looks like it could be good. Will Ferrell has done some good stuff over the years, chief among them being Stranger Than Fiction, but he's also churned out some real garbage. As such I am cautiously optimistic that this one will be a fun flick. Mark Wahlberg turned in a pretty serviceable comic performance in Date Night, which gives me hope that he'll add something to Farrell, who can be a tad predictable to say the least. Overall it does seem like a vanilla comedy, but ... I don't know there's just something about the trailer. I think it looks fairly good.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Turn Around Bright Eyes...
a song that has previously been covered by The Dan Band (and really did anybody think this could be upstaged? I know I didn't)
has now been covered by none other than William Shatner, with the assistance of some other guy I've never heard of. Still this may be one of the craziest, most fucked up things I have seen in at least a week ;) I kinda feel like every time I watch it, another little piece of my cold, dead, blackened soul is lost forever. Like a train wreck happening in slow motion, I just can't seem to look away!!
has now been covered by none other than William Shatner, with the assistance of some other guy I've never heard of. Still this may be one of the craziest, most fucked up things I have seen in at least a week ;) I kinda feel like every time I watch it, another little piece of my cold, dead, blackened soul is lost forever. Like a train wreck happening in slow motion, I just can't seem to look away!!
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Beat Hazard, Another MUST PLAY!!
Discovered this game earlier in the week, and seeing as it was only $8 on Steam, I bought it. Boy, what a fucking good decision that was. This is another example of the excellent gameplay that can be found by playing indie games. Though it is certainly true that anyone with photosensitive epilepsy should probably remain in a separate hemisphere of the planet while you play (I'm serious!! This game almost causes me to stroke out).
The game is modelled after the classic Meteor style combat. You control a single ship, while hordes of enemies (of varying power and size) assail you from all sides. The twist is that the entire game is fueled by your own music collection. The number of enemies and the power of your ship are directly related to the intensity of the music playing. The nature of the gameplay does discriminate ever so slightly against those who don't have a pulse pounding electronic collection, or some equally crazed thrash metal. It does come with a few tracks that would probably get you started at least, but I'm not convinced the game would have much replayablilty if you only played the packaged tracks.
The most intense, and immediately apparent aspect of the game is certainly the visuals. On a slower track, with a low powered shit, it might not look that impressive, but fire up anything by Dragonforce and you can barely even see your ship.. it can get pretty crazy - and I have not even dipped my toes into the hardcore difficulty setting yet.
Anyway for $8 it was a steal, and for $10 I think it's still pretty good value if you are going to pick it up yourself. There is a demo available on Steam, and the game is also on the PS3 Network (or so I'm told). Here is a video to wet your appetite:
The game is modelled after the classic Meteor style combat. You control a single ship, while hordes of enemies (of varying power and size) assail you from all sides. The twist is that the entire game is fueled by your own music collection. The number of enemies and the power of your ship are directly related to the intensity of the music playing. The nature of the gameplay does discriminate ever so slightly against those who don't have a pulse pounding electronic collection, or some equally crazed thrash metal. It does come with a few tracks that would probably get you started at least, but I'm not convinced the game would have much replayablilty if you only played the packaged tracks.
The most intense, and immediately apparent aspect of the game is certainly the visuals. On a slower track, with a low powered shit, it might not look that impressive, but fire up anything by Dragonforce and you can barely even see your ship.. it can get pretty crazy - and I have not even dipped my toes into the hardcore difficulty setting yet.
Anyway for $8 it was a steal, and for $10 I think it's still pretty good value if you are going to pick it up yourself. There is a demo available on Steam, and the game is also on the PS3 Network (or so I'm told). Here is a video to wet your appetite:
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Dr Who - New Season, New Doctor
Personally I rather liked this first episode with Matt Smith in the leading role. Talking to one of my friends yesterday, he indicated that he still wasn't sold on Smith in the role, but personally I think he did an excellent job. Smith, I think, feels more like Tom Bakers Doctor and thus distances himself from the 9th and 10th docs. This is a good thing - because while I loved both Eccleston and Tennant, I really felt like it was time for a change. Especially in Tennants last season I felt like I was getting a little tired of the 10th Doctor.
Smith was great, full of crazy, leaping around like a maniac and basically leaving everyone else squarely in his wake. Also loved the new companion Amy Pond, not only is she a better looking red head than Catherine Tate (and yes I am one of those folks who hate, HATED, Tate's character), but she is a much better foil for the Doctor. Honestly I don't envision her breaking down in tears ala Tate's character. Only one episode in and already I am very much looking forward to the rest of this season. Here's hoping Moffat can maintain the caliber of this episode throughout his tenure as 'The Boss of Dr Who'.
Also take a look at Robs review at ToplessRobot, he and I are pretty much in agreement on this one.
Smith was great, full of crazy, leaping around like a maniac and basically leaving everyone else squarely in his wake. Also loved the new companion Amy Pond, not only is she a better looking red head than Catherine Tate (and yes I am one of those folks who hate, HATED, Tate's character), but she is a much better foil for the Doctor. Honestly I don't envision her breaking down in tears ala Tate's character. Only one episode in and already I am very much looking forward to the rest of this season. Here's hoping Moffat can maintain the caliber of this episode throughout his tenure as 'The Boss of Dr Who'.
Also take a look at Robs review at ToplessRobot, he and I are pretty much in agreement on this one.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
24 and the Big Bang Theory - Spoilers
After watching this weeks episodes of 24 and The Big Bang Theory I have to ask . . . WHAT THE FUCK????
In 24 Jack and Renee finally hooked up after an entire season of 'will they wont they' bullshit and less than 2 minutes after they hook up - Renee is shot and killed. Is there no justice for Jack Bauer, can they guy never catch a fucking break. Lets not forget that this is the final season of the show (unless it gets picked up on another network, but honestly even if it does - I can assure you that this is the last season I will ever watch). So given that the first season ended with the death of Jacks wife, is it too much to ask that he end the last season with someone still alive that he cares about? The writers of 24 should be shot, and I haven't even begun to discuss the absolute trash they are peddling as plot this season.
Now, onto The Big Bang Theory, different journey, same destination. After 2 seasons of 'will they wont they' bullshit - Leonard and Penny finally go together. The geek got the hot chick, I liked the message they were sending here. All was well with the world until I watched last nights episode, in which Penny fucking dumps the poor bastard, by walking out on him, in a bowling alley, in front of his friends, all because he told her that he loved her. Are the writers on this show injecting themsleves with the same shit the 24 writers are on, are they even fucking sharing needles? Once again I ask you - WHAT THE FUCK? The show works better when they are a couple, I honestly can't take another season of Leonard pining after Penny, or moping about and complaining because he isn't with Penny - enough already for fuck sake, I had to watch an entire season of that shit, just let the poor bastard be happy.
Which brings me quite conveniently to my closing point - attention writers, your characters dont have to be drowning in misery and dispair every second of every fucking episode. With 24 I could almost be convinced that it was appropriate because Jack is married to the job, and shouldn't as a result every be happy with anyone else, and it is a pretty dark show when all's said and done. So in that regard, okay, I may not like it, but I understand why Jack has to be shit on at the end of every episode. Big Bang Theory is a light hearted comedy, is it really so bad for the characters to actually be fucking happy - or at least content? The writers better have one hell of a fix planned for that one, because if this season ends and Leonard and Penny are still broken up, I may not be back for the next one.
(Well, those who know me probably know I said a similar thing about the previous season finale of Bones, and I still watch that so ... whatever, my point still stands, they need to fix that shit)
In 24 Jack and Renee finally hooked up after an entire season of 'will they wont they' bullshit and less than 2 minutes after they hook up - Renee is shot and killed. Is there no justice for Jack Bauer, can they guy never catch a fucking break. Lets not forget that this is the final season of the show (unless it gets picked up on another network, but honestly even if it does - I can assure you that this is the last season I will ever watch). So given that the first season ended with the death of Jacks wife, is it too much to ask that he end the last season with someone still alive that he cares about? The writers of 24 should be shot, and I haven't even begun to discuss the absolute trash they are peddling as plot this season.
Now, onto The Big Bang Theory, different journey, same destination. After 2 seasons of 'will they wont they' bullshit - Leonard and Penny finally go together. The geek got the hot chick, I liked the message they were sending here. All was well with the world until I watched last nights episode, in which Penny fucking dumps the poor bastard, by walking out on him, in a bowling alley, in front of his friends, all because he told her that he loved her. Are the writers on this show injecting themsleves with the same shit the 24 writers are on, are they even fucking sharing needles? Once again I ask you - WHAT THE FUCK? The show works better when they are a couple, I honestly can't take another season of Leonard pining after Penny, or moping about and complaining because he isn't with Penny - enough already for fuck sake, I had to watch an entire season of that shit, just let the poor bastard be happy.
Which brings me quite conveniently to my closing point - attention writers, your characters dont have to be drowning in misery and dispair every second of every fucking episode. With 24 I could almost be convinced that it was appropriate because Jack is married to the job, and shouldn't as a result every be happy with anyone else, and it is a pretty dark show when all's said and done. So in that regard, okay, I may not like it, but I understand why Jack has to be shit on at the end of every episode. Big Bang Theory is a light hearted comedy, is it really so bad for the characters to actually be fucking happy - or at least content? The writers better have one hell of a fix planned for that one, because if this season ends and Leonard and Penny are still broken up, I may not be back for the next one.
(Well, those who know me probably know I said a similar thing about the previous season finale of Bones, and I still watch that so ... whatever, my point still stands, they need to fix that shit)
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The UK's Digital Economy Bill
Well I have to admit, seeing as I am not currently a resident of the UK, that this bill went unnoticed by me until arstechnica posted a couple of news stories about it. Had I been aware of it previously I would have been extremely vocal in my protests against such a laughably flawed piece of legislation. The official party line states that the purpose of the DEB is to "Strengthen the nation’s communications infrastructures, equipping the UK to compete and lead in the global digital economy." Which is a nice way of saying absolutely fucking nothing at all.
Well it has come to my attention that clause 8 of the bill (which can be reviewed in its entirety here) essentially allows the UK government to block users from accessing any website that it chooses to. Of course, that is not what the politicians will tell you, instead they indicate that the what clause 8 really does is give them the right to block websites that are engaged in copyright infringement. To be clear the wording of the DEB: clause 8 allows the government to:
What is so wrong with this you may ask. They are endeavoring to prevent copyright infractions, isn't that a good thing? Well yes, of course preventing copyright theft is a good thing, but this bill has been rushed through parliament so fast, nobody is stopping to deliberate on any of the issues or take the time to ensure that it is worded clearly. I absolutely support the idea of protecting copyrights, I have gone on the record before in support of the idea of Digital Rights Management (even if I think the current implementations of such systems are critically flawed and do nothing to restrict or discourage 'piracy'). This bill however does nothing of the sort.
If this clause was worded thus: "to block a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been or is being used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright," I would grudgingly accept it. I am not, generally, in favor of Government censorship of the internet, it leads to all kinds of craziness. Look at the whole China Vs Google nonsense, or the recent censorship fiasco in Australia. Nothing good comes from government enforced censorship. The current wording of this clause allows the government to block any site that "is likely" to be used for copyright infringement. How, pray do tell, can we ever conclusively prove that a website might be used for copyright infringement sometime in the distant (or not so distant) future. More importantly how can we disprove it, how can a website (fallen victim to such a block) defend itself against something it hasn't even done yet. Is there a fucking pre-crime division operating in London that I don't know about?
Another factor which has been the cause of criticism over the bill is the speed at which it is being rushed into law. First, the entire thing is being presented to parliament during the "wash up" period (the brief time before the new elections) which inevitably means that less time is spent on debate as parliament wants to take care of as much as it can before the whole place is repopulated. Gary Marshall, a writer for Tech Radar emphasizes the complete lack of interest exhibited by many of the MP's who voted for the bill (and those who didn't even bother showing up), and adds that over 20,000 constituents wrote letters of disapproval during just 48 hours and were summarily ignored by their elected officials (big surprise).
What we essentially have here is a new law that will make government censorship completely legal in the UK. The messy, vague wording of clause 8 means that if the government is 'convinced' that a site, might possibly, be utilized for copyright infringement at some point in the distant future - they can legally block access to that site.
Of course, the crux of the matter here is that this bill will in no way prevent piracy. It's true that peer to peer programs have a long history of copyright infringement, and it is a very efficient way to distribute stolen content, but there are so many alternatives now that locking down P2P usage is not going to make a damn bit of difference. BitTorrent is another widely used method of file sharing that does not rely on said P2P networks. USENET groups also have a long history of flying under the radar as far as copyright infringement is concerned, but still represents a viable alternative to P2P in the acquisition of pirated content (games, movies, music etc).
The idea that copyright infringement (piracy) can be contained by shutting down access to a single website is flawed to begin with, whenever one site gets closed down a hundred others will pop up to replace it, there is no way to win that fight. It sucks, but piracy is here to stay, copyright holders and governments can continue to pass bogus legislation and implement flawed and crippling DRM schemes, but in the end the pirate always wins. Today the pirate winds up with a superious product in many cases because the version of the software they are using has had the DRM stripped out, it is the legitimate consumer that is bogged down with the infruriating DRM scheme that is preventing them from using the software they have ligitimately purchased. As Tycho over at Penny Arcade once said "I don't know why anybody tries to stop nerds from doing anything. It's really such a huge waste of time!"
But I digress - the point here is that the Digital Economy Bill is flawed, it (just like modern DRM) will not prevent or even discourage piracy. Even more alarming is that due to vague (hell, maybe even deliberately vague) wording this bill gives the government an unprecedented amount of freedom in regard to censoring the internet for British Citizens. Personally I am fucking disgusted that this bill is being passed into law. I used to think that Australia had to worst internet policies on the planet - I guess the UK is in the running for the top spot now!!
For more on this, and the possible implications of the bill, the following sites offer some interesting articles:
Arstechinca
The Register
Tech Radar
DEB Wiki Entry
Well it has come to my attention that clause 8 of the bill (which can be reviewed in its entirety here) essentially allows the UK government to block users from accessing any website that it chooses to. Of course, that is not what the politicians will tell you, instead they indicate that the what clause 8 really does is give them the right to block websites that are engaged in copyright infringement. To be clear the wording of the DEB: clause 8 allows the government to:
"[block] a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright".
What is so wrong with this you may ask. They are endeavoring to prevent copyright infractions, isn't that a good thing? Well yes, of course preventing copyright theft is a good thing, but this bill has been rushed through parliament so fast, nobody is stopping to deliberate on any of the issues or take the time to ensure that it is worded clearly. I absolutely support the idea of protecting copyrights, I have gone on the record before in support of the idea of Digital Rights Management (even if I think the current implementations of such systems are critically flawed and do nothing to restrict or discourage 'piracy'). This bill however does nothing of the sort.
If this clause was worded thus: "to block a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been or is being used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright," I would grudgingly accept it. I am not, generally, in favor of Government censorship of the internet, it leads to all kinds of craziness. Look at the whole China Vs Google nonsense, or the recent censorship fiasco in Australia. Nothing good comes from government enforced censorship. The current wording of this clause allows the government to block any site that "is likely" to be used for copyright infringement. How, pray do tell, can we ever conclusively prove that a website might be used for copyright infringement sometime in the distant (or not so distant) future. More importantly how can we disprove it, how can a website (fallen victim to such a block) defend itself against something it hasn't even done yet. Is there a fucking pre-crime division operating in London that I don't know about?
Another factor which has been the cause of criticism over the bill is the speed at which it is being rushed into law. First, the entire thing is being presented to parliament during the "wash up" period (the brief time before the new elections) which inevitably means that less time is spent on debate as parliament wants to take care of as much as it can before the whole place is repopulated. Gary Marshall, a writer for Tech Radar emphasizes the complete lack of interest exhibited by many of the MP's who voted for the bill (and those who didn't even bother showing up), and adds that over 20,000 constituents wrote letters of disapproval during just 48 hours and were summarily ignored by their elected officials (big surprise).
What we essentially have here is a new law that will make government censorship completely legal in the UK. The messy, vague wording of clause 8 means that if the government is 'convinced' that a site, might possibly, be utilized for copyright infringement at some point in the distant future - they can legally block access to that site.
Of course, the crux of the matter here is that this bill will in no way prevent piracy. It's true that peer to peer programs have a long history of copyright infringement, and it is a very efficient way to distribute stolen content, but there are so many alternatives now that locking down P2P usage is not going to make a damn bit of difference. BitTorrent is another widely used method of file sharing that does not rely on said P2P networks. USENET groups also have a long history of flying under the radar as far as copyright infringement is concerned, but still represents a viable alternative to P2P in the acquisition of pirated content (games, movies, music etc).
But I digress - the point here is that the Digital Economy Bill is flawed, it (just like modern DRM) will not prevent or even discourage piracy. Even more alarming is that due to vague (hell, maybe even deliberately vague) wording this bill gives the government an unprecedented amount of freedom in regard to censoring the internet for British Citizens. Personally I am fucking disgusted that this bill is being passed into law. I used to think that Australia had to worst internet policies on the planet - I guess the UK is in the running for the top spot now!!
For more on this, and the possible implications of the bill, the following sites offer some interesting articles:
Arstechinca
The Register
Tech Radar
DEB Wiki Entry
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The Thundercats theme with a Rock flavour and some Knight Rider craziness!!
Don't ask me how I came across this particular video, it's probably better left unsaid. Regardless, I regard it as something of a train wreck in the sense that it is really pretty cheesy, but I somehow couldn't look away. The video in question (which appears below) is a rock rendition of the Thundercats theme song by the Rembrandts, and for some reason it's spliced together with the animated characters from the show. Anyway if you're in the mood for a laugh take a look.
As truly bizarre as that was, I honestly think this next one is even crazier. To paraphrase from Yes Man, this video will blow your mind, it's like a fucking mind grenade - honestly!!
As truly bizarre as that was, I honestly think this next one is even crazier. To paraphrase from Yes Man, this video will blow your mind, it's like a fucking mind grenade - honestly!!
Thursday, April 1, 2010
The Expendables: Can one movie really contain this much Awesome?
Just watched the latest trailer for The Expendables, and it looks fucking epic!! The cast of this movie is absolutely off the wall - Stallone, Statham, Li, Lundgren, Rourke, Willis, and as an added bonus even Arnie has a cameo!! I'm entirely sure what plot drives the movie, nor do I care, with a cast like this one and a premise that involves guns and explosions - I would actually pay for a prime time ticket to see it.
And now for your viewing pleasure, The Expendables: -Trailer B:
This feels like a good old fashioned 80's movie to me and I approve. Damn do I approve!! Speaking of the 80's I'm sure there's another movie coming up that reminds me of that era... now what was it again? Oh!! Of course... its the fucking A-Team!!
Now, from a strictly nostalgic point of view, I have to award the A-Team movie with the Gold Medal here, Expendables picks up a well earned Silver. Hell, I grew up with the A-Team the idea of seeing it on the big screen makes me all warm and tingly inside - roll on Summer!!
And now for your viewing pleasure, The Expendables: -Trailer B:
This feels like a good old fashioned 80's movie to me and I approve. Damn do I approve!! Speaking of the 80's I'm sure there's another movie coming up that reminds me of that era... now what was it again? Oh!! Of course... its the fucking A-Team!!
Now, from a strictly nostalgic point of view, I have to award the A-Team movie with the Gold Medal here, Expendables picks up a well earned Silver. Hell, I grew up with the A-Team the idea of seeing it on the big screen makes me all warm and tingly inside - roll on Summer!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
