Virtual Virginity

Last Friday was the first time I tried Virtual Reality gaming. A good friend of mine finally got his Oculus Rift, and I was stoked to give it a shot.

I requested to start off nice and slow and he fired up Adrift, a game where an astronaut (you) is stranded in space amongst the ruins of a broken space station. The sensation was incredible, I got a mild feeling of floating around, gently grabbing oxygen canisters and avoiding floating debris. It has to be said though that I felt a mild sensation of nausea with this game. I think a part of it is the problem that I was sitting down while my brain thought I was moving, which can cause an imbalance in the inner ear. The strongest feeling of realism was interestingly enough my virtual arm. My real arm was holding the controller, but when the character grabbed a canister, it felt so real. Very cool.

The second game I got to try was DiRT Rally. Even though I'm not a racing gamer, with the exception of GTA, it felt bloody amazing! I was in that car hurtling down the dirt road, while my map reader yelled directions and angles at me that made no sense. When I hit a tree, I really flinched. All in all, the coolest driving experience I've ever had in a game. And no nausea! Probably because my brain understands what sitting in a car should feel like.

The third game on the list was EVE: Valkyrie, a space sim/shooter. My fighter launching from the mother ship was totally bad-ass, but boy did I suck at the game itself. Partially because I have no practice using a controller in 3D, so I flailed around a lot and then got shot to pieces. EVE is a very fast paced game, and that was the other problem. I mostly just rotated around, but the sensation was incredible. And like with DiRT, no nausea.

Finally I tried War Thunder. This isn't a VR game in itself, but it works just fine as one. I test flew a Spitfire, and talk about realistic. I got mild vertigo! The sensation of moving forward was no problem at all, but when I turned my head and looked down, I felt the altitude in a way no screen can ever hope to achieve. Gently steering my plane around felt so natural and smooth, I have a hard time expressing it. Just don't look down.

All in all, the entire experience was awesome. Sure I felt some nausea, but I have to wonder if that wasn't my brain being new to the entire sensation. That said, the technology is definitely in it's infancy, but this will only get better. I can't await for it to truly bloom and take it's rightful place in tech history. If you get the chance to try it, do it. You can always close your eyes if it becomes too much, but do try it!

Until next time, have a great week!

Long Good Friday

We're continuing on the theme of old but great films, and this weeks entry is Long Good Friday (1980).

What we have here is a very interesting movie and for several different reasons. First off, it is packed to the gills with famous faces. Actors that have since made their marks in British cinema, but at that time were small potatoes. In fact, this was Pierce Brosnan's first movie role, and his entire dialogue is “Hi”. It seemed like every time the scene changed, I had to pop over to IMDB to identify why a new face was familiar, and there were many.

The second reason this is interesting is because the main character, Harold, is played by the late great Bob Hoskins. Hoskins became best known for his comedic roles like Mr. Smee in Hook and Eddie Valentine in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but here he is a stone cold gangster. And he does it so well. Obviously I can't list every one who was in it, but it would be a crime to omit Helen Mirren, who not only plays the Harold's wife, but also made a huge contribution to the story, mostly to avoid having her character be another stereotypical Mob Moll.

The third interesting thing is the story. Chances are that you've seen a variation of it or two. Harold wants to buy up a large portion of land along the Thames in order to build an Olympic Games compound. This would make him astronomically rich, but he needs a financial partner, in this case the mafia. Unfortunately, just when the American mobsters are in town to seal the deal, someone starts blowing up Harold's stuff, putting the deal at risk.

If this sounds a bit familiar it's because many other films have used it. Take Guy Ritchie's RocknRolla (also a good movie). There a London mobster needs Russian mob money for a property deal, and stuff goes wrong, and the heat is on.

Long Good Friday is very much a child of its time, for good and bad, but in the end it's a good movie. It's not as good as Get Carter, but it's not far behind. It was indeed a tremendously pleasant experience, and I recommend it, if for nothing else than to see jolly old Hoskins play a murderous mobster. It is one of the defining films in British crime cinema and with good reason.

That's it for now. If I find another movie to watch, I might write about it next time, and until then, have a great week!

Get Carter

Continuing on my theme of catching up on older films, last night I watched GetCarter (1971). There is a remake starring Sylvester Stallone from 2000, but I know nothing about it.

So we have Michael Caine as the titular Jack Carter, a violent gangster who returns to Newcastle (where he was born) from London (where he works) to find out why his brother died. Things quickly gets really sticky for everyone. That is the plot in a nutshell.

What makes this movie so good is the incredible atmosphere. The grimy gloom of an industrial city in the early seventies is fascinating. The sense of Doom is palpable from the first scene and it doesn't get any better for anyone.

What struck me as particularly interesting is the way it not only is filmed, but how the story is told. The movie wastes no time on explanations what so ever, it just jumps straight in. These days films are more likely to start at the beginning, and then go step by step, but not Get Carter. Straight into things and on with the show. It was a bit confusing at first, but before long I was fully invested in the story.

What concerns the cinematography, it is really weird at times. There is a poker game at one point in the film, and during that scene there are three conversations going on at once. To make things worse, more than half the screen is covered by the back of someones head. This “half screening“ goes on for a while and then it's back to normal, and it really left me scratching my head. Apparently it was due to sound issues, but it's still a remarkably odd scene. Nothing else get's quite that weird, but there are many odd angles.

Quentin Tarantino has said that this was the movie that inspired him to become a director, and apart form this, it is also lauded as the “godfather” of British crime cinema. I can certainly see why.

This is a bleak, cruel and violent movie, though there is hardly any blood in it. It's worth keeping in mind that the main protagonist, Carter, is a villain. He does bad things all the time, every time, and it doesn't shy away from this. It should be said that it contains an unusual amount of sex, particularly for it's time, and back then it was heavily censored. Be warned there, if that's not your thing. Or if you want to watch a movie with your granny.

Ultimately, this is a movie I should have watched ages ago, and I'm likely to have to watch it again. It's unflinching attitude on all fronts makes it easy to miss things, like why his brother died. It's not quite a “blink and you miss it” situation, but it's not far from …

If you haven't seen it, do so. Really, go watch it. It truly is worth it, and until we see each other again, have a great week!

At Close Range

Sometimes I come across a movie that I want to see, but then don't for various reasons. Sometimes years can go by before things come together and I finally get to see it.

One such film is At Close Range (1986), starring Christopher Walken, Sean Penn, Chris Penn and a host of others. Keep your eyes out for a very young Kiefer Sutherland.

The movie is set in 1978, and is based on real events, which is pretty disturbing. Walken is the leader of a small gang of successful thieves in rural Pennsylvania. He is estranged from his two teenage sons (the Penn brothers), but the older (Sean) gets involved in his fathers crime due to a need to make money, and then things spiral out of control. You see, Walken is both violent and paranoid, and that's dangerous when combined.

That's pretty much all I can say without spoiling the film, and that would be a terrible shame, because I really liked it.

I have seen Walken in many films over the years, and he always delivers a memorable performance. At Close Range is no exception. He goes from charming but creepy to absolutely terrifying very quickly, and yet his character is always believable.

The Penn brothers are also very good, and it's a rare treat to see two actual brothers play on screen brothers. It doesn't get more authentic than that. As a fun twist, their real mother is playing their grandmother as well.

Based on what I knew, or rather thought I knew about this movie, I was pretty surprised. The pacing is slow, but it works, and it doesn't get boring. The soundtrack is apparently famous, and it is good, but left me personally a bit unimpressed. It works though. The whole film reeks of the 70's as it should.

I absolutely recommend this film. If you haven't seen it, go do so. Until then, have a great week!

Preacher

When I heard that the graphic novel Preacher (1995-2000) was being made into a TV show, my first reaction was “no way”.

The comic deals with blasphemy, profanity, religion, death on a massive scale and quite a lot of sex. These things aren't always easy to put on TV, so naturally I was skeptical.

However, I decided to give it a fair chance and I'm glad I did. I have watched the first season apart from the season finale. I was going to wait until said finale was over but it's Monday and I need content, so here we go.

First off, if you haven't read the comic, you'll be fine, just watch it. If you have read it and you like it, put your expectations on the shelf for the duration. The show is good, no question about it, but there are some big changes, and I don't mean that Tulip is white and blonde in the comic, and black in the show, but the fact that the entire story structure is changed rather drastically.

This in itself is not a problem, it's just a different way to tell a similar story. If they make more seasons, I look forward to see where they're going. I get the feeling that this is just a build up, but time will tell.

The show is well made, and the actors are all good, they really are. They stick pretty closely to what the comic does and that's a relief. The sets are great, you really get the feel for the dusty part of Texas, no complaints.

There are some changes though, and I can't say which ones due to spoilers, that I think are a bit pointless. Mostly minor things, but I really don't get why they would be done differently from the comic. Things like a side characters mannerisms or a characters reason for doing something, things that seem to be changed just to change them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, that if you are a fan of the comic, don't be put off, give the show a chance.

Until next time, have a great week!