Game Decisions made Easier
OK, so your kid wants a new game for their PS3 (Xbox360, Wii, PS2, GameCube, etc). Check out WhatTheyPlay.com. Sure there are plenty of sites out there that give you information about games, what is good, what is hot and what is not. But that is not what this site is about.
WhatTheyPlay tells you in plain English what the ESRB categories are (for those that don’t already know), and some of the explainations that go along with it, so that you can get enough unbiased information to make your own decision, because honestly, while the ESRB ratings are generally a good guideline, there are some areas that are a bit murky, such as some of the warnings about things like “Alcohol References.”
What exactly does “Alcohol References” mean? After all, you may not want you kids playing a game that glorifies drinking, right? And based solely on the box, with other point of reference, even though the rating may be right, that “Alcohol Reference” may give you pause, because there is no way of knowing. And this is where WhatTheyPlay comes in. Now a couple of examples from the site that I have seen include the games, DiRT a rally game, and Cooking Mama: Cook Off. Both of these games have “Alcohol Reference” listed on the box. But according to the site, DiRT’s only alcohol reference is your passenger mentioning “cracking open the champagne” when you win, and Cooking Mama mentions cooking with wine. Obviously not what most people thing of as “Alcohol References” in a game.
There is also an “Ask GamerDad” column, where you ca read questions and answers from other parents, or you can ask GamerDad a question of your own. The Site not only covers the PS3, Xbox360 and Wii, it also covers the PS2, Gamecube, PC and Macintosh as well as the handheld games like GameBoy Advanced, Nintendo DS, and the Playstation Portable. If you want to find out “What is hot and what is not” go to someplace like 1up.com. But for information to make your own decision on titles you may or may not wish your children to play. Don’t depend on gossip around the water cooler about who got there kids what game, and whether or not it was appropriate, check out WhatTheyPlay.com and get the facts you need to decide for yourself.
While, this came off more like an advertisement than I intended, this is not some PayPerPost type promotion. Matter of fact, there is no advertising here at all from WhatTheyPlay at all. I was just that impressed with the whole idea, it is an excellent tool for parents.
I can make no guaratees as time (as previously mentioned) has been at a premium, but it has been my long standing (and hopefully now coming to fruition) idea to start a Tech Tuesday for Parents. Next Tuesday, I am currently looking at posting some information and doing some research on Blu Ray now that the format war is over. If you have any questions you would like answered, or information on a particular Blu Ray product, drop me a note over at JayMonster and that is at Google’s Gmail with a dot com ending (just let me see a screen scraper try to harvest that!)
Overexposure: A Parent’s Guide to buying a Digital Camera
I purchases a camera today (for the record it is a Canon Powershot S3 IS, but I will review that another time). So what is the big deal about that right? I mean hundreds if not thousands of people buy a new digital camera every day, so why should anybody care? Well, I am glad you asked that. Pull up a chair and let me tell you what it took for me to lay out the money for a camera this time.
Now I am an admitted gadget freak, mostly computers, but if it is an electronic gadget, I am interested. One area that I have had a bit of a hard time in this area is with digital photography. When it comes to computers, PDAs, phones, I have always been quick to lay down good money to be on the front edge of technology, though admittedly that has slowed a bit since LatteGirl was born, and now I try to be a bit more economical, and try to choose what will give me the most bang for my buck. In other words, be good enough to satisfy me in the short term, but also be good enough at least in the mid-term that I am not already itching to replace it quickly.
I have done well in this department with laptops, building my own desktop computers, and fortunately rarely have ever had to live with a phone for more than two years, so even a mistake was relatively short lived. But with cameras, I seemed to fail in this respect. Sure, I would love to go out and buy a Canon Rebel XTi or Nikon D2x. But first of all, I don’t have the kind of time or attention span necessary to learn how to use on of these cameras well enough to justify the expense. But on the other hand, I have been quite dissatisfied with my past couple of purchases (Kodak Z series), so I knew I had some work to do. I started to do my research, and by the time I finally settled on the camera I wanted, a year had passed. That’s right a full year. 12 months, 52 weeks. To pick out a camera. Some call that kind of research and time to make a decision insane (That would be TheWife), but I call it smart. But fortunately, much of what I learned can be boiled down and some shortcuts taken to finding what is right for you without having to spend so much time.
Again, much of this is intended with certain factors in mind, so if you don’t fit into this criteria, it may affect your choices. The criteria I have set forth here. 1. This is geared for parents. I say this because as a parent (whether you know it or not yet), you are going to have some difficult shots that you are going to try and take. Xmas pageants, recitals, sporting events, etc. Many times, no matter how early you think you are for an event, you will find there are other parents that have gotten there even earlier, thus leaving you a good distance away from your child that you want to photograph. Throw in some lousy auditorium or gymnasium lighting, and you now know what I mean by challenging. 2. You are at least somewhat budget conscience. If you wouldn’t think anything of dropping $600 or more on the latest and greatest. More power to you. I don’t, and I know many other parents that don’t have, or wouldn’t consider that kind of outlay for a camera. This is for those people, not the person that buys the model right off the floor of the CES Floor in Vegas (Consumer Electronics Show).
Megapixels. Back in the day, when digital camera were sporting resolutions like, VGA, 1.3 Mega Pixels or 2 Mega Pixels, the amount of pixels really mattered. You could find a 1.3 MP camera that would take a nice picture, but if you wanted a print that was bigger than 4×6 or you took pictures with the intention of zooming in and cropping a lot, you were simply out of luck. Today you can find cameras at the consumer level as high as 12 MP. Unless you plan on making a Warhol like mural of your child, the size of your living room wall you really do not need a 12 MP camera. Especially if you are going to forgo other important features for it.
Zoom. When you were out on the town with your friends and wanted a little camera you could slip into your blazer, leather jacket or purse and not be obtrusive, then those super slim camera were perfectly adequate for mediocre pictures taken at the bar, nightclub, etc. After all, many times, you were probably had one or two too many drinks by the time the camera came out to take a decent picture anyway. This won’t cut it when you are trying to capture those once in a lifetime moments. The biggest problem with these small cameras is the fact that if you have one when you find yourself on the wrong side or too far back in a poorly lit auditorium or gymnasium, you will be cursing that puny little 3x optical zoom. Quick note for those that don’t already know this… forget about the “digital zoom” that you camera brags about having. It is a worthless measure. In short digital zoom works by enlarging a certain part of a picture to simulate optical zoom, to the detriment of clarity).
The answer, is the class of cameras that are known as “Super Zoom Cameras.” These cameras generally sport Zooms of 8, 10 or 12 times optical zoom. The side benefit of this is also that because of the need for clarity, camera makers generally put better glass (lenses) in their Super Zooms than they do in their regular consumer cameras. This will enable you to get a nice shot of your child, and not just a shot of 1/2 the class in a picture where you have to point out to people, “see, right there… no over to the right, that is little Suzy over there.” When in doubt, sacrifice pixels for zoom.
Other Factors: These qualify as things that are important to me, but are more subjective and a matter of personal taste. Zoom camera are more prone to “noise” (wavy lines) when zoomed out than a normal picture. Most camera have some sort of image stabilization to compensate for this. They generally break down into two types, Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) and Digital Image Stabilization(DIS). OIS is far superior and worth it for better pictures… for me. Fuji sells a line of super zooms with NO Image Stabilization at all, going rather with its “face detection” technology, and they sell very well. So some people obviously don’t find this as important as I do, but most experts will tell you to go with OIS whenever possible. The other thing is Scene Modes. Do you know a lot about Aperature Priority, Shutter Priority, etc? No? Me neither. That is why I depend on a camera that has a lot of presets for various settings. The basic “general” setting is excellent for mediocre or basic pictures, but when I want to capture a shot at a soccer game, or some other specific event, I want to be able to turn to a setting that gives me the best chance of getting the shot I want, and without having to know how to configure the camera. Scene Modes save you from having to know how to set up a camera for action, landscapes, night shots, etc. The more scene modes, the more specific setting you are ready to shoot. Again not a deal breaker if the camera doesn’t have many scene modes (or any) but it certainly will help.
Some things you can probably ignore: Certainly Digital or “total” Zoom should be ignored, as I already pointed out, they are useless measures. However, there are some other “important” measures according to many reviewers, that really aren’t a big deal to the average user. The ability to shoot in RAW mode. Most consumer camera do not shoot in raw mode, but for some reason reviewers are fixated on this feature that is usually held out for professionals. In order to use RAW format, you generally need to use a program such as Photoshop CS. If you have $700 to lay out on Photoshop however, you are probably not reading this looking for a camera. The other feature is an articulating LCD (the LCD panel swivels around so you can see it at various angles). This is certainly a nice thing to have if the camera happens to have one (my new Canon does), but lets be honest, how often do you need this feature? To take a picture of yourself? To take a picture by holding the camera over your head in a crowd? Do you really think you will do that often enough to make this a “must have” on your camera.
Finding your camera. Ok, so now you know what you like and don’t like. You have an idea of what kind of camera you want. How do you go about finding the best value for your dollar? Well, for me, the answer came in the way of a year old copy of PC Magazine that I had laying around. A year ago, the camera I ultimately selected had just come out. The only knock against the camera (and the primary reason, I would not have bought it a year ago) was the price. With a retail tag around $500 it was a lot more than I really cared to spend. Fast forward a year, the S3 has been replaced with the S5. 6 Megapixels have given way to 8 - 12 MP camera. That top of the line camera was now forgotten. In the meantime, plenty of new Super Zooms have come out at lower prices (for this example I will uses Canons new SX100). At first glance the new low priced super zooms seemed like a great deal. The SX100 was retailing at $249, the same price I was able find the S3 selling at. It also had more mega pixels. But in a quick comparison, it quickly became obvious that in order to get the price down there with the higher pixel count, that lots of features had to be removed. In this case, last years “winner” didn’t change, and more than met my needs, but at a far more friendly price. Sometimes last years model, if you are careful is still better than this years new model. Now granted, you may not have a year old copy of a magazine laying around (certainly if TheWife had her way, I wouldn’t), but thanks to the Internet, most of these reviews are still around to be perused. Just bypass the latest editions for those 6 or 12 months ago, and you can find a camera that “back then” would probably be too much money, but now fits inside your budget.
One word of caution using this method though. There is a point of diminishing returns for the camera manufacturers, that when the camera crosses over from profitable to no longer worth their time. At that point, the price will not drop any lower, and instead the camera will just disappear. In other words, no matter how long you wait, you will not find a new Canon Rebel XTi for $100. No matter how long you wait.
And of course, one final note. I have given a lot of credit and used the name Canon here quite a bit. But that is predominantly because that is the camera that I recently purchased. This is in no way meant to imply that I recommend Canon over any other particular camera. Olympus, Nikon, Panasonic, Fuji and others all certainly have their benefits and highlights, and if the timing was different, I may have gone a different route. The only way I was almost certain I wasn’t going again, was back to Kodak, which has disappointed me twice in a row.
Review: The Little Mermaid on Broadway
I refused to look at any of the reviews of The Little Mermaid from the previous shows so as to not taint my experience going in, and personally I had high expectations going into this show. When Disney first came to Broadway, it was with sort of sneer from the general public and theater buffs whether the House of Mouse could put on a “real” Broadway production. Following the sucesses of The Lion King and the recently closed (after a fantastic run) Beauty and the Beast, those questions began to fade. However, after the disaster that was the production of Tarzan, and the less than stellar reviews for Mary Poppins, those questions have again begun to creep back. So, with expectations on one side and questions about Disney’s ability to put forth a quality production on the other, The Little Mermaid has a lot to answer for in the minds of critics and patrons alike. Can The Little Mermaid turn things back around and prove that Disney is capable of a great theater experience, or are they looking to turn a quick buck with a second rate, theme park like quality production?
Unfortunately, if you had preconceived notions on this going in, there was very little in this production to change your opinion. For those with kids, and the touristy (is too a word) types, the show was enjoyed. Of course, for those people, they were satisfied hearing the numbers that you expected to hear going in, such as Part of Your World, Poor Unfortunate Souls and Under the Sea. For the most part the cast was admirable, Sierra Boggess proved quite good as Ariel, and simiarly other members were at the very least acceptable in their roles with a few glaring exceptions, but even in those cases, I am not sure whether I can blame the actors in the roles, or the “vision” of director.
In short (what do you mean “too late”), I was disappointed with The Little Mermaid. It wasn’t “Quick Close” awful (like the recent Broadway bombs Lestat or Lennon), as the main numbers are already known hits, and tourists will help keep it afloat (pun somewhat intended) for some time, but the show is missing it’s magic. You do not get completely wrapped up into the show or its characters, and the ability to “lose yourself” in it is noticeably absent. In short, if this was a regional production or small local show, I would say “well done” but instead looking at this as a full scale stage production, I am only left scratching my head asking, “What were they thinking?”
So, where did it go so wrong? At first blush, I thought to myself that something did not quite add up when looking at the show. It was as if the whole did not add up to the sum of its parts. If I was happy with the cast, and I thought the singing was good, then why did it seem so off? Then I realized, it had little to do with the people on the stage, and more about those that weren’t.
Choreography. Not the worst part of the show, but the numbers were clearly lacking. Perhaps because of the costumes and adjustments that had to be made for actors that had to spend the show on “Wheelies” (more on that in a minute), but the choreography was lacking. I am not quite sure what the choreographer was going for, but it came off with some sort of tribal feeling that seemed more at home in The Lion King than it did here, and seemed overall uninspired. Under the Sea, which should have been the livliest and most fun number in the show comes off as a chaotic mess more reminiscent of Three Ring Circus.
Sets. What sets? It seemed like the show was pushed into the realm of “interpretive” where the audience was expected to accept an awful lot of abstract pieces and make the set in their minds. It fails miserably. The ship appears to be hanging in mid air rather than floating in the “water” of the set. There was little to no backdrops to anything. The one standard piece at the back of the stage flipped and turned into, (theoretically) the moon, the sun, and what is that a spaceship? Oh, no I guess it is supposed to be chandelier in the dining room and the ball room. Overall, it wound up looking more like something I would hang up in my windows for Christmas. Other large, unidentifiable pieces pop on and off at times, providing to fill the stage, though you never quite really have any clue what they actually are supposed to be or represent.
Directing. The characters I was least satisfied with in the play were Sebastian (Tituss Burgess), Ursula (Sherie Rene Scott) and her sidekicks Flotsam (Tyler Maynard) and Jetsam (Derrick Baskin). Initially I was going to lay at the feet of the actors themselves, but as the show went on, and the things I found wrong mounted, I can only assume these “interpretations” of the characters that I was so disappointed in, was the work of the director. In the case of Sebastian, as the show went along, Burgess’ presence seemed to get stronger and was not nearly as dragging on the show as he was in the first act. Now I should point out in fairness that TheWife did not share my disdain for Ursula and her cronies, she thought they were fine. I on the other hand was so annoyed by their style, their presence on the stage immediately jerked me out of the moment, and instead of making me feel like I was watching the show, I was instead watching some sort of cartoonish Saturday Night Live version. Picture Ursula played by Phyliss Diller, cackly laugh and all, and you have this version of Ursula. Flotsam, if you can imagine him played by Martin Short with the silly faces and all, you have Maynard’s character down, and Jetsam was similar. If that is what the director had in mind building these characters, then the actors did a superb job of building that vision, it just wasn’t The Little Mermaid.
Script and Music. OK, so you need to alter the show because obviously you can not pull off on stage things that you can in an animated movie, and for a musical Broadway production you need a bit more than the original show had, so you need to add some numbers. I understand and appreciate that. But both were poor. If you didn’t know the show or story before going in, this did not stand up on its own. The story was too fractured to have a clean an understandable time line, or even to say the full plot was completely conveyed. This may have been partly due to the fact that in their effort to stuff the music in they simply didn’t leave enough time for the rest of the writing. I don’t know. I just know it didn’t work. And while we are on the music, I would love to know who’s decision it was to give so much time to Scuttle. Way too much. Scuttle is a funny character in his bit appearances, but not to give multiple numbers in the show. He is supposed to be a funny bit part (like the chef), but they gave him way too much time, without the benefit of advancing the story. The opening number of Fathoms Below, expanded from its short form in the Movie to a full blown number on the ship (opening the show) was a real yawner both musically and visually. I was ready after Beauty and The Beast to buy the Soundtrack to this show as soon as I got in the door. Fortunately (for me), this being only the 8th performance (due to the stagehand strike in New York), they have not actually made the CD yet, and were only taking pre-orders for it, which I opted against getting. And needless to say, by the time the show was done, I was happy, I hadn’t plunked down the money for this.
In the end, I all I can say it, if you have lots of money and time to waste, and a child to bring with you (that can appreciate the fact that it is The Little Mermaid, and not care about things such as an actual storyline, and will cheer accordingly) then by all means go. If you are expecting a worthwhile theater experience however, then The Little Mermaid will most likely leave you disappointed.
Review: Bee Movie
I can only review about 2/3 of Bee Movie, because by the time we got that far, my seven year old had seen enough and was done with this film and ready to go home. And to be honest, I made no effort what-so-ever to try and persuade her to stay.
I saw no point in torturing her any longer with this. I usually worry and warn that I will not give away a plot to a movie so as to inform and tell you what I thought without ruining the storyline for those that wish to see it. However, in the case of Bee Movie, I couldn’t give you the complete storyline if I wanted to. Why? Because I am not sure there was one.
The movie appears at times to be anti-corporate establishment (not wanting to work until you die doing the same job for the rest of your life), at another point it appears to be a warning about the environment, and yet at others seems to pull on the “allow me to be different” (such as in Happy Feet). But none of these seem to pan out to be the theme of the film. It doesn’t seem to have one at all.
The first 15 minutes is the most engaging stretch in the film. Like many in the genre, you get a view of the inner workings of a Bee’s life, from the perspective of the Bee, which casts a new light or at least allows the viewer to see common events in a new perspective. You get a lot of Bee (and “B”) humor, which culminates with Barry B. Benson (Jerry Seinfeld) flying out of the hive with the “Pollen Jocks” and getting to see the world outside of the hive. From there, it is a string of sight gags and Bee jokes loosely strung together with the aforementioned seemingly multi-themed (or non-themed) storyline that utterly fails to pull it all together.
It is quite a shame. They pulled together an all-star cast, and most put out exceptional performances (which the one glaringly bad John Goodman doing a seemingly cartoonish play on a cartoon of a character as the human defense attorney, although I am not entirely sure if the blame here goes to Goodman or to the director that wanted that type of performance out of him). The cast, which includes Renée Zellweger, Patrick Warburton, Matthew Broderick as well as Seinfeld are good enough that they will keep you watching this longer than you would without their talents, still ultimately fail to cover the fact that the script just isn’t a complete work.
Bee Movie had potential, but ultimately does not deliver. It will go down with other animated disasters like Robots as the “B” movies of the genre. Might be worth a rainy afternoon DVD or On Demand viewing, but that would be about all. Definitely not something destined for most people’s (hey every film has its fans) video cabinet.
Review: Enchanted
When I first saw the trailers for Enchanted, the latest movie out of Disney, I was no more than mildly interested. I certainly saw no reason to see this latest “princess” film in the theaters. TheWife and daughter went on Thanksgiving Day to see the film, as I stayed behind preparing food. When my daughter came home, telling me how she would happily see it again, and that I just HAD to go see it, and she would even pay for it out of her own allowance to go see it again. Well, I had to go, and did (but no, I did not make her spring for it).
As is my usual, I will not give away the full story line, though you could probably guess your way through most of it, and wind up surprised by very little. This is about fairy tales, and princesses, not something you need to sit and decipher. So, if you want “Citizen Cane” then this film is not for you. But whether or not you are “into” princesses per se is not a requirement to see this film.
For those that remember back 5 years ago, when Lilo and Stitch was first being promoted, Disney did so with a series of commercials that were scenes Disney Classic films, in which Stitch entered in one way or another to become the twist on the story. Take that general idea, embolden it into a full length film where Disney is not afraid to poke a little fun at its own franchise of Princesses, and you have Enchanted.
But the film is more than that, which is what most took me by surprise. Sure there was the clearly overt sight gags and jokes about the cartoon world v. real world, but the humor and subtext actually is much deeper than it would initially appear. Because it is not only the animated world characters that learn something. It is people in the real world, learning a little something about love and happiness from the enchanted visitors as well.
You can’t help but find you own cynicism almost melting away as you watch the film. As Princess Giselle (Amy Adams) talks of True loves kiss. How she disarms people with her childlike qualities. Those same qualities, that we admire in kids, but somehow often “outgrow” or merely forget. This is why I say it is a film for everyone. Even the most jaded. “I hate princesses because they are not good role models” type of people can enjoy this film, and maybe even remember why princesses are things that many little girls dream about being. And even laugh about it along the way.
The film was splendidly cast, which helps pull off the spoofing of the classic films as well. Amy Adams does such a fabulous job with Giselle, she manages to capture perfectly what you would imagine a princess that was suddenly thrust into real world New York would be like. Susan Sarandon comes across splendidly as the combination of the Evil Queen and Maleficent, and while James Marsden may at first blush seem to be a bit over the top as the Prince, you realize that it really is more about the Prince and how he would react in this circumstances (with a bit of tongue in cheek thrown in) and realize just what a great job Marsden did.
I somehow doubt that this will join the ranks of Cinderella, Snow White and the rest of the classic Disney princesses. It is not something that you will see re-released every 10 years or so, on Special Edition DVD’s (or Blu Ray, or whatever comes after that), but I would not be surprised at all to see Giselle when we return to Disney World in 2009. As fluffy and sweet as Cotton Candy, this just may be the most brilliant combination of animation and live action film since Who Framed Roger Rabbit. What can I say, grab the kids and go.
-
Sponsors
