When I heard oh so long ago that they were making another "Die Hard" and it was going to be starring Bruce Willis, I was a bit skeptical if the old man still had it in him to pull off another performance as the grizzled veteran NYPD cop John McClane. (I was even more skeptical upon hearing that Harrison For is reprising his role as archaeologist/treasure hunter Indiana Jones, but thats a whole 'nother story) But then, as if I needed anything else to increase my skepticism about this movie, I saw that it was indeed going to be given a PG-13 rating. Now, in this day and age of needlessly violent "torture porn" (as I like to call it) like Hostel and it's equally unnecessary sequel, a PG-13 rated movie almost seems like it might as well be a G rated Disney flick. But after watching just the first 15-20 minutes of "Live Free or Die Hard," it becomes obvious that maybe a PG-13 rating doesn't instantly equal a lame movie after all.
The story goes as such: A group of high-tech hackers somehow manage to infiltrate every significant level of government and federal security and start causing havoc, like messing with telecommunications across America and basically shutting down all modes of public transportation. Once the feds figure out that all of these incidents are related, they decide to bring in every major hacker they can find and since they are short on manpower, they decide to call on local law enforcement to help them bring in some the "high value" hackers. Enter John McClane. McClane gets called to pick up the co-star of the movie Matt Farrall (Justin Long) because apparently he is one of the names on the FBI Cyber Division's watch list. Pretty much from there on, the movie is a non-stop, balls to the wall, all out action flick as McClane needs to protect Farrell while he transports him to the FBI and then find the terrorists responsible and issue a beating the way only John McClane can.
The acting in "LFDH" is fairly run of the mill with no stand out performances to speak of. Though the mere fact that Willis was able to get out of his wheel chair to play John McClane again was pretty amazing. (I kid, Willis, I kid...please don't throw me off a skyscraper) But since there weren't any stand out performances, I'll have to go the opposite direction and talk of the lackluster performances in the movie, such as Justin Long's weak attempt at side kick comic relief and Timothy Olyphant's less than frightening job playing the villain. Firstly, I don't know who keeps giving Justin Long work, but they really should stop. I mean, I liked him in "Dodgeball"...but purely for the reason that a big part of his role in "Dodgeball" was to continually get hit in the face with wrenches. But past "Dodgeball"...ehhh. Hell, I think I would've liked it better if Kevin Smith were bumped up from his cameo appearance to comic relief instead of Justin Long. Plus, Olyphant just wasn't a scary villain. Other than having tons of personality-less henchmen and being a good computer hacker, nothing about him screams "Watch out for this guy or he'll F you up" so you just knew that once McClane got his hands on him it was gonna be game over.
While the story seems like an interesting concept at first (a group of hackers decimates the federal government), the plausibility of it all becomes really suspect after a while. Because I don't claim to know pretty much anything when it comes to hacking, but it seems to me that it'd be a a step past impossible to infiltrate every level of government security as quickly and as efficiently as the villains of "LFDH" did without someone catching on sooner than they did in this film. At least in the earlier "Die Hard" movies there were villains who committed tangible crimes like random bombings and hostage taking, but this movie dealt with a topic thats so obscure to the average person that they could pretty much get away with anything without the normal movie goer being able to call them on their bullshit. But then again, one doesn't go see a "Die Hard" movie with the expectation of a concrete, bulletproof plot, does one?
But past the suspect story lies the real meat of the movie - it's intense, McClane death-defying, unadulterated action. And believe me, this movie has that in spades. Within the first 20 minutes, viewers are treated to no less than two explosions, a ridiculous firefight inside of a Camden apartment, followed by a short car action sequence, punctuated by McClane's own special brand of badass-ery and Long's feeble attempt at comic relief. But this again, brings us to one of the original points of my initial apprehension about this movie: the PG-13 rating. And after seeing it twice, I almost fully understand why it got the rating it did - and it wasn't for lack of action, no sir. This movie shares one large difference between the other three "Die Hards" and that difference is this: while many, many people die in this movie, McClane personally kills less of them (though his body count is still high) and when people get shot or dropped into or off of crazy shit, you don't see all of the gory carnage because frankly, you don't need to. If you've seen McClane shoot one terrorist henchmen a bunch of times, you've seen them all. Also, there isn't very much blood to speak of in the movie, except for McClane being covered in his own blood by the movie's end but, thats just the nature of a "Die Hard." This movie is about off the wall action sequences, car chases and McClane somehow surviving everything that is thrown his way which is people, cars (literally), and even jet fighters.
So if car chases, gun fights, and huge explosions all perpetrated by the single most grizzled, badass cop to ever live is your thing, you may want to forget your preconceived notions about the MPAA rating system and go see "Live Free or Die Hard."
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Friday, July 6, 2007
Review: "The Darkness" for Xbox 360
Wow...has it really been almost a month since I've last posted here? I don't know where the time goes but I swear I'll try and update this thing more regularly from now on - I promise. (Are his fingers crossed? We may never know)
But now, onto the real reason for today's blog:
These days in videogames, the First Person Shooting (FPS) genre (games like Halo and Call of Duty if you aren't familiar with the term) has become synonymous with trite and downright boring games that rely on nothing more than twitch reflexes and an itchy trigger finger. Due to this fact, it is so refreshing to see a game take the old tried and true FPS formula and infuse it with an intriguing original storyline as well as including new game mechanics that actually feel like they have expanded the gameplay instead of just being a tacked on afterthought. The game, to which I am referring, is one of the latest releases on the Xbox 360, "The Darkness."
The Darkness follows the life of Jackie Estacado, your run of the mill mobster hitman who also happens to have a dark secret dwelling within his soul. You see, when Jackie was very young, both of his parents were killed and Jackie was sent to live in an orphanage. While at the orphanage, Jackie meets Jenny Romano and the two are virtually inseparable. Later on in life, they also become romantically involved. But unfortunately for Jackie, he's taken out of the orphanage and sent to live with his Uncle Paulie Franchetti. Now, normally being taken out of an orphanage and sent to live with family would've been a happy occasion...but not for Jackie because you see, Paulie isn't the normal loving uncle that wants only the best for Jackie. No, instead Paulie is a vicious, insane mob boss who quickly turns young Jackie into one of his best hitmen. But Paulie isn't the most popular guy within the crime families of New York, not only because of his brutally insane methods, but also because he doesn't respect the old ways of doing business or the older members of the mob families and his biggest opponent is usually Jackie Estacado. Since Paulie obviously doesn't like people questioning his authority or the way he conducts business, Jackie is routinely getting on his nerves about the way things are run until one day, Paulie snaps. On Jackie's 21st birthday, Paulie sends him out to perform a hit but little does Jackie know, the hit is little more than a set up for Paulie to try and take Jackie out. It isn't long after Paulie's attempt on Jackie's life that a dark and mysterious being that has dwelled within Jackie since birth begins to manifest itself to, at first, seemingly only want to help Jackie take revenge on his uncle Paulie and Paulie's lapdog in the NYPD, Eddie Shrote.
From here the story appears on the surface to be the cliched "guy with a bone to pick with his former friends sets out for bloody revenge" but looking past the surface story is a quite intriguing story about the nature of the Darkness, the being within Jackie, and how Jackie came to embody this strange entity. Not wanting to give too much of the more interesting storyline away, I'll say only this - even though The Darkness seems to only want to help Jackie at first, it is more of a curse than Jackie could've ever imagined.
But beyond the semi-cliche story, the actual game is pretty spectacular all around. Pretty much everything about this game is top notch, even if it is a little on the short side and it isn't too difficult for the most part.
The graphics and lighting in this game are just amazing. First, since the Darkness can only manifest its power in the...well...in the darkness, the lighting effects from all sorts of sources such as light bulbs, street lights, fires and even some natural light are all as much of an enemy as any two bit mobster with a gun that Jackie may face. Thanks to the power of the 360, the differences between light and dark are drastic and light and shadow are used very well not only as a stylish effect but as an important part of playing the game. But beyond the lighting, the character models, weapons, and environments all are ridiculously detailed. Even filler characters are modeled and voiced very well. But perhaps the best use of the amazing graphics found in The Darkness is the game's penchant for over the top violence.
While it may seem that being a hitman for the mafia would be a brutal enough profession for Jackie, the addition of his Darkness powers pushes the violence of this game to a new level. On his own, Jackie has the ability to use all manner of ballistic weapons such as dual wielding pistols, assault rifles and even the fictional Jackhammer riot shotgun - though the amount of different guns available to Jackie is quite small. But Jackie can also perform amazingly violent execution moves with any weapon which require Jackie to get up close and personal with his prey. But guns are only half of Jackie's arsenal, as the Darkness comes with some very useful skills and attacks which are vital for Jackie's survival. Over the course of the game, Jackie will acquire 4 different, distinct Darkness powers - the creeping dark, the demon arm, the darkness guns and the black hole. First, the creeping dark is useful to scout out territory ahead of Jackie but the creeping dark also doubles as a weapon since it is able to both kill enemies and then devour their heart (eating the heart of fallen enemies will improve your darkness powers). Second, the demon arm can impale enemies but it can also remove obstacles from your path and can be used to easily and silent destroy any lights in your path (while your Darkness powers are active, you can see better in the darkness than in a well lit area). Third, the darkness guns are an interesting addition to your powers since they run off Darkness energy but are, in my opinion, the lamest darkness power. Lastly, the black hole creates a huge rift of dark energy which can be used to suck up and kill large groups of enemies but can also be used to destroy helicopters as well as airplanes. Thankfully, these darkness powers actually are very useful and practically necessary to complete the game. Without them, theres no way our anti-hero Jackie would be able to tear through half of the city's police force and all of Paulie's nameless henchmen to fulfill his tale of murderous revenge.
But these powers are not the only thing that the Darkness gives to Jackie in the way of means to take revenge on his uncle. The Darkness also gives Jackie the option of choosing from (after you unlock them during the course of the game) four different Darklings that all come with different abilities. The Darklings are usually just used for cannon fodder but their ability to act as bullet sponges can be very useful in many situations. There are four different Darkling types, each with their own special ability. The berserker is a melee combat type but this type is interesting because around the environments, Jackie can find 6 special hidden outfits for the berserkers which give them different weapons ranging from a sword to a machete to a jackhammer. The next is the gunner which, as the name implies, totes around a huge gattling gun. The kamikaze acts, again, much as the name implies and has dynamite strapped to him which he in turn uses to blow up anything in his path, which is useful not only for enemies but obstacles as well. The last, and perhaps most useful darkling, is the lightkiller. The lightkiller carries around a battery pack on his back which he uses to destroy any lights in the area so that Jackie can concentrate on taking out enemies. But the lightkiller can also act as a berserker type and help Jackie once his primary job is complete. Though the darklings sound like an indispensable help to Jackie, the AI of these darklings is actually pretty stupid and more often than not they'll stand around until they get shot up by enemies if not ordered by Jackie to attack someone.
Speaking of the AI, the enemy AI can be pretty flaky at times, too. Though enemies sometimes work like a coordinated team to try and stop Jackie, there will be other times when it seems like they're just letting you shoot them in the face. Case in point, one time during the game I was doing battle with some SWAT guys and I was using my creeping dark to silently take out foes with minimal confrontation. After I was sufficiently happy with the amount of guys I had killed, I recalled the dark and when I retook control of Jackie, I saw a SWAT member standing directly in front of me, with his back turned. I was so surprised by this I took advantage of the rare back execution before he could turn around and see what he had somehow missed when he ran right to where I was crouching, stopped and turned around.
Overall though, The Darkness was definitely a great game, if a bit short. There are side missions that you can get from the various characters throughout the game since it's set up as one flowing story rather than divided into missions. But The Darkness is a very fun game, if you like ultra-violent stories about revenge, mobsters and what appears to be demons from hell. Ultimately I'd say rent it first since the single player is a bit short and since m Xbox Live account is still out of commission, I had no way to test out the multiplayer.
But now, onto the real reason for today's blog:
These days in videogames, the First Person Shooting (FPS) genre (games like Halo and Call of Duty if you aren't familiar with the term) has become synonymous with trite and downright boring games that rely on nothing more than twitch reflexes and an itchy trigger finger. Due to this fact, it is so refreshing to see a game take the old tried and true FPS formula and infuse it with an intriguing original storyline as well as including new game mechanics that actually feel like they have expanded the gameplay instead of just being a tacked on afterthought. The game, to which I am referring, is one of the latest releases on the Xbox 360, "The Darkness."
The Darkness follows the life of Jackie Estacado, your run of the mill mobster hitman who also happens to have a dark secret dwelling within his soul. You see, when Jackie was very young, both of his parents were killed and Jackie was sent to live in an orphanage. While at the orphanage, Jackie meets Jenny Romano and the two are virtually inseparable. Later on in life, they also become romantically involved. But unfortunately for Jackie, he's taken out of the orphanage and sent to live with his Uncle Paulie Franchetti. Now, normally being taken out of an orphanage and sent to live with family would've been a happy occasion...but not for Jackie because you see, Paulie isn't the normal loving uncle that wants only the best for Jackie. No, instead Paulie is a vicious, insane mob boss who quickly turns young Jackie into one of his best hitmen. But Paulie isn't the most popular guy within the crime families of New York, not only because of his brutally insane methods, but also because he doesn't respect the old ways of doing business or the older members of the mob families and his biggest opponent is usually Jackie Estacado. Since Paulie obviously doesn't like people questioning his authority or the way he conducts business, Jackie is routinely getting on his nerves about the way things are run until one day, Paulie snaps. On Jackie's 21st birthday, Paulie sends him out to perform a hit but little does Jackie know, the hit is little more than a set up for Paulie to try and take Jackie out. It isn't long after Paulie's attempt on Jackie's life that a dark and mysterious being that has dwelled within Jackie since birth begins to manifest itself to, at first, seemingly only want to help Jackie take revenge on his uncle Paulie and Paulie's lapdog in the NYPD, Eddie Shrote.
From here the story appears on the surface to be the cliched "guy with a bone to pick with his former friends sets out for bloody revenge" but looking past the surface story is a quite intriguing story about the nature of the Darkness, the being within Jackie, and how Jackie came to embody this strange entity. Not wanting to give too much of the more interesting storyline away, I'll say only this - even though The Darkness seems to only want to help Jackie at first, it is more of a curse than Jackie could've ever imagined.
But beyond the semi-cliche story, the actual game is pretty spectacular all around. Pretty much everything about this game is top notch, even if it is a little on the short side and it isn't too difficult for the most part.
The graphics and lighting in this game are just amazing. First, since the Darkness can only manifest its power in the...well...in the darkness, the lighting effects from all sorts of sources such as light bulbs, street lights, fires and even some natural light are all as much of an enemy as any two bit mobster with a gun that Jackie may face. Thanks to the power of the 360, the differences between light and dark are drastic and light and shadow are used very well not only as a stylish effect but as an important part of playing the game. But beyond the lighting, the character models, weapons, and environments all are ridiculously detailed. Even filler characters are modeled and voiced very well. But perhaps the best use of the amazing graphics found in The Darkness is the game's penchant for over the top violence.
While it may seem that being a hitman for the mafia would be a brutal enough profession for Jackie, the addition of his Darkness powers pushes the violence of this game to a new level. On his own, Jackie has the ability to use all manner of ballistic weapons such as dual wielding pistols, assault rifles and even the fictional Jackhammer riot shotgun - though the amount of different guns available to Jackie is quite small. But Jackie can also perform amazingly violent execution moves with any weapon which require Jackie to get up close and personal with his prey. But guns are only half of Jackie's arsenal, as the Darkness comes with some very useful skills and attacks which are vital for Jackie's survival. Over the course of the game, Jackie will acquire 4 different, distinct Darkness powers - the creeping dark, the demon arm, the darkness guns and the black hole. First, the creeping dark is useful to scout out territory ahead of Jackie but the creeping dark also doubles as a weapon since it is able to both kill enemies and then devour their heart (eating the heart of fallen enemies will improve your darkness powers). Second, the demon arm can impale enemies but it can also remove obstacles from your path and can be used to easily and silent destroy any lights in your path (while your Darkness powers are active, you can see better in the darkness than in a well lit area). Third, the darkness guns are an interesting addition to your powers since they run off Darkness energy but are, in my opinion, the lamest darkness power. Lastly, the black hole creates a huge rift of dark energy which can be used to suck up and kill large groups of enemies but can also be used to destroy helicopters as well as airplanes. Thankfully, these darkness powers actually are very useful and practically necessary to complete the game. Without them, theres no way our anti-hero Jackie would be able to tear through half of the city's police force and all of Paulie's nameless henchmen to fulfill his tale of murderous revenge.
But these powers are not the only thing that the Darkness gives to Jackie in the way of means to take revenge on his uncle. The Darkness also gives Jackie the option of choosing from (after you unlock them during the course of the game) four different Darklings that all come with different abilities. The Darklings are usually just used for cannon fodder but their ability to act as bullet sponges can be very useful in many situations. There are four different Darkling types, each with their own special ability. The berserker is a melee combat type but this type is interesting because around the environments, Jackie can find 6 special hidden outfits for the berserkers which give them different weapons ranging from a sword to a machete to a jackhammer. The next is the gunner which, as the name implies, totes around a huge gattling gun. The kamikaze acts, again, much as the name implies and has dynamite strapped to him which he in turn uses to blow up anything in his path, which is useful not only for enemies but obstacles as well. The last, and perhaps most useful darkling, is the lightkiller. The lightkiller carries around a battery pack on his back which he uses to destroy any lights in the area so that Jackie can concentrate on taking out enemies. But the lightkiller can also act as a berserker type and help Jackie once his primary job is complete. Though the darklings sound like an indispensable help to Jackie, the AI of these darklings is actually pretty stupid and more often than not they'll stand around until they get shot up by enemies if not ordered by Jackie to attack someone.
Speaking of the AI, the enemy AI can be pretty flaky at times, too. Though enemies sometimes work like a coordinated team to try and stop Jackie, there will be other times when it seems like they're just letting you shoot them in the face. Case in point, one time during the game I was doing battle with some SWAT guys and I was using my creeping dark to silently take out foes with minimal confrontation. After I was sufficiently happy with the amount of guys I had killed, I recalled the dark and when I retook control of Jackie, I saw a SWAT member standing directly in front of me, with his back turned. I was so surprised by this I took advantage of the rare back execution before he could turn around and see what he had somehow missed when he ran right to where I was crouching, stopped and turned around.
Overall though, The Darkness was definitely a great game, if a bit short. There are side missions that you can get from the various characters throughout the game since it's set up as one flowing story rather than divided into missions. But The Darkness is a very fun game, if you like ultra-violent stories about revenge, mobsters and what appears to be demons from hell. Ultimately I'd say rent it first since the single player is a bit short and since m Xbox Live account is still out of commission, I had no way to test out the multiplayer.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Justice was served...then it wasn't...then it was again
If theres one thing I hate more in this world than people who are more rich and famous than me (which is most people), it's people who are more rich and famous than me for doing nothing. People, for example, like Paris Hilton. If there was ever a more perfect example of how you can be a famous celebrity in America for absolutely no reason whatsoever, it's Paris Hilton. I wish I could have millions upon millions of dollars, celebrity friends and thousands of admirers for no other reason than being ridiculously lucky enough to be born into the right family because thats all Paris has. There's no reason at all that anyone EVER should know who Paris Hilton is but because we live in a country where we treat celebrities like divine beings, people worship this worthless, egotistical, trampy, conceited, air headed bimbo.
But I bring this up because of the recent shenanigans thats been going on with the whole "Paris Goes To Jail" saga that's been "Breaking News" worthy stuff all around the internet. First, she went to jail and there was much rejoicing. Then, about a day later, she was mysteriously released from jail and put on house arrest and if the internet was a real place, the riot over this incident would've been so horrendous the government would've built a bridge commemorating it AND instated a national day of mourning for those lost in the tragic "Paris Riots". Luckily, however, in a rare instance where justice actually seemed to be served for once in America, Paris was ordered back to jail. And there was much rejoicing.
Now, I could go on and on wasting my time coming up with all sorts of obscure adjectives to describe not only Paris' surely disease infested body but also my own happiness that she will be out of sight and out of mind for at least a month...but instead I'll use this space to address a part of the whole situation that just didn't seem to fit. Though at first it was said that Paris was released to house arrest because of "medical conditions," which I'm sure is code for "withdrawal from all the drugs she no doubt takes," I was almost certain that couldn't have been the only reason she was released...but I just couldn't figure out what the other reason could've been.
But today it has come to light that "medical conditions" may not have been solely to blame for Paris' far too quick release from jail. It seems that Paris was released not because she was "sick" but because her billionaire grandfather, who is co-chairman of Hilton Hotels, donated a most likely ungodly sum of money to Sheriff Lee Baca's re-election campaign who then subsequently, released Paris to home arrest. This was almost just yet another sickening example of no matter what you do in America, as long as you have enough money, you can get away scott free but luckily for us, Paris is back in jail and will be staying there until the completion of her sentence.
Too bad she isn't in a regular prison for regular people and not in solitary in the medical jail where she is because now it seems that my dream of making "D-Block Does Debbie: Starring Paris Hilton" will have to wait until the next time that brainless, blonde waste of oxygen breaks the law...which, considering her level of intelligence, probably won't be too long.
Oh, and here's the article which spawned this post:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21884884-1702,00.html
But I bring this up because of the recent shenanigans thats been going on with the whole "Paris Goes To Jail" saga that's been "Breaking News" worthy stuff all around the internet. First, she went to jail and there was much rejoicing. Then, about a day later, she was mysteriously released from jail and put on house arrest and if the internet was a real place, the riot over this incident would've been so horrendous the government would've built a bridge commemorating it AND instated a national day of mourning for those lost in the tragic "Paris Riots". Luckily, however, in a rare instance where justice actually seemed to be served for once in America, Paris was ordered back to jail. And there was much rejoicing.
Now, I could go on and on wasting my time coming up with all sorts of obscure adjectives to describe not only Paris' surely disease infested body but also my own happiness that she will be out of sight and out of mind for at least a month...but instead I'll use this space to address a part of the whole situation that just didn't seem to fit. Though at first it was said that Paris was released to house arrest because of "medical conditions," which I'm sure is code for "withdrawal from all the drugs she no doubt takes," I was almost certain that couldn't have been the only reason she was released...but I just couldn't figure out what the other reason could've been.
But today it has come to light that "medical conditions" may not have been solely to blame for Paris' far too quick release from jail. It seems that Paris was released not because she was "sick" but because her billionaire grandfather, who is co-chairman of Hilton Hotels, donated a most likely ungodly sum of money to Sheriff Lee Baca's re-election campaign who then subsequently, released Paris to home arrest. This was almost just yet another sickening example of no matter what you do in America, as long as you have enough money, you can get away scott free but luckily for us, Paris is back in jail and will be staying there until the completion of her sentence.
Too bad she isn't in a regular prison for regular people and not in solitary in the medical jail where she is because now it seems that my dream of making "D-Block Does Debbie: Starring Paris Hilton" will have to wait until the next time that brainless, blonde waste of oxygen breaks the law...which, considering her level of intelligence, probably won't be too long.
Oh, and here's the article which spawned this post:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21884884-1702,00.html
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Shameless plug of the day
Have you been wondering just what the hell "Grizzly Gaming" really is? Well now you can find out and you don't even have to leave your chair. Just find the "Links" section on the side of the page (under About Me and above Archives) and follow the link to "Grizzly Gaming: The Column" to find all the articles I wrote while I was running Grizzly Gaming while at Shippensburg.
Plus be one of the first 100 to read and you'll receive a free "Grizzly Gaming" t-shirt! Ok...so I'm lying about the shirt but what you will find are some of the finest video game, movie and TV show articles ever written. So what in the hell are you waiting for? Get reading and don't forget to tell all your friends, family, loved ones and strangers about the two best blogs on the internet.
(Note - I'm not liable for cases of eyeballs exploding from sheer amazing intake after viewing either of my blogs.)
Plus be one of the first 100 to read and you'll receive a free "Grizzly Gaming" t-shirt! Ok...so I'm lying about the shirt but what you will find are some of the finest video game, movie and TV show articles ever written. So what in the hell are you waiting for? Get reading and don't forget to tell all your friends, family, loved ones and strangers about the two best blogs on the internet.
(Note - I'm not liable for cases of eyeballs exploding from sheer amazing intake after viewing either of my blogs.)
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Spider-Man 3: What were they thinking?
I don't know what happened to the people who made the first two Spider-Man movies but I want them to come back. Spider-Man 1 & 2 were two of the best comic book movies I've ever seen but this third movie I can barely stand talking about. Nothing, besides the action and the effects, appealed to me in this movie. The story was so poorly conveyed that the movie felt rushed at the same time that it felt very drawn out and boring - and it wasn't hard to feel that it was drawn out considering that at almost 2 and a half hours, this was the longest Spider-Man yet. There were too many characters, too many storylines, emotions, thoughts and feelings from every character to be taken in at once. Not that it was impossible to keep everything straight, but this overload of info took a lot away from the pacing of the movie. Also, I've stomached Kirsten Dunst's performances as Mary Jane Watson throughout the rest of the series, but I've about had it with her mediocre acting of one of the biggest comic book hotties of all time. But perhaps one of the most annoying things about this third movie is it's almost purposeful inability to stay faithful to the source material.
Ok before I get into any kind of long winded nerd rant about the movie, let me say that this post is practically going to be built on spoilers of the movie so if you haven't seen it and don't want any of the (horrible) plot points ruined, please avert your eyes. I might be a cynical, opinionated jerk but one thing I'm not is a douchebag who ruins movies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still reading? Ok cool. Since I already stated the general things I have problems with about this movie, don't be expecting any kind of sane order to the next set of ramblings because, frankly, I'm so amazed at how much they missed the mark with this movie, that I can barely keep my rants about it in any kind of sensible order in my head, let alone written in a blog post.
First off, one of the most annoying and ponderous things about Spider-Man 3 was the way Peter Parker was portrayed after coming into contact with the symbiote. I don't know if the makers of the movie ever bothered to open a Spider-Man comic before they made these movies or not, but where in the hell did they come up with Parker's personality for that section of the movie? Last time I checked, the symbiote amplified the wearer's original personality traits, most specifically aggression, and gave the wearer new abilities (such as increased strength and in the comics, the ability for Parker to generate his own webbing). So where and more importantly why did they get the idea to turn Parker into an emo dressing, John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever" rip-off douchebag that was portrayed in the movie? Other than a hastily thrown together plot point for Parker to instigate Mary Jane, I can't see a reason for this wholly different personality change in Parker. The way he acted once he found the suit was just totally unnecessary and a waste of time. They did a similar thing to this in Spider-Man 2 when he "lost" his powers and became normal but that was well done and no where near as trite and downright stupid as it was in Spider-Man 3.
Next, keeping in line with my complaints about the symbiote, is how they handled Eddie Brock and Venom. Right off the bat, Topher Grace shouldn't have been Eddie Brock. Yes, he did play Brock's personality pretty well, but in the comics Brock is supposed to be a big, aggro, jock meathead, not a skinny little dude no bigger than Parker. Granted they did bulk him up some once he got the symbiote and became Venom, but since he wasn't a huge guy to begin with, theres really no explanation as to why Brock is jacked after he gets the suit. But perhaps the biggest question I have, well maybe second biggest only compared to the last point I'm going to make, is why the decided to make Venom and Spider-Man's symbiote outfit look different than they did in the comics. I really can't come up with a clear explanation to this quandary. In the comics, Venom's suit is flat black with a big white spider emblem on his chest - not basically Spider-Man's symbiote outfit like it was in the movie. And Spider-Man's symbiote outfit wasn't right either - his outfit his supposed to be flat black as well. Plus, one of the things that makes Venom is that in the comics, he always had strange green gooey saliva that was constantly dripping out of his mouth, which made he look even more vicious and sinister but this ooze was strangely absent from the movie version. I honestly don't know why it would've been such a hassle, considering all the money they spent on this movie, to make Venom and Spider-Man's symbiote outfits look right. But my last gripe with Venom is that they (apparently) killed him off. I just don't see any kind of reason for them to have killed off Venom and Eddie Brock. Brock is perfect for a recurring arch-nemesis to Spider-Man but what do they do instead? They have Venom show up, fight Spider-Man and subsequently killed in the span of about 30-45 minutes.
And while we're on the subject of villains, why bring back Harry as the new Goblin? It just seemed to pointless and unnecessary to me. Granted at first I didn't realize Harry actually had been one of the Goblins in the comics, that still doesn't explain why they needed to introduce him as one in the movies. I mean, they strayed from the source material so much already, why not just keep on doing it? This movie would've been sooo much better had they introduced Brock and Venom earlier and kept him and Sandman as the main villains without even worrying about Harry and the New Goblin and all the stupid, boring crap that came of him being the New Goblin. What stupid, boring crap you ask? Don't worry...I'll get to it later. Right now, I'm talking about the Goblin. Now if you don't know, the Goblin is the real perennial Spider-Man arch-nemesis. I know there is a common misconception that Venom actually is Spider-Man's biggest enemy but the truth is that the Green Goblin has been around basically since the comic was created back in the 60s while Venom has only been around since the late 80s. But why is this important? Well, since they killed off Norman Osbourne in the first movie and now they've killed off Harry in the third...theres practically no chance for any kind of Hobgoblin storyline later in the series (because I've heard they want to do Spider-Man 4, 5, and 6 and why wouldn't they considering the huge bank these movies bring in). The last problem I have with this New Goblin is again, with his outfit and his equipment. Now, it would've been perfectly fine had Harry just showed up to bug Spider-Man with his father's Goblin suit and glider...but instead he shows up with some crazy outfit no one's ever seen before, a snowboard-esque glider that he apparently pulled out of his ass since they never explain where it came from, and odd almost lightsaber-ish green sword contraptions. I really just don't know what they were thinking when they added some of this stuff.
Now, onto the problems with the plot. First, since it's relatively fresh in your mind, is the point I made earlier about the boring, stupid crap that came about because of Harry being the New Goblin. Once Harry becomes the Goblin, has his memory knocked out him by Spider-Man and subsequently regains it and remembers he hates Parker, he starts to blackmail MJ, for some reason, into leaving Parker. But surprisingly, this isn't the part I had the problem with. What I had a problem with was...MJ goes along with it! Why in the hell, when she knows her boyfriend is f'n Spider-Man for god's sake, would she go along with Harry's plan?? Why wouldn't she just tell Parker about it and let him handle Harry? But this was only one plot point I had a problem with. The next one has to do with Sandman, who I genuinely didn't have a problem with in the movie. I thought the part was acted well, his character made sense in terms of the whole story (he's a normal guy who kinda gets pushed into a life of crime because his daughter is ill and needs to find a way to pay for her treatments until one night during a job gone bad he gets stuck in some kind of crazy experiment where his cells are infused with sand, hence he can turn his body into all sorts of objects). The only part of the Sandman I thought was pointless was having it turn out the Sandman was actually the guy who killed Uncle Ben (for some reason) and not the guy who Parker accidentally killed in the first movie. I really feel like they only added this plot point to try and compensate for the other ridiculous plot themes they created (where Parker has to battle with his inner violent self thanks to the symbiote bringing that part of his personality out). I suppose it sort of makes sense, but I still feel it wasn't necessary. But perhaps the biggest plot point that annoys me comes from Bernard. "Bernard?" you ask? Yes, Bernard - Harry's butler. You see, apparently...somehow....Bernard found out about Norman Osbourne being the Goblin the night Norman died. Don't ask how cause they really don't explain it. But now that Bernard knows, he doesn't tell anyone. And why would he want to tell anyone, especially Harry who only obsesses over the fact that Spider-Man unjustly killed his father because (dun, dun, dun) Harry didn't know his father was the Goblin. (Couldn't you just smell the sarcasm in that last sentence?) So Bernard, who doesn't have more than two lines in the whole two first movies, drops this bomb on Harry out of no where that Norman was the Goblin and he accidentally killed himself. I mean, for all the money they spent on this movie, you think they could've spent just a little more time to come up with something more creative than just the random butler revealing a huge plot point.
Phew...now that I've gotten all that off my chest, I'm sure there's plenty of other problems I could find in this movie but to be honest, I'm tired of talking about why this movie sucked because I wanted it not to suck sooo badly. Theres this little nerd voice inside me that hopes all comic book movies they make will rock balls so that maybe someday comics will be taken seriously and not just viewed as kiddie stuff, much the same way video games are. But alas, this isn't the case as Spider-Man 3 let me down big. I guess all I have left to say is this - if they make a Spider-Man 4, Gwen Stacy needs to be Parker's new lady. Not only because Kirsten Dunst has overstayed her welcome as MJ, but also because Bryce Dallas Howard was soooo smoking hot as Gwen Stacy it was almost unbelievable.
Oh yeah...last point.
Bruce Campbell=best part of Spider-Man 3.
Ok before I get into any kind of long winded nerd rant about the movie, let me say that this post is practically going to be built on spoilers of the movie so if you haven't seen it and don't want any of the (horrible) plot points ruined, please avert your eyes. I might be a cynical, opinionated jerk but one thing I'm not is a douchebag who ruins movies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still reading? Ok cool. Since I already stated the general things I have problems with about this movie, don't be expecting any kind of sane order to the next set of ramblings because, frankly, I'm so amazed at how much they missed the mark with this movie, that I can barely keep my rants about it in any kind of sensible order in my head, let alone written in a blog post.
First off, one of the most annoying and ponderous things about Spider-Man 3 was the way Peter Parker was portrayed after coming into contact with the symbiote. I don't know if the makers of the movie ever bothered to open a Spider-Man comic before they made these movies or not, but where in the hell did they come up with Parker's personality for that section of the movie? Last time I checked, the symbiote amplified the wearer's original personality traits, most specifically aggression, and gave the wearer new abilities (such as increased strength and in the comics, the ability for Parker to generate his own webbing). So where and more importantly why did they get the idea to turn Parker into an emo dressing, John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever" rip-off douchebag that was portrayed in the movie? Other than a hastily thrown together plot point for Parker to instigate Mary Jane, I can't see a reason for this wholly different personality change in Parker. The way he acted once he found the suit was just totally unnecessary and a waste of time. They did a similar thing to this in Spider-Man 2 when he "lost" his powers and became normal but that was well done and no where near as trite and downright stupid as it was in Spider-Man 3.
Next, keeping in line with my complaints about the symbiote, is how they handled Eddie Brock and Venom. Right off the bat, Topher Grace shouldn't have been Eddie Brock. Yes, he did play Brock's personality pretty well, but in the comics Brock is supposed to be a big, aggro, jock meathead, not a skinny little dude no bigger than Parker. Granted they did bulk him up some once he got the symbiote and became Venom, but since he wasn't a huge guy to begin with, theres really no explanation as to why Brock is jacked after he gets the suit. But perhaps the biggest question I have, well maybe second biggest only compared to the last point I'm going to make, is why the decided to make Venom and Spider-Man's symbiote outfit look different than they did in the comics. I really can't come up with a clear explanation to this quandary. In the comics, Venom's suit is flat black with a big white spider emblem on his chest - not basically Spider-Man's symbiote outfit like it was in the movie. And Spider-Man's symbiote outfit wasn't right either - his outfit his supposed to be flat black as well. Plus, one of the things that makes Venom is that in the comics, he always had strange green gooey saliva that was constantly dripping out of his mouth, which made he look even more vicious and sinister but this ooze was strangely absent from the movie version. I honestly don't know why it would've been such a hassle, considering all the money they spent on this movie, to make Venom and Spider-Man's symbiote outfits look right. But my last gripe with Venom is that they (apparently) killed him off. I just don't see any kind of reason for them to have killed off Venom and Eddie Brock. Brock is perfect for a recurring arch-nemesis to Spider-Man but what do they do instead? They have Venom show up, fight Spider-Man and subsequently killed in the span of about 30-45 minutes.
And while we're on the subject of villains, why bring back Harry as the new Goblin? It just seemed to pointless and unnecessary to me. Granted at first I didn't realize Harry actually had been one of the Goblins in the comics, that still doesn't explain why they needed to introduce him as one in the movies. I mean, they strayed from the source material so much already, why not just keep on doing it? This movie would've been sooo much better had they introduced Brock and Venom earlier and kept him and Sandman as the main villains without even worrying about Harry and the New Goblin and all the stupid, boring crap that came of him being the New Goblin. What stupid, boring crap you ask? Don't worry...I'll get to it later. Right now, I'm talking about the Goblin. Now if you don't know, the Goblin is the real perennial Spider-Man arch-nemesis. I know there is a common misconception that Venom actually is Spider-Man's biggest enemy but the truth is that the Green Goblin has been around basically since the comic was created back in the 60s while Venom has only been around since the late 80s. But why is this important? Well, since they killed off Norman Osbourne in the first movie and now they've killed off Harry in the third...theres practically no chance for any kind of Hobgoblin storyline later in the series (because I've heard they want to do Spider-Man 4, 5, and 6 and why wouldn't they considering the huge bank these movies bring in). The last problem I have with this New Goblin is again, with his outfit and his equipment. Now, it would've been perfectly fine had Harry just showed up to bug Spider-Man with his father's Goblin suit and glider...but instead he shows up with some crazy outfit no one's ever seen before, a snowboard-esque glider that he apparently pulled out of his ass since they never explain where it came from, and odd almost lightsaber-ish green sword contraptions. I really just don't know what they were thinking when they added some of this stuff.
Now, onto the problems with the plot. First, since it's relatively fresh in your mind, is the point I made earlier about the boring, stupid crap that came about because of Harry being the New Goblin. Once Harry becomes the Goblin, has his memory knocked out him by Spider-Man and subsequently regains it and remembers he hates Parker, he starts to blackmail MJ, for some reason, into leaving Parker. But surprisingly, this isn't the part I had the problem with. What I had a problem with was...MJ goes along with it! Why in the hell, when she knows her boyfriend is f'n Spider-Man for god's sake, would she go along with Harry's plan?? Why wouldn't she just tell Parker about it and let him handle Harry? But this was only one plot point I had a problem with. The next one has to do with Sandman, who I genuinely didn't have a problem with in the movie. I thought the part was acted well, his character made sense in terms of the whole story (he's a normal guy who kinda gets pushed into a life of crime because his daughter is ill and needs to find a way to pay for her treatments until one night during a job gone bad he gets stuck in some kind of crazy experiment where his cells are infused with sand, hence he can turn his body into all sorts of objects). The only part of the Sandman I thought was pointless was having it turn out the Sandman was actually the guy who killed Uncle Ben (for some reason) and not the guy who Parker accidentally killed in the first movie. I really feel like they only added this plot point to try and compensate for the other ridiculous plot themes they created (where Parker has to battle with his inner violent self thanks to the symbiote bringing that part of his personality out). I suppose it sort of makes sense, but I still feel it wasn't necessary. But perhaps the biggest plot point that annoys me comes from Bernard. "Bernard?" you ask? Yes, Bernard - Harry's butler. You see, apparently...somehow....Bernard found out about Norman Osbourne being the Goblin the night Norman died. Don't ask how cause they really don't explain it. But now that Bernard knows, he doesn't tell anyone. And why would he want to tell anyone, especially Harry who only obsesses over the fact that Spider-Man unjustly killed his father because (dun, dun, dun) Harry didn't know his father was the Goblin. (Couldn't you just smell the sarcasm in that last sentence?) So Bernard, who doesn't have more than two lines in the whole two first movies, drops this bomb on Harry out of no where that Norman was the Goblin and he accidentally killed himself. I mean, for all the money they spent on this movie, you think they could've spent just a little more time to come up with something more creative than just the random butler revealing a huge plot point.
Phew...now that I've gotten all that off my chest, I'm sure there's plenty of other problems I could find in this movie but to be honest, I'm tired of talking about why this movie sucked because I wanted it not to suck sooo badly. Theres this little nerd voice inside me that hopes all comic book movies they make will rock balls so that maybe someday comics will be taken seriously and not just viewed as kiddie stuff, much the same way video games are. But alas, this isn't the case as Spider-Man 3 let me down big. I guess all I have left to say is this - if they make a Spider-Man 4, Gwen Stacy needs to be Parker's new lady. Not only because Kirsten Dunst has overstayed her welcome as MJ, but also because Bryce Dallas Howard was soooo smoking hot as Gwen Stacy it was almost unbelievable.
Oh yeah...last point.
Bruce Campbell=best part of Spider-Man 3.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Games That Need Sequels: Fallout
Wow it feels like way too long since I posted on here last. When was it? Back when I was in school? I know some people have been wanting their fix of Grizzly Gaming goodness and I'm sorry to have kept you all waiting. Today, I'm doing the first post in what could be a series of posts called "Games That Need Sequels." I tried to come up with a wittier title but I just got the results back from the lab and apparently I'm not that funny so just bear with me here.
A long time ago, "Fallout" was released on the PC and garnered a huge cult following - so much so that entire interactive communities on the internet were created and maintained purely by people who were huge fans of the game (namely, a forum/message board on the internet called "The Unwashed Villagers" which I was a part of). This community was so popular that some of the members even got a place in the second game in the series by way of a small random encounter (of which I was not a part of, unfortunately). The game itself was set after the nuclear apocalypse which wiped out the majority of life all around the world. The story of the game progressed as such - before the war, Americans built underground "Vaults" which were completely self sustained and built to safeguard Americans in the event of a nuclear war. One vault, Vault 13, was doing fine, completely sealed off from the outside world when disaster struck. The water chip in the Vault, used for cleaning and recycling the vault's water supply, mysteriously broke one day. Being that no one in the vault would survive very long without the use of the chip, the vault overseer sent one man outside of the vault to find a new water chip - that one man is you.
Both Fallout 1 & 2 are set in Southern California and are radically different than it's present day counter part. This part of California was hit hard by the war and most of the area is now a barren wasteland populated by all sorts of dangerous mutants - both humans and animals alike. Along the way you'll find post-apocalyptic cults as well as the desolate remains of towns which once were.
The Fallout games were typical turn based RPG games which let you pick from three different character models at the games outset and let you customize your character how you see fit. Though I always favored a larger character who could carry the most firepower possible, characters could be anything from bare knuckle brawlers, snipers, stealthy ninjas or a smooth talker who could talk his way out of a fight. Plus at certain levels, you could pick special character traits which would allow for almost infinite number of character customizations.
But what really made the Fallout series special was it's outlandish characters, storylines and humor. Fallout was also fairly popular for it's multitude of pop culture references to things such as Monty Python, Star Trek, Dr. Who and Mad Max so it isn't hard to see why so many people fell in love with the series.
Unfortunately, it has been quite a number of years since the last (good) Fallout game was released. There have been other games which strayed away from the original RPG formula which is held so near and dear to the hearts of Fallout fans, but these games didn't achieve near as much popularity or notoriety as Fallout 1 or 2.
Fortunately, I've just recently found out that a third Fallout game is indeed in the works, though it is being developed by a different company. The first two Fallout games were developed by Interplay but now the series has changed hands and the developers of the award winning Elder Scrolls series, Bethesda, is now at the helm of the project. Bethesda has had more than enough experience in the world of RPGs to lead a project like a new Fallout game but the real question, will Bethesda be able to capture the unique feel of Fallout 1 or 2 remains to be seen.
Aside from a new developer, the first major difference in Fallout 3 will be that it is going take place on the East Coast, instead of the traditional West Coast setting of the first two games. Though I'm not usually one who supports changing a formula that has worked so well in the past, I'm genuinely intrigued to see what new challenges, landmarks, and creatures will be awaiting gamers in an East Coast Fallout.
Unfortunately, not much else is known about this game since it is still a long ways away from being released. Bethesda has said that though they've had the rights to a new Fallout game for a while, they were waiting until their most recent game Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was finished before they started work on Fallout 3.
Though I am a bit wary about how well Bethesda will handle a series I've loved for so long, I just can't help but be excited that a new Fallout game is indeed in the works.
A long time ago, "Fallout" was released on the PC and garnered a huge cult following - so much so that entire interactive communities on the internet were created and maintained purely by people who were huge fans of the game (namely, a forum/message board on the internet called "The Unwashed Villagers" which I was a part of). This community was so popular that some of the members even got a place in the second game in the series by way of a small random encounter (of which I was not a part of, unfortunately). The game itself was set after the nuclear apocalypse which wiped out the majority of life all around the world. The story of the game progressed as such - before the war, Americans built underground "Vaults" which were completely self sustained and built to safeguard Americans in the event of a nuclear war. One vault, Vault 13, was doing fine, completely sealed off from the outside world when disaster struck. The water chip in the Vault, used for cleaning and recycling the vault's water supply, mysteriously broke one day. Being that no one in the vault would survive very long without the use of the chip, the vault overseer sent one man outside of the vault to find a new water chip - that one man is you.
Both Fallout 1 & 2 are set in Southern California and are radically different than it's present day counter part. This part of California was hit hard by the war and most of the area is now a barren wasteland populated by all sorts of dangerous mutants - both humans and animals alike. Along the way you'll find post-apocalyptic cults as well as the desolate remains of towns which once were.
The Fallout games were typical turn based RPG games which let you pick from three different character models at the games outset and let you customize your character how you see fit. Though I always favored a larger character who could carry the most firepower possible, characters could be anything from bare knuckle brawlers, snipers, stealthy ninjas or a smooth talker who could talk his way out of a fight. Plus at certain levels, you could pick special character traits which would allow for almost infinite number of character customizations.
But what really made the Fallout series special was it's outlandish characters, storylines and humor. Fallout was also fairly popular for it's multitude of pop culture references to things such as Monty Python, Star Trek, Dr. Who and Mad Max so it isn't hard to see why so many people fell in love with the series.
Unfortunately, it has been quite a number of years since the last (good) Fallout game was released. There have been other games which strayed away from the original RPG formula which is held so near and dear to the hearts of Fallout fans, but these games didn't achieve near as much popularity or notoriety as Fallout 1 or 2.
Fortunately, I've just recently found out that a third Fallout game is indeed in the works, though it is being developed by a different company. The first two Fallout games were developed by Interplay but now the series has changed hands and the developers of the award winning Elder Scrolls series, Bethesda, is now at the helm of the project. Bethesda has had more than enough experience in the world of RPGs to lead a project like a new Fallout game but the real question, will Bethesda be able to capture the unique feel of Fallout 1 or 2 remains to be seen.
Aside from a new developer, the first major difference in Fallout 3 will be that it is going take place on the East Coast, instead of the traditional West Coast setting of the first two games. Though I'm not usually one who supports changing a formula that has worked so well in the past, I'm genuinely intrigued to see what new challenges, landmarks, and creatures will be awaiting gamers in an East Coast Fallout.
Unfortunately, not much else is known about this game since it is still a long ways away from being released. Bethesda has said that though they've had the rights to a new Fallout game for a while, they were waiting until their most recent game Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was finished before they started work on Fallout 3.
Though I am a bit wary about how well Bethesda will handle a series I've loved for so long, I just can't help but be excited that a new Fallout game is indeed in the works.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
No f'n way
After the personal ordeal I had to go through in the weeks leading up to the release of "Guitar Hero 2" for the Xbox 360 (not preordering soon enough, lying asshole clerks[Nope, we aren't going to have any extra copies of GH2], and the fear that I might not get a copy the day it came out), I managed to sell all my PS2 gear and buy GH2 the day it was released (Tuesday) with some money left over from my PS2 clearance. And just when everything seemed to be going so well, disaster strikes...well not yet for me, anyway. But please, allow me to elaborate.
This newstory has been making it's way around the net today and it seems that Microsoft/RedOctane(developers of the GH series) released two different versions of the X-Plorer controller for the 360 - one with the pedal jack(accessory port) near the power cord and one with the pedal jack near the headphone jack. But what does this have to do with anything, let alone an impending personal disaster for myself, you ask? Well it seems that the X-Plorer model with the pedal jack near the power cord have some major problems with the whammy bars on those particluar controllers - most importantly, that they don't work. And surprise, surprise...the game I bought came with one of the (apparently) defective X-Plorer models.
Now luckily, my whammy hasn't shown any signs of trouble just yet, aside from it feeling a little stiff, but I'm just attributing that to it's new-ness. But I'm hearing that if enough people are experiencing problems with these controllers, RedOctane might be issuing a recall for these particular controllers. It's always crap like this that makes Dwight's(Clive Owen) line from Sin City seem so relevant to my life - "And everything seemed to be going so well."
This newstory has been making it's way around the net today and it seems that Microsoft/RedOctane(developers of the GH series) released two different versions of the X-Plorer controller for the 360 - one with the pedal jack(accessory port) near the power cord and one with the pedal jack near the headphone jack. But what does this have to do with anything, let alone an impending personal disaster for myself, you ask? Well it seems that the X-Plorer model with the pedal jack near the power cord have some major problems with the whammy bars on those particluar controllers - most importantly, that they don't work. And surprise, surprise...the game I bought came with one of the (apparently) defective X-Plorer models.
Now luckily, my whammy hasn't shown any signs of trouble just yet, aside from it feeling a little stiff, but I'm just attributing that to it's new-ness. But I'm hearing that if enough people are experiencing problems with these controllers, RedOctane might be issuing a recall for these particular controllers. It's always crap like this that makes Dwight's(Clive Owen) line from Sin City seem so relevant to my life - "And everything seemed to be going so well."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
