Zero Dark Thirty

I'm desperately trying to catch up on all of biggest films from the last year. Zero Dark Thirty (along with Skyfall) where two films I was desperately trying to catch a pre-screening of before leaving Sony in the fall. Alas, these films were heavily under lock-and-key. Then it just breezed by me in theaters (not Skyfall, though). Finally, I got my hands on a copy of this film and am slowly checking off my list of all the 2012 films I needed to see. 

The film is decent. Many people I've spoken to about it have loved it. I'll admit, watching the torture and interrogation scenes the fill the first act is some pretty brutal stuff. Not Saw brutal, but after hearing about waterboarding for years then seeing it performed in a realistic manner is some intense shit. And the final scene - the storming of Bin Laden's compound - was riveting. Still, there was some pieces of this film that lost me. 

One main detail that pulled me out of the movie were the US intelligence characters' banter involving swarms of middle-eastern names. This really only happens in the first act, but it made it incredibly hard to figure out who was on first base. The intelligence team is trying to track down Bin Laden by uncovering his curriers/contacts. In this process they spit out various names here and there, over and over again. My head spins. I had no clue who or what they were going after at that point. They tried to help guide the audience through this my inserting title cards between the scenes that highlights what the itelligence team was focused on. They put their main target's name right up on screen for everyone to see and understand. Yet, still, I get lost. But this comes from a guy who still fails to pronounce bolognese (I say "bo-log-nes-si") every time I go out for pasta. Plus I repeated Spanish level 2, three times. Foreign cultures and languages are just lost on me. 

The film clocks in at a little over two and a half hours. A bit on the long side, yet, it didn't really feel that way. The last scene, as I already said, is pretty fascinating. It felt like it took place in only five minutes when in reality I bet it was closer to 30. I also applaud the film for never actually showing Bin Laden's face (either alive or dead). The story revolves around one agent's concentration on the manhunt. Even putting aside that this is a true story, or the fact that no one should profit from an image of Osama, I liked just watching this woman's reaction to her victory. They made it her story. The film ends on her face, preparing to fly out of the Middle East, as tears well up in her eyes. Smart and intriguing way to frame this story. 

Not my favorite film of the past year, but definitely worth a watch if you're curious about checking it out. 

Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again

Good, but not great.

With its predecessor (The Dark Knight Returns) being such an amazing novel, this sequel has a lot to live up to. Unfortunately, it struggles to pass muster. And there's some jarring reasons to why I suffered a bit to get through this. 

First, the story. In the prequel we have a world where all the superheroes have been chased away by the people (similar to what happened in The Incredibles). The only one left is Superman, now a lackey for the US government. So when Wayne decides to return as Batman, it's a fairly straight story of him reclaiming Gotham, fighting the old nemeses of his universe, and finally concluding with a showdown a Superman who's lost his way. Gripping and simple to follow. In this take, Miller pushes the story to the next level. Basically the novel is supersaturated with heroes and villains from the DC universe. You've got your Justice League squad, but then Wayne begins encountering a bunch of heroes that I have no clue how who they are with very little introduction to help the uneducated reader to understand who's who. 

Side note: In an attempt to release a former villain who they need to join their side (Plastic Man - a guy who can morph his body into anything he can conceive) they break into Arkham Asylum. There's a litte side story here claiming that patients of Arkham gained control of the building years ago. The city kept them locked in while meeting some of their demands. Mostly TV's and entertainment equipment. When the police asked if they needed food, the inmates responded that there was still plenty of hostages to eat. Haunting. Wish they could have incorporated that more into the story. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. 

My other issue with the story is that it felt very disjointed. There's a couple different plot lines running around, which is fine, but how Miller switches to one storyline to the next can get really confusing. I'll blame a bit of this on the illustrations. Miller pencils everything, and, frankly, he's just not my cup of tea. His style is abstract and chaotic. If you have a story that's heavily layered with a vast array of characters all on different missions, maybe make the visuals a little easier to follow. One in particular is near the conclusion. Lex Luthor is about to destroy the world via satellite weapons that will reign Hell down on Earth. Then Green Lantern does... something(?) that saves the day. There's basically 5 panels of green light everywhere. Luthor is screaming in his defeat. Then we cut back to the green lantern who now holds the world in his hand - either he got really big or the world got really small. Regardless, it's really difficult to decipher what the fuck is happening even after rereading the storyline through several times. 

The disjointed story and abstract illustrations aside, there are still some really cool moments throughout the book. Batman and Superman duke it out again, right at the beginning. Batman kicks his ass once again. Not only that, but makes a giant fool of him, sending him crawling out of his cave a broken man. Batman goes around freeing heroes who have been imprisoned by the government. For instance, we find the Flash stuck in some turbine where he's been imprisoned to run like a hamster in a wheel to generate electricity for eastern America. Interesting idea. The only character that really confused me was the Green Lantern. Even though Hal Jordan is a human, the story randomly cuts to some weird ass creatures in another universe/planet. And it's the Green Lantern in another form... with another family... in a place that he now calls home... I mean, check it out for yourself.

It's only till you get a few pages in that the green alien on the dinosaur tells his wife and child to close their eyes and he transforms to the Green Lantern and flies off into the sky to return to Earth where his help is needed. It's so confusing to understand that this was suppose to be the Hal as the Green Lantern. I dwelled on this for quite a while. I mean, I get if all super heroes abandon Earth to find new homes. Hal goes to some strange alien planet. Then changes his look and meets and alien woman to marry; fine. But he has a fucking kid? How does that work?! He's human! Shouldn't the kid by a hybrid or an abomination of some sorts? I'm sure this is bothering me way more than is should, but I can't shake lack of logic in this. Why couldn't Miller just have him chill at the intergalactic Green Lantern Corps HQ? Whatever, I'll leave this be... Still... Ugh.

I'll wrap this up. You have to read this if you've already read and enjoyed The Dark Knight Returns, but - for me - it clearly doesn't measure up. Still, there's plenty to enjoy and stakes are raise very high. Cities are destroyed. Heroes die. Superman and Wonder Woman's daughter is introduced - she kicks ass. There's also a very cool idea that Batman raises. He claims that corrupted corporations now rule the world and it's all his fault. He spent far too long focusing on street thugs while CEOs built their powerful empires entirely unnoticed. Hence Lex Luthor being one of the main villains in this story. Plus there's one very surprising twist villain at the end that's a fun payoff. 

I'll leave you with the last panel that gives hope to Miller possibly doing one final Dark Knight story. The Bat is still alive after he blows up his cave and - despite his appearance - is feeling better than ever!

Eyes Wide Shut

...What?

Where to start? I guess I should first begin with the fact that I'm not a huge Kubrick fan. Respect the guy. Believe that he's one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Still, I've just never been really hooked on his films - from those that I've seen - except for The Shining. That I love. In fact there's a new documentary out, Room 237 (96% on RottenTomatoes), exploring the hidden theories and mythos behind that particular movie. Really want to see that. With that in mind, I decided to dive into another Kubrick film I've been meaning to see for quite a while. No, not Dr. Strangelove - although still on my list. It's Eyes Wide Shut. 

After seeing this, the only thing that comes to mind is... What?

This is one of those films I should definitely watch several times to truly grasp what it is Kubrick is trying to say, or to even establish my own views on the story. I'll try to break down some theories in my ramblings below, but I'm sure with more time I'll think differently on this film. 

In a nutshell, this film explores the hardships and temptations of infidelity in a long-term marriage. In a way, it's a sexual odyssey. So we have Kidman and Cruise (remember when they were an actual item?) as a married couple for nine years. They're wealthy NY socialites, where Cruise plays a doctor who makes house calls to the super rich. The film starts at a Christmas party where each person a slightly seduced by different people. Nothing physical happens, but the sexual tension and temptation in the film is set. Not long after, while Cruise and Kidman and smoking some weed in bed together, Kidman reveals a fantasy about making love to some naval officer while sleeping with Cruise about a year ago. Needless to say, this hurts him. Suddenly the phone rings and Cruise is off to check in on a patient emergency. And so begins his sexual odyssey...

Cruise bounces around to a couple different sexual predicaments during the long night. The most famous being that legendary sexual cult/orgy that almost earned the film an NC-17 rating back in 1999. To be clear, it's really not sexual. It's creepy and haunting. Everyone's identity is hidden, forced to wear parlor masks that are actually quite terrifying (I know what I'm going as for Halloween this year!) while they watch or take part in various sexual acts.  Cruise only watches, roaming from room to room until he is caught. It seems like they might try to kill him before one of the woman (we don't know who it is at the time) sacrifices herself to save him. Cruise is let free, and so begins the second half of the film where he tries and uncover what the fuck just happened to him.

This part of the movie I really enjoyed. A compelling mystery to figure out what the hell just happened. Everywhere Cruise goes for information, the cult seems to be one step ahead, passing him messages to leave it alone, go home. I won't reveal the true ending, but I will say I was disappointed that it didn't turn out in a more conventional method. You have to remember, this is a movie about the hardships of marriage... not a mystery on some sex cult lurking in the shadows of NY. 

So what theories are to be taken away from this complicated film? I have no clue. I've been searching around online, stumbled across various articles dealing with sociology, principles of humanity, or clues that the sex cult might have something to do with the Illuminati (what doesn't belong to the Illuminati nowadays?), but either the articles are too damn long to read in one sitting or they're too damn crazy. Here's the only thing I somewhat believe... it's all a dream.

Yes, the whole "it was only a dream" bit. There's evidence to believe that as this couple faces troubles in their marriage, they might have explored the depravities of human sexuality entirely from within. For instance, when Cruise returns from his night out at the crazy orgy cult, he wakes his wife from a nightmare. She explains the nightmare and her story is basically her being one of the prostitutes at the orgy. An eerie moment in the film. Then, at the end, Cruise returns home late at night, once again, and finds his parlor mask (something he thought he lost) laying on his pillow beside his sleeping wife. It's never explain how it got there. Doesn't seem the wife put it there or even knew about it. Regardless, he breaks down in tears, wakes his wife, and confesses everything. With the mask laying comfortably on his pillow, it just gives the impression that Cruise could have been taking this journey subconsciously. Totally from a dream.

Anyways, as some would put it: The truth shall set you free. That seems the one fact that gives hope to their relationship. They both now can trust one another, or maybe they both understand one another at a deeper, more intimate level. Just being honest at the fact that they suffer from temptation now and then. It's hurtful, but it's not deceitful. And, I guess, I would like to think that's a huge part of love and marriage. Discovering who really are at the core of your being and sharing it. The film ends with Kidman saying something along the lines that she's not quite sure how everything will turn out. The only thing they can do now is fuck. 

I'm sure there are much more profound ways you can unpack this story - in fact, I guarantee it - but in terms of sheer entertainment, this film is just not for me. I'm a simple man of simple tastes. Films with philosophical allegories just don't do it for me. Sure, I'm glad I watched it, but I'd rather see Marty McFly struggle to reach 88mph in the DeLorean before the bolt of lightning strikes than watch this again. 

To each their own, I suppose. 

Ico

The more I played the game Ico, the more I thought that this would be an increibly easy game to describe. So many third person adventure games are so loaded with cutscenes, missions and collectibles, but Ico has nothing like that- there's a simple story, simple gameplay, and just a whole lot of relatively simple puzzles. The premise involves a young boy (Ico) born with horns, who is shunned from his village and held captive in an abandoned castle. After breaking free from his cell, he runs into a girl (Yorda) who speaks a language he does not understand, but communicating through gestures and calls the two work together to escape the castle. Ico is the more mobile of the two, and is the one players control- he can do just about every action in the game, as well as drag Yorda along in whatever direction he chooses. Yorda on the other hand can't climb ropes, attack enemies (all of which aside from the final boss are exactly the same), or jump large gaps, but unlike Ico she has some sort of spiritual connection to the castle that allows her to open up doors telepathically. Clearly, the game is based on the 'teamwork' mentality, as it's impossible to get far at all without bringing Yorda with you. And in my opinion, it worked. You could call the entire game one long escort mission, but that would be doing it a disservice. Yorda is relatively easy to protect, and you can only reach a 'game over' screen in two ways- failing to protect Yorda from enemies, or having Ico fall a great distance. Enemies won't even try to hurt Ico! Like I said before, the combat and puzzles are all fairly simple and forgettable; even the scenery, beautifully updated in HD for the remake I played, starts to get old pretty quickly. The whole point of the game seems to be to truly emulate 'companionship'- Yorda can't even speak to Ico, but she's his only friend inside this huge, mostly empty castle. You lose her for a brief period towards the end of the game, and the loss is truly felt, unlike in other games where you'd be thankful to not have to defend some AI companion anymore. While the game was successful in this way though, I can't ignore that almost all of the gameplay involved looking at the same objects and fighting the same enemies over and over. There's no depth to the game beyond your first play. Still though, it's an experience unlike any other game I've played, and is one of the classic examples brought up in the whole games-as-art debate. I recommend playing through it, but don't expect to be blown away by brilliance; it's a game that's subtle with its storytelling.

Big Love: Season 5

And that's curtains for the Henrickson clan! I hate to be brief here - usually I can go on and on when a series ends - but I'm kind of at a loss for opinions. For one thing, I didn't like this season as much as the previous one, which is the first time that's happened in my history with Big Love. For another, it had such an abruptly terrible resolution to its series finale. I mean, there are twist endings and shocking events, and there's even the infamous Sopranos cut-to-black ending-out-of-nowhere, but this? Wow. Perhaps a new low for an otherwise decent dramatic cable series. Not only were plenty of melodramatic arcs not really resolved, but the final fifteen minutes and one event in particular just came on so, so abruptly. It almost feels like the writers were halfway done with the episode before being told, "hey, this is the final episode." It was mellow but sloppy. Oddly restrained, and then miles over the top.

In the end, Big Love was a decent show and I'm glad I took the time to watch it. It wasn't one of HBO's finest efforts, but it probably represents the best of the network's post-Sopranos/Wire pre-Boardwalk/Game of Thrones rut. (What else was there from 2008 to 2010? True Blood? Entourage?) I expected more from the finale and the final season in general, but that's a testament to the extent to which I had come to respect the show as time went on. And by the way, although I keep saying I liked it more and more as time went on, that doesn't mean I disliked the first season. It served its mostly introductory purpose entirely well.

I guess for now it's back to Six Feet Under. Fine by me.

Bully

It's funny, despite Grand Theft Auto being one of the biggest series in video games, we've had a scant two posts from the entire series- Stan and I both posted Chinatown Wars within a few hours of eachother back in January 2010. Rockstar games has popped up a many times since then with two Red Dead Redemption loggings, two more for L.A. Noire, one for May Payne 3, and now a second instance of Bully. Isn't it odd how much we've avoided their flagship series and instead played lots of one-offs?

Anyway, Bully. I led off this post with a paragraph on the Grand Theft Auto series because it's impossible to talk about this game without comparing Bully to those. The gameplay is very similar, but it's the setting that's the biggest change- dropping the grit of the big city for a charming little boarding school. Teenage protagonist Jimmy Hopkins is dumped off by his mother at the start of the schoolyear and it becomes obvious that he'll be stuck here for the next nine months. Jimmy quickly learns that the school is ruled by cliques who are constantly bullying eachother and generally making life horrible for everyone enrolled at Bullworth Academy, so he sets out to take over each clique in order to bring some peace and ends up ruling the school in the process. Over the course of the schoolyear Jimmy completes missions for the nerds, greasers, townies and more, but of course they're mostly inspired by classic high-school mischief rather than the brutality of GTA. Spray graffiti on town hall! Shove a nerd in a locker! Steal a teacher's supply of alcohol! Sure, now and then you need to resort to real physical violence but no one ever gets shot or dies or anything. As such it's hard for Bully to really rise above being anything but a watered down albeit funnier GTA clone. It's a fun game to play throughout its medium length, but I'm not clamoring for a sequel or anything.

JFK

Why I bought it: Radomsky introduced me to this movie in 2004. When I saw that it came out on blu-ray with the great "digibook" packaging, I had to have it.

Thoughts: This movie is 205 minutes. Just think about that. 3 hours and 25 minutes! It's so long, but I was on the edge of my seat the entire time I saw it (for the second time!). It helped that I watched it in Dallas hours after going to the book depository and walking through the sixth floor JFK Assassination museum. Staring out the window through which Oswald supposedly shot the President was truly memorable and I knew I had to watch this movie again. Tim, Heather and Danielle had not seen it before so it was only fitting. This movie takes a bunch of facts about the case and fills in the blanks and creates a specific explanation for the assassination. Is it accruate? Almost assuredly not. But it does mix in enough facts to get you to question what really happened. Oliver Stone is criticized for movies like this, but damn if it's not entertaining. I defy anyone to watch this movie and then not immediately spends a few hours googling the assassination. I'm a sucker for conspiracies and damn if this isn't the best movie about a conspiracy ever made. Still, this movie is awesome because of it's subject matter. I'm not sure how much credit should be given to Oliver Stone and company and how much should just be given to the true events. Anyway, the cast is amazing and I really like Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison. If you haven't seen this movie, do yourself a favor and see it. I swear the 3+ hours won't feel that damn long.

Should I have bought it: Besides the fact that I bought it and then didn't watch it for four years, yes.

Big Love: Season 4

Once again, Big Love has gotten even better. I know I spent my last post talking about how the stakes had been raised, but Season 4 busts out some even bigger guns. Homosexuality, suicide, gang-style executions in Mexico, incest, banishment, infertility, blackmail - seriously, the shit has hit the fan and then some. By the end of this season, with just one more remaining, it's clear that things are not going to end well for the Hendrickson family. But in the interest of mixing things up, let me address two things I'm not loving. The first is that this season may have teetered a bit too far toward "ridiculous" with some of its story arcs. Ridiculous is better than boring, but come on, gang-style executions in Mexico? This used to be a story about a quirky family in the conservative Utah suburbs. I'm not complaining. I like crazy melodramatic Big Love a lot more than I liked quirky family sitcom Big Love. But if this show amps it up any harder next season, it'll be a full blown soap opera. Secondly, and more importantly, I'm just not a fan of the show's protagonist, Bill Hendrickson. Not every drama needs a complicated anti-hero like Walter White, Don Draper, or Tony Soprano at its center, but holy crap is this guy a snooze. I'm not sure if it's Bill Paxton's performance - I've never really disliked him in anything else, but then, what does that say? - or just the totally bland way he's written. I suppose if the idea is to paint him as an everyman, you can't give him much of a personality, but man, this guy lacks strengths, weaknesses, vices, skills - he just doesn't do anything. While his wives, his kids, his friends, and his rivals all plot and scheme and make mistakes, he just kind of steps trough it all, ineptly and without much of a reaction. Hey, fine. The characters around him are compelling enough to keep the show exciting. But Bill? Bill is a blank piece of paper.

Now, before I go, I want to bring something else up. Here are the opening credits for the first three seasons of Big Love:

Light-hearted. Fun. They're compelling and interesting, but they simply depict the four spouses getting along and skating around, then looking for each other in a sea of white, then sitting down for a group dinner. All set to the Beach Boys. Now, contrast that intro with this one, new in Season 4:

Dark. Desperate. And everyone is falling. Perhaps apart and away from one another. The symbolism is a little blatant, but I really appreciate the new intro; its tonal shift directly reflects that of the show itself. This is no longer a fun little series about the wacky adventures of a polygamist family, but one about isolation, regret, and drifting away from the life and people you've known and loved. Pretty good stuff!

The Beyonders: Chasing the Prophecy

This book was a trial run for me. I pre-ordered this book from Amazon days before it was to be released. In the end I was pleased with the way they handled the preorder. They delivered my book in the early hours of the day it was to be released and didn't subtract the money from my debit account until it had been delivered. I'm not sure as to the exact moment it was delivered but it was certainly there when I woke up in the morning. Ok, enough of this rambling time to get down to the book.

I had guessed that the second book was boring and that it's best attribute was building off the first story to prep for the final book to be awesome. I was right. This book was genuinely awesome. It lived up to most of my expectations, the story took interesting twists, the author was not afraid to kill characters and it delivered a range of emotions.

In short the second book ended with a prophecy from the last known seer and it detailed the way to defeat the dark emperor Maldor. The heroes are split into different groups and given their individual tasks and the room for error is non existant. This book outlines those tasks as they unfold under constant concern that our heroes have strayed from the correct path. I'm purposely trying to be vague because I think that several readers may take up this series if they haven't already. The book had me guessing right up till the last minute and in the end it delivered. If you like children's fantasy buy this book.

The Elephant's Journey

As I've seen and posted on many times before, most of Jose Saramago's novels appear to fall into mostly allegorical, meta-fictional, or bizarre 'what-if' scenarios, and because of this The Elephant's Journey seems like it shouldn't really fit into his collected works. We don't have a boatload of references to other works, or weird sci-fi elements as plot points; The Elephant's Journey is simple: the king of Portugal in the 1500's decides to give the archduke of Germany an unusual wedding gift- his own elephant. The gifter and the giftee barely even appear in the novel, as a majority of the story is focused solely on how a huge group of soldiers and one trainer managed to cross half of Europe with an elephant in tow. It's more of an adventure book with touches of historical fiction thrown in; this journey did in fact really happen, although Saramago took plenty of liberties with the story. While some of his novels have frustrated me, and others were very good, The Elephant's Journey felt like a solid mid-point level of enjoyment for Saramago for me- he's a good enough writer that he took a somewhat boring story and made it a decent read. Still though, he has meatier stuff that I'd recommend over this one.

That '70s Show: Season 6

The backlog is finally That '70s Show-free. For now. You know as well as I do that Seasons 7 and 8 are getting purchased.

How familiar was I with the season's various episodes?

Clearly I underestimated how many episodes of this sow I'd seen during its original run because part of my desire to go back and watch the whole thing start to finish was the opportunity to fill in the blanks, so to speak. Well, what blanks? There were two or three episodes I had never seen before, as has been the case pretty much every season.

Were there any key ways in which this season was different from previous seasons?

None of the kids, aside from Jackie, is in high school anymore, but none of them have gone away to college, either. So we're left with arcs like Kelso training to become a cop, Fez faking a marriage so he can stay in the country, and Donna continuing her radio job while taking classes at a community college. These changes allowed the show to maintain its status quo while also mixing in some new locations and situations. I liked it. Also, Red, fresh off a heart attack, has kind of mellowed out a bit; his relationship with Eric, who displays maturity by staying home to help his parents pay the bills instead of leaving for a better place, actually grows warmer. Kitty, meanwhile, is just a blatant alcoholic at this point.

Any particular highlights or lowlights worth singling out?

Not really. When a network sitcom reaches its sixth year, it knows its own strengths and weaknesses. This season was fairly consistent throughout, rarely trying new things but never screwing up what works. Because of this, the only "highlights" I can think of were the guest stars. Shannon Elizabeth played Kelso's baby mama in one of the season's weakest arcs, but she still added something to the cast. Luke Wilson returned for an episode. Rachel Bilson was there once. Alyson Hannigan and Seth Green had their own small arcs. Brooke Shields played Jackie's mom for several episodes. Jim Gaffigan was excelent as Roy, the restaurant manager where Eric and Hyde worked. Even a barely recognizable pre-Community Jim Rash made an appearance! Interestingly enough, Tommy Chong was entirely absent for the second straight year. But I guess that's totally in keeping with his character.

Final thoughts on anything else relating to the season or series as a whole?

Nope. Solid year, nothing special, worth the $10 or so I spent on it.

Time for more Big Love!

The Giver

Why I bought it: It was like $2 and I remember liking it as a child.

Thoughts: After giving fellow bloggers the opportunity to select the items on my backlog that I must tackle next, it became clear that The Giver would be the next book for me to read. Let me just thank everyone for making a great choice. Though I had read this book twice before (once in 5th grade and once in 6th grade - both times required by school), I don't think I was really old enough to quite grasp all the little details that make this book great. In some ways, this book reminds me of Brave New World and in others, it reminds me of The Hunger Games. This book paints the picture of a future world in which everything is controlled. Everything is the same. Once they decided to go to "sameness", the world as we know it changed drastically. Though I won't go into too much detail in case anyone on here hasn't read it or doesn't remember it, what I will say is that it's a great read and it's a quick read. Instead of rambling for pages upon pages upon pages, Lowry chose, instead, to keep it very succinct. At around 200 pages, I read this book in about two sittings. What I think this book does the best is that it reveals the details of this futuristic world little by little, through the eyes of Jonas, the main character, as he discovers it, instead of just telling you exactly what the future is like in the first few pages. I can't do this book justice, but what I can say is that it is very well thought out (unlike Hunger Games) and it's a joy to read.

Should I have bought it: Yes. When I read books I feel smart!

The Dark Tower II: The Drawing of the Three

Hey now, that was much better. Much, much better. I've still got some nitpicks with The Drawing of the Three, but it was much, much better than The Gunslinger. Let's jump right into bullet items here. Again, since this series has already been posted about at length on the blog, the assumption is that you've already read this book; heavy spoilers will follow.

• From my Gunslinger post: "Holding back some key information from the reader for a period of time is fine, but when your story's environment, protagonist, and antagonist are all incredibly vaguely defined, there's nothing left for the reader to latch onto." I stand by my assertion that this was the biggest problem with The Gunslinger. Who is our hero? Who is his foe? Why is he doing what he's doing? Why is he going where he's going? How does his world work? It almost felt like King was making crap up as he went along, and granted, this hasn't changed all that much; the second book ends with a note from the author that includes an admission that King doesn't yet know how his series will play out. Still, as a reader you'd like to get the idea that the story you're reading takes place in a well-defined environment. This is called "world building," and no matter how much or how little the setting resembles a world you're familiar with, it's nice to know the general gist of the setting you'll read about for hundreds of pages. I'm already rambling here, on my very first bullet, but the nice part about The Drawing of the Three is that most of it takes place in New York City. And the parts that don't take place there take place on a fairly nondescript long stretch of beach. It was so much easier to Roland's quest this time around since it was so straightforward this time around.
• Speaking of the beach, how about those "lobstrosities!?" Dog-sized lobsters with razor sharp claws unafraid to approach, attack, and even eat people. One of King's strength has always been his ability to conjure up nightmarish creatures, and it works wonders here. In fact, a lobstrosity attack kicks off the novel, leaving Roland handicapped (two fingers and a big toe, gone!) and practically unarmed (all those shell casings, wet and useless!) - so right off the bat I had an easy way to empathize with Roland and root for his short-term survival. Forget the tower - just get this guy to some other people and some medicine!
• The other two characters introduced in the story were easy to root for, too. Eddie is a heroin addict. Odetta is wheelchair-bound and haunted by schizophrenia. Eddie's addiction makes him attack Roland at one point; Odetta's alternate personality plots to kill Roland and Eddie. This all made for much more compelling reading than "boring ass Roland continued to follow the nondescript but totally evil - just trust me, he's really evil, I don't need to tell you why - man in black..." These were fleshed out characters giving in to moments of weakness and having realistic - if extreme and dramatic - conflicts with each other. Yes. This. More of this, Stephen King. Cut the mysterious bullshit and give me reasons the characters are doing what they're doing.
• Here's a nitpick, though. One of my criticisms of The Gunslinger was that the King disobeyed one of the most basic rules of good writing: "show, don't tell." I characterized the plot development where Roland comes to realize that he loves Jake as exceedingly lazy. I mean, they're just walking and talking - what else would they be doing in a book about following an evil guy westward? - and all of a sudden, hey, presto, there's an emotional connection. I'm disappointed to note that this happened again, sort of, in The Drawing of the Three. In one case, Eddie, a heroin addict being forced to quit cold turkey (which from everything I've heard about heroin addiction sounds like a potentially fatal thing to do) just kind of gets better. Like, he's sick and feeling terrible for a page or two but then it's dropped and never really brought up again. Similarly, Eddie just falls right in love with Odetta because... she's there? I'll admit, King put about a hundred times as much effort into developing Eddie and Odetta's relationship before dropping the L-word as he put into Roland's affection for Jake in The Gunslinger, but it still felt totally abrupt and plot-convenient. Having said that, I at least buy into the idea that Eddie and Odetta - now Susannah - are in love; I could never even be convinced of that when it came to Roland and Jake.
• I complained that in The Gunslinger, what should have been the emotional climax of the story - Roland doesn't save Jake from death and pursues the man in black instead - fell totally flat for a variety of reasons. First, it was foretold from the get-go - not foreshadowed or hinted at, but explicitly stated, to both Roland and Jake - that Jake was going to have to die. And since King didn't spend so much as a sentence inside Jake's head, struggling to accept that fate, Jake never felt like anything more than a plot device. Furthermore, Jake had already died before, yet here he was, alive again, and there were no assurances that the same thing wouldn't happen this time when he died; for all I knew, Jake was immortal. Anyway, another nice part about The Drawing of the Three was its ability to surprise me. The shell of the story is laid out from the beginning. Roland makes his way up the beach, opening three doors, each of them a portal to another world, and more than that, right into another person's mind. But what happens behind each door, and hell, between the doors along the way, was unpredictable and exciting. It's amazing how you can build suspense when you don't explain to the reader what will happen in advance!
• Another very specific nitpick, and this one's incredibly minor, but it represents a larger issue I have with Stephen King's lack of attention to detail. So, Roland spends the entire first book heading west. He reaches the sea at the beginning of this book, and decides to head north along the beach. From here, King makes multiple references to the sea being on Roland's right. Either Roland's world has opposite definitions for the cardinal directions - and it wouldn't be the first wildly unexplained thing in these books - or King simply made the same error multiple times and never caught it on an editing check. I thought the former was the case - hoped for it, even - but no. I checked the Internet, and apparently this is a "mistake" King only makes in The Drawing of the Three. It's the little things, man. I know King was on lots of drugs when he wrote these books, and that's apparent based on how frequently he changes points of view and just sort of assumes the reader is keeping up, but these kinds of mistakes and inconsistencies are just sloppy. Things like this make King's entire Dark Tower series feel like less of a coherent and cohesive story and more of a melting pot of crazy ideas King had for elements of a larger story. And I'll give him credit - the guy is creative and imaginative and all - but I would have appreciated more polish and attention to detail. (Now, I highlighted the cardinal direction confusion example because it was a personal pet peeve, but there are numerous occasions where details contradict each other - chronological order of certain events, character ages, character hair colors, and more.)
• The pacing was just so much better here. Nothing zips back and forth between the present, the long ago past, and the recent past; a few flashbacks occur, but they just provide necessary character background for our new protagonists.

I think I've hit on all the specific things I wanted to hit on here. I know a lot of them were still negative, so I want to reiterate that I enjoyed The Drawing of the Three overall. The characters were more complex, their motivations were simpler and clearer, and most aspects of the story, fantastical or realistic, made sense. When I finished The Gunslinger, I jumped right into this book because I just had to see it get better. The book still took me more than a month and a half to finish, but that was due to my own deliberately slow pace; for most of February, I'd read a chapter or to a night before going to sleep, savoring the story for what it was rather than racing through just to be done with the book altogether. What I'm getting at is, I don't plan to jump right into the third book, and when I do, I have no idea how quickly I'll read it. It's almost 600 pages long and I've got plenty else in the backlog, so maybe I'll hold off for a little while, at least for variety's sake. Rest assured, though - not only did I enjoy this book, but I've come to terms with the way King has written the series, for the most part, and I think I can calm down enough just to enjoy the ride instead of letting myself get riled up by under-explained or sloppily written plot developments. Everything I've heard suggests that The Waste Lands represents the apex of the series, so I want to wait until I'm in the right mood to appreciate it instead of diving in and losing steam.

Human Nature

I've long been a big fan of Charlie Kaufman's screenplays. I watched Adaptation four or five times in high school, picking up on new nuances each time. I didn't love Being John Malkovich, but its delightfully weird concept allows it to work where it would have fallen apart out of the gate in the hands of virtually anyone else. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is my absolute favorite love story of all time because it puts the best and worst parts of being in love on full display without sugar-coating any of the nastiness; it's also masterful at on-screen representations of memories and dreams. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, very much the black sheep in Kaufman's filmography, was a decent enough movie; apparently Kaufman was unhappy with all of the liberties director George Clooney took with his script. And Synecdoche, New York - Keith, I know you think that's one of the most pretentious films ever made, but damn did I love most elements of it, even if I'll agree that Roger Ebert dubbing it the best movie of the decade was a stretch.

Anyway, the one Kaufman film I'd never seen until tonight was Human Nature, probably his vaguest and least popular movie. I liked it! I didn't love it as much as most of the aforementioned movies, but it told an interesting story about some interesting characters and it was consistently funny enough - quirky funny, not laugh-out-loud funny or upbeat funny, but not as dull or dry as, say, Being John Malkovich. Actually, maybe that movie was hilarious. It probably deserves a rewatch, as I haven't seen it in ten years or so. I think what was lacking in Human Nature was the very theme you'd expect it to have. Allow me to make a boldly obvious statement here, but all great stories deal with human nature; what drives us to do the things we do, how do we react to challenges and stress, what are our fatal flaws, and so on. I that regard, Human Nature deals with human nature, but no more than any decent movie. Instead, it kind of suggests and hints at all sorts of ideas about what separates (or doesn't separate) people from animals. The three main characters are a woman who lives in the wild for an extended period in order to write nature memoirs, a feral man who picks up on language and civility rather quickly, and the psychologist who teaches him how to do so. There's a plot in there - a good one, really, in which characters grow and change and make rash decisions and all - but the thematic exploration doesn't go so deep. That's fine; human behavior is such an extensive concept, and it'd be pretty tough to say something meaningful about it in an enjoyably-paced hour-and-a-half. But if movies like Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine, and Synecdoche are setting the bar here, then Human Nature falls short. It's a fun enough movie that I'd recommend it to anyone, but there are multiple better Charlie Kaufman movies out there; don't let this one be your first.

Sin City

Marissa has had Sin City on DVD for as long as we've been dating, and it took me seven years to watch it. (Holy hell, this movie is eight years old?) The wait was obviously unnecessary, but the movie was worth it all the same. Where to begin? Odds are pretty good that you've seen this film by now, but if you haven't, consider this my hearty recommendation. It was shot almost entirely on a digital set and there's extensive CGI use, but it also harkens back to that somewhat bygone era of film noir cinema. The bulk of the film is black and white, but the high contrast and heavy dose of violence keep it feeling very "colorful" all the same. A few objects in key shots retain their colorization, lending even more appealing visual effects. Blood flowed heavily in plenty of scenes, but it was usually a fluorescent white color, almost like neon paint, which helped keep the tone slightly more fun and not so torture-porny. The cast? Phenomenal. Aside from one glaring miscasting (Alexis Bledel, ladies and gentlemen!), Sin City was loaded with big names playing just the right roles. Mickey Rourke, Clive Owen, and Bruce Willis play protagonists in three separate 40-minute stories, and they manage not to be mere carbon copies of one another. All three tales have the same underlying tone of violence and black humor, and in each one the aforementioned badass leads take on some scuzzy thugs or twisted politicians in order to either protect or avenge a woman; there are some recurring themes and patterns in the stories, to say the least. But the two-hour movie never feels repetitious or dull. The stories are distinct enough, with different circumstances and characters and stakes, for the entire thing to feel fresh rather than formulaic. Sin City isn't very deep an its characters aren't so memorable, but what it lacks in substance it makes up for in polish. The entire thing is surface appeal, and that's fine; it's still one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. Apparently there's a sequel due out in October. Can't wait!

Big Love: Season 3

I'll try to keep this short - we all know how long-winded I can be on these posts - but this was easily the best season of Big Love yet. What began as a fun but thematically lightweight look at a polygamist family has turned into a real high-octane soap opera of sorts. By the end of this season, infidelity and divorce had been explored, a miscarriage had occurred, everyone had something to hide (EDIT: wow, it says that right on the front cover!), and multiple characters had been murdered or had had attempts made on their lives. This show and its characters have really grown on me for three seasons now, and while this still doesn't sniff the top tier of HBO dramas (now there's a ranked list for a rainy day), Big Love has proven to be a compelling enough series good for far more than background viewing while surfing the web or playing DS games.

Assassin's Creed: Revelations

For three straight games the Assassin's Creed series had a very strong upward trajectory- the first game, Assassin's Creed focused on Altair and wasn't all that fun but set up the series well enough; Assassin's Creed 2 blew the original out of the water by introducing tons of cool new missions and a more fun protagonist in Ezio Auditore; after this came Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, a direct sequel that continued Ezio's adventures and was basically flawless. I especially loved the revamped economic system that changes the city around Ezio as you progresses through the game. Ezio's story came to an end in Assassin's Creed Revelations, which is a solid game up there at the level of AC2, but a notable step down from the series' peak. There were few changes made between Brotherhood and Revelations, but most of them weren't for the better- I probably would have been very happy with just more of the same. A lot of the game is more of the same, though- Ezio travels to Constantinople in search of the five MacGuffins- er, Masyaf Keys that Altair had hidden throughout the city hundreds of years prior, in order to open a vault that contains the Super MacGuffi- I mean, the Apple of Eden. Of course Constantinople has been overrun by Templars, so Ezio needs to complete missions to reinvigorate the city's dieing brotherhood of assassins. This was all mostly fun, but as I mentioned before a few new things were attempted and most of them didn't add all that much to the game. Let's take a look at each one individually!

Hookblade- Ezio's hidden blades now come attached with an extending hook- this allows him to extend his reach while scaling walls, as well as zipline around the city for quick travel. I liked the hookblade!

Tower Defense- I hated the tower defense mini-game. Like in Brotherhood Ezio can reclaim Templar zones for the assassins, which is awesome, but if Ezio remains notorious for too long then the Templars will launch a counterattack which can only be quelled by playing a tower defense game- properly positioning your allies on rooftops, placing blockades on the ground, stuff like that. Strategy gaming just didn't fit in with the Assassin's Creed gameplay to me.

Bomb-Making- Using bombs isn't all that important in this game, and yet early on as you're getting acclimated to the new environment a huge difficult bomb-making system is thrust upon you. After a while I got it all sorted out but the whole thing seemed needlessly complex- you can make bombs that stink, that distract, that release smoke, that cause damage; your bomb can vary in potency; and you can set it to explode on impact, seconds later, or stick to walls and people. The system works fine enough after a while, but wouldn't it have made sense to make different bomb types available as the player progresses so they can take their time with each one?

The Framing Device- Desmond, still unconscious from the previous game, is put into the Animus in a sort of safe-mode and runs into an old friend inside. Because of this he's able to jump back and forth between Ezio's memories and this weird island setting whenever he wants; in addition, Ezio will discover new things about Altair throughout the game which prompts Desmond to experience his memories as well for the first time in two games. It is kinda cool how the whole thing works out and caps Altair and Ezio's stories- my only problem with this is that the aformentioned 'old friend' was the one who left the bizarre hidden riddles around that only Desmond could see in the past two games. He didn't leave any in this one, and they're sorely missed- the riddles were pretty freaky and added a ton to the atmosphere of the game.

Still though, the Ezio trilogy seems to be the height of the series- the sequels coming out annually could have been cheap cash-ins, but they were not at all. Everything came together wonderfully in Revelations and I'm sad to be done with Ezio (okay I got to check up on what Ezio was up to after retiring in the short film Assassin's Creed: Embers on Youtube). Reactions to Assasin's Creed III were mixed to say the least, and the recent announcement of Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag made it clear that we're staying with a similar time and location for a while. Hopefully those games can live up to the high level of their predecessors.

Game of Thrones: Season 2

Just under a year ago, I finished the first season of Game of Thrones and posted about it here on this blog. My excitement was palpable in that post as I eagerly awaited the beginning of the second season. Well, I saw that second season, and then I read all five extant books, and then I pitched the shit out of the show to most of you, and after five separate posts by you guys on Seasons 1 and 2, here I am again, bringing all of this full circle in a way, ready to share some thoughts on the second season after seeing it as a seasoned Game of Thrones veteran a year after eagerly looking forward to what could possibly happen to the Starks, the Lannisters, and Daenerys after the thrilling conclusion to Season 1. Last May, as Season 2 ended, I had mixed feelings. I still loved the show, don't get me wrong, but there were some pacing problems and a few plot developments felt under-explained. Having read the books before watching it all unfold once more, I was a little more clear on some points of confusion, but also a little more annoyed at some of the season's weaker points because they had been played out so much better in the book. Since I believe the majority of my reading audience has now seen the second season of the show, I will go forth with a few spoilers - but none that give away elements of the story beyond the ending of the second book and season.

Highlights:

• Theon's character arc. Theon does some terrible things this season, betraying his lord who had treated him like kin, then disobeying his father out of stubborn ambition, and then murdering so many former friends and innocent people just so he can impress his men and be taken seriously. But that's just the thing - where other characters in this series have done terrible things simply out of a hunger for power, Theon very honestly seems to be doing it all just to gain some respect from his family. He was taken away from his home as a child, and then when he finally returned home he found his father cold and untrusting; when he took Winterfell - something no one had done for a thousand years - no one was impressed and no one really even congratulated him. Instead, all he got was a scolding from his sister and a mutiny of sorts from his men. Theon's actions are despicable, but his motivations alone earn him sympathy. It'll be interesting to see where they go in the third season with him; he's entirely absent for the third and fourth books, but when he reappears in the fifth he's a very changed man. Will the show keep him in the spotlight, or are we done with him for a few years?
• Tyrion. In the wake of Ned Stark's death, we the audience needed a new primary protagonist, and at least for the second book and season, Tyrion fills in admirably. I can attest that Tyrion's chapters in the books are among the most interesting and well-characterized, and it's only fitting that the best performance in the show is routinely given by Peter Dinklage. Tyrion isn't even all that decent a human being, but compared to the wicked monsters that are his father, sister, and king nephew, he's incredibly easy to root for. In fact, were it not for Tyrion's presence at King's Landing, we'd have spent the whole season rooting for it to get sacked by Renly or Stannis or Robb. Speaking of which...
• The Battle of the Blackwater. The entire ninth episode did something none of the eighteen before it had done, and focused entirely on one geographical location and one night: the night of the aforementioned battle. You know the summary. Stannis's fleet sails in toward King's Landing. Tyrion has laid a trap. Most of the fleet goes up in flames, but enough ships still land to mount a land battle. The Lannisters are losing. Joffrey is a pussy and runs away to his mother. The Hound has a great character moment where he says, "fuck all of this," and walks away. Tyrion is the last man standing, so to speak, to lead his low-morale troops to certain suicide against Stannis's forces. Dude takes a sword to the face. Suddenly in rides his father with the Tyrells at his side, and they all win. Tyrion's heroics are instantly forgotten and all he has to show for his efforts is a hideous scar. Oh, and meanwhile Cersei and Sansa and Shae talk about heavy subjects like whether or not praying is foolish, since the gods have no mercy, or if taking their own lives is a better option than being raped. A lot of this stuff wasn't in the book, and the battle in general goes differently than it did in the book, and this is the best (perhaps only) example I can think of where the show was better than its source material.

Lowlights:

• Daenerys in Qarth. For reference's sake, Dany has five chapters in the entire second book. She finds Qarth in the first one, enters it in the second one, is enticed to enter "the house of the undying" in the third one, does so in the fourth one... and then the fifth one concerns stuff the second season didn't even get to. The book kept her Qarth adventure short and sweet. Dragons were never kidnapped. Her handmaidens never betrayed her. Xaro Xhoan Daxos was a background character at most. I understand that in the TV world you have contractual obligations to actors and all, but really, Dany just didn't need half the screen time she was given in Season 2. This was especially disappointing coming off of her Season 1 arc, which saw her start out as what was essentially a sex slave and end up as the most feared woman in the world thanks to three baby dragons. Her story will be far more interesting in Season 3, I promise.
• A rushed conclusion at Winterfell. I've already cited Theon's arc as one of my favorites in the season, but its rushed ending left me scratching my head the first time around and irritated by its clumsiness the second time around. I won't say what happens in the book, in case the show revisits that early in the third season, but suffice it to say that it's much more clear cut why Winterfell is suddenly being burnt to the ground and the Stark boys are running away after Theon's men decide it's time to go home.
• Unnecessary name changes. More of a pet peeve than anything major, but I wasn't fond of the show changing a few character names, simply because there was no reason to do so. In the books, Theon's sister's name is Asha. Here, in the show, she's been renamed Yara, presumably so as to avoid audience confusion with the wildling woman taking care of the Stark boys, Osha. But "Asha" and "Osha" are as different as "Evan" and "Ivan," and don't really even sound alike. Nor is Osha an important enough character to justify renaming Asha, in my mind; Asha - or Yara, I guess - plays a much bigger role in the story yet to be told than Osha does. In fact, on the literary side, Osha hasn't been seen since the end of the second book. Meanwhile, Robb Stark's wife is called Talisa in the show, whereas she was Jeyne Westerling in the books. Why? Presumably, again, this was done to avoid confusion with another character, in this case Jeyne Poole, Sansa's friend who may have made one or two total appearances in Season 1. Ugh. A third name change, back in Season 1, was when they turned Robert, the mildly retarded boy from the Vale, into Robin. This one seemed legitimate, since the king of the realm was named Robert, and confusion may have easily occurred when discussing "Lord Robert" and "King Robert." Fine.

Anyway, what did all of you think? Let's hear some Season 3 predictions, except from those of you who've read the books already. I'm pumped as hell for March 31st.

Son

Son is the fourth and final book labeled as the conclusion to the Giver. It follows a new character from the Giver that we did not know (personally...) It's really interesting how they weaved together all the characters over the course of the four books. This book begins at the same time as the Giver begins and spans a time frame of 10-15 years. My biggest pet peeve is the middle seven years of this book. It introduces completely new characters that were neither in the Giver nor Gathering Blue nor the Messenger. I knew the Giver and the previous two books would connect so I kept waiting for these stories and locations to be connected. I did not care for the middle characters and I found myself skimming a lot of the story in this part.

However, that didn't take anything away from the first and last third. I believe it was a fitting conclusion to all four books and I would recommend the series to any fans of the Giver.

Messenger

This was "book three" of the Giver series that isn't really a series. It's a set of stories set in a similar time frame in a similar world. The Messenger picks up slightly later than where Gathering Blue left off and follows one of the characters in that book (that I liked a lot). The story takes place in neighboring society of Gathering Blue with completely different ideals and laws. It was a really easy and quick read which I would recommend. You become very attached to two of the characters and there are, of course, more elements of "powers" that some of our main characters have possessed.

It's super fun!

The Wire Season 5

I'm seriously sad I have finished the Wire. This past week  I have been lost without the Wire to watch at night. I've been having dreams continuing the season in my head (now this isn't super abnormal, I'm a pretty weird sleeper). It was just such a pleasure to watch season 4 and 5 of the wire. I flew through them. (And didn't post in a timely manner) This season does a brilliant job of wrapping up loose ends, closing stories, and leaving a Baltimore-esque feeling of how these people's lives will continue. I really don't want to say much about it because I like to watch seasons of television completely unaware of the plot that will follow so I would hate to ruin that for all of you.

So, go, now, watch the Wire. It's fantastic. There was a slight speed bump in season 2 but even that was brought back full circle in season 5. The characters are some of the best on television. It's an intricate web of stories woven together over five seasons that make you question certain parts of society and makes you real sad about other parts. I suppose there are some happy moments as well.

The Wire Season 4

Damn, this season of the Wire starts off firing on all cylinders. This season focuses partly on the the middle schools in Baltimore. There are four main characters from the schools and man I just care about them so much over the course of this season. Combine that with a race for mayor for Littlefinger and the rise of Marlo as a West Baltimore drug lord and you get the makings for a fantastic season. Also, Wee-Bey is in this season, so this is a huge plus! Here's something though, maybe I'm hardened to the likes of violence, but this season didn't give me nightmares like it did Keith / Steve. On the other hand I'm a huge fan of Marlo's main's people, Chris and Snoop.

Seriously awesome season of television. Just watch it.

Iron Man: Demon in a Bottle

I bought up a digital copy of this story arc (I believe nine issues in all) based on the fact that it's reviewed on many fan sites as being the definitive Iron Man story. Got to say, it took me almost a month to get through this guy. Why? It's boring. The storyline, among other things, follows Stark's alcohol abuse and how it cripples him - as you can probably determine from the illustration above. But, in all fairness, this really only consumes that last of the nine issues. Even then, it's still weak sause.  

Now, I imagine if any Iron Man buffs stumbled across this post right now I would be instantly chastised for either not understanding or appreciating what these comics stood for. How they make Tony Stark's character more dynamic and interesting. How they give importance to the flawed hero. They were ahead of their time. I agree. This is all true. And for that, I can appreciate them. But, it's like when I get into a Citizen Kane debate with a film purist. Yes, it's an outstanding movie that abounds with ingenuity for its time, completely relaying the groundwork for storytelling... but it can be a very boring and difficult movie to sit though. 

That aside, Demon in a Bottle has some exciting moments where Stark struggles with Hammer who's secretly taken control of his suit, jeopardizing his life and the lives of others. At one point he's even forced to murder a foreign ambassador at the UN in front of the public's eyes. (That part was actually pretty riveting.) Then is captured by Hammer on his floating compound without the use of his suit to save him. My problem is that the story is dated. The characters, clothing, dialogue. It all seems a little trite. And the alcoholism debacle... Eh. They plant seeds to his "addiction" while leading up to the final issue where Stark might be on a morning flight across the country and order a scotch with attendant making some comment under her breath, "But, it's only 10am!" It's a little over-the-top, which, at times, gave me a bit of a chuckle, but ultimately left me bored after only a few minutes of reading. 

So, what do I say to this? I'm glad I'm aware of this "classic" storyline, but clearly didn't find the story or this take on Stark all that compelling. It does seem that Iron Man II did borrow a little bit from Stark's bout with alcohol. If I remember the film right, Stark goes on a bit of a binger when he thinks that he's finally going to die from the shrapnel in his blood. Kind of irks me that if they were to borrow anything from this story, it should have been one internal monologue in particular where Stark first begins to contemplate he has a problem. I'll end with this:

"By definition, a hero is a man who battles against overwhelming odds for a cause, an ideal, or for the lives of the innocents. The cause and ideal may vary with the morning headlines -- while the innocents, in today's world of muddy morality, may ultimately prove to be the guilty. Which leaves but one constant in the definition: That a hero is, above all, a man... A man subject to pressures and responsibilities far beyond those of his peers. Such is a burden that must take its toll, eventually, from even the most valiant warrior. And it is then that the test of a true hero begins."

Watchmen

In what has become an alarmingly dull trend, I find myself once again sort of liking but not really loving another movie. What happened to my ability to form positive or negative opinions? Watchmen did a lot of things well, but still had a few flaws. You want the good news or the bad news first? Rhetorically, we'll default to alphabetical order and start with the bad.

The movie was more than three hours long. Even in an age where movies run way too long, that's just egregious. Because of its endless running time, it took me three nights to finish, interrupting any sense of momentum. Although it was visually impressive, it completely lost my interest on multiple occasions. Not coincidentally, the movie was also way too hard to follow for a superhero comic book adaptation. Was it hard to follow because I lost interest too often, or did I lose interest too often because it was hard to follow? Tough to say. But in general, I was never really aware of what the point of the three-hour movie was, except that someone was hunting down and killing members of the Watchmen. The timeframe jumped back and forth from the Vietnam War to the present day - an alternate timeline's 1985, in which Richard Nixon is still president - and as such, characters who had died over an hour ago routinely came back into the mix. There were also too many characters to keep track of, or maybe it was just that the characters themselves weren't well defined or even introduced properly.

So, clearly the movie had several shortcomings. Let's talk about where it succeeded. It was just a real treat to look at, first of all. Zack Snyder has a flair for choreographic violence, and in a three-hour comic book adaptation there is plenty of time for choreographic violence. There were several great character moments, too. While I stand by my lamentation that I couldn't differentiate enough of the characters to discern any real plot, I'll also admit that I was most invested in the movie during its character-moment-heavy first and third half-hours, particularly as they related to Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan, respectively.

Watchmen won't go down in my mind as one of the greatest movies I've ever seen, or even that I'll see this year. But it had its moments. Keith seemed to be a big fan of the original graphic novel on which all this was based; perhaps he'll be able to follow this movie more than I could and, as such, enjoy it more. Time will tell.

Borderlands 2

Considering that I usually buy used games about 2 years at least after they're released, I'm usually in no hurry to play any specific game shortly after it's added to my backlog. A gifted game however is sort of an exception- if someone in my family spent $50-60 on me, shouldn't I play that game quickly to ensure they didn't waste their money? That was the case with Borderlands 2, a gift from my little brother this past Christas which I felt I could put off no longer. Borderlands 2 is an RPG/FPS hybrid, and unlike say, Mass Effect, leveling up seems to be a significant factor towards enjoying the game- oftentimes I would just plunge ahead with the main campaign only to get my ass kicked, forcing me to go on some random sidequests for a bit before moving on. Borderlands 2 is also a game that plays much, much better with some allies- as more players join your party, the enemies you face get stronger, but the strength you receive from having sheer numbers keeps things fair. It's nice how you can just pop into anyone's game as long as they allow the public to intrude, and help them on whatever quest they're on, whether you yourself have unlocked it or not. This was how I beat most of the game- following along with the main campaign, I'd hunt for whoever was working on the same quest as me, and join up with them. Because of this the game can actually be beaten fairly easily, which led to some minor downsides. First of all, when I took on the final boss, everyone I was playing with was 4 or 5 levels higher than me, which meant that before I could even shoot the boss once they had taken it down. Damn! And then to add insult to injury before I got any sort of achievement for 'beating' the game (joining someone else's quest and beating a level gave me achievements before) the host booted the entire party, preventing us from the glory of the end-game cinematic. That's ok though, because while there does seem to be plenty of story in Borderlands 2, you're under no obligation to pay any attention to it. Seriously, usually as some non-playable character is congratulating you on a job well done the rest of your party is already halfway to the next destination. It's a frantic game whose enjoyment is often based on how well your team works together, but I think what I'll remember most about Borderlands 2 is that when it was working, it was just awesome. There's literally millions of different guns and grenades and shields to choose from. The world of Pandora is huge and colorful, beautifully rendered with cel-shading. The gameplay itself draws inspiration from modern classics like BioShock and Fallout 3. It's not quite a 'must-play' in my opinion, as no single part stood out as entirely new or original, but Borderlands 2 is a fun one all the same.