In this spoof viral, Steven Seagal tries to pitch several romantic comedies to the “Orange” movie director — but he wants an action movie.
I think Seagal was great to mock himself, and apparantly Seagal is meant to be in an up-coming Onion Movie too.
Samuel L Jackson stars as FBI Agent Nelville Flynn who is transporting a witness for the prosecution, Sean Jones (played by Nathan Phillips), from Hawaii to Los Angeles after Jones witnesses the brutal murder of a special prosecutor by vicious crime kingpin Eddie Kim.
In short, Eddie Kim pays off an airport baggage handler to inform him of the plane used by the FBI to transport Sean Jones to smuggle on a plane load of snakes.
During the flight, the snakes escape their cargo hold and start invading the plane, killing people in gruesome, and sometimes hilarious manners. At some points in the film, it was getting very close to jumping straight into the whole Airplane! spoof territory. At times, I was the only one laughing at the subtle dark humor, as well as the quite obviousily Internet geek-written ideas that saw Snakes biting female and male genitlia in every which way possible.
In a film that has had this much Internet hype, one would be forgiven for thinking this film would be very disappointing. But I found it okay, an enjoyable film that isn’t too sick, but lacks that killer blow (if you pardon the pun) that I was expecting.
Even before this movie hit the screens, the Internet was buzzing, fan-posters, fan movies and much more were being made; all in a frenzy to jump on board the runaway freight train that was Snakes on a Plane.
Perhaps I was expecting more of an snake-ploitation of the movie with Samuel L Jackson saying “Muftha-fucker” every five seconds, I mean the whole blogosphere was going nuts of around the whole idea that Jackson saying “MF” this and “MF” that whilst adding the word “snakes” every five seconds… unfortunately there’s only 1 time when it does delve into this when Jackson yells “That’s it! I’ve had it with these mother fucking snakes on this mother fucking plane!”
There are problems in the film, plot wise it’s big enough for a plane filled with snakes to fly through; other times you’re thinking “That’s just stupid”, but that’s because its a classic B movie… yeah, sure the whole 20/20 green vision may remind you of that infamous Paris Hilton sex video, but I think most of it was done with good humour.
Apart from that, it’s very much like Lake Placid + Airport 197X + Dark humour = Classic B Movie fun in Snakes on a plane.
Overall rating: 6/10
During the process of redesigning my site, I’m usually struck with awre over the many CSS sites that spring up on cssreboot, cssbeauty, etc, etc…. most of them use web2.0 styled graphics, icons, and I’m no Photoshop expert; and although I suspect some (a minority) are actually templates (from sites such as templatemonster.com) and others variations on a theme, I often find myself going back to the drawing board, stratching out my ideas and starting again.
So, if like me, if you can use Photoshop, but lack the super skills to make super cool and chunky web2.0 icons, graphic sets, etc; how can you fake it?
Is web2.0 really just about colour? Can chunky text, big icons and colourful interfaces really sell your site as web2.0? Is it okay just to add a little AJAX lightbox to your pictures and be done with it?
It seems to me that web2.0 has a formula; Of course, this is just my point-of-view;
Web2.0 = ( ( [Ajax] + Big Text + Big Icons + Colorful Interface ) * (Social Networking Value + SEO weighting * Word-of-Mouth + [PR] ) )
Some argue that it is not necessary to have complex Rails-like frameworks for a site to be considered web2.0. Myspace uses Tables. Other copycat sites use legacy code.
Word of Mouth and Social Networking value seem to be the killer factor though … just look at Snakes on a Plane, nearly everything on that has had some kind of social networking/inclusion and is arguably the first web2.0 movie.
Okay, maybe I overhyped that bit. It’s debatable whether Snakes on a Plane (or SOAP) is about web2.0 social inclusion, clever PR, or just good-ol word-of-mouth.
Anyway — let’s say you want in on web2.0, and that you want a piece of the action…. how do you start?
Well, there are literally tons of tutorials around the net about this subject, I’ve collated some of the best together…
Microsoft has announced that it will be releasing a collection of tools that will allow independent and hobby programmers the chance to create and program games for the Xbox 360.
Billed as the “Youtube” for Games, there will be a $99 annual subscription; but it is unclear if there will be any return to programmers. For example, will they get a royalty check from Microsoft? Will programmers have intellectual property on the games they produce? Will there be paid content/games?
The idea of programming games for the Xbox 360 sounds incredibily mouthwatering, and I can’t wait to see how this will actually work.
But, for those who can’t wait to start games programming, I suggest the following tools:
Original Link:
Xbox 360 outlines ‘youtube’ for games
UPDATED: Added new link;
Microsoft plans “community-powered arcade” with new XNA tools (Much more detail about the project)
SEOBook has developed a beta plug-in for Firefox which adds useful information to your Google and Yahoo! searching, retruning information such as:
Link:
SEO for Firefox plug-in
Vitaly Friedman has collected together a massive collection of links, blogs, cheatsheets and stuff one one page; the vast amount of links there to surf through is amazing and must have taken him ages.
If there was ever a dream kung fu action movie, Jackie vs Jet would probably be it. The two superstars have not met on screen yet and the concept of them being on screen together, indeed fighting each other, has whetted many film-goers.
A movie costarring two of the biggest names in kung fu cinema Jackie Chan and Jet Li is nearly a sealed deal, with the only outstanding issue being the script, Chan said Tuesday.
“All the hurdles have been overcome. The only problem left is the script,” Chan told The Associated Press after a press conference to promote his new action comedy, “Rob-B-Hood.”
“We need a script that he approves and I approve. If that goes well, shooting will start in March or April in Shanghai,” he said.
I’ve only briefly played “Trump – the game”, and I’m glad that I only paid 5 for this game, because in reality; it’s not worth more than that.
The objective of “Trump – the Game” is to be the player with the most money at the end of the game. We’re not talking Millions here, we’re talking Billions. You can do this in one of three ways: acquiring properties, playing “Trump” cards, and making deals with other players.
The players move their playing pieces around the board, and as they move money can be added to an unowned property, a property is auctioned and you can always draw a card too.
The auctions are one-off and players bid against themseleves to buy the property; you can knock players out of the bidding (regardless of how much money you have) by simply using a … “You’re Fired!” card (yes, that’s probably the only “The Apprentice” tie-in in the whole game, though).
Properties are, of course, the heart of the game, because they will generate wealth. The simple act of landing on a property’s space on the board will generate worth to that property…but this wealth is placed *inside* the property, and goes with it if the property changes hands! You also generate income through Trump cards; this is simply cash on hand and can be spent normally.
The game continues until all of the properties are sold. There are only 6 major properties, such as a casino, International airports, luxury cruise liner as well as many more.
On the player’s turn they can a) play one of the Trump cards they have, b) move around the board, or c) offer to sell one of their cards to the other players.
The Trump Cards are the most important part of the game system, whereas landing on the right space can bring in cash or trigger auctioning of properties. Unusual in itself, this movement system means that from the first turn you have to decide whether to build up cards for later in the game or to try and take your profits there and then.
Much of the game is dependent on open bidding and some cards enable you to forcibly take someone out of the bidding (ie: playing a “You’re fired!” card, or put yourself back in (via “The Donald” card). This means nothing is certain, even if you have the most available money. With the right cards and a little cash, properties can be picked up for way below their normal cost. The “Outside Investor” cards can also help boost your disposable cash.
The idea is to acquire the properties, each property has it’s own plastic box and as the game progresses, more and more cash is added to the property (into the box), thus building up a secret value (and therefore players have to remember what the value of each property is).
What is interesting though is that, throughout the game, properties come up for auction and the prices paid are always well over any possible nominal value – we established a broad average of about $200-$500m per purchase. The reason for this is that players, consciously or otherwise, work out the intangible benefits of holding properties and thus the ability to do deals and consequently, push the price up.
Once all the properties are sold, the game moves onto the deals phase. By this time, each player will have cash, cards and hopefully some properties. The fact that you don’t have as many properties as other players doesn’t cut you out of the action.
What is important is your number of good cards, and to a lesser extent your cash on hand. Basically, each player takes it in turn to play a card or propose a deal to another player or group of players. This deal can be based on cards in his hand or other knowledge.
Here is where half of the fun is. You can make elaborate deals such as “I’ll loan you the Hotel for two turns if you give me a Casino card and any one other card, but if I roll to get money I at least get $20 million.”
Deals can include buying, selling and trading cards, cash, properties and, importantly, borrowing properties from other players (although this isn’t said in the rules). In this way, holding a card such as ‘Receive $200m if you own both the Casino and the Hotel’ has value.
Through negotiation, you can rent the required properties for a period and claim the cash by playing the card. Alternatively, you could simply sell the card to an interested party. Of course, the other players will want a return from these deals too!
The kind of deals you make are really up to the players. Even though there are no clear examples in the manual, and nothing in the rules stating what negoations are and are not acceptable, we often found that really good deals could be made.
For example, one player could offer to pay another player $60m for the use of the Cruise Liner on the next turn and in return will give the current owner of the Cruise Liner a card.
I’ve also read about complex deals such as “multi-turn rentals”, “options” and “performance related profit splits”. I do not know how these work, but I’m working on a strategy on how to implement them the next time I play this game.
However, saying all that – the majority of deals can simply be reduced into the selling of a card. While some of the fun is lost, it does streamline things a bit.
Also, without the negotiation phase, players now have to make a choice whether they want to move about the board trying to get some wealth, or to play a card instead while you still can. In the old game, there wasn’t much reason not to simply roll around the board until all the cards were gone.
Once all properties have been purchased, all the players remove all the hidden cash from the properties they own, count up the money and the player with the most money wins!
The last point I made there is really what this game is all about; it’s about the deals — I’ve heard stories that players have been known to go into another room to make secret and shady deals — personally, I’d add my own rules, add way more properities and make it a much longer and harder game… I’m glad I only paid 5 for the game, I’m currently thinking of adding a few rules to make it a bit better, and perhaps print out some business cards with mocked up properties to help forfill my need for minor properties… I mean, according to Trump (well at least the game, anyway)… it’s just too darn easy to become a Billionaire.
If only life was like that!
Overall: 6/10. A good game that’s really about deal-making, and is a shorted version of Monopoly (but much weaker in overall game play, strategy and fun). Donald…. “You’re Fired”!
I’m not going to see Superman Returns, or Pirates of the Caribbean 2, or even teen action flick “Stormbreaker”; rather I’m more interested in the upcoming action movies that seemed to have gotten their kick-start, courtesy of Ong Bak; the Tony Jaa action movie.
Although I probably will go see Casino Royale (this is the last chance saloon for Bond, as far as I can tell), but I’m interested in how Free Running or Parkour is increasingly making it’s way into action movies — even Casino Royale has a free running sequence in it, and films such as Ong Bak and it’s upcoming sequel Ong Bak 2: Warrior King (which looks just as brutal as the first one) will throw down the gauntlet not only to Hollywood, but also to Hong Kong action movies.
Another movie I’m interested in seeing is the French movie “District 13”, which has had great reviews… but, like Ong Bak; it’s mainly for the action rather than the lazy scriptwriting.
Is the start of the third golden era of action movies? The first, in my opinion, was the 70s kung fu movies and 80s steroids-powered action movies when we had films such as Death Wish, leading to all out action films such as Commando, Total Recall, Rambo and finally the movie that really defined an era; Die Hard.
The second era was basically between 1989 and 1995, the die hard clone era. Even direct to video movies tried to get in on the act such as the Cliffhanger rip-off Crackerjack. Anyway, I consider 1995 to be the end date because by then Die Hard 3 came out; for me it had nothing really new and no real action movies till the Matrix came along did we get something different.
But, the third era is different because it’s all about innovation. And although Tony Jaa has had his critics that his movies are very thin on plot, storyline and innovation (according to Donnie Yen), audiences are captivated by the brutal violence mixed with the innovation of using “Free Running” style action cherography to wow the audience.
I’m looking forward to the next few years, when hopefully action will match and beat the expectations of the paying audience and give us new thrills above and beyond the CGI wondermovie from Hollywood.
A couple of weeks ago we were given a project where a table had well over 50 fields. Immediately, I thought WTF, but then when I had a moment to think clearer about the size of the project, we suddenly thought of the idea of using the concept of “Don’t repeat yourself” to help us build the form, the insert queries, the update queries, the delete queries, etc; and reducing the amount of work needed.
Essentially, we wanted to get the database to do all the heavy lifting, by providing us with the code for CRUD actions without us having to do all that much… but then, things are never *that* easy…
The maxim of “Don’t repeat yourself” first came to full public prominence through the Rails framework. Built for the Ruby programming language, it promised the ability to reduce headaches and strain; many coders of different languages have built similar frameworks built upon the MVC (model-view-controller) approach to building websites.
For the many PHP programmers, there have been a steady increase of MVC/Rails-like frameworks such as CakePHP (for the advanced programmer) and CodeIgnitor (for people who don’t have the expertise that MVC requires), and each boast a similar kind of philosophy; essentially — why repeat yourself in doing similar actions, simply your actions and use them accordingly.
Although using Object Orientated programming is nothing new, and whilst it’s true that many PHP programmers have utilised a vast library of classes, libraries and extensions; the concept of don’t repeat yourself can confuse the novice, and can seduce some into believing that the framework can do all the work, when in reality – this is not really the case, especially for big sites.
The best example of this I can give is that, let’s say you have a database table called “customers”, and it has these properties;
Example:
“customer_id (int)
forename (varchar)
surname (varchar)
wages (int)”
Ordinarily, you would have to create the HTML form gadgets for each of the fields you want on your page; then type out each of the field names; then type out the processor part (ie: saving it)..
But why even do *any* of this? The database already has the fields; so why do you need to type them out thrice? CodeIgnitor, Cake and Rails use scaffolding to build the HTML form gadgets and create all the stuff you want, immediately.
Although we’ve only used CodeIgnitor briefly, the problem (as I see it), is the same; scaffolding. What is scaffolding? Well, essentially you give your framework the link to your database and it will construct the CRUD (create, retrieve, update and delete) actions for you; it will also wrap HTML form gadgets based upon the database table you want, vastly increasing speed of development.
We were going to use CodeIgnitor or CakePHP to use it; but because of the learning curve and the fact we had to get the project out real fast we had to work around the issue by thinking differently.
The problem with scaffolding, as I’ve seen in CodeIgnitor, is that:
Although changing how the scaffolding isn’t really all that hard, and sure; you could do it… but the thing is, you shouldn’t have to.
So, we couldn’t use CakePHP (its built for PHP5 and our servers do not handle PHP5, nor will the host provide us with PHP5), we didn’t have time to learn Rails and we hadn’t the time to learn how to change CodeIgnitor’s powerful Scaffolding system to to help us build a complex, accessible form.
We are looking that the following options;
1) Using PEAR…
PEAR has a class to automatically build HTML form objects from a DataObject derived class. And this seems to be the way to go, and our thought (at work) was that you could use PEAR to create a HTML form based upon the database fields.
2) Build it ourselves
Using the EZSQL class we could capture the database fields and row metadata at the same time (in other classes we had to use two or even three calls to the database)…. If we built it ourselves, we’d have to build a form gadget class that would interact with the database and use a sophisticated rules engine to output valid XHTML output…
We felt it would be better to create a wizard, and feed in the table’s and their metadata; allowing the programmer to select whether a field is required, what function to validate inputted data against and whether it’s hidden. After which we could output (or write) a php file with the resulting code…
So how long would it take?
The second option would take forever and a day, and you would have to account for every possibility, every complex form gadget design… I believe the PEAR option is stronger — but both options would take a very long time to build.
By the time we came up with anything concrete; it would have been probably easier just to have built the damn form in the first place!