Messages

Sorry, didn't notice.

Dear DG,

Can God create a stone he cannot lift?

I've seen the trailer of Scary Movie 3 before Kill Bill today. That Micheal Jackson scene was the scariest shit I've ever seen in a movie!

I haven't seen a movie with so much style since Snatch. This movie is worth watching for the style alone. Each and every scene is just soaked with it.

I think Tarantino put all of his queer ideas, all his goofiness and craziness into this film, to create something basic at its core but utterly cool in its outline. This is a true lesson in cinematics. I did miss the dialogs, but I guess QT wanted to do something very much not-QT. I noticed nobody noted the chapter format - personally, I liked it a lot, I think it adds plenty to the stucture of the film.

Edit: After sleeping on it, I've noticed that the violence is not as explicit as many critics say. Not even close to it. So it had some blood sprays - so what? They were more comical than gory, and I am sure that the "average" American crowd can handle it. It's not like it is the first movie to use plenty of 'blood'. There were only two somewhat gory scenes, and they were mostly-off screen - the one with Gogo, and the one with the eye. I wouldn't call that such terrible violence. In fact, Saving Private Ryan's first scene was much more gory, and there are others as well.

Also: Pulp Fiction is WAAAAAAY too boring to sit through more than once.

How about 7 times during two months? Or 10 times overall?  

Okay to bring this back to Kill Bill I read a review on it in the newspaper today and almost killed some people.

The reviewer said the movie lacked all character and plot and was replaced by ultra violence as it's only "Hook".

"It is movies like these that are dumbing and numbing the american public to what a true movie experience can be"

Then he went on (In the Kill Bill review) to praise Mystic River saying 'This is a movie that handles violence like it should. As a true emotion. even QT earlier movie, pulp fiction, stepped out of the ultra-violence to have casual conversations and keep things interesting.'

He said Vol 1 was nothing but a long preview for Vol 2..in which I just said fuck you and put down the paper.

Under the reviewers credentials it listed him as a leader in radio show broadcasting....on politics.

Then things got oh so clear.

dick.

I have read such a review myself today. I think that both reviews really missed the point of the film, which is the greatest sin in judging a movie -to try and appreciate it for something that it isn't. This is not "violence pornography", or "even violence for the sake of violence", but "violence for the sake of style".

has anyone else seen four rooms?   no one  i've talked to has heard of it.  but it was cool.  

This movie ruled, until Quentin Tarantino's segment (the fourth one).  It really made me want to drive an icepick through my brain, it was so bad.  I love Tarantino's other movies--Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown are all great, though I haven't seen Kill Bill--but his Four Room segment was just awful.

I'd say it's shit up until QT's segment. Well, Rodriguez' "The Misbehavers" was nice, actually, but the first two were damnedly horrible. Madonna and a bunch of other half-nude witches seeking sperm? You've gotta be kidding me.
Tarantino's part, although it can't rival his full-length features, was very fun. First, the direction was excellent - I adored the one camera. The humour was much better than in all the other parts, and the ending is hilarious. This, unlike the one presented in the first part, is a true amusing situation.
By the way, I have the 4th part ("The Man from Hollywood") together with the conversation between parts 3 and 4 on tape alone, without all the rest of the movie. I just love watching it when I have free 25 minutes or so.

I know this because I saw it happen in About Schmidt -- I saw it at one cinema and it had a boom mic in frame and saw it a second time in another theatre and saw no mic (and a better composed  scene too)

You've seen About Schmidt twice?!  

bspeers - with all due respect I think you see much more in Reloaded than there really is. What I see in the last conversaion between Neo and the Architect is a load of shit, where the creators try to partonize the viewer, by putting many long words in 5 sentances, to create the illusion of depth and wisdom. But in reality, they were just meaningless.


To sum it all up: Is it February yet?

I don't think a new page is needed, won't a modification to the games page be enough? CJ, can you make it so the more information page includes something like this?

Dear DG,

What is the square root of 1059438543?

I like this idea. It's especially good for all the projectless AGSers who want to use some of their creative energies.

* Barcik votes for DGMacphee.

WTF.COM?!  

I don't get what you want from us.Either you are trying to get attention, or you just need to express yourself better. Which one will it be?

Welcome and enjoy your stay!

Eggie, I think there needs to be variety. Just as there are simply entertaining movies that are fun to watch, and there deep and intelligent movies that require patience (did somebody say 2001?). Unfortunately, most action games put plot at the bottom of the priority list.

I think this was also coming through as early as Thief, and it's also evident in the Hitman games.

Despite a bit more emphasis on story, both these games still didn't focus on a plot, but on stealth and tactics. Perhaps they brought a new breeze in the industry, but they lacked true revolutionary potential (plot-speaking, not all that stealth stuff).

I think the second was more story driven than the first one. The first one was about Max getting to the killers of his wife, which is a basic "achieve the goal" type of plot, but the second one doesn't have a definite "pre-set" goal.

[shooter]

Remedy, the developers of "Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne" described it as a "film-noir love story". And they hit right the spot.
In a world where most developers see a storyline as no more than a nuisance ("Who cares about a plot? Look how great that zombie looks!"), Remedy managed to create a game focusing on characters and plot advancement. The familiar comic strip cutscenes are what matters most in this third-person shooter, not the excellent level designing, the cinematic feeling or even "bullet-time". The player plays and finishes level to progress the plot. For example, a rough count came up with 5 levels where the player doesn't need to shoot once! Just move forward and enjoy the atmosphere.
Quality speaking, there is nothing ground-breaking in the game's story, or the characters. But both are conveyed greatly, including the very touching end. The player really has a feeling that this is interactive fiction.
Riding on the success of its prequel and being an excellent game in its own right, Max Payne 2 will surely sell well. Can this mean a new trend in games? Will there be as much effort put in storytelling as in graphics, to make all us plot-lovers happy?
Personally, I doubt that it would bring a revolution. Game like Quake and Unreal will still throw a huge buck on improving their details and textures. But I am pretty darn sure that more plot-focused games will follow, and that 2004 will show a big rise in such games.

So what do you think? Can storytelling finally become popular in modern gaming?

Personally, I like Mafia themes but you can hardly expect people to be overjoyed just by hearing it. The genre or style are not what matters. What does matter is how well you pull it off.

Police works well when there is someone pushing at them to work well.

Dear Daniel,

How many eggs do I need to do an omlette?

Yours faithfully,
Boris

So obviously we're not going to reach a common point here, but no worries.  I know that for some people it's just not as enjoyable to watch older films, because they seem more dated, and there's nothing I or anyone else can do about that.  And again, I know what you mean because there are movies like that for me, but there are some, such as the aforementioned films, that to me just never lose that appeal.

Of course we are not going to reach a common point, I am well aware of it. You like this movie, and I am fully cool with that. I am not trying to tell you that it is crap and you shouldn't watch it.
I don't think it's dated because it is old. There are numerous old movies I like, such as Planet of the Apes, Apocalypse Now and 2001. I just think that there is nothing in Indy I haven't seen before.

I think all the above (the talent, the awards, the top listings, the top reviews, the memorabilia, the homage to past films, the off-shoots, etc) proves Raiders of the Lost Ark is a classic film!

I use the term 'classic' in a slightly different manner than the usual. For me, a classic is a film that is timeless - it cannot look out-dated. Such as 2001, Brazil or Pulp Fiction. However, other movies I like such as LotR, Matrix (the first) or my favourite action flick Die Hard are bound to promise nothing new sooner or later. And as you can understand from the "Barcik definition", very few adventure/action movies are list of classics.

I understand your point very well. Personally, I saw Star Wars in 1995, aged 9 and liked it a lot. I still do, despite the fact that I realized more and more flaws in it as I grew.

As for a modern comparsion, here's a recent one: Pirates of the Carribean. Working on pretty much the same formula (find a treasure, kill bad guys in nasty ways, say some witty one-liners, get the girl), it manages to deliever a more entertaining experience, mostly because of Johny Depp's performance and a more polished sense of humour.
It's not just the movies which are exactly like it. It's also movies that borrowed some elements. A big good getting his ass kicked on an air-plane is nothing outside the norm. A nasty sadist Nazi with a scar on his hand is bound to make the crowd giggle for all the wrong reasons.
In fact, most action/adventure/comedy movies are bound to suffer from this. I've recently seen the first Terminator after a looooooong break and was utterly surprised of how out-dated it was. It was slow-paced, there were no really great action scenes and the soundtrack was just horrible.
It's kinda sad, but a movie seen in 2003 just can't be judged by 1981 standards.

Plus the distributing.