Mosher'sUnimaginativelyEntitledBlog
–**– The Blog Without A Bloody Annoying Tagline –**–
I just found this by random and it’s well worth a look if you like whacky artwork and clever computery stuff. Essentially it’s a big Flash animation, but it’s very hypnotic. A series of images by various artists have been layered together. As you dive into one you move to the next and so on.
It’s also available as a downloadable screensaver, I think just for Windows.
Linkety-link: Zoomquilt2
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?w=840)
I still follow the gaming press though I play about 2 hours of computer games a month right now – and that only when I visit my folks and load up Guitar Hero. There’s a bit of a buzz around about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Specifically, an early level which features some fairly “disturbing” content.
First up, folks – SPOILER. Don’t read on if you’re waiting for the game and want to be shocked by this bit. On your own head be it if you continue past this point.
Now, I’m pretty laid back. I see a game as it is. A game. But then, I’m not mental. And neither, very importantly, am I a parent. Some kind soul has uploaded a complete video of the offending level of the game. It is available from this linky-bit here. Again, don’t go and watch it if you’re bothered about spoilers.
The first thing that struck me is how incredible the gaming experience has become since I last bought a title for my PC. As I’ve been using laptops for the last 4 years or so, I’m not used to 3D graphics of that standard. When I did use my PC, I was topping out on the likes of GTA3. Graphics have come a long way in three years. Remember that the PS3 and Xbox 360 didn’t come out until after I’d packed all my stuff away and gone backpacking.
So what’s the furor about? Basically as part of one of the missions you have to shoot a lot of civilians. A lot. A whole airport full of them. With guns and stuff.
Now is this so bad? I mean, it’s fake isn’t it? Is it any worse than watching a disaster movie, or someone going on a rampage in a town in some violent film or other?
To me, the answer is no. But would I want a 12 year old to play the same game as me? Not in this instance, no. I may be getting soft in my old age, but there is a point where fantasy is obvious and this isn’t it. The game in question is grisly and this level in particular completely blurs the line between fantasy and reality.
I’m all for the likes of war games where you’re a soldier fighting other soldiers. With the atmosphere possible in today’s gaming environments it’s almost educational and the fact that teamplay and communication starts to enter into it actually appeals to me as far as providing them to kids is concerned. When your actions have consequences and there are reasons for performing them then it can pass on some kind of moral message – even if that message is “attack my country and I’ll shoot all your soldiers”.
However, running rampage in an airport from a terrorist’s viewpoint isn’t really conducive to a balanced view of life. While it’s still “just fun” it does cloud that moral viewpoint that sees to be hard to instil these days.
I’ve watched that video right through and all I can say is that it looks like a fun blast, but they still haven’t solved one flaw that’s been in games for ages – “living” characters just walking through corpses on the floor as if they were ghosts. I know it’s a nightmare if you make each corpse “solid” as they you have to jump/dodge round them. But how about some animation for just stepping on or around them that doesn’t involve the player having to hop around like a pogo stick?
I guess that’s the limit of my personal issues with it. The game has an 18 certificate. It’s there for a reason. It’s adult scenes and adult subject matter so it should be played by adults – or younger kids with parental discretion.
I really don’t see what the fuss is about.
Just for a change, a Saturday visit to the picture house and what a change it made crowd-wise. While I much prefer an empty theater (as people are generally selfish, noisy buggers in this country) it is good to see that the cinema is still a popular place to go. The queue was pretty big at 1pm, and by the time I walked past at 3pm I was glad I’d picked up the ticket for my second film in advance – the queue was out the door and up the street!
The Men Who Stare At Goats
Weird title, weird film. Apparently based on a weird book – which I actually remember seeing in the Popular Science section of Waterstone’s many years ago.
Plot-in-a-nutshell: a journalist with a failed marriage heads for Iraq to write a war story. On the way he encounters a retired soldier who claims to have been part of an elite psychic soldier outfit. And this is apparently based on a true story…
The main cast is astounding: George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, Ewan McGregor, Kevin Spacey… Robert Patrick is headlined, but he’s only in it for five minutes. They’re all damn good as well. McGregor managed to pull off a decent American accent without sounding stupid while Clooney pulls off stupid without looking… well, stupid.
This is a film about complete mentalists. It’s hard to tell where the line is drawn between docu-drama and complete fiction. I’d guess that the book is the same, partly as it just seems to far-fetched. Yet how unlikely is it that armies were throwing cash a potential psychic “weapons”?
There are laughs a-plenty, most of them quite dark. The fact that McGregor’s character ends up in a quest to become what the psi-ops regiment called a “Jedi” is not lost on the viewing public either.
Overall a good film that doesn’t outstay it’s modest running length.
The last decent female-based teen horror film was Ginger Snaps and that was released ages ago. Jennifer’s Body goes more down the “monster” than “werewolf” route but does it well with some great black humour. And two hot girls snogging.
Plot-in-a-nutshell: Town bike Jennifer turns from slut to blood-hungry psycho, requiring the blood of scared teens to survive. Her best friend is the only one to know her secret and she doesn’t like it.
When I saw the trailers I thought “rubbish – move on”. Then I saw some reviews, and not just from the likes of Baz Bamigboy and Jonathan Ross‘s far less talented sibling who will say anything is the “Best film of 2009” if it gets them a free bag of popcorn. The schedule fitted in with my free time so I took a chance.
The film opens after the end of the main plotline with one of the characters putting us into the scene. The story then jumps to the beginning and is more or less linear from there except for a brief jump back to explain exactly what happened to Jennifer (Megan Fox). Fox, incidentally, is hot. Scorchy hot. I-would-give-a-limb hot. But credit must also go to co-star Amanda Seyfried who plays the frumpy best friend, Needy – “frumpy” in the sense that as soon as she takes off her glasses and shakes out her hair she’s also typically sexy.
Everything happens at a good pace with the characters not being too stereotypical. The gore isn’t over-the-top and the effects are good. What I liked most, other than the humour, is the way the two main characters act opposite each other and how Needy develops.
You can pretty much guess what happens, it’s the ending that’s fairly original. Although not a huge twist, it’s definitely well written.
Don’t avoid this film just because it has obvious eye candy in. Don’t get me wrong. Fox isn’t that great an actress, but her hotness is actually useful in this film. And you get to see her with her tongue down another hot chick’s throat. Admittedly this scene was made somewhat less erotic by one numpty in the cinema crying “YAY” in a dull monotone, resulting in a huge outburst of laughter and a smattering of applause.
Still, that’s a throwaway moment in the film in my opinion. The main reason to see it is Seyfried’s performance. And the poor jokes.
A few weeks ago I emailed Cineworld to ask why they didn’t encourage people to re-use their 3D glasses. With the number of 3D films coming out now, it seemed daft for thousands of pairs of the things to be thrown away when they could be used time and time again.
Recently I noticed “recycle bins” for them appearing at the cinema. A cheapskate approach as it meant the cinema would save money by re-using them but not pass the saving on to the customer with a reduced cinema ticket if they brought them back in.
Lo and behold… on the recent newsletter I just got from them it states that glasses are now down to 80p a pair and if you bring your own back in again then there’s no additional charge on your ticket. I believe the 3D films still cost more to see (in fairness, they cost more to make), but you do save a little cash by recycling.
Well done, Cineworld.
No real updates right now as I’m utterly buried in work. Back at school and, though I’m still enjoying it, it’s really hitting home how much effort this course is.
By mid-December I have a total of 11 smallish essays and 20 lesson plans to be ready for perusal. I must have one crit (assessed lesson) and over the xmas break I need to do a much larger essay due in just after new year.
In addition I’ve volunteered to help out with the school website which needs a facelift, and have to sit in on – and teach – quite a few lessons.
As the term’s gone on, other things are noticeable as well. Such as the behaviour of some children getting worse. I suppose it’s to be expected as boredom sets in, but it’s freaking even me out! I know I’ll sound like a complete old git (which is fair – I am one) but watching one lad yesterday totally failing to grasp the concept of “under your breath” while swearing at the teacher beggared belief. Of course, he had nothing to lose as he was being handed a detention anyway. Cue two slammed doors and much sulking.
Now I’m not one to condone hitting children. Or anyone else for that matter. Chavs excepted, obviously. And greasy racist politicians. And Mike Ashley. But to some extent I can see how in olden times teachers resorted to the belt or the cane. I don’t think it’ll have helped any, but it sure would have felt good to take the frustration out somehow!
Of course, whacking someone’s only going to make matters worse in the long run. I wholly believe that such methods lead you down the slippery path of violence being the natural solution to everything. If a teacher can leather me for swearing, then I can punch Wiggins in the face for stealing my sandwich.
These days, though, I reckon if you took a swing at Jenkins, he’d shank you.
Roll on Slayer in a couple of weeks… subject to Tom Araya recovering from back surgery otherwise the gig will be cancelled as have all their Canadian dates. I’ll need the mosh pit to release some tension, I think.
[disclaimer – the kids aren’t that bad. Most of them. Seriously, it’s the usual tiny minority that “spoil it for everyone else”]