While this is a little late, I was personally busy with the holiday and family, so you get a post-update of the holidays, but something that I think is important enough to share with others. As this is the season for holidays, a lot of people have truly forgotten what it means to just enjoy friends, family, and be thankful for what you have.
I am thankful for my family. That I have a roof over my head. A wife that loves me. A God who cares. And I am thankful for every day that I am allowed to breath. To smile. To laugh. To enjoy humor. I am thankful for the soldiers who fight for my freedom. I am thankful to be American. (As random of a blessing as this is, lol.) I am thankful to have a place to relax and write with great friends. [Shameless Valucre-self Promotion]
Give thanks!
Enjoy life!
Be blessed!
Happy Holidays!
From the Valucre Staff! <3
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
DoA: A Review
Release year: 2006.
Original title: DOA: Dead or Alive.
Rating: Rated PG-13 for pervasive martial arts, action violence and (plenty of) sexuality.
Tagline: You're invited.
Genre: Action, adventure.
I've noticed that a lot of kung-fu (a term I use for general martial arts even though I know it isn't the most accurate) movies were coming out in 2006. When I first saw the trailer, given my fan-boy attraction to the game, I wanted to check it out but forgot about the movie completely until just a few days ago.
Synopsis
The movie focuses around three chicks, primarily. Kasumi, who is some kind of ninja princess; Tina, who is a pro-wrestling super-star and the daughter of much the same; and Christie, who is some kind of assassin and master thief. There are other characters, male and female alike, but the focus for the movie until the competition starts is around these girls and, later, around one more girl, named Helena and who is the daughter of the man that started the DoA tournament, who joins their posse.
The fighters are pooled into a plane, which they have to jump out of mid-flight and make their way to a temple before sunset or risk being disqualified. I thought this was kind of silly after going out of your way to assess fighters and charter a private jet, but since I'm not a playboy billionaire I won't ever know the mindset behind this.
At the end of the tournament, or heroes and heroines have to band together against a single enemy.
This film is fan-service galore. They get as close as they can to nudity without actually going the full Monte, simultaneously leaving much and leaving little to the imagination.
Pros: The fan service. All of the womenfolk are easy on the eyes and are constantly put into scenarios that let them show off all of the hard work they put into the gym in the off-season. The moves were made more explosive than you get in an honest-to-goodness fight and even in the usual brand of pumped up kung fu, something you'll notice it when they get a hard hit off you hear a booming sound and the screen shakes. To some? Gaudy. To me? Made things seem a bit more fun, even if less serious.
Cons: Some of the wire-work was pretty obvious and ruined the mood. A particular bad scene is one near the end where Helena gets into a sword fight. It was "eh" at its finest. Sloppy, inconsistent, and just not that good.
Best Moment: Tina's fight against Jack? I don't remember his name, but it was the only black guy in the whole film. The fight was one of the longer ones, one of the better balanced, and it had some pretty sweet moves.
Rating: 6.7 / 10.
In closing I just want to say that though this doesn't really compare to some of the other hard-hitting kung fu films (Iron Monkey and Ip Man are classic examples of this for me), it is a more 'fun' film. The motions are more dynamic and fitting to a game environment, and you don't have to be an aficionado to enjoy the film.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Fatal Contact: A Review
Release year: 2006.
Original title: Hak kuen.
Rating: R for violence, language, and suggestive situation.
Tagline: Only one can be champion.
Genre: Action.
Synopsis
I've always been a big fan of kung-fu films, both the old and the new, and Final Contact was on a list of kung-films recommended to me. I got it a few weeks ago and only got around to watching it tonight. My expectations for the movie weren't quite blockbuster, but were reasonably high given the source that recommended it is a good friend with usually good movie tastes.
Though not exactly what I hoped for, I was not let down by the movie.
Kong, the male star of a traveling troupe of martial arts exhibitionists (Jackie Chan should come to mind), is approached by the leaders of an underground fighting ring because his exhibition has managed to impress them. 20k win or lose they tell him, but the guy is a bit reluctant to participate. Enter Tin, who convinces Kong to enter the fighting ring and Captain, a beggarly chap who works as a guard for the men who run the fighting circuit and who is also, secretly, a master of martial arts. He passes off feats of dexterity and strength as magic tricks for cigarettes from his friend, which I thought was amusing.
What follows next is as predictable as it is entertaining. Kong rises up the ranks, fighting progressively more difficult opponents, has his limits tested constantly, and is dragged into a world of shady businessmen and the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
Pros: Captain provides some serious comedy relief, and not in the corny way that Krillin does to Goku, as Captain is actually incredibly skilled in the martial arts. Kong's characterization is also a VERY big pro, because we see the man go from innocent performer to hardened martial artist; from the moral high ground to seedy underbelly. There were some original moves put into play and, in the second to last battle, an amazing amount of really dynamic grappling moves.
Cons: The movie is in a foreign language and so comes with sub-titles. The copy that I got, the sub-titles were actually pretty bad. I mean it gave me enough that I could get a handle on the story and what was going on, but I was left with the feeling of missing a lot of nuance, especially when it came to the jokes. Also some of the moves had me feeling like "Seems very Tony Jaa-ish". A few of the wire stunts were obvious, but not all of them.
Best Moment: The ending. Not at all what I expected it to be. Most action movies have an action packed ending and it fades to black shortly thereafter, leaving only a few minutes of exposition to wrap up loose ends. Fatal Contact takes a different route, and tops the movie off poignantly, taking care of all loose ends and reminding us that the characters aren't just fist-machines.
Rating: 6.9 / 10.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Ong Bak 2 -- The Beginning
Movie: Ong Bak 2 : The Beginning
Release date: 2010
Rating: Most likely R, seeing as throats are torn out?
Synopsis
I went into this with low expectations because most foreign flicks tend to be a let-down when it comes to the action sequences and over-all storyline. I've seen The Protector and Ong Bak (which are both Tony Jaa movies; lead role) and after watching the Protector, I really was disappointed in the footage and storyline, which I thought to be really pathetic, however the first Ong Bak is what reeled me into Jaa's Muay Thai background and fighting styles. (If I could fight with any style, Muay Thai would be it. It's beautiful and powerful.)
Basically, the boy's of royal family and they're slain. He's picked up as a slave, and then fights to free himself (a crazy fight-to-the-death with a crocodile) and then find himself being trained by the people who over-threw the Slave Market. Now it's up to him to train up, to go back and defeat the man who killed his family.
Pros: The fight sequences are simply stunning. You'll catch yourself covering your mouth, hiding the squinting, "OHHHHH!!" as he does some extraordinary moves and techniques to really drive the film home. The styles are sweet and the weapon combat is just absolutely sic. The acting is, sad-to-say, better than a lot of American flicks because it's actually believable in most parts and not some cliche bullshit.
The story is also actually, really interesting.
Cons: It's in subtitles, which isn't terrible, but it's distracting sometimes to try and read while watch what's happening. Other than that, I really can't give a suitable con. I really was surprised by this film.
Best Moments: Drunken Martial Arts. Freakin' ... amazing.
Rating: 8.5 / 10
I'd say it's definitely worth seeing if you enjoy your 'Kung Fu' like I do. Lol.
Release date: 2010
Rating: Most likely R, seeing as throats are torn out?
Synopsis
I went into this with low expectations because most foreign flicks tend to be a let-down when it comes to the action sequences and over-all storyline. I've seen The Protector and Ong Bak (which are both Tony Jaa movies; lead role) and after watching the Protector, I really was disappointed in the footage and storyline, which I thought to be really pathetic, however the first Ong Bak is what reeled me into Jaa's Muay Thai background and fighting styles. (If I could fight with any style, Muay Thai would be it. It's beautiful and powerful.)
Basically, the boy's of royal family and they're slain. He's picked up as a slave, and then fights to free himself (a crazy fight-to-the-death with a crocodile) and then find himself being trained by the people who over-threw the Slave Market. Now it's up to him to train up, to go back and defeat the man who killed his family.
Pros: The fight sequences are simply stunning. You'll catch yourself covering your mouth, hiding the squinting, "OHHHHH!!" as he does some extraordinary moves and techniques to really drive the film home. The styles are sweet and the weapon combat is just absolutely sic. The acting is, sad-to-say, better than a lot of American flicks because it's actually believable in most parts and not some cliche bullshit.
The story is also actually, really interesting.
Cons: It's in subtitles, which isn't terrible, but it's distracting sometimes to try and read while watch what's happening. Other than that, I really can't give a suitable con. I really was surprised by this film.
Best Moments: Drunken Martial Arts. Freakin' ... amazing.
Rating: 8.5 / 10
I'd say it's definitely worth seeing if you enjoy your 'Kung Fu' like I do. Lol.
By Zenith
Sunday, November 7, 2010
A Letter to 3D Swindlers
Dear 3D Swindlers,
Make no mistake. I love 3d. The first time I ever saw anything in 3d was when I was 7 years old. The image had an area of 10 feet. 17 years later I walked into a theater to see Beowulf, and I sat amazed as 3d spears threatened to stab out my bespectacled eyes. The exorbitant price to see such a foul movie was worth it, just for the 3d.
Or it would have been if I hadn't been cursed with something called nearsightedness.
This alien term means I cannot see clearly images that are far away. It means I wear glasses. My fellow farsighted friends are the same. Now imagine how we feel when we see a movie that is offered only in 3d in our local theaters, and we are forced to wear these 3d shades, which by no means can fit over our eyeglasses. We are forced to tilt our heads at an odd angle to keep them in place, adjusting them with our hands every few minutes lest they slip and fall off. This is all because you Swindlers didn't bother to put a lip or a ledge on the 3d frames so they might hook onto our eyeglasses.
Now I've heard several counter-complaints to this, and never have I heard such close-minded views. The first? Contacts. Why not wear contacts? Well, my good Swindlers, think of it this way. Would you wear itchy socks if more comfortable ones were available? Exactly not. Some of us actually like our glasses, or feel uncomfortable shoving things around our eyeballs. Our eyes are sensitive things, if you hadn't noticed.
The other is fashion.
Ha, ha. We glasses-wearing folk would look foolish wearing 3d glasses to hook over our eyeglasses. Well I'll tell you what. We still look stupid wearing glasses not made this way. And here's the thing - do you look around trying to pick out who looks like an idiot in a theater, or are you focused on the movie? Quite. You got it.
Now here's another thing. There are a few unfortunate folk out there who have something called lazy eye. It means when we focus on a picture, we see only with one eye. We literally cannot see out the other. We lose our depth perception. We see exactly what you see when you close one eye when looking through a telescope or aiming with a gun. And our loss of depth perception prevents us from seeing the glory of your fancy 3d movies. And we are still expected to pay the insane prices and wear your ill-fitting glasses to see a movie that probably isn't even that good to begin with.
Not everyone is born with perfect eyesight. We are willing to put up with a lot if you'd only make some goddamn shades to hook on our glasses so our necks don't stiffen during a showing of Saw 3d, which uses 3d for about 3 instances. We don't care if we look like idiots in the darkness of a theater or the privacy of our own homes, which you are planning to invade with your 3d technology. Quit fussing over how well your new 3d shades curve or how many diamonds to put on the frames, and make us something we four-eyed people can wear.
Thank you. Swindlers.
Make no mistake. I love 3d. The first time I ever saw anything in 3d was when I was 7 years old. The image had an area of 10 feet. 17 years later I walked into a theater to see Beowulf, and I sat amazed as 3d spears threatened to stab out my bespectacled eyes. The exorbitant price to see such a foul movie was worth it, just for the 3d.
Or it would have been if I hadn't been cursed with something called nearsightedness.
This alien term means I cannot see clearly images that are far away. It means I wear glasses. My fellow farsighted friends are the same. Now imagine how we feel when we see a movie that is offered only in 3d in our local theaters, and we are forced to wear these 3d shades, which by no means can fit over our eyeglasses. We are forced to tilt our heads at an odd angle to keep them in place, adjusting them with our hands every few minutes lest they slip and fall off. This is all because you Swindlers didn't bother to put a lip or a ledge on the 3d frames so they might hook onto our eyeglasses.
Now I've heard several counter-complaints to this, and never have I heard such close-minded views. The first? Contacts. Why not wear contacts? Well, my good Swindlers, think of it this way. Would you wear itchy socks if more comfortable ones were available? Exactly not. Some of us actually like our glasses, or feel uncomfortable shoving things around our eyeballs. Our eyes are sensitive things, if you hadn't noticed.
The other is fashion.
Ha, ha. We glasses-wearing folk would look foolish wearing 3d glasses to hook over our eyeglasses. Well I'll tell you what. We still look stupid wearing glasses not made this way. And here's the thing - do you look around trying to pick out who looks like an idiot in a theater, or are you focused on the movie? Quite. You got it.
Now here's another thing. There are a few unfortunate folk out there who have something called lazy eye. It means when we focus on a picture, we see only with one eye. We literally cannot see out the other. We lose our depth perception. We see exactly what you see when you close one eye when looking through a telescope or aiming with a gun. And our loss of depth perception prevents us from seeing the glory of your fancy 3d movies. And we are still expected to pay the insane prices and wear your ill-fitting glasses to see a movie that probably isn't even that good to begin with.
Not everyone is born with perfect eyesight. We are willing to put up with a lot if you'd only make some goddamn shades to hook on our glasses so our necks don't stiffen during a showing of Saw 3d, which uses 3d for about 3 instances. We don't care if we look like idiots in the darkness of a theater or the privacy of our own homes, which you are planning to invade with your 3d technology. Quit fussing over how well your new 3d shades curve or how many diamonds to put on the frames, and make us something we four-eyed people can wear.
Thank you. Swindlers.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Earthquake Activity [old]
I'm sure that with Haiti, Chile, and other countries - as well as the U.S itself - appearing in the news quite frequently for Earthquakes, you may find yourself asking "Where are all of these coming from?"
And for you skeptics, it's not just the media throwing catastrophe in our faces. There are a tremendous amount of Earthquakes happening, more so than in recent history.
So what is an Earthquake? Why are they happening more frequently now? In it's most simple definition, an Earthquake is the result of a release of energy caused by friction and pressure in the Earth's crust. This release of energy rattles the ground; a large-scale version of pushing (or grinding/pulling) two pieces of paper together.
So what's up with there being more earthquakes? We're likely just experiencing a part of a cycle where the Earth's tectonic plates are shifting more as a whole. Alternative views include a super volcano being due to erupt, or it could even be apart of the world starting to end due to 2012 (If you jump on those theories).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
