MOVIES - Kingdom of Heaven

Score: 6.2

After reading up on this movie, I feel a little jilted. Apparently there is a 49-minute longer director’s cut version, wherein Ridley Scott’s more ambitious film-making is given further time to flounder or flourish. However, having seen just the standard theatrical release, I have to state that this movie largely flounders.

Shoddy characterization, cringe-worthy dialogue, poor acting (Bloom is especially guilty, though Liam Neeson seems to be growing more limited the more I see of him), and historical inaccuracies are simply too much to beat back the great action shots, good cinematography and score, good acting (Edward Norton was in that movie? WTF?), and a decent attempt at trying to connect with (and possibly ease?) Islamic-Christian tensions in the present day by looking to the past.

Perhaps that is the easiest and most direct place to discuss the merits and weaknesses of the film. Through some rather blatant dialogue symbolism, Scott sets up Jerusalem as more or less what Western audiences perceive it to be to this day: a place of mystical powers and history, which, it is perceived, many millions are willing to kill to obtain in order to achieve their lofty (and completely misguided) sense of heaven. Scott’s own view of that heaven quickly comes out however, as a mystical place that exists only in our heads and the only purpose of which is to serve as a sounding board for the epitome of whatever ideology we are under the sway of. Balian, Orlando Bloom’s character, gives a speech near the end of the film that advocates a completely secular understanding of God, worship, and the Crusades as a whole. To many people I think this is a big bone of contention, and rightfully so. Could the horrors of war turn even the most devout of medieval believers into some form of atheists? Absolutely. Did it turn men like Balian into such atheists? No. Firmly insulated by nobility, political power, and a fierce investment in the power represented by the Catholic clergy, leaders like that of Orlando Bloom’s character would never have advocated a 21^st century view of equal-but-different faiths, and that is just the biggest of all the historical fuck-ups of the movie. If, as Scott seems to have advocated, the movie was designed as an examination of religious conflict, his examination is both topical and completely unilluminating. The “we can all get along if we just understand we’re all human” approach is true, but none of the people in this movie, historically (or if their characters are imposed on the leaders of today), are secular humanists, and as much as it pulls at my bleeding heart strings, an impassioned plea for us all to abandon religion is not going to solve the problem and bring about the typical Hollywood ending this movie concludes with. It wouldn’t have in the past, and it won’t now. It’s really superficial proselytizing, and as much as I love left-leaning Hollywood for presenting this stuff, there are better ways of doing it. Check out Brokeback Mountain.

Still, for all the historical mistakes, there is a degree that his analysis of the possible peace between faiths (actively at war then, undoubtedly at tension with one another on a number of topics now) is useful, if not tastefully done. The very idea of touching a Crusade movie in our current religious climate is ballsy, if nothing else, and it’s not like Scott placed machine guns or suicide bombers in the movie in some messed up form – he kept it firmly within the limitations of the time period, and he deserves credit for it.

Other criticisms quickly have to come up though. Another one at the forefront is the simple sensation one gets, in watching the movie, that Scott bit off more than he could chew. There are too many characters, too little exposition, and too few major plot events to make up for it. For an example – rather than leaving Saladin as an enemy without back-story or conflict (which might have actually worked better for the movie, leaving only the final meeting between Balian and Saladin to show the Muslim character’s compassion and willingness to compromise – a far stronger showing, and one the actor likely would have been up to), needless scenes depicting an apparent conflict between him and one of his advisors are shown, the totality of which lead to nothing. Perhaps in the extra 49 minutes more is fleshed out, but I don’t see how it would be enough. In reaching for the epic scope, writer and director both missed the fine balance between personable and expansive. You sort of get the one, but the other is just a mish-mash of overly simplistic and mildly conflicted motives.

Besides story and plot however, there are several positives to the film. Much like The Painted Veil most of them revolve around the more technical aspects. For recreating Jerusalem in the Moroccan desert, the crew should be applauded. The special effects are good, and the action scenes are both more believable, better filmed, and just plain cooler than the ones in say, King Arthur. As much as I may deride Orlando Bloom’s acting, he has the swagger to control action flicks like few other. It’s too bad this movie wasn’t trying to be one.

Unlike The Painted Veil though, the acting wasn’t uniformly good or bad, with strong and weak points throughout, and the shots weren’t as uniformly beautiful or intriguing either – never once did I think to myself, “Wow, that was pretty cool how they did that.” It’s pretty prototypical filming, and it works for some things, for most, it well, flounders.

MOVIES - The Painted Veil

Score: 7.3

This is a beautifully shot movie with a quite horrible script. And that about sums it up. From the opening few shots, through to the end, the camera and lighting work is exquisite - all the details are illuminated, the play between shadow and light is immaculate, the scenery is the character that constantly dominates every shot, and the landscapes are simply mesmerizing to a prototypical Western viewer who has never been to the Chinese countryside (myself included). Unfortunately, the landscape is too big a character in this novel-come-movie, which would have sufficed in far easier times as a parable play. As it stands it's merely a set of really great shots, with some decent acting but relatively little characterization.

Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh, but considering Edward Norton's character declares his love for Naomi Watts after dancing a single time with her (which the audience isn't even privy to), you can tell this isn't a story big on back-story or character development. It's merely taking cliches (the simple but beautiful woman and the intelligent but not so good with women scientist) and thrusting them onto a backdrop where they have yet to be fully played out - Colonial China in the 1920's, with Cholera to boot. The tale of love, betrayal and reconciliation is trite and predictable to the last (I predicted the final scene involving flowers after witnessing its counterpart in the beginning fifteen minutes), but serviceable. The dialogue is merely atrocious, without a hint of following the old adage "Show, don't tell." The word "love" comes up so often it makes me wince. Rather than showing the two characters fall in and out of love, the director and writer were satisfied to have the character's talk about falling in and out of love with each other. The few times it even achieves a decent parlance into this manner of story-telling, it is still the camera that is doing the work (Edward Norton's watching Naomi Watts undress was particularly telling). The topical dips into anti-colonialism are pretty weak as well, seemingly thrown in for the purpose of... well actually I can't tell the purpose, other than to provide some background to the time period for western viewers I suppose.

Still, in many respects it is a good film - the soundtrack delivers, the backdrop is adequately epic, and the acting is still heartfelt, even if the stars, or anyone else really, was given rather little to work with. For me though, it's just a little too light on the things that could have catapaulted it into a great film, and when you have all these other pieces in play (like an obviously talented director and cinematography team) it's really inexcusable.

MUSIC - Motown Classics: Gold

Score: 9.8

Holy crap what a collection. Usually when I'm listening to two CD's worth of various artists, there isn't a whole lot of good stuff to say. Quality varies so much from artist to artist, from time to time for each artist, and the huge changes in sound that usually come with anything that spans fifteen years is often too much to take in, even if quality isn't an issue.

But for the 13 years covered here, Motown was at its best, and America knew it. The Temptations, The Supremes, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder (I didn't even know he performed when he was young enough to be labeled "Young Stevie Wonder"), The Jackson 5, Four Tops, etc. These were huge names singing hugely popular songs, and they were all doing so under the guidance of Motown records. These songs have had such an impact on popular culture that I recognized half of them without having ever "heard" them before, on their own, as music. That means they were used in TV, movies, in shopping malls, or were simply relics of my parents' meagre music collection in the 80s which I mostly blocked out. These are great pop songs, without any doubt.

The more critical part of me wants to question the ingenuity of such mass-produced tracks (the HDH songwriting team apparently wrote 25 number one hits, as many as Lennon-McCartney, which is itself simply amazing) and the artistic "integrity" of the artists who performed them, but I simply can't. I don't care that every song was in 4/4 time, or that few of the artists wrote their own material, or that certain tropes were repeated time and time again; all I care about is hearing another tune, because I know it will be good. That this collection just scratches the surface of most of these artists (all of whom brought special touches to the songs, and delivered them with a professionalism and soul rarely heard amongst the pop stars of today) makes me happy, because I know there are more songs (perhaps not of the same quality, but probably not far off) just waiting to be discovered and rediscovered. I'm sold, I love Motown.

U.S. Economy.

Score: 2.8

Headlines like the one for this: "Dow jumps more than 250 points after prior day's big drop" make me even more scared every day that the United States is headed into a huge recession, possibly even a Depression (yes with a capital D). Nobody knows what the economy is doing, quite obviously. The fact that the DOW hasn't fallen much more significantly than it has is evidence of only one thing in my mind: the true effects of the housing bubble, the war in Iraq, job losses, oil and other commodity prices, and any number of other smaller forces, have not yet been felt properly in the market. With Bush's massive tax cuts, America is in the best consumer position in its postwar history (in terms of imagined disposable income) yet the Fed and Whitehouse seem to think "economic stimulus" (ie. quicker tax refunds, lower taxes, etc.) will somehow create income in middle class households. It won't. Wages have simply not matched inflation, good-paying jobs have disappeared due to globalization, and the credit crunch may soon mean a prime rate nearing 0. All this to avoid a recession that was brought on by stupidity all around. The people who didn't predict the housing bubble and the GDP contraction that is on its way, are the same people that are causing huge fluctuations in the day-to-day stock markets. In other words, the people who have no idea what's going on, but are trying to predict it anyways. I have little faith.

BOOKS - War and Peace

Score: 9.1

The title in the least is a cliché to end all clichés, a testament to the ability of a simple phrase to create, and conjure within each person who glimpses it, an indefinable aura of pathos and epic. I mean, just think of a world without War and Peace. It just can’t exist (which is kind of Tolstoy’s point, but we’ll get to that later). Sooner or later someone was going to come up with the two great contrasts of the multitudes in our era of the nation-state, and novelize it with as much force and devotion as Confucius’ philosophized it thousands of years earlier before nation was even a distant science-fiction-esque thought. That Tolstoy did it first, and did it in the manner that has shaped our understanding of that titular phrase, isn’t surprising given his knack for epic, large-scale stories. Like War and Peace’s 1400-page marathon, Anna Karenina is no overly-long novella, and neither will ever be mistaken for the product of an imagination with a short attention span. Indeed, above everything else, the novel is best remembered for its sheer size: spanning two decades, three generations, and the largest war then known to mankind, Tolstoy’s vision was enormous; of course the pathos of the title arises not from millions clashing against millions, but from our seemingly instinctive knowledge that the monstrosity of the title gains it’s gravitas merely in the individual lives that are caught in the midst of the two extremes - it is there that Tolstoy focuses and ultimately falters.

“Falters?” You say. How can War and Peace, a book which I myself have just devoted a rather languid paragraph extolling the virtues and cultural/linguistic impact of, falter in any respect? It is literature qua literature, the end-all and archetype of nearly everything that has come before it. It is faultless, beautiful, eloquent, vast, and timeless. Much of this understanding of the novel is true, and much of it is false.

Take timelessness for example. Sure, the core elements of love, live, death, strife, politics and power, war, and peace, are all present in the book, and all front and centre as they should be. Yet Tolstoy’s understanding of all these things, and even their minuatae, are ultimately very dated. The central love relationship between Pierre Bezuhov and Natasha Rostov, for example, ultimately winds up as merely another Victorian-ideal relationship of subservience and domestication of the female spirit, even though there is no way the character of Natasha (which, up until the last sixth or so of the book, is one of the most vivacious and promising women I’ve read) could in any reality succumb to such domestication. While I’m a big proponent in the idea that socialization plays a huge role in our personalities and the abilities of our personalities to change, there’s a certain level at which a personality simply is: and Natasha’s sudden change to domestic queen is nothing but contemporary wish-fulfillment in the characteristically narrow view of femininity. That Tolstoy himself viewed his own wife’s domestic care as the epitome of love, seems to mean that he translated such love to be universally desired and attainable, by both sexes, throughout war and peace. Such domestication is clearly unsuitable to many people in this day and age, and as such, timeless goes out the window.

Similarly in terms of its effect on literature. While early proto-Modern writers may have borrowed heavily from Tolstoy, his rather limited play in terms of format, style, diction, etc. are nothing compared to say Joyce’s Ulysses (which, admittedly, I am currently reading) which was written a mere fifty years later, and his heavily realist based fiction is light-years distant from the post-modern world of a JPod or a Warrior Woman. Rather than the halberdier of future literature, War and Peace is more the undertaker of its past. In the following years the Dickensian tropes, the beautiful, sentence-long paragraphs that describe the most ornate of details, all the assurance that arose from having a single viewpoint and being absolutely sure that viewpoint was correct (ie. Before God died), largely vanished.

“But,” you exclaim, “this is a contemporary reading of a novel that cannot be read as such. Allowances must be made, the base and superstructure (and the ideology therein) have changed dramatically, human psychology has adapted, the world is not the same!” And such an exclamation is true. But it simply doesn’t matter. It’s not that Tolstoy is a complete failure at touching the deeper cores of the points he is reaching for, it’s that he shies away from them when they naturally arise.

Take, for example, the climax. It is not, as may be thought, the fall of the French army, or Pierre’s marriage to Natasha, or Prince Andrei’s death. Instead it comes at a crossroads between the two extremes of the novel, wherein a wounded Prince Andrei looks upon his rival and foil Anatole Kuragin, who is suffering horrendously in a field hospital alongside Andrei. To understand the moment, you need to know only that the two are foils, and that Kuragin stole Andrei’s fiancé Natasha Rostov (see above), prompting a great amount of subliminal hatred between the two. Yet in that single moment, Andrei views Kuragin screaming in sheer agony, in a quiet, peaceful din in the midst of a field of war, and feels not hatred, or pity, but the indescribable understanding that Anatole Kuragin is human just the same as Andrei himself, and as such his actions were necessitated by nature just as much as were Andrei’s, or Napoleon’s, or anyone else’s. Gone is any sort of trivial emotion in the face of overwhelming understanding, an understanding of human existence that cuts through all sense of culture or socialization, and shoots straight to the essence of being. Within the novel it is expressed in a clearly Christian display of God, but its power is agnostic, and means one thing to all people, regardless of who reads it. This is the climax in that it ties in directly, on both a character and plot level, with Tolstoy’s thesis within the novel – the destruction of free will as a viable metaphysical notion.

To think that versions of the book were made wherein Tolstoy’s rather long-winded philosophical tracts were removed completely from the body of the novel is simply disappointing. Tolstoy’s one gigantic tract throughout War and Peace is to show how the minute and tiny pieces of human and natural interaction combine to form the sweeping forces that, so clearly to Tolstoy, pushed the national forces which formed the central conflict of 1812. This point of view, whether Hegelian or a much firmer determinist point of view, isn’t completely fleshed out at any point, but is merely taken for fact, and all the characters, actions, and events of the book play out with this point of view narrating and controlling each step along the way. That view leaves no room for freedom, and Tolstoy’s long, final essay concerning the appearance of free will is a well argued one that concludes only in the very last paragraph, wherein Tolstoy pleads for human beings everywhere to merely accept that they are not free, and accept their dependence on fate.

Such a thesis is obviously a touchy subject, and one’s acceptance of Tolstoy’s vision will largely be decided on whether they agree on this singular subject. Since I personally agree with Tolstoy, I find it his saving grace, the one point at which he truly does achieve timelessness. So don’t take it wrong, this is not a negative review. Whereas much of his narrative is what I would now consider flawed, I can accept and appreciate the contemporary reading of his novel; I can see how his eloquence could be mistaken for perfection, or how his near exact control and understanding of his characters could be mislabeled as an understanding of sheer reality. Without doubt there are many things Tolstoy does admirably if not perfectly in this work, but he lacks the post-modern understanding of equality of being that shines through so much clearer in a Toni Morrison or Don DeLillo novel. Though it means that this review itself will ultimately be very dated, I cannot help but wonder what someone with Tolstoy’s abilities and vision could accomplish were they born in the current world, wherein they would experience the entire totality of human life, from its smallest most beautiful forms (which Tolstoy all-too-often ignores for his characters of nobility and privilege) to its most horrifying depths (which he actually does a fairly good job of describing). Such a modern novel would be even longer than War and Peace, filled with the internet, nuclear fears, media censure, Kid A, Black History Month, third world sweatshops, Brokeback Mountain and millions of other things on top of the millions Tolstoy himself dealt with in his time. Yet such a book would be much closer to the one thing Tolstoy obviously sought to connect with most radically in his narrative of human life: the truth.

Napoleonic Total War

Score: 8.2

This post is an addendum to the post below about Medieval: Total War. This is a mod (sort of how Counter-Strike is a mod for Half-Life) which re-uses the basic engine of Total War and sets it during the Napoleonic age. Though I only played one game and did not play it through to the end, I caught enough of the changes to pass some sort of judgment.

The biggest change is obviously in the battles: musketry and artillery play a much larger role in this game, since they were the weapons of choice in this era. Thankfully they do much more damage than they did in the original source game, and they also change the dynamics enough to make the battles far more interesting. Battles no longer resort to the infantry rushes which plagued the original, since the infantry is now a ranged unit. The best few battles I fought were a mix of infantry just standing across from one another and firing away, and the occasional cavalry flank or artillery bombardment, just as would have happened on real battlefields of the day. I always felt that the battles in Medieval were slightly too formulaic and based more on morale than on strategy or numbers even; in Napoleonic, there is just greater balance and variety in the battles. As well, my previous concern over the battles winding up being just a war of the first thousand or so soldiers who then just hold the borders doesn't apply here, as the damage seems to be inflicted with far more focus on units that are in poor position. The result is that unless you stage your battle perfectly, you're going to lose some soldiers, and be forced to call in reserves. As well, since the soldiers' morale was increased to such a high degree (probably to overcome the fact that all the weapons in the game were originally designed to decrease morale), the computer does not flee all at once, mitigating a more relaxed retreat which gives them time to bring on reinforcements and hold their line against you with more aplomb. It's a minor change really, but it does wonders to balance the gameplay.

However in the turn-based strategy part of the game, the mod falls apart a little bit. It's started off with a hodge-podge of stock and modified components in the visuals, which lack cohesion and are at times just downright hard to decipher. The amateur nature of these visuals is also readily apparent, though not much more can really be expected short of a professional budget for the creators. On the gameplay side it gets a little more disturbing - the game I played began around 1750, and as the French, I was expecting some sort of change in the experience around 1789. Nothing came. In fact it was 1812 and not a single difference sprouted up at any time; not to mention I'm not really sure how I could possibly have recreated the Napoleonic advances. While it's fairly easy to levy huge numbers of troops, all the countries in the game have this ability to some extent or another, and it would be difficult to mimic Napoleon's march across Europe, let alone reaching Moscow in the seventy or so turns you have available to you. Other little oddities popped up as well: the English navy, for instance, was incredibly weak, and I conquered the island almost instantly, since, for some reason, they felt it urgent to destroy Denmark and try and conquer Germany as opposed to protecting their base of operations. It was really quite strange actually, and has not been a problem with any other Total War game I've played through, the computer usually acts fairly logically if somewhat predictably. Similarly confusing were some of the extra structures that could be built, which didn't seem to really add much of anything to the game, some of which were just downright useless and confusing, such as the infrastructure add-on, which seems like a good idea, but falls short of usefulness in practice.

Other minor facets include not changing the music of the game, which can easily be forgiven since I don't personally want computer-programmers making music very often; the existence of rebel provinces during this period also seems highly unlikely; and the use of castles is really extraneous since castles were non-factors by this point in history, they merely confound what would be a glorious conquest of a new province.

Overall though, this is a very well-done modification for an already pretty good game. Apparently the same creators, The Lordz, have already put together a second version for Rome: Total War. Still waiting on that new video card however...

MUSIC - Clap Your Hands Say Yeah - Clap Your Hands Say Yeah

Score: 8.4

You have to admire the do it yourself attitude these guys have, if nothing else. They wrote, produced, and printed this album all with their own abilities and (I'm sure) monies. The naivety of thinking that says an internet band can start off in MySpace and wind up on a major label infects this album, and is the one principle reason why they actually did start off on MySpace and wind up on a major label. Enthusiasm, a child-like, viral enthusiasm, is found on every track and every note of this album, and the entire attraction of this CD on a listener is wound up on it.

And let's be glad too, because as far as ingenuity goes, this album doesn't really have it in spades. That's not to say anything bad, but this is the same basic sound as can be found in most indie-synth-pop-rock bands out there. A bit of Bowie, a few indie classics, and a sprinkling of the Cure throughout cures this sound to perfection, and on Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, the sound is crystal clear and still as infectious as it was the first time some hipsters got together and decided to make music. For more recent reference, this band is eerily similar at times to the Wolf Parade, though at moments it borrows more from the Arcade Fire, and of course name-cousins the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. No real comparison can be made however, because there is one unique thing about this band that will likely keep it fresh for the next few years, and that is the voice of Alec Ounsworth, whose ecstatic, yelping, completely indecipherable voice is the head steering mechanism on this album. When the band is at its best, the music follows closely, gently guiding the wheel and intoning its own direction as well. At its worst... well, there really isn't a worst. That's because this album is maddeningly consistent.

Except from the standouts in the middle, "Details of the War" and "The Skin Of My Yellow Country Teeth", the album never really pulls you beyond the stratosphere as you feel it could. It rather holds you quite aloft, tossing you gently this way and that. A fun ride, but not one as memorable as others you might go on, a fact which is only highlighted by the two middle tracks undeniable quality, which makes the rest pale (somewhat) in comparison. It also lacks the genuine ballad or even more general pace and sound changes that can keep an album running after its legs have started to burn. On nearly every song, there is a steady, driving, up-tempo rhythm on the drums, a nice, faint synth-loop that fades as soon as the vocals hit, and a simple guitar riff that places well alongside the rest.

It's only the stripped down and eerily sentimental "Details of the War" that provides anything resembling a change of direction. It provides that well however, as the lack of guitar really gives Ounsworth enough space to let his strangely emotion-filled harmony burn its way into your ears. And who knew a harmonica could provide so much sensation? Though sparsely used, it fits perfectly and is probably the highlight of the album, as the song speeds up into nowhere after that, and the CD never really resurrects itself to that sensation of catharsis. "The Skin Of My Yellow Teeth" manages to pick up at that same up-tempo rhythm, but once again its all guitar and jangly drums, although set with a melody that is so catchy you won't help but return to it again and again.

The rest of this album makes this a ridiculously easy review to write, and though I am not as enamored as other critics have been with this album, it's definitely of a high quality. The key question of whether CYHSY capitalizes on the entire indie-guitar sound as well as those other bands mentioned above is kind of uncertain. For me, they don't, mostly because they seem afraid to innovate or go beyond what they knew would work and work well. I can't really punish them for that, and I doubt I will be skipping over too many of this albums' tracks as they come up on my iTunes; but for the moment, I don't think I'll be searching them out too often either.

CARS - Test Drive - 2007 Jeep Patriot

Score: 6.8

I feel like a fish out of water in writing this, because I have driven so few trucks or truck-based vehicles in my day. Like, two. Total. Ever. So test-driving this four-wheel drive, nearly-midsized, body-on-frame vehicle was actually kind of daunting. To the Patriot's credit, I settled in easily after about two minutes. In fact, on the whole the vehicle surprised me with its civility and basic abilities, though it couldn't really help this SUV past the problems that seem to be afflicting all Chrysler products: interior everything, and some driving dynamics.

For a lot of people, those two things aren't all that important though. Buyer's looking at this segment probably want some size, inside (for headroom, legroom and storage) and out (for safety in collisions), and they will find it aplenty in the Patriot. Though my 5'10" frame had to literally get up out of the seat in order to adjust the rear-view mirror and sun-visor, my 6'1" co-test-driver had no such problems, and for most people such a cavernous size is not a detriment in any way. For me, it was nearly the entire problem. I'll get to that later however. First let me finish my rant about the interior: aside from some swatches of some sort of fake aluminum throughout the console, the rest is composed of the same rough, flimsy and cheap-looking plastic that resides in my Saturn Ion, which, let me remind you, had one of the worst interiors ever. Fit and finish seemed fine, though I did not have time to inspect seams and finishes as I would have liked. The seats were composed of simple if usable cloth material, though the shape of the seats themselves left much to be desired - they left me sunken too far away from the wheel, too close to the pedals, and with little lateral or back support to speak of. Granted, something more than a fifteen to twenty minute drive is needed to speak fairly of seats, but the first impression was not flattering. Similar indifference applies to the rest of the interior: ergonomics were not horrible, but also not terribly efficient either, given the amount of space available in a box of the Patriot's size. Surprisingly, the seats fold flat with a fair amount of ease, and, given that amount of space, should easily provide enough storage for big-screen purchases or home-improvement projects. In other words, everything buyer's are looking for.

Similarly, the mass-market appeal was engineered effectively throughout the rest of the car, from the bulky, hyper-masculine styling (and name), to the everyday driving experience which is overwhelmed at every turn (pun intended) by the ponderous mass of this thing. Equipped with a CVT and 2.4 litre four-cylinder as my test SUV was, the vehicle will do nothing unexpected at any turn. Unfortunately, if you ask any more of it you are likely to be disappointed. Though corners are remarkably flat, and body-roll is negligible, the tough springs which provide such motion-control relate to a bumpy, if still acceptable ride. Even in these flat turns though, the artificially heavy, lifeless steering is painful to experience to anyone who enjoys driving. Similarly, the bulk of the vehicle does its best to uninspire at every chance. Acceleration, especially from a standstill, is somewhat atrocious, and the throttle is insanely indecisive, jumpy at points, slow to react at others (though the vehicle I drove had so few kilometres, the throttle might have been computer-controlled and still trying to adapt to driver inputs). Passing power seemed decent, though the truck is simply too heavy to really expect much from a four-cylinder. Worst of all, in terms of acceleration, is the Continuously Variable Transmission, which is the likeliest candidate for the weak off-the-line acceleration and strange rev-matching pattern which left me without much power again and again. Whether this would get better through time as well, is uncertain, but from what I've read, it doesn't. So that definitely gets a thumbs down. The chassis itself felt quite solid, completely devoid of shudders or shakes through some rather rough, badly-cared-for road, though again, those firm shocks meant everything was getting through, as did the buzzy engine and transmission noise, along with a fair degree of wind howl. The brakes were again quite adequate, and in order to brake for one red-light I had to apply a fair degree of pressure - the pedal and mechanics responded with a linear, clear progression, and stopped easily, though again the mass of the vehicle could be felt: fucking inertia.

So I suppose the overall theme of this review could be adequacy and appeal. These two, the Patriot has in spades. For everything else: meh, it won't matter, they'll sell well enough, if the parent company can keep in the black for a little while. In terms of my own slant, I sat in a Honda CR-V two years ago, for a total of five minutes, and that one sitting left a more pleasant impression in my mind than did this entire test drive. That's all I really have to say. For about 5000 dollars more, there is a substantially more efficient, playful, and refined vehicle - now that Honda has made that 5000 dollar gap exist though, who knows if anyone will actually compare those two vehicles. And even if they did, would anyone think the difference is worth 5000 dollars? Chrysler's obviously willing to bet that the masses won't think so. And they produced an adequate vehicle to test their hypothesis.

POLITICS - Obama's Foreign Policy

Score: 8.0

This is a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. Nixon likely got heat for doing the same with China (remember they weren't considered a "real" nation at the time), and that move of detente helped to end the cold war far earlier than it might have ended had Nixon left the communist nations to stand on their own. The fact is there's nothing to be gained out of outright ignoring or ceasing to talk to any group in power. Secluding yourself from other nations is what will lead to a clash of civilizations, and really hasn't helped in the Middle East especially. Half of those listed are simply cold-war remnants or heavily socialist anyways, and haven't taken any true foreign policy stance against the United States as a political or military entity (Iran and North Korea are exceptions), but really, capitalism won, I think it's time the U.S. gave Cuba and the South American nations they've been exploiting for the last hundred years a bit more slack and open up trade, even if they have to start doing it on socialist terms.

Really though, to quote a wise teacher I once had: talking can't possibly hurt. I'm not saying chum up to them all and hope they won't utilize you for their own domestic policies, but opening up an embassy in Venezuela is not going to do any injury; the worst that happens is some delegate gets yelled at as a bourgeois pig for two weeks straight. When that delegate is still there and still hoping to talk, perhaps something meaningful could come of it. It's just a thought really, this could obviously be a thorny issue should it happen, but to me, it means so little and could possibly allow for so much, it only makes sense.

VIDEO GAMES - Medieval: Total War

Score: 8.4
Developer: Creative Assembly

I've been quite busy with a new job, and therefore, had no time for posting, or much of anything. Prior to starting said job though, I played this game for hours upon hours. Though it's now ancient as far as video (especially PC) games go, we are not all lucky enough to own a high-end video card (or even a system that's capable of holding one of these cards). But despite its age, it's still a high-quality turn-based/real-time strategy game, with enough interesting tidbits in both genres that it was engaging throughout the entire experience.

The main appeal is obviously the huge, far-more realistic real-time battles between massive (though not massive enough) medieval armies, which does challenge the gamer to utilize all the tactics the real players of that age had to use in order to vie for power in those rather troubling times. I can't recall the number of times I cried upon seeing an enemy camped out on the highest part of a mountain, with hundreds of archers just waiting to rain down death upon my own troops. Though not impossible, situations such as these make one think twice of engaging an enemy at all, a situation that simply doesn't exist on many RTS games out there, including the motherlode of arcade strategy, Starcraft. In the rock-paper-scissor systems those type of games inevitably end up using (though Starcraft II looks promising), there's always an alternative. There is in this game too (cavalry is good against archers and infantry, spearmen are good against cavalry, and infantry are good against spearmen), but inevitably it's the true-to-life things which a general can't control, like the weather, morale, and terrain, that dictate much of who wins and who loses. That is a great take and it adds so much to the realism and ethos of the game: it literally places you in the positions that a leader of that age would encounter, which is the entire point of the game.

In the other half, the risk-style turn-based system that governs the movement and generation of troops and provincial improvements, the interface and system is simplistic enough to facilitate ease of use, and yet there is just enough lurking underneath the tech tree to give you a chance to aim for domination in a way beyond mere tactical genius.

The debits against the game are the same that were covered in all the other reviews I've read of this game prior to purchasing it. The diplomacy system is a joke, and basically useless, the religion aspect is frustrating as a Catholic, non-existent as an Orthodox, and kind of cool as a Muslim. The lack of naval control is infuriating, especially when playing as a nation dependent on an island. The battles, for all their innovation in terms of realism, are simply too small; battles of thousands of troops (I once had 8000 Englishmen against 6000 Germans in the decisive battle of my war against them) wind up being mere battles of the first sixteen platoons battling against one another, then holding the border of the battle map and scaring the reinforcements into submission (in the aforementioned battle, I lost 300 troops total to the Germans 3000 because I simply managed to take out their first wave rather quickly). Because of this, the system is only half-realized, as it was the massive battles that usually determined wars, not the skirmishes that are more-than-adequately presented in this title. The graphics, though simple sprites, worked well enough for the time and still convey the scope of battle fairly well. From what I've read, Medieval II improved in all these aspects, and as soon as this new job pays off, I may very well have a brand new video card by which to try it out.

MUSIC - Sufjan Stevens - Seven Swans

Score: 8.8

Label: New Jerusalem Music

The play Sufjan Stevens makes between genres is one of the central reasons his music is so effective. His voice and core instruments scream of simple folk songs, but just when you can have him pegged down in that regard, he pulls out a six person chorus and huge brass instrumentation to drown you in a distinctly non-folk-like melody. This bending of expectation is what made his two state-themed albums, Greetings from Michigan The Great Lake State, and Come on Feel the Illinoise, so varied and enjoyable to listen to. It comes as no surprise then, that this album, an outright and self-consciously religious collection of songs, does not have nearly the variation or desire to work around the boundaries of folk music - instead it feels quite happy working within them. In fact if St. Francis of Assisi were alive today, he would probably listen to albums just like these - simple, striped down and hymnal to their very core, in praise and admiration of the Christian God - an ascetics' off-pop collection that reaffirms everything everybody thinks about religion anyway.

If there is one praise/perjury that can be leveled against this album, it is that it largely sounds the same throughout. There is a guitar or banjo, there is Stevens singing, and there are lyrics in some way or form about God. It may sound daunting and boring to the secular amongst us, but it really isn't, because the beauty of the songs isn't limited (or really enhanced in most cases) by the lyrical content - you could replace the vocals with humanist lyrics and it wouldn't change the quality of the songs either positively or negatively. Because those guitar and banjo pieces are simple and catchy, and the singing is equally so, and each song is just different enough that fans of Stevens or folk more broadly will pick up the subtleties and enjoy them.

The first three tracks of the album are good examples, in that they highlight the repetition of instrumentation used to full effect, paving way for the vocals to soothe and relax the listener, and not asking too much of them in the process either. In fact that could be said of much of the album, in that it relaxedly goes about its business, and it is approachable in varying degrees, from background music to deeply personal tributes that could bring you to tears.

By the time "To Be Alone With You" comes around though, Stevens turns it up a notch, working off of the calm of the early songs and beginning his play with God as the central subject of all the songs. Though it could be claimed the ambiguity of this track is under-utilized by Stevens, others might say it is overused, and so I'll leave the point mum for the most part. This track is undoubtedly well proportioned though, and whether sweet ode to a young lover or a testament to God, it is a beautiful song nonetheless.

Then comes "Abraham" a song so nauseatingly well-thought-out, perfectly executed and simply brilliant, it is a shame only in that I did not hear it earlier. Similarly "Sister" is a well-needed alteration of the path the album takes and another excellently conceived piece. The electric guitar, overdriven just perfectly, still manages to be reflective and melodic, even during its coarser moments, and the swift change of pace into acoustic ditty is perfectly spaced, and gorgeous in its own right.

After these two highlights though, the album does take a bit of a detour, as the trio of "Size Too Small", "We Won't Need Legs To Stand", and "A Good Man Is Hard To Find" are all oft-putting at certain moments, the vocal and musical tracks seeming to compete with one another a bit more than is common in Stevens' best. Not to say that they aren't good songs, but they simply don't gel in one way or another the way the rest of the album does. Whether its an odd key, strange backing vocals or something else, the songs grate a bit quicker than they probably should.

Immediately following that though is the classic "He Woke Me Up Again", yes, blatantly about God, but again, not detrimental for it in any way. Simply another perfect song, the banjo rings off in time with the praise which Stevens works up to, and again and again the song proves that lyrics are only part of the equation.

After all this we finally arrive at the title track, which begins similarly to everything else on the album, but then in the last third the piano, the organ the cymbals and and "The Lord" all enter and take it to another level entirely. That level could be alternatively read as too much, just enough, or perhaps not enough, and even in the context of this album, it is tough to say. The lead up is ambiguous enough, but then Stevens' voice starts pleading, and it loses a lot of its charm when it does so. Then everything is blown wide open, and the undercurrent of latin hymnal praise is brought to full fruition, to what result is up to your own point of view, really. Personally I think it is a questionable choice that didn't turn out as well as it could have. The choice of notes simply make me afraid of this "Lord" not in awe of him. But that could be just me. In either case it's another noteworthy track.

Then comes "The Transfiguration". Having given up any hint of secularism, the lyrics are as in-your-face as a talking, burning bush would be. The music itself is highly reminiscent of something that may have eventually made its way onto Illinois, with the light horns and the movement of the instrumental melodies constantly upward, in a soft, pleasing manner.

And though I can't rate this album as highly as Illinois, it has its own charm and anyone who likes anything Stevens has done should check it out, if for those few well-placed tracks alone. And for those of you who are religiously inclined, I can't help but think that this album would be Franciscan monk approved. For it is, as other reviewers have said, quietly beautiful; not full of over-the-top noise. But a softly sung hymn that is more personal, if perhaps less personable.

MUSIC - John Lennon - Plastic Ono Band

Score: 9.0

I'm a huge Beatles fan. Gigantic, perhaps would be a better word. There is no doubt in my tiny little mind that they were simply the greatest band ever, bar none. Everything they touched reeked of quality, with only a few minor slip-ups in their short, bright career together. But such a band will never exist again, and the evidence of it is all in this one record.

For try as they might, none of Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, or Ringo Starr ever achieved anything as solo artists on the same level as what they managed as a group. It was simply a miracle of human chemistry that such a gigantic amount of creativity deposited itself within Liverpool in the late 1950's, and that those creative endeavours would gel in such a way that they did not compete or outright destroy one another, but managed to complement each other and work harmoniously. The Beatles began before postmodernism, before absolute narcissism became the norm, before music became so fractured it required dashes in order to properly describe what you were listening to. It was only before all of those things that a group like the Beatles could form and write eyeball-to-eyeball some of the greatest pop songs ever.

This album, released in 1970, was Lennon's first after the Beatles, and it was released after all of those other things had happened. Racial barriers in the United States were eliminated (in theory at least), the middle class had blossomed even further, sexual liberation for an entire generation of teens had smoothly produced a mass of sexually active adults on the pill, and suddenly you could be whoever the hell you wanted to be. John Lennon, like the other Beatles, wanted to be himself suddenly. And the music suffered.

Which is not to say, in any way, that this is a bad album. Let's get that out of the way. It's a really, really good album, and don't let anything else I write here sway you otherwise. It's just bad by Beatles standards. Even the fractured, somewhat uninspired Let it Be is better by leaps and bounds. In place of the wide mosaic of abilities that each of the Beatles brought to the table, you have, you guessed it, John Lennon's wordplay and vocal inventiveness, along with some catchy basic melodies and an inventive spirit that underlies all of it. Which produces a lot, a fact which can be attested to by listening to the album today; but it does not produce music that stands the test of time quite as well as say, Revolver or The White Album.

In fact The White Album is a good place for comparison, as the sombre, stripped-down material Lennon produced in that period is similar in many ways to some of the work on Plastic Ono Band. "Hold On" and "I Found Out" could, with some lyrical reworking (you can't say "Fuck" on a Beatles track) have been reworked from the late 60's production of the band. "Look at Me" actually seems to be just that, a redone form of Lennon's own "Julia", complete with the same guitar-picking pattern and a musical and lyrical change of direction. That direction is much darker, much more minimalistic, and simply a more raw sound that puts Lennon's emotions and thoughts right in front of the listener, without McCartney's musical idealism or Harrison's mysticism getting in the way.

That rawness is featured in many tracks, uptempo and down, from "Mother", the opening to end all openings for a record of this type, through "Working Class Hero", a song so covered now it is refreshing to hear Lennon's originally simple, straightforward approach to the lyrical content, through to "Well Well Well" and most poignantly, "My Mummy's Dead", the audio quality of which actually aids in reproducing the simple suffering Lennon is evoking about his mother's death. That bareness of audio soul is refreshing to this day, but it can't pick up the mediocre song-writing (again, by Lennon's own standards) that spots up again and again in this record.

"I Found Out", for example, existed before punk, so even though it's trying to sound punk, Lennon's doing it solo, without the collage of influences that eventually helped form punk as it came to be. The result is a mixed effort that paws halfway between anger and loneliness, without really finding a home in either. "Love" too, is a fairly half-assed collection of phrases which, while poetical in their own right, don't really contribute much in co-ordination with the vocal melody, which is, once again, plain and self-serving.

In fact, it's only when, surprise surprise, Ringo enters on the drums, that these songs really pick up in terms of outright quality. From his steady time on "Mother" to his entrance on "Well Well Well" that set up that track as a perfect steadier on the album, it is his quite unique and identifiable sound on the drums that balance out Lennon's self-aggrandizement on the guitar and piano. Again, the album wouldn't have much positive about it at all without Lennon's self-focus, but it's stronger when a musical buffer, no matter how small, is placed in his way, and it is then that the full emotion of his songs can come out. "Isolation" for instance, is full of the soft, sweeping vocal progression and excellent timing that are Lennon's trademarks, but the killer technique is simply missing. Incipit Paul McCartney, and you have a classic, without him, it is merely a really good song.

All this talk of narcissism and self-focus inevitably brings me to the only place you can naturally end a review of this album, "God". Lennon claims he doesn't believe in Beatles or anything else, just himself (ironically enough always with the inclusion of Yoko Ono, an Other if ever there was one), and that the dream of what the Beatles stood for is over. But somewhere in that deep egotism and individuality that came to typify Lennon in this period, somewhere within the Freudian expression of desires and Primal Therapy, it seems like there is a need to believe in something else, besides himself. Because, let's face it, the quickest way to being an isolated, working-class hero, is to cut yourself off from believing in the closest three friends you might ever have. It's this sort of tension that makes "the line" so painful and confusing for us Beatles-freaks. The line has been talked about to death, and though there's no point adding anything to that discussion, I'm going to. The guy had no idea what the Beatles stood for. His understanding of "the dream" isn't what the Beatles turned out to be in hindsight. They turned out to be the prototype for every rock band since, the most influential group in pop music history, and the poets of an entire generation and movement of love and peace. To Lennon they were just a band. The Beatles will always be remembered as the band that said "All You Need is Love", perhaps above all else, and Lennon, even here (see "Love") still believed as much. It's not that he didn't believe in Beatles, it's that he didn't know what the hell they were yet. They were the last great hurrah for the western musical world before it dissolved into a pluralism it has yet to recover from. But when he wrote that, he was under the sway of that absolute relativity, and in his subjectivity, the Beatles weren't anything to believe in.

Boy, was he wrong.

The song, by the way, is golden, perfectly suited to the list of diatribes against which he is spitting, and augmented by some great piano work by Billy Preston.

Ok, so that's not how I can really end the review. I have to mention the last two tracks, "Power to the People" and "Do the Oz", each filled with enough post-hippie enthusiasm, and Yoko Ono weirdness respectively, to serve as anthemic standbys for... whatever it was they stood for. They clamor, they sway, they demand to be heard. Kind of how the Beatles used to do... but not quite.

CARS - BMW 1 Series

Score: 9.1

Wow, this is a bunch of car-related posts in a row. I apologize. I swear I'm working on a music review too, so don't despair if the auto industry makes you sick.

Anyways, BMW's decided to do what I always hoped it would. Recreate the 3-series. In 1-series form. Just like every other car these days, the 3-series has ballooned to something which it simply was not meant to be. In all actuality, BMW has done a better job than most companies, and the curb weights on its vehicles are usually below competitive averages. Even so, the last 3-series, which ended about two years ago, was the last one to really hit the sweet-spot wherein mass simply isn't a detriment to the driving experience, yet still feels substantial (the same line the Mazda3 and Civic are now straddling). This new 1-series will bring the lightness back, in a big way, and look damn good doing it. I can only hope they bring this to Canada, because I would seriously consider doing whatever it takes to get this car if it arrives here, assuming it drives as well as BMWs are supposed to (I wouldn't know, I've only ever been a passenger). Car & Driver predicts $27,000 American... hmm... if exchange rates stay the same and I get a raise...

CARS - New Accord

Score: 7.8

This doesn't look all that bad. The rear end is a nice improvement especially, but overall I think the Sedan is a little sedate. Not that sedation is a bad thing in this category, it's what customers expect. I'm sure it will sell handily, unless it really screws up the interior (as it sort of has with the Civic, which is too "out there" for some potential buyers who ended up getting a Corolla, or, hopefully a Mazda3).

What are even more interesting are the new engines under the hoods of these cars. Apparently, the word on the Temple of VTEC from a month or so ago was that these engines (both the four cylinder and V6) would represent the debut of A-VTEC, a system similar to BMW's double-vanos, basically giving pinpoint control of the engine valves throughout the rev-range, meaning maximum efficiency at that end of combustion. So, if Edmunds is correct, 180hp should be plenty from the four-cylinder, hopefully while putting it within the 25-26 mpg city range (although the EPA has redone their testing, so 21-22 is probably more realistic). This kind of extraction of energy is becoming increasingly important with energy conservation reaching even the most hardline of anti-environmentalists, in the pocket-book if nowhere else.

CAT POLITICS? - Cats That Look Like Hitler

Score: 5.0 (Not sure if it's funny or ridonculous, but it's definitely up there)

I think the score speaks for itself. Click the title to see what I'm talking about.

CARS - Fuel Economy Standards in the U.S.

Score: 8.8

One word: kick-ass. Sure it didn't go far enough (cars should be around 40 mpg in city driving, not 35 combined mpg as will be legislated), but it's the first significant increase in CAFE demands in 20 years. Since that point, cars have gotten bigger, heavier, and more powerful. It's time to cut down on all three. Power outputs now are excellent, and more than most applications need. Sure, most subcompacts are still underpowered, but there is absolutely no reason midsize sedans need more than the 170 hp provided in most four-cylinder variations. They would need even less if they weren't ballooning in weight every Full-Model-Change. It's gotten so bad that Honda's lineup (which is actually probably the best collection of well-weighted and appropriately powered cars) has done a complete change-up since the late 80's. The Accord is as big as a Legend was, a Civic is the size of an Accord, and the Fit is the new Civic. It's kind of sad really. The big three are going to have to do one hell of a job in order to engineer cars that can meet these requirements, as well as still compete in terms of power and refinement with the Japanese and Hyundai. Ford and Chrysler will have the harder time I believe, since GM has invested a lot in newer, more efficient powertrains in the last six or so years. Ford is still relying on horrible V6's and 8's to equal the power-outputs of far more efficient vehicles. Hell, the 500-hp Vette Z06 got 16 mpg in EPA tests, for the city! The same as the 300-hp Mustang. Ford is in a world of trouble. Chrysler can just up and die for all I care.

CARS - New 350Z?

Score: 8.5

I will promptly cream my pants if this winds up being true. I admit, I've never driven a 350Z, but every review I've read says it seems a bit heavy for its target audience, which want quicker responses and a mass that won't get locked into understeer too easily. Taking 300 pounds off the chassis is probably the best move Nissan could make. I really hope the part about the 3.7 litre V6 is wrong (in all likelihood it won't be of course)... engines need to get smaller, and in the 350's case, that wouldn't be too bad of an idea. Why Nissan has never reworked the VQ engine down to a short-stroke 3.0 or 3.1 litres with an 8000+ rpm redline is beyond me. Those engines have always had good low-end torque, so decreasing displacement and reworking the cams to have more of a Civic Si VTEC feel makes sense to me. A hot cam from 5500 to 8000? That would provide plenty of kick (they could likely get the same 320 hp out of it), and wouldn't sacrifice too much everyday drivability, or track-presence, given the right gear ratios.

MUSIC - Chad VanGaalen - Skelliconnection

Label: Flemish Eye (Sub Pop)

Score: 7.7 (adjusted from 7.9 - hindsight's 20/20)

After seeing Chad VanGaalen open for Leslie Feist, I promptly purchased both of his full-length albums, 2004's Infiniheart, and this one, released in 2006. Of the two this is probably the better record, slightly more varied, and playing much more to VanGaalen's strengths.

The album begins with an ode to radio-rock fiends everywhere in the form of "Flower Gardens", a song which, volume aside, begins to shape the entire record. The melodies present on this, and all the other tracks are fairly plain, solid attempts at each of the intended musical niches the singer-songwriter inherently plays on. With rare exceptions, those melodies carry the album, song by song, with relatively little overlapping material from one iteration to the next (except perhaps VanGaalen's love of dogs) - a fact which is neither a great hindrance nor a great boon, as the songs each provide their own stage and perform admirably on it. Songs such as "Wing Finger" and "Wind Driving Dogs" prove (as if it needed to be proven yet again) that yes, the blues are the greatest vehicle for simple, catchy songs that will get your toes tapping. These tracks, along with "Graveyard" and "Sing Me 2 Sleep" showcase VanGaalen's strongest point anywhere along the way: the ability to craft a riff which will provide the backbone to a song.

However, inevitably such simplicity becomes a bit ponderous, and at certain points this does drag the album down, though never to the point where you feel the intense need to skip over a track in order to avoid falling asleep at the wheel. Nor is it a sign that, as a musician, he is incapable of providing the extra touches that can turn a song into a great piece. These flourishes don't arrive often, but when they do, such as the late acoustic guitar entry on "Burn 2 Ash" which nicely compliments the basic melody, they're tasteful, restrained, and don't dare get in the way of the beat. As well, his light use of electronica is well weighted in a post-Kid A and dance-punk world, augmenting the guitar money-maker. The same goes for the woodwinds, which add a nice sentimental flavour to "Wing Finger" and "Sing Me 2 Sleep", again never intruding, always ready to play second base and let the strings play short-stop.

All this adds up to some fairly innocuous but well-conceived music, which then promptly runs into VanGaalen's lyrics. The guy is funny, I think most people would give him that (especially those of us who have heard his song about "making movies"), and his lyrics fluctuate between sentimental and that uniquely comedic brand of weird. One may call him Calgary's 40-year-and-one-major-worldview-change-late answer to Bob Dylan, and they wouldn't be too far off actually. At any given time though, those simple melodies start running into sentence structures that just won't accommodate the 12-bar setup he's got ready for them. The result is a sometimes awkward delivery, or lyrics that will simply jump out at you from the relative calm of the music. Again it's not a massive failing the record can't get over, it's just a little oft-putting for the uninitiated. The same (roughly) goes for VanGaalen's vocals, which take about 30 seconds to adjust to, but then feel right at home alongside everything else. In fact, his ability to go from strange to pleading to maddening in both vocal and lyrical content are probably the best features of the CD that will go unnoticed until you sit back and think about them.

And the CD as a whole definitely has a progression, from the hard rocking beginning, to the lullaby of "Sing Me 2 Sleep" at the end, though it must be stated the low and mid-tempo tracks receive the bulk of attention and craft. They are the lucky ones with those extra touches mentioned, and they benefit greatly, which is not to say that the up-tempo tracks are weak, they aren't, they just lack the extra effort and thought that the quieter numbers naturally call out for. The few instrumentals included are actually decent as well (I'm not a fan of most rock-based instrumentals, so you know), again, not really detracting or enhancing the album as a whole, though they do give the other synth entries a bit of an easier ride since the listener's ears are already prepared for them.

So on the whole the album is quite good. Not great perhaps, but definitely solid at every turn. It rarely lifts you up to the stratosphere of emotion or intellectual "holy-crapness" that the singer-songwriter can potentially provide (see Yankee Hotel Foxtrot or Blonde on Blonde for that), but it never really throws you to the dirt and pukes in your ears either (like the inevitable post-Oasis Liam Gallagher album will undoubtedly do). So go and support your struggling Canadian artists and buy a copy, will ya?

P.S. Thanks to Pitchfork for the image of the CD. I need an image-editor bad.

MOVIES - Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Score: 3.14159...

This film was so extraordinarily boring, immediately after watching it, I couldn't remember more than a third of the film. The opening scene, sure, because Chow Yun Fat kicks ass. The last portion, sure, because it was so over-the-top and actually kind of enjoyable. The ending because I fought with my significant other over the viability of it as an ending. But everything else? Meh.

The day after watching this, I still cannot recall more than I could in the few minutes following it. I've rarely been this bored to death by any movie, let alone a series of films that had as much promise as this Pirates franchise. The first was truly incredible, but the second began the problems, and the third let them override even the fractional positive sum of sinful pleasure the second still allowed. I really cannot remember a movie as over-baked, poorly acted (even Johnny Depp seemed to have problems putting anything new or exciting into Captain Jack Sparrow, which is scary; Keira Knightley, how I do adore thee so, but that "rousing speech" was dreadful), and badly written as this one. Like, ever. The script was absolutely atrocious... I honestly think there was probably a better fan-fiction out there somewhere. The general plot itself was decent (from what I can recall), but the dialogue and movement from character to character, scene to scene, etc. was disgustingly amateur. The first was intriguing because the double-crosses were new, inventive, unexpected and added to the characters - in this one they were simply there to confuse the audience, which was an unfortunate success. That basically sums up the film as a whole.

It receives a Pi because, like the number, it carried on forever, without ever really delivering much, except a valuable portion of a circle, which seems complete at the end of this film. I truly hope they don't make a fourth one, though Disney may waggle fifty million in front of Depp to make it happen. The plot actually feels complete, in that it has basically started over again, replacing Will Turner as the new Davy Jones, Elizabeth Swan as the Calypso, and Jack Sparrow remaining his own highly personable self. It's actually a fairly well thought-out ending, but it's a shame it wasn't more entertaining in the meantime.

VIDEO GAMES/POLITICS - Manhunt 2

Score: 0.8

Edit (Later the same day): So, Nintendo is now leaving Rockstar out to dry as well, saying that Nintendo will not "allow any AO-rated content on its systems". This is immediately after stating that "Games made for Nintendo systems enjoy a broad variety of styles, genres and ratings." Basically Nintendo has blocked Manhunt 2 from being released stateside as well now too... at least until it resolves its appeal of the ESRB rating, or reworks the game to make it a bit more tame. This is so sad. Leave the decision to the consumer Nintendo, not to some wacko-parent lobby group that is obviously afraid of doing some real parenting. Let those "broad variety" of gamers all be equally satisfied by the Wii, including those who enjoy excessive violence and gore, and the extremely odd, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest kind of psychological experiment that is Manhunt. Don't tell gamers what they want, let them tell you. God, I thought this was a capitalist society we lived in... you can now consider this score to be a 0. My first post, and its my first 0 as well. This sucks.

So censorship finally won out. Manhunt, one of the most grizzly and violent games ever released (I played about five minutes of it and was promptly bored) originally managed to avoid classification by the ESRB as an "AO" title, for Adults Only, which Grand Theft Auto San Andreas was hampered by after revealing that it had pornographic pictures on the disc. Some major retailers such as Wal-Mart refuse to carry or sell AO titles, which means sales will inevitably suffer. Now, the sequel of that game, aptly titled Manhunt 2, has been dealt a double blow. The British equivalent of the ESRB, only with the upgraded British ability to outright ban Adult-themed titles, has done just that to Manhunt 2, meaning the game cannot be sold at any retail outlet in the UK. And, on top of that, the game's been hit with the dreaded AO in North America.

The fact that the violence and repeated killings are no different from any of the latest brand of horror movie, is just the tip of the bullshit on this matter. There is no excuse for this blatant censorship, nor the lack of reasoning provided for these measures. I suppose my problem lies more with the UK banning, as the AO does not mean that the game is impossible to buy, and the retailer has every right to protect its image from the Christian right base of customers which it fears angering by selling an Adult game. That I can understand. But there is no place for the banning of what is essentially a work of art (you will be hearing a lot about video games as such in upcoming posts I'm sure). Is it violent? Yes. Is it probably overbearingly violent and gory? Yes. Does it place the gamer at the helm of a murderous rampage? Yes. However, there is no reason consenting adults should not be able to experience such a game. By the time they are 18 and capable of buying the game, an adult's morality is firmly in place - there is no wiggle room by which a possibly homicidal maniac is turned into one through this one video game, especially since it will probably be only marginally more violent than the prequel, which is still available. Children should definitely not be able to just purchase or play this game, but children are no longer the target demographic for these type of games.

Blatant censorship is obviously a delicate issue, and necessary on occasion (hate messages, etc.), but this is not one of them. The piss-Christ across the pond is undoubtedly weeping for its maligned UK brethren.