Fiddler on the Roof

I wanted to love this musical. I felt like if I could genuinely love it, it would reflect positively upon me in various ways. I'd be cultured, or something. Perhaps more dignified in some way. Alas, I did not enjoy this movie as much as I hoped I would. Perhaps my expectations were set too high, or perhaps I just had a misconception or two going into it. Okay, I'll admit it: I had no idea this was a musical. So please excuse my tepid reactions to it. Still, things started out well. When the first three songs of the film were "Tradition," "Matchmaker, Matchmaker," and "If I Were a Rich Man," all of which I had known about, but none of which I knew came from this musical, my hopes got very high. But the remaining two and a half hours of the movie featured no remotely familiar numbers. That isn't to say they weren't any good - I very much enjoyed "Miracle of Miracles" and "Do You Love Me." Still, they weren't enough to carry a three hour film. As is the case with any musical, between the songs there is a plot. I liked this plot. It reminded me in many ways of Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart. The main character, a big and burly head of household by the name of Tevye, was very likable and it wasn't hard at all to identify with his struggles and plights. Most chief of these hardships was his very way of life crumbling around him as the Jewish traditions of his little Russian village give way to the modern 20th Century world. I liked the movie's conclusion, sad as it was, as Tevye and his family have been stripped of essentially all of their rights and happiness but still refuse to break. It's strange, sort of; whether its The Ten Commandments or Schindler's List, Jews are always getting the short end of the stick in movies like this one, and the one time Jews are in any position of power on film, they beat up, torture, and kill the most popular dude in Western history - Jesus Christ himself. It just doesn't seem fair, but then, I guess the movies are just sticking to history. It all begs the question: have Jews ever really not been persecuted, at any point in the past two or three millennia? And please, spare me the "Jews control the media/banks/world" jokes. Oh well. This blog is neither religious nor historical in context. The point is, I watched Fiddler on the Roof, wanted to give it a 9 or a 10, and ended up only finding it worthy of a 6 or 7. Not bad, of course, but from a three hour classic, I was hoping for just a little bit more. Still, what more could I hope for than the completion of yet another DVD? The backlog is down to 35 DVDs. Onward!

The Silence of the Lambs

Would you believe me if I told you I have never seen 1991's best picture, The Silence of the Lambs? Well, you shouldn't. Because now I have. Overall, I was largely impressed by the horror mystery film. Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal was as chilling as movie characters come and the guy who played Buffalo Bill was a pretty creepy dude himself; kudos to both. Jodie Foster is an actress whose work as a whole I am largely unfamiliar with, but she did a pretty decent job with her role as well. The film had a lot going for it; it was suspenseful, psychological, and definitely classic. In fact, it was such a solid and complete movie that the only peeves I had with it at all were of extreme triviality. Allow me to share the biggest one, and see for yourself that I really did enjoy this movie. No real spoilers, I promise. Ready? Okay. So the woman we see Buffalo Bill kidnap is supposed to be a Senator's daughter, but we can clearly see that she lives in a very lower-middle class part of an urban area. Really? I'm just not buying this as anything more than "potentially plausible." So, yeah, my biggest problem with the movie was that something was unlikely to happen. But I mean, show me a movie where that's not the case and I'll show you a hundred where it is. The bottom line is that The Silence of the Lambs was an excellent movie that lived up to its hype. I can't say I'm in any rush to see the rest of the Hannibal movies, but this one gets a nine out of ten.

Halo 3

Do you Halo, Halo, Halo, Halo? I did tonight, beating the third and final installment on the heroic difficulty setting with a four-man co-op team consisting of myself, my girlfriend, and two apartment-mates. Now, I could go on and on about how awesome Halo 3's online multiplayer is (simply the best), but the Back-Blogged project is all about beating games, not beating strangers. Because of this, I must judge this game solely on its campaign. I'll be frank: it was good but not great. There was just a little too much of a "beat 'em up" feel to the game and not quite enough thinking involved. When our team struggled to make progress in a level, it was only because we were lost or confused about where to head next, as opposed to there being some kind of challenge we could not solve. The final level's final challenge was really cool, but also nearly identical to the conclusion of the first Halo. In a way, it felt like, wow, I've been here before. And that's never how the final part of the final level of the final game of a best-selling classic series should make you feel. I guess the important thing, however, is whether or not one has fun playing a game. In this case, I can say that I most certainly did. Playing an entire game, co-op, with headsets in different rooms was an experience unlike any other I have ever endured. It was like having a lengthy cell phone conversation, yakking it up with friends, while at the same time enjoying a highly renowned game. There was plenty of both teamwork and boredom-induced friendly fire. I think what strikes me most about the experience was how random and spontaneous an idea it was. It's a rainy and crappy Friday night after our first week of classes, and the four of us opted not to go out, laying low instead. Someone suggested a co-op of Halo 3, and nobody contested. Before we knew it, five hours were gone and we'd beaten all nine levels. Achievements abounded (a couple thousand gamerscore points were earned to the delight of everyone involved) and the good times rolled. And it was all thanks to a rainy Friday night.

The Silver Chair

Another week, another Narnia book. This one was so-so. I found myself very bored for the majority of the first two thirds of it, and the climactic moment occurs with about a quarter of the book remaining; there really wasn't much going on here at all, and what did go on was largely uninspired and predictable. In this regard, it felt very much like Prince Caspian. But it was a slightly better book overall. A big part of this was Puddleglum, a "marsh-wiggle," who is probably my favorite Lewis character to date. For once, Lewis has crafted his own race - some sort of dreadlocked duck-like humanoid with the lanky build of a scarecrow - as opposed to the trite and overused fantasy cliches he typically throws into his stories: dwarves, centaurs, fauns, and the like. Puddleglum is as pessimistic as Charlie Brown, and his dry humor and depressing wit made for a refreshing change in the Narnia books which tend to be full of hope, sunshine, and staunch optimism. Puddleglum felt like a Lewis Carroll creation and some of his antics made me feel as if I was reading Alice in Wonderland Lite. At other times, I felt like I was reading a terrible Gulliver's Travels knock-off, as our heroes took an all-too predictable series of chapters interacting with both giants and underground-dwelling people. I mean, honestly, the "Giant Land" part of the book couldn't have been any more obvious from start to finish. It turns out that the giants who have invited our three journeyers into their castle for a great big feast are actually planning to cook and eat the trio. This might not have even been so clear from the get-go had Lewis not referenced that the giants seemed "untrustworthy" to the kids like five or six times. Plenty of other plot points and "twists" could be seen coming right from their respective set-ups, but I won't bore myself or any possible readers out there by delving into them; the book is, after all, "for children," as its cover so clearly indicates. One more Narnia book separates me from the completion of this banal heptalogy. I'll put on my shit-eating grin and bear it, but honestly, my expectations are pretty low. After all, why expect book seven to be any better than the average of books one through six?

Dexter: Season 3

Dexter is a television show I started watching this summer when my girlfriend gave me the first two seasons for my birthday. I was pleased, and, having just completed the third season tonight, still am. Dexter puts a very fresh twist on the old and boring "cop drama" genre. No big spoiler here, but the twist in question is that Dexter is a serial killer. But he's a serial killer with a conscience. He follows a "code" and only kills those who meet certain criteria. Getting an audience to empathize with a serial killer is no easy feat, and the fact that Dexter manages to do so is one testament to its greatness. I think what makes the show work so well, more than anything else, is the extent to which we are immersed in Dexter's mind and flow of consciousness. While he never breaks the fourth wall by addressing we the viewers directly, Dexter is always chiming in with voice overs in which he expresses his reactions to scenarios and statements. You could definitely say that this show is a dark comedy. It's worth checking out, and in my opinion, it's the best series on Showtime. So how does the third season compare to the first two? It definitely beats Season 2, which really wasn't all that bad except for a rushed and jumbled "what the fuck?" style finale. Unfortunately, Season 3 also finds itself getting a little crazy around finale time. But not as crazy. The last two seasons are difficult to compare to Season 1 because that season was much simpler and more straightforward; so much of it involved learning about the various characters and their histories (most notably, Dexter's). So when Season 1 pulled out a big twist or great moment it was tough not to be impressed and caught off guard in a good way. With Seasons 2 and 3 though, the plots and cases became much more intricate and convoluted. So, you know, not really "better" or "worse" but instead just different. All of that having been said, Season 1's finale dropped an absolute mindfuck of a twist on me, while Season 3's finale seemed a tad weak and Season 2's was just bad. And, since each season of Dexter is a mystery of sorts, and the most memorable part of any mystery is the conclusion, I'd have to rank the seasons in accordance with their finales: 1, 3, and 2, in that order. Again, I'm going on the record here and saying that Dexter is something you might enjoy. I guess this show has caused a lot of controversy as far as uppity parents calling it immoral and outrageous. But unless you think it's wrong to empathize with a fictional serial killer, I think you'll enjoy the show.

Metroid Prime

Looking for a must-have from the early 2000s era? Look no further. Metroid Prime is the greatest single-player game I've seen on the Nintendo GameCube. It's an FPS, but holy shit, it is so much more than just another FPS. Picture a Zelda game set on alien planets and played from a first-person perspective. There's no multiplayer option, but who cares? A game with a "campaign" this good doesn't need to be watered down by level-based deathmatches on a split screen. As far as the FPS genre goes, this is the greatest one I've ever played. That includes all the Halos and Gears games, as well as a handful of other classics like Half-Life and Call of Duty. What makes this game so special is the intricate map design. Enormous landscapes and caverns abound. "Hidden" objects and power-ups aren't really hidden at all for the most part, but placed in strategic locations that you will not be able to access the first time you play through an area of the game. You progress linearly for the most part, but that line is far from straight and often doubles back on itself, loops around, and zigs and zags everywhere. Near the end of the game, you reach a point where you are told to go back throughout the various areas and find 12 artifacts that will open the way to the final boss. This is where I stopped playing the game six years ago, and where I resumed playing it yesterday. I figured I would need to invest a few nights and also peruse some walkthroughs in order to find all 12 objects, but I was delighted by the pace at which I found all 12 artifacts - two hours, maybe three total. And I only used a walkthrough once, and even then, only because I had forgotten about a pivotal special ability my Samus character had acquired prior to my six year hiatus. From there, it was time for a difficult boss (Meta Ridley) and then an incredibly difficult two-stage boss: the titular "Metroid Prime" itself. Now, maybe I can blame my time away from the game a bit, but these last three bosses were really, really challenging. And frankly, I didn't have the patience not to get frustrated by repeated failed attempts at killing them. The very last boss, which is really the second stage of Metroid Prime, actually wasn't that bad, but Metroid Prime's first stage always did such a number on my health and missile supplies that I was always knocking on death's door throughout the battle. The nice part about the game though is that aside from these bosses - and probably a few others earlier in the game - nothing in the game will even come close to killing you. Apparently, this was intentional. The makers wanted the challenge of the game to be exploration-centric, and not just all about killing and avoiding enemies. I love this. You can't really say it's a puzzle game, or even that it contains dungeons with puzzles a la Zelda, but it's certainly a thinking game. Where do I go next? What areas will this new upgrade allow me to access? Allegedly, this is the best game in the Metroid Prime trilogy, but as someone who has played more than half of the second one and even a bit of the third, I can vouch that it's not really a huge drop-off by any means from one game to the next. I look forward to playing and finishing Prime 2: Echoes and Prime 3: Corruption in the near future, schoolwork permitting. It really was just a blast to play this game back in my early high school years. It's not perfect; keep in mind the aforementioned frustration levels and also allow me to admit that there's really no great story and also that the controls are just a tiny bit clunky. Still, again, it's the greatest one-player GameCube game I've played to date. Oh yeah, and rumor has it Sweeney's been playing his own Wii version of Metroid Prime, so if you see a second review pop up anytime soon (or ever), make sure to find out his take. For his sake, I hope it's even half as good as mine. But I'm sure it will be.

Wii Sports Resort

I guess this is technically the sequel to Wii Sports, but how does a game without a story really have a sequel? It's like calling Madden 10 the sequel to Madden 09. I bought the game recently (it's only been out for like a month or so) and can say that I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it's great to finally have extreme precision in the Wii remotes with the new controller add-on, Wii MotionPlus. On the other, wasn't the Wii always supposed to have precise one-to-one controls? Because this game more than any other is one to enjoy with friends, it's more or less a given that you need to purchase at least one additional Wii MotionPlus with this game. All said and done, you're looking at $70 to play a game with no story, bad graphics, and a "we should have seen this three years ago" feel. But the game has one huge saving grace in its replay value. With a dozen gametypes to choose from and several subsets of each gametype available, some of these games will just never get old. The improvement from Wii Sports of five games to twelve is really the only thing that makes this worth buying. Be warned, though: two games, golf and bowling, are repeats. The massive appeal of Wii Sports Resort helps its case as well. This is a game anyone could enjoy. Even game-o-phobes like grandparents and girlfriends can get a kick out of it, and I guess tapping into such new markets is really Nintendo's mission these days. Now, I've been playing this game on and off for the past month, and finally decided that it can be called "beaten" today. Have I unlocked every single gametype and found everything there is to collect? No. But I have played every gametype at least a few times. I have cleared every "level" of certain one-player gametypes. One of my apartment-mates and I have succeeded in various goals and missions. We've gone "pro" at several gametypes and we've bested each other's personal records several times over at many others. Can I say that I've completed this game? No. But beaten? I don't see why not; I've seen all there is to see from Wii Sports Resort and do not feel as though I would be missing out on anything big if I never played it again. Of course, I will play it again, and probably as soon as tonight; it's a big hit in the apartment and I'm sure I'll be coaxed into playing it multiple times in the foreseeable future. It's a bit pricey for the total experience, and it's nothing you'll be reminiscing about in ten years, but Wii Sports Resort is fun, social, and incredibly simple. Were you expecting it to be anything else? I wasn't. Three out of four stars.

The Talented Mr. Ripley

I bought this DVD two months ago for only $2.99. Totally worth it. I placed the disc in the tray when I awoke this morning with no expectations whatsoever; I just assumed it would be about a mysterious man played by a young Matt Damon. And yet, it was much more than that. I suppose I would have to classify it as a suspense-filled drama, if not as an outright thriller. The character of Tom Ripley was way more complex than I could have imagined, and so was his story. What starts out as a simple con job of sorts quickly turns into a dark and downward spiral for everyone involved, as obsession, lies, lust, and murder all come into play before the movie hits the one hour mark. The film itself seemed like a mixture of the light-hearted Catch Me If You Can and the much grimmer and darker Match Point, two other flicks where circumstances get out of hand for charismatic law-breaking protagonists. I wasn't looking forward to seeing Gwyneth Paltrow and Cate Blanchett, two of my least favorite actresses, in the same movie together. But I must admit, each played her part adequately enough, and my respect for both of them rose a notch or two. Rounding out the cast were Jude Law and Philip Seymour Hoffman, both just as good as you would assume, and a much cheerier than expected Jack Davenport (Commodore Norrington in the Pirates of the Caribbean series). It's always nice to see a lesser known actor playing a drastically different role than you recognize him from, and the contrast between Davenport in this film and the Pirates series was no exception. A classic "Wait, that's what I know him from!?" moment occurred when I checked him out on IMDb after the movie ended. The film has a somewhat ambiguous ending - it's pretty clear what has happened, but I was, and still am, extremely curious about what happens next. Fortunately, I learned that this film was based on the first novel in a series of five by Patricia Highsmith known as "the Ripliad." Unfortunately, there are no real sequels to this specific version of the story that can tell me more about what becomes of Matt Damon's Tom Ripley; the adaptation was a one-off project. Some of the other books in the series have indeed been adapted into films of their own, the most critically acclaimed one being Ripley's Game, but all of them have different actors and directors, so no continuity is established between the films. It seems as though the only way I could learn more about Tom Ripley and his dangerous adventures in deception and identity theft would be to read the Ripliad, but we all know that I've got a pretty lengthy reading list as it stands. Oh well. I'll take the small amount of closure I was given and call it a day. And yes, The Talented Mr. Ripley is definitely a movie I'd recommend.

Wolves of the Calla

So lately it must seem like I've been sucking Stephen King's dick talking about how great this Dark Tower series is. It's true, I'm enjoying these books much more than I thought I would- it even prompted me to read offshoot novels like The Talisman earlier in the summer. Wolves of the Calla is book number 5 in the series of 7, but not quite as good as the others. But before I start into that, here's a synopsis of the series so far: The Gunslinger, book 1, was written in 1982- one of the first books Stephen King wrote. I read this 2 summers ago, and thought it was alright. The Gunslinger tells the tale of Roland Deschain, the last of a race of gunslingers, essentially knights of the round table who wield guns instead of swords. Roland's world is sort of a post-apocalyptic version of our own, but this is explained later in the series. In the first book, Roland chases after the mysterious man in black, and we get some snippets of Roland's past. The second and third books in the series, The Drawing of the Three and The Waste Lands were published in '87 and '91 respectively, and share a common plot, which is Roland assembling a team that will join him on what becomes his ultimate quest- to reach and defend the Dark Tower, the axis of all universes. I think the make-up of Roland's crew is what makes me not so embarassed to read these books- while Roland is a complete fantasy stereotype, the members of his group are all unwillingly plucked from seperate time periods in New York City, giving the whole series a group of relatable characters. The fourth book, Wizard and Glass was written in 1997 and is almost entirely a flashback to Roland's youth. While most of the time flashbacks seem pointless to me, this book amazed me- I consider it the height of the series. It was not only a beautifully written story good enough to stand on its own, but it really added to the series as a whole.

At this point, you can see that King really took his time developing these stories- 15 years between the first and fourth books. It looked like the series was going to be Stephen King's magnum opus, its mythology encompassing not only 7 books, but his entire body of work. Fans were ravenously awaiting the fifth story, but in 1999 King was hit by a car and was seriously hurt. Sensing his own mortality, shortly after that King decided to finish off Roland's story once and for all. He cranked out the final three books in the series in a matter of 2 years, and the majority of Dark Tower fans felt the series suffered because of this. I've read on message boards people saying to "stop after Wizard and Glass, and just make up your own ending." If only it was that easy, of course. Getting more than halfway through a series and loving it, I couldn't just stop- and so I picked up Wolves of the Calla earlier this week. The book was a monster, coming in at 925 pages, and as I've said before, I agree there was a drop in quality, I still found Wolves good enough to speed through and enjoy. While the differences are huge, one comparison I usually make is to the tv series Lost. There's plenty of moments in the series that left me actually saying out loud "holy shit" and thinking "I can't believe he had this all thought out from the start!" Also, just like how Lost has great moments such as Locke pounding on the hatch not only be moving the first time, but having the moment returned to and given even greater importance a year later; King can return to something written in the 80s decades later and explain how there was more going on than at first glance. While not as good as Drawing of the Three, The Waste Lands, or Wizard and Glass, Wolves of the Calla is still a strong showing. If the last two novels are at least as good as this, then I would hardly say the Dark Tower series had a bad ending. Maybe people just couldn't handle the fact that there were a few Harry Potter references thrown in.

Scrubs: Season 8

Man, I put this DVD set away in a matter of two days. Consider it my summer finale. I got into Scrubs only a few years ago, just in time for it to end. At least, that's what it seemed like at the time; the sixth season was rumored to be the last. Then, when the seventh premiered, it was made clear that it would be the final one. When said season was shortened by the '07 writers' strike, an eighth season was commissioned. This one was certain to be the absolute last season. It even had a very fitting series finale of an ending, complete with a montage of what the main characters' futures will be like. Yet for some reason, a ninth season has been confirmed. I'm torn over my feelings about this. On the one hand, I think it's a great show, and having just viewed last season in its entirety, I can attest that it really hasn't undergone a drop-off in quality or humor like many have blamed it for doing. On the other, come on. When you talk for three years about ending your run, and finally do so, and then opt to come back each time for "just one more year," your act starts to get a little old. A certain Minnesota Viking comes to mind, you know? And the thing is, Scrubs: Season 9 isn't even going to feature many Scrubs regulars. Just Donald Faison (Turk) and John C. McGinley (Dr. Cox) will be returning full-time. The show's format and setting will change as well; now, Turk and Dr. Cox are medical school professors whose students occasionally make rounds through Sacred Heart Hospital. I really wish Bill Lawrence and company would just call this upcoming season exactly what it is: a spin-off. I loved Scrubs and its eight-year run, but sometimes it's you have to know when it's time to hang it up. Look at what's happened to The Simpsons, and even Family Guy after just a couple of years. Enough is enough. Scrubs: Season 8 was great, but I feel a little jilted knowing it wasn't the finale it originally claimed to be. Why invest myself in an ending that only lasts an offseason? I can't stand Brett Favre.