On Gun Control

That gun is obviously fake. Looks like they've already done their job.

So some, I'm assuming, psychopath shoots up a crowded theater in Aurora, Colorado. In the days following, we mourn the lost and ponder the obvious question: "how could something like this possibly happen?" The popular answer on the political left is "no significant forms of gun control" and, boy, does it make some people's head's explode over on the right.

We have this debate over and over again and it seems to go nowhere. Each side has statistics, hyperbole, and catch-phrases to throw at the other. For example, Pat Toomey said in 2010 that "my idea of gun control is steady aim." The left typically responds to such remarks by calling them "insensitive" or any of the other 50 words that mean the same thing as insensitive.

I have very mixed feelings on gun control. The basic concept seems to make sense: restricted access to gun = less violent crime. I'm not so sure anymore. Violent crime continues to fall in the United States, despite any serious, widespread gun control measures. The reason? The linked article claims it's "improved law enforcement strategies" and longer prison sentences, i.e. our monstrous police state. Which is even more frightening to me than any lone gunman, but I digress. Now, I'm not one to agree with the right-wing on anything: especially since their efforts to turn a fairly moderate Democratic president (who supports ideas from the Heritage Foundation) into a America hating, soldier disrespecting, Socialist, and their tendency to start every argument with "But the Bible says..." Nonetheless, I regrettably must kinda sorta throw my lot in with them on this one. Well, at least partly. Unless a national measure is proposed, not much will change. The District of Columbia banned handguns, but plenty of weapons were still available and easy to acquire in neighboring states. And there's, of course, the old retort of "criminals often follow the law, don't they?" As far as national gun control action goes, there is evidence that very restrictive gun ownership laws does help fight crime. For example, Germany and the UK are much lower homicide rates than the US. However, compare that with this Telegraph article from 2010 that claims England has a worse crime rate than the US overall. Would you take that trade?

Truth is, I've always felt a little uncomfortable around gun nuts and guns in general. You know, since the primary goal of a firearm is to kill motherfuckers. I had a .22 rifle as a kid and I used to be a pretty good shot. Anything more serious than that makes me a bit queasy. I like holding guns, but don't really like firing them. They're really loud and I'm not much for the smell of gunpowder. It's just not something I'm into. I'm also not sure why gun owners are so paranoid. Grand Wizard... err... President of the NRA Wayne LaPierre recently claimed that President Obama's relative silence on the issue is pure strategy: he intends to come straight for your gun in his second term. Which, to me, speaks volumes about the movement's cognitive ability and raises some general ethical concerns. I wonder if NRA members fantasize about defending their home and family from government agents sent by the evil "potentially dictatorial" black President to take away their firearms? Not very hard to imagine.

That said, the vast majority of gun owners and collectors aren't violent criminals. They're just a group of people with a passion and a constitutional amendment to back it up. These random shooting sprees are much rarer than your run-of-the-mill homicide, but both do get a whole lot of press. All you have to do is flip on your local news station for your nightly murder/weather updates. If you kill one non-important regular-ass person, you'll get on local TV for a night and maybe another day or so when you go to court and get sentenced. Seems the more people who kill, the more press you get. We have no idea why this man decided to open fire in a crowded public place on the evening of one of the biggest film premieres of the year... oh wait, maybe we do.

His name is James Holmes and he brought some guns to a packed movie theater... And you now know his name. Did you know it before? Did you know what his face looked like? You'll be seeing a lot of it in the future. And even after he's executed for his crimes or simply left to rot in prison, you'll still hear about him.

Yup. This guy.

He got exactly what he wanted. Legitimate mental issues notwithstanding.

Some Lessons Learned in Dark Souls

Don't worry. You get this armor... you just have to wait until the very end of the game to get it!

So I've played Dark Souls for well over a hundred hours. I've (somehow) completed the game twice and I've made several observations I'd like to share with you. These may especially be helpful for new players. Minor spoilers may follow.

1. Decide what kind of character you want to play EARLY. This is a mistake commonly made in RPGs. You just got the game and you want to experiment when every single little mechanic the game has to offer. You want to swing the biggest swords and also cast spectacular magic. Dark Souls definitely allows a lot of flexibility, but you have to be careful about overextending. I've found that picking two of the stats that affect damage: strength, dexterity, intelligence, and faith, and developing only them is far better than developing all of them evenly. Also, decide what kind of weapon you want to wield early. In Dark Souls, your strength and dexterity (as well as intelligence and faith if you decide to wield magic weapons) scores decide what kind of weapons you can competently wield. If you want a giant axe make sure you have lots of strength. 
2. Resist the temptation to increase the Resistance stat. Since increasing any stat adds to your Resistance score, there's really no point to increasing it on its own. 
3. NPC death is permanent. If you accidentally, or intentionally, kill an NPC, they ain't comin' back. Also, if you accidentally damage an NPC, they will pursue and attack you. However, if you get away you can request "absolution" from Oswald of Carim, for a price, and set things right again. He's located on the roof of the church in room you enter after the Bell Gargoyle fight. 
4. Bosses are always easier with friends. If you're having trouble with a boss, go look for help! Players will typically leave summon signs near bonfires and other designated areas. The game also provides help through summonable NPCs such as Knight Solaire. Solaire will become your best friend throughout the game as he turns difficult bosses into not-as-difficult bosses. Remember, you have to be human to summon a phantom! 
5. Get lots of Humanity! You start off the game as "hollow". Bereft of Humanity, you're more susceptible to damage, you can't experience Dark Soul's online features, and you look like a zombie. Pretty soon, you'll be picking up an item called Humanity. If you use a Humanity, the 00 in the upper left hand corner of your HUD will start to count up. You can use that Humanity at a bonfire to kindle the fire (gives you more Estus Flask charges for healing, also assuming you've learned the Rite of Kindling) and you can select "Reverse Hollowing" to restore yourself. When human, you take less damage and you can summon phantoms/invade other worlds. Just Google "humanity farming" for some good farming spots.
6. Do NOT use all your Humanity! Don't use all your Humanity as you acquire it. Leave plenty of it in your inventory in case of emergency. Let's say you die inside a particularly difficult boss's room: if you don't have any Humanity in your inventory, you can't reverse hollowing and summon help. In other words, you're shit-out-of-luck.
7. Spend acquired souls ASAP. The first time I played Demon's Souls, I lost around 40k souls at the beginning of the game from being an idiot. When you die in Demon's Souls/Dark Souls, you drop all your souls (and Humanity in Dark Souls case) and have to return to the point of your death to get them back. If you've decided on what kind of character you want to build, you shouldn't have a problem spending all your souls as soon as possible on leveling up, weapons, etc. 
8. Avoid the Blade of the Darkmoon covenant until you're a competent PvPer. Covenants grant the player extra items and weapons upon joining. The concept of the Blade of the Darkmoon covenant is awesome. Your job is to get revenge on people who have committed "crimes" such as betraying their covenant. So, if you equip your covenant specific item and walk around, eventually you'll be summoned to another world as a "spirit of vengeance". The problem is that most of the time you'll be summoned to Anor Londo and be annihilated by much higher level assholes that are waiting for you. Until you're comfortable taking on multiple opponents in PvP, stay away. 
9. Do not enter Anor Londo unless you have a decent stock of Humanity. After ringing both Bells of Awakening and conquering Sen's Fortress, you are flown to Anor Londo to retrieve the Lordvessel. The boss(es) of Anor Londo are an annoying pair of knights known as Smough and Ornstein. You fight both of them simultaneously: 2 on 1. That is unless you have help. Summoning Knight Solaire is the only way I could complete this fight the first time through. The second time I came close to doing it alone, but it's still extremely hard for me. If you don't have Humanity, you can't reverse hollowing and summon Knight Solaire or another player to help. Plan ahead! You can leave Anor Londo before getting the Lordvessel, but you have to go all the way back through Sen's Fortress and, believe me, one trip through the Fortress is enough. 
10. When you are human, beware of invaders. In Anor Londo and the game's final area, I was invaded so frequently that I eventually just went offline so I could farm Silver/Black Knights in peace. Invaders are not to be trifled with. Most invaders sport powerful PvP builds and, if you're just playing PvE like me, odds are you're not optimally equipped to defeat them. They can be cheap, too. Nothing is more annoying then being killed by an invader and then making a stupid mistake on the way back to pick up your souls and losing all of them. If invaders get annoying, go offline. Or stay hollow. 
11. Never give up. Dark Souls is a hard game, for sure, but it's not impossible... well, except maybe Smough and Ornstein with no help. But besides that, you can do it! Believe in yourself and all that jazz.

BUI: Blogging Under the Influence

I may or may not be heavily medicated right now.

So before writing that post about The Amazing Spider-Man, I haven't done shit on this blog in forever. I don't know why I started it in the first place. Most of views are most likely traffic Google image search. The most views I ever got was the most about Final Fantasy summons (which gives you an idea of how interesting my blog is). It was also the post with the most pictures probably. Anytime someone typed "shiva ff" into Google, my image probably came up somewhere in the results. I guess I wanted a venue to give my barely informed opinion on stuff like movies and video games. Reading some of these old posts is quite revealing. What was I thinking? Like, for example, my review of Up in the Air is several paragraphs of me doing my best Roger Ebert impression. I was initially attracted to his style because of how personal it is. Much critical writing about film is kinda dry, but Ebert's work tells a story. He's also got wit by the bushel: something I wish I had. The most hilarious thing I ever did was enable ad sense on my blog. Yeah, I really did that. No lying. A few views a day, if that, and I was going to make bank on it.

Many of these posts don't accurately reflect my style. Up until the Spider-Man review, I struggled with my voice. I feigned seriousness by emulating a serious movie critic and grasped at straws for stuff to write about. I also imposed an arbitrary "rating system" on myself that I abandoned after like seven minutes. I now think I have a better idea of what I want to do with this blog. Just fucking write. Just like the good ol' days. Like when I was a bat-shit insane teenager writing on Xanga and Myspace and being all passive-aggressive. 

Who every blogger thinks they are.

The irony is that I have a lot of fun blogging, but I make fun of blogging and, more specifically, bloggers all the time because of how self-important they seem to be. I was definitely way guilty of this and probably deserve life imprisonment for it. Why should I care what you think about Natural Born Killers? Who the fuck are you? I'm no one. The Internet gives me a voice I probably don't deserve. I'm not a particularly spectacular writer, nor am I bursting with wit and intelligence. I'm also not a big enough whore to beg for people to read my blog. I'll post a link on Facebook and say: "yeah, I wrote this. Read it if you want I guess maybe sorta." And what about the people who become famous for half an hour for having a sour interaction with a real celebrity and blogging about it later. The recent Daniel Tosh rape joke controversy speaks to this. As well as the whole Patton Oswalt ordeal. Both of these actual goddamn celebrities were forced to apologize to a couple of, as Oswalt puts it "self-aggrandizing," nobodies. Doesn't that seem wrong? Maybe I'm going about this wrong. Maybe I should go heckle Louis CK so he'll make a mean joke about me. Then, I can pretend to be so upset about it later on my blog and he'll have to beg for my forgiveness. But it's whatever, I guess. I'm going to keep doing this because I get some level of enjoyment out of it whether anyone's listening or not.

The Amazing Spider-Man!

You've already forgotten about this movie.

Sometimes I'm a less than perceptive movie-goer. Case-in-point: I laughed for a solid two minutes when a buddy informed me that Dr. Curt Connors from the The Amazing Spider-Man was played by Little Nicky's antagonist Adrian (Rhys Ifans). However, once I thought about it a bit, I realized that this was a good thing and that the film had handily did its job: it captivated me.

The Amazing Spider-Man is technically the fourth Spidey film, but, likely, the start of a new trilogy and comes after Sam Raimi derailed the franchise with the dismal Spider-Man 3 in 2007 (which had about 1.5 too many villains). It's directed by Marc Webb: the asshole that nearly ruined my life with (500) Days of Summer. Still cleaning up the emotional scars left by that one...

Our Peter Parker is played by Andrew Garfield and boy does he play the fuck out of this role. In fact, if TAS did anything right, it was casting. Emma Stone is the perfect Gwen Stacy, Martin Sheen is the perfect Uncle Ben, and Little Nicky's brother Adrian is a wonderful Curt Connors. And, of course, Garfield is Peter Parker. He owns him in a way that Tobey Maguire never quite could in the prior three films. He's more sarcastic, more quip prone, and possesses a smaller, more insect-like frame than Maguire's Spider-Man did. All improvements as far as I'm concerned.

The douche is strong with this one.

The first part of the film will be familiar to anyone who watched the first Spider-Man, but with a few different elements tossed in such as the mysterious circumstances that caused Peter's parents to abandon him in the first place. Circumstances that remain extra mysterious since the film never quite gives us a concrete explanation for what exactly happened. I'm guessing we'll find out in two to three years in The Spectacular Spider-Man, or perhaps Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. Anyway, Peter's parents ditch and leave Peter in the care of Uncle Ben and Aunt May (Sally Field... yeah, I was surprised, too). The film picks up years later with Peter a teenager and dealing with teachers, a rude couple dry-humping each other on top of his locker, and familiar high school jock douche-nozzle Flash Thompson. God, I miss high school. After handing our beloved hero an ass kicking for standing up for a kid Flash was bullying, Peter returns home to find a messenger bag left behind by his father. Inside the bag Peter finds lots of odds and ends and eventually uncovers a secret compartment (and the plot): some of his father's work. An equation.

Enter Dr. Curt Connors: the world's foremost expert on, foreshadowing, reptiles. Dr. Connors works at Oscorp, the world's foremost authority on green super-villains, and is interested in cross-species genetics. He's obviously and personally motivated by his missing right forearm. Wouldn't it be just dandy to grow it back? Sure would!

As with the previous Spider-Man films, the big theme is responsibility. Uncle Ben advises Peter about power and responsibility before falling victim to a petty criminal that Peter could have easily mangled if not for his hubris. Once again, it's the same basic formula as the first Sam Raimi film, just shook up a bit. The film drives the point home again by having Parker ultimately responsible for Dr. Connors metamorphosis into the Lizard by sharing with him his father's equation. If it ain't broke, don't fix it I suppose. I've heard a lot of people complain about this approach and I can certainly see why it might annoy. For the first half of the film, it's essentially the same movie (just better). Why not just handle is like The Incredible Hulk did? As same-y as the film is in the beginning, half the fun is seeing how super-heroes become super.

So, that's about it. This post has exhausted me. I have no good way to end it and I've written and deleted entire paragraphs over the course of two days. I guess I'll just end in in the most vanilla way possible: on the whole, The Amazing Spider-Man is an excellent Spider-Man reboot with an extremely strong cast, good visuals, and leaves me with the impression that the next Spidey film will be even better. Kind of like the first one!

Review: The Taint

Dirty Phil

I watched The Taint last night. As soon as it was over, I wanted to write about it. The Taint is a low budget, independent "action/comedy/horror", per IMDb, film written and directed by Drew Bolduc. The plot centers around the water supply being "tainted" by a miraculous drug cooked up by two nerdy scientist-types who want to make their penises larger. What the drug actually does is to turn men into maniacal "misogynists" who run amok with their enhanced penises (literally dangling out of their pants) killing any woman they can find with large rocks or anything else that's lying around. One of the last non-enhanced men around is Phil O'Ginny (played by Drew Bolduc) who teams up with a recently widowed femme fatale Misandra (get it?) in a quest for untainted water. Along the way, more blood, semen, and viscera fly than I thought was available for purchase in the great state of Virginia (where the movie was filmed).

Not your thing? I certainly wouldn't recommend it to just anyone. That said, I'd like to pose a question: what would you rather watch? Transformers: Dark of the Moon or this? One is a labor of love created by people who seem to have a genuine interest and love of film. The other is a boring, pandering, vacuous, Hollywood money-pit whose only redeeming quality is... well, I can't think of any. I know my answer.

Something you'll immediately notice when watching The Taint is that, despite having a low budget and no studio backing, it's not filmed by amateurs. Drew Bolduc and Dan Nelson (credited for cinematography) make the film's shots interesting and exciting, full utilizing the cinematographer's toolbox. It's avant-garde, art-house and anything else you'd hear patrons of artsy indie theaters pontificate on outside after a viewing. The music (once again, I give you Mr. Drew Bolduc) is a well-made, interesting cross of house, chiptune-esque, and rock which I'm still listening to. The film's special effects and makeup are some of the best practical works I've ever seen.

DVD cover

The film itself jumps around and changes perspectives often and lampoons many topics. Cody Crenshaw plays an overenthusiastic high school physical education teacher with a penchant for "shirts and skins" activities (he's often yelling off-screen to a kid named "Anderson" whose probably overweight and picked on). His character is excellent parody of the kind of alpha-male douchebags we all know. We're treated to a sequence of his character working out while fitting 80s hair metal music plays and several shots of him displaying, what I call his "workout boner", bulge through tight and super-short shorts. The fact that the entire world ends in pursuit of a drug that makes your penis bigger just cracks me up to no end. Are men so insecure about the size of their dick that they'd collapse society to rectify this situation?

My only real gripe with the film is the way it constantly jumps in perspective and flashes back and forth from past to present. Perhaps it could have been more focused in this regard, but I'm not convinced it's really a problem. This film has already vigorous defied convention and what is considered "good taste" in many other respects, so why should I expect it to unfold in a conventional manner? Would it really benefit from that? 

But let me get back to my question. What would you rather watch? A movie like Dark of the Moon insults my intelligence and laughs at me as I exit the theater devoid of another $10. A movie like The Taint is silly and "distasteful", but has fun and is, ultimately, *gasp* more intellectually stimulating (in odd ways) than transforming robots and Shia La... whatever his last name is. Lest we forget Peter Jackson made Bad Taste and Braindead before he won 11 Oscars.