Blogulation time.
First off I want to say thanks to anyone who went over to Conor's blog. Much appreciated :)
Let's talk about nostalgia shall we?
I decided to download more games for various old game consoles. The oldies really are the best. New consoles are good and all, but there's a certain magic about 16-bit graphics. I play my SNES emulator more than I play my PS3 at the minute.
Here's a list of the games I've been playing recently for various consoles:
Gameboy
- Pokémon Blue
Gameboy Advance
- Pokémon Fire Red
NES
- The Simpsons - Bart vs. the Space Mutants
SNES
- Adventures of Batman & Robin
- Bebe's Kids
- Biker Mice From Mars
- Contra III: The Alien Wars
- Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy Kong's Quest
- Earthworm Jim
- Lemmings
- Pilotwings
- Super Mario All Stars
- Super Mario Kart
- Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island
Sega Genesis/Megadrive
- Michael Jackson's Moonwalker
- Sonic The Hedgehog
A few of the games I only know about because of The Angry Video Game Nerd. Some of them I know from my childhood. I guess I'll review some of these games from a *slightly* more mature viewpoint than I would have had all those years ago.
Pokémon Blue is awesome. 'Nuff said really. Pokémon's been kind of ruined really with an over abundance of Pokémon to catch. Pokémon Blue takes me back to how simple Pokémon used to be. It was one of the first games I remember playing on the Gameboy Colour. Although it wasn't really in colour, more just a mix between blues, greens and reds. Each city has a vaguely different colour, but there aren't individual colours. Rip off really.
Then we come to Pokémon Fire Red. I never played Fire Red when it came out. I'm not really worried. One problem is that my emulator has some serious sound issues as it sounds like a harrier jet in my room when it's enabled. Another problem I have is that, it's just, too smooth. It's not as good as the original Blue or Red if you ask me. That's one reason why I don't like the new games, they're too polished. Pokémon has it's flaws, but it's supposed to. That's part of it's charm. This kind of removes that. I'd rather play the original Red than Fire Red.
Okay onto the Nintedo Entertainment System. Bart vs. the Space Mutants. What can really be said. AVGN talked about this in his Simpsons episode. It really is a bad game. It's not worth your time. There is no charm in the graphics, unlike other NES games. The gameplay is awful. Jumping is impossible. I played it a few times as a gimmick, but can't be bothered anymore.
The Super Nintendo. What a console. I consider it probably the best console of all time. It just, sums up gaming for me. It's wonderful. The Adventures of Batman & Robin is also an excellent game. Based on the animated series (which I also loved), it's a wonder to play. The gameplay works, though I do find it a bit difficult at times. That's probably because I'm just a bit shit at it. Seriously though, I highly recommend this game. Get an emulator just for this game.
So from that high, we drop far, far down. Bebe's Kids. The Nostalgia Critic reviewed it. His summation is pretty much bang on. The characters are slow, they walk around as if they are submerged in lumpy custard the entire time. The controls are bizarre. The music is awful. Play it for the novelty factor, but don't get too stressed out in the Haunted House level, it's not worth it. I've tried that level a number of times, but I now refuse to do it anymore. Also there are no saves or continues. Don't bother really.
I remember going round to my friend Phil's house and playing Donkey Kong Country 2. I don't know what it was. It was kind of 3-D, and for the Super Nintendo, that was impressive. It's a really fun game, the best of the trilogy. There are some difficult parts but that's all part of the fun. I highly recommend it, if you like Donkey Kong.
How amazing was Earthworm Jim? Everything about him was amazing. I loved the game as a kid. I never realised that you can't save, and it doesn't have a password system. The only way to complete it is to do it in one sitting. That's kind of annoying, but it's still amazing. Seriously, get it.
Lemmings. It's Lemmings, does anything else need to be said?
I'll finish with Yoshi's Island. Whenever I remembered this game and downloaded it, the first thing I did was enable the sound and turn the volume right up. I lived in this game when I was young. It was, just, amazing. I'm being deadly serious, this is probably my favourite game, possibly of all time. It just captures so much of my youth for me. And it saves after every level. It gets two thumbs up. Two big thumbs.
A few more things about Nostalgia...
I wonder if anyone remembers Street Sharks. Man, I was young then. I had Street Shark toys and everything. They were the shit back then. Apparently the show only ran for less than a year, maybe I just watched re-runs over and over again. It's probable, I loved it so much.
It saddens me that there won't really be TV shows like that anymore. There's a certain magic about your childhood television memories. Everyone remembers what they watched as a child. For me, it was the classics like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Biker Mice From Mars, you know, the good stuff.
Anyway, if you've actually managed to make it this far then I commend you. Why not leave a comment about what nostalgia means to you?
Thanks for reading :)
x
Showing posts with label Discussion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Discussion. Show all posts
Saturday, 9 May 2009
Saturday, 2 May 2009
Musings on women paedophiles.
I saw this article on the BBC News Magazine page today. This is the definition of absolutely pointless journalism. Of course there are women paedophiles. I actually can't believe that someone felt it necessary to write an article about this.
The author almost instantly makes the connection between paedophilia and a parent abusing a child. Does the author know that not all paedophiles abuse their own children? In fact, here's a funny fact, some paedophiles don't even have children! Wow! How amazing is that? Why not write an article like "Are there straight paedophiles?" That'd be just as useful as this article.
Yes.
Yes there are women paedophiles. This seems similar to those pointless reports that you hear about. I remember one that came out, the conclusion was "Girls are not the only ones who self harm, boys do it too." REALLY? WOW, WHAT A REVELATION!
This is what pisses me off. People think that women are these perfect creatures who can do no harm. A brief look at history shows that women can be terrible people too. I don't know whether it's more annoying that society thinks that women can't do harm, or that men are the only ones who can.
Have any of these people ever been on a night out? Women are definitely the people who drink the most and get into the most fights. I reckon i've only seen women get kicked out of places for fighting.
Society seems to have this idea that men are the only people who can cause harm to other people. The term "little boy racer" comes to mind. My sister is the speediest driver I know, she had a serious car crash about a month after passing her test. That sort of story is one that is usually confined to the stereotypical idea of males. In the road safety adverts, it's the man who causes all the people to die. It's the man who talks on his phone while he's driving. It's the man who gets drunk or takes pills then thinks it's a good idea to drive home and winds up killing 3 people.
People need to get out of their 1950s mindset that women are only good for cooking, cleaning, and making babies. Women are powerful people. Women can hurt other people. I hate it when people say "I would never hit a girl, in any circumstance." I'm sorry but, if someone hits me in the face, I'm retaliating, I don't care what gender they are. Just because they have breasts and a vagina, that does not make them immune from being hit in the face. If someone deserves a punch in the face, they deserve a punch in the face, it doesn't matter who they are. This makes me sounds all masculine and I'm sure feminists would probably think that it's some sort of complex I have. I'm not violent, I've never been in a fight before. I'm just using it as an example.
I think that it's easy for women to look at bad things happening to them and instantly cry discrimination. If a woman doesn't get a job over a man when they are equally as qualified and the only reason she doesn't get it is because she's a woman, then that is clear discrimination and is disgusting. However if a woman is less qualified, she cannot claim discrimination. Sometimes it's justified. I'd say most of the time it's justified.
It's the same with a lot of racial minorities. It's easy to say "It's because I'm black/asian/foreign/whatever". Sometimes there are genuine reasons why your life is the way it is and why things turn out the way they do. Perhaps your life is shit not because of your race, but because you spend all your time complaining that it's to do with your race rather than going out and doing something about it.
Not everything is a race/gender issue. Women can be sexual abusers, black people can be rapists, asian people can murder and French people can sell drugs to children. It often has nothing to do with where you are from, what your race is or what your gender is. People are people. We are not defined by our appearances but by our actions.
This has been a bit of a rant that has gone quite off course. It'll probably offend some people. I'd say sorry but I don't think I am.
Toodles :)
x
The author almost instantly makes the connection between paedophilia and a parent abusing a child. Does the author know that not all paedophiles abuse their own children? In fact, here's a funny fact, some paedophiles don't even have children! Wow! How amazing is that? Why not write an article like "Are there straight paedophiles?" That'd be just as useful as this article.
Yes.
Yes there are women paedophiles. This seems similar to those pointless reports that you hear about. I remember one that came out, the conclusion was "Girls are not the only ones who self harm, boys do it too." REALLY? WOW, WHAT A REVELATION!
This is what pisses me off. People think that women are these perfect creatures who can do no harm. A brief look at history shows that women can be terrible people too. I don't know whether it's more annoying that society thinks that women can't do harm, or that men are the only ones who can.
"Women can commit a wide range of sexual offences, he says, including rape."Firstly, in the United Kingdom, women cannot commit rape. So that statement is wrong. Rape is strictly penile penetration. Also, why does this need to be stated?! It's the same problem with domestic violence and binge drinking. People think that it's only men who beat their wives and only men who go out and get absolutely wasted. Everyone was shocked when the study came out that more women binge drink than men.
Have any of these people ever been on a night out? Women are definitely the people who drink the most and get into the most fights. I reckon i've only seen women get kicked out of places for fighting.
Society seems to have this idea that men are the only people who can cause harm to other people. The term "little boy racer" comes to mind. My sister is the speediest driver I know, she had a serious car crash about a month after passing her test. That sort of story is one that is usually confined to the stereotypical idea of males. In the road safety adverts, it's the man who causes all the people to die. It's the man who talks on his phone while he's driving. It's the man who gets drunk or takes pills then thinks it's a good idea to drive home and winds up killing 3 people.
People need to get out of their 1950s mindset that women are only good for cooking, cleaning, and making babies. Women are powerful people. Women can hurt other people. I hate it when people say "I would never hit a girl, in any circumstance." I'm sorry but, if someone hits me in the face, I'm retaliating, I don't care what gender they are. Just because they have breasts and a vagina, that does not make them immune from being hit in the face. If someone deserves a punch in the face, they deserve a punch in the face, it doesn't matter who they are. This makes me sounds all masculine and I'm sure feminists would probably think that it's some sort of complex I have. I'm not violent, I've never been in a fight before. I'm just using it as an example.
I think that it's easy for women to look at bad things happening to them and instantly cry discrimination. If a woman doesn't get a job over a man when they are equally as qualified and the only reason she doesn't get it is because she's a woman, then that is clear discrimination and is disgusting. However if a woman is less qualified, she cannot claim discrimination. Sometimes it's justified. I'd say most of the time it's justified.
It's the same with a lot of racial minorities. It's easy to say "It's because I'm black/asian/foreign/whatever". Sometimes there are genuine reasons why your life is the way it is and why things turn out the way they do. Perhaps your life is shit not because of your race, but because you spend all your time complaining that it's to do with your race rather than going out and doing something about it.
Not everything is a race/gender issue. Women can be sexual abusers, black people can be rapists, asian people can murder and French people can sell drugs to children. It often has nothing to do with where you are from, what your race is or what your gender is. People are people. We are not defined by our appearances but by our actions.
This has been a bit of a rant that has gone quite off course. It'll probably offend some people. I'd say sorry but I don't think I am.
Toodles :)
x
Monday, 27 April 2009
Ideas about blogging, vlogging and other types of logging
So I've been thinking.
I'd actually be up for doing Blog Every Day in 2010. However I've been wondering, would peple actually be willing to join me, or would people see it is as just a sad copy of BEDA? I like blogging and I really think that it helps me get my thoughts down. I don't really want to get on camera and start posting videos on YouTube, as much as I've wanted to in the past. Maybe if enough people like the blog then I will, but until then I'll keep it in text.
In fact, leave comments if you could. I'd really appreciate some feedback about this. Firstly, do you think BED10 is a good idea? Secondly, would you do BED10? Thirdly, would you actually watch if I moved onto YouTube?
Part of the reason I'm wondering is because me and my friend are doing a podcast. We've had the idea of some kind of radio show for literally years. I think the first idea would have been around 2005, so about 4 years. We've gone through re-think after re-think on how to do it and we've now decided on Podcasting. It seems a standard thing to do now, but we still want to, and I just wonder whether anyone would actually listen to us?
Yeah so, please leave a comment if you can, I'd really appreciate it.
Thank you and goodnight :)
x
I'd actually be up for doing Blog Every Day in 2010. However I've been wondering, would peple actually be willing to join me, or would people see it is as just a sad copy of BEDA? I like blogging and I really think that it helps me get my thoughts down. I don't really want to get on camera and start posting videos on YouTube, as much as I've wanted to in the past. Maybe if enough people like the blog then I will, but until then I'll keep it in text.
In fact, leave comments if you could. I'd really appreciate some feedback about this. Firstly, do you think BED10 is a good idea? Secondly, would you do BED10? Thirdly, would you actually watch if I moved onto YouTube?
Part of the reason I'm wondering is because me and my friend are doing a podcast. We've had the idea of some kind of radio show for literally years. I think the first idea would have been around 2005, so about 4 years. We've gone through re-think after re-think on how to do it and we've now decided on Podcasting. It seems a standard thing to do now, but we still want to, and I just wonder whether anyone would actually listen to us?
Yeah so, please leave a comment if you can, I'd really appreciate it.
Thank you and goodnight :)
x
Friday, 17 April 2009
On The Pirate Bay Verdict
This post is in reply to Alan Lastufka, in regards to his comments on the news that the four defendants in the Pirate Bay trial have been found guilty, and sentenced to a year in jail, and they have to pay damages.
I was going to write about this anyway, but I might as well have a two birds/one stone situation here, as I want to reply to Alan too.
I totally agree with you that the rights of content creators should be respected. The world turns on content creators and their rights should be respected.
The point that the writer of that article was making is that, theoretically, the IFPI could raise an action against Google or YouTube because those websites serve the same function as The Pirate Bay. The Pirate Bay are not creating these torrents which contain copyrighted material, they are sorting them and linking to them. This is the exact same as Google. On Google, you can search for torrents and you can pirate copyrighted material. On YouTube you can watch movies and TV shows which also do not respect the rights of content creators, as they are uploaded by John Smith who is 105 years old, lives in Vietnam, and hasn't logged in for 6 months.
The Pirate Bay are not taking anything away from content creators themselves. Torrents are legal, completely legal. It is only when they contain illegal materials that they become illegal. It doesn't matter what the intention of the people behind The Pirate Bay was when they set it up, if they do not achieve those aims. Motives are not taken into account if there is no crime. However, the court found that there was a crime, and in my opinion, this verdict is inherently wrong.
Sweden is a member of the European Union and therefore are subject to EU directives. According to Article 12 of the European Directive on electronic commerce (2000/31/EC):
The courts described The Pirate Bay as "middlemen", and that they are not protected. By this same logic, Google should be charged for soliciting terrorism as it links to terrorist websites.
I expect this to go to the European Courts and, hopefully, this decision will be overruled. Trust me Alan, this would create a very bad precedent in regards to communications. This could go as far as saying that Internet Service Providers provide people with a connection, who then go on and pirate material. Therefore they are "middlemen" and would be found guilty. The internet could potentially come to a standstill as any linking website would be shut down. All the search engines would be shut down and so would innovative sites like YouTube.
I agree with you that a content creator's rights should be respected. However, The Pirate Bay are not the people who undermine these rights. It's the people who create the torrents and make them available for sharing who are undermining a content creator's rights.
I hope you read this Alan, I'd appreciate your opinions on what I've written.
Thanks for reading,
Simon
x
I was going to write about this anyway, but I might as well have a two birds/one stone situation here, as I want to reply to Alan too.
I totally agree with you that the rights of content creators should be respected. The world turns on content creators and their rights should be respected.
The point that the writer of that article was making is that, theoretically, the IFPI could raise an action against Google or YouTube because those websites serve the same function as The Pirate Bay. The Pirate Bay are not creating these torrents which contain copyrighted material, they are sorting them and linking to them. This is the exact same as Google. On Google, you can search for torrents and you can pirate copyrighted material. On YouTube you can watch movies and TV shows which also do not respect the rights of content creators, as they are uploaded by John Smith who is 105 years old, lives in Vietnam, and hasn't logged in for 6 months.
The Pirate Bay are not taking anything away from content creators themselves. Torrents are legal, completely legal. It is only when they contain illegal materials that they become illegal. It doesn't matter what the intention of the people behind The Pirate Bay was when they set it up, if they do not achieve those aims. Motives are not taken into account if there is no crime. However, the court found that there was a crime, and in my opinion, this verdict is inherently wrong.
Sweden is a member of the European Union and therefore are subject to EU directives. According to Article 12 of the European Directive on electronic commerce (2000/31/EC):
1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider:The Pirate Bay do not initiate any transmissions, they certainly do not select the receivers of transmissions and they do not modify the information contained in the transmission. Therefore they should not be liable for the information and should not be found guilty.
- does not initiate the transmission;
- does not select the receiver of the transmission; and
- does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.
The courts described The Pirate Bay as "middlemen", and that they are not protected. By this same logic, Google should be charged for soliciting terrorism as it links to terrorist websites.
I expect this to go to the European Courts and, hopefully, this decision will be overruled. Trust me Alan, this would create a very bad precedent in regards to communications. This could go as far as saying that Internet Service Providers provide people with a connection, who then go on and pirate material. Therefore they are "middlemen" and would be found guilty. The internet could potentially come to a standstill as any linking website would be shut down. All the search engines would be shut down and so would innovative sites like YouTube.
I agree with you that a content creator's rights should be respected. However, The Pirate Bay are not the people who undermine these rights. It's the people who create the torrents and make them available for sharing who are undermining a content creator's rights.
I hope you read this Alan, I'd appreciate your opinions on what I've written.
Thanks for reading,
Simon
x
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!
It's Tuesday night. I'm lying in my bed with the lights off. The only illuminations are coming from my backlit keyboard and my laptop screen (with the brightness turned down). I'm listening to "The Wrestler" by Bruce Springsteen. I tried to argue with my friend why Slumdog Millionaire deserved to win the Academy Award for Best Original Song. However, after listening to it over and over again, it is an absolute tragedy that it didn't even get nominated. I swear to god that the Academy had something against The Wrestler this year. The movie should have one at least two awards (Best Actor, Best Original Song), and that's leaving out the possibility that it would have one Best Picture, had it been nominated. I haven't seen The Reader, but it must have been a hell of a movie to beat out The Wrestler to the Best Picture nomination.
I didn't want this to be a blog about the Oscars, but it's going that way, I have a few more things to say. Everyone is "poo-poo"ing The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Someone on the Oscar.com message board said that "it's just another Forrest Gump." When was that a bad thing?! This movie was directed by one of my favourite directors, David Fincher. Reading the movies he's directed is like reading a list of some of my favourite movies. Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Is there a reason why this director has a way of getting the absolute best out of Brad Pitt? I think the relationship that David Fincher and Brad Pitt have could be compared to that of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. Somehow, he gets the best out of him. Those three movies (Se7en, Fight Club and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) are my favourite Brad Pitt Movies (probably in that order). Brad Pitt doesn't get enough recognition. People tend to see him as an A-list actor who doesn't really do much to have that status. However I actually think Brad Pitt is a bloody good actor. Yes, he acts in stupid movies that are pretty obviously just for the money, but that doesn't make him a bad actor.
I have a few more things to rant about on this topic. I know that when you start a new paragraph you should make a new point, but I just need to break this up a bit.
How the hell did Se7en not win any Oscars? And only get nominated for one? Se7en sounds like "The Wrestler" of 1995. The Best Picture that year was Braveheart. Sorry but, Se7en is, so, so far a better movie than Braveheart. Brad Pitt did get nominated for an Oscar that year. It was for Best Actor in a Supporting Role, for Twelve Monkeys. Oh, I have another point to make. Zodiac. I don't know if you've seen this film. I rarely hear a good word about it from my friends. Most of them say that it was long-winded and boring. The movie was long, yes. I went to the late night showing of it, not quite anticipating it's length and ended up in the theater until after 1am. This was the first movie with Robert Downey Jr. in that made me sit up and recognise him. Obviously he's been around for much longer than 2 years, but this was the first movie I'd seen which I knew he was when I was watching it. He was absolutely superb in this movie and it is one of my favourite performances. Zodiac did not get anywhere near the recognition it deserved.
I'll move on from this point. In Bruges. If you've read this blog at all, then you might have read my review of In Bruges. If you have, you'll know I loved it. I still maintain that it was one of, if not the, best movie of 2008. I was astonished when I found out that it was nominated for an Oscar. Best Original Screenplay? Damn straight. I compare it to Milk, which won that particular Oscar. Milk is a very good movie, but I feel that In Bruges should have won. In Bruges is an absolute breath of fresh air. It is the definition of Original Screenplay. It would have been nice to see In Bruges win the won Oscar that it was nominated for, but I wasn't holding my breath on it.
I just realised, Michael Clayton was very unfortunate. It won one Oscar last year, Best Supporting Actress (Tilda Swinton - who seems to be everywhere now). Admittedly, No Country For Old Men deserved to win the awards it did. That is one absolute masterpiece. But I was blown away by Michael Clayton when I watched it. Maybe it's because I'm a law student and found the lawsuit fascinating, but the acting was truly wonderful. I don't know if it needs to be said, but, Tom Wilkinson. Tom Wilkinson knocked me off my seat in this movie. His performance echoed that of Peter Finch in Network. And I absolutely love Network. Network is one of my all-time favourite movies. An interesting note is that Peter Finch won the Academy Award for Best Actor for Network. He was the first person to win a posthumous Academy Award, the second being Heath Ledger for his role of The Joker in The Dark Knight (as if I needed to explain that). Oh and, if you don't know who Peter Finch was, he was an amazing actor. He won 5 BAFTA awards for Best Actor.
This is going to be a long post. If you've read this all the way to this point then I highly commend you. I don't think that there's much else I need to say at this point. But, there you go, the mandatory post about the Oscars. I didn't want to make it, but apparently I had a lot on my mind about these Oscars than I thought I did. By the way, I loved Slumdog Millionaire, and it deserved every Oscar it won. In general, I was happy with the awards. I would have liked to see Let The Right One In be nominated for Best Foreign Language Film. However due to the process that the Academy uses for nominating Foreign Language Films, it could not be nominated. The Academy needs to nominate foreign language movies based on the exact same merits they base the Best Picture nominations on. However because of the twisted system, it did not get nominated.
Right, I think I'm done now. Thanks for persevering if you read this entire post. Oh and one last point, I opened the comments to anyone (I didn't know I had it the other way). So please, if you read this blog, leave a comment. Apparently there are people who who read it, and I'd love to hear from you. So please drop me a quick line to let me know who you are and that you're reading. :)
Thanks a lot.
Speak soon.
[The title of this blog is a quote from Network by the way]
I didn't want this to be a blog about the Oscars, but it's going that way, I have a few more things to say. Everyone is "poo-poo"ing The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Someone on the Oscar.com message board said that "it's just another Forrest Gump." When was that a bad thing?! This movie was directed by one of my favourite directors, David Fincher. Reading the movies he's directed is like reading a list of some of my favourite movies. Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Is there a reason why this director has a way of getting the absolute best out of Brad Pitt? I think the relationship that David Fincher and Brad Pitt have could be compared to that of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. Somehow, he gets the best out of him. Those three movies (Se7en, Fight Club and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) are my favourite Brad Pitt Movies (probably in that order). Brad Pitt doesn't get enough recognition. People tend to see him as an A-list actor who doesn't really do much to have that status. However I actually think Brad Pitt is a bloody good actor. Yes, he acts in stupid movies that are pretty obviously just for the money, but that doesn't make him a bad actor.
I have a few more things to rant about on this topic. I know that when you start a new paragraph you should make a new point, but I just need to break this up a bit.
How the hell did Se7en not win any Oscars? And only get nominated for one? Se7en sounds like "The Wrestler" of 1995. The Best Picture that year was Braveheart. Sorry but, Se7en is, so, so far a better movie than Braveheart. Brad Pitt did get nominated for an Oscar that year. It was for Best Actor in a Supporting Role, for Twelve Monkeys. Oh, I have another point to make. Zodiac. I don't know if you've seen this film. I rarely hear a good word about it from my friends. Most of them say that it was long-winded and boring. The movie was long, yes. I went to the late night showing of it, not quite anticipating it's length and ended up in the theater until after 1am. This was the first movie with Robert Downey Jr. in that made me sit up and recognise him. Obviously he's been around for much longer than 2 years, but this was the first movie I'd seen which I knew he was when I was watching it. He was absolutely superb in this movie and it is one of my favourite performances. Zodiac did not get anywhere near the recognition it deserved.
I'll move on from this point. In Bruges. If you've read this blog at all, then you might have read my review of In Bruges. If you have, you'll know I loved it. I still maintain that it was one of, if not the, best movie of 2008. I was astonished when I found out that it was nominated for an Oscar. Best Original Screenplay? Damn straight. I compare it to Milk, which won that particular Oscar. Milk is a very good movie, but I feel that In Bruges should have won. In Bruges is an absolute breath of fresh air. It is the definition of Original Screenplay. It would have been nice to see In Bruges win the won Oscar that it was nominated for, but I wasn't holding my breath on it.
I just realised, Michael Clayton was very unfortunate. It won one Oscar last year, Best Supporting Actress (Tilda Swinton - who seems to be everywhere now). Admittedly, No Country For Old Men deserved to win the awards it did. That is one absolute masterpiece. But I was blown away by Michael Clayton when I watched it. Maybe it's because I'm a law student and found the lawsuit fascinating, but the acting was truly wonderful. I don't know if it needs to be said, but, Tom Wilkinson. Tom Wilkinson knocked me off my seat in this movie. His performance echoed that of Peter Finch in Network. And I absolutely love Network. Network is one of my all-time favourite movies. An interesting note is that Peter Finch won the Academy Award for Best Actor for Network. He was the first person to win a posthumous Academy Award, the second being Heath Ledger for his role of The Joker in The Dark Knight (as if I needed to explain that). Oh and, if you don't know who Peter Finch was, he was an amazing actor. He won 5 BAFTA awards for Best Actor.
This is going to be a long post. If you've read this all the way to this point then I highly commend you. I don't think that there's much else I need to say at this point. But, there you go, the mandatory post about the Oscars. I didn't want to make it, but apparently I had a lot on my mind about these Oscars than I thought I did. By the way, I loved Slumdog Millionaire, and it deserved every Oscar it won. In general, I was happy with the awards. I would have liked to see Let The Right One In be nominated for Best Foreign Language Film. However due to the process that the Academy uses for nominating Foreign Language Films, it could not be nominated. The Academy needs to nominate foreign language movies based on the exact same merits they base the Best Picture nominations on. However because of the twisted system, it did not get nominated.
Right, I think I'm done now. Thanks for persevering if you read this entire post. Oh and one last point, I opened the comments to anyone (I didn't know I had it the other way). So please, if you read this blog, leave a comment. Apparently there are people who who read it, and I'd love to hear from you. So please drop me a quick line to let me know who you are and that you're reading. :)
Thanks a lot.
Speak soon.
[The title of this blog is a quote from Network by the way]
Friday, 16 January 2009
The "de-conversion" story
I spent 18 years of my life living in the ultra-religious yet ultra-divided country of Northern Ireland. My family went to a Presbyterian Church, but not very often. It certainly was not something that we did every sunday. I think we went one Christmas, then my parents realized that it was stupid to expect two young children to get up for 11am and to choose going to church over opening their presents. I can remember that I never thought about whether or not God actually exists. For me, it was just, a fact. God was there. I never even knew there was a debate on the matter. Church was really just a very boring place to go to and it never served any purpose for me, spiritually or socially. I always had issues with the Bible, and I think that these issues were the basis for my later criticisms.
It started with me questioning things like, dinosaurs in the Bible, or how Noah could fit all those animals on a boat, or how Jonah survived inside a whale. I started to grow aware of the fact that there was no substantive evidence for God. We moved house when I was 11 and I have never been inside a church since except for weddings and funerals. When I went to secondary school (ages 12-18 for those who don't know), I started to notice religion a lot more. We had "prayers" every morning. I can remember not bowing my head in prayer, and being told by teachers that I had to bow my head. Verses from the Bible were read by Prefects and then the Headmaster would elaborate on these verses, often referring to the fact that Jesus' ministry was like a school. It was pretentious to say the least. I remember meeting my first Muslim in first year (12/13 years old). His name was Ahmed (or Aki for short). He was one of my best friends at the time. When Ramadan came round I found it fascinating. He left though a year later.
I quickly became very interested in Religious Education (or Religious Studies), and excelled at it. It was when I was about 14 that I started to realize large holes and flaws in the Bible. It was also around this age that I got very interested in reading and shortly after I read the God Delusion. I also watched comedians and it was Bill Hicks and George Carlin's bits on religion that genuinely made me think. I started to look up Bible verses and found some of the truly horrible things in it. I think one of the first issues I had was the flood. How could a loving God justify killing every human being on the planet? Of course soon I found the many more issues with the flood story.
I think it was when I was about 16 when I definitively considered myself an Atheist. I started to watch YouTube videos on the matter and it wasn't long before I was coming to terms with my own beliefs and morals. For a long time I wanted to make videos on YouTube on the matter, but I have since come to the conclusion that it is probably not the best way to get my voice heard.
So here I am today, an 18 year-old free thinker who managed to break away from the religious shackles that are placed on you as a child in Northern Ireland.
I do not subscribe to any religious belief, and I love it. I was able to disrupt the status quo in a religious school by being the first Atheist to win the RE prize. I won it the year after that as well. I was also the first person to get an A in A-Level RE (that's 18 years-old) for 6 years in the school, an accolade I am very proud of. The teachers didn't like how I was an Atheist, and the best student in the class. I maintain that it was because I was on the outside looking in, and everyone else was on the inside looking out.
One of my good friends, who was very religious, said to me a few months before school was finishing that he was not looking forward to it. His reason? He knew that if he didn't convert everyone before school finished, then they would go to Hell.
Yeah, I know. He also thinks that the "If you study a well-made banana" argument is excellent.
Sadly for him, he chose to follow Jesus, whereas I chose to follow reason. I don't really pity him though, he's old enough to know better.
Anyway, I'd best be off. I haven't killed any babies today, let alone brutally raped them.
It's difficult to keep up this sinful Atheist life that I lead!
Monday, 8 September 2008
The New Riddler?
So the entertainment world has been going mad over the possible actors who will play the role of the Riddler in the next Batman movie. After the casting genius behind Heath Ledger as the Joker, it is clear why there is so much anticipation to see who will be chosen for the popular role. Personally, the Riddler is one of my favourite Batman villains, and I thought that Jim Carrey played him fantastically in Batman Forever. It is kind of sad that the current Batman franchise is trying to distance itself from the previous one because in my opinion, Jim Carrey is still perfect for the role.
Some websites are reporting that Johnny Depp has been confirmed for the role, and this brings a mixed response. Personally, I would like the new franchise to take a different view of the Riddler. Seeing how the Joker takes on a more psychotic role rather than a comedic role in The Dark Knight. If they are thinking about Johnny Depp as Captain Jack, then this is pretty much the opposite of what I'd like to see the new franchise do with the Riddler. I think it would be a nice twist if the Riddler was very clean cut, in my opinion it would make the character that bit more disturbing and dark. The Riddler has always been a light-hearted character, even with the evil undertones. He was always very active and full of energy. It would be an interesting twist to see the Riddler played as a demure, almost timid person, but with the same evil undertones. I personally think that Johnny Depp could play this role very well. It reminds me of his performance in Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, a reserved character with distinct sinister intentions.
However, I worry that in an attempt to keep the franchise commercially popular they will make the Riddler more like Captain Jack than Sweeny Todd. Another issue I have with casting Johnny Depp is that he is a big celebrity, more of a celebrity than anyone else on the cast list. The villians in the previous Batman films from this franchise have not been major A-list celebrities. Many people would never have heard the name Cillian Murphy before Batman Begins. I can remember being excited when I saw his name on the cast list because it was a big film. I'd seen him before in 28 Days Later and Intermission, and knew it would test his acting abilities. The case was the same with Heath Ledger, apart from Brokeback Mountain, he had not really shone in an many acting roles. This seems to be a testament of the new franchise, being able to bring the best out of the non A-listers. The case is exactly the same with Aaron Eckhart in the role of Two Face.
I have mulled this over for a while and have come up with a small shortlist of who I would cast as the Riddler, for various reasons which I will explain.
1. Michael Emerson
If you ask me, Emerson would be perfect for a slightly more demure Riddler, but still with the ability to commit evil deeds. He plays the character of Benjamin Linus in Lost so well that I feel he could cope with the pressures of a role like the Riddler. Also he is far from an A-list celebrity so would not overshadow the main character of Batman, however is still recognisable enough to not be an on-screen stranger. Also as a point to note, his fellow Lost cast-member Nestor Carbonell (who plays Richard Alpert - The man who never seems to age) is in the Dark Knight as Mayor Anthony Garcia.
2. David Tennant
This would certainly be a test of the acting skills of Doctor Who star David Tennant. It would most likely be a hit amongst British viewers, but international viewers would probably be unaware of who he is, and he would literally be an on-screen stranger. One issue is that he would have to pull of a believable American accent. In my opinion Cillian Murphy did a great job of this, and he is from Cork, Ireland. Tennant is Scottish, however plays an Englishman in Doctor Who, so he has to put on an accent whenever he acts most of the time anyway, and it is wholly believable. The only issue I think would be whether he could pull off the sinister side, but again, these were qualms I had with Heath Ledger when I heard he had been cast as the Joker, so that just shows how redundant I am with predicting actor's abilities.
3. Lee Evans
Although this would probably be a bit of a reversion to the Riddler from Batman Forever, I could see Lee Evans playing the role. Not because of his resemblance to the character, but because Lee Evans can play the serious roles, and he is a very talented actor. It seems clear that if he was cast, the Riddler would be very similar to Jim Carrey's Riddler. However I could see Lee Evans pull off a more serious and clean cut Riddler, perhaps if he was British that would add an extra element of sinister? Although that wouldn't really be true to the original comic.
4. Kent Hovind
Seriously, this guy wouldn't even have to act. Not a word that comes out of his mouth makes any sense. Damn, I forgot, he'll still be in prison for Tax Fraud by then. Oh well.
On top of these I'd also like to mention other characters. Harley Quinn has been banging around, due to her relationship with the Joker, and so has the Penguin. Apparently Philip Seymour Hoffman has been rumoured to play the role of the Penguin, and this is a decision I highly agree with.
And someone did a mock-up of Kristen Bell as Harley Quinn, it looks pretty awesome.
If you ask me, Tim Curry from the 1970s would be the perfect Riddler. Well spoken and strikingly excellent looks. Observe...
That's all for now kids.
Some websites are reporting that Johnny Depp has been confirmed for the role, and this brings a mixed response. Personally, I would like the new franchise to take a different view of the Riddler. Seeing how the Joker takes on a more psychotic role rather than a comedic role in The Dark Knight. If they are thinking about Johnny Depp as Captain Jack, then this is pretty much the opposite of what I'd like to see the new franchise do with the Riddler. I think it would be a nice twist if the Riddler was very clean cut, in my opinion it would make the character that bit more disturbing and dark. The Riddler has always been a light-hearted character, even with the evil undertones. He was always very active and full of energy. It would be an interesting twist to see the Riddler played as a demure, almost timid person, but with the same evil undertones. I personally think that Johnny Depp could play this role very well. It reminds me of his performance in Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, a reserved character with distinct sinister intentions.
However, I worry that in an attempt to keep the franchise commercially popular they will make the Riddler more like Captain Jack than Sweeny Todd. Another issue I have with casting Johnny Depp is that he is a big celebrity, more of a celebrity than anyone else on the cast list. The villians in the previous Batman films from this franchise have not been major A-list celebrities. Many people would never have heard the name Cillian Murphy before Batman Begins. I can remember being excited when I saw his name on the cast list because it was a big film. I'd seen him before in 28 Days Later and Intermission, and knew it would test his acting abilities. The case was the same with Heath Ledger, apart from Brokeback Mountain, he had not really shone in an many acting roles. This seems to be a testament of the new franchise, being able to bring the best out of the non A-listers. The case is exactly the same with Aaron Eckhart in the role of Two Face.
I have mulled this over for a while and have come up with a small shortlist of who I would cast as the Riddler, for various reasons which I will explain.
1. Michael Emerson
If you ask me, Emerson would be perfect for a slightly more demure Riddler, but still with the ability to commit evil deeds. He plays the character of Benjamin Linus in Lost so well that I feel he could cope with the pressures of a role like the Riddler. Also he is far from an A-list celebrity so would not overshadow the main character of Batman, however is still recognisable enough to not be an on-screen stranger. Also as a point to note, his fellow Lost cast-member Nestor Carbonell (who plays Richard Alpert - The man who never seems to age) is in the Dark Knight as Mayor Anthony Garcia.
2. David Tennant
This would certainly be a test of the acting skills of Doctor Who star David Tennant. It would most likely be a hit amongst British viewers, but international viewers would probably be unaware of who he is, and he would literally be an on-screen stranger. One issue is that he would have to pull of a believable American accent. In my opinion Cillian Murphy did a great job of this, and he is from Cork, Ireland. Tennant is Scottish, however plays an Englishman in Doctor Who, so he has to put on an accent whenever he acts most of the time anyway, and it is wholly believable. The only issue I think would be whether he could pull off the sinister side, but again, these were qualms I had with Heath Ledger when I heard he had been cast as the Joker, so that just shows how redundant I am with predicting actor's abilities.
3. Lee Evans
Although this would probably be a bit of a reversion to the Riddler from Batman Forever, I could see Lee Evans playing the role. Not because of his resemblance to the character, but because Lee Evans can play the serious roles, and he is a very talented actor. It seems clear that if he was cast, the Riddler would be very similar to Jim Carrey's Riddler. However I could see Lee Evans pull off a more serious and clean cut Riddler, perhaps if he was British that would add an extra element of sinister? Although that wouldn't really be true to the original comic.
4. Kent Hovind
Seriously, this guy wouldn't even have to act. Not a word that comes out of his mouth makes any sense. Damn, I forgot, he'll still be in prison for Tax Fraud by then. Oh well.
On top of these I'd also like to mention other characters. Harley Quinn has been banging around, due to her relationship with the Joker, and so has the Penguin. Apparently Philip Seymour Hoffman has been rumoured to play the role of the Penguin, and this is a decision I highly agree with.
And someone did a mock-up of Kristen Bell as Harley Quinn, it looks pretty awesome.
If you ask me, Tim Curry from the 1970s would be the perfect Riddler. Well spoken and strikingly excellent looks. Observe...
That's all for now kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
