|
| I'm back baby! Been nearly a year, so it has. Good ol' Twilight Princess holding the fort. Anyway, time now for something completely different.
So, Saw IV then. I've never seen a Saw film before last night. My first thought was that I quite enjoyed it, apart from the fact that I got as confusulated as hell towards the end because it kept making references to number III. Then my good thoughts had time to stew overnight. My results?
What a pile of shit.
Keeping up the trend of 'I've only seen bad movies this year at the cinema, except for The Simpsons Movie', Saw IV is a travesty.
Now, let me clear one thing up from the outset. I don't mind blood and gore. It's never been a problem for me. I'm OK with jumps too, I've learned when they're coming, and when it's 'bussing', so the most I'll get is a brief shock from the chair if the surround sound is up too high.
But, hey, that doesn't matter, because there's barely any anyway. Seriously.
Like I said, I've never seen a Saw, but they've got a reputation for being bloody, gorey, shocky, and the rest of it. So...where was it?
There was barely any blood for a start. OK, maybe that's a bit of an understatement, but there wasn't much more than you'd see in an average episode of Casualty or something. And the testing scenes were...a bit rubbish, really. I was expecting blood, severed body parts and all the rest of it. But instead we get the Texas Chainsaw Massacre approch to filmmaking: it's all in the mind.
After the film, I told my friends this. They weren't having any of it. "Did you have your eyes closed because you were scared or something?" Uh, no, you just think you saw that guy get ripped apart, what was actually there was a lot of quick cuts of tomato ketchup being splashed on a wall. Seriously, watch out for that.
There was only one bit of 'gore' as well. I'm making a distinction here: gore = vital organs being spilled everywhere; bloody = blood. And that one bit happens right at the beginning and looks like leftovers from that episode of Heroes where Claire is lying in the morgue. And it didn't look particularly convincing then.
There was, like, one or two jumps in the entire film. Let's take a step back for a second. Saw IV = a horror film. One of the staples of horror cinema is the jump. Make the audience scared, like. So why does the film only have so few, and make them so quite blatantly obvious when they're going to happen?
One thought went through my mind after the first 5 minutes: Right, we've discovered that the acting is crap. It is really very bad. The main bad guy (who is frigging DEAD for crying out loud) is appaling. He has one expression and one tone of voice throughout. I think he's supposed to look like a cold calculating killer. Instead, he looks like a bad actor.
The plot is twisted to the point of being incomprehensible. Now, at first I thought it might have been just me because I hadn't seen the others. But a woman came up to us in the carpark. She'd seen all of them, and still didn't understand what the hell was going on. That's just poor.
Also: the film is around about 90 minute long. The main character has a 90 minute time scale to save his friends. Now, to me this means Real Time, like on 24. But here? Oh no. Instead, while the main guy only just manages to finish on time when he knows where he's going, the police are always only about a minute behind him, without having a clue to his whereabouts. And they started later. Seriously, the poilce must travel at the speed of sound or something.
Main guys home, police station, motel, police station, school, police station, factory
In the time it takes the main guy to do all that without having to go back to the station. That's probably not very clear, but suffice to say the timings don't work out, and it makes the plot hideously inconsistant as a result.
I can't really think of anything 'good' to say, really. I'll still watch the other 3 though, if only because I want to get the narrative right in my mind. I sure as hell aren't going to see Saw V though. Or VI, for that matter. Even after only watching one of the four, I can tell they're running low on ideas. The steam ran out 2 sequels ago.
I'll give it a generous 4, because like I said I enjoyed it at the time. Just don't think about it for too long afterwards 
4/10
| | |
| Shock horror 
I'm writing a new review
Of something that didn't come out several years ago
OMG!
Anyway, I'd better get on with it. If you hadn't guessed, I'm a huge fan of the Zelda series as a whole (you only have to check out my review of Ocarina down the page a way to work that out). But this takes the metaphorical biscuit. And not in a bad way (like a stale digestive). This is the greatest Zelda ever, and therefore (in my opinion), the best game ever. The gaming form of the ginger nut, if you will. So I'd better tell you why, because that's kinda what this site's for. But let's start with the stuff that's not perfect.
The graphics aren't quite as good in motion as they look in the screens you might have seen. The game looks choppy around the edges, particularly Link, which I find quite odd seeing as he's the main character. That's not to say the graphics are awful though. The Twilight Realm in particular looks very nice indeed. I'll explain that a little more later.
The Wii remote takes some getting used to. Aiming the bow/slingshot is a bit of a nightmare to start. But if you stick with it, it becomes second nature, and seriously involves you in the game a lot more. It's no gimmick.
Fishing. Makes. Me. Angry. In all the videos, it looked an amzing use for the remote. In reality? It's broken. It quite literally doesn't work. You tug, and tug, and tug on the remote...but nothing happens! And rightat the beginning, it's mandatory to solve a puzzle!
And something has upset me, but it's not really a problem with the game. You now need five Pieces of Heart to complete a Heart Container, whereas in every other Zelda game ever, you only needed four. This is a change I did not like...
Final bad point: it's blatantly just a GameCube game dressed up to get more sales at Wii's launch. I'm not complaining of course. But some more Wii-exclusive features would have been nice.
So then, what's good? Everything else. Whatever's been good in previous Zelda games is present and correct. One thing always springs to my mind: the sublime level design. Dungeons are always a slightly worrying prospect when you first enter them (OMG! THIS IS FREAKING HUGE! I remember telling myself at the beginning of the third temple). But the puzzles and fights are perfectly laid out. No wonder it takes upwards of four years to make one Zelda game. The amount of testing that must have to be done is insane.
The story is much darker than the Wind Waker, which is the most recent Zelda before TP. Link begins as a farmhand, but soon, after the kidnapping of children in his village, our hero is plunged into the Twilight Realm, an evil alter-ego to Hyrule crawling with monsters. Link himself is turned into a wolf in these sections and must use his feral instincts to survive. It's a brilliant twist to the classic formula, which makes you think completely differently to 'human' parts.
Speaking of Hyrule (and the Twilight Realm): they're huge. The first area of Hyrule Field is about the same size as the entire Field in Ocarina. Overall, I'd say it's about six times the size, not including dungeons and towns. Obviously not as big as something like GTA San Andreas, but nothing to be sniffed at.
I think I've pretty much told you now the most important elements which make Twilight Princess. Really, I can't justify my opinion as 'best game ever' in words. You really need to play it. That's all I can say. If you have a GameCube and aren't interested in the Wii, then get that version. It's exactly the same (except horizontally flipped, oddly). I can't say more than that.
10/10
| | |
| ...honest!
Coming before Christmas: Guitar Hero 2; Wii console; Zelda: Twilight Princess; Red Steel (Wii); Wii Sports.
Coming after Christmas: Depends what I get... Gears of War (360)?
Sorry for the delay everyone.
| | |
| My first music review ever! Don't blame me if it's crap! Well, actually do. Just as long as it's constructive criticism. Anyway...
This is a review of Tenacious D's first, self-titled, album, as opposed to the newly released The Pick Of Destiny, which I haven't heard yet.
You've probably heard of the D, maybe even heard the album, but here's some background anyway. There are only two members of the D, comedy actors Jack Black and Kyle Gass. Jack's in films like Shallow Hal and The School of Rock, but I'd never heard of Kyle before. Both are in a film, named after the new album, which is out soonish. Anyway, seeing as they're both comedians, you wouldn't expect their music to be too serious.
For your money, you get 14 songs and 7 'comedy nuggets', i.e. sketches. Most of these lead into the next song. For example, the sketch Hard Fucking is followed by Fuck Her Gently.
There isn't a serious song on the entire CD (or download if you want but, meh). This is taken from Tribute.
This is not The Greatest Song in the World, No No!
This is just a tribute.
Couldn't remember The Greatest Song in the World, yeah,
No!
This is a tribute, oh,
To The Greatest Song in the World,
All right!
It was The Greatest Song in the World,
All right!
And it was the best mother fuckin' song,
The Greatest Song in the world!
Just looking at them isn't that funny right? Maybe you'll giggle. But setting it to music is genius. I had a permenant smile on my face for the entire album, and literally laughed out loud during Fuck Her Gently. The acting during the sketches is superb - nothing less than you'd expect from comedy actors, really.
I think really that the main problem with the album is that comedy is subjective. This has nothing to do with the songs, but if you don't find it funny, you won't like it. And let's not forget, these guys are professional actors, not musicians. Don't get me wrong, the music itself is pretty good, but it's only really there to back up the lyrics. I think only two songs, Kielbasa and City Hall, would stand up on the music alone.
And if you don't like gratuitous swearing, find your comedy somewhere else. Let's face it, songs like Fuck Her Gently are hardly going to be clean are they?
But, if this kind of thing sounds good to you, give it a shot. I really loved it, but it does begin to get boring after a few listens, like any comedy.
8/10
(That wasn't too bad, was it?)
| | |
| OK, so here's a review of a sword-and-scorcery novel called Eragon, and its sequel Eldest, which are a couple of my Nexus influences. But it doesn't necessarily mean I like it.
Firstly, a little bit of info. Eragon is Star Wars with dragons. Fact. Don't believe me? Here's the first few chapters condensed in review form:
The story begins with a prologue. A young princess is about to be captured by Darth Vader Stormtroopers some evil goblin-like creatures called Urgals. But she has some information a magical dragon egg to deliver, and, in her panic attempts to send a message the egg to Obi-Wan Kenobi Brom, the last of the Jedi Dragon Riders.
But, lo and behold, it is discovered by a farm boy named Luke Skywalker Eragon who tries to sell it. Later on, his home is destroyed and his uncle killed by Stormtroopers evil bird thingys called Ras'ac, who want to capture the newly-hatched dragon for the Emperor king. Obi-Wan Brom tells him to get away to sanctuary with Saphira (the dragon). As they travel across the vast world of Alagaesia, Obi-Wan Brom gives Luke Eragon a Lightsaber magical sword, which onced belonged to one of the most powerful Jedi Dragon Riders.
Any more than that would 'spoil' the story, but I think you could probably work it out. Even the twist is the same, and so blatantly obvious that I worked it out halfway through the first book. It is revealed in, pretty much , the last chapter of the second.
So are the books actually any good? Well, plagiarised story aside, it's not a bad read, especially Eldest. Sure, the characters are pretty thin (Eragon and Saphira - yes the dragon - being the only ones you really feel for), but it's well written, especially considering that author Christopher Paolini was only 15 when he began Eragon. It actually taught me how to use the semi-colon! The narrative is a page turner, especially if you don't make the Star Wars connection (like I didn't at first). But now you will. Oops. Sorry about that.
Eldest gives some of the more minor characters from the first book, like Eragon's cousin, their own plot strands, which goes some way to rectifying the shameless rip-off of the 'main' story (which Paolini said was 'coincidence'. Yeah, right).
Well, it's no Dark Tower, (which is a bad comparison really but, hey), but Eragon and Eldest are still good reads. It's impossible to rate them as a single entity, considering that a third and final part has yet to be told, so I've given them two separate scores:
Eragon: 7/10
Eldest: 8/10
As a side note, you may or may not know that a movie version of Eragon is soon to be released. I'll probably go and see it, so I'll review that as and when. Most likely it won't be that good, but I'm hopeful 
| | |
|
