AdSense to Search

Custom Search

Monday, December 23, 2013

Word of Mouth #6: Deafheaven - Sunbather



'Sunbather' is a release courtesy of Deathwish Inc. (yes, them again, and god damn it is it glorious).

Yeah, I'm spreading the word about the album that Metacritic, Pitchfork Magazine, Spin Magazine, and Rolling Stone Magazine are declaring the top metal album of 2013. Indeed, its score on Metacritic is a whopping 92 percent, based on 17 critic reviews. The "Best Albums of 2013" page (click here for source) states: "It's the first time a metal album has occupied the #1 slot in our year-end rankings."

Anyway, as I listen to this now, I am astounded at just how texturally rich this release is. I'm four tracks in and I have heard post-rock, black metal, shoegazing, post-hardcore, orchestral, psychedelic, and surely many other wakes of music...so far. Last year's "The Seer" by the legendary avant-garde outfit Swans evoked a similar, inaccessible sound that, without understating it, mindfucks the listener into gleefully masochistic submission.
Is this a review? No. It's a means of spreading the word. Many have heard of Deafheaven's praise by now, and may think I'm riding a bandwagon by publishing this piece, but I'm fucking thrilled to do so. These guys deserve not only your attention, but your recognition for the hard, complex work the guys have put into this release.


Friday, December 20, 2013

Word of Mouth #5: Future Of The Left - How to Stop Your Brain in an Accident



From the album 'How to Stop Your Brain in an Accident', released through the band's own label Prescriptions Music.

Holy shit...

This one dropped this past October, and somehow I only became privy to its existence tonight, after watching TheNeedleDrop's video review on this album. In retrospect, I feel deprived of stimulating aural bliss from works like these. So anyway, after watching the video review, I checked them out, given that he mentioned the band's past works (McLusky was name-dropped) and the music seemed genuinely interesting just from his description of the music within this album. With all of that in mind, and getting hooked just from the opening song (which I linked to up above), I came to really like this shit.

So I'll shut up about all that and tell you that if you haven't heard this album yet, and you think you could appreciate their music (if Anthony Fantano's review of the album is anything to go by at least), then GIVE IT A LISTEN. 

Oh and in closing; spread the word! I'm doing that here, and good god if you love music like this as well then you'd share the love, too.

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Word of Mouth #4: Sandveiss - Scream Queen

 


From the album 'Scream Queen', which is a self-released effort. You can purchase the album through their bandcamp page.

What a stunner! Sandveiss are a hard rock/stoner band, utilizing blues-rock riffs not unlike those of Kyuss & Queens of the Stone Age (those are always welcome). They come as a surprise to everyone (including myself) from straight out of Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.

Revel in those riffs. Thanks, Sandveiss!

(I don't know how the "center" function doesn't work in this instance, but that's the best I can do at this point considering this image isn't widely available and the publisher's functions are wonky, to say the least)

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Happy 20th Birthday DOOM!



Doom turned 20 years old today, and this post is to celebrate that milestone. This series remains one of my favourite, from all the way back to the time of its release. No other FPS game, for me at least, has hit the same notes as Doom still does to this day. It's simple but complex; at times scary but most of the time downright thrilling; has a simple but awesome array of weaponry; you travel through Hell; has a fantastic, very active, and most of all astonishingly creative modding community; and it's what a game needs to be: fun.

Here are a select few pictures to celebrate. And if you don't have this game, then why not? It's cheap, easy to attain, and the array of mods is so large and fantastic that you may just find what you're looking for if you just care to find it.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW2zq4JB2Mfm7HRHT7YYTq-IUC1_b3r1uW9ixoCZfMHdQ3FPVA8y0lAEIOzDvmzoZL9hLjy43LMQrCfJK33u7eSBmSob2w2lZRJWCdgnaRDJn7K6EkJOVNmSEMR2s4s_OlfNJ6N2-ccs8/s1600/risen3d+3d+models+doom+title.png

File:Doom II - Hell on Earth Coverart.png 



File:Coverdoom3-1-.jpg 

Thanks to emortal982.deviantart.com for this one.

Thanks to art.kracov.org for this one.

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Word of Mouth #3: Doomriders - Grand Blood

 


From the album 'Grand Blood', courtesy of Deathwish Inc. (a quality Indie label run by Converge's Jacob Bannon, who plays alongside of Doomriders' own Nate Newton no less).

Did you catch the previous LP known as 'Darkness Come Alive'? Did you enjoy it? Then perhaps you'll have every reason to enjoy this one as well. While this isn't exactly a recent release anymore, given that it's been out for almost two months as of this writing, this band cannot be ignored. That's why this shoutout is for Nate Newton's side-output. 

On the topic of Converge, when their 'Live at the BBC' record drops in "early 2014", I'll shout out to them as well. I have to, given that they're easily one of my favourite musical acts around.

Enjoy, and spread the word!

Doomriders is Nate Newton, Jebb Riley, Chris Pupecki, and Q.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Word of Mouth #2: Samsara Blues Experiment - Waiting For The Flood


From the album 'Waiting For The Flood', courtesy of Electric Magic records.

My second post in this series (however long it may last) is a shout out to a Blues & World inspired act from Berlin, Germany. This is the band's latest, 48-minute outing, released on November 14th of 2013. Given that the Blues is awesome all-around, and I have been looking around for new Blues releases, my stumbling upon the news of this release drove me to spread the word about this group and this release specifically.

Enjoy!

EDIT: Nabbed an image of the cover from a different location, because previous image couldn't be centered as desired.


Thursday, December 5, 2013

Word of Mouth #1: Mutoid Man - "Helium Head"

Mutoid-Man-cover 


Stream the entire album on Soundcloud here: https://soundcloud.com/earsplit/sets/mutoid-man-helium-head

From the album 'Helium Head', courtesy of Magic Bullet Records.

Enjoy, and spread the word! This supergroup consists of the awesome man behind the kit at Converge & All Pigs Must Die, amongst others, and the voice that has carried Cave-In since their inception in the mid-90's.

Mutoid Man is Stephen Brodsky & Ben Koller.

Monday, November 11, 2013

A Pre-Viewing, Pre-Release Reaction to RoboCop (2014)

To drive the points I've made below home, I'll provide two of the main trailers for the film here. The release date of this film is wide in theatres & IMAX and on February 14, 2014:

RoboCop (2014) Trailer 1 (from the "MOVIES Coming Soon" channel):


RoboCop (2014) Trailer 2 (from the "Machinima" channel):



From what is portrayed in the trailers, the film misses the point of the original completely, which was both a multifaceted satire and a decent sci-fi film in its own right. There was a substantive reason for all of the violence and silly occurrences of the original, which was to lampoon the culture which created it in the first place. The themes were strong, such as what it is to be a man, and what it is to be a human being. It also heavily featured run-down sets because it portrayed a stunningly downtrodden near-future Detroit, and took place partially in poor neighborhoods, abandoned factories often taken over by powerful criminals, and the characters themselves were superficially human. It also spoke out against what corporate power can do to a community, by portraying OmniCorp as a rather villainous company willing to level a vast chunk of the city that was under-represented, highly-neglected, and overly exploited because of the desperation of the poor.

Hell, when it comes to the main character, (in the original film) Alex Murphy's brutal slaying in the line of duty managed to invoke a degree of sympathy because of just how over-the-top his death was. Instead of that, we see Alex Murphy getting injured from an explosion...in his driveway. It is a totally safe, unimaginative, totally spontaneous incident that flies in the face of the impact that death of Murphy produced from the 1987 classic. While one can safely assume the remake retains the following aspect, the original showed that Alex Murphy was a good, by-the-books cop willing to perform his duties to the teeth, and he got slaughtered for it in such a horrific fashion that you eagerly awaited justice to be exacted on the villains. Even more significant is that the man he was charged with bringing down had ties to the very same corporation that would revive him as the first RoboCop, which had the possibility of cementing his role not as a law enforcer out to protect the greater good, but to serve the whims of OmniCorp. In the end, he defied that, even being nearly destroyed and incapacitated when trying to stand up to the machinations of the company. He, managing to recover some ounce of humanity, intended in the end to stand by principles rather than by profit (indeed, his police force manages to operate solely because they negotiated a paying contract with OmniCorp, nullifying their ability to stand up to their benefactor's corruption and eventual tyranny), bringing down the corrupt power structure that both created him and sought to destroy him.

In this film (based on the trailers at least), characters appear to be clean and have lost the sad & rundown feel of the original (now, good luck feeling anything for anybody in this film); everyone knows exactly what they're doing it appears, whereas the original showed that they had some troubles getting the RoboCop project fully underway; backdrops look rather sanitized and have seemingly lost the nuanced appeal of the original (run-down and rather sad, as said above); it downplays the themes present in the original; there is no satire to be found (such as the rather ingenious commercials to be seen in the original film and its somewhat inferior sequel); the CGI behooves the new film of the visceral, raw nature of flesh melded with machine that managed to cement the original as a landmark entry amongst special FX titans; and Murphy's death in the remake could not possibly illicit a modicum of sympathy for him, let alone any real reaction given how generic and safe it is. I'm sure there are more problems that nobody will possibly see upon release, but at the same time it very well may have its strengths as well.

It just won't measure up to the 1987 classic, and even the somewhat inferior sequel. As Peter Weller said of the remake, (paraphrasing) it won't be able to do it (in comparison to the original).

With all this said & done, I will see this film come Valentine's Day, 2014. But as damned as I am for saying this, I know for sure that this film will end up a mediocre exercise in tedium, safely-played cinematic scope, and theme-deprived science fiction. Indeed, one of the major themes of the original wherein corporate greed & power is portrayed negatively, appears to have been reversed in a sense here and flat-out downplayed. But most importantly of all, how will the "remembering what it is to be a man, and a human" theme hold up in the remake? Will it eschew grandiose narrative and underlying thematic scope for sheer action and fall victim to executive meddling? We'll all see for ourselves on release day.

On the bright side I guess, it does have Samuel L. Jackson in it, so it's gotta be good, right?

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Opportunistic Racism, Failed Anti-Theism

UPDATE: This is pretty late to the party I feel, and that can be attributed to the fact that I've largely forgotten about this blog. I've been quite distracted from literary pursuits for a while.



First of all, view the subject of this post here: Cult of Dusty: Black Christians = Uncle Toms. Or you can just watch it above (added with edit).

Cult of Dusty is one of those vitriolic opinion channels, or vloggers (he calls himself a comedian when necessary), run by an anti-theist at that, masquerading as an "entertainment" channel. At least, the aforementioned descriptor is the defense Dusty wields when he gets smacked hard for the profoundly idiotic things he will say & do in his videos.

Convenience is the way of the vitriolic, because if he were an honest man, he'd have remembered the Abolitionist Movement, which, for the uninitiated, aimed to abolish the widespread slavery of Africans. They were passionate about their goal to end enslavement of others, and considering that Martin Luther King's legacy has celebrated a half-century milestone this year, Dusty implicitly called Martin Luther King Jr., a man of faith, a fucking Uncle Tom. A race traitor. Consider this, given everything stated previously; the Abolitionists & Martin Luther King Jr. were Christians, very much so, and they stood up against slavery.

Don't forget the very progressive (for his time) founding father by the name of John Adams. He railed against slavery entirely, unlike one or two of the founding fathers every anti-theist likes to name (Washington & Jefferson).

There's a lot of things wrong with his methodology and I'll break down a few that are noticeable:

1) He takes the bible too literally
 For such a devout, outspoken anti-theist, he sure does a poor job of not lending credence to the religions he speaks out against. When you base entire arguments off of what holy books say, that means you're taking such works literally. By doing this, you're placing yourself on the flip-side of the same coin on which you'd find fundamentalist religious people. Inadvertently or not, you're giving power to the passages and ideas found within religious texts by taking them at their word, or in other words, literally. After all, aren't they works of embezzled fiction, according to the logic of anti-theists? If they are bullshit, as many anti-theists would tell you, then why would they use holy books and the writings within as major focal points for their arguments against religion?

Logic. What?

2) He's fucking racist, even though he implies he is not
By stating that Black Christians are Uncle Toms because of their faith (Christianity in this case), utilizing the rather piss-poor argument of quoting (and taking out of context in doing so) a number of passages in Leviticus and whatnot he's being racist. Keep in mind that none of the passages he quotes in his video explicitly describe black people, let alone white people enslaving blacks. He's basically arguing that black people are beholden, by some measure or whatever the fuck it is, to other black people. This is especially jarring considering that there have been anti-slavery figureheads who argued that black people are no different from white people. After all, the most significant difference (and also the most noticeable) between the two is the amount of melanin in the skin.

Dusty conveniently neglects to mention that (in spite of bringing up Samuel Jackson's character in the film Django Unchained, but that really seems to be the best that he can muster) a number of Africans sold out their brethren to slave owners. So much for the mantra, from Martin Luther King Jr., that people should be judged by their character rather than their skin colour. Perhaps he didn't get that memo?

3) He largely ignores the Abolitionist Movement, spearheaded by Christians
He says this, and it's the only passing remark he makes about it at all: "Believe it or not, there were actually a few people back then that said, "Hey! This is a bad idea we should not enslave our fellow human beings." That's it. Talk about being disingenuous! Consider that William Wilberforce, a by-the-books Christian, wrote this in one of his journals as a young man:

"God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation Manners.” 1


Also read the following:

After studying slavery, particularly the “Middle Passage”, Wilberforce jumped into action. “So enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did the Trade’s wickedness appear,” as Wilberforce told Parliament, “that my own mind was completely made up for abolition. Let the consequences be what they would, I from this time determined that I would never rest until I had effected its abolition.” 1

What about Abbey Kelley Foster, a woman with a Quaker heritage, who was a strong proponent in the rise of the abolition movement? She had helped to begin and had served as a key speaker at the  National Women's Rights Convention in Worcester, Massachusetts in 1850 2.  While fervent in her anti-slavery stance, she was not one to censor her opponents, and thus she resigned from the more suppressive tenets of her movement in order to allow both sides to be heard. After she was ostracized from said movement, she went on to help establish the American Anti-Slavery Society. From then on out, "Abbey Kelleyism" became a new type of anti-slavery movement, describing a radical opposing stance on said issue.

Lucretia Mott, also having strong ties to Quakerism, was not only a strong supporter of women's rights (this was long, long before Women's Suffrage was passed in U.S. law, just so you know), would over a period of time deliver sermons about the abolitionist movement, women's rights, and other hot button issues of the time. She had once said of the "duty (that) was impressed upon me at the time I consecrated myself to that Gospel which anoints 'to preach deliverance to the captive, to set at liberty them that are bruised ..." 3. She helped the Free Produce Society boycott goods made by slaves, was an active & serving member of the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, and helped lead slaves to free territory (such as Canada).

These noted few examples of exemplary opponents of slavery in an era rife with slave trading and ownership were Christians, spoke highly of the role of religion in removing this baneful treatment of fellow humans, and put into place a movement that would lead to radical change and even the Civil War.

But if you watch Dusty's video without your critical thinking switch on, you'd be none the wiser. His convenience at ignoring the Christians who actively fought against the slave trade is quite profound. Not to mention, he is either entirely ignorant of, or conveniently brushed aside the culturally significant I Have a Dream speech by Martin Luther King Jr., which contained the passage:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. 4

'Nuff said.

REFERENCES:

1: http://www.wilberforcecentral.org/wfc/Wilberforce/index.htm
2: http://www.wwhp.org/Resources/Biographies/KelleyFoster/1850.html
3: Greene, Dana (April 1981). "Quaker Feminism: The Case of Lucretia Mott". Pennsylvania History 48 (2): 149.
4: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/17/i-have-a-dream-speech-text_n_809993.html

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Upcoming post in regards to Glen James

If you have heard of Mr. James' act of kindness, considering how vulnerable he is in society (he's been homeless since 2005), then you'll know what I'll be writing about. Frankly, it'll be nothing you haven't heard from anywhere or anyone else, but instead I wrote it as I am inspired by what he did. You have to admit that many people, the average person walking and breathing (perhaps you, reader, but that's not for here or now), would probably have taken that money so effortlessly. He didn't, and that's all that needs to be said of the matter.

I'll publish it tomorrow when I get off of work, provided it is published by then given that it is the weekend. Barring its publishing tomorrow, I'll post a link as soon as I can.

Oh and please go here if you want to reward Glen James for what he did: Boston Homeless Man Reward by Ethan Whittington

Monday, September 2, 2013

Upcoming Superbious Post teaser

The title of the upcoming piece that I just submitted to Superbious for addition to its ranks was overlong, so I didn't want to add it to the title of this post. It may be up sometime tomorrow, and when I get back from work and see that it's available (unless the holidays delay its posting) then I'll make a new post to link y'all to it.

The subject of the upcoming post is about the rumored addition of Verizon Wireless to the Canadian phone market, which is sadly burdened with ridiculous prices and unreasonable plans. I acknowledge that in the story so don't go thinking I'm one-dimensional when you read it.

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Thief No More

The more one glances at the work-in-progress of the long-awaited reboot of the stealth classic "Thief", the more one wants to plant their hands in their faces with sheer force.

How do you fuck up such a simple, yet deep experience that prevailed in previous entries? Since when does a character conceived of as being weak in combat manage to pull off two headshots with a compound bow within a few seconds, at point blank range? Why is there a slow-down function that allows players to pull off easy kills on enemies by pointing the cross-hair at conspicuously placed targets? Will the game favor those who play with subtlety and cunning, or will it placate those who want to rush in for a kill just to garner another dose of half-assed "RPG hybrid" experience and skills?

It's not looking good folks.

Here's a breakdown of what is WRONG with this game so far:

  • A voice actor who doesn't lend the character, whom shares my first name (I've always liked this a little, I have to admit), any credence. He was sly and interesting in all the previous entries, but now I don't care. That's a bad move. If you can't hire Stephen Russell, then at least try to replace him with someone of comparable calibre.
  •  The Focus mode. It highlights every context action you can take in your immediate surroundings, and opens up combat (fucking full-on combat, in my Thief?) options for the player in-case they couldn't figure it out on their own without it.
  • A distinct lack of world character; the Pagans (weirdsies & doosies they bees, no longer welcomesees), the Hammerites (doth not loveth Shakespeare speak?), the Keepers, and taffers are criminally absent so far. Will people even find patrolling enemy conversations remotely interesting to listen to in the final product? At this rate, I think not.
  • Combat in general. Weapons, and rather weak ones at that, were definitely present in the old games. But those were to be used as absolute last resorts or when you couldn't figure out how to clear an obtrusive enemy with stealth & subtlety. Now you can perform take downs, kill two guys in quick succession, and actually be able to handle more than one hostile. Don't forget to reward players with headshot XP bonuses!
  • Too much HUD information present. Yes, there was definitely a HUD in the older games, but those HUDS provided just enough information necessary. This game will highlight enemies on alert mode, has a painfully obvious crosshair (hopefully it can be modified in the options menu of the final release), the god damn Focus mode, and XP reports using up one-tenth of your screen.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

I'm Being Silenced! Force Freedom of Speech (on Private Enterprise)!

Read the subject of this post here: http://amazingatheist.tumblr.com/post/58763857547/youtube-is-100-within-its-rights-to-remove-your

I've written about TJ a few times so far and each time I thought I've seen the worst of him, it seems that he tops himself a little later on, so I then feel the need to comment on him again.

The gist of the situation behind the linked Tumblr post is that a number of TJ's YouTube videos were flagged for removal. Now, no one knows the full story yet, perhaps neither does he, but it's safe to say even at this point that he is indeed being censored. The party responsible is unknown, but that's not really important. What is important is how he is reacting to the issue.

It's fine that he's notifying his more active followers to keep themselves posted on his other social media outlets, but in saying the following...

Let’s consider that for a moment. Should your phone company control what you say on the phone? Should your ISP control what you say online? Then why should YouTube get to control what you post on YouTube? 

If YouTube was a small, exclusive site, I think your argument would have merit. But YouTube is large enough now, culturally important enough now, that we must extend First Amendment protections to YouTube videos.
 ...he does himself no favors. To compare companies which provide actual services to that of websites, albeit with very high traffic (YouTube is ranked #3 by the Alexa Ranking System globally & in the U.S.), is fucking ridiculous. Memorandum to TJ: their site is their god damn private property, and they can set the terms of service for using their site(s) any way they damn well please.

Here is what he responded to. Keep in mind that it contains a bit of vitriol directed at him, but compared to what he's received from many other sources, it's pretty tame:

Youtube is 100% within its rights to remove your videos. They are a company. You are allowed to hold whatever (fucking stupid) opinions you wish, but they are IN NO WAY obligated to give you a platform from which to spout said (fucking stupid) opinions. Yes, I am "for real". I know you wish women didn't exist, but sadly for your sorry fat ass, they do.
Too bad for the big guy that the poster of the above (verbatim) paragraph is 100% correct regarding Youtube's rights on controlling content that populates what is their property. When TJ said that "if YouTube was a small, exlusive site, I think your argument would have merit", he threw in a non-sequitur; the size & reach of an entity in a market, except for utilities, does not serve as a barometer on whether said entity should be regulated in any way by the government. Instead, the function of a company is a category upon which to consider regulations of a private organization. Owned by Google (whose service I am using now, obviously), a private corporation, they are explicitly excluded from freedom of speech rights as declared by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The government has no ability to set limits, or even lift them completely, in the private sector.

And it should stay that way.

I assume that you, reader, have gleaned the aforementioned amendment within a valid copy of the document from which it can be found. In that case, I don't need to quote it to support my argument that TJ is either somehow ignorant of said amendment (the old-world English as used in said document may have threw him for a loop), or is outright cherry-picking it in order to advocate for the abolition of the barrier set in place by that same document. Given his nature as a money-hungry, fraudulent, shady motherfucker since, as an actual example, he's still wrapped in a controversy regarding his $17,000+ video embedding site (which went down within two months of launching, and has yet to return to full operating order as of this writing), I feel that he falls into the latter case.

An argument that pushes government mandates on freedom of speech rights within the private realm, be it the home of the Average Joe (provided it isn't owned by government assets and thus, being publicly-owned property), a small business, a web business, or anything along those lines, is an unsound argument. First of all, it violates the Constitution itself. Second, because YouTube (and Google, henceforth) are accessed by users throughout the world and their assets are not exclusively rooted in the United States (in spite of being founded in Menlo Park, California), it would be a burden to legally impose Free Speech laws on YouTube alone because it would have to be applied distinctly according to the rights (or lack thereof) of each country which grants access to the site. Google's monetary assets are extremely high, and they could challenge such wasteful theoretical scenarios with the best legal teams their money could buy.

TheAmazingAtheist, an admitted Social Libertarian (mind you that within the same context, Social Liberal is virtually synonymous with that position), who held starkly Libertarian views on economics, essentially wishes for the government (his government, mind you) to re-write the Constitution so as to mandate freedom of speech laws on the private sector, particularly YouTube/Google. Keep in mind that this is not out of principle, but rather out of necessity, for him. He doesn't care about the experience of others, but that of his own, since the guy is laughably dependent on his earnings through Google AdSense via YouTube partnership. He's also a shameless beggar who comes up with sob stories or snake oil sales schemes to bilk money out of his more naive subscribers. His channel is, due to a large number of his uploaded videos being flagged down, likely going to be on the chopping block and he is understandably in panic mode.

But arguing for the intervention of the Government to protect his right to a platform and to speak freely on what is the property of a private corporation is not only desperately reaching, it's sadly hilarious. I hope he realizes just how idiotic his response was to the user who posted that comment on his Tumblr, because if that were enacted in the U.S., then it would set a bad precedent of yet conceived proportions. I feel bad for the guy because he's a weak-willed individual with seemingly few principles, if any at all, and will say or do anything to avoid having to get a fucking job like most people do. After all, people who work earn their money, but he has to beg for it. He's 28 fucking years old and he asks for handouts in ways no different than teenagers, but the difference between he and teenagers is that he manages to sell himself doing it.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Who's Rilin' Palin? Who's Even Listenin'? (Link)

sarah palin
 Copyright © Superbious.com and Garrett Will 2012-2013 All Rights Reserved.

Another Teaser for Another Article: Who's Rilin' Palin? Who's Even Listenin'?

Like many of you who read my content, I've seen & heard more than my desired fill (read: none at all) of anything of & from Sarah Palin. So, when she recently dropped another stinking load on the Greta Van Susteren-hosted program On The Record over a week ago, I felt the need to write this upcoming article.

When it is ready on the site, I will put out a new post linking y'all to it. 

Saturday, August 3, 2013

It's Alive!

I'm back! Now I can finish where I left off with 'Purge', and continue with 'Fury' as well! Good times are ahead.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Bringing the Dead Back to Life (Update)

I recently purchased the parts necessary to restore my workstation (where my writings are stored) to working order. I will try to get that all done in the week. Once that is complete, my literature will be on the road to completion.

Another dead power supply means I have to wait until payday (this Friday) to nab yet another of those damned things. I've gone through four of those in about 5 years, so that's almost 1 a year. Ridiculously delicate things they seem to be, but you need 'em to compute.

Otherwise I have my desk, chair, and motherboard all ready to go. Just need a pesky current to power them up and you can't do that without a PSU, obviously. Eh, this week will go by fast anyway!

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Absentia review (2011, Horror/Mystery/Thriller, Mike Flanagan, Fallback Plan Productions/Blue Dot Productions)


Seventy-thousand dollars, and we get this hidden gem.

Granted, that is an estimate as far as the web (IMDB's "Box Office" section for the film notes this) is concerned, but if there's a significant grain of truth in that number, then it's quite something. But you may be wondering just why I am harping on this point instead of getting to the point?

The point is that this film is remarkable given its barebones budget. Just think about it: George Romero produced the 1968 horror classic Night of the Living Dead on a $114,000 budget. I don't know what that figure is when you adjust for inflation, but it's quite a bit more than what Mike Flanagan, the director/writer of Absentia, had to work with, and this was done in 2011.

Regardless, the film excels in so many ways in spite of that heavily-restrictive budget. For one, it's a far cry from the typical cheap scares & tricks of the genre today. Instead, the film has a slow, but deliberate pacing to it, building the tension for you to experience throughout the film. When any "in your face" horror does appear, it is appropriate and not forced just to try and get a rise out of the audience.

There's also a bit of drama to experience as well. The premise is that Tricia (Courtney Bell, also involved in the production of the film), eight months pregnant, has nearly finished grieving over the loss of her highschool sweetheart & husband seven years prior. Or so she hopes to believe. When she has to declare him legally dead (in absentia), her guilt comes to haunt her. Her guilt takes on the form of an emaciated, ghoulish-looking image of her husband. As for the reason she's seeing him, it is left up to the viewer's interpretation. As for her situation that may be causing her emotional duress, she's pending delivery of her unborn baby, and creeping unease is haunting her over the course of the film; could she feel guilty for having slept with a man while her husband was still missing? Does she feel that her husband, her teenage-sweetheart, should have been the father? Or could she truly be over the grieving process regarding her loss? That's for you to decide.

In the meantime, her younger sister Callie (Katie Parker) has returned from her status as a drifter searching for answers as to the meaning of life, among other things. Apparently recovering from drug abuse and trying to cope with her own problems through prayer, Callie nonetheless reignites the sister-sister bond with Tricia in their respective times of need. Supportive of her sister when she needs her most, Callie is an important piece of the puzzle in the plot of the film.

However, as time goes on, disappearances occur in their immediate neighborhood, and old cases open up anew, bringing tingling questions with them. To go on further, though, would be to spoil the film unjustly.

First of all, there's no elaborate special effects to be found throughout the film. If you're one of those viewers who needs spectacular visual displays to occur at one point or another, then you're going to be gravely disappointed in this one. Also, as I've mentioned, the film has a deliberate, prodding pace, and it may bore the less attentive of viewers quite a bit. Unlike most horror films ever made, Absentia presents the horror elements through tense buildup, and rather clever release (monsters showing up & other engaging scenes) sparsely.

You're also likely not going to feel like the film has been resolved. What really happened by the end of the film? Did people really disappear without a trace, or did they run away for a life anew? Is there a message, a theme overlying the plot of the film that could explain the rash of people in absentia? What about the thing in the tunnel?

Admirably, the plot is actually rather semi-linear, in that it presents alternate threads throughout the events that unfold. Some may take this as the filmmakers lacking confidence in the storyline they were writing, but I think the filmmakers were rather trying to give the audience the means to come to their own interpretation(s). It's something that is sorely lacking in this overburdened genre that lacks true tension and creativity. Remember when horror was both stunning and surprising? Yeah, it's been a long ass time.

I enjoyed the minimalistic soundtrack as well. There's a low, downbeat dark ambient tune that plays throughout most of the film, and it helps establish the mysterious mood that permeates its duration. A few scenes break what could have been a monotonous soundtrack with light rock songs, cleverly integrated into the activities the characters are actually engaging in (in one scene, Callie is jogging while listening to a track on her MP3 player; a little later, she takes off her headphones and the song dies down). 

Couple the intelligent brand of horror, the open-ended plotline, the down-to-earth characters, and the minimalistic but appropriate soundtrack, Absentia is a showcase of what to do with a horror film, no matter the budget & personnel limitations. Those latter two elements of film-making are not good excuses for churning out recycled crap that generates so much mockery of this genre that possesses enormous opportunities.

B+

The Good:
+ Down-to-earth, obscure actors present believable, at-times sympathetic performances.
+ In spite of the miniscule budget, there seemed to be a very natural, stress-free approach taken to the film. Nothing is overly forced or hammy.
+ A subtle breed of horror that builds tension, then shocks the audience without abusing such things for spectacle sake.
+ Open-ended, semi-linear plotline that is open to interpretation.
+ No overt special effects.

The Bad:
- May leave some viewers unsatisfied with the ending.

Rage Against the Capital Punishment Machine (Link)

Copyright © Superbious.com and Garrett Will 2012-2013 All Rights Reserved. 

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Optimistic Horizons Visible

I've been living in Calgary for a couple weeks now, and lots of progress has been made, especially in the past couple of days.

I will soon be working, selling modestly-priced goods that the consumer has to assemble for themselves.

Also, in order to jumpstart the sad state that Superbious.com has been in (almost coincidentally since my inactivity there since the end of April), I submitted another piece. For that, I won't doll up a teaser since it's kind of pointless to do so.

Adios.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Dumber Ingredients for a Dumber Consumer (Link)

Copyright © Superbious.com and Garrett Will 2012-2013 All Rights Reserved. 

Give it a shot

So this is my last post for now, because I'm leaving this dump I've reluctantly called home for the past eight months. I don't know how long I'll be, but I'm guessing a couple weeks of absence at the most. Until then, adios.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Upcoming Superbious article teaser: "Dumber Ingredients for a Dumber Consumer"

I've submitted a piece that will tackle the issue of over-simplified ingredients lists replacing the functional, thorough ones which include IUPAC systematic names, like "sodium chloride" (which is commonly known as "table salt"), or "potassium sorbate", amongst many others. I'll loosely elaborate below.

There's a mindset where a consumer will avoid purchasing an article of food if they read an ingredients list consisting of any number of ingredients they cannot pronounce, nor that they understand of their purpose & composition. Many of such are ignorant (wilfully or otherwise), indoctrinated by the media or disingenuous nutritionists (often a combination of such, since nutritionists are provided platforms to share information with audiences), or are simply put off by the complexities therein. A basic understanding of chemistry should be in order and would be an appropriate response to this mindset, right? Well, this isn't a perfect world.

It's certainly true that there are ingredients that are questionable in their use, but generally speaking, not all inorganic compounds found in our foods are malign. Plus, one should not be intimidated by them simply because they cannot read, verbally or mentally, their chemical names. As I mention in the article (which should be available tomorrow as of this writing), vitamin B12's IUPAC name is "cyanocobalamin", and for anyone under the ill effects of the above-mentioned mindset, that name, if found on an ingredients list, may be off-putting. A simple solution, especially in this digital age considering that consumers are sometimes armed with tablets or smartphones, would be to do research on the spot. But you can't always expect people to take responsibility. Sometimes, unfortunately (for the sake of the market), people with such mindsets, whether they peddle it or not, may make waves through the media. Such press can be damaging to a food company's PR image, so they act on restoring it any way they can.

Without getting much further, since the upcoming article will be the primary entanglement of this discussion, these food companies are responding by dumbing down ingredients list. If the trend continues, and more troubling, worsens over time, then you won't see such items as "potassium sorbate", but rather just salt. Instead of telling you what is actually in the tomato sauce dotting the frozen pizza you're buying, it'll just say tomato sauce. And that's the problem I tackled, for your (eventual) reading pleasure.

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Martian Gothic: Unification Review (PC/PSOne, 2001, Take-Two Interactive/Coyote Developments)


This is just one of those examples of a game you were disappointed in, but would have loved to see much more come of it.

Developed on a budget disavowing the development team of just about any freedom (in tandem with some objective dissonance within the team itself which led to the hackneyed product we have today), Martian Gothic had the foundations of a rather solid survival horror experience. It had the chills, the atmosphere, the fantastic music, a very desperate gameplay model with limited weapons & ammunition, and unfairly difficult enemies (indeed, the enemies are either invincible or are predominantly just obstacles to be overcome), and quite the distinct storyline underneath it all.

But things just didn't fully turn out the way they should have.

The graphics are a rather mixed-bag, with butt-ass ugly character models that would make the original Resident Evil laugh, almost non-existent lighting effects, and a general lack of polish all compounding the aesthetic disappointment. The saving grace here is in the background sections, or the level design, which, for the most part, aptly portrays the implied chaos that pre-dated the events of the game's plot. However, it would have been monumentally better if the game had an actual lighting system to accentuate the atmospheric prowess we could have beheld. It wouldn't have hurt to darken many of the areas as well, because for the most part, this game is BRIGHT, but not in a good way, due to an issue I've mentioned at least once before.

It would be criminal of me to omit the tidbit that Stephen Marley, the writer and designer of the game, intended for this to be a survival-horror game more akin to Resident Evil than what it turned out to be. While it did end up being a very similar game (albeit a far slower, less consistent one), the overt emphasis on puzzle-solving notwithstanding, it was meant to be even more apt in that comparison. Instead, we got a prodding, "Guide dang' it!" kind of game that threw mostly obscure puzzles with clues that even Sherlock Holmes would scratch his head in solving. The action is not even there, really, because you will realize that enemies can't really be killed. Zombies don't ever die, but instead get knocked down, just to get back up again (the rate of revival increases as the game goes on). The rarest enemy in the game, also an element that had a lot of untapped potential, serves to be a dangerous obstacle to the player. That is, until you get a weapon halfway through and kill them with relative ease. There are ankle-biters in the game, but they have terrible AI, are viable to get glitched severely (you'll see a lot of it in either version where one of them is seen in impossible places, unable to touch you at all), and can be ignored entirely.

A definite strength going for our adventure is the audio. All of it is fantastic and builds one of the strongest atmospheres around, in spite of the elements that bring it down. The music is minimalistic, resembling the rustling of wind, enforcing a "haunted house on Mars" vibe. When it lifts at times, it's ominous and mysterious, taking on a dark orchestral sound. All thanks goes to FirQ (the artist responsible for the music in the game). And then there are the sounds of monsters. Zombies, or "non-dead" as they're called here, emit creepy guttural sounds when they rise from their slumber. If one grabs your character (and that's all they'll do in this game), a loud instrumental sound will play that may make you jump the first few times. My favourite, however, is in the menacing growls of distant TriMorphs, which are tripartite monstrosities consisting of three individuals clumped together into one killing machine. If you're in the immediate area of a TriMorph (often just behind a door near your position, or just the next camera-frame over), you'll hear its animalistic growling.

And then the story comes 'round, and it's kind of obscured by a "let's-cover-all-possible-grounds" methodology. I'll flesh out what I mean here: when you thought this game was a mystery, driven by adventure & mired by infrequent adversity, it later turns out that the game is a Resident Evil-esque survival action romp slowed down by sometimes ill-conceived puzzles. At other times, it may as well be a point & click adventure title, slow & prodding leaving imagination to the player. And then it becomes some kind of avant-garde combination of all of those things. Are you confused yet? Did all of that work out to produce a consistent, solid product? No, not really.

There are also a number of characters introduced that seem unfulfilled or are missed opportunities. One of them, being known as "Ben Gunn" or "John Farr", merely populates a messy canteen, divulging cryptic clues as to the dark history of the base. That's pretty much it. Another, more egregious example of a poorly-conceived character is Judith Harroway. It eventually turns out that one of the team-members is intimately (literally) tied to the character, and a *SPOILER ALERT* conspiracy of rebellion rears its ugly head! It also doesn't help that the characters are not very-well acted, coming off as unconvincing given their situations. They seem almost ecstatic to be there, actually. It ends up diminishing the feel of the game. Some of the story elements, thus, seem to be abrupt cop-outs that come off as jarring rather than anything else.

Guns don't feel right, at all. Plus, they're given monikers that don't amount to anything, slightly diminishing the "oomph" factor. The weakest weapon, called the "Piccolo", is a pea-shooter and will be discarded immediately for something better. Plus, it sounds more like a fart than a gun. You later nab a nail-gun which is barely a step up, but can pin down one of the only other enemies present in the game (which you can ignore entirely anyway, making this gun kind of pointless to use). Later, you get your hands on a magnum-class handgun called the "Dillinger", which I can't complain about much because although it never really kills anything worth a damn, it sure does pack a punch doing its job temporarily dropping zombies. Then there are novelty weapons, like the Daedalus sub-machine-gun, which only serves to stop "non-dead" in their tracks but takes forever to put just one down. Then there are the novelties OF the novelty pack; the Psionara is a weapon that does virtually nothing to anything in the game, except for special, rare enemies that are affected by its psychic, non-ballistic delivery. The next one is the flare-gun  which kills the TriMorphs clean in one hit whilst doing sweet piss all to anything else (in fact, shooting it at zombies in the PC version reveals that they're not fully corporeal anyway!). What this all boils down to is that you'll only really use two, give or take three of those weapons; the Dillinger  the flare-gun  and yeah, the psionara, the latter of which does in-fact serve a pretty useful purpose once or twice. This amounts to another disappointing roster.

Bugs are aplenty, however. On the PSOne (not the original Playstation), you are apt to run into a hard freeze when you enter a decompressing airlock sequence. If you're playing on the PC, and you don't patch the game, you are liable to run into a game ending glitch every time in the following sequence: Matlock must traverse a ventilation duct to a locked room, and outpace a TriMorph in the process. Prior to this sequence, privy players (most wouldn't know of it if they don't refer to a guide beforehand) will place Kenzo, the "infomeshing" expert near a surreal switch/rock/whatever thing (it's hard to explain what it is and why it works at all). At the right moment, a door in the ventilation duct will shut right behind Matlock, trapping the oncoming TriMorph in the process. However, in the un-patched PC version, the door will shut but won't be physical, and thus, the TriMorph will go through it as if it were nothing. Because you need that door to survive this sequence, you'll die every single time. Given that this game is so obscure and it's been over ten years since its release, good luck even finding an available patch to download.

That's assuming you're able to play it at all to begin with.

The game's length also doesn't do it any favours. Not that a lengthy play time is anything to scoff at, but it has to be engaging throughout. Here, however, it's not; it's too confusing, puzzles and their clues/solutions are far too obscure to understand at all, the action is absolutely barebones that it can barely stand without crumbling to the floor, and it is boring for most of the game. It also doesn't help that puzzles seem to take centre-stage over everything else. Enemies are simply obstacles rather than individual challenges. There is often just one way to deal with any challenge, leaving little to the imagination of the player. The story is a mess, going from one note to another with poor transition often being the case. Oh and, I haven't touched upon the HORRID controls yet. Let's just say that, like many survival horror titles of the day, you are burdened with tank controls in this game. However, imagine a tank with leaking motor oil and broken treads, with a top speed of five miles an hour. And this tank takes FOREVER to turn and reach any modicum of speed. And then there's the fact that you have to press enter, once you activate "aimed" mode, to fire. What the fuck? Yeah, I thought that, too.

Characters, while they are free from absurdly retarded dialogue (think "Resident Evil" for the Playstation), don't come off as convincing because they don't exhibit the mood & urgency that you think their situations would rouse from them. Then the game appears to be flat-out rushed because there's little variety to the engaging elements, there's no final boss fight (even though you'll witness a brief sequence hinting otherwise, it means nothing), and the ending is both confusing and anti-climactic. All of that hard work, and what do you get? You get pretty much jack shit.

However, it's the little things that keep it from being an abysmal, less than average game. It has its moments: the foreboding atmosphere (which, if improved as I described earlier, would have been utterly fantastic), the genuine scares you'll get that aren't typical jump-scares, a basis for a chilling enemy, and neat concepts such as the exploration of Mars & the possibility of life beneath its cosmic-ray battered surface. The negatives kind of outweigh the positives, though. It deserves a retry, though.

---

Two and a half TriMorphs out of Five

The Rundown:


Positives


+ A chilling, interesting storyline, albeit requiring a bit more fleshing out
+ The backgrounds you traverse through are fitting, portraying a tale of chaos & terror
+ The audio is superb, only hampered by audio glitches (sounds sometimes cut out) and generally low quality bitrate.
+ Decent characters that don't succumb to complete idiocy, typical to the genre

Negatives


- It's ugly, seriously. Character models would fit right in with a Playstation launch title. No lighting effects other than specially designed "lights." Disappointing enemy designs.
- Tank-like controls that tank-like controls laugh and/or scoff at.
- The bugs are aplenty
- Rushed, especially evident toward the end
- Sadistic puzzles that are often nigh-impossible to decipher or require nothing but trial-and-error
- Limited save system, which can be punishing to less inquisitive players.
- Barebones enemy roster that is disappointing, feels unexplored
- There's a dissonance of mood between the characters and the game's storyline/atmosphere as a whole. Everyone is either understated or nonchalant about being in a Martian base haunted by ancient ghosts, invincible zombies gnawing on their necks, huge masses of former humans shambling on them in places, mind-numbing psychic phenomena, and a lonely, oppressive atmosphere. What is wrong with these people and why were they told to be so detached emotionally & mentally?
- Boring overall. It never really goes to great lengths to engage the player, and just when you think it's going somewhere, it settles right back where it's been for almost the entire time.
- Hasty, rushed, lame ending.



Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Next instalment of BILL "SORE LOSER" O'REILLY is coming soon

Over at Superbious, I have to-date dropped four individual articles on Papa Bear, our favourite senile "no-spin" blowhard at Fox News. Each one covers a different instance where O'Reilly displays his insanity, usually as a sore loser reacting to criticism or to the ever-changing tides of time.

The fifth one will tackle his apparent jumping the shark on the support/non-support of gay marriage, and playing the victim card (unnecessarily I must add) when being called out on it by his more passionate colleagues in the media or simply quoted verbatim by those who otherwise don't share his viewpoints. He called Dana Milbank at The Washington Post a 'liar' for simply pointing out what O'Reilly said. If that's not insanity then I'm Norman Bates.

Stay tuned, I'll likely put up a placeholder & link here for when the post gets published or is in the process of getting published.

EA Wins "The Consumerist: Worst Company in America" TWICE IN A ROW


I know Electronic Arts is a shitty game distributor/publisher which regularly practices shady shit like micro-transactions where they need not be, persistent-online DRM (always have to be connected to EA's servers in order to even play, and in the case of the latest SimCity, your files are not stored clientside so get ready ot lose your shit often!), and locking out content you otherwise have on game discs in order to bilk even more money out of customers. In spite of these things, and indeed there's more bullshit to EA than listed above, they are a GAME COMPANY.

You are not forced to buy games for any reason whatsoever, and they are a hobby. If you participate in what's called Major League Gaming, then you consider it an e-sport. Otherwise, you do not need them to live. You don't prolong your lifespan by "consuming" them. You hardly even grow as a person by playing them. You just stimulate your mind with bright colours, loud noises, and (mostly) minor quibbles of plotlines here and there.

Yet at The Consumerist, who runs polls every year for its readers to vote for the worst company in America, EA won this distinction two years in a row. Readers allotted 78% of the votes to Electronic Arts, with Bank of America coming in a distant second and with Comcast light-years further. It is the FIRST company ever to achieve this at The Consumerist. Keep in mind, that Bank of America lost with nearly half the votes last year. This year, Bank of America lost again with even less votes.

So here's the summary: Monsanto and that lot continue to erode nearly every market connected to the agriculture industry (which covers just about all of it), oil & natural gas companies are spearing ahead with pipelines that will inevitably fuck up, banks continue to abuse peoples' finances and take their properties away, pharmaceutical outfits trudge onward with their status as legal drug cartels, and telecommunications companies like Comcast and AT&T assault freedom of information & customer satisfaction every day.

EA, however, releases shitty or unfinished games (SimCity should rile you up), forces their customers to deal with persistent-online DRM, forcing customers use their knock-off of Steam (Origin) to even play with their products in the first place, they bilk customers out of more money by hiding content you already possess, PERMANENTLY ban paying customers "by accident", and they adore the machine-gun vomit of superfluous and pointless DLC. All of that might seem bad if you didn't read anything before them, but they affect VIDEO GAMES. I like games myself, and consider myself a mid-core gamer (I'm not casual, but I'm not hardcore either), but I have priorities.

The Consumerist, please help your readers whose priorities are so skewed and non-grounded in reality to realize just what is important in life. If you don't like EA, STOP BUYING THEIR GAMES! Simple resolution for a small-time issue. Just more proof that a handful of gamers are, dare I say it, clueless idiots irredeemably lost in fantasy land. Man-children, perhaps?

Saturday, March 30, 2013

If you want B.S...

Then check out Superbious, if you haven't already. I'm a regular (the most active, to date) contributor to the site. My most recent addition to the family, as of this writing, is right here

If you want to add some B.S. of your own, or otherwise divulge your opinionated ramblings to the rank & file interests of Superbious, then may I encourage you to shuffle over to the "Want To Join Us?" page?

Monday, March 18, 2013

Makeover: Done

The new look is here. I may refit the background image, but otherwise it's exactly what I want. Hope it is pleasing to everyone's eye like it is mine.

UPDATE: I've purged the right sidebar and kept the left, so that the portions fit better in your browser. Should look a lot cleaner, right?

UPDATE 2: The background tiles horizontally. Only those who zoom the page 90% and under will notice the effect, and besides, why would you want to zoom out that far? Also, font colours and faces have been changed to a consistent theme.

Saturday, March 16, 2013

If it broke, fix it!

I don't really like having this place known as Corpus Intorqueo anymore. It just doesn't fit with what I want this place to be and thus, I'm aching to manipulate this blog to reflect my desires. So, I've decided to renovate this place.

The changes are forthcoming, perhaps within a few days. Lots of things, I think, will be cleaned up. I may have to go with a placeholder layout at first until I can generate a competent, rather clean one on my own. I don't want things stretching out all over the place like they are now. Expect a black (mostly) background, a new banner, and if it's possible, a new URL as well.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Inception Review

Foreword: This review is admittedly long overdue, since the film came out nearly three years ago to the day (in a few months, anyway). However, I just felt the need to write it after seeing continued praise permeating the corners of the internet.

By the way, spoilers are present. This review is only meant for those who have viewed the film themselves.




Dreams are fantastical, surreal canvasses for nigh-incomprehensible yet appreciable wonder. Thus, there's much ambition and potential in any media, especially films, to rest their premises on dreams. It's also a daunting task that is difficult to capture. One could posit that it is a requirement of dream-based films to have surreal qualities to them. While dreams may, but certainly not always, have an overlying "plot" of sorts to them, the presentation should not be overtly mechanical, planned, detailed. With all of this in mind, basing a film's premise around dreams is understandably intimidating.

Inception, the Nolan brothers' so-called (post-Memento & The Dark Knight) magnum opus, doesn't quite manage to capture the wonderment of dreams. The film doesn't suffer too much from not achieving their surreal quality, but it's the near complete lack of humanity of any of its characters that is unbecoming.

Oh, but the rabid, froth-at-the-mouth fanboys of this film are probably already foaming at the corners of their lips over my criticizing this film! So let me back up my assertions, you impassioned, self-annointed Knight Templars of the Christopher Nolan order. I'm sure you jest, but I'm going to try and convince you on why this film does not deserve its overwhelming praise.

First of all, it's the dreadful, obnoxious, ad-nauseum delivery of expository dialogue that serves to, perhaps non-deliberately on Nolan's part, insult the viewer. I'm not sure about you, reader, but I don't want a film to explain to me the concepts of the film's premise over, and over, and over again whilst not allowing me to care about the characters involved. I'm sorry, but if characters can't display humanity by talking like flesh & blood people actually do then I can't fathom a hint of empathy (let alone sympathy) for them. And when they speak dialogue that doesn't allow for character development at all, there's no intensity to be had. Exposition in itself is not detrimental to a film, for sure, but too much of it makes the film a chore to watch. 

Why was it so difficult to write some actual dialogue for Inception

As a slight merit for the film, it is redeemed a bit by the rare, rather prized incidence of humanity in the form of real dialogue and character growth. One (of few) examples comes from a revelation into what happened to Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio)'s late wife Mal; in a flashback to the incident that claimed her life (and sets up why he's carrying out the "heist" in the first place), he pleads to a delirious, fatally dubious wife to come to grips with reality. Since one of the over-explained concepts involves people being trapped within dreams (which are scrutinized by the function of a personally-chosen totem, serving to help them snap back to reality if they function correctly), she didn't have the saving grace of a proving factor to prevent her death. She sought to kill herself in a dream (as she felt she was) in order to wake up. The problem is, she was already awake. That's great and all, but there's one problem with it: it's far too brief and thus doesn't save the film from mediocrity.

Whereas the rest of the film is a convoluted excuse to throw in slightly surreal encounters with "projections", which are really armed goons described as being similar to white blood-cells reacting to pathogens, only in the subconscious instead. The Matrix had a more fleshed-out excuse to justify non-stop shooting of passerby and armed combatants, whereas this film indulges in half-assed neuroscience mumbo-jumbo to do essentially the same thing. Whereas The Matrix upped the ante with Herculean feats of physics-defying leaping & dodging, this film plays safe with your suspension of disbelief. Inception actually suffers because of this since it lowers the film into a simple action flick, which it actually is. Oh and, how does all of this resemble dreams so far?

Instead of what we got here, we could have had a stunning, actually human look into the emotionally conflicted characters at stake (well, at least that of Cobb, who is the only character we should care about and who is granted any semblance of character at all). The struggles could have been exacerbated on with quite a bit of emotional appeal while mesmerizing the audience with their personally distinct, equally invigorating dreams. However, that would not make for a good thriller film, as Deirdre Barrett of Harvard University attested when discussing the merits of the film's principle theme. Oh but the film would be far more interesting had it gone the actually creative route instead. Would have been riskier, sure, but would have made for a vastly superior payoff if done right.

Ellen Paige is a somewhat fledgling but truly capable actress, who, so far at least, has not succumbed to the condescending machinations that Hollywood typically burdens female celebrities with. In spite of her latent talents, no progress was made with this film. Instead, Adriadne (Paige) serves as the foil (for the audience) to the expository vessels in virtually all characters surrounding her. Such as when she asks if they're in reality or in a dream, or when she tries to make sense of the plans carried out by the likes of Arthur (Joseph Gordonn-Levitt) or Cobb. She is the character meant to reassure the reasonably confused audience that "this ain't so confusin'!" Oh and, since I mentioned him just previously, Arthur is the most manipulative and mechanical character of the merry band that we, the audience should care about. Like Adriadne, he doesn't do his actor any justice, either. Just what is at stake for him? Sure, he's a member of Cobb's team, but surely you could provide him ample back-story as well since he's regarded as a main character. His struggles mean next to nothing if he doesn't have any humanity to begin with. He's stoic when he should be concerned, and no tension can be felt in his action scenes.

What about the aspects of the film that actually resemble the alien nature of dreamscapes? Well, sure, there are some neat special effects involved, such as the folding street effect during the demonstration of Adriadne's ability as an architect (one who constructs the dreamscapes to implant into the mind of a mark, the target of an inception operation). The slow-motion freeze-frame antics of the following effects are kind of cool, too, but they are not exactly redeeming qualities. The more intriguing effects are not computer-generated at all, such as the iconic zero-gravity hallway scenes which feature Arthur battling a couple of, err, projections. And then there's a set of Penrose stairs featured in another scene involving Adriadne and Arthur going over final details prior to the heist. A ruined, claustrophobic city-scape of Cobb's imagination makes an appearance and it certainly is a meritorious set, but it's too little too late. And then the dry, calculated, machine-like feel of the scenery kicks in.

The thing that marvelled me most is just how mechanical, how planned, how rule-bound Nolan's vision here turned out to be. It bothered me after my cinema viewing right after its release and it bothers me even more now. I sometimes remember my own dreams just enough to recognize margins of their overall narratives, but this film didn't do much justice at all. It felt like false-advertising on the part of the film, because had they been honest about its presentation (like describing it as an action thriller along the likes of The Matrix), then it wouldn't have been so insulting to me. All of the dream within a dream (rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat) jargon are of only moderate consequence at best and are simply excuses for what amounts to a tale of corporate espionage, with tension-free gunfights and fisticuffs (because of the hollow shells that are the characters) thrown in for good measure.

And then there's the squandering of the talents cast into this epic (I find it difficult to call it such, but it technically is one), namely in particulars as Leonardo DiCaprio, Michael Caine (who serves the role of his father-in-law, also his mentor), Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Nobody except for Cobb and Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) are granted a hint of humanity, and again, it all happens too late and they are few & far between (indeed, Fischer isn't as important as he was intended to be, yet in two very brief scenes we are provided some backstory for him). I've already mentioned Ellen Paige's talents having been wasted through her character, but I'd just be repeating myself to bring it up again.

The so-called “projections” are just an excuse for this film to be yet another action romp. Unfortunately for the film, the action pretty much falls flat because the film doesn't allow us to care about the consequences. At face value as well, these projections are no different from generic mooks you find in virtually every other action film anyway. If they’re projections of the sub-conscious, then why can’t they perform strange feats to get at their adversaries? They die just like everybody else you ever see on film, so the whole thing about them being akin to white blood cells of the mind is fluff that never amounts to more than that. Ah, excuses are in full supply when trying to justify what should have been an otherwise insightful film that turned out to be a shooting gallery on film, with dreams and all that thrown in for good measure! Oh and because the film is set in dreams, our heroes can simply will any weapon of choice into their possession with which to blast away these otherwise generic grunts! No, this ain't no stinkin' rip-off of The Matrix at play, folks.

I hope your sarcasm detector was, or is turned on, because I may have had you there.

I'm just wondering whether the fanboys will come with their threats, seeing as I've committed what amounts to blasphemy for criticizing the work of their god, Christopher Nolan. If the film weren't so mechanical, dry, hollow, and unimaginative, I’d have given it ample praise. However, since the film barely allows us to give a hoot about anyone, the “dreams” are so literal and so far from being surreal that they’re not particularly fascinating, and the so-called “intellectual” prowess of the film really is just an insult to the viewers in the form of non-stop expository dialogue, I just can’t give it that good a score. This film was written with too much pragmatism at work, with little of anything else, and it shows in spades.

There’s a reason I left the theatre perplexed as to just what was so special about the film. It seems to be an intriguing puzzle of sorts upon the first one or two viewings, but after that you’re bound to piece together an over-ambitious, inhuman, sterile piece of overrated mediocrity. Why not put a real visionary like David Lynch up to task! Hell, put Adrian Lynne up to it if Lynch isn't available. They'd have conceived of a masterpiece in comparison to this tripe.

In closing: It isn't terrible, but it isn't particularly good either.

 C
The Good:
+ An all-star ensemble cast
+ Good special effects, especially when Cobb is demonstrating the powers of Adriadne's role as an "Architect"
+ Some actual, and rather decent character development towards the end
The Bad:
- Way, way, way too much exposition. It's so bad it encompasses perhaps 90% or more of the dialogue. Bad move, Nolan! That doesn't do anything for the audience except to confuse and annoy.
- Are these supposed to be dreams? Or are they just set pieces periodically accentuated by "oddities" like water flowing from out of nowhere, trains rumbling down streets, and sudden (but slight) changes to the scenery? Where's the imagination?
- The approach to the subject matter is far too literal. This isn't art that rocks your senses, it's just an excuse to make a "brainier" action film.
- Character development is severely lacking.
- A couple of plotholes are present, for example the beginning sequence where Saito (or whatever his name is, played by Ken Wattanabe) somehow brandishes a gun to threaten our main gang when you'd think they'd be careful and thorough before performing "inception" on him.
- It's all fluff, especially the "dream within a dream within a dream" nonsense. This is technical garbage, not surreal wizardry.
- The ending isn't quite as ambiguous as you would think. Subtle hints point to it taking place in reality after all because of 1) Cobb's father-in-law being present, 2) His seeing their faces again after not being able to for a year, and 3) Cobb doesn't stick around his totem for long after spinning it to test his state of mind, he just loses interest. Oh, so ambiguous, so stunning an ending!