Garple

Are you in some kind of terrifying paramilitary group?

Yes, I'm going to buy this game.

You should blog this shit. Like, new games journalism style.

What's so bad about it?

Yeah it was kind of annoying being dropped into free roam at a predesignated point and having to gallop along for 10 or 15 minutes to catch up with you guys.

Sweeny Todd is great. It's just kooky enough for such an off-kilter tale, but the performances are engrossing and the fake old london is gorgeous. I really want to re-watch it (to see how good it must look on bluray). I finally saw Heat. It was great. What other Michael Mann movies are essential viewing? The only other one I've seen is Collateral (also excellent). Also watched the original Assault on Precinct 13. Sort of a cross between Night of the Living Dead and The Warriors, in that it's about a group of people trapped in a building by a huge of hostiles and trying to hold them off, but instead of zombies it's B-Movie gang members. "They delivered the cholo!" I didn't think it was great, although certainly watchable and there's a certain early scene that's a real punch to the gut, and as always, John Carpenter's score is beyond awesome.

No but my horse did get hit by a train.

Ok, I think I get it guys (the Terminator thing) would it be fair to say that the time travel "makes sense" for the reason that once Reese was sent back for hanky-panky and did the deed, it basically erased the alternative past that may or may not have included a different father? Also, I was reading something on Howstuffworks.com that suggested that time travel into the past is much less likely than time travel into the future. Which (if I understand it right, which I probably don't) is maybe because the events of the past are most likely "fixed in place" but to travel into the future, you're basically moving faster than time so that you can reach the future without aging (or at least aging much), no? Unlike most of you guys, I'm hopeless at science, but I find this stuff interesting and I thank you guys for taking the time to try and explain it to me.

You were intentional. I'm familiar with the concept of a paradox, but this one...oh well, no use arguing sci-fi with nerds.

I worded it poorly. My problem was that if John Connor exists in the future, then he already had a father who could not have been Reese. Then Reese goes back in time and impregnates Connor's Mom. His name will still be John Connor, but he'll be a different dude...how do they know this new John Connor will be able to save humanity? And did they really bank on Sarah Connor consenting to unprotected sex with Reese one time and then getting pregnant? What a long shot!

I finally saw The Terminator last night. It was awesome...I found it very interesting that although it's certainly science fiction, it's a very small, character-driven film and most of the sci-fi takes place off-screen. Also, I watched Street Fighter. Sagat: That's Vega, The greatest cage fighter since Iron Fist. Ken: What happened to Iron Fist Sagat: He retired...and became me. But could someone explain to me how the timeline in the Terminator series works? I mean, if Kyle Reese was younger than John Connor, wouldn't him going back and impregnating Sarah Connor make John Connor be born as a different person?

Like I already said, movieforums.com

Yeah, it's kind of annoying that Rockstar games try to emphasize moral complexity but don't allow you to make any decisions. When you start working with Nigel West Dickens, it really highlights how the game weirdly forces you down a path as though there's no other choice, when really, there should be. I can't understand why John Marsten would help this guy, but then be so sanctimonious about what West Dickens does for a living. Realistically, relying on West Dickens shouldn't be his only option, and it doesn't even seem like the best option. Complaints aside I really like some of the characters (especially West Dickens and Seth) I like the revisionist/acid western vibe this game gives off.

The way I was using "pretentious" was: my point contained a lot of vague sentences and I thought it might seem like I was being pretentious by pretending to have some kind of deep ideas about film when really just spouting a bunch of nonsense.

I was crazy about the demo, but unfortunately, you're right Patters, I can't afford this game right now because Red Dead was priority #1.

movieforums.com is the idlethumbs forums of movie forums (if you can follow that). If you go there, reading through the posts by the resident guru whose username is "Holden Pike" would be a good start. Also, Roger Ebert's retrospective essays on great films of yesterday might make a nice accessible entry point. Oh and when you really like a movie, you've watched it on DVD or Bluray, listen to the director's commentary, that will help you understand what the director actually does and how they translate their vision to the screen.

How familiar are you with David Lynch...because he immediately comes to mind for me. I saw a behind-the-scenes documentary where he was actually wearing goggles, sawing wood and welding and stuff...working physically and directly with the set designers to get what he wanted. And he has certain tropes that are common to almost all his films. Also, he seems to like dark vivid colors. I remember Mullholland Drive as a very blue movie.

Escape from LA is like a juiced up remake of its predecessor. The premise is roughly the same. It has good set pieces and Steve Buscemi is funny in it. The way certain elements are injected into the plot from out of nowhere just becuase they're sort of hip or edgy is pretty amusing (for example, America being turned into a place where non-Christians are literally exiled. A Revolution being led by a latino man with a beret (wink). I'd say it's worth watching because it goes farther in being enjoyably over the top. I actually preferred it to New York, although I liked both. I can see how Escape from New York would look bad next to Chinatown, but I think if you're watching it in hopes that it will be good, you're doing it wrong. I'm pretty sure John Carpenter was well aware of how off-kilter and goofy it is. I believe it's just supposed to be amusing and fun...not actually "good", and it certainly doesn't take itself seriously. It certainly does some interesting and creative stuff with the setting (which is kind of like Fallout meets The Warriors). But I think of it as a B-movie which should be viewed as such. It's not just the movie itself that's engaging but the fact that someone actually made that movie and how they went about making it. I think certain entertainment works best on that sort of meta-level. Like Total Recall, it's dumb as dirt and everything's totally dated, but if you look at it as a study in how the early 90s saw sci-fi and how the early 90s saw itself, it's fantastic. I don't mean to seem vague and pretentious, but this concept is hard for me to explain, though I think you might know what I'm getting at.

This isn't the most appropriate venue for this question, but I must know what your new avatar comes from; it is the best.

It's sad that you just made me want this game a little bit by saying that.

You can check the list on their website. In their defense the lists are quite extensive and you can mix and match from all three consoles. They're mostly looking for more recent games than those you've listed. Also: Jason Rohrer's Sleep is Death is doing a pay-what-you-want sale...or maybe that's the permanent price from now on...either way, just throwing that out there.

Sorry if it seemed like I gave you guys the cold shoulder. I wanted to get in some more Mass Effect 2 so I can get through that at a reasonable pace and then sink my teeth into Red Dead.

"For the hamburgers...I play video games for the hamburgers." -Chris Remo-

I Don't really like promoting Gamestop, but this is a good thing if you really want Red Dead Redemption but can't manage $60 right now. http://www.gamestop.com/gs/specialty/tradeins/save40/ I traded The God of War Collection and Tekken 6, two games I really did not need sitting on my shelf and got Red Dead for $20.

Strummer521: XBOX 360 Bought the game yesterday but won't be playing it right away.