djs8994 Reviews

Civilization (1991 Video Game)

One of the Best Pc games ever

[21 January 2004]

I bought this game ten years after it was released, and was addicted to it in a way no more recent game has been able to do. It is a very simple game to pick up and play for the first time, but its complexity is so deep you can be playing for many, many hours on end. In fact it is not unusual to start playing as soon as you get out of bed on a Saturday, have a brief rest, gat back playing and then realise that your weekend is gone. There really is something incredible about how involved you can get in this game.

The basic plot is this; you are given one band of 10,000 nomads, who are put in the middle of an earth-like planet except they know nothing about the layout of the land or if anyone else is living nearby. In these first tentative steps, where one turn lasts 20 years, it is best to build a small number of cities, well defended but put in place the fundamentals of a prosperous economy; irrigation, roads, mines etc. Then we can decide to colonise uninhabited lands, trade with other discovered civilizations, or declare war on them. Not that the other computer players need encouragement to make war. It is best to avoid contact until you are in as state to defend yourself. If all goes well your people will have built dozens of orderly cities around the globe, and have sent ships to the stars.

It is the level of choice which sets apart this game. Whether to defend your civilization heavily or try to use your resources to get rich, whether to use settlers to irrigate, or construct cites, or whether to use nuclear weapon to win a war, regardless of the massive pollution.

Although a simplified and slightly unrealistic way to show the growth of civilization from nomads to spacemen (wars do not last centuries for example), this is a very deep and involving game which I would recommend to all, either in its original, or in one of the similar sequels.

Love Actually (2003)

Infuriating, Actually

[3 January 2004]

It must come as a shock to anyone to have hugh grant bring up the events of September 2001 in order to sell a movie at its beginning. To use that actual event which each of us thinks about every day from now on to sell your light and fluffy comedy is pure manipulation of audience's emotions. Having that as your opening gambit didn't put me in a mood to enjoying this film at all.

It is a clever idea to have a number of stories interconnect in some way and have them all come to the same conclusion. I am sure this would have been a better film if Richard Curtis had taken maybe 3 of the better stories and rejected the others. The stories on offer here ranged from the very funny to the downright dreadful, and this was the most annoying aspect of the whole film. An example of this was the contrast between the story involving the aging rock star, desperate to find a hit single despite admitting it was awful, and a totally pointless story about 2 pornography actors having fake sex. The Bill Nighy story has the lions share of the films best moments and it was a shame the whole film couldn't be about his character. It just makes it more annoying that we see as much of this tale as we see Laura Linney's troubled woman and her disabled brother.

Out of all the stories (I think there were 8) only 2 were substantial enough to maintain any interest throughout he film, the rock star story and the one with Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson. The rest of the story lines included the cliched story about a best man falling in love with a married woman, which involved a rendition of ‘all you need is love' in church which made me feel that all I needed was a nail to stick in my eyeball. We also had Hugh Grant being prime minister, which upset me more than any other part of the film, when he gives a cringe making speech about how great Britain is next to the US president ‘The special relationship has become a bad relationship' is the gist of it. I couldn't believe how crass and xenophobic this was, and in real life I hope a real prime minister would have been laughed out of office for such a speech, but the whole country seems to have loved Hugh Grant for it in the film.

The worst story of the film involved Liam Neeson encouraging his son to break security barriers at heathrow airport just to say goodbye to a girl from his school, something he couldn't manage an hour before apparently. Oh and he meets Claudia Schiffer at a surprisingly competent school concert to make up for his dead wife.

Wouldn't the really existential thing to do at the end have been for a hijacked plane to crash into the airport terminal at the end when they are all having their lovey moments at once? To have Hugh Grant's voice over like at the start saying ‘I told you love was all around but you didn't listen so we had to kill all the characters' This is not to say this is a totally bad film. There are enough laughs in the stories that work to make up for the ones that don't, but it still doesn't excuse the fact that half the film shouldn't have been made.

Manchester United: Beyond the Promised Land (2000 Video)

Not good

[17 June 2003]

This is a corporate promotion film masquerading as an in depth fly-on-the-wall documentary. Before I saw the film, the clips I saw were of either Roy Keane getting upset about losing a pub quiz and two leeds fans resentful of United's success. Two moments worth watching which last about 20 seconds.

The rest of the film revolves around, an Irishman in New York traveling to watch a game or some extremely boring dressing room footage and playing golf, all of which leads me to believe that most of the united team are even duller in real life than we thought they were.

Most of the film I was bored and sedate, but I was made livid by the glossing over of ManU's decision to pull out of the FA cup as holders, to go to some new tournament in Brazil (which they didn't win) to persuade FIFA to give the world cup to England (which they didn't). At the time it was huge news, that a team had for the first time opted out of the oldest cup competition in the world. The film gives us the corporate angle for withdrawal, none of the press reaction, and then off to Brazil. A couple of fans express chagrin, over this in the film but no anger, as it what actually happened.

For a documentary about a football team we see surprisingly little action. A handful of games are shown, with a couple of goals from them. From the outset we know that united will win the league because no other teams' games are shown. This in a film where 10 minutes are given over to a couple of vodafone executives being shown where their giant advertisement with be.

Rugrats (1991–2003)

In 1991 we had a show that lasted *fif*teen minutes

[17 June 2003]

For the seven people who aren't familiar with the rugrats please take this advice. Watch the episodes made from 1991-1994. Ignore the rest. Pretend they don't exist.

However this is likely to be difficult as the vast majority of episode shown on TV now are the dreaded later ones, as the makers still inexplicably churn out new ones, so the classics are now out numbered.

To understand how bad the new episodes are, you first must have watched the originals. The animation in the first episodes was, as in all new animated shows, fairly rough around the edges and the background music was strangely off key. But looking back, this only adds to the charm. The episodes were genuinely funny, especially grandpa pickles reveries, usually involving the catchphrase '*fif*teen miles'. The stories were always played on children's over active imaginations and never strayed into the realms of fantasy like in the movies. I mean, losing the kids in the woods? Riding reptar in Paris? You may as well give them super powers.

The best thing about the original 60 odd episodes was how well written they were, it was the holy grail of tv series- appealing to all ages. It is therefore unsurprising that many of the writers and producers then, left after 1994.

You may have gathered that I am quite fond of the rugrats, and have misgivings over the new episodes, but to be honest,I don't think they are much worse that episodes of 'The Wild Thornberries' or 'Rocket Power', in that I can watch for at least 30 second without retching once. But those other show were rubbish to begin with, Rugrats wasn't. I watched the show as a preteen in the early 90s on saturdays mornings, and I rushed home from school to watch it at 4:30 every day. I just feel that Nickelodeon has used an extremely popular show and dragged it on and on, with different characters, voices and writers just to squeeze every penny out of the show, the latest indignity being the cross over movie due out this summer.

We must not forget the original episodes and how good they were, and I am sorry this review concentrated mostly on the downfall of my favourite show, but frankly what has been done the series is like remaking Citizen Kane with Pauly Shore.

I Love the 1990s (2001– )

Yesterdayville

[27 May 2003]

Now I did love the 1990s. When the decade started I was 7, when it ended I was 17. It is safe to say that the best part of my formative years took place in the final years of the 20th century. So it was with great pleasure that I anticipated this series, a breeze through what I imagined to be the most significant trends and events of the decade. I was therefore disappointed when femidoms, the Chippendales and Twin Peaks were used to sum up the early 90s. For me, this time in my life was all about the smell of freshly cut grass on a school playing fields and PVA glue. This is not too much of a surprise when you consider that the program was made by and intended for people in their late 20s and 30s. If you look at 'I love the 70s' and 'I love the 80s', the space hopper and star dust references where clearly intended for people who were much younger at the time.

The fact that current affairs are completely overlooked in favour of pop culture references, some of which passed most people by at the time, seems odd when they are supposed to be defining a whole year per episode. It reminds me of a Lee and Herring gag, when they where taking about a similar show which, glorified the 70s 'the military coup in Chile- hilarious!, the civil war in Pakistan, the oil shortage, economic recession- fantastic!' . I guess you could make a similar show about the 1930s, with the main players at the time FDR, Stalin, etc in casual clothes remarking about how crazy the fashions were in those days. 'That 'new deal', what WERE we thinking?'

The early episodes were poor I think. Apart from the inclusion of references which flew totally over my head, certain people who made remarks about each of the chosen subjects were often pretty ignorant about them, and frankly didn't know what they were talking about. The women who believed that Sonic was better than Mario really annoyed me. The fact that I've only seen her on other clip shows (100 greatest, Top Ten), making similarly ignorant comments, leads me to believe that she was chosen to appear on the series not because of her in depth knowledge of the period, but because she was cheap and readily available. Oh, and don't get me started on Vernon Kay, proving that it's possible to success in show business without talent or intelligence. Every comment he made was '(subject under discussion) was/were great weren't they? I used to love them me'.

However as the series wore on, and the references became more understandable, I enjoyed it more. The final episode about 1999 was undoubtedly the best. There was something about that song 'sunscreen' which made me feel strangely serene. The spoken lyrics about respecting your parents, and not worrying about the future, were so damn optimistic that it seems media cynicism had grown so big at this time that it collapsed under its own weight, making it a surprise number 1. I suppose it helped that 1999 was my last full year at school, but its seems things did look better in the future back then. If we'd known the 21st century would have been so bad maybe things would have been different.

There was so much I didn't like about the show, the fact that it was another cheaply made clip show for one, but the last few episodes made me proud I'd lived the best years of my life in the 90s.

Well maybe that's not true. But trust me on the sunscreen.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

A critique

[5/10 · 5 July 2002]

First of all I would like know what constitutes an 'episode'? Seeing as there were only six in a gargantuan conflict which presumably lasted years, you'd think an 'episode' would be a pretty large turning point? In the original they were: destruction of he death star, Luke is vader' son, and the destruction of another Death Star ( They might have given the most important weapon in the universe a better defence second time around ), however Episode I (and II) hardly anything consequential happens.

I have trouble believing that he would begin writing something as exciting sounding as 'Star Wars' with a story involving tax regulations. Surely, given 15 odd years to spare, a better story could have been written, maybe starting when Anakin wasn't a kid. Why do we have to see in the prequels, Anakin wrestling with his soul to prove to us he's evil? Can't we just accept that in action / adventure films bad guys get evil behind the scenes , which saves us a lot of emotional hassle?

Special effects are also a problem in Episode I and II. A reliance on CG effects has made films date even before they have been released. The purpose of special effects is , forgive me if I'm wrong, to make a scene or stunt look real. The models in the originals looked real, unlike the aliens such as jar jar which, I fear will look like brer rabbit in 'Song of the South' in a few years time. But, the various worlds lucas creates are often stunning, The City Planet, probably lifted from Asimov's Foundation series, looks great, as does the naboo planet.

But Critisism of this film, and there has been mountains of it, is useless seeing as the movie made a billion dollars worldwide, But it was obvious that 1999 was a one off and Episode II was to receive little hype and money ( comparitivly) to Episode I.