her, all the while meeting several creatures and sinister citizens of the town.
Much like Resident Evil, Silent Hill is based off a popular survival horror game franchise. Unlike the film of Resident Evil, Silent Hill remembers it's not an action movie where people are stoic badasses with enough weaponry to supply to a small country (yeah, I hated the first Resident Evil. If it didn't bare the RE name, I'd be more tolerant but RE is not a game where you go in guns-a-blazin').
Staying true to most of the game's legacy while carving out its own, the film never devolves into a typical cash-grab by using just the brand name and character names and then going off on its own tangent. It's also unique in that its largely female-populated, with the most notable male character being Rose's husband, Christopher, played by Sean Bean (which is a bonus because it means the film doesn't also try and shove a romantic subplot or gratuitous T&A down our throats)
I look forward to the sequel, titled Silent Hill: Revelation 3D (that last part doesn't particularly please me, though, unless they intend to take advantage of what 3D can do. And also, why Revelation? How many movies have to be called Revelation or use it as part of the title?)

6: From Dusk Till Dawn- Seth Gecko (George Clooney) and his brother, Richie (Quentin Tarantino) are looking to lay low after a bank robbery and kidnap a family in an RV with the intent of reaching a safehouse in Mexico. Before reaching the safehouse, they all stop off at a strip bar, which is later revealed to be a den for vampires.
Now, this may be the most controversial entry on the list because of the whole “it's more action/comedy than horror, it's not balanced” but I did the proviso that if it couldn't be tipped more towards horror on the scale that the horror wasn't completely diminished by the other elements (or, to put it in a less confusing way, if it suddenly turned into an episode of Full House. Or became one big shoot'em up with action movie music and one-liners and suddenly Milla Jovovich appears. I really do hate the first Resident Evil movie, I really do).
While it does have its fair share of action and comedic elements, the vampires themselves look like the stuff of nightmares and hey, it does have some hallmarks of horror. Particularly, the idea that not everyone is going to make it out alive and that, like most horrible situations in the real world, you don't exactly expect to end up in something so terrible (though obviously vampire strippers aren't a common occurrence in our world). Also, I should point out that the prequel and sequel also have horror elements so it is consistent throughout.
The dialogue is sharp, the characters are engaging and you really do care about their fates and wonder if they're going to make it out OK. The effects and make-up on the vampires is superb as well, some of the better movie vampires. Also, a crotch-gun. I don't think I need to go into detail about how awesome that is.

5: Drag Me To Hell- after turning down a mortgage payment extension for a customer, bank loan officer Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is cursed to go through three days of torment before being sent to Hell.
Sam Raimi returns to horror and it's like he came back with a vengeance. Mixing the comedy and the horror is something Raimi has always done masterfully (like in Army Of Darkness, part of one of the best film trilogies I've ever seen) and like any great horror, it doesn't telegraph the parts intended to make you jump. But the ending... oh, the ending is the sweetest part of all. No spoilers but I had to replay that ending several times the first time I watched it, that's how much I loved it. It's one of the best endings I have ever seen in a horror movie and I hope to see more like it. I know Raimi is set to direct Oz, The Great And Powerful (and I WILL be seeing that once it hits cinemas) but I eagerly await his return to horror, should he ever choose to come back.

4: The Thing (1982)- an alien lifeform wreaks havoc on an outpost in the Antarctic and the team of scientists become suspicious of each other, as the lifeform can take on other forms and blend in amongst them.
The Thing is a very good argument as to why old school effects are still awesome and, in some ways, better than CGI. Every time you see it, you're still not sure as to what you're seeing and you're not even sure what its original form is (well, unless you've now seen the prequel, which kind of deflates the mystery but that film's actually not too bad). The overall theme of paranoia and mistrust is played out well and they have a right to be on guard.
I should also point out that this is the first of the thematic trilogy I mentioned in the entry for In The Mouth Of Madness (the second is Prince Of Darkness, which is a very good film), the trilogy known as the Apocalypse Trilogy. There's no order to them since they are only connected by the theme of impending doom. However, I still cite this as the best of the three and the best John Carpenter film.

3: Videodrome- Max Renn (James Woods) is the president of a small TV station and he is searching for something sensationalistic to garner a stronger audience and he stumbles upon Videodrome, a program that appears to be the television equivalent of a snuff film. He becomes obsessed with it and becomes determined to find its origins.
If The Thing is a very good argument to the special effects of old vs. the new way of doing things, Videodrome would be the equivalent of a tag-team partner. Honestly, some of the things that were achieved in this movie are still mind-blowing today. The theme of new technology having sinister usage and the detriment it inflicts upon the masses is only on the surface. Look deeper into the film and you'll be surprised at what you may find.
This may not fit into most conventional horror, due to lacking a supernatural inclination, but the body horror element comes into play here.

2: The Fly (1986)- Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) is on the verge of a magnificent breakthrough in science: a teleportation system. His only problem is getting it to work with organic matter. But after meeting Veronica (Geena Davis), he finds the inspiration he needs to crack his problem. But after using himself as a test subject, without noticing a housefly slip into his teleportation pod, he begins to undergo several changes.
Completing the “trilogy” of movies whose practical effects dominate the movies reliant on CGI (and also being the second David Cronenberg film on this list), The Fly is also remarkable in the fact that, like The Thing, it is usually considered to be one of the best remakes in film history, though if you want to nitpick, both are based on short stories and could be considered a second adaptation.
Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis have excellent chemistry and their characters are extremely well developed (Jeff and Geena were actually married for a time too, so clearly there were multiple levels to their relationship). To me, the key thing that makes this movie excel is the way Cronenberg takes his time not just developing the relationship and the characters but the eventual “evolution” of Seth Brundle into his new form. It's not “Oh no, I'm a monster now, blaaargh!” and then it turns into a creature feature (it may have worked for the first adaptation, I don't know, I haven't seen it) but rather a careful character study as Seth adapts to the changes he's undergoing.
Also, the finale, devastating yet awesome at the same time. I don't know how it's possible but it is.

1: The Shining (1980)- Jack Torrence (Jack Nicholson) and his family have become the winter caretakers for the Overlook Hotel. Jack soon becomes a victim of the goings-on of the hotel, which seems to have designs on him.
I don't think I have to say much more about the plot, it's a very well known film, perhaps the most well known on this list. It's also in my top ten films of all time (which I may blog about one day). While there are several changes from the Stephen King novel (mainly focusing less on the subjects of Jack's alcoholism and its effects on his home life and the strained relationship with his son), what it does still do is create an atmosphere of terror and confusion. Jack Nicholson is so convincing as Jack Torrence you wonder if he didn't retain some of that personality when they weren't shooting. And some of the line deliveries, even when he's calm (or seemingly calm) are downright chilling. Like this:
Wendy? Darling? Light, of my life. I'm not gonna hurt ya. You didn't let me finish my sentence. I said, I'm not gonna hurt ya. I'm just going to bash your brains in.”
Not to spoil things for the youngsters who have to experience this wonder, but the endings between book and film also vary. Both do work in their respective mediums, however, and I approve of the change made here.
This would later be redone as a mini-series that would be much more faithful to the book and it's actually pretty good. But for evocative sets, music, images and characterization, I turn to this film.

So, that was my list. I'm fairly certain a lot of you disagree with the way I've conducted my list but that's part of what makes movie discussion so wonderful: that we stand up and speak out about our favourites and share our experiences. So long as we all remember to agree to disagree.

So, what are your favourite horror movies?

Zombies On A Plane. It WILL Happen


(Please note: the following blog was originally posted on my old blog Why Yes I Am Quite Random, Why Do You Ask?, a blog I can no longer access for some unknown reason. This is being put at the start of each blog I'm uploading, in case anyone comes across the blog and accuses me of plagiarism. This is explained further in my introduction blog.

The following was originally posted on Tuesday, November 1st, 2011 at 6:07 pm )

It certainly can’t have escaped anybody’s attention that zombies are popping up in every medium not just as the stars of their own vehicles (such as the term star can apply) but also in places we never expected. The Bennets have a spot of bother with the undead in the Pride And Prejudice And Zombies series (film to be expected in 2013 at this point), the pesky varmints show up in the video game Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare and even Call Of Duty has them marching along in Call Of Duty: World At War: Zombies.

The video game industry seems to be prevalent with zombie games and add-ons. Series like Left 4 Dead and Dead Rising give you more zombies than you ever thought you could imagine and the newly released Dead Island is only adding to the trend (though it can be argued, as it can for 28 Days Later and its sequel, that these aren’t zombies in the traditional sense but that’s for another time).

Comic books love to throw zombies into the mix, most likely because it allows heroes and villains alike to use their powers, weapons and abilities at full force without worrying about the consequences because hey, the dead don’t have rights! Marvel Zombies, The Walking Dead (though not a superhero comic, they are the focal point here), even DC’s crossover event comic Blackest Night offered something similar to zombies.

And movies, well, there are that many films starting with the word zombie they’re almost as overpowering and numerous as the creatures themselves. In 2010, over 40 films about, or featuring, zombies were made and this doesn’t include short films. Granted, a lot of those come from countries where English is not the first language so not many people overseas will know those films but they still count. Arguably, the most well known releases of last year were the latest of George A. Romero’s own zombie series, Survival Of The Dead and Resident Evil: Afterlife
And this is a trend that does not look like it’s dying (no pun intended) down anytime soon. The latest Pirates Of The Caribbean movie features zombies (and apparently vampire mermaids. I haven’t seen it yet so I don’t know if they pull it off well); The [Rec] series, which inspired the Quarantine series (first was a remake but it is now going down an original path), is getting another sequel; the aforementioned Pride And Prejudice And Zombies’ World War Z is due next year; and there’s even a romantic zombie movie on the way (more on that later)

Yet despite what some might see as an overcrowding of zombie related media, the question is, why is it still so popular?

I have a theory as to why (though I acknowledge that others have probably reached the same conclusion). Part of this theory actually involves a comparison to vampires, so I’ll keep it as short as I can.

Vampires over the years have gone through several interpretations and concepts. Different writers pick and choose parts of vampire lore they want to use and want to ignore.
In the 30‘s and beyond, Dracula was pretty much the first thing that came to mind when talking about vampires. Back then, vampires were usually treated as creatures of olden times, with olden ways and as figures of mystery, though justifiably so.
The Hammer films of the 50‘s and similar productions went with the idea of vampires as seductive creatures, usually not in subtle ways and usually with a female vampire and a female victim. Though it may have boosted some of Hammer’s vampire films into cult status, it may also have inadvertently planted the idea that being a vampire was desirable. Like the other Dracula films, the standard methods for disposing of a vampire were in place (stake to the heart, decapitation, fire).
Others have taken the approach that can be summed up thusly: “Duuuuuuude, being a vampire is awesome! You can stay up all night, do whatever you want and you’ll be young and pretty forever!” (The Lost Boys ran on this)
Some movies involve vampires either running the world and becoming the dominant race and not unlike humans other than bloodlust (Daybreakers), others involve them being societies that move amongst humans or outnumber them but go through power struggles and wars with other supernatural beings (the Underworld series, the Blade series)

However, the most common depiction these days is perhaps the idea that some vampires are tortured, lonely immortals who go through Peter Parker-style wangst at their abilities at being both a gift and a curse. Anne Rice’s vampires ran on the idea that they were somewhat sexy, desirable and even somewhat charming. Some were caught up in the ramifications of their immortality and lifestyle and often wondered if they were dooming others. However, they are also portrayed as hedonistic, vain, self-serving and somewhat oblivious to the needs of others. Now, which part do you think most people attach themselves to, hmm?

And now we get to how vampires are mostly seen today: as the first half of what I described of the Rice style vampires, only usually younger, “good” vampires who like humans and fall in love at first sight (a ridiculous concept) with teenagers. Of course, I refer to Twilight. Since it’s still a hotly debated topic, I will refrain from airing my personal views here, except for this: I don’t care what people decide to ignore or add to vampires, they don’t sparkle and they can’t give birth (and don’t tell me about Darla from Angel, everyone on the show noted it was impossible and that’s why it worked there!)

Though, speaking of Angel, the vampires of the Buffyverse are probably my favourite portrayals of vampires so far, going in-depth on the history of vampires, how they work and such. In a nutshell, the demon infects the body to an extent but its also influenced by who you were before you died. Or, to look at it another way, vampires are some humans with their conscience and inhibitions switched off. Then you have your souled vampires, like Angel himself, who are still vampires they just feel horribly guilty of what they’ve done (usually, anyway).

All sorts of aspects of vampires get thrown out and exchanged and swapped around, from the effects of sunlight, to the weirder aspects like “vampires cannot cross running water”, “throwing salt or seeds over a vampire’s shoulder will cause the vampire to count each individual grain of salt or seed” (incidentally, this is thought to be the basis for the concept of Count Von Count from Sesame Street) and of course, what a vampire can transform to (if they can at all). These forms are most commonly bats or wolves but can include a form of mist (I wish I saw that more often)

So, for those of you who haven’t fallen asleep at this point, you may be asking “I thought this blog was about zombies, what’s this got to do with it?”
Well, the answer is this: zombies have worked so far because no one’s changed the fundamentals. Vampires undergo so many changes over the years, from vicious monsters lacking souls to tortured, innocent immortals to single minded feeding machines (30 Days Of Night displays that kind of vampire).
But zombies? Pretty much the same. In zombie games, to paraphrase Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation, this is the basic format: “Zombies over there, kill they ass”
About the only aspects that become altered throughout the mediums are whether or not they can talk (and if they can, whether or not they maintain full vocabularies or just go with “BRRRRAAAIIINS!”) or whether running zombies count as zombies at all (28 Days Later sparked that particular debate). Although some debate still rages about whether or not all flesh obsessed shamblers are zombies or just infected people who resemble zombies.

In any case, because the formula’s remained relatively unchanged, zombies have carried on doing what they do and we keep lapping it up. No tortured Romeo and Juliet style romances (yet) about zombies and the humans who love them (now that would make for a really cool talk show episode). No zombie version of The Road where a zombie and his zombie son roam the post-zombie apocalyptic Earth looking for fresh meat (or, for a twist, one of them is not a zombie and the zombie’s memory makes them resist biting the other though the temptation is there)
Nope, zombies= evil and humans have to fight or flee. That’s how its been since the beginning and that’s how it’ll be for years to come.

Or will it?

Though the title has not yet been decided upon (at least to my knowledge), there actually IS a rom-zom-com in development. I don’t know whether to praise it for trying to shake things up or be wary that the gimmick will be stretched out. It’s one thing to have something different, it’s another to explore what this idea can do. Merely being different doesn’t mean anything if your entire message is “I’m different! Look at me!”
Shaun Of The Dead might be one of the better ideas of shaking things up a little. It accomplishes this not by radically altering the genre but by injecting humour into it, almost deconstructing it and lampshading it. It’s serious in places but still humorous enough to stand out from the crowd and be remembered not just as “that funny film about zombies” but as something inspiring since it tried something different and worked. Part of that is because rather than go “these types of films are rubbish and here’s why” it’s an affectionate funny film featuring zombies. And those are the ones that work best, the ones that satire films or genres but make it clear all throughout that they respect the work and love the concepts.
I mean, it was enough to get Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright cameos for George A. Romero’s Land Of The Dead (I believe they were even offered meatier roles but they chose to cameo out of respect for the works. Also, you get to be a zombie for the man considered to be the father of the zombie. Unless you count that Smurf story where they turn purple after being bitten but that’s yet another debate)

Maybe the zombie craze is already dying down. All good things have to come to an end. Are we getting sick of zombies yet?


Sunday 26 February 2012

And The Winner Is... Probably Who We Expected


With the Academy Awards nearly upon us, and me being a massive film nerd, I thought it was the perfect time to do a blog about this year's Oscars.
 
If I have one problem with the Oscars (and I don't, I could go on but I'm sticking with this one) is that whenever there's a biopic about royalty, a standard biopic or a World War 2 movie (or all three), they seem to be nominated for heaps of awards, regardless of whether or not they deserve it. Case in point, last year's nominations of The Social Network and The King's Speech (while it is indeed a very good film that I have underrated from the start, I stand by the point I am about to make). I have seen The Social Network and while it's a good film, its a story that didn't really need to be told. Seriously, if someone told you the plot of the movie was ”guy makes Facebook and gets sued”, that's basically what it is. It's spoiler-free, you know he's going to create Facebook. Now, I know that many aspects go into making a film and that story is one of them, but I can't see what else would lead people to think this is some shining beacon in film making.
The King's Speech is similar: while it's a better film, and I understand the importance surrounding the events of getting a member of the royal family to overcome a stammer for the sake of maintaining a strong image, it's not exactly The Queen (OK, I haven't seen it but come on, a title like that and you know you're in for important events) or Elizabeth (which I have seen and that was a very good movie, the sequel was OK). Just because it has a member of the royal family doesn't mean it gets a free ride. The same goes for World War 2 films, too. Yes, obviously it was something we'll never forget (and never should) but it's also a cheap way of getting an emotional response from your audience. If you keep shoving it down our throats, we're going to become jaded to the messages you're trying to display.

Let's look at the Best Picture nominees from 2010: 127 Hours, Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, The King's Speech, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, True Grit and Winter's Bone.
Save for Winter's Bone, I have seen all of the above films (though I am keen to see Winter's Bone) so I can comment on what chance they would have had compared to the aforementioned biopics.
Toy Story 3 and The Kids Are All Right I didn't expect to win. They would have deserved it, most definitely, but Toy Story 3 being animated basically meant it was put in with the others just to avoid people complaining and The Kids Are All Right just didn't seem to have that many people in its corner. Having not seen Winter's Bone, I can't suggest what prevented the win (besides the point I'm getting to), but I reckon it would be something similar to The Kids Are All Right. True Grit is the second adaptation of a book, with the first garnering some nominations, so that could factor in for why it didn't win. And despite how simply amazing Inception and Black Swan are, that one big thing that'll be explained shortly is probably what denied their rightful Oscar.
So, that leaves 127 Hours and The Fighter, which fits in with the biopic angle. But, and this is also why The Social Network had to take second place (I say that because if they were ranked 1-10, second place is easily guessed), they weren't period pieces from a much earlier point in time, involving the royal family.
It makes me wonder why they even bothered with ten films, seeing as how this and The Social Network would have been in the cut either way. It's almost like you can announce a film about a prince walking down a road looking at his pocket watch as the war begins and the voting committee will say “Take as many Oscars as you want!”

But this year, things seem to be different. Not a royal film in sight, unless War Horse has an extended subplot with members of the royal film. I have to be honest, of the Best Picture nominees this year, I've only seen two of them (Hugo and The Descendants, both of which I have reviewed in blogs to be re-uploaded), so a lot of them I know little about. Part of that is I don't care about some of them, the others are either new down here (we tend to get some of the nominees late, since we're apparently not important enough to be considered for big films unless they're a franchise) or I have yet to see on DVD and I don't even know if they're on DVD yet.

This year, the nominees are: The Artist (I'll go over this in a little while), The Descendants, Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close (this one too), The Help, Hugo, Midnight In Paris, Moneyball (I still have no idea what the bloody Hell this is about), The Tree Of Life and War Horse.

Yeah, not exactly enthusiastic about this crop. This year, it seems the latest suck-up fad to take over royal films is “the silent era”, with The Artist and Hugo leading the charge. Much like the royal films, it seems to say “Hey, Oscar people, love us, you're old and white so you know this stuff!”Now, I'm not saying these films are bad on their own merits (again, I reviewed Hugo and I deemed it very good), but the fact that they're both in the latest Academy Awards doesn't sit well with me.
Also, if there is one film I do not want to win at all, it's Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close. Why? In the trailer, you see Tom Hanks and a child who I honestly thought was a girl at first (and I'm not being mean, I'm serious, I actually thought the character was female) being all “super happy fun family”, I was groaning at how cheesy it was. But then... it turns out, Tom Hanks' character died in the 9/11 attacks and it was at that point I wanted to punch that movie in the face. That just seems cheap and exploitative. Yes, it's a huge tragedy and there are bound to be tons of stories to come out of it, but like the Holocaust, the more you incorporate it into stories, the more you lessen the effect. So, no, I don't think it deserves a win based on cheap, emotional manipulation.

So, what am I hoping will win? Well, despite having not seen it, I'm rooting for Midnight In Paris, which I really want to see. I've never hated any Woody Allen film I've seen and Match Point is spectacular, with Deconstructing Harry and Melinda And Melinda offering some interesting ideas too (and also, The Curse Of The Jade Scorpion is frickin' hilarious)
What WILL win? Well, War Horse didn't seem to generate a lot of buzz, so I don't see that pulling in the big one. Honestly, I'd say The Tree Of Life or The Artist, with Hugo also not being ruled out, due to Scorsese.

Now, to prevent this from getting too long, I'm going to shorten the rest of the nominees of the big categories.

Best Director- Scorsese/Allen (want to win), Alexander Payne (probable win)
Best Actor- Gary Oldman (want to win), Jean Dujardin (probable win)
Best Actress- Rooney Mara (want to win), Meryl Streep (probable win)
Best Supporting Actor- Christopher Plummer (want to win), Jonah Hill (probable win, only because he's in Moneyball. Otherwise, he'd have no shot in Hell and he doesn't deserve it)
Best Supporting Actress- Melissa McCarthy (want to win. The fact that Bridesmaids got a nomination in some way, especially for one of its best characters with McCarthy's, is fantastic in and of itself), Berenice Bejo (probable win)

Sorry to have cut it short but again, I could go on all day. So, hopefully some of the people I want to win will have their talents recognized. But I'll have to wait a little while to find out

Brannigan, Begin Again

So, here we are again. For new readers, welcome! Hopefully you'll find something of merit in my blog and come back. For my old readers (all... five of you?), welcome back! I guess an explanation is in order, for both old friends and newcomers...

Last year, I began a blog entitled "Why Yes I Am Quite Random, Why Do You Ask?", my first ever blog. I devoted it mostly to movie reviews but I also did blogs for holidays, video gaming ones, random rants, a few comic reviews and assorted themed blogs. I'd like to think I improved a little over time but I still have a lot to learn.

However, I recently tried to log into it and was denied access. After trying several methods of recovery, nothing has worked and it seems like my email address has been removed from the Blogger accounts, even though my work remains. I liken it to being removed from the CIA and having my records destroyed to make it look like I never worked there but all reports are kept intact. Or, to put it more simply, a ghost did the blog, who then vanished (that works on some level, somehow).
Asking for help in the forum wasn't an option, either. They have an actual limit on character usage and I always went over. Even posting the basic bloody questions in my response with as little info as possible wasn't accepted! What is this, some kind of weird Catch-22?

At any rate, even if I can change the locks and get back into my old blog, it won't matter. I mean, I'm already this far, I might as well just be prepared for a big revamp. So, for the next week, probably a bit longer than that even, I'll be putting my old blogs back up, a few posts per day each time. Not enough to overload new readers but not so few that the process takes a long time. Until they're all up, there will be no new content except for the second blog, due to the timing. I will put a note in front of each old blog, sort of like a disclaimer, stating that they are old blogs from my old site, partly as a way of explaining why you'll be seeing a Christmas blog in late Feb/early March and partly in case I get accusations of copying, which is impossible since if I'm copying anyone, it's myself. I will also use that as an opportunity to fix any mistakes in my blogs or to add stuff I might have missed the first time around.

Anyway, with that out of the way, I'll tell you a little about myself:

My name is David, I'm 25 and I live in Australia. I'm a self-confessed pop culture junkie, with interests ranging from comic books (faves include Batman, The Runaways, Scott Pilgrim, Ultimate Spider-Man and Detective Comics), TV shows (with faves such as How I Met Your Mother, House, Dexter, Angel and Red Dwarf), music (I love listening to bands like Queen, Powderfinger, U2, R.E.M and the White Stripes), books (authors I follow are Stephen King, Janet Evanovich, James Patterson, Jeffrey Deaver and Tara Moss, and many more of course), movies (high recommendations for American Psycho, Iron Man, Fight Club, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind and Juno) and video games (some of my best memories of gaming spring from GoldenEye, Mega Man 3, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Turtles In Time and Super Smash Bros. Melee).

Also, I am a HUGE fan of thatguywiththeglasses.com and to a larger extent, the reviews of Lewis Lovhaug, better known as Linkara. He reviews comic books at this site, http://atopfourthwall.blogspot.com.au/ and is a huge inspiration to me, in terms of how he comes across and of self-personal motivation. Or, to put it another way, he makes you feel like you can be proud to be yourself. As do the contributors and staff of Channel Awesome and That Guy With The Glasses within. I hope one day to meet some of these wonderful people (and hopefully keep my inner geek-fanboy on a leash) and maybe do a video show of my own. But that won't be for sometime)

I could go on but really, that's what the blog is for. I'd say I'm a nerd but nerds are smart and I'm really not that smart (if I was, I'd probably figure out how to get back into my old blog). I'm more of a geek and I'm damn proud of it. Took me long enough to get that way but here I am.

So, hopefully you enjoy the blog. After this one, I'll post the new one I was working on at the time of the "vanishing" and over time, get the rest up from my OpenOffice documents. The second blog is technically my fiftieth (fifty-first if you count this new intro) and once the other forty-eight are on this blog, I will take a short hiatus to recharge my batteries, see how the new blog works out in terms of format, lay-out and all that jazz and see where I want to go from there. After the old ones have been re-uploaded, I'll go back to a three-a-week schedule, though the days and times will be random, and sometimes there could be more in a week.

Eventually, I do want to turn this into a V-log/Vlog/however you kids today say it, as I feel it would get my feelings on certain topics out a lot easier and will be more bearable to a lot of you, rather than reading walls of text. However, then you'd have to look at me and listen to my voice. Hmmm, this is quite the conundrum... anyway, that won't be for some time.
Also, I want to give a shout-out to one of my best friends on this here mud-ball we call Earth. His name is Dave Herndon, and he is partly why I have this blog. It is thanks to his encouragement, his knowledge of blogging and his friendship that I am able to share my thoughts with a wider world. So, in gratitude, I offer the link to his blog and hope you'll check that out too: http://daveherndon.blogspot.com.au/

So, for now, I hope you enjoy my ramblings, rantings and ravings.  Feel free to comment!
(Oh and apologies to anyone who saw the title and expected a review of Futurama, I just like using humorous titles a lot. However, I will get to Futurama eventually. But quick thoughts: well, to borrow a joke from Bender *Paints self to look like a bumblebee* It's great, better than most shows, deal with it. Those who didn't get that, expect a lot of that from me. For those who did, hope you liked it. But in all seriousness, I love the show, so I will safely say the subject is far from over. It'll be back, baby!)