A New Browser Must Be Chosen!

Let me start off by saying that I really like Internet Explorer. I was rocking version 6 for a long time until Youtube said I had to update or else I would lose support. They kind of stretched the truth because I would still be able to watch video I just wouldn't be able to do extra stuff that I don't care about. Regardless, I updated. And I liked it. The problem is I get viruses. As much as I like IE it has to be replaced for security reasons. Let's take a look at the challengers for the title:

Mozilla Firefox - Mr. Popular


After IE, Firefox is the most used web browser. Most of the people that use it are people fed up with IE or Linux users (people fed up with Microsoft in general). As a side note, In Japanese mythology, the fox is said to be able to set things on fire by resting its tail on them.


Google Chrome - The ProdigyWhen Google sets out to do something they usually do it right. Google is the most used search engine so it would make sense for them to have a web browser. This thing is fast, which is good. Also, being from Google, I can launch Google Chrome to Google and then Google using my Google bar. I don't like things being shoved down my throat and I bet the thing would explode if I set Yahoo as my homepage. It has a cool logo so I'll forgive it.

Opera Software's Opera - The Foreigner
Well, well, well, the little boy from Norway wants to play. That'll be fine Opera, as long as you got the goods. A little feature I liked in this guy was that you can have little images in the tabs that show what's going on on the page it represents. Neat!

Apple's Safari - The Uninvited
Hi, I'm a PC. I'm not letting this thing get anywhere near my computer. No thank you.


The reasons I like IE are as follows: It's easy to use, I like it's appearance, and I like the way it allows tabbed browsing. Let's see how each guy stacks up.

Ease of use - Because it is the most used browser, IE pretty much has to be idiot-proof.

Fire Fox: No real concerns. Works out.
Chrome: Super simple. No real issues.
Opera: No problems. I got my eye on you viking.

Winner - complete tie

Appearance - I like the menu setup in IE as well as the icons.

Firefox: traditional menu setup. Nice colorful icons. Plus I can move the icons where I want or remove them entirely.
Chrome: Icons are bland. Menus are off to the right. Not a fan of that.
Opera: Icons were generally not impressive except for that cool red menu button. He had some style. I did not care for the setup as it often had a menus coming from the side of the screen.

Winner - Firefox

Tabbed Browsing - For the longest time I refused to do this. I did not need tabs, I needed new windows. When Youtube made me upgrade I started using tabs and I've not looked back. The thing I like about IE tabs is that you can decide what website comes up in the new tab, say for instance, your homepage. I like that and want that.

Firefox - Open a new tab and it is completely blank. Seriously? Why blank? I did find something to download to make it open up new tabs to my homepage but I couldn't do it with just the program itself so it doesn't count.
Chrome - Open a new tab and it gives you suggestions on what site you might want to go to. I don''t want my computer thinking for me! Generally Google (my homepage) is one of the suggestions but I don't like the added step to get there. You would think that new tab to Google would be something Chrome would love to do. Sadly no.
Opera - Same type of situation as Chrome. I did notice with Opera that you can set it up so that certain websites don't come up as suggestions. Isn't that great? I like how web browsers are catering to the porn enthusiast who shares a computer.

Winner - complete tie for last place.

If it wasn't for security I would just keep IE. As can be seen by the subjects I'm grading on, my needs are very simple. One would think that any browser would work for me. But it can clearly be seen that the web browsers out there don't seek to satisfy me. I was actually surprised at how little I could change with Chrome. This whole experience was rather disappointing. The browser I currently use now is Firefox. There is a reason why it is so popular. It's good and I'll continue to use it.

Dah-Dah-Dah- DUNE!

In the year 1965 Frank Herbert released a book that became considered one of the greatest science fiction books of all time. That book was Dune. It was 19 years later that the movie Dune came into theaters. It has since become a cult classic of the sci fi genre. I saw it and am now going to do my best to review it.
Let me start off by saying I haven't read the book. I'm just gonna review it and not complain about how they didn't include this and that. The most I've done was listen to the Iron Maiden song based off of Dune. I'm going into this unclouded.
Dune has a sweet cast. No one is particularly bad at acting which is not true for most fantasy and science fiction movies. They got Brad Dourif (sweet), Patrick Stewart (yeah Picard), Sting, and even the legend Max Von Sydow. There are also some female who I didn't bother to learn their names. I swear I'm not sexist it's just they don't have too great an impact in the film. There's the lady from Blade Runner and the principal from Kindergarten Cop. The problem with this cast is that the parts are generally so small. Sting, to my amazement, seems to have no problem acting but really only says any lines at the end of the film. There is also a scene with him kind of just posing in a space speedo. The word unnecessary isn't strong enough to describe this.
So yeah, this movie has a plot. Not a bad one too. Basically everyone is secretly against the House Atreides. The emperor of the universe gives them the planet Arrakis and plans on using the House Harkonnen to take it back and knock House Atreides down a peg or two. The planet Arrakis is like the most important planet in the universe because it is the only place you can get the spice melange. The spice makes interstellar space travel possible. So the Atreides royal family goes to the planet, they get betrayed and the Harkonnens come and mess them up and Paul Atreides runs away into the desert. The whole planet of Arrakis is a desert, forgot to mention that. Paul ends up finding these people called the Fremen and they fight a war to take back Arrakis and get some sweet sweet revenge. Not a bad story.

Here are some of the stuff I thought were cool about the movie. The costumes were all done well and so was all the different scenery. The sand worms were cool (look at my picture). Also the Space Guild was cool. There is this guy who talks through a staff that translates what he's saying. There is also this mutant guy who has to stay in a zero gravity chamber to move around.

What's not so good about it? Well, the pacing is not so good. Whenever you make a movie from a book you either take out a bunch of stuff or you have pacing problems. From what I understand this movie did both. I can't really blame the movie for this though. The book was 412 pages long. Honestly I would rather have had a more well paced four hour movie than something that felt rushed. If it's good enough I'll hold out on a long run time.

I thought the weapons were a bit lame. They pretty much have microphones connected to guns that turn their shouts into lasers. Now that I type that out it sounds even dumber than seeing it in the movie. As it turns out, this was completely created for the movie. I bet the fan boys didn't care much for that. I don't blame them.

There was some stuff that was just weird. Paul ends up having a super powered two year old sister who can walk and talk perfectly as well as use crazy powers. There are these ladies known as the Bene Gesserits who are kind of like psychic space nuns. Oh, and at the end of the movie Paul becomes the Kwisatz Haderach. I say that so often know because it just sounds cool. What this means is that he becomes so powerful that he can kill people just by saying, like, "you're dead."

The movie was 137 minutes long and it was an ok movie. I feel if it was polished and paced better it would have been a great movie. They did come out with an extended version which was 189 minutes so it's possible that my main complaint with this film has already been addressed. The extended version does not have the approval of the film's director so I don't know of it's quality. Oh, well. Maybe one day I'll see the extended version and write a better review. Or make my own version with puppets!

I am all about this!

Most Disappointing Movies

The following are my top ten of most disappointing movies I have ever seen. They're my top ten but they aren't in any specific order. Keep in mind that these are the most disappointing movies, not the worst movies.
Death Sentence (2007)
How did I see it: In the theaters
What was good about it: John Goodman had a funny line in it.
Why it disappoints: This is another one of those revenge movies that have flooded the cinema ever since people got all nostalgic about Death Wish. Kevin Bacon is by no means Charles Bronson. Instead of being about a one man crusade against evil with the hero killing off the bad guys in action-packed fights and unique killing methods (see The Punisher) this movie instead looks at how revenge leads to a descent into becoming evil. The main bad guy in the film actually says at one point, "Look at what I made you." This is one of those times where I want the cliche so bad.

Spiderman 3 (2007)
How did I see it: In the theaters
What was good about it: The casting for Sandman was perfect and the fight scene between Sandman and Spiderman in the sewers was pretty cool.
Why it disappoints: Casting is really important in a movie. Peter Parker/Spiderman, Harry Osbourne, Aunt May, J.J. Jameson, Gwen Stacy, and Sandman were all cast very well. That's almost all of the main characters. They messed up on Mary Jane and Eddie Brock/Venom. Kirsten Dunst playing Mary Jane in the third movie only makes sense because she played her in the other two. She does not fit the role though. Mary Jane is supposed to be a bombshell. Dunst doesn't cut it. Sorry lady. The one I will not apologize to is Topher Grace. Eddie Brock is supposed to be able to bench like 600 pounds. Eric Foreman is not a super villain. And they kept on showing his face. Leave the Venom mask on because it looks so much cooler!

Nightwatch (2004)
How did I see it: I bought it, ugh
What was good about it: There is a scene where the main character is on a subway car and he screams over nothing. It's pretty funny but it's not intentional.
Why it disappoints: It's not good. It's just a bad movie. The story sucks and I didn't give a crap about the characters. I thought the idea of good guys and bad guys fighting a secret war against each other would be cool. It's not. Because of this film I don't think I'm going to watch any more Russian cinema.

Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace (1999)
How did I see it: In the theaters
What was good about it: One of the coolest villains ever in Darth Maul, pod racing scene, and overall good casting.
Why it disappoints: Let me start out by saying I like this movie. It still was a disappointment. Coming after the original trilogy there was no way for a new Star Wars movie to live up to the hype. This one didn't even come close though. The story was lack luster, the heavy use of CGI was unnecessary (use puppets!), and the entire film screams average. The gungans sucked, especial Jar Jar who wasn't even funny. I ended up feeling completely apathetic towards the space fight at the end. It lacked all the excitement of the Death Star attacks in episodes 4 and 6. The movie was a let down for sure.

3 Ninjas Knuckle Up (1995)
How did I see it: On VHS baby!
What was good about it: Victor Wong was in it. I think that's it.
Why it disappoints: In 3 Ninjas they take down a guy who is building a ninja army to provide muscle for his arms dealing activities. Cool. In 3 Ninjas Kick Back they go to Japan to stop this guy from gathering the ancient weapons to open the cave of gold. Cool. In 3 Ninjas Knuckle up they stop a rich bad guy on an Indian reservation who has the police and the mayor in his pocket. It's so trite it's painful. Any movie involving an Indian reservation is a movie I don't want to see. What do Indians have to do with Ninjas? I'm so glad I don't remember most of this movie.

Batman and Robin (1997)
How did I see it: In the theaters
What was good about it: I think Chris O'Donnell was a good choice for Robin because he breaks the "I'm a little boy side kick" mold
Why it disappoints: Nothing else in this movie was good. They took two of my favorite villains, Mr Freeze and Bane, and they destroyed them. Mr Freeze became an ice themed Arnold Schwarzenegger giving out crappy puns. Bane was a brute. The man is supposed to be a genius! And if ruining to comic book characters isn't enough, the bat suit had nipples. I wish that was joke. Nipples.

Mio in the Land of Faraway (1987)
How did I see it: bought it on dvd
What was good about it: Favorite actor Christopher Lee was the villain. Also Christian Bale is in it.
Why it disappoints: I wanted to see this movie so bad because of it's rarity. The dvd I have literally went around the world to get to me, starting in Australia. This film has some of the worst acting I have seen. The kids were bad at acting. The adults were bad at acting. Christopher Lee, although not bad in the movie, was certainly not bringing his A game.

Rambo 3 (1988)
How did I see it: Given to me as a gift on dvd
What was good about it: Rambo fills a hole in his body with gunpowder and then lights it on fire to stop the bleeding.
Why it disappoints: First Blood - Rambo can't adjust to civilian life in a world that rejects him. Rambo - Rambo goes back to Vietnam to rescue POWs. Rambo 3 - Rambo goes to Afghanistan to bail out Col. Trautman. I have never been a fan of Afghanistan. At the time everybody loved Afghanistan because it was like Russia's Vietnam. The movie is nothing more than a propaganda film and it pales in comparison to the previous films.

Dark Floors (2008)
How did I see it: OnDemand
What was good about it: It had Lordi in it.
Why it disappoints: The movie was not scary and it had bad acting. The only reason why anyone, including me, would see this movie is because Lordi is in it. I wanted to see Lordi running amok and going crazy. Mr Lordi, the leader of Lordi, only appears for a short time at the end of the film. The movie has something to do with time warps and parallel dimensions but I don't really care. I wanted more monsters.

Lilo and Stitch (2002)
How did I see it: In the theaters
What was good about it: The aliens, including Stitch, were cool looking, I also liked the scene when Stitch pretended to be a giant monster.
Why it disappoints: Where's the Disney magic? I didn't see any magic. The social worker is going to take Lilo away from her mom. Why? Because Lilo is a little crap and causes trouble all the time. Whatever. This movie was flanked by Atlantis and Treasure Planet. I saw both and didn't care for them. There were know cute lovable characters. I didn't expect Disney magic. I expected it with Lilo and Stitch, and I was denied. All Disney magic seems to be being funneled into Pixar now.