The Wonderful World of Zombies

I was having a lively debate with fellow movie fan Tony Nunez over what constitutes a zombie. Many people have loose requirements as to what constitutes a Zed Head, thus there are several kinds that have come about. Some of you may not like my definition, but here goes...

To me, zombies are people who have died, regardless of how, and have re-animated as brainless automatons. These are classic "Romero" zombies. They cannot reason, think, make any kind of judgment. They shuffle slowly due to the fact that they have rigor mortis, broken limbs, torn muscles. They see or hear something that get their attention and head that direction, regardless if the ground gives out and there is a 1000 foot drop. A zombie will see you standing on a roof and walk up to and claw at the wall, but that's it. They will not have the idea to smash the window, walk up the stairs, find the emergency exit that can take them to the roof to get you. If one does, it's by coincidence. That said, lets look at some true zombie movies and stories and some mis-labeled zombie examples. Please note that just because I say they aren't strictly by-the-book zombies that they aren't good. Some of my absolute faves are your unorthodox versions...

28 DAYS LATER

One of my favorite horror movies, 28 Days Later is one of the mis-labeled ones. The "zombies" on here have not died, they were infected with a rage virus. It is instantaneous, you get infected, go crazy and attack and spread the virus. Thus, they are the "fast" zombies since they can run (due to the fact that they are not dead and do not have rigor mortis and are not falling apart). These creatures have red eyes, caused by the virus, rather than the clouded over cataracts of a dead pupil. Their blood is still red since it is still pumped and full of oxygen.

THE DEAD SERIES OF GEORGE ROMERO

The early films of the series are basically the blueprint of zombies. Later movies that had the zombie "learn how to communicate, use weapons, etc, went way off the track as to what they truly are. In a purely scientific view, these creatures would not survive long enough to "evolve and adapt", due to the fact that after several days, the rigor mortis would be so severe they would be motionless, not to mention that decomposition would destroy all connective tissue that there would be to muscles to move the limbs.

WORLD WAR Z

Possibly the greatest zombie book ever written. It follows the classic Zed rules while deviating ever so slightly. Slow and shambling, check. Mindless wandering, check. Strength in numbers/easy to avoid individually, check. Classic zombie moment: The Zs falling off a cliff like a great river simply because they saw someone on the other side and mindlessly tried to get to him. The only deviation is the life-span of the creatures. According to the book, if you place them in a room and came back 13 years later, they would still be there when you came back. Other than this small detail, to me, it is THE definitive what-if story. It has been announced that the movie rights have been picked up by Brad Pitt's production company, and he will be put himself in the STARRING ROLE OF A STORY THAT HAS NO CENTRAL STAR. But that's a rant for another episode. Here is some concept art for the movie, due in 2012.

SHAUN OF THE DEAD

A classic Z movie, especially as a comedy. Slow moving, unthinking (except the step dad, turning off the car stereo when he was a zombie, but that was a great comedy bit), cloudy eyes, moaning. Perfect homage to the genre, even taking a jab at 28 Days Later near the end.

THE WALKING DEAD

Excellent graphic novel, focusing on the characters trying to survive rather than making the zombies the center of the story. The Zeds are pretty spot on classic. About to become an AMC series. Can't wait to check it out.

ZOMBIELAND

Fast zombie class. The Z's were hilarious and backseat to the characters stories.

FIDO

A silly story set in an idyllic time where Zs have been tamed and domesticated with the use of a collar. Almost all rules go out the window. Fido almost has emotions and morality...that is until the collar malfunctions. A great movie to have some zombie fun!

Now, if you look at the rules, some rather funny situations come up. Tony and I were debating these back and forth.

1. Frankenstein - yes, he came back to life, but not from an individual. He was built from many and artificially brought back to life, plus he was later able to think and reason.
2. Pinnochio - yes, he came to life as a real boy, but was he really "alive" or "dead" before?
3. Jesus - he "rose" from the dead, but instead of going for brains, he rose to heaven. Who knows, if he hadn't, would he have caused the first zombie apocalypse?

What say you? Other examples of zombie classification?

Playstation 3 Vs Xbox 360

Since I have have owned at one point of other all the current game systems, I've had people ask me which is the ideal one. The age old question, since Atari Vs Intellivision, has always been "Which has the better graphics"? That was the big question during the 90's with the Sega Vs Nintendo war. Unfortunately, that question no longer applies to today's serious systems. Both PS3 and 360's graphics are unbelievable, especially in HD. This analysis is not to compare specs and such, but to see the myriad of uses these systems have to offer, each in its own unique way.

XBOX 360

Gaming: The older of the 2 systems (launched 11/22/2005), the 360 is the workhorse of the game industry. It is THE system that is the standard when it comes to gaming. Almost all major titles that get released are released on, with the exception of the exclusives from Sony (like Uncharted) and Nintendo (Zelda, Mario, etc). It's own exclusives are some of the industry's best, such as the Gears of War and Mass Effect series. Because it is so big, it can have a big influence on game developers, such as getting them to release games and downloadable content (DLC) weeks or months before any other system. Controllers feel natural in the hands and the button layout is comfortable, especially in a big guy's hands like myself. Also a negative is the startup cost. The barebones systems ($199) have no Hard Drive, so that's about $60+ for the proprietary ones. The standard systems need a wireless adapter ($70) to get online to access the network, play online, etc. THEN you have to pay $50 a year to be able to ACCESS that network to play online, stream movies, etc. Then, you have to buy batteries for the controllers or buy the rechargeable packs. Thus, if you are buying a new setup, you are looking at around $400 for the barebones, not including a good game, extra controller, HDMI cable. The newest model has an HDD and wireless adapter already built in for $299.

Entertainment: The Xbox 360 can be hooked up to an HDTV through component, composite or HDMI cables. The 360 is made by Microsoft, so it's no surprise that compatibility between it and the computer is great. You can stream pictures, music and movies from your computer to the 360 to watch on your TV. Within the dashboard, you can access apps like Facebook, Last FM, Zune and most importantly, Netflix. The ability to stream Netflix and watch whatever you have in your queue is what sets makes this system a viable entertainment component. While you can do the same with the PS3, that system requires you to insert a disc to access your queue and movies. The only problem I have with this is that some movies are not available in HD. The other problem I have is that the 360 has limited codec compatibility while streaming through the Windows Media Player server, meaning that while it can play its Windows Media Audio/Video (WMA and WMV) just fine, other basic video and audio file types (like AVI, MPEG, etc) are iffy. And needless to say, WMV video is not really all that high def.

Overall: A must-have system when it comes to gaming and streaming TV shows and movies through Netflix.



Unfortunately, the 360 has been plagued with hardware problems, resulting in the dreaded Red Ring of Death. These problems seem to have been addressed in the newly revamped "Slim" model.

Rating: Gaming 10/10. Entertainment 7/10.

Playstation 3

Released 11/11/2006, Sony's PS3 had high expectations when it launched. Initial cost was $499 for the 20Gb and $599 for the 60GB kept the system out of reach for normal consumers. Unfortunately, when supply finally could keep up with demand, people saw that it's game library was a bit uninspired and held off. Thus PS3 has been playing catch up with the 360, now catching up in sales since the prices have dropped.

Gaming: While the PS3 can hold its own in the gaming department, it does not have the support 360 does. PS3 will get DLC or games weeks or months after Xbox does. An example is the game Overlord. It had been out on 360 for so long, it was already just $19.99. When it finally came out for PS3, they charged the full $59.99. Exclusives such as the Uncharted and God of War series are fantastic, but not enough to carry the system like Halo, Gears of War, Mass Effect does for the 360. The controller is the same size and shape as it has been from PSX and PS2.

Entertainment: Here is where the PS3 really shines. It was one of the first Blu-Ray 2.0 players on the market. It is much more tolerant of other file types (AVI, MPEG, etc). With some excellent server software, it can stream music, pictures and full HD Blu-Ray movie files (such as M2TS and MKV). Now, getting a full-fledged Blu-Ray player with great games available for $299 is a fantastic deal. The one negative I see with this is the fact that you have to insert a disc to access the Netlix service, but will be fixed this fall. The ability to watch/listen your files that you have saved on your computer in another room, and not use up space on the PS3 hard drive, is the deal-sealer for me.

Overall: While kind of mild on the serious gaming side, as an all-around entertainment system, this is the one to get. It's HD capabilities are the finest around, beating out even dedicated Blu-Ray players with its DLNA compliant streaming capabilities.

Rating: Gaming: 8/10. Entertainment: 10/10

OUTCOME: Should be obvious by now. If you play games and watch a lot of movies and love that theater experience, the PS3 is for you. If you are a hard-core gamer that does marathon sessions of Halo, COD, etc, and watch regular DVD's and standard def movies on Netflix, the 360 is the standard.

Note: The Wii was not included in this analysis because it does neither gaming or entertainment seriously enough to be considered. It is not HD, nor does it have hardcore multiplayer games. It is a "casual" gaming system, and thus it is very good at what it does.

EDIT: My friend Rod from work asked about the differences about online. Here are the facts:

1. Xbox requires you to have a monthly membership to Xbox Live (XBL) in order to access ANY online feature, and some level of memberships can get more than others. Silver membership is FREE and it lets you access everything in the marketplace and buy add-ons (DLC) for your games, BUT YOU CANNOT PLAY ONLINE MULTIPLAYER. For that, you need a GOLD membership, which costs $7.99 a month or $49.99 a year.
2. Playstation has all access to its Network, to download demos, buy games, rent movies AND play online for FREE. It now offers a paid subscription called Playstation Network Plus (PSN+) for $49.99 a year. With that, you get to try full games before you buy, discounts and invitations to beta trials. In my opinion, that really isn't worth the cost for such small benefits, especially when the meat and potatoes (streaming movies and playing online) are FREE, compared to having to pay for the same thing on XBL.
   

Windows Vs Linux

Ok people, this is the computer bit of this blog, and I picked a major subject: Windows Vs Linux. I will try to present as many facts as possible with the pros and cons of both. Though, those of you that know me will already know the Outcome. :)

WINDOWS

Let's start out with the one that everyone knows: Windows. Some facts:

1. Windows (in any form) is used in 90% of computers out there. Look here.
2. Because of the above fact, a majority of programs are exclusive or WinX compatible.
3. Almost any computer you buy will have some sort of Windows.
4. Because of the above facts, most people have only known Windows and nothing else.

Windows releases major overhauls to the OS every few years. Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista and now Windows 7. With each OS, they release "Service Packs" to patch problems and update features. Windows XP had 3 Service Packs in it's whole supported run.

When it comes to software, most all popular programs run on it. Photoshop, Premier, Pro Tools, any major video games. You name it, chances are it's on Windows. Thus, if you need anything, you will find it. Same goes for hardware. Look at any hard drive, disc drive, USB drive, all will say "Windows Compatible".

All this makes for extreme ease of use of Windows and whatever else you need to use it for. But, there is also a downside. A lot of them, really. Let's take a look at these:

1. Money. Every new OS or upgrade is upwards of $100+. Win 7 is $199 new.
2. Some of the best programs out there are expensive. Photoshop is $1000.
3. Because of the fact that Windows is in 90% of computers, most all virus, spyware and malware are written for it.
4. Because Windows has so much hardware/software compatible with it, conflicts happen, such as the dreaded "Blue Screen of Death".
5. Because Windows is owned by just one entity (Microsoft), you get one version and that's it (not counting its different versions, like Windows 7 Home, Ultimate, Professional, etc).
6. Windows is a resource hog. Vista was particularly notorious.

LINUX

Next up is Linux. Back in the day, the name would conjure up hackers slaving over command line. Nowadays, it is finally a viable alternative to Windows. It is easy to use if you wish to do so, or it can be a powerful tool if you learn just a little bit more. A few facts:

1. Linux is only in about 4% of all computers (see above link).
2. Linux is "open source", which means that not one entity owns or controls it. Whoever wants to develop it may do so.
3. Linux is not one system, but the core for many distributions (distros). This is because of the above fact. If you know how to develop and code, you can use the core to make your own Operating System.
4. There are more than 100+ Linux OSs out there. Here is the current Top 100.

Unlike Windows (which releases new versions of its OS every few years, systems like Ubuntu, Mint, etc, release new versions every 6 months. Instead of releasing "service packs" every few months or years to patch or update software, updates are released once a week or more. Unfortunately, since Linux is open source and no one "owns" it (which means it and most of its software is FREE), companies and developers will not make software, hardware compatibility for it since there won't be a payoff. Thus, most of the support needed is provided free by hardcore Linux supporters. So, if you need to run Windows-specific programs, you cannot without a Windows emulator. Hardware is also iffy.

Despite all the negative downsides, there are many more pros that eliminate most of the negatives:

1. Like mentioned above, Linux is free. The OS and software you can download from within it are all free.
2. Since Linux is only in 4% of all computers, virus writers ignore it and write for Windows.
3. Linux is secure. Nothing can install, remove, or do anything unless you input your password.
4. There are Linux versions of all the popular software out there. GIMP for Photoshop, Open Office for MS Office (which uses all MSO files like txt and doc), Firefox for IE.
5. Choice. You don't have to just get one OS and that's it. There are so many to fit your tastes. 100+ to choose from.
6. Linux now looks and behaves like Windows so anyone can make a pretty seamless transition with just a little help.

Even the desktop itself is super customizable. Lets take a look at Windows 7.

Lets look at Linux Ubuntu and Mint.

So those are almost like the basic desktops. You can see that Ubuntu also has a Mac-like dock on the bottom. That is a feature you can add on. You can even do effects like rotate the desktop.

And there are even versions that run off a USB drive. You just put it in a USB slot, reboot and you have an OS right there. Damn Small Linux (DSL) is just 50MB and runs off the RAM on your computer. Yet look at the desktop.
Uses for a USB OS like this? Say your Windows gets a nasty virus that won't even let you boot up. Windows just never loads. What do you do? Take it to a shop and spend $100 or more getting it fixed or Windows reinstalled? No, you pop this in, reboot, and when it starts, run an anti-virus to clean out your hard drive. Restart Windows and viola! It's back.

Personally, I have been using Ubuntu for more than 2 years, dual-booting (choosing between Windows and Linux) and rarely went back to Windows. All my computers have a version of Linux. I have installed and sold Linux computers to friends and they have told me they will never go back to Windows. I have to agree with them.

VERDICT: Each have their uses, but Linux wins out both in use as a Swiss Army Knife and value.

Introduction and First Rant

Hey there, fellow nerds, dorks and geeks! My name is Mike and I started this after being inspired by my bro Tony and his blog reviewing movies. I though I'd do the same, but push it further to include games, flix, books (regular, strips, graphic novels or comic), music, sites, whatever. If you've got some suggestions you want me to check out, leave a comment. If it wasn't for suggestions, I would have never have found some of my favorite things. Now, onto the first rant and praise!

IP MAN 2

First off, Ip Man 2 deserves both rant and praise. Praise because the first half of the movie is some of the best kung fu action I have seen in a movie, rant for the second half that sucked.

PRAISE: Donnie Yen did some of the most amazing action here. Incredible moves, painful hits, lightning fast reflexes. Story was well constructed to continue where part 1 left off. Some nice surprises.

RANT: My thinking is, the director and producer had a wild night partying and doing shots after they finished principle photography. After getting drunk and playing Truth of Dare, one was dared to take all they shot and compress it down to one hour, then do a re-shoot for a new 2nd half that was a Rocky 4 ripoff. That's what it really seemed like to me. The movie could have easily finished in the halfway mark, with the tabletop fight scene being the grand finale. After that, the movie dragged ass with minimal fighting and comically over exaggerated antagonists (the boxer and his people). So over exaggerated, they really wanted us to believe that a roided-up beef head could actually touch a man as fast as Ip. Yeah, sure, that dumbass can lay out a Master that took on 10 men and beat them all without even taking a single hit. That a BOXER could avoid the massive flurry of attacks. They can barely deflect one-two punches, much less a kung fu assault!!! I feel that the produces who was responsible for this atrocity should give a public apology for defaming the name of Ip and Donnie Yen, and insulting us as viewers and fans of the original movie.

After watching this and having an in-depth discussion with fellow movie buff Tony, I decided I would re-edit the movie (in the same vein as the classic Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Edit), splicing the entire first movie (minus the credits, of course) with the first half of part 2, ending with the table top scene and Ip being regarded as Master, followed by the Bruce Lee scene, then roll credits.

Original Ip Man: 10/10
Ip Man 2 Overall Judgement: 7/10