S-T

I disagree with the AO rating, even with the sex scene. I have read several articles about this on CNN, Fox News, the AP Wire, etc. and all the articles I have read say that the game characters are fully clothed. That means it is considerably less graphic than scores of "R" rated movies, including some that have won Oscars. I think Rockstar Games and GTA got a raw deal. "M" is the video game equivalent of an "R" rating. "AO" is the video game equivalent of an "NC-17" rating. (Remember that the old "X" rating was renamed "NC-17".) Does anyone think, if it were a movie, the sex scene makes GTA worse than "R" movies and therefore GTA deserves to be an "NC-17"? Granted, I have not played the game. Nonetheless, I have a real hard time believing that GTA even approaches the sexual content of hundreds of "R" movies out there. Video games have always been subject to much harsher scrutiny than other forms of entertainment (especially movies) have. The video game industry need to grow a backbone and expose the hypocrisy of the politicians. I have a longer commentary in the other thread.

I forked over $0.00 I had a pass to see it free. Edit: Jessica Simpson's portrayal of Daisy was the closest to the original series of any of the characters in the movie.

I saw it yesterday. It was fun, though certainly more off-color than the original series. A few things: I think the joke about Willie Nelson and his marijuana use was really lame. It is completely irrelevant to the Dukes franchise, only to the actor playing Uncle Jesse. The actors playing Bo & Luke were not as bad as I expected. Jessica Simpson was the only one who tried to imitate a Southern accent. I think those complaining about the sexual content of the movie are looking back at the series with rose-colored glasses. There is a reason that really short shorts are called "Daisy Dukes". The scene with the muffin jokes that Brent Bozell was complaining about was removed from the theatrical version. Roscoe was not stupid, unlike the TV series. Including the hound dog "Flash" was a nice touch. I don't think anyone could play Boss Hogg as well as Sorrell Booke. Boss Hogg is supposed to be fat. That is half the character's gimmick. Couldn't they find a fat actor to play Boss Hogg?

The movie starts tomorrow. Anyone going to go see it? I was a huge Dukes fan back in the day. Was 1980 that long ago?

Depends on how much profit they make on the games.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't console makers lose money on the system and make it back (and then some) in games? I don't think Sony's going to be charging that much for the PS3. Even if they roll it out for $500+, they will be forced to cut the price if Nintendo and/or Microsoft cuts into their market share. Backwards compatibility with PS2 and PS1 games is a great (and needed) feature.

Complete blog post: My hand hurts. While walking under a brick ceiling the other day, I jumped up and punched it as hard as I could, hoping that the bricks would shatter to reveal a huge gold coin. I wound up breaking my hand instead. I think I am going to sue Nintendo for making me think that is possible through all the times I have played Super Mario Brothers. I deserve compensation for my medical bills, pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages. The above story is fiction, but I hope it illustrates the absurdity of a cop-killer who is arguing that he was influenced to murder police officers by playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. (GTA: SA is the fifth game in the GTA series, after the wildly popular Grand Theft Auto III spun off Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and San Andreas.) I have not played any of the GTA series, but this is how I understand it works. As you commit crimes in the course of the missions you are asked to complete, you become higher on the "most wanted" list. If you choose to commit especially heinous crimes (like killing police officers) your level goes up and the game becomes more difficult. In short, you are punished for taking things too far because you become a high priority target for arrest or death. Those who are saying that players are rewarded for killing cops are either lying or uninformed. This, of course, is not new. A decade ago, video game critics claimed that the goal of the Sega CD game Night Trap was to kill the young women in an old house. This was not true. The player's goal was to save the women. If the women died, the player either intentionally failed or was not good enough to stop the monsters. Critics of Night Trap were either uninformed or lying. But there is more to the controversy surrounding GTA: SA. An 85-year-old woman named Florence Cohen is suing the makers of GTA: SA because of recent revelations that players can access more graphic sexual content through an Internet download. She bought the game for her 14-year-old grandson. There are two problems with Cohen's complaint. First, GTA: SA is rated "M", meaning that no one under 17 should be playing the game. "M" is the equivalent of an "R" rating for a movie. (Not that an "R" rating means anything anyway; I observed pre-teens walking out after a showing of the horror flick Freddy vs. Jason.) Second, GTA: SA already had warnings for the sexual content of the game, before the most recent controversy erupted. Cohen' lawsuit should be dismissed by the judge and her attorney should be disbarred for abusing the legal system.

While walking under a brick ceiling the other day, I jumped up and punched it as hard as I could, hoping that the bricks would shatter to reveal a huge gold coin. I wound up breaking my hand instead. I think I am going to sue Nintendo for making me think that is possible through all the times I have played Super Mario Brothers.

Yeah, buddy. There's a reason the game is rated "M". "M" is the equivalent of an "R" rating for a movie. (As if that means anything. I saw 10-year-olds walking out of "Freddy vs. Jason" a couple years ago.) And GTA:SA has warnings of the game's sexual content of the box! Her lawyer should be disbarred for filing this lawsuit.

Now I have both songs in my head. Thanks.

More... http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/07/...t.ap/index.html http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp...tion=1&id=24969 http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/07/...s.ap/index.html

It was a remake of a movie based on the story of Buford Pusser. I admittedly don't know much about the man himself, but many of these movies are a lot closer to "inspired by" than "based on".

More here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/19/...ain710117.shtml

I actually wrote this review a while ago, but thought you all (especially anyone from the Oratory) would be interested. SPOILERS INCLUDED. To avoid the spoilers, do not read further. **************************************************** **************************************************** **************************************************** **************************************************** "Know your role and shut your mouth!" I rented Walking Tall starring Dwayne Johnson, who is better known as "The Rock" in World Wrestling Entertainment. It's rather silly, in my opinion, to list Johnson in the credits by his character's name in WWE. Johnson's acting is not quite as good as it was in The Rundown, and it was not all that good there either. Johnson's best performance was in The Scorpion King. Johnson is a much better actor than "Hulk Hogan", but that isn't saying much. Professional wrestlers seem to think that because they act for a living, they can seamlessly transition into movies, but professional wrestling is a far different type of acting than movies. In any case, Chris Vaughn (Johnson's character) returns from duty in the Army to find that the lumber mill, the main source of employment in the county for years, is closed and a casino has taken its place. The casino is corrupt, of course, with the workers cheating in order to take money from customers. Vaughn discovers this, and winds up being gutted and left for dead. He survives, of course, and when he goes to file charges the Sheriff won't help him. Seething over that, Vaughn discovers his nephew overdosed on drugs purchased from the casino's security officers, the same ones that almost killed him. Vaughn proceeds to trash the casino with a 4x4 and "lay the smack down" on the security guards. Then he goes to jail. In a really dumb scene, Vaughn admits his guilt buts tries to convince the jury that he was justified. He opens his shirt to show gruesome scars from when he was gutted and promises to run for Sheriff if he is acquitted. He is acquitted (naturally) and then cleans up the town. So we have a jury acquitting the hero of the story after he ADMITS acting as a vigilante. This is by far the least believable part of the movie. If Charles Bronson's character had done that in Death Wish, maybe he would not have had to move around so much to avoid the law. Overall, Walking Tall is decent for an action film, but it certainly was not anything special. WWE seems to think that WWE fans will go see the movie because "The Rock" is in it, but they forget that the audience of movie fans is much, much larger than the audience of WWE fans. They would be better off working to make a good movie to get movie fans interested in WWE. While Walking Tall is far better than previous WWE/WWF efforts like No Holds Barred (one of the worst movies ever made) it is nothing special. Grade: C-, barely missing a D+.

Didn't Identity Crisis deal with things that were pre-Crisis?

Of course, Doom doesn't have to remain immobile. There are numerous plot devices they can use to get him mobile again.

Well, the ending to the first one makes it pretty clear who it will be.

Final Fantasy 9. I decided not to name any characters after my wife this time, after Aeris got skewered in Part 7.

I had been looking forward to it for a while, but I think this movie was a disappointment. They managed to tweak the team's origins while remaining faithful to the source materials and the core personalities of each character. A miscalculation by Reed Richards, combined with the arrogance of Victor von Doom, results in the gang being exposed to a cosmic storm which gives them their powers. Without spoiling anything, the ending screams "sequel". The problem is that the movie is very light on action. I found it to be boring. The scenes featuring The Thing were entertaining, but I could have done with less character development and more action. Final grade: D+

Well, I haven't dropped in, so I missed voting on Thing vs. Reed. I agree with the outcome though. And AFAIK, Thing has never fought the Juggernaut. I give this one to Invisible Woman. With her force fields, she can go toe-to-toe with Grimm, but she doesn't have to. She flies him up several hundred yards and drops him, pours on some punishment to get him dazed, and then cuts off his air until he passes out. Like I said in the other thread, Invisible Woman also bested the entire FF (though She-Hulk was standing in for The Thing) as Malice in a 1980's storyline. It would take the combined powers of the Thing, Mr. Fantastic and the Human Torch to take down I.W.

Oops. I should have put "spoilers" in the title. Thanks for adding it.

I agree. Invisible Woman also bested the entire FF (though She-Hulk was standing in for The Thing) as Malice in a 1980's storyline. It would take the combined powers of the Thing, Mr. Fantastic and the Human Torch to take down I.W.

This is an interesting take on the zombie genre. The zombie/human war is over and the zombies have won. The movie is about one of many cities the humans have secured and walled off to protect themselves. The city, Fiddler's Green, is mostly surrounded by a river. An electrified fence around the rest of the city keeps the zombies at bay. What is interesting is that the zombies, rather than being mindless killing machines, are starting to develop some primitive skills. They can communicate and are learning to use tools. Some of them even learn to fire guns. (This will be familiar to those who have seen George Romero's Day of the Dead) The city becomes a trap when the zombies figure out how they can cross the river. They jump in and walk across the bottom into the city. Now the security features designed to keep zombies out have trapped the humans in, and it is not pretty. The main villains, once again, are not the undead, but evil humans. Instead of banding together for the common good against an enemy that threatens to wipe out humanity, selfish, greedy elitists exploit those less fortunate while they live in luxury. Romero's fourth film evolves the series well. Now that zombies (who feel no pain and can only be killed by a massive head injury) are starting to gain some intelligence, what hope is there for a devastated world ruled by the undead? Or does zombie intelligence lead to the possibility that the living and the undead may coexist? The door is open for more sequels, as the humans try to rebuild a shattered world. Final grade: B+

Without giving anything away, the events that led to Identity Crisis are coming back to haunt the JLA. Looks like it is going to be interesting...

If it happens, it will be temporary. Batman is too much of a cultural icon (far beyond comic books) to not be Bruce Wayne. Sure, they have changed the character wearing the Robin mask, but Robin is not the central character of the story.