!3 Sins

          13 Sins is an American remake of the Thai film 13: Game of Death. Directed by Daniel Stamn, the movie focuses around a young man who is deep in debt and is soon to wed the love of his life. Unexpectedly in the midst of his troubles, he receives a phone call stating that he has been randomly selected to be on a game show and can win up to a million dollars if he completes 13 tasks. Seems simple, right? As he continues further on through the game, he realizes that there is more to this game than what he signed up for. He must now decide whether he should continue on with this sadistic game or end it now before it becomes to late to turn back.

     According to Rob Hunter, he views this film as "committing the somewhat lesser infraction of redundancy." Due to the fact that films such as Would You Rather and Saw were released before this particular film, Hunter presumes that certain ideas from these various movies were repeated leaving a sense of familiarity and repetitiveness. Some scenes did not come across as a surprise since the theme of the movie centered around the theme of movies before it. Rob Hunter also feels that even though the humor added in the film was required, it causes the serious moments in the film to become lost and no longer worth paying attention to. He concludes by stating, "while it offer some thrills and thought-provoking questions early on it loses its dramatic weight well before the end credits roll. "

              Although Rob Hunter may have some factual points, he does somewhat fail to connect the meaning for the director's decision in choosing to create the film the way he did. The film may have some similar characteristics to the movies stated above, but it does differ and separate itself in a manner from looking like a complete copy. The film uses a simple mysterious phone call instead of the typical kidnap someone and lock them in an empty room from all civilization. The theme of the film also differs. In the movie Saw, the theme revolves around the appreciation of a human life and testing various people to see their willingness in holding on to that life when put into dangerous and deadly situations. In  13 Sins the theme not only focuses on the sadistic and dangerous game the main character has gotten himself involved in, but it channels in on the growth of the character as a person. It revolves around the development of the will power and strength the main character never realized he had within him. Drama remains as the film continues because of the twists that play with your head and mess with your mind.

           The humor placed in the film shows the sarcastic and humorous side of the character that was not realized by the viewer in the beginning of the movie. The humor does not diminish the dramatic tension of the film yet it further expands the theme of the movie. 13 Sins is not a copy of various films instead it is a thriller exposing the hidden personality traits of a struggling young man. 13 Sins did not commit the sin of redundancy but broadened the various ideas such as materialism and survival. 

The Big Bang Theory

    

    My review is about Emmy Award winning sitcom The Big Bang Theory. Maureen Ryan gives this series a disappointing 20 overall rating for its first season. http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2007/09/im-not-sure-wha.html I suppose his main issues with the TV show is that the main characters are being ridiculed too much, the jokes are not funny, and there are far too many geek stereotypes, (whatever that means).

     I do not quite understand how he can argue that the characters are being made fun of too much when A.) It’s a comedy show and B.) They are making fun of their selves. Honestly, the purpose of a comedy show is to be funny. Ridiculing other people is one of the best methods of comedic relief. How is making fun of the main characters a problem? There is no one else to make fun of in the first season anyways because the audience has to get to know the main characters before the director starts to introduce supporting characters. And how many supporting characters can you actually have in a 30 minute sitcom? You only have so much time for one episode that is going to be shown once a week. Think about that. Also think about, if there isn’t much room for other characters in the first season, who else is going to ridicule the main characters in the show besides themselves! It’s not like the producer is making fun of them or the camera man, it’s the people actually in the show.

     Mr. Ryan also said that the jokes that the big bang theory say are not that amusing. This is strictly an opinion and is subject to one’s perspective on what is and is not funny. But more specifically he says that their jokes are overused and worn out throughout the season. I quite frankly do not know what he is talking about because he fails to present his audience with an example or any kind of proof for his premise. That shows how much Ethos he has.

     Then last, but not least, he says that the show makes too many geek stereotypes. He argues that there are “references to Stephen Hawking, all manner of mathematics and Darth Vader shampoo.” He also refers to their use of online gaming jargon. First of all, stereotypes are funny because they are true. It’s just some are more appropriate to joke about than others. These geek stereotypes are appropriate because nobody is throwing their hands up and complaining about the jokes that are made on this sitcom. If a group of people were sensitive to these jokes then I am sure the producers would take that into consideration or else the show would get cancelled. Geeks are usually very smart people, at least that is how they are portrayed as in the show, and smart people admire other smart people and their accomplishments. So why wouldn’t they admire Stephen Hawking. Geeks go to Comic-Con and enjoy Science Fiction. So why wouldn’t they like Star Wars and Darth Vader. 

     The stereotypes are not what make the show funny. The writing from the producers and the humor from the cast who portray these stereotypes are what make the show funny. Plus, if the show is about geeks and the everyday life of a group of geeks, it would be kind of misguided to stereotype another group of people, wouldn’t it?

Is Final Fantasy XIII a great game? Spoilers: It's terrible

Critic's review: http://www.gamesradar.com/final-fantasy-xiii-review/

          Being the 13th main installment for the Final Fantasy franchise, the game was released on December 16, 2009 towards immense positive feedback. Amidst the raving reviews of the game, praising its wonderful graphics and streamlined experience, I feel that this game is way, WAY too overblown for its own good.

(The topics I have below are counter-points to the critic and not everything will be reviewed)

Story/Characters:

          For a Final Fantasy game, the story for this game is nothing compared to its predecessors. The basic plot for this game is to save someone from a deep sleep and prevent the destruction of the world defying fate or following it through. Sure, the story seems to be normal but what this game fails at doing is investing the player in the dilemmas of the characters and the world. In the first few minutes after a couple, admittedly,  beautiful cutscenes, the game decides to thrust you straight into the action, without explaining the setting or the couple characters that are available to you. While the critic says that this attempt means you don't need to sit through long and tedious cutscenes explaining the characters and settings, I think those are necessary in order to make the player feel anything towards what is happening in the game. True, the cutscenes present in the game make an attempt to show off the world you're trying to protect but it all amounts to cool looking buildings and impressive size of the world. Also, the characters that you travel with on this 30+ hour journey are ear-numbingly annoying. As the critic states, they are one-dimensional and not fleshed out enough. They are all defined by stereotypes and sad, puppy-dog eyes that cry every 2 seconds about how someone in your party accidentally got their mother killed in a crossfire (yes, that's a plot point). Do you have any motivation to follow these bland characters on their arduous journey to save a world barely fleshed out by a couple cutscenes? No, and that means something in a 30+ hour Japanese Role-Playing Game (JRPG).

Graphics:

          Yes, critic, they're very beautiful and are in a league of its own (at the time). NEXT

Combat:

          Taking notes from the previous iterations of the franchise, it features a real time strategy combat style that focuses on teamwork rather than single character powers. The main innovation is the ability to change character roles mid-fight to respond to any situation. As the critic points out, it does make combat more streamlined, but I feel that as the characters can do actions without the need of the player, you might as well put the controller down and take a nap. Your sole role in combat is managing Health and team positions. Fun.

Final Notes:

          While the game is graphically amazing for its time, the story and characters are what, ultimately, make up 70% of a JRPG. Due to it being incredibly linear until the third act of the game, the game misses out on the ability to flesh out the characters and settings with necessary side quests and towns to visit an explore. With the vast majority of positive feedback and TWO sequels produced, you can thank this bland excuse for a JRPG for showing us how graphics are apparently everything.

                                                                                                                       -Nikki "Nikolas" Pham

Boondocks (In Reality I LOVE This Show)

Boondocks is a television show displaying an African American family consisting of a grandfather and his two grandsons who moved from the urban ghetto to white suburbia and attempts to express their view of the world through their life experiences.  In Lambiepie’s review of Boondocks, he states that, “Adult Swim” has become quite the powerhouse...and now with The Boondocks, it just keeps getting better.” Lambiepie believes that Boondocks is not only a hit, but one of the best satirical pieces on television by stating that, “This is an intelligent piece of satire in animation, it gives you pause to think and wonder - "Is this really going on?"; "Is this how people really feel?" I can say in my little lifetime that I've known quite a few folks who share similar beliefs to many of the Boondocks characters...and I can say many episodes had me laughing like mad.” However, I believe that the Boondocks may be a little too raw, so raw in fact that America is not quite prepared for the undeniable veracity and straightforwardness the show brings. Although, Cartoon Network has a section dedicated to adults i.e. “Adult Swim” a show such as this one should not be shown on a network dedicated to children, not only is it distasteful, but the controversial content of the show tends to be overwhelming and disturbing for kids who are not of age to understand the message the show is trying to convey. Creator of the show, Aaron McGruder, mentioned that his show was created to break down stereotypes of African Americans by making fun of them, but I believe that the show is doing the complete opposite. As unbelievable as it is may sound there are those who are not aware of these stereotypes and have never seen the interaction of family members in an African American household, and by televising  stereotypes in a comical way in an attempt to falsify them is essentially opening up an avenue that produces stereotypes. I can go as far as saying that the show is also very one sided. We only see the Black perspective of the world through the eyes of a family who moved from the urban ghetto to white suburbia, and everyone does not share that same perspective because we all have different experiences which means not everyone can relate to the show or its purpose. The show also uses the “N” word as if it is acceptable which it is not. Once again regardless of the title “Adult Swim” this show is still on a kids’ network and kids do repeat everything  that they hear so who will we blame when our kids are walking around using the “N” as a term of endearment. Should we blame the network? Aaron McGruder? Or the critics and viewers who share the same beliefs as Lambiepie that keeps this show on our television?  Fundamentally, the production of Boondocks is very troublesome and pessimistic and should not be aired on television especially on a network dedicated to kids. It just shows how imprudent the network is for allowing the airing of this show and how audacious McGruder is for creating it.

Lambiepie's Review

I am the blood of the dragon

               Having just watched the season four opener for Game of Thrones I’m in the mood to explore it further. Since season four just started I’ll use a review that focuses on season one. Though almost everyone I know enjoys the series, whether they’ve read the books or not, I do know one or two people who just “can’t get into it”. But I found a rather scathing review on metacritic.com from a user who calls himself, or herself, Kragen1970.

               Kragen attacks the characters as stereotypes with “no flavor”. In season one admittedly we see less character development than is ideal, but to take an 800+ page novel with seven different points of view and cram it into ten hours is a feat in itself. In fact the TV series has to cut some minor plotlines and characters to fit in the allotted time. The characters themselves are highly three dimensional and portrayed very well by all the actors. In the single season we see Catelyn Stark as a fiercely protective mother, a grieving woman who nearly goes mad with it, a strong character who doesn’t hesitate to take action and one who’s morals lead her to do the right thing despite her personal reluctance. Part of the appeal of the characters is that they act according certain roles but this does not equate to being stereotypes. Joffrey goes from being a spoiled prince to a cruel and unpredictable tyrant. Ned Stark who is so completely governed by his ideas of honor and duty, finally breaks and gives in to confessing a crime he did not commit. These are clear examples of true character development, both in the well thought out initial beliefs and personalities of each character and in the way they must change and adapt in order to survive.

               Another grievance Kragen has is the plotline that follows Daenerys Targaryen. Kragen calls it boring and predictable as well as unnecessary to the rest of the story. I find it hard to believe that anyone can find a young woman walking into a funeral pyre boring. I find it impossible to call her survival and the hatching of three dragons predictable, even though I read the books. Nothing in the book or the first season of the series gives audiences any reason to believe she could survive. No past tales of other Targaryen’s surviving fire are mentioned and in fact the scene in which Daenerys survives is never fully explained.

Kragen also states the series is entirely predictable and riddled with unnecessary foreshadowing. As with all stories whether written or filmed an author must include some hints to future events. This foreshadowing makes plotlines believable to audiences. An unexpected event with no foreshadowing can cause audiences to misunderstand the reasons for the event. The survival of Daenerys from the funeral flames is one such event that has sparked debate and some confusion on why and how this happened. If an author wishes audiences to understand an event in a specific manner he or she must guide audiences in a direction and foreshadowing is a way to do this. In my opinion The Game of Thrones is able to find balance of surprise and predictability which makes the series a success.

I am Fire. I am Death.

               I read a lot of science fiction and fantasy and it all started in the fourth grade with Tolkien’s The Hobbit. So almost ten years after the final installment of the Lord of the Rings films, I was elated when they announced the coming of the movie version of The Hobbit. When I heard that it would be broken into three installments I was concerned but hopeful. I missed seeing The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug in theaters and recently watched it at home. And truly, I was a bit disappointed.

               Critic Richard Corliss for Time magazine however, identifies the film as a “thrilling achievement”. He lauds the film for being “livelier, ruder and less slavishly faithful to its source” comparing it to the first installment The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. In my opinion the pace and tone of The Desolation of Smaug and the lack of faithfulness to the text greatly deter from the enjoyment of the film. The Hobbit was never meant to be a deep, serious book, rather it was written by Tolkien in a lighter tone so that it may appeal to children. The book was even turned into an animated film in the 70’s. By turning The Desolation of Smaug into an action packed journey with forceful overshadowing of doom, we lose the sense of the story as written by Tolkien in the persona of Bilbo Baggins. What is meant to be a hobbit’s tale, instead becomes a playground for director Peter Jackson.

               One point that Richard Corliss brings up in his review is that of the character Tauriel. Many Tolkien fans have been infuriated by the addition of this character but Corliss claims the addition “works, lending the story a touch of gender democracy and warm Arthurian romance”. The writers of the film add her because they felt that there needed to be a feminine energy. The addition of such a character, especially in a time where female archer heroines are in vogue, would be a neutral aspect if not for the love triangle she is placed in. In the film she is the obvious love interest of Legolas and the only slightly less obvious love interest for the dwarf Kili. While the banter between elf maid and dwarf is amusing, it is completely unnecessary to the story and even Corliss admits that their dialogue does not sound like Tolkien. Legolas as the third part of the bewildering love triangle is another character that does not belong. As the son of Thranduil it could be implied that Legolas takes part in the events of The Hobbit but instead of a brief cameo, the film insists on using him as a key player. While this alone would not be a problem, the romance is a strange chapter in a film that is essentially an action movie.

               Tolkien’s genius in writing The Hobbit was that it was completely believable as a memoir of Bilbo Baggins. A hobbit, being a well-fed creature of comfort, would surely remember vividly the long hard trek and poor food on the journey. In The Desolation of Smaug however, Corliss argues that the film “sensibly reduc[es] the book’s passages”. Rather than keep with the true spirit of the book, this film takes many liberties with the storyline as well as the pacing of story.

               The only part of Richard Corliss’ review I can agree with is the mind-blowing depiction of the CGI dragon Smaug at 48 frames per second, which in my mind is the only part of the film worth watching.

Review of "The Sound of Music Live"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/nbcs-the-sound-of-music-live-an-impossible-climb-after-all/2013/12/06/cb97f374-5c43-11e3-be07-006c776266ed_story.html

In Hank Stuever’s Washington Post review of “The sound of Music Live”, Stuever states that the live presentation was “an ambitious, yet disappointing stiff staging of the original musical” giving it a bad review.

                He argues three different reasons why he feels like this live presentation of “The Sound of Music” was the worst disaster he had seen on TV since “Nik Wallenda prayed with Joel Osteen and then tight roped across a Grand Canyon gorge”. First he talks about the lighting choices. In his review, Stuever referred to the lighting as strange and states that the lighting “was reminiscent of old soap operas that turned everything either a shade of scented candle or backyard compost”. Secondly, he argued that the true essence of the movie was not captured which for nearly everyone means the vivid and endlessly ebullient 1965 Robert Wise film, starring Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer. Lastly, he mocked the acting of Carrie Underwood who played Maria the governess and said of her “it’s impossible not to notice that she can’t act. When Underwood spoke her lines, she was as flat as the label on a Swiss Miss package of cocoa”, and also mocked Stephen Moyer in the role of Captain von Trapp who struggled with a format that is all but alien to today’s TV.

                However, I do not think the review is a fair one especially when comparing it to the 1965 film, which if reviewed at today’s standards may have negative critic also and two, it is harder to stage a live show than act a film. Although one might say a classic movie like “The sound of Music” should not have been emulated if it wasn’t going to be done right, I believe that the producers ventured because of their love for the movie and I believed it showed throughout the production.

                The lighting that Stuever seemed to dislike was setting the mood of the production for it captured the era of the movie. The “shade of scented candle lighting” as Stuever puts it was deliberate to emphasize the time period and it allows the audience to travel back and appreciate the thought process put into the production. The essence of the movie that Stuever so lightly thought was not captured was very well brilliantly captured through the songs which were nicely done and which I’m sure the audience sang along to. The acting of Carrie Underwood and Stephen Moyer may not have been phenomenal, but were good enough to enjoy a live show which is not very easy to do. They portrayed characters that have been a favorite of most American families and would have been a tough act to follow even if portrayed by great actors like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.

                I think Stuever should have given the production better credit for their effort of creating America’s favorite pass time movie as a live production.