http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Mon, 2 Jan 2006 11:30:27 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/02/113027.php Alisha KarabinusThe DVD for Serenity, the film based on Joss Whedon's short-lived television series Firefly holds steady in the #2 slot at Amazon in their sales ranking, with the DVD of the series coming in at #3. Since the series has been available since 2002, and the film was released on DVD on December 20, 2005, these are huge numbers for the franchise. Despite a lackluster showing at the box office, it seems that fans will not let go of Serenity.For those not in the know, the science fiction series and film follow a band of intrepid adventurers (are there any other sort of adventurers?) aboard a spacecraft named Serenity. The crew picks up a pair of siblings on the run from the Alliance (think universal government). The film covers some of the same ground as the series, but for the most part it is the unique story of what happened to the siblings, Simon and River Tam, and why the Alliance is so interested in recapturing River, a seventeen year old girl.The Firefly franchise is somewhat unique, however, in that it is a space western. Scenes can shift from a bustling stellar marketplace that is reminiscent of Bladerunner to a dusty planet peopled with Old West characters complete with ten gallon hats. But don't think that Whedon's universe is all derivative -- while certain influences are clear, the world of Firefly is like no other. Back in November of last year, Blogcritics were allowed to submit questions to Mr. Whedon about the film, and this query regarding existential themes from our own Bill Wallo is addressed in the footage below:In what ways, if any, does the film's storyline manifest your own existential philosophies and/or the work of Jean-Paul Sartre?Quicktime low Quicktime medium Quicktime highWindows Media Viewer low Windows Media Viewer medium Windows Media Viewer high Video41706@blogcritics.org Mon, 2 Jan 2006 11:30:27 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/14/162328.php Alisha KarabinusBlogcritics really dig documentaries, and they don't shy away from violence (even stylized violence, as in the lone film to be selected by more than one of our critics). They like foreign films, and they're not too pretentious to admit that action movies can be amazing, too. But the best thing that can be said about our Blogcritics is that they have opinions, lots of them, and they can back them up. Here are their opinions on the best movies of 2005 -- and it's not always the movies you might expect.Alan Dale Grizzly Man Directed by Werner HerzogWerner Herzog's Grizzly Man, a documentary about Timothy Treadwell (1957-2003), who spent 13 summers among the grizzlies in Alaska until one killed him, was my favorite movie this year. Heroism presents the greatest problem for movies. The educated are skeptical of romance, the genre of conventional heroism, but naturalism, the opposite of romance, isn't much to any moviegoers' tastes. The market prevails and we get almost nothing but romances, which receive praise to the extent they mirror the viewer's beliefs. Even history becomes romance -- Good Night, and Good Luck., North Country, even, in the final analysis, Capote -- and people who should know better cheer. Irony, by contrast, presents a disenchanted view of humanity, counteracting the sugar-poisoning of romance, even when it ends upbeat, as did two enjoyably raucous, ironic comedies this year, The Upside of Anger and The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Grizzly Man is freezing irony, Herzog's virtue that of the visionary ironist addressing the very real problem of living right, on every level from the local to the interplanetary. Heroism is not impossible, but not, perhaps, likely. Herzog does show some tenderness for the hapless Treadwell but also sees what's buffoonish about him. Irony can strike wonderful balances. Thus, the Alaskan footage (from 100 hours of video shot by Treadwell) endows the movie with an element of nature rhapsody that raises even Treadwell the yapping narcissist to a (somewhat) higher plane. He's a great big fool in a great ambiguous paradise. El Bicho King Kong Directed by Peter JacksonFilm history is going be made with the release of King Kong because Peter Jackson has made the film that is destined to become the new box office champ and you can take that to the bank. It is everything that "Titanic" was and more. It's filled with breath-taking action, thrilling adventure, marvelous special effects, but at its core it succeeds where Titanic failed by creating believable characters and an amazing story that will tug at your heartstrings. Forget gay cowboys -- this is a love story for the agesKing Kong is so good that not only will you want to relive the experience in a theatre with an audience like a child racing back onto a roller coaster once he gets off, but you will want to bring everyone you know with you. You will see and hear a thesaurus full of adjectives to describe this film. Everything positive you hear will be true. Anything negative is a lie by someone trying, and failing, to look cool.Jackson has put everyone on notice on how to make a movie. And I don't just mean the hacks with parents in the business or those that have garnered movie deals because they were able to complete a music video or commercial. I'm talking the big boys and hot shots of Hollywood. Spielberg, Tarantino and especially Lucas are exposed for the frauds that they are and taken to the woodshed. You will never see movies the same way again, and thankfully so. Jenifer Gonzales and Chris Beaumont Sin City Directed by Robert Rodriguez and Frank MillerJenifer: Having to choose one movie from 2005 as my pick for the best is like squeezing blood from a turnip. It's a difficult chore, and not because there were so many great movies to choose from. But rather, I feel like I'm simply settling with my pick. There are still several movies on the December horizon that seem much better than what we've seen so far this year. But here goes ...I really liked Sin City. And this was a surprise to me, who usually shies away from the dark, blood-and-gore types. Begrudgingly, I went to see it thinking I'd hate it, yet I came away from the theater lauding it for many reasons. Namely, Mickey Rourke as Marv. Rourke played the rock-solid, comic book-ish thug to perfection. Marv was completely antithetical to the typical movie superhero, and for that, I fell in love with him, despite his tendencies for murder and mayhem.I also loved the stylized violence juxtapositioned against the stark black-and-white background. Blood disguised as bright splashes of color was like cinematic eye candy. At times, I wanted to look away, like when Benicio Del Toro's head was nearly chopped off and left dangling like a Pez dispenser (thanks to special guest director Quentin Tarrantino, who helmed that particular storyline). But Robert Rodriguez's film noir direction throughout kept me reeled in until the end.Chris: The best movie of the year is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, Sin City. Robert Rodriguez brought the tough, hard-boiled tales to the screen with great style and an over the top attitude. The movie is a departure from anything you're likely to see this year. The tales of a detective on the verge of retirement, a low-level thug looking for the one that got away, and a man on the brink of a turf war all intertwine in this new age noir. It is filled with tough guys, damsels in distress, guys in distress, and tough damsels. It takes traditional roles and flips them around inside a surrealist's bag of tricks. This is quite possibly the most literal translation of the printed page to the screen ever made. The source graphic novels are practically storyboards for this film. It was made in black and white with the occasional effective use of color. If you want style, Sin City is dripping with it. If you want realistic images or dialogue, go elsewhere. This is all about the image -- truly revolutionary filmmaking. The convergence of content and concept are drawing nearer. Too often you get great stories or you get great visuals; rarely do they come together. I have envisioned a future where storytelling and visual inventiveness converge, and Sin City is that glorious future. Bill Wallo House of Flying Daggers Directed by Zhang YimouFew films are as drenched in color as Zhang Yimou's, and House of Flying Daggers is no exception. The rich color palette lends itself to this tale of love, deception, and betrayal, and both the beauty of the film and the choreography of its action sequences fully serve the story itself. Government officers Leo and Jin (played by Andy Lau and Takeshi Kaneshiro) try and destroy a rebellious group called the House of Flying Daggers by tricking a blind woman (Ziyi Zhang) into leading them to the group's hideout. But the larger conflict becomes personal as the relationships of the three evolve. Zhang manages to fuse the disparate components of his tragic love story with incredible visuals; it is truly a film that must be seen to be believed.Tiffany Leigh War of the Worlds Directed by Steven SpielbergMy favorite/best movie of 2005 is easily The Constant Gardener.But I'm choosing War of the Worlds instead.Conventional Video40856@blogcritics.org Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:23:28 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/13/234003.php Alisha KarabinusOn December 14, Kong is king! Check out early reviews right here at Blogcritics!The film, starring Jack Black, Naomi Watts, and Adrian Brody, is helmed by acclaimed director Peter Jackson (the Lord of the Rings trilogy), and has already been nominated for several Golden Globe awards. How's that for great buzz right out of the gate? But forget awards -- bring on the giant ape!King Kong, for the uninitiated (do you live under a rock?) is the story of an amazing beast and his tragic clash with civilization. Director Carl Denham (Jack Black) sets out to make a film in on a "lost" island, and instead finds a world like no other. Trailers are available at the official site. Also, check out the production diaries, available online, or in an awesome new box set. Recreating King Kong was Jackson's lifelong dream, and the journey from beginning to end is as thrilling as the completed film! This is a rare look into a project of passion with one of the world's top directors, and has something for everyone, from the film and effects geeks to the most casual fan. Answer the questions below by sending an e-mail to enter the contest and win a hat and a t-shirt! Do not leave your answers in the comments -- they won't be considered.1) In the original (1933) King Kong, how big were the models of the giant gorilla? a) 24 inches b) 18 inches c) 12 inches d) 4 feet 2) European scientists were credited with "discovering" gorillas in what year? a) 1901 b) 1823 c) 1847 d) 1717 3) How many official (U.S.) versions of King Kong have now been made (excluding sequels)? 4) How much did Fay Wray make while working under contract for Universal? 5) Would you be more likely to accept a marriage proposal from someone dressed as: a) A giant banana b) A giant gorilla?Come on... a contest should be fun, or what's the point? Well, besides the free goodies. Send in your answers quick, because this schwag won't last forever! Video40947@blogcritics.org Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:40:03 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/13/114608.php Alisha KarabinusNominations for the 63rd annual Golden Globes are out, and if this year's list is an indication for the Academy Awards, it's looking like it may be a good year to be a cowboy in love. Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain tops the list, with seven awards, including nods for best direction and actor -- but only one in the latter category. Heath Ledger was a shoo-in for his role as the conflicted Ennis del Mar, but many expected co-star Jake Gyllenhaal to be nominated as well for his performance as del Mar's tense lover Jack Twist. Ledger's real life girlfriend Michelle Williams picked up a nod in the supporting actress category, however. But Gyllenhaal's absence was not the only surprise -- the critically acclaimed Crash, lauded by some as the film of the year, was conspicuously absent here, picking up only one nomination. The film may have suffered from an early release, but expect a lot of speculation about the ensemble cast's chances for Oscar recognition. In television, Desperate Housewives again piles up the nominations, despite a marked drop in critical acclaim for the primetime soap this year. Unsurprisingly, the new show My Name is Earl picked up a couple of nominations, including a nod for lead Jason Lee, who is long overdue accolades for his comedic ability. Lee's will be duking it out with the Housewives for a chance at the award for best comedy (or musical) series. The list of nominees was announced Tuesday at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles by actress Kate Beckinsale and actors Mark Wahlberg and Steve Carell. The Golden Globes will be televised on January 16, 2006. Full list of nominees:Best motion picture - Drama Brokeback Mountain The Constant Gardener A History of Violence Match Point Good Night, and Good Luck Best performance by an actress in a motion picture - drama Maria Bello - A History of Violence Felicity Huffman - Transamerica Gwyneth Paltrow - Proof Charlize Theron - North Country Ziyi Zhang - Memoirs of a Geisha Best performance by an actor in a motion picture - Drama Russell Crowe - Cinderella Man Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote Terrence Howard - Hustle and Flow Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain David Strathairn - Good Night and Good LuckBest motion picture - Musical Or Comedy Mrs Henderson Presents Pride & Prejudice The Producers The Squid and the Whale Walk the LineBest performance by an actress in a motion picture - Musical or Comedy Judi Dench - Mrs Henderson Presents Keira Knightley - Pride & Prejudice Laura Linney - The Squid and the Whale Sarah Jessica Parker - The Family Stone Reese Witherspoon - Walk the LineBest performance by an actor in a motion picture - Musical Or Comedy Pierce Brosnan - The Matador Jeff Daniels - The Squid and the Whale Johnny Depp - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Nathan Lane - The Producers Cillian Murphy - Breakfast on Pluto Joaquin Phoenix - Walk the Line Best performance by an actress in a supporting role in a motion picture Scarlett Johansson - Match Point Shirley MacLaine - In Her Shoes Frances McDormand - North Country Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener Michelle Williams - Brokeback MountainBest performance by an actor in a supporting role in a motion picture George Clooney - Syriana Matt Dillon - Crash Will Ferrell - The Producers Paul Giamatti - Cinderella Man Bob Hoskins - Mrs Henderson PresentsBest director - Motion Picture Woody Allen - Match Point George Clooney - Good Night and Good Luck Peter Jackson - King Kong Steven Spielberg - Munich Ang Lee - Brokeback Mountain Fernando Meirelles - The Constant GardenerBest foreign language film Kung Fu Hustle (China) Master of Crimson Armor (China) Merry Christmas (France) Tsotsi (South Africa) Paradise Now (Palestine) Best original score - Motion Picture Syriana King Kong Brokeback Mountain The Chronicles of Narnia Memoirs of a GeishaBest television series - Drama Commander in Chief Lost Grey's Anatomy Prison Break RomeBest performance by an actress in a television series - Drama Patricia Arquette - Medium Glenn Close - The Shield Geena Davis - Commander in Chief Kyra Sedgewick - The Closer Polly Walker - Rome Best performance by an actor in a television series - Drama Patrick Dempsey - Grey's Anatomy Matthew Fox - Lost Wentworth Miller - Prison Break Hugh Laurie - House Keifer Sutherland - 24Best television series - Musical Or Comedy Curb Your Enthusiasm Desperate Housewives Entourage Everybody Hates Chris My Name is Earl Weeds Best performance by an actress in a television series - Musical Or Comedy Marcia Cross - Desperate Housewives Terry Hatcher - Desperate Housewives Felicity Huffman - Desperate Housewives Eva Longoria - Desperate Housewives Mary Louise Parker - Weeds Best performance by an actor in a television series - Musical Or Comedy Zach Braff - Scrubs Steve Carrell - The Office Larry David - Curb Your Enthusiasm Jason Lee - My Name is Earl Charlie Sheen - Two-and-a-Half MenCecil B DeMille award Sir Anthony Hopkins Video40923@blogcritics.org Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:46:08 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/13/010944.php Alisha KarabinusI've been writing since before I started kindergarten. My mother was of the stay-at-home variety until I started school, and her days began and ended with my education. She taught me to read at a very early age by using flashcards she made from cutting up children's books, and together we built stories that fanned across the living room floor, down the hall, and into the bedroom. In those days, every story was worth a sticker and a hug, and if I mixed tenses, Mom gently switched cards and explained what I'd gotten wrong and why.Wouldn't it be great if writing was always that easy?These days, the process is far more arduous. I try to let an idea kick around in my head for a few days before I put anything down on screen or paper... unless it's one of those killer ideas that screams "WRITE ME NOW! WRITE ME NOW!" until I cry with submission and race for my computer. I do this because I've learned that even the best ideas often need to marinate for a while before I even try a first draft, and my thoughts are scattered and nonlinear. In order to be a better writer, I've had to learn discipline.I didn't just pluck that discipline from the ether, however; it came in the form of hard lumps from editors. I first started submitted (excruciatingly bad) poetry to magazines when I was fifteen. Poetry like this, which is the first stanza of a poem I wrote when I was fourteen called "Seasong." You were walking on the beach last night, the sand cool, the full moon glistening, polishing the crest of each wave crashing, thrashing lonely swimmers. Ouch. But I was convinced, of course, that I could not possibly produce anything that wasn't absolute genius, and so off it went, tucked with other poems into envelopes bound for Poetry magazine and Ploughshares. I had high expectations and a loose grip on reality. But I learned something -- well, several somethings, since one of them is that I am not a poet. I learned that to be a writer is to have a very thick skin. Writers cannot wear their hearts on their sleeves; they must be tucked away, kept safe until it is time to create, and then we can let the emotions flow. When it comes to honing (and selling!) our work, we must be like any other businesspeople -- serious, focused, and objective.In the beginning, it's difficult. Those first form rejections hurt. What's this? My writing doesn't even deserve a personal response? You curse those moronic editors as hacks, and maybe even invent new epithets (after all, you are a writer!) to describe the depths of their stupidity. And you send out other work and bam, the same response. Rinse and repeat.Eventually, it sinks in -- something is not right here, and maybe it's not that every editor at every magazine is a dolt. Maybe... just maybe......it's you.That's a tough realization, and one usually accompanied by tears (or for those older than I was at seventeen, liquor). I had always been praised when it came to my writing, by teachers, friends, my parents... everyone except the editors of magazines I adored. But something was missing. It's at this point that many writers face a crossroads, a choice of whether or not to keep slogging through it or to give up. Tragically, many people give up. But that's alright -- the act of writing is hard, and the act of getting it out there can be even more difficult. Those who don't give up are in for a rough ride.But rejoice! There are some things you can do to make it easier.I learned to spell-check religiously. Oh, I know. It seems so silly, right? Anyone who is an actual writer doesn't typo! Not true. No one is immune to fat-fingering the occasional key and warping a word, and many of us have words we commonly misspell (for me, ironically, one of them is "misspell") and we're so used to doing it our way that we don't notice in a re-read.Re-reads are a problem in and of themselves. When I finish a piece, I of course re-read it right away -- but I've learned that it is usually a Very Bad Idea to change anything at that point. Everything is too fresh. It's like poking a cake that's just come out of the oven. If you're not careful, the whole thing might collapse. So be good, and set it aside. Let it cool and pick it up again later and then look the piece back over. I find it's best if "later" translates to a full day, but I don't always have the luxury of hours. If nothing else, in a rush-rush situation, switch windows for a moment. Play a quick game of solitaire. Read some e-mails. Change the style of music pumping out of your speakers. Do something to cleanse your mind. It's the writer's version of a sliver of ginger, and it makes for better writing when you edit from a fresh perspective. Keep in mind as well that amorphous quality of "voice." There is a fine line between your "voice" and overusing the same words and phrases again and again. When I was younger, for example, I was obsessed with flowers and flower imagery. For a year, everything was petal soft (not kidding). Tears were always likened to roses (no, I don't get it either). Eventually, I figured out that I was in the literary equivalent of a major rut and I made myself stop whenever I wanted to make any mention of anything at all to do with flowers. Was there a better image I could use? A different approach? I slowly trained that habit out of my writing and now if I feel the urge for something flowery, I can proceed with confidence. Further, the discerning writer must try to take a step back and look at things from an objective perspective. No, I don't mean for the line editing -- for the text itself. This is the most difficult part. Of course you understand why Janice would choose Trevor over Chuck -- you know her, inside and out! Or from a nonfiction perspective, of course you know that the film Sin City was adapted from graphic novels by Frank Miller.But do your readers know and understand these things? Knowing how much context to explain and include is what separates the proverbial wheat from the chaff when it comes to any sort of writing at all, be it a review, a short story, or an op/ed piece on the latest political scandal. If your readers can't follow what you're saying, they're going to read something else. It's that simple. Finally, don't shy away from criticism -- welcome it! Embrace it! Of course, we all run into the occasional mean-spirited critic. In my time in various critique circles around town and on the Internet, I've run into some real gems ("this is a complete waste of time, why even write it?"), but by and large, criticism has taught me more than any other writing class or generic advice. Why? Because it gives me a window on how others view my work. So many writers roll their eyes at criticism and mumble, "they just didn't get it." We forget that our job, our first and only priority, is to make sure we put it out there so that they "get it." If the readers don't get it, the fault usually lies with us -- not them.If you're the type who scribbles in a journal and never plans to show anything to anyone anyhow, then forget it -- do as you will, and sketch rainbows in the margins. But if you ever plan to write for an audience of any sort, then get tough with yourself and realize that you're not perfect. No one is. But that's okay, because it means you're off the hook. You don't have to be perfect. You just have to be disciplined and you have to persevere. Writing isn't easy. But it's worth it to make someone else feel what you felt, or think what you thought, if only for a moment. Books40900@blogcritics.org Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:09:44 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/09/135436.php Alisha KarabinusBelieve the hype -- this movie is as good as you've heard. It may even be better. Brokeback Mountain is a sweeping tale of stymied love spanning twenty years, directed by the master of uncomfortable, unfulfilled love stories (The Ice Storm, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), Ang Lee. Lee knows how to wrangle pain from his actors, and here he is in his element with two characters who have spent their lives tamping down the feelings that could get them killed.Yes, if you have to label everything and tie up the characters and story into neat little packages, then okay: Brokeback Mountain is about gay cowboys (but before you ask, alas, no pudding). But writing this film off with a few controversial labels doesn't do it justice. If nothing else, one hopes that this movie can help to shed light on the notion that labels and stereotypes are often inadequate when it comes to sexuality. Ennis del Mar and Jack Twist are men (fully realized in tremendous, career-making performances by Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal) who fall in love, but does it make them gay? Are we defined by labels, or by the actions in our lives?Part of the controversy surrounding this film lies in the perception that the movie is encouraging homosexual men to marry and live out "traditional" lives with a wife and children, the nuclear family American dream. There seems to be some feeling that this is a particularly unhealthy idea to propagate now when the delicate issue of gay rights is being debated across the country. What these people don't seem to realize is that this film doesn't advocate anything except the idea that being true to one's self is difficult in any time and any place - and everyone struggles with that, homo- or heterosexual, male or female, rich or poor. For Ennis and Jack, their inability (due to upbringing, culture, and society) to live out the lives they might have otherwise chosen is their downfall. There's nothing in the film that encourages gay men to act "straight."Nor is the film some sort of flamboyant cavalcade of homosexuality that some would like you to think. It's difficult for me to refer to Ennis and Jack with the accepted labels of sexuality because sexuality is a rich facet of our selves, multi-layered and deep. It is not a simple question for many, and that struggle is one of the story's strengths. Is Brokeback Mountain really about "gay cowboys?" In the film, there are clues that for Jack, the potential at least is present from the beginning. When he first sees Ennis, they are just two cowboys waiting outside a trailer and hoping to leave with a job. Ennis is stoic, the perfect strong, silent type... but Jack sees something in the other man's lanky form that calls to him, and he shifts restlessly against his truck, perfecting a masculine lean... and even then, his vulnerability, his need for acceptance and love is so clear that it's heartbreaking. From that moment, silent and long, marked by Jack peeking at Ennis from under the brim of his hat, we can see their entire relationship laid out before them, down to its inevitable tragic end. Gyllenhaal really shines here in and in the scenes on the mountain, when the two are looking after a large flock of sheep. There is one scene in particular, when Ennis strips down to wash and Jack must... not... look... He goes on peeling potatoes for supper, but it is apparently from the tension in his jaw and his forcefully blank expression that the attraction that sparked at their first meeting has, for him, grown into a hungry flame.But Heath Ledger's mumbling Ennis is more difficult to define. At the beginning of that fateful summer in 1963, he is engaged and is hoping to save up a little extra cash for his fall wedding. He's the real cowboy, all dusty workmanship next to the flashy, bull-riding Jack Twist. Whereas Jack bitches about the sheep, the rules, the job, and anything that crops up, Ennis accepts his place and does what is expected (a quality that will shape his life). When the fateful moment comes, on a cold night that brings the two men together in a tent against the chill outside, Ennis reacts to Jack's first sexual overture with violence, slapping him away. When he gives in, a heartbeat later, there is an air of prison sex about the scene. These men are stuck on a mountaintop for months with no release. They might as well be in prison. And Ennis seems to give it no more thought than that. They discuss it later, once:Ennis: This is a one-shot thing we got going on here. Jack: Nobody's business but ours. Ennis: You know I ain't queer. Jack: Me neither.And they move on, marrying... Jack because it's convenient (or inconvenient; there is some question here that his marriage is of the shotgun variety) and Ennis because that's what men do. And for Ennis, that marriage at first seems happy. After his initial violent and ill reaction to the end of that summer (he collapses in the shadow of a building, dry-heaving and holding back tears), life is okay. He works hard, but that's what men do. His wife Alma (played by Ledger's real life love Michelle Williams) has a couple of kids. And they share tender moments among the pain of being poor and saddled with children. The relationship is normal, if somewhat perfunctory, but so are many marriages. If not for the reappearance of Jack, Ennis might have lived out his life just like that.There is one really excellent scene during Ennis and Alma's short-lived marriage that seems slightly changed from the story but still amazingly effective. They are in bed, and Alma is trying to convince Ennis that they should move "into town." The conversation doesn't get very far; as with many young couples with children, they get distracted by the excitement of a few moments alone and the talk fades into sex. In the story, Ennis is careful to put his wife's needs before his own and it is mentioned that she doesn't enjoy the actual act of intercourse. In the film, it seems more that they are both enjoying the moment - loving one another and sinking into the physicality of simply being together - and then suddenly, Ennis turns Alma over and enters her from behind. It is the same in the story, but here, translated to a visual medium, it is a very telling moment. Ennis, no matter how far down he keeps his feelings, wants to love and feel love, and in this idyllic moment with his wife, he tries to recreate the only real happiness he has ever known - with Jack - by taking her the same way. It is a breathless moment, and like so many of the film's best scenes, extraordinarily subtle.Is Brokeback Mountain about gay cowboys? Yes and no. But by labeling the characters, and the film, the fact that it is a painful, momentous, beautiful love story is ignored. It's an epic Western romance. Call it that and let it go. But it's also a story about freedom, the importance of the freedom to let go and be yourself. Jack and Ennis don't have that freedom, no matter how much Jack wants it. Once they are reunited, after four years, a sinister memory casts a pall over any hope that this romance would end happily. As a child, his father took Ennis and his brother to see the tattered corpse of a rancher who lived alone with another man. Among other things, "they" had taken a tire iron to the man... and that image, and the thought of the tire iron, would take on almost mythic proportions for Ennis throughout his life. Except for one impassioned semi-public moment, Ennis keeps his feelings for Jack under tight control and never entertains the idea of giving it all up to run away with his lover, not even when it means he might lose him. He never considers letting go -- because Ennis, the realist, knows what happens to the men who let go.Annie Proulx's terse short story was about an intense love between two men who were ill-equipped to deal with any feelings at all. And the film, adapted by Larry McMurtry and writing partner Diana Ossana, captures the story more accurately than most adaptations. The changes are minimal, limited to a little necessary expansion of minor characters and a lengthening of the buildup between Ennis and Jack. Most of the original dialogue is captured faithfully - often word for word. But the real achievement here, in my view, is that the very landscape itself seems almost a character in the film - which is apt, as their physical origin acts as strongly on Jack and Ennis as any other factor in their lives.Ang Lee and cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto of Amores Perros capture the dust of the colorless town where Ennis is trapped with his wife Alma in such a way that we feel trapped right there with them. Much has been made of the shots of the mountains and the Wyoming sky, shots that evoke the postcards Jack and Ennis use to plan their trysts, but for me the most stunningly effective translation of the story is in that town. Maybe it's because I spent scattered years of my childhood in such places, where being "working class" really meant poor, but I find it easy to sink into the sameness of the days and can understand how momentous it is when, four years after their summer together, Ennis gets the first postcard from Jack. By then, something different, anything different, is huge. I can't say enough about the performances in this film. Everyone is fantastic, from the two leads and their wives down to the supporting roles - most notable here is Randy Quaid as the rancher whose sheep bring Jack and Ennis together in the first place. Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway are excellent as the wives, though Anne Hathaway (of The Princess Diaries) doesn't age physically as well as the other characters in the film (hardly her fault). I have a feeling she won't be doing any more Disney films after her scene here stripping and seducing Jack in the backseat of her car. Williams has one of the movie's best - and most painful - moments when she steps to the door, eager to see the friend that had her reserved husband all but bouncing on his toes with excitement, and finds them kissing with a passion she has never shared with Ennis. But the movie belongs to the men, and ultimately to Heath Ledger, though Jake Gyllenhaal is truly great as Jack Twist. It takes some time to accept Gyllenhaal's voice in this role; I found it a little jarring at first, the earnest, youthful quality in his voice comes through a little too strongly in the opening scenes, but he relaxes into the role and that fades. But Heath Ledger. Oh, Heath! What have you been doing all this time? Ang Lee, on Charlie Rose a few nights ago, mentioned Ledger's role in Monster's Ball as a factor in his casting here, and it's unsurprising - he's had some good performances in some mediocre movies, and that is the only opportunity he's really had to shine in a strong and deeply emotional role. Ledger carries this film, easily and effortlessly. This is no insult to the other performances - there are no false chords in this romantic symphony - but in the end, it is Ennis you will remember, Ennis clutching the shirts he and Jack wore in 1963, shirts that Jack kept for twenty years, and Ledger pours forth decades of pain and struggle in a brief moment as he clutches those shirts. Lee himself has had nothing but praise for Ledger in the role:I feel very fortunate to have Heath in the movie. He's a natural. He has great coordination, he's very dedicated, and he does his preparation. He meticulously aims towards a certain target and firmly believes in what he's doing... He and I talked about how Ennis doesn't speak much. Deep inside, he has a big fear from a childhood traumatic experience, and from his awakening to his own sexuality, which is not allowed to be expressed in the West. Ennis has to cover that up with his attitude and, sometimes, violence. He can get very violent, because of how scared he is. So he's a scared kid inside, playing a Western kind of cool. Heath not only had to carry his own character and the whole character of the West, but carry the movie - and he underplayed powerfully. But don't take it from the director - go see it for yourself. See Brokeback Mountain not for the controversy, or for any statements about society (there aren't any), or even for the performances (though it'd be worth it). See it because so few modern films tackle the notion that love is work, and that it's usually not a happy-fun-time where everything is rainbows and lollipops in a meadow. Love is violent and intense, it's painful and more than anything, it's hard, but even then it's beautiful. It's wonderful. It's what so many of us live for. And Brokeback Mountain is about the kind of love that lasts forever - it's a force of nature. Brokeback Mountain opens today in selected cities, but will not hit wide release (to cities like my native Little Rock) until an as yet undetermined date in January. Clips:You Don't Go There To Fish QuickTime High QuickTime Low Windows Media High Windows Media LowIt Ain't Gonna Be Like That QuickTime High QuickTime Low Windows Media High Windows Media Low Video40759@blogcritics.org Fri, 9 Dec 2005 13:54:36 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/07/145111.php Alisha KarabinusTechnical specs and more have been released this week on the forthcoming Nintendo Revolution, the next-gen system from the Japanese gaming pioneers. When it comes to the Revolution, gamers range from hesitant to excited to bordering on sexual frenzy over stories on the new system, but this latest from IGN is an even bigger deal than the controversial controller. Software houses we spoke with also waxed on the immediate advantage to Nintendo's approach with Revolution, which is, of course, system price. Every developer was in agreement that Revolution should launch with a price tag of $149 or lower. Some speculated that based on the tech, a $99 price point would not be out of the question. It's doubtful that the Revolution will actually be even $149 out of the gate (because, after all, $199 is cheap compared to the Xbox 360 and the proposed prices for the Sony PS3), but Nintendo is traditionally very aggressive about cutting their prices, so it is reasonable that within a few months of the initial release, we could see prices in the low triple digits at the very least.At this very early point, it looks to me as though Nintendo is taking a much more aggressive route than is typical for them. Oh, I don't mean that they're directly competing with the 360 and the PS3 -- I think they are purposely NOT doing so. It looks like Nintendo has finally realized that unfortunately, in a three way gaming war, they'll always finish last in the United States, and so they're capitalizing on that. Instead of trying to do everything the other two platforms are doing, they're going in an entirely different direction -- cheaper and more innovative -- and at these proposed prices, there will be no reason NOT to buy a Revolution. It's too early to make any real predictions, but if things continue to develop along these lines, Nintendo is poised to become a real contender outside of the handheld markets on this side of the ocean again. Gaming40653@blogcritics.org Wed, 7 Dec 2005 14:51:11 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/05/170450.php Alisha KarabinusWhy spend weeks working to make money in an online video game when you can just buy whatever you want? That seems to be the question more and more gamers are asking as the popularity of MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games) continues to climb. For the uninitiated, MMORPGs are games that take place in a vast online world in which characters start with very little and work to become powerful. Along the way, they can choose a variety of paths, such as their "job" (in a traditional MMO like Everquest or World of Warcraft, this usually dictates whether or not one is a fighter or a magic user), their race, and smaller details, like their armor or clothing. The practice of making one's character more powerful, known as "leveling" or "grinding," is often very time-consuming. In Blizzard's World of Warcraft, it can take anywhere from 60-400 hours of playtime to reach the maximum level, which is 60. In Final Fantasy XI Online, however, reaching the maximum level (75) can take a lot longer.But leveling is only part of the game. Along the way, players have a chance to deck out their characters; they upgrade armor, weapons, and spells in order to maximize their abilities. Typically, the higher the level and the better the gear, the more expensive it is in the terms of the game's economy. Taking the time to earn the necessary money often means a break from leveling... and in order to skip this process, some gamers out there are turning to companies like IGE or auctions on eBay to solve their gaming woes. For real money, they can purchase virtual game money -- often known as "gold" (or in the case of FFXI, gil, the long-used term for money in the Final Fantasy franchise), which is then used in-game to gear up their characters.This system of buying virtual goods and/or money with real money is known as Real Money Trade, or RMT -- and it is a bannable offense on most MMORPGs. Regular players, who put in the hours out of pure enjoyment, find the situation distasteful and often rally for greater crackdowns from the companies who run the game -- or greater personal restraint from those who purchase virtual currency."I think there should be some way to regulate it [RMT]... however; sadly, the problem is deeper than that. The market is there because people will buy it. People will do anything to win, including cheat. I guess what really angers me is that it is poor sportsmanship. As a competitor I personally detest people who would do whatever it takes to win, as far as breaking rules go," says Christian Hildebrand, 30, who plays WoW.Some just think it's completely abhorrent, any way you slice it. FFXI veteran, 28 year old Danny Peacock, seethes over the idea of real life wealth determining success in a game. "I feel that the ability for some hoity-toity punk with too much money to visit a website and trade his real money away for pretend money is appalling. This practice gives him no gain whatsoever and detracts so much from the game, not only for him/herself, but for anyone that plays the game as it was meant to be."But it's interesting to look at all perspectives within this situation. In the spirit of "if you can't beat them, join them," Sony started the first RMT-approved servers on their MMORPG, Everquest, earlier this year. So far there are only two among the numerous servers for EQII that allow RMT. Sony collects a per-transaction fee for their authorized service, called Station Exchange. For those who complain about the time-consuming aspect of playing an online game (many of whom are parents or other casual players), this seems a good compromise; Sony's Station Exchange allows people to purchase what they need through a legitimate channel rather than by supporting "farmers," the people who log in to MMOs solely to make virtual money that they then sell for real money. For those gamers who are not interested in RMT for themselves, but who are not against the idea, a system like Sony's would probably be acceptable. Alex Farmer, a 17 year old from the UK who used to play FFXI, says, "I don't agree with buying gil myself but I suppose it's up to others whether they do it or not. I do believe it undermines a lot of the enjoyment of the game, but if people want to play that way then it's their choice."A server is a sub-world within an MMORPG. Typically, a player will only interact with those on their own server. Some games offer different types of servers, as with the RMT-approved servers mentioned above. WoW also offers servers wherein player-killing, or PVP competition, is allowed. Each server has its own unique economy and population. FFXI offered a cross-server tournament this year for their PVP competition, ballista; it was the first time interaction of any sort was allowed across servers in that game. Not all RMT is negative; indeed, in the virtual world Second Life, some players (called "residents") run stores or design firms dedicated to providing goods and services to other residents of that world. Some have even turned it into a career. Second Life (and the similar game There), however, is a world simulation, and thus not competitive in the same fashion as the action-based MMORPGs. It's estimated that over two million dollars in real money changes hands monthly in association with Second Life. The biggest arguments against RMT (besides the notion that it is cheating) are the practices that the "farmers" undergo to gain virtual currency, and the affect such activity has on the in-game economy. "Gold farmers" can be regular players who have found a (legitimate or illegitimate, as with exploits, bots, or hacks) way to make piles of virtual currency, and who then turn around and sell it to a company like IGE, or they can be an employee whose job it is to login every day solely to make money in the game. At first, the stories of gaming sweatshops were written off as myth, but indications are turning up more and more frequently. The Australian featured an article about the cycle of real money and virtual money that included a quote from a 19 year old Romanian who plays all day for Gamersloot, killing monsters for money and items for a mere $200 (in US currency) per month.Sounds innocent, right? After all, the players are often logging in daily to kill monsters for money and items. But it's different for the farmers, who work in shifts, so that the same characters are logged in all day, every day, often dominating the same areas."[RMT farmers] are online 24/7, which allows them the unfair advantage to monopolize [certain monsters] and gain the desired drops more often then the regular players," says Victor, a 39 year old who plays FFXI. "They can spend all their time crafting, mining, harvesting, and fishing, which allows them to set the prices for the items and thus control the market and economy."And as the prices go up, more and more people turn to RMT to get the virtual money they feel they need to play at a competitive level. Steven Dansby, a 21 year old teacher who plays FFXI, broke down the cycle: ...RMT only works because other players allow it to work. Certain items have been hyped so much that players will now go to extreme lengths to get the "best" gear possible. 'If you don't have one of these, these, these, and these then you are gimped and you suck!' Too many players have heard something like this and listened! ... As a monk, my favorite example would be the Ochiudo's Kote. Before anything else is said, they are a great item. Having them can really make a difference depending upon your race and playing style. However, like all other luxury items, they are just as the name implies, a luxury. They're wonderful to have, but they will never turn a bad player into a good one or anything along those lines. Yet, so many monks started swearing by them they became one of the essential items for playing the job... Enter the RMT [who dominate items like this]. ... I watched in horror as over a year ago the Kote began their steady climb from 300,000 gil to over a million on the Sylph server. Today they are at or over 3 million [gil]. Are they worth that much? The answer is undeniably no. Are people willing to pay that much to make a claim that they have the best equipment? Absolutely! ... Even if the player goes out and makes that much money on their own, which could take months, they are still buying the item for a huge sum, money that will likely go to the RMT and be sold to someone else; either way the RMT profit [because they're often the ones selling the big ticket items]. The prices for this and other similar items skyrocket and the rest of the game economy has no choice but to rise as well in a struggle to keep up. The RMT might be the ones abusing the system, but it is the players who are to blame for allowing them to do so. Not everyone agrees. Farmer says, "A laissez-faire economy such as FFXI is bound to be subject to a large amount of hyper-inflation and I honestly believe the difference would not be that noticeable if RMT didn't exist."But it's not just about killing monsters, auctioning off items, and selling the profits for real money online. RMT have been known to take on guerilla tactics, including ganging up on players who try to challenge them and engaging in MPK -- "monster player kill," or the practice of bringing an aggressive monster near a player and then manipulating it into killing another player, or teaming up to dominate entire areas in order to edge out legitimate players. Additionally, there are problems with bots, programs designed to kill, craft, and farm without any player interaction whatsoever, for hours on end. "This got started with Everquest... The macro system and positioning of resources allowed people to program bots that would run autonomously all day farming for wood and resources that never changed position," says Hildebrand. "[But] newer MMOs have started to use a spawn system in which resources spawn in different cycles all over the map [which makes it harder to bot]."Additionally, companies have cracked down to some extent on RMT, which is typically against their Terms of Service. Blizzard Entertainment (WoW) and Square Enix (FFXI) together banned thousands of accounts, and Square Enix has instituted several changes to FFXI that make certain RMT-associated activities difficult or even impossible.But the gamer with too much disposable income can purchase more than just virtual money. Some companies offer "power-leveling" services -- the gamer provides their login information, and a company rep takes the character out into the world and levels until a certain milestone is reached. This is, however, exceedingly dangerous. Most MMORPGs require a credit card linked to the account for a monthly service fee. By giving someone your account information, you are not only handing over the reins of your account (with no guarantee that you'll get it back), but you are also handing over your credit card information. There are also full accounts available to be purchased, complete with higher level characters who often have a variety of skills.As an interesting aside to this aspect of RMT, the very aggressive farmers of FFXI on the Sylph server, where I play, at one point had a linkshell group (similar to guilds in WoW; a group of people who play together often with a "chat" feature that allows them to communicate regardless of where they are in the online world) named FutureLemon. I never gave the name much thought until someone made the remark that the name was ironic as they were churning out "lemons" -- characters that were being leveled purely to be sold. They were "lemons" because these characters were undeniably associated with RMT and would forever carry a bad reputation, a reputation that would transfer to whoever had the misfortune of buying the character. Some might call that karma.Alisha Karabinus has been playing video games for over fifteen years. She currently plays Final Fantasy XI Online on the Sylph server as Zavia, a ranger. She runs a linkshell group known as the CheapSkinks. Gaming40531@blogcritics.org Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:04:50 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/02/031659.php Alisha KarabinusNot long ago, Congress was preaching from their pulpit on the evils of song lyrics that glorified violence and other dark themes. Violence onscreen, be it big or small, is also apparently responsible for all the world's ills. Or was, rather. Now? It's time for video games to take their full turn in the spotlight of demonization. Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), big proponents of the useless-blowhard school of government, have announced that they intend to put forth legislation that will ban the sale of mature titles to minors. This is really getting old. First of all, such legislation would have little to no actual power or impact on anything that exists outside of Congress -- in, y'know, the practical world. Look at the restrictions on movies and music. Does it mean it's a bad idea to prevent the sale of mature material of any type to children? Not necessarily, but I'll dig into that in a moment. What it does mean is that, at the end of the day, the kid at the cash register is tired and cranky and is thinking about a math test or their favorite band, and really doesn't give a shit who's buying what, when, or where, because they're underpaid and unconcerned.Legislation like this cannot possibly be fully enforced, and it's ridiculous to think that it can. And aren't we bleeding enough money as it is? Instead of passing a law that will require new people to undertake new tasks for the government to do something utterly useless, why don't we -- and I know, this is really radical -- try educating parents on dealing with their children, and then trust them to do so?Is it a bad idea to prevent the sale of this material to minors? In theory, no. In practice, it's impractical and it's treating a symptom, not the problem. People kill people because there is something wrong with them. Period. Some kid emulates a scene from a video game and jumps off a building? Maybe his parents should have been paying attention to what he was watching, doing, and interacting with, and explained things like, gee, if you jump off a building, you will splatter over an eight foot radius. I mean, kids don't wake up one morning and, say, decide to blow away a dozen of their schoolmates because they listened to a depressing album or they played Grand Theft Auto for a couple of days, and they don't do it because they have a penchant for wearing all black, either. They do it because they feel trapped, ignored, outcast, and they see no way out. They do it because something is wrong with them, something deeper and bigger than most kids experience, and they don't have an outlet.I'm no psychoanalyst. I can't say that there is NO LINK between a penchant for violent media and crime. But I can say this -- I've worked in retail, and most parents don't appear to know or care what their teenagers are renting, buying, playing, and watching. They turn them loose in video stores, in malls, and when prodded by clerks who say, ah, your thirteen year old is clutching Manhunt, most parents shrug and mutter that it's fine -- if you can get them off their cell phones long enough to pay attention.When it comes to troubled kids, the government -- at the state and local levels -- seems to be locked into a pattern of pointing their collective legislative finger in all the wrong directions, and this time, it's at video games. So great. Pass the law. Throw money at the problem. Set up a commission.But where will you turn next, when this doesn't solve the problem? When is it time to take a step back and try looking at the problem from another angle? I guess when we run out of sales to legislate. Gaming40386@blogcritics.org Fri, 2 Dec 2005 03:16:59 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/02/011740.php Alisha KarabinusIt's been a busy couple of months for the White Stripes. They toured all over the world, playing venues no rock band had ever before entered. Drummer Meg White signed on to play on a soundtrack. Vocalist Jack (as in Jack-of-all-instruments) wrote a jingle for Coke, got married and oh yeah -- is expecting a child. And tonight, they were the first musical act to play live on Comedy Central's The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.The minimalist modern rock duo had a quick chat with host Jon Stewart before heading over to the makeshift stage to play "The Denial Twist" and "My Doorbell," both singles from their (no-it-grows-on-you-oh-my-god-really-buy-it-now) latest album Get Behind Me Satan. They seemed a bit stiff and giggly, but I'm sure it's strange to know you're going to have to shift from interview-mode to performance-mode so quickly. I don't know what Jack and Meg do to prepare to perform before crowds (I'd bet they don't sit down and chat up the press, even the fake press), but me, I'd be eight shades of green and probably vomiting up three days' worth of meals, which you really can't do politely on camera. And I'd really hate to embarrass myself in front of Jon Stewart like that.Speculation favored the band choosing "The Denial Twist" for tonight's show; after all, it's the latest single, with a fresh video directed by Michel Gondry of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which you can check out here. Gondry also directed several other videos for the band.Besides, considering the White Stripes recently released ten (ten!) different versions of the song, even letting everyone guess (accurately) that they were going to play it left plenty of wiggle room -- and indeed, tonight's version was not the album cut. That playful versatility is one of the things I really like about the band. You never know what version (or style) of a song you're going to hear when they perform live, but the alterations are always good and they really show off just how much a duo can pull off if they're talented. The album cut of "The Denial Twist" relies on the piano, but on The Daily Show the song was all about Jack and his guitar. "Doorbell" they played pretty straight, however, after Jack shook off whatever it is that drags down the beginning of his performances.Yeah, I said it. I said something not-positive about the band. But it's true; at the beginning of every live performance I've seen/heard, Jack's a little rough. It takes him a few breaths to settle into a song. And with this format (play a song, wait, Jon chatters, play another), there were two rough patches, one at the beginning of each song. Though I must say, he settled into "Doorbell" more easily than he did the first song. Meg, of course, was golden. She doesn't get enough credit.Overall? The performance was good but not great, and while I love seeing my favorite band on my favorite show, the show seemed a little truncated (which is not good) and Jacky-Live may be an acquired taste and I worry that some potential fans might have actually been turned off by what they saw. Don't get me wrong. I, of course, think that makes them snap-judging fools, but hey. I'm a fan. I would still hope any discerning music lover could see past a few rough edges on Jack's vocals into the depth beneath. It was nice to see these two elements paired, but frankly, I hope they shy away from music in the future. I require more Jon Stewart, and can we please get some really funny people to replace Stephen Colbert? You guys should really pry Mo Rocca away from The Tonight Show. He's better than that, and The Daily Show could use him. Video40380@blogcritics.org Fri, 2 Dec 2005 01:17:40 EST