Guitar Hero

This game may be the best rhythm game of this generation. Where DDR first broke ground, Guitar Hero nearly perfects the art of hitting buttons in rhythm for points. The twist is the buttons are on a custom guitar-shaped controller and the rhythm is to about 60 quality rock and roll tunes from the past 30 some years.

There are few games as instantly satisfying as this one. After getting the basics down you'll be ripping insanely fast solos, filling bridges, and hitting chords to pump up the crowd there to see you.

The gameplay and sound are unparalleled. As for the graphics there surprisingly good for a rhythm game. Behind your scrolling fret bar you can see your rocking avatar jamming on stage. The camera moves around the arena, just like at real concerts, to show the crowd, long shots of the stage, even a drummer in the back occasionally.

If you want to nitpick you could say the title lacks from more AAA titles. Noticeably absent are bands like AC/DC, Guns-n-Roses, Metallica, and Van Halen. Something to look forward to in Guitar Hero 2, if this game is successful. And because this game doesn't have the original lead singers for the bands they do have there are noticeable differences in some of the more distinct voices, like Freddy Mercury or Dave Mustane. But these are miniscule complaints in the shadow of a nearly flawless game.

Video games offer experiences that we cannot normally have in real life. Those experiences range from riding dragons, to doing mob hits, to stacking blocks in straight lines. Now add to that feeling like a total musical god while rocking harder during gameplay than you ever have before.

Grade = A

Harry Potter and the Movie Franchise That Exists Solely to Make Money

This is hard. I love the books. I like seeing the movies because they remind me of the books. But in trying to remove myself from my Harry Potter loving biases I can't help but feel, for the third time, a little disappointed in what Hollywood has offered me.

The Harry Potter movies aren't great works of cinema. The Harry Potter film franchise exists solely as an ancilary market to the book franchise to make money. You'd be lying to yourself if you thought that these movies would be made if the books weren't a smashing success. Hollywood knows that an intelectual property like this will turn a profit without so much as a hint of effort on their part. They could release a vacation slideshow of one of their interns and slap a Harry Potter label on it people would still see it. But greed isn't the reason the movies are bad. Actually they're not bad at all. They're slightly above average and actually excel in a number of ways, but I'm getting off topic.

Fact of the matter is the scope of the stories told in the books far outweighs what a feature length film can hope to convey. And it's the filmmakers' fault for trying to fit as much from the book in a film as possible. It detracts from the thing that make narrative film work; the characters. Not fantastic special effects or plot twists that are placed conveniently in the telling of the story so that it makes sense in the end.

The third film, by Alfonso Cuarón, probably left more out of the book than any other, but it was also the best one so far because it was able to focus the story it was trying to tell. Like the first two movies, "The Goblet of Fire" is more an illustrated version of the book and not really much a film. You can't fault a movie for not being exactly like its source material. They are two different media, the books and films, and sometimes things need to be changed and sacraficed to reach an end. But in trying to please the book reading populace the making of what could have been a great movie was lost somewhere along the line, and the result is something that is only barely good. B-

"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" Sucks

Wow. This movie is bad. Not "Van Helsing" bad, but it's pretty poor. "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is number 98 on AFI's Top 100 Movies list and it may have just discredited the entire list for me. Conceptually it may have seemed bold; a black man and white woman fall in love amidst social turmoil. But the execution of it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. The acting is, well, bad. The cinematogrophy is, well, bad. The narrative is, well, really bad. There's nothing commendable about this picture at all. Even as a period piece I can't imagine somebody walking out of the theater and saying to themselves "That was a fine piece of cinema." It's generally hard to displease me. And even though I like a lot of movies I also think I'm unbiased in my grading of them. But this film... blech. I can't give it an 'F,' but I can get as close as my rating system allows. D

Made it, Ma! Top of the world!

It's awesome when you stumble across one of those films that you've seen most of through the satire of other films. "White Heat" may not strike the same chord with you as it did for me, but it won't stop you from enjoying a really, really good gangster flick.

Not that I've seen a lot of Cagney, but from what I hear this is what he does best and his performance is unbelievable. The supporting cast ain't too shabby neither. The narrative is tight and never slows down. There really aren't enough good things to say about this picture. It gets my highest recommendation and grade. A

Another Article Up

I've flip-flopped a lot in determining which articles get printed in which blog. From here on out reviews will go here, the rest will go in the Questions, Comments, and Snide Remarks blog. But because I'm a great guy I'll still let whoever reads this (thanks mom) know when something is written on the other.

That being said, this weeks article is over in the other blog. And click here to be taken to the Daily Cardinal website to see how they edited for print.

Much love.