"Resident Evil: Retribution" Trailer is Finally Here!

The long awaited full length trailer for "Resident Evil: Retribution" debuted on the Web today, giving fans of Screen Gems' highly successful action horror franchise a first real look at the film's plot.

Screen Gems released a brief teaser in January that gave a peek at some of the movie's action, but did not give much in the way of story details. "Retribution" is the fifth installment in the saga of heroine Alice, played by Milla Jovovich, and her battle against the powerful and villainous Umbrella Corporation, which is responsible for decimating much of the world with its T-Virus.

Both the teaser and full trailer gave a glimpse at the return of Michelle Rodriguez, who appeared in the first "Resident Evil" film as Rain Ocampo, a member of an Umbrella Corporation special forces commando unit. The full trailer also includes scenes of Oded Fehr and Colin Salmon, two other stars from earlier in the series who are returning for the fifth installment. Fehr appeared in "Resident Evil: Apocalypse" and "Resident Evil: Extinction" (the second and third films) as Carlos Olivera, a character from the Capcom video game series the films are based on, while Salmon appeared in the first movie as James "One" Shade. Rain, Carlos and One were all killed off, but are somehow back for this new movie.

The trailer doesn't actually explain the return of these characters so I had to go to Wikipedia to learn that the actors are playing clones created by Umbrella. That's no surprise as there aren't many other ways to bring back characters who were shot in the head, diced up or blown up. Also, this is a sci-fi horror film I'm talking about. However, they are not just playing clones, they are actually playing two clones--one a "good" version and one a "bad" version. (Only in a "Resident Evil" movie!)

The trailer does explain that Umbrella captured Alice and placed her in a dream world where she and Carlos are living happily in the suburbs with a young daughter--that is, until she is given a rude awakening by a zombie attack. Also, Umbrella has grown larger than ever and appears to have achieved world domination. Alice has to once again go up against Albert Wesker, the sunglasses loving villain who was supposedly killed when his plane exploded in the previous film, "Resident Evil: Afterlife." (Wesker could actually be seen parachuting from the explosion if you look closely). Alice also has to face her old ally Jill Valentine, played by Sienna Guillory, who appeared in "Apocalypse." A scene during the credits of "Afterlife" showed that Valentine is under the control of Umbrella thanks to one of their mind control devices. Also glimpsed in the full trailer are Ada Wong and Leon Kennedy, two characters from the video games who are making their way onto the big screen.

Despite never having played through an entire "Resident Evil" game, I am a huge fan of the movies (as I mentioned in my post about my love for all things zombie). This latest film looks like it will not disappoint in giving us a good dose of shooting, ass kicking and Umbrella Corporation craziness. The previews for "Afterlife" showed Alice storming Umbrella's facility that resulted in a huge battle, but that part of the film ended up only taking up the first 10 or 15 minutes. I actually thought it was a really clever twist. The movie's actual plot turned out to be much narrower in focus than I originally expected, dealing more with Alice getting trapped in a prison with a group of survivors and not having her facing off against Umbrella again until the end. "Retribution" looks like it will be the global scale war that I was expecting in "Afterlife," which is necessary to keep the franchise fresh and draw it to an explosive close. I just wish Chris and Claire Redfield were included in this film, but unfortunately they seem to be missing since their appearance in "Afterlife." Hopefully they will be in the sixth, and reportedly final, film.

"Resident Evil: Retribution" will be released in theaters on September 14, 2012. Watch the trailer below:

 

Update: Screen Gem's released two additional international trailers that can be found on the Web site Bloody Disgusting.

"The Cabin in the Woods" is Worth the Trip

So I'm going to review another film that's been out for a while: Liongate’s "The Cabin in the Woods." But unlike the last movie I reviewed, "The Hunger Games" (also released by Lionsgate), the Joss Whedon produced horror film "Cabin in the Woods" hasn't shattered any sales records, which is unfortunate because it is just as amazing in its own way.

I had extremely high expectations for "The Cabin in the Woods" going in, mainly because I am a huge fan of Whedon’s past television shows, “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” “Angel,” and “Dollhouse.” Also, Whedon co-wrote “Cabin” with Drew Goddard, who wrote for “Buffy” and “Angel.” On top of that, I spent years anticipating the film’s release since first hearing about it in late 2009. (It was supposed to be released in February 2010, but was delayed because of financial problems at MGM, the film’s original distributor.) I can easily say “The Cabin in the Woods” surpassed my expectations and left me in complete awe. I’ll even go as far as calling it a must see movie for horror fans, especially those that appreciate what was done with the genre in the 80s and 90s. This includes cliché situations and stereotypical characters like the dumb blonde who often falls while running from the killer, the macho jock and the innocent, chaste “final girl” character who is usually the lone survivor. In true Whedon style, the film manages to both poke fun at and subvert these stereotypes at the same time.

It's probably best to go into the film with as little information about the premise as possible, other than that it's about five college kids who go for a weekend getaway to the secluded locale referenced in the title. That plot may sound reminiscent of slasher film classics, like the much beloved (at least by me) "Friday the 13th" series, in which a mindless killer picks off partying teens one by one. But there is much more to "The Cabin in the Woods." Unfortunately, incessant commercials spoiled the main aspect of the movie that sets it apart from those fondly remembered films from decades past. So I can at least talk about that much since I won't be spoiling anything that the television ads haven't already. However, if you want to go into this movie completely blind, you should probably stop reading here. So the five friends--Dana, Jules, Curt, Marty, and Holden--are being monitored by technicians from some apparent scientific corporation throughout their entire trip. Strategically placed surveillance cameras are in the cabin and covert military looking guys spy on them even before they leave for their ill-fated adventure. The fact that the college students are being watched and somewhat toyed with by the technicians is kind of similar to "The Hunger Games" and some of the ideas that movie brings up, except in "Cabin in the Woods" the kids don't know they're being watched.

The movie does have other surprises that aren't ruined by commercials, including why the corporation is performing their horror games. The movie hints at the corporation's endgame a few times earlier on and, while not completely original, it gives a very creative concept the both pokes fun at and explains certain horror film character stereotypes. "The Cabin in the Woods" also has a climactic scene that shouldn't be missed. At this point it's probably too late to catch the film in the theaters, but it should definitely be seen on DVD/Blu-ray. I can't speak for all horror fans but I think most would agree "The Cabin in the Woods" is one hell of a movie!

"The Walking Dead": Not Your Father's Zombie Game

If you ever read those “Choose Your Own Adventure” books as a kid, imagine one with terrifying zombies and great character development. But instead of a book it’s an interactive game that brings the characters to life on your screen. That’s “The Walking Dead” video game in nutshell.

Developed by TellTale Games, “The Walking Dead” is based on the popular comic book series of the same name by Image Comics. The downloadable game is split into five episodes; the first, ‘A New Day,’ was released last week on the PlayStation Network, Xbox LIVE Arcade, PC and Mac.

Lee fighting off a walker. Image credit: PlayStation.com

"The Walking Dead" video game is set in the same continuity as the comic series, with the events considered a canonical prequel to Rick Grimes’ adventure. The game follows a new character--escaped convict Lee Everett--and ‘A New Day’ features appearances by well known characters from the comic, including Glenn and Hershel Greene. Because the game is not based on the television series, viewers that haven’t read the comics might not recognize Hershel, who differs somewhat in appearance and personality than how he is portrayed in the series. Glenn, however, is similar enough (Asian guy with a baseball cap.) Hopefully more faces from the comic will be seen in future episodes.

“The Walking Dead” isn’t the traditional survival horror game I expected when I first heard it announced. Like the comic and television series, the game is more about the character’s interactions than fighting off zombies. The game is also about slowly unfolding the mystery of Lee’s past and whether he is a good guy or not. So rather than being reminiscent of games like “Resident Evil,” it is more in the interactive movie genre like the critically acclaimed “Heavy Rain.” But “The Walking Dead” feels even more like an interactive movie--or maybe an interactive show in this case--because the graphics look more animated than realistic. This is meant to be reminiscent of the art in the comics and mixes well with the game’s more story focused game play.

Like with “Heavy Rain,” the player’s choices in “The Walking Dead” affect how events unfold and how other characters act towards Lee. At certain points you can decide whether to be honest or lie when asked questions or what actions to take when a zombie finally gets around to attacking someone. Attempt to save one person and you’ll make an ally, support someone’s plan of action over another person’s and you might make an enemy. The game gives you only about 30 seconds or so to make decisions so much like real life (unless you stop and restart) your path can be dictated by split second decisions.

The other games are supposed to be released over the next few months so time will tell exactly how different choices affect the course of the game overall. But this type of gameplay definitely increases the replay value. I’m already wondering how things might be different if I had Lee be more honest here or dishonest there, so I can definitely seeing myself playing this game again a few times.

Despite the heavy focus on story, the game does have its share of startling and chilling zombie attacks, where split second timing is really of the utmost importance. Although the controls are fairly simple, I fumbled a little the first few times I had to fight off a zombie because I wasn’t always sure what I was supposed to do.

Certain buttons have different uses in action scenes versus scenes in which you explore rooms or interact with other characters. The game has general instructions that are accessed in the main menu, but they don’t explain what each button does for each scenario. However, it won’t take long before you will be punching, kicking and bludgeoning zombies like a pro.

“The Walking Dead, ‘A New Day,’ costs $4.99 in the PlayStation Store and 400 points in the Xbox Live Marketplace. A “Season Pass” is available for $19.99 in the PlayStation store that includes the first episode, pre-purchase of the additional four episodes and an exclusive PlayStation 3 premium theme. A Season Pass for the five episodes of the PC or Mac versions can be purchased for $24.99.

I Have More to Say About "The Hunger Games"

I tried to avoid giving away any major spoilers in my review of "The Hunger Games" just in case the one person who hasn't seen the film yet somehow stumbled upon it. But I have even more to say, so I'm doing a post for anyone who has seen the movie or just doesn't care about spoilers.

The first thing I want to discuss is the over the top scene I mentioned in my review. In the film, there is an added scene after Rue's death that shows a riot breaking out in District 11, Rue's home district. It starts out with a guy that I assume is Rue's father going into an angry fit. People around him start acting out as well and it escalates into a full scale revolt. Now don't get me wrong. I love Rue as much as the next “Hunger Games” fan, but I think a riot is a bit of an extreme reaction. Obviously Rue's family would be angry, and I would have been fine with the scene if it just showed her father getting upset. But I would think the other citizens in District 11, as well as those in every district, would be used to seeing a 12-year-old get killed in the Games considering this is the 74th competition. That should especially be true for the more poverty stricken districts, such as District 11, where the children are malnourished and most aren’t strong enough to compete against the well fed tributes from the richer districts. Also, the riot takes away from Katniss's experience, which is what this part of the story is really about. After Rue is killed, Katniss decorates her body with flowers as a way to both honor Rue and show the Capitol that she and Rue are more than pawns in their game. While this is shown in the film, the riot is so jarring that it kind of ruins the somber, emotional mood of Katniss mourning Rue’s death. I believe the filmmakers added the riot scene to foreshadow events in the sequel, “Catching Fire,” which is where we will learn more about what goes on in the districts as a result of the Games. The riot scene gives the idea that Rue’s death sparks a revolution in the districts. While Rue’s death was part of a chain of events, the dissension in the districts is supposed to be more a reaction to Katniss’s defiance of the Capitol.

One thing I found interesting about Rue’s death in general is that, as much as I would have liked for her to survive, her death is a necessary part of the story. It is a strong reminder to the audience that this is a world where very young children are sent not only to die, but in most cases to die brutally. Seeing 17-year-olds killing each other isn't as disturbing as seeing a 17-year-old killing a 12-year-old. In movies, older teenagers look and are oftentimes played by adults so the viewer doesn’t necessarily think of them as children. Plus, horror movies have been featuring teenagers getting murdered since at least the early 70s so viewers are used to seeing that. Other younger tributes were killed in the bloodbath at the start of the games but the film doesn’t focus much on them. But these deaths, as well as Rue’s, also serve as a reminder of just how sick and bloodthirsty the spectators are in the Capitol. The last thing I’ll say about Rue is that I would have liked to see a little more of her before she was killed. I thought the filmmakers could have added a conversation between Katniss and Rue about the conditions in District 11, how Rue had to work in the fields and how she loves music. Rue could have also mentioned how she used the four note song she and Katniss used as a signal during the Games back home in District 11 to signal the end of the work day. That could have showed Rue was known by a lot of people and could have explained the uproar that took place in District 11 after she died. 

I think some other important plot points from the novel could have easily been added to the film with just some slight changes to certain scenes or extra dialogue. For example, at one point later in the movie, Peeta refers to the red headed female tribute from District 5 as “Foxface,” but there is no explanation for this. In the book, Katniss comes up with the nickname because she doesn’t know the girl’s real name and probably because it sounds catchier to the reader than “the girl from District 5.” I know that isn't exactly a major detail, but it could be confusing to some. I think the filmmakers could have easily avoided that by having Katniss mention the girl to Peeta and say that she’s been thinking of the girl as Foxface or something like that. Earlier in the film, the video shown at the reaping mentions that Panem began with 13 districts but afterwards it is said Panem only has 12 districts with no explanation. I think it would have been easy to add another line in the video or a line of dialogue in another scene to clarify that District 13 was obliterated in the Dark Days—the war caused by the districts’ rebellion 75 years or so before the beginning of the story. In another scene early in movie, Katniss mentions that her sister’s name will only be in the bowl at the reaping once and it is mentioned in a following scene that Gale’s name will be added to the bowl numerous times with no explanation. In the novel, Katniss says that potential tributes can have their names added to the bowl extra times, thereby increasing their chances of being selected, in exchange for tokens, or tesserae, that are traded for a small amount of grain and oil. This would probably take more than a line of dialogue to explain but Katniss and Gale could have discussed it or an extra scene could have been added showing them signing up for tesserae.

One of the aspects of the novel that I really wish the film version had retained is how rough the conditions are for Katniss during the Games. In the film, once she escapes the bloodbath she gets set up in the woods and finds water and food pretty quickly. In the novel, however, it takes Katniss a couple days to find a source of water and, before she does, she nearly dies from dehydration. Also, both Katniss and Peeta suffer from near starvation as well when they are holed up together in the cave. Peeta also suffers from blood poisoning while they are hiding in the cave due to his leg wound and he nearly dies. Another aspect that I would have liked to see in the film is how Katniss figures a lot of things out for herself in the novel, such as what the gifts from Haymitch mean. In the novel, Haymitch wasn’t allowed to include notes in the gifts like he did in the film, so Katniss had to interpret why he sent her gifts at certain times and refrained from sending gifts at other times. For instance, before she first found water she wondered why Haymitch didn’t or wasn’t able to send any to her but she eventually realized that meant a water source was nearby. I understand that a lot of that stuff had to be cut for length but in my opinion removing these aspects definitely took some of the bite out of the story.

I could probably go on and on analyzing "The Hunger Games" but I need to stop somewhere. The last thing I’ll discuss is something else I think the film could have done without. In the movie, the Gamemakers seemed like they were trying to kill the tributes; particularly in the scene where they hurl large fireballs at Katniss. In the novel, they used tricks like the fireballs merely as a means to drive the tributes to the same location so they would be forced into confrontations. Manipulating the environment was meant to make sure the Games didn't get boring for the viewers in the Capitol. However, they were not supposed to kill tributes. That seems like it would be counter intuitive to the point of the Games, which is to have to tributes kill each other. I haven't finished reading the trilogy though so that could also be some form of foreshadowing for information that comes out later about how the Games are operated, but I like the idea that the Games at least has some level of fairness. Then again, the government officials in the Capitol are so cruel that I wouldn't put anything past them.

"The Hunger Games" Review

So I decided to write some movie reviews and I'm starting with a film everyone has seen already:  "The Hunger Games."

Before entering the theater to watch "The Hunger Games" this past Saturday, I promised myself I would not spend the entire time comparing it to the book, which I finished reading that morning. Unfortunately I failed miserably. With the book so fresh in my mind, I found it impossible not to think about how each scene in the film matched up with the corresponding scene in the book. I actually had the same problem when I first saw many of the Harry Potter movies, being a huge fan of the book series. I didn't have that problem with the last two Harry Potter films though. By then, it had been a few years since I read the books so I didn't have an exact memory of them. But, much like the Potter films, the movie version of "The Hunger Games" does not completely live up to the book. However, that does not stop it from being a great film.

Even though I was slightly disappointed that some events in the film do  not happen exactly as they do in the book, I kept reminding myself that all of the details in a novel couldn't be captured in a two-and-a-half-hour movie. The screenwriter (who I later found out is the book's author, Suzanne Collins) had to form a story for the film based out of all the information in the novel and could not fit in everything. (As a side note, that reminds me of the same writing process I used when I was a reporter at a community newspaper. I would gather a lot of information and only use what I needed to craft a story, rather than cramming in every bit.)

Set in Panem--a dystopian nation standing on the ruins of a post apocalyptic North America--the film follows the plot of the novel fairly closely. Panem consists of a wealthy city known as the Capitol and 12 poorer surrounding districts. To punish the districts for a past uprising against the Capitol, Panem's government imposed a yearly ritual called the Hunger Games, in which one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18 are randomly selected from each district to fight to the death in a televised competition. During the Games, the participants are placed in an outdoor arena where they must survive unknown conditions and hazards controlled by agents of the Capitol. The Games serve as a way for the Capitol to keep the districts in line by reminding them that they are always at its mercy. Katniss Everdeen, a 16-year-old girl from the twelfth and poorest district, volunteers to be a sacrifice, or "tribute," in the 74th Annual Hunger Games to take the place of her younger sister Primrose, whose name is originally selected. The film centers on Katnis, who must travel to the extravagant Capitol, along with fellow District 12 tribute Peeta Mellark, to train for and compete in the competition.

Reading the novel before seeing the film definitely biased my opinion of it, in both a good and a bad way. I already knew the full story so I wasn't confused by any missing background information. Plus, I was more forgiving than some because I loved the novel and wanted to love the film. However, I think the fact that the film glosses over or omits some of the novel's major plot points was possibly more noticeable to me than someone who hadn't read the book. For instance, the film mentions Panem began with thirteen districts but doesn't explain District 13 was destroyed in a catastrophic war caused by the rebellion. Also, a character says the victor of the Hunger Games is "bathed in riches" but the film doesn't explain what that includes. In the book, it is explained the victor receives money and a fancy house in their home district. The book also says that the Capitol provides extra food to the winner's home district for a year, which is why the competition is called the Hunger Games.

Additionally, some of the novel's brutality is lost in translation to the screen, however, not enough for the film to seem too toned down. A story about teenagers fighting to the death is obviously going to be violent and controversial but the film isn't nearly as brutal as the similarly themed Japanese film "Battle Royale," also based on a novel. Rather than focusing on the actual killing, "The Hunger Games" is more about Katniss's struggle for survival in the arena. Though the movie is not without deaths, it uses a shaky camera style that distracts from some of the violence and helps portray Katniss's frenzied experience. The most important aspect of the story that the film doesn't capture is Katniss's insight, given through first person narration in the novel. However, not having the limitations of first person narration allows the film to show scenes that take place with characters outside the arena while the games are taking place. Some of them are interesting additions but some detract a bit from what is really Katniss's story. One of the new scenes (that I won't give it away for that one person who hasn't seen the movie yet) is so unnecessary and over the top that I actually cringed a little.

The film features strong performances from some veteran actors including Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy, Katniss and Peeta's mentor and District 12's only living Hunger Games victor, and the marvelous Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickman, the Game's colorful host. But the movie really belonged to star Jennifer Lawrence, who played the role of Katniss to perfection. I can't think of another actress who could have done a better job capturing the character's charm, toughness and vulnerability. Lawrence played a similar role in the Academy Award nominated film "Winter's Bone," which could have been a "Hunger Games" prequel that tells the story of Katniss's ancestor, Ree Dolly. Like Katniss, Ree is a tough girl living in poverty who supports her younger siblings and nearly catatonic mother. Someone needs to cryogenically freeze Jennifer Lawrence so she can play Katniss again when "The Hunger Games" is remade in 10 or 15 years. I also loved young actress Amandla Stenberg as the character Rue, a 12-year-old chosen as the tribute from District 11. I just wish Rue had more screen time in the film.

Overall, I think "The Hunger Games" is a very compelling story with a lot of interesting themes, my favorites being the allusions to the popularity of reality television in today's culture and the gladiator combat that took place in the Roman Empire. I would recommend the movie to the person who hasn't seen it. I would also highly recommend the novel to anyone who enjoyed the movie because it gives much more depth to Panem and the characters.

I ♥ Zombies!!!

As everyone knows, popular culture is caught up in an intense love affair with the undead creatures known as zombies. This is evident because zombies are pretty much everywhere you look, from movies and literature to video games and comic books. Zombies have even taken over television with the popular and amazing AMC series "The Walking Dead." People participate in zombie walks where they dress up like the undead and stumble down the street, and zombie races in which they run through obstacle courses while being chased by people in zombie costumes. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention even released a zombie preparedness guide online.

The most recent zombie craze seems to have begun in the early 2000s and has yet to die down. But zombies have been around for a lot longer, appearing in literature as well as movies such as George A. Romero's Living Dead film series, which are among the most well known zombie fiction. Zombie lore itself originated from West African spiritual and religious practices and the Haitian Voodoo (or Vodou) religion created by African slaves who were brought to Haiti in the 16th century. In the Voodoo religion, zombies were corpses that were mystically reanimated and controlled by a sorcerer or priest known as a bokor.

The 1932 film "White Zombie," considered the first zombie movie, stars Béla Lugosi as a white Haitian Voodoo master that controls a horde of zombies. Redefining zombie lore for modern times, Romero kicked off his previously mentioned Living Dead series when he released "Night of the Living Dead" in 1968. While zombies were previously depicted as creatures that followed the orders of a sorcerer, Romero's breed of zombies had only one goal--devouring human flesh. The 1985 film "The Return of the Living Dead," an offshoot of the Living Dead series not done by Romero, created the popular idea of zombies hungering for human brains.

Me with two "zombies" at Baltimore Comic-Con 2011

I am proud to admit that I am one of the many who are obsessed the living dead, but that was not always the case. I am a longtime fan of horror films (a topic I will revisit in a future post), however, while growing up I rarely watched zombie movies. This was probably because there were never any good ones on television. I recall watching one movie with talking zombies that was complete garbage (I believe it was actually part of the Return of the Living Dead series). I now realize there were better options like the Romero classics, but at the time all that was available was whatever was on basic cable and HBO.

My love of zombie lore didn't begin until spring 2002 when I first saw the horror film "Resident Evil," which would become one of my favorite movies and go on to spawn an awesome franchise (at least in my opinion.) In addition to horror movies, I am also a fan of video games and video game movies so, even though I have yet to play through a "Resident Evil" game, I had to see the movie. "Resident Evil" had serious ghouls that craved flesh, not the silly zombies from my youth that moaned "braaaiiins." Not long after that another movie, "28 Days Later," also brought the scariness back to zombie lore (although the creatures were more like rabid people than zombies, but I won't split hairs.) In both movies the zombie plague--known in extreme cases as a zombie apocalypse--is caused by a viral outbreak, which adds an explanation as to why zombie bites turn a living person into a zombie. Ever since then there has been a constant stream of zombie movies, including the 2004 remake of Romero's "Dawn of the Dead," the "Resident Evil" sequels, [REC], and many others.

I'm not exactly sure why the current obsession with zombies is still going strong (not that I'm complaining.) Vampires, another type of undead, have always been popular but it seems like their popularity waxes and wanes. For instance, vampires became über popular after "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" the series became a success in 1997 and again with the more recent TV series "True Blood" and the horrible "Twilight" books and movies that for some reason are much beloved by many teenage girls. With zombies it seems like there has been an increasing, or at least steady, level of popularity over the past decade.

There are numerous reasons why I love zombies and why I believe others love them as well. One reason is that zombies are known to usually appear in hordes. Even though other fictional creatures may attack in groups at times, none are known for it as much as the walking dead. Zombie movies are thrilling to watch because at some point the characters end up surrounded by an army of undead creatures trying to devour them with escape difficult to nearly impossible. Another reason is that, as previously mentioned, zombie bites (and sometimes scratches) turns a living person into a zombie, which makes combating them extremely dangerous. I believe a bigger reason why zombies are so popular is that zombie stories involve a lot of extreme violence. This society is obsessed with violence, and in a zombie attack someone could justifiably shoot, stab, and bludgeon people. On a side note, one of my aunts, who likes most other science fiction, once told me that she refuses to watch "The Walking Dead" and zombie films because she couldn't stand the idea of people preying on other humans. I hadn't really thought about it that way before since I generally don't think of zombies as still being human.

I believe one of the main reasons a lot of people love zombies isn't so much about the zombies themselves but the strategies people plan to use for survival in case a zombie apocalypse were to occur in real life. I am in the middle of reading "The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead," by Max Brooks. (I'm probably the last zombie enthusiast on the planet to read this book but it's been sitting on my Amazon wish list for the longest time. I finally got around to buying it once I saw that it has a spin-off/sequel/whatever called "World War Z" that is being made into a film starring Brad Pitt.) "The Zombie Survival Guide" is written in the style of a real survival guide that provides information on the best weapons and methods to use when combating or eliminating zombies, the essential items to carry when on the run from zombies, and other topics involved in surviving zombie outbreaks. I'm sure most zombie fans have had the discussion with friends about if, how, or how long they would fare in a zombie apocalypse. An interesting element of the zombie apocalypse is the idea of the breakdown of society. Many zombie stories show how living in an apocalyptic world affects humanity--some people band together during the apocalypse and some turn on others and become as predatory as the zombies that are hungering after them.

In my opinion, the popularity of zombies is at an all time high. "The Walking Dead" is a ratings success going on its third season at the end of this year. Also, several new zombie movies are in production, including another film based on a book titled "Warm Bodies" that actually involves a zombie teen romance in the vein of the "Twilight" series. So no matter what the reasons are for why people adore the undead, society's love of zombie lore clearly isn't going to die down anytime soon.

What's in a Name, Google?

Google rolled out its new service called "Google Play" this week, replacing the Android Market with an all-in-one eStore that sells apps, e-books, games, movies and music. Google Play consolidates the over three-year-old Android Market with the company's other digital media selling services, such as Google Music.

Google Play logo. Image credit: Google

A more detailed account of Google's major shift in branding can be found in this CNET article. The point of this post is not to analyze Google's latest business move, although I do believe the change is a smart strategy for Google to take, considering its services have been fragmented (as the CNET article said) for a while. In fact, Google definitely has even more work to do when it comes to creating one cohesive brand. Although, for Google--a massive company that has its hand in everything these days--I imagine that would be a difficult endeavor. But that is a whole separate issue. The real focus is this post is the name Google chose for this new brand: "Google Play." In my opinion, Google could have picked a better name for its eStore. I actually don't see why they couldn't have just kept the original name. I'll admit "Android Market" doesn't sound as catchy as Apple's App Store, but it's been around for a while and everyone is used to it.

However, if Google executives felt they really had to change the name of their eStore, I feel like there must be better options than "Google Play." Unfortunately I can't offer up any suggestions since marketing/advertising isn't my specialty, but I'm sure Google has a team of marketing geniuses that are more than capable of coming up with something better. 

The main reason I don't like the name "Google Play" is because when I first heard it, I was reminded of Sony's Xperia Play (better known as the PlayStation phone), the smartphone/handheld game console released last year. Maybe it's just me but the word "Play" added to the title of any digital media service makes me think solely of video games and not of all the other media included in "Google Play." I guess people do "play" movies and music, but I don't generally make that word association. This name change is almost as bad as when Netflix tried to break off the DVD by mail part of its business into a separate service called “Qwikster.” (I won't even get into how ridiculous that was.) Again maybe it's just me but looking on my Android phone and seeing "Play Store"  rather than "Android Market" just won't be the same.

This is the Beginning of the Rest of My Life

So I decided to try my hand at blogging again (little known fact: I started a personal blog back in early 2007 that didn't work out) so I could stretch my writing muscles, which have gone underused for many years now. I have heard that journaling is a good way to not only practice writing, but also to gain some sort of clarity (another fact: the title I'm using for this blog and my Tumblr page is partly inspired by a lyric from a 311 song that goes, "from chaos comes clarity..." Yeah, seriously.) Blogging, of course, is the digital evolution of journaling and, apparently, also news reporting, product reviewing and editorializing. Plus, everyone else is doing it, so why not me, right?

Anyhow, speaking of editorializing, this will probably serve more as a forum for me to rant and rave about things more than it would an actual journal. I like all types of television shows, movies and music but I'm mainly into video games; DC Comics; and the horror, science fiction and fantasy genres--you know, nerdy stuff. I'm also into photography and you can find my photos on my flickr page, which has my edited, fancy type photos and my Tumblr page, which has a little bit of everything. So come with me on this second experimental journey and, hopefully, it will form into something coherent and intelligent, although it will probably just be a bunch of crazy ramblings.

But, however you happened upon this blog, whether you know me or you found it randomly, I hope you enjoy whatever my mind has to offer.