DJ Hero: 9/10

The lights are dim. The television volume is on the maximum. There is a smell of alcohol in the air. The glow sticks are scattered all over the ground. Yep, DJ Hero is ready to be played. DJ Hero is not only a fantastic music game (Like I had predicted back in late 2008, when the rumors started), it’s also one of the better gaming experiences in the last five years. Not only that, but it contains some of the best music ever produced for a video game in the entire history of the industry. If you thought Guitar Hero or Rock Band had a slew of good music, you have not listened to the setlist in DJ Hero. With over 90 mixes (and most of them incredible) and a crazy difficulty curve, this game will have your attention for a very long time.


The premise is easy-sounding on paper, and extremely tough on execution. You are in charge of pressing three buttons, scratching the record when ordered to, and also switching the audio track with a crossfader. In general: you are in charge of the crossfader, the tuner, and performing the Guitar Hero-like button functions. Multi-tasking isn’t even an option; it’s a requirement, so adjusting your brain to this style of play may take a bit. Nintendo Wii owners I am sure will take less time for adjusting than other owners simply because of its already-physically-demanding style of play.


Unlike Guitar Hero’s rather rugged and dirty art style, DJ Hero’s art style totally matches the mood and setting of the game. Part of the fun of DJ Hero is actually witnessing someone else playing, because you get to see the hyper camera work throughout the song----especially on some of the tougher tracks. The stages themselves are more fun to watch than the usually-bland arenas of Guitar Hero, and the audience (and overall ambience) just flows better with the music being played. The DJs being featured in the game do look like their real world counterparts, even if some elements are a little exaggerated.


DJ Hero runs at a smooth framerate, which is a requirement because the playcontrol is quite challenging; as if the game isn’t enough of a chore to begin with. The game is like Guitar Hero in terms of being simple to learn, and tough to master. Easy Mode in the game limits you to just scratching. I actually recommend you jump straight to medium, as it’s not only fun but a nice first step. The crossfader is the element of the game garnishing the most controversy. The crossfader is my only gripe of the controls, since it’s a little confusing to figure out, and it’s a very sensitive piece of hardware. The sensitivity will lead to many unwanted mistakes and tough close calls (especially in expert mode). The rest of the turntable is simple to maneuver through.


The absolute, absolute, absolute best part of this game is the soundtrack. After some careful deliberation, I can safely declare this game as containing one of the 5 best soundtracks in the history of gaming. The mixes are far and above better than any mix I have heard in any dance club in the United States. The European DJs absolutely blow away the American DJs—even when the American DJs featured in DJ Hero (Jazzy Jeff, Grandmaster Flash, DJ AM, etc.) did a fantastic job. The Scratch Perverts and Daft Punk almost steal the entire show by producing the most talented and energetic mixes in the game and some of the best dance music in the last 25 years. Some of this sound like exaggeration but keep in mind: I usually don’t even like remixes.


90+ remixes will keep you entertained and dancing. Some of the mixes were obviously going to exist (Eminem vs. Jay-Z) while other mixes came totally out of left field (Gwen Stefani and Rick James? Daft Punk vs. Queen). Literally, the only incredible DJ they were missing was Fatboy Slim, which has been unusually quiet lately. The soundtrack contains so much variety; there shouldn’t be any complaints from a single soul about the music. Absolutely not allowed.


This game is definitely tougher than Guitar Hero, I promise you this. If you think guitar playing is tough on the expert difficulty, try switching audio tracks while scratching and pressing buttons all at the same time. Expert mode is a test of your patience and willpower. Some specific songs are absolutely brutal and require for you to rest upon completion (Scratch Perverts, I am looking at you). The interesting thing about the game however is its lack of a Game Over feature. If you are getting destroyed by a song, you still don’t fail it, the track continues. However, you need good star ratings to progress further and find more songs to play. Trust me, with the soundtrack; you’ll want to become an expert to hear the next amazing mix.


Bottom Line: DJ Hero is impressive overall, in terms of visuals, presentation, musical value, and overall execution. While the game suffers a little from its sensitive crossfader, inability to fail, extremely frustrating challenge on some songs, these are all problems that can easily be fixed when the rumored sequel rolls around. Despite the few setbacks, it’s an extremely strong first effort from FreeStyle Games and hopefully will lead to a big and successful franchise that can throw talented DJs into the mainstream much like Guitar Hero re-entered bands into the spotlight. As long as you have the smallest thirst to become a DJ or have a thirst for a unique type of gaming, then look no further.






If anything, at least listen to the soundtrack. You can thank me later.

Valentine's Day: 6/10

Valentine's Day (2010)

Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Romantic Comedy, 12 February 2010

As a disgruntledly (not a word, shut up) unemployed film critic, I must take drastic measures in concealing my opinion towards a movie you are going to wind up seeing regardless. This time, I have taken my single self to see Valentine's Day, to see if it can measure up to last year's star-sprinkled surprise-surprise hit comedy He's Just Not That into You. I wanted to see that if despite without the lovey-dovey person by my side (which has been a vacant position for a while) the movie can still deliver, entertain, and touch the soul.

Also, I wanted to see if people working at the theater would dedicate a bit of time from their ordinary day to point out that it's strange that I am watching a movie called Valentine's Day by myself. I approached the ticket counter and asked for my ticket. After momentary laughter the man at the counter presented me with my ticket. I then enter through the doors and approach the lady ripping the tickets and sending me in the right direction. After her laughter subdued, she pointed me to theater #1.

Valentine's Day works in the tradition of last year's February romantic success story, and Love Actually, a British dramatic rom-com that jump-started the technique of applying multiple love stories in a film. That way, if one story doesn't work, you have multiple other chances to still enjoy the movie. To spice things up, the movie contains one of the biggest casts of stars since the never-duplicated insanity of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. What other movie can boast the collaboration of Jennifer Garner, Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Biel, Jamie Foxx, and even Shirley MacLaine?

But of course, when you have this many stars, that means so many stories; and less time for character development. This is where the film mostly disappoints, very little developing or changing from anyone associated with the movie. Without revealing too much, there is literally 10 or 11 (lost count) plot lines mixing and intertwining together in a span of just two hours. This equals an average of 12 minutes per story. In actuality however, some stories are actually shorter than others. Katherine Fugate had the right idea when writing the screenplay, but the execution wasn't the best considering that some stories worked and some were just boring to the core. Poor Garry Marshall can only do so much, even though his best days (Pretty Woman, Happy Days) are long gone.

The limited time for acting also diminished the performances of almost every single star in the movie. However, the acting performances of the younger tots (Taylor Swift, Emma Roberts, Taylor Lautner, Carter Jenkins) were much weaker when compared to the veterans Julia Roberts, Jamie Foxx, Shirley MacLaine, and Héctor Elizondo. One other note: Ashton Kutcher, Topher Grace, and Bradley Cooper are three men that given the little time in this movie delivered swell performances that was undermined only by the writing. Their comic timing kept the movie afloat when the flick was threatening to totally flounder.

Like I said before, some stories worked, and other stories were absolutely dreadful to watch. The high school-based stories in Valentine's Day were the weakest, shortest, and the most pointless. In the meantime, the Anne Hathaway/Topher Grace story and the conflict involving Kutcher, Alba, Jennifer Garner, and Patrick Dempsey were the most entertaining to watch. Nearly all the stories had their share of clichés, with only one of them containing a surprise or two. The chemistry wasn't that intense, because there was no time for it to happen. The dialogue was never allowed to intensify or dwell deeper into the concept of love. A few good one-liners here and there, but nothing really worth remembering.

Bottom Line: The problem with Valentine's Day is very simple: we've seen it before and after 2009 being such a good year for romantic comedies, the expectations are higher. It takes more than just a bunch of big stars to propel a rom-com to quality heights; you need strong writing, good chemistry, strong direction, and a hintage of unpredictability. That's how The Proposal, He's Just Not That Into You, The Ugly Truth, and especially (500) Days of Summer made 2009 one of the greatest years for romance in a long time. This was also the issue with Couple's Retreat, the last blockbuster romantic comedy of 09. Valentine's Day has its moments indeed (Anne Hathaway is hilarious), but don't expect it to be anything better than mediocre. Simply there were too many stories and most of them with less depth than a puddle.

And none of this criticism has to do with the fact that I saw the movie by myself.

Honestly.

2010 Sports Notes Volume #2

I am going to make this very simple: The Orlando Magic are not going to make the NBA Finals. The team that it used to be is definitely no more. The team last year destroyed the teams they needed to beat, and could stand toe-to-toe against the big guns. The Orlando Magic of last year was a no-nonsense team that was underrated throughout the season, leading to its surprising run in the playoffs. That team is not shown here today. After losing to the pathetic Washington Wizards for the second time this season, after leading by 15+ points at one point, we are seeing that the Magic are eight times worse than last year.

Let’s look at the pathetic box score, shall we? Matt Barnes: 6 points. Vince Carter: 5-17 shooting. The fact of the matter is, this stupid stuff has been happening all year round, and more and more we are realizing that it was absolutely stupid to lose Hedo and not attempt to keep Courtney Lee. The Magic are my main focus in the NBA aspect because quite simply, they were only three wins away from winning the championship. So why on earth totally change the starting lineup? Why not loosely fix what’s already there, and try again? Losing Rafer Alston was definitely going to happen, but why not keep Turk or Lee? Why are they depending so much on Jamieer Nelson, a player who spends more time injured than active?

The Orlando Magic is just like the Cleveland Indians of the NBA: usually a lot of good players at the core, but a lot of stupid changes and additions and subtractions. In all honesty, if we had stripped away minutes from Nelson, added more to Reddick (or Lee had we kept him), and matched the offer for Hedo, then we would be a top 3 NBA team right now. Instead we have a Magic team with a good record, but very, very little confidence. They are not better than the Lakers, Cavs, Hawks, Jazz, Nuggets, and even the Celtics. Watching them is so painful, since we know that they could be better. Stan should also be to blame, because he’s going to have to demand for Howard to step up his game and ask for the ball more—since the guards and forwards just aren’t getting the job done. Nobody has yet to fill Hedo’s shoes, and I doubt we will see that happen for the rest of this season.



The top team in the NBA remains the Los Angeles Lakers, but they are also making some stupid, stupid moves by criticizing Kobe Bryant’s attempts to earn the scoring record, creating unnecessary drama. The man has been a ballhog for the last 10 years, and now you decide to say something? Another issue with the Lakers is that they are letting an injured Kobe play ball on a nightly basis. If you do not rest him, mark my words in the playoffs he will absolutely run out of steam. Not sure why he is so determined to earn that fifth ring (Shaq: 4. Kobe: 4. Hmmm..) but if he continues playing hurt, its going to affect him in the long run. The NBA wants a Cavs/Lakers final, and by the looks of it, it just might actually happen this year. Especially with the Celtics growing old, the Magic growing dumber and mentally weaker, and with not a single Western team truly challenging L.A.

The NBA this year has been decent, but we have yet to come even close to matching the intensity and insanity of the 90s. Back then, the rivalries were hot, the players were better, the coaches were better, and the NBA in general was just more of a delight to watch. Even with the Bulls running away with a slew of championships, there was always that glimmer of hope from the Heat, Cavs, Hawks, Pacers, Sonics, Knicks, Spurs, Blazers, Rockets, and even the Magic. Thank goodness for YouTube having most of the epic playoff moments of the 90s. We at least have that to look back upon whenever we get tired of seeing the Kobes and LeBrons.

The NFL experienced a great season of football though. The football now was better than in the 90s, even if the amount of rules is slowly but surely butchering the game. Personally, I think the NFL has become more competitive amongst more teams nowadays. The AFC had at least 7 teams still fighting for a playoff spot in the last two weeks of the season. But if there was a Game of the Year, the Saints-Vikings contest should be in the running. If there’s a game that took everyone’s breath away, it was that slugfest.

Unfortunately for Vikings fans, they failed at the end once again. Just like the 1998 Vikings, just like the 2003 Vikings, they fell short. Brett Farve definitely surprised me this season, as I predicted they would fail miserably last year:



August 19th, 2009:

“Thanks for making my football picks that much easier. I now have one less team to consider in terms of whether or not they can make the Super Bowl, let alone, the playoffs. As a matter of fact, if you even win more than 6 games, I will be presently surprised. Instead of developing a stronger defensive line, you decided to fork over a lovely amount of 10 million to a man with more grey hairs than an experienced politician. Instead of trying to recruit young players to develop into a more formidable opponent like your rivals the Chicago Bears. You were 10-6 last year, why on earth did you have to do such a drastic change? Now the leader of your team is an overrated quarterback whose best years were last decade.

Your leader has thrown more interceptions than any other quarterback in the history of the NFL. Your leader started his career when Big Ben, the quarterback who won it all last year, was just 9 years old (For more hilarity, Tom Brady was 14, and Payton Manning was 15). Your leader can’t make up is mind, is arrogant, attention-hungry, greedy, a traitor, a deceiver, a team-killer, and should have retired years upon years ago. Instead of him carrying his attention-grabbing ways elsewhere, you bought the bait and now you find yourself in a hole.

Be happy you are not in the AFC East, NFC East, or the NFC South. Otherwise, you would have looked more like the 2008 Detroit Lions record-wise. Vikings, I just wanted to tell you---your organization is run by a delightful assortment of idiots. These people have let the team down, let down the fans, and let down the entire state of Minnesota.”

He definitely proved me wrong….until the end. Brett Farve is definitely a great quarterback, but in the playoffs does not think. His shoot-first-ask-later mentality can’t work in the playoffs, because it could be YOUR LAST GAME. All he had to do less than a minute left in the 4th quarter was run out of bounds, and let the field goal kicker attempt the upset. Instead, the Saints intercepted, and won the game in OT.


One thing is for sure, the Saints don’t look like the incredible team back in September. The Colts look like they will win the Super Bowl; even if it will be a close match. The Colts could have been the first team to fire a coach after nearly reaching a perfect season, because they almost lost to the one team that they allowed to enter the playoffs in the first place: The Jets. What dramatic irony would it have been, if the Jets had made the Super Bowl. That probably would have shaken the foundation of football. Nonetheless, it was a crass move by Indianapolis to throw away the game to preserve the health of their players. In my opinion if they get hurt playing at the end of the year, that means they weren’t ready to play in the playoffs in the first place. My opinion.

It should be a great Super Bowl though.

I did get one thing right about Minnesota back in August though:

“Better luck next year”

2010 Oscar Nomination Reactions

Ah, the Oscar nominations are out and it’s quite obvious which is the movie to beat at the big show. Avatar has broken the all-time box office record once held by Titanic and has taken the entire world by storm. And, with literally no strong competition to go up against it until Valentine’s Day, Avatar is going to remain as the top-grossing movie for quite some time. While I can laugh at James Cameron’s inability to go up against other strong films, 20th Century Fox perfected this gold mine with a nice blend of great marketing and brilliant timing. The fact of the matter is this: Avatar has a strong chance of winning. The Academy Awards expanded the Best Picture category in order to increase interest in the telecast by the mainstream. So why not give the Best Picture award to the biggest film of all-time? Seems to make sense. There is a problem though: Avatar doesn’t deserve it.



Call me a Disney fanatic all you want, I don’t care. Give the Best Picture award to Up. Yes, I did see Avatar, and I don’t think it was even a Top 10 of 2009 film. In a year with the likes of District 9, Inglorious Basterds, and 500 Days of Summer, Avatar shouldn’t even get a Best Picture nomination. It was a weak story covered in pretty packaging. Back to the worthy picture. Up is the best film of last year by far. The opening 10 minutes (now becoming a staple in animation history) are some of the most intense footage ever seen in a family movie. Very few movies can drive me to near-tears (yea I’ll admit it), but Up fires and hits on all sentimental cylinders. But let’s not forget the beautiful story full of memorable characters, memorable moments, hilarious scenes, and plenty of peril. Let’s also point out the 98% fresh tomato rating on Rotten Tomatoes (Avatar: 82%).

How awesome would it be for Pixar to finally win Best Picture? Pixar should have at least been in the running back in 1999 with the masterpiece Toy Story 2. And then in 2003, they released what I strongly believe was the best picture of that year, which was Finding Nemo.

Surely others will point out Wall-E and maybe even Ratatouille, but I strongly considered that Nemo should have gone up against the likes of Master and Commander, the overlong Return of the King, and the overrated Seabiscuit. I was one of the first to scream frustration when Pixar flicks weren’t getting the deserved Best Picture opportunities. One last major point: Pixar has a perfect track record since 1995. Isn’t it time that the studio nabs the ultimate prize? However, it will be snubbed. It shall take the Best Animated Picture, but it will not covet the main prize simply because a 3-D spectacle is raking in all the big bucks and features the latest in special effects.



As we are now talking about snubs: where in the heck is 500 Days of Summer? That is one of the three best flicks of the last 12 months, and is among the best romantic comedies in the new millennium. It should have at least gotten a nomination for writing. The main stars in the film should have also gotten acting nominations. Marc Webb should have been nominated for Best Director. Another Best Director snub is Spike Jonze. Where the Wild Things Are was a tough movie to watch and dissect, but there is no denying the amazing set design, cinematography, special effects, and direction. It got nothing. Why?? And Blind Side got a Best Picture nomination. Are you kidding me?



What about The Hangover? The Hangover in my opinion is a better success story than Avatar because it quite simply wasn’t supposed to make so much money, and wasn’t supposed to receive so much praise. Nonetheless, it was a premise written to near-perfection, and is the first raunchy comedy I have seen since 40-Year-Old Virgin that deserved a screenwriting Oscar nomination.Plus it even got the Golden Globe for Best Comedy (which was disappointing because it beat...500 Days of Summer). But…not happening. Hangover at best should have gotten a Best Screenplay---and pushing a little bit more Todd Phillips should have gotten at least a Best Director nomination. Directing dramas is easy, directing a good comedy is much, much tougher. One last final snub that isn’t as big an issue but was surprising: no Visual Effects Oscar nomination for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen? Granted it wasn’t a good movie, but you have to admire the incredible visuals.

I am glad the Oscars expanded the Best Picture category, but it shouldn’t be 10 movies, since odds are the tail end will consist of movies that just managed to sneak in (Blind Side, A Serious Man). The nominations themselves weren’t totally disastrous, even if the snubbing of Hangover, 500 Days of Summer, and Where the Wild Things Are were truly disappointing. Here are my predictions, and what I think should be the winner:

Best Picture:
Prediction: Avatar (….)
My Pick: Up

Best Actor:
Prediction: Jeff Bridges
My Pick: n/a

Best Actress:
Prediction: Sandra Bullock
My Pick: Gabourey Sidibe

Best Supporting Actor:
Prediction: Christoph Waltz
My Pick: See Above

Best Supporting Actress:
My Prediction: Maggie Gyllenhaal (For the upset!!)
My Pick: n/a

Best Director:
My Prediction: Kathryn Bigelow
My Pick: Quentin Tarantino
Pick NOT in List: Spike Jonze

Best Screenplay
My Prediction: Inglorious Basterds
My Pick: Inglorious Basterds
Pick NOT in List: (500) Days of Summer

Best Adapted Screenplay
My Prediction: Up in the Air
My Pick: District 9

Cinematography:
Prediction: Avatar
Pick: Avatar
SHOULD BE: Where the Wild Things Are

Editing:
Prediction: Avatar
Pick: District 9
SHOULD BE: Up

Art Direction:
Prediction: Avatar
My Pick: Sherlock Holmes

Costume:
Prediction: Nine
My Pick: Nine

Makeup
Prediction: Star Trek
My Pick: Star Trek
SHOULD BE: District 9

Music
Prediction: Up
My Pick: Up

Original Song
Prediction: Crazy Heart theme song
My Pick: Down in New Orleans (Princess and the Frog)

Sound Mixing:
Prediction: The Hurt Locker
My Pick: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Sound Editing:
Prediction: Avatar
My Pick: Up

Visual Effects:
My Predication: Avatar
My Pick: Avatar

Best Animated Feature:
My Prediction: Up
My Pick: Up


From my predictions, here will be the big winners:
Avatar: 6 Oscars
Inglorious Basterds: 2 Oscars
Crazy Heart: 3 Oscars
The Hurt Locker: 2 Oscars
Up: 2 Oscars

I don’t see anyone running away with over 8 Oscars, but I see Avatar with at least 5.

Bottom Line: Should be an interesting and exciting Academy Awards, even if I am unfortunately certain as to which movie will walk off with the most gold.

Taken: 9/10

Taken (2008/I)

Of all the women we kidnap, we happen to nab the one with a deadly spy as a father....just our luck..., 1 February 2010

Remember that time period when Hollywood used to release incredible action/thriller movies in an orderly pace? Neither do I. What used to be a great trend to participate in back in the 90s (Terminator 2, Speed, Face-Off, The Rock, Con Air, Die Hard: With a Vengeance, Jurassic Park, The Mummy, The Matrix, Bad Boys, Under Siege, True Lies, Desperado, Clear and Present Danger, The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, Saving Private Ryan, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction) suddenly became a distant memory, as the 2000s served very few decent Hollywood thrillers. Instead, we have to head overseas to find them. The 2000s consisted of many surprise-surprise excellent European actioneers with Hot Fuzz, Run Lola Run, Transporter, Kiss of the Dragon, Unleashed, and this superb flick.

What happens nowadays is that Hollywood is scaling back its amount of action in order to make the extra money. In the first paragraph, 15 of the 19 movies I mentioned from the 90s were rated-R. In other words, they did not care about the PG-13 rating. Now, nearly every action movie must hit the PG-13 barrier. Even the fourth Die Hard was edited to not reach rated-R (which was a Die Hard staple). To add to that movies from overseas (like this one) become edited in the States in order to hit the weaker and friendlier PG-13. But don't let that stop you. Taken is one of the most vicious PG-13 movies you'll ever see, and you'll enjoy every minute of its inability to cut back on the gruesomeness. It sounds barbaric, I know, but if you truly want to see what good action used to look like from the studios of Tinseltown, look no further than this excellent effort.

Luc Besson and his talented filming crew provide yet another gripping story to sink your teeth into. This time it's about a retired spy (Liam Neeson) who searches all of Europe in order to find his kidnapped daughter (Maggie Grace). He is given a small time frame, since his daughter is about to be sold into the deep, disgusting, and grueling underworld of sex trafficking. The movie starts off with Bryan, the spy, trying to adjust to a life without espionage, and the rest is just a wild roller coaster ride containing plentiful action scenes and fight after fight. Written by Besson and Robert Mark Kamen, Taken provides a healthy dosage of father-daughter sentimentality as well as provide an insight into a dangerous illegal world not seen often in movies.

But it's not just the delightful taste of gunfire, fights, and chases that maintains the entertainment in Taken. Liam Neeson does an excellent job portraying the retired spy. While there are indeed great action stars, very few of them are excellent actors as well. Liam Neeson can proudly say he fits both billings, as his version of a spy is just as cold and calculating as even Daniel Craig's James Bond. Most amazing fact is that he is over 55 years of age. While Jason Bourne remains the most lethal of all the movie character spies in the last decade, Bryan isn't too far behind. While everyone else in the movie delivers decent performances, it's Neeson that runs and carries the show with a mix of emotion, determination, and rage.

Pierre Morel directs this movie well, by keeping the action within a decent view, maintaining good pacing, and also allowing for the actors to breathe out a scene when more emotion is involved. The fights themselves are brutal, and not held back in the least bit. You will feel every blow, you will chuckle at every clever maneuver and trick, and sometimes even jump in surprise as to what's happening. The movie is quite cold, as sometimes you'll forget that Bryan is the good guy, especially in moments where innocent people are within the crosshairs. Like Jason Bourne in The Bourne Supremacy, it's at times difficult to root for Neeson when he involves people that well….aren't really involved. But that feeling is quickly vanquished when you see him waste the next sap that is part of the sex trafficking ring.

Bottom Line: This movie proves multiple things: Neeson can be an action star at a relatively old age, Europe is suddenly a rising force in the action/thriller genre, and also that you don't need fancy CGI or special effects to craft a good movie that will also lead to good money. Taken quietly emerged as the top action film of 2009, and becomes another great film with Luc Besson's stamp on it (The Fifth Element, Unleashed, Transporter, Nikita, Leon). The movie has the trills and the tension, but also has the heart that is sorely missing in most mainstream action films. You will cheer this movie on as it delivers with a great storyline, great acting, and just an overall satisfying cinematic package.

Did I already mention that Liam Neeson is 57 years old?