E3 Recap Part 1 - Nintendo takes the Gold - Still meh

And that's why were replacing it.

Another year, another E3. For months gamers speculate what will be said at the Electronic Entertainment Expo. And every year some people leave totally hyped, and some feel like they've been let down. And for the second straight year, I'm very much leaning to the latter of the two.

Lets start off this recap with what made the real waves:

... We knew what was coming.

And you thought 'Wii' was a silly name; this year at E3, Nintendo unveiled their next console, the Wii U. Wow, that might be the worse name for a console ever. I can hear it now: trying to walk around the local Gamestop with children just yelling out "WIIU WIIU WIIU WIIU WIIU!" like a broken siren or a bad Kung Pow imitation.

"WIIU WIIU WIIU WIIU WII!"

Wii-U?

The concept itself is interesting, even if they left it's info as vague as possible. They never brought up how powerful it was, and never even showed any real games for the system. Sure, there were some impressive looking tech demos, but after all the hype surrounding a system that has had four or five code names already, not only did they settle on the silliest option, but they just left us with promises and trailers of recycled games.

The only thing we really know about the Wii U is the controller. It looks like a rather large handheld device. Almost like a tablet PC, with buttons. Apparently it has everything imaginable on it: camera, speakers, mic (sounds like a DSi to me). On top of that the screen is obviously pretty high def, and it's (of course) a touch screen.

To their credit, Nintendo isn't one to make empty promises. Without a doubt, their biggest announcement didn't have a trailer or even an image. Apparently a new Smash Brothers game is in pre-development and it will be playable on both the 3DS and the Wii U, a technique that Sony is also kind of implementing (more on that later).

Looks like Zelda is getting screwed over again.

Rumors were that this new Nintendo console would me more powerful than the PS3. But that was left to be seen at this presentation. The Wii U was underwhelming because of how early in development it seems to be. The true star of Nintendo's press conference was the 3DS.

The 3DS has been a brutal failure up until now. With a weak game roster at launch it was the most hyped flop in recent gaming history. But at E3, Nintendo came to play with a huge list of games that are headed to the handheld. By this holiday season, the 3DS is looking at a pretty stacked roster of first party Nintendo games like Super Mario, Mario Kart, Star Fox, and Kid Icarus to name a few.

The other big news from the 'big N' is that they're finally addressing their lack of third party support for their systems. For years, Nintendo has relied primarily (and secondarily) on their first party titles, leaving their consumers with just a handful of quality titles to look forward to each year. Of course they would get third party games, but the norm was that these games would have Xbox 360 and PS3 counterparts that would be superior not only in the graphics department, but in the gameplay department as well.

We can't confirm that the gameplay issues are being addressed, but in the few clips we did see at E3, it does seem like Nintendo has caught up graphically for the time being. I say it like that, because I do expect both competing companies to announce new consoles in the next two years, once again leaving Nintendo in the dust in the sheer power department. But for now, Nintendo can rejoice.

Nintendo did "win" E3 this year. But it wasn't much of a landslide victory like most predicted. If it wasn't for all the first party titles for the 3DS I would almost give the nod to Sony. The Wii U underdelivered for now, but I expect big announcements for it in the coming year.

Malick's Odyssey?: Loz's Review of 'The Tree of Life'

Ever since I saw the trailer for The Treet of Life I was very much excited. I thought the duo of Sean Penn and Brad Pitt (even though not working directly together) would make this a fantastic movie. A few weeks later after watching the trailer I was even more excited because the movie had just won the Palme D'Or at this years edition of the Cannes Film Festival, getting much positive praise because of it. Even better, just a few weeks after it won the award, it was showing at the Fine Arts cinema. Now, after all that excitement, was the movie worth it?

My answer would have to be a resounding "no". Now, I won't claim to be an expert at all things cinema. I'm not Gene Siskel or Roger Ebert or even Richard Roeper. I just know what I like and I know what I don't like. Furthermore, I know what I hate. And I have a lot of hate for a lot of things in this movie.

Like I said in the Cannes Spotlight, I was not a big fan of Terrence Malick's last movie. And I think the same things that I didn't like about that movie carry over to this one. I think he is somewhat heavy handed in his approach and his films end up feeling too long and they don't really elicit any emotional reactions in me. I must say that the film that I ended up watching was nothing like I expected. It is epic in scope. It reminded me of Stanley Kubrick's classic movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Malick tried to make his own Odyssey and I think he failed.

It's a beautiful film. There is no doubt about it. The soaring imagery and the booming soundtrack filled with a lot of classical music and silence. There are endless scenes of volcanic magma and of the birth-pains of the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life. There's too much of it all. It seems like auto-gratification to me.

What I thought was interesting was the relationships between the family members. The stern father (Brad Pitt) who tries to get his boys ready to survive any eventuality. The main conflict of the movie is severely lacking though. Young Jack (Hunter McCracken) doesn't know what to think of his father and at times he has a deep rooted hate for him. To me, the father wasn't that hard. He was just imbuing discipline and I think the kid was just a cry-baby, to be honest. The beautifully surreal mother (Jessica Chastain) who smiles and her smile lights up the screen more than the scenes of fire and magma. The Cain and Abel like relationship between the two brothers that doesn't seem to really get anywhere. There is a scene during the film where the brothers are playing with a BB gun and Jack asks his younger brother to put his finger right in front of the barrel and the brother does it and get shot in the process. There's a lot of things to praise about the movie, but I think its a lot more shiny than what its worth.

The acting by Pitt, Chastain and the kids was top notch. Sean Penn was underused and sort of just there. Malick wanted to say too many things with this movie and instead of getting one coherent message, I think what we got was a jumbled mess of ethereal ideas that feel empty inside.

I know that I'm probably in the minority. The critics have already hailed this film as a masterpiece, but I just didn't see it. It's the critics job to love movies like this one. Maybe if I watch it again down the line, I might feel different about it, but my first impression after seeing it only once is that its an empty metaphysical trip down an eccentric's mind.

3 out of 10

It's a Classic to me dammit: Siamese Dream

Why are little girls so creepy?

In our first installment we looked at my favorite album of all time, Stadium Arcadium. This one is a little bit lower on my list.

Siamese Dream (1993) is the second album by well known alt-rock band The Smashing Pumpkins. It is considered one of their best, though it is often overshadowed by the more popular Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness. I firmly believe that Siamese Dream is by far the superior record.

As a second album, following the surprise hit, Gish, the Pumpkins had a lot of pressure on them. This lead to a lot of conflict and turmoil both between the band themselves and with the record label (Virgin).

Stories of the recording process are varied. Some say that the band was butting heads so often that they would barely speak to each other. It didn't help that band leader Billy Corgan tends to be somewhat of a perfectionist with the music he puts out.

The album has a very peculiar sound for the 90's. In an era where alternative was known for its gritty and raw sound, Siamese Dream was very well crafted and carefully mixed. It sounds like Corgan didn't like being labeled 'the next Nirvana' and just went in a whole other direction.

As key as sound and melody are for SD, the true star is without a doubt the writing. Siamese Dream has some of the best songs of the so called 'grunge era.' Yes, Mellon Collie has the hits, but Siamese Dream has substance, and feeling. Songs like Disarm, Today, and Mayonaise easily trump Mellon Collie's big hit Bullet With Butterfly Wings. On top of that, you have my all time favorite Pumpkins song (which should have been a single), Soma.

The album is one of those prime examples of un-rushed music. To me, the best example of the refinement of a sound that defined an era. Mellon Collie is second in my Pumpkins countdown, but Siamese Dream is head and shoulders above. You may enjoy the Infinite Sadness... But Siamese Dream is a classic to me dammit!

In Fringe We Trust: Fringe season 3 Review

And now, I want a fucking popsicle

Oh Fringe, you're a toughie. You've taken me down through so many dark and scary paths, you constantly lead me to the brink of despair... Yet somehow, you always pull me out of the deep end before I drown.

I have grown to have faith in Fringe, and more than anything in it's writers. That really doesn't sound like me. I usually criticize writers for anything and everything they do. Every tiny little fault. But doing my worse, there just isn't much to nitpick about in this show.

Most shows need to take risks to advance, but few take leaps as large as Fringe does on a regular basis. I remember last season, where on four or five different occasions I said to myself, "They've finally done it. They fucked up and written themselves into a corner." And every single time, they would lead me away from the darkness with seemingly little effort.

With the end to season two they had dug themselves into a hole that seemed impossible. A plot involving impossible trips to a parallel universe, main characters being captured, and the rest of them being unaware. Seriously, mind boggling shit. And again, they handled it with style. In ways that seemed totally possible for the universe they've created. At a point where most shows would have it's loyal fanbase screaming "BULLSHIT!" at the screen, Fringe had us in the palm of it's hand nodding in agreement at the unimaginable crap they had just fed us.

I'd also like to point out that for a story driven show, it has the most lovable characters on TV right now. I could watch Walter Bishop ramble on about desserts for days, I totally love the character, and he single-handedly is bringing on the end of the world. Walter Bishop is just as much a destroyer of worlds as Galactus.

I like big purple hats as much as the next guy, but I relate to Walter a whole lot more.

Fringe has stayed relevant through three seasons. And without spoiling anything, season four promises to freshen it up once again. As the full-fledged geek that I am, I'll patiently wait in the deep end, because I have faith that the best writers sci-fi TV has seen in years will pull me out just in time.

8.5/10

Brothers Grimm meets the Chemical Brothers: Loz's review of 'Hanna"

I'd been looking forward to seeing Hanna after I first saw the trailer for it. Director James Wright got some critical acclaim a few years ago with the award winning movie Atonement. While Atonement wasn't my favorite movie of that year, it certainly was a good movie. Especially, the acting of then 13 year old Saoirse Ronan. Now, a few years and a few big movies later, Ronan reunites with James Wright to play the title character of this movie. Along with accomplished actors Eric Bana and Cate Blanchett, they craft an interesting movie that I think is much better than anyone would expect it to be.

Hanna (Saoirse Ronan... coolest name ever. Means 'Freedom' in Gaelic) is a young girl who has been raised away from civilization in the icy tundra of Finland. Her father (Eric Bana) is a rogue CIA agent that separated himself and his daughter from society in order to teach her everything she needs in order to survive the eventual confrontation with Marissa Ziegler (Cate Blanchett). Ziegler was a sort of handler from Bana's Erik Heller.

There are two main strong points in the movie that I think should be mentioned. One is the acting from the cast all around. The three leads play their parts perfectly. Bana does the stern but caring father who wants nothing more than to get revenge but at the same time do what he knows Hanna will have to end up doing for herself. Blanchett is the cold and corrupt government agent that has one more thing she needs to do to finish her mission (the scene with Blanchett and Hanna's 'grandmother' is especially strong and fitting for the character). Ronan looks around in bewilderment as she hears music for the first time and sees television for the first time. The wonder and fear can be seen in her eyes. I also have to mention great support from Olivia Williams and Jason Flemyng as well as Tom Hollander as the damn creepy Isaacs.

Now, this is an action movie in the end, and the action in it works. I was worried because Wright was mainly a drama director, but the action scenes are stylish and interesting without going completely overboard.

Listen to me while reading the review!

The music is really awesome. The Chemical Brothers did the whole soundtrack and it is an exciting one. It fits perfectly with the movie and makes for some nice listening.

I'm heaping a lot of praise on this movie now, but when I left the theater, I sort of only saw some of the bad things that it has. For example, I know they were trying to draw a parallel between the movie and a Grimm's fairy tale. So much so that some of the most interesting parts occur in a weird house with plastic dinosaurs in the backyard and a creepy although entertaining character that should have gotten some more screen time. This seems a bit heavy handed and maybe they should have let it flow a little more naturally.

Another thing that bugged me was the scene with Hanna and this annoying girl she meets called Sophie. She is the around the same age as Hanna and sort of becomes her 'mentor' when it comes to the life outside of what Hanna was used to. Well in this scene Hanna reveals that she is different from other people and while its good to see her sharing about herself with someone, the scene is strangely shot and drags a bit in a part of the movie that by itself drags a little bit. Maybe trimming the fat a little bit would have helped(but this is just me nit-picking).

In the end, this is not a typical brain-dead action movie. Its an interesting concept that works well because of great performances, a nice soundtrack and some nice stylish action scenes. Check it out.

8 out of 10