Dirty NES games for sale!

Over the past couple months I've started up a collection of NES games (there will be some more reviews soon). Until recently, I had taken a massive hiatus from old school gaming, and it seems that I'm not the only one who is returning back to the 8-bit NES. Buying games for older systems is a popular thing now, so there are tons and tons of them on auction websites and also some websites that specialize in modern games.

I don't want to list any specific stores, but I'm definitely noticing a trend with some of these eBay stores and websites: they all list games as being cleaned and tested. I have found that this is not true at least 50% of the time. Before I started getting into my recent NES hobby, my first move was to replace the 72-pin connector in the system, which is surprisingly easy, but it isn't something that I feel like doing over and over again. On the occasions where I'm lucky enough to pick up a game at a thrift store, I clean it, and if I clean it thoroughly enough, it works within a minute generally. Some games will literally work on the first or second try; I'm not constantly blowing on the contacts of the cartridge over and over again, as I think we all did years ago.

Initially, I was quite naive when purchasing used NES carts online. I would feel at ease when reading that a game has been "cleaned and tested." A cartridge that has been cleaned and tested is so appealing because not only does it mean that the game works, but I won't have to do any cleaning, and I should be able to play it right after I get it in the mail. I immediately put the first few "cleaned and tested" carts in my NES expecting the games to load with minimal effort. Very quickly, I noticed that all of these games did not load quickly, and it was obvious they were extremely dirty. Some were so bad that the q-tips I used to clean them ended up with jet black tops from all the dirt. There's no way that anyone tested them recently, and there's also no way that they had been cleaned at all.

It is not just small sellers who are openly lying to their customers. I recently purchased roughly 12 games from a larger website that specializes in old school gaming, but the majority of the cartridges were dirty, including a few that were a major hassle to take the time to clean. It is clear that these stores intentionally lie so that you will make a purchase with them, and they'll face the customer service consequences later on.  They hope that you'll just clean the cartridge yourself without complaining, and you'll likely have the game up and running within a few minutes. This is a despicable form of false advertising, and as someone who sells items on eBay and Amazon, it feels like a crooked way to run a store.


Please heed the warning of this blog post: if you find yourself buying old NES carts online, basically ignore the term "clean and tested" until a seller has proven to you that they are really doing it.

Best Fitness BFVK10 Vertical Knee Raise Review

I recently purchased the Best Fitness BFVK10 Vertical Knee Raise machine. I saw this item on Amazon and the price was roughly $150 marked down from $260, and the idea of having the machine delivered to my door made it so appealing that I decided to give it a chance.

The package arrived in just a few days, but the box that I received the item in was in terrible, terrible shape. I found myself taking pictures of it immediately to document any damage that may have occurred. The box is very big and heavy, and is intended to be lifted by two people. If you're planning on working out upstairs or downstairs, you'll likely find yourself taking pieces out of the box rather than moving the entire box. It will take a few trips, but it is just much easier that way.

The manual is easy to understand, but I really don't like the way that the hardware listing was handled. Instead of being at the very beginning of the manual, the listing is found at the end, but not on the back page, so you'll find yourself flipping through pages more often than you should have to. Also, for some reason, the listing is broken up into two separate pages, one with pictures that provides the name of each piece of hardware, and then the following page tells you the number of each piece you should have, but there are no pictures on the second page, so you'll find yourself going between two pages over and over again if you want to make sure that you have something. I don't see why they couldn't list the number of each piece beside the picture of picture of each piece. This is a very minor gripe, but I still found it to be a hassle.

 There aren't a ton of pieces, and everything is fairly self explanatory. A couple of the bolts are very similar looking, but this is the case with many different things that you may assemble yourself. When I put things together, sometimes I'm guilty of rushing through the assembly only to find that I've put something on wrong and then I have to backtrack a few steps and redo things. Everything here is fairly obvious, so in order to mess up, you really have to try to put something on incorrectly or be completely oblivious to what the machine is intended for.

It does not take long to assemble everything; you can probably have the entire unit "together" without tightened bolts within 30-35 minutes. I am very much a stickler when it comes to tightening bolts; I need everything to be tight enough so that the machine is sturdy, but not so tight that bolts become either stuck or stripped because this thing will have to be taken apart when I move. One issue that I encountered was that I had to tilt the machine a great deal when attaching the that the back pad is bolted onto. This was probably the most difficult part of the assembly for me. You'll want to confirm that you have a tall enough ceiling in your room before you purchase this, as the machine is not adjustable in any way, and you could find yourself bumping your head with each pullup if you're too tall or your ceiling is too low.

My primary use for the machine is for pullups (I'm too chicken to try one of those door frame kits for fear of it falling or doing damage). Before I assembled and tested the apparatus, I thought it would be likely that I'd have to use something to weigh it down. Upon using it, I find that it is very sturdy and should be just fine on its own. I currently weigh around 195 pounds and although the machine moves slightly, it never feels unstable. I imagine that I could be quite a bit heavier and still feel safe. The grips on the machine are for wide grip pullups and nothing else, so if you want to do pullups with a close grip, you're going to be grabbing onto slippery metal. The grips feel like they are intended solely for the purpose of keeping your hands from slipping; they are not comfortable and will likely hurt your hands. If you're a short person, you'll probably have no problem at all with this machine, but if you're over 6 feet tall, you will have to bend your knees when pulling yourself up. When doing this, you might inadvertently tap your knees against the the higher center beam. Unless you're doing rapid fire pullups like a maniac, it isn't much of a bother.

If you're doing dips or leg raises, the machine is definitely sturdy enough. The padding is adequate, probably not as fluffy as what you'd find at the gym, but it isn't bad. If you are extremely overweight, you may find the machine to be cumbersome, but it is probably unlikely that someone who is extremely heavy would purchase a machine for wide grip pullups and dips. I don't think that any of my complaints are really major, especially when considering the price of the item. This was a very good purchase.

I give this machine an 8.5 out of 10 rating. I'm very excited about working out with it more in the future.

Happy Memorial Day!

Have a fun and safe Memorial Day!

The Walking Dead Compendium brief review (NO SPOILERS)

Spoilers are terrible things, and this review has none (well, close to none; I did my very best at being as vague as possible). I'm not even going to point out some very obvious things because I think that this story is worthwhile and there is great value in being surprised. 

I think that The Walking Dead Compendium easily had the potential to be a 5 star book. The premise is incredibly interesting and the characters draw you in immediately from the outset. Action is in abundance as well as drama and twists and turns. It will definitely hold your attention as there is not much idle time in the story.

Unfortunately, I think this also works against the story in some ways. It seems like the author almost feels as though there always has to be some sort of shock or some sort of action, no matter what. Initially, it is understandable that the characters experience hardship and that this new zombie epidemic makes people do some pretty bad things, but at around halfway through the book, the author seems to have the desire to bludgeon the main characters with exaggerated punishments of all kinds. I know that this is a comic book, but a large component of what makes it entertaining is that the characters feel real and behave in a realistic manner. How much torture do I really need to see?

One other gripe is that the artist changes around halfway through the book. I enjoy the cartoony style of the original artist. The second artist, Charlie Adlard, is simply terrible. There are numerous moments where I could not tell characters apart, and I really wanted to. Thank goodness that some characters were non-white and wore hats, or else I would have likely given up. One thing you'll notice when Charlie Adlard takes over is the number of physical changes the characters take on. I think this is because many readers were unable to tell which character they were looking at, so the author had to add scars, hair changes, and various other alterations. Mr. Adlard's work improves eventually, but it takes a while, and even many volumes beyond this book, I still don't like it.

 Despite my problems with the book, I think that it is something very special that comic fans should check out. As you have probably assumed, it is meant for mature audiences, and is not for the faint of heart. There are many images in the book that are shocking and will make the average person uncomfortable.

The Walking Dead Compendium is definitely a good buy, especially because it is more cost effective than buying the individual issues or individual trades. As you can see from the pictures below, I am a fan and I will continue sticking with the story.

I rate The Walking Dead Compendium 8 out of 10 stars.

New York City - The Good and The Bad

Although it isn't a place that's meant for me in the long run, New York City is a great spot to spend a few days. It is interesting to think about what it would be like to actually pack up everything and move out there. Certain aspects of living there would be pretty nice and make it seem like something that would be quite fun, like an adventure every day. Blocks and blocks of restaurants of all types within walking distance is fairly alluring; even after living there for years, I imagine that most New Yorkers still find themselves discovering new places to eat.  The food is great and readily available everywhere. There are street vendors on what seems like nearly every corner; if you're in a hurry for a meal, a soda, or even candy, you will have no trouble obtaining it.

Of course, the idea of nearby Broadway shows is pretty fantastic as well. Having the best theater experience right in your backyard would be a very nice treat. There are lots of huge versions of normal stores, like the enormous Toys R Us with the ferris wheel inside and the world's largest Macy's (I'm not sure if the NYC Macy's is claiming to be the largest store in the world or the largest Macy's). Central Park and Bryant Park are beautiful, relaxing places to give everyone a break from the fast tempo of everything around the city. I think that people generally associate the city with crowds and busyness and they forget that there are places to just hang out and chill. The ability to walk to so many different places is something that makes the city very unique. The idea of being able to walk to Central Park, to catch a Broadway show, to walk to a nice sushi restaurant, and then back home sounds bizarre, even though I know it is a reality for a number of people.You don't need a car, which is a very odd concept to consider.

New York City is a fashion capital of the world, so most people are very nicely dressed, not just in business attire, but also in hip and trendy outfits. There seem to be an awful lot of fairly fit people in the city as well; everyone was not in perfect shape, but there was definitely a higher percentage of fit people than what would likely be found in the average metropolitan area.

There is definitely a price that comes is attached to all the good stuff in NYC. The crowds are downright ridiculous. Extremely so. There will always be people around you at all times, and over the course of the day, you will likely have bumped into so many people (not huge collisions, but surely some unwanted contact with strangers). People in NYC are not inherently bad, but it is difficult not to notice certain negative things because you're routinely around so many people. You'll notice so many people saying ridiculous, horrible things, you'll notice so much coughing without people closing their mouths, you'll notice a great deal of rudeness, and many other bad things. I imagine that this has more to do with the fact that so many people are around, and less to do with the fact that people in New York are inherently bad or rude. You're going to be more likely to notice negative things, and you're going to be more likely to see negative human behavior because so many humans are around. I imagine that a lot of the problems that I have with NYC are due to the fact that there are just too many people in an area.

The trash outside is also another thing that I have a hard time getting over. Not just in the streets, but also on the sidewalks and everywhere else (the parks seem to be immune from this because there are so many workers around who are picking up trash).

Although NYC has some pretty fantastic conveniences, it lacks some basic ones, like sufficient grocery stores. There are so many tiny, tiny grocery stores that barely house anything but the essentials. There are a couple slightly larger ones, but even those aren't so great. Who wants to lug around a bunch of bags with enormous crowds all over the place? You likely have to drive out of the city to have a good grocery store experience, which is so inconvenient and bizarre.

Also, I'm not incredibly keen on the fact that having a car is so difficult in NYC. There aren't any free parking lots, so there's some street parking and pay garages. Commuters rule the world, and drivers just have to sit and wait. Small commutes become lengthy ones when traffic is backed up, and this is unavoidable in busier areas. People with Don't Walk signs Don't Care. They will walk anyway, and there will always be a crowd of them. Having the ability to hop in my car and pick up something at the last second just doesn't exist in NYC. Although some things are convenient to people who are walking, it doesn't compare to the convenience that I have with my vehicle.

Of course, there are other problems, like very high cost of living, the crime in some area, the overall very high cost of living, the excessive wait times for everything. It is easy to be hypercritical, especially because I don't live there, and I'm used to a significantly different lifestyle. Even so, New York City is an excellent place for a vacation and an excellent place for a nice day trip.

Drive Movie Review: This movie isn't kidding.

Drive is one of those movies that I really thought I wouldn't like, or it would just be okay at best. I was prepared to immediately write it off as a stupid action movie with some neat car stunts here and there. In fact, I immediately thought of The Rock's action movie Faster, which also is also in the One Word Title Club. Drive is actually a very special movie, and the rest of this review will tell you exactly why.

The deck was very much stacked against my liking this movie because I was prepared to hate the driving forces behind it. Before the movie, I didn't particularly like Ryan Gosling. I'm not really sure why, I just didn't. Also, I'm not a huge fan of the director, Nicolas Winding Refn. Starting the movie, I cringed when I saw that name and recognized it as the person who was behind the movie Valhalla Rising. The movie also features Ron Pearlman, who often does terrible movies and has the large face of a modern day caveman. It was very easy to almost quit at the very beginning (I watched the move on Netflix's streaming service) but I'm glad I didn't.

One of the reasons that I did not quit the movie is because it is so special and charming. Drive is full of things that could be so ridiculously cheesy, but they aren't. From the outset, you will notice heavy touches of the 80's. Although I believe all the movie's songs are from the past few years, the soundtrack is very, very 80's. The font that's used to provide the title and credits is straight from the 80's. When I started the movie up, I immediately thought of Valley Girl and To Live and Die in L.A. Ryan Gosling's ridiculous scorpion jacket (which you will find incredibly cool by the end of the movie) is also very 80's. I know that there are other recent movies that have also had an 80's theme or have taken place in the 80's, but this movie isn't kidding.

This plot of this movie is basic and cliched. Ryan Gosling is a stuntman/getaway driver who wants to help his next door neighbor, a nice lady with a criminal husband just released from jail. I don't want to give many spoilers, but there isn't much more to the plot. You aren't going to be guessing until the very end to figure out what's happened because there's nothing to figure out. There's a love story, as you would expect, and there's a lot of Ryan Gosling staring lovingly into the eyes of his female costar without much dialogue. Ryan Gosling's "mentor" is a flawed man who at one point had driving skills but he has missed his opportunity at greatness. All of these things sound so silly, but they are executed so well that this movie does not feel like a joke; Drive is paying homage to many movies that have come before it, and it makes all the cheesy things cool again. 

Throughout this review, I'm constantly referring to Ryan's Gosling's character specifically as "Ryan Gosling's character" because the character has no name. Maybe he's known as "The Driver?" The Driver is good at driving and kicking ass, that's all. He spouts out these aggressive, frightening lines that make his toughness clear, and they are something that you'd expect to come out of a young Bruce Willis' mouth, but you actually believe Ryan Gosling, and he is scary. By the end of the movie, you'll see how scary he can be. The Driver is not a complex character, but the movie deliberately paces itself in a way such that you see The Driver's nature little by little and you get a full picture by the end. The metaphor of the The Driver being the scorpion can probably be interpreted in so many ways, but I like to think of the scene in the elevator as being one where he "stings the frog" and just cannot escape his nature.

The action and violence in this movie are far from cliched. There aren't any action sequences where a villain takes a swing at the hero, and the hero ducks it and delivers a knockout punch. In this movie, the hero may attack someone who is vulnerable, and he isn't going to let them get back up again. The Driver is an unstoppable force throughout the movie, and his character makes me think of Javier Bardem's from No Country for Old Men or Viggo Mortenson from A History of Violence. The violence in this movie is graphic and intense. The car chasing and driving sequences in the movie are well-done, but they are so overshadowed by everything else that is done so right, they are not my favorite parts of the movie. That's right: this is a movie that is about a getaway driver/stuntman, and my favorite scenes have nothing to with the cars or driving itself.

Drive is one of the best movies that I've seen recently, and it is a shame that it isn't more popular because it deserves to have a following. Although I was planning to watch The Avengers on Saturday morning, when I randomly watched Drive on Friday night, I just couldn't follow through with The Avengers. This movie was just too good for me to follow it up by sitting in a theater for 2 1/2 hours with something inferior. I'm sure that I'll have a good old time with The Avengers, but I would have found myself constantly running it down in my head even though I know I would been comparing apples to oranges.

I give Drive a 9.5 out of 10. You should definitely watch it. I'm sure some people will disagree with me, but this is one of my favorite movies, and I will admit to being negatively judgmental towards it before I even started watching. I'm going to give some Ryan Gosling and Nicolas Winding Refn movies a chance in the future, and I'm sure I'll be watching this movie again.

The Best Man Broadway Show Review! Attended 5/18/2012 at the ShoenfeldTheater

Recently, my Broadway/theater vacation has consisted of three shows: The Columnist, Porgy and Bess, and The Best Man. Choosing which shows to get tickets for is always very fun because you feel like whatever you choose will likely be very good (except in the case of Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark). The best shows are supposed to be on Broadway, so you're going to have a good time. It is really fun and appealing to pick a show with multiple famous people, people famous as in Hollywood famous, not people who are famous only in the world of Broadway (I don't mean that as a knock against Broadway actors, I just imagine that the average person has no idea who they are, and the average person probably doesn't see Broadway shows so frequently that they recognize the actors).

Watching someone you recognize from television or movies is a special treat, which made The Best Man seem very inviting. James Earl Jones, Candice Bergen, John Laroquette, Michael McKean, Eric McCormack, and Angela Lansbury are all in the same play! And the play doesn't cost a ton of money either, so the "average person" can go see it! Well, multiple famous people is not a guarantee of anything. Although the show was enjoyable, it was actually the worst of the three.

The story is very simple: two flawed candidates played by John Laroquette and Eric McCormack are both attempting to lead their party to the presidency. They are fairly different characters, one who is very intelligent and comes from a background of wealth and one who is self-made, but is embraced by people because he represents the common man. Each has a fundamentally different strategy to reaching the presidency. James Earl Jones is the former president with the power to back either candidate, thus helping them secure the nomination. Laroquette's wife and victim of his infidelity is played by Candice Bergen. Angela Lansbury plays a political figure who advises on how to win over female voters.

The story is fun, and the script is easy to understand. Even if you are not big into politics, the plot will not go over your head. Some things definitely feel dated; the play takes place in the 1960's, and it feels that way, which may or may not be a bad thing considering what your taste is. Modern day mudslinging is far more aggressive than it was back then; the skeleton that each candidate has in his closet is very tame by today's standards. Further, because we live in a time with advanced communication and the internet all over the place, I think it would be difficult for John Laroquette's secret not to have surfaced by itself.

All of the characters in the play are quite imperfect, and you never really have to look very hard to see why. With the exception of Candice Bergen, none of the characters are totally likeable. John Laroquette's character seems to be the protagonist, but even though you want to root for his character, you may not want him to actually win the presidency. Unfortunately, both Eric McCormack and his wife are both just one-dimensional characters, which was surely done intentionally to keep the audience morally invested in the story.

The play was very well acted, and it was a great deal of fun watching household names take the stage. Unfortunately, James Earl Jones' performance was a little disappointing. He repeatedly flubbed his lines, and there were moments where he didn't give the audience's laughter a chance to subside before his next line. There was also an issue where he sometimes spoke a little too loudly, but this might have been a glitch with his microphone and not his fault. Even with the flaws in his performance, he was still fun to watch.

One odd feature of the show was that there were two intermissions. The show really wasn't long enough to warrant this, so it was fairly bothersome. I'm rarely someone who plays close attention to the run time of a production, but the show didn't feel any longer than average. Honestly, I can't think of any reason that the show would need to have this other intermission, and I don't know if it is normal for the show or if there was some kind of difficulty that prompted it. There were no major revisions to the set, massive costume changes, or elaborate make up jobs; it looked like the show could have just continued from where it was.

The set was excellent and well-detailed as if you were watching a movie or a television show. The different sets would fold and move into place in seconds, with little touches like coffee tables that would magically move into place without being touched. In the theater, there were black and white television sets that were hanging from the ceiling which aided in the illusion that you were 50 years in the past. The costumes were okay for the most part; unfortunately, with a show like this one, nearly every character is outfitted in a very dressy way, so everyone had a suit or a fancy dress on. I don't know much about 1960's fashion, but both the male and female characters could have been in a play that took place in modern times.

The Schoenfeld Theater was very nice. It was not a huge theater, so every seat in the place was a good one. The audience mostly consisted of the elderly; I expected more of a mix of people because of all the famous people in the play, especially Eric Mc Cormack (I don't expect that the majority of Will and Grace fans are elderly). My seat was in the back, right in front of the bartender's table. For some reason, the bartender's table would make noise during the production; my guess is that it was melting ice.

I give the show a 7.5 out of 10. It is definitely worth seeing, but if you think that you are going to be wowed just because the play is full of well-known actors, you will be disappointed.

Porgy and Bess 5/17/2012 performance at The Richard Rogers Theater

Porgy and Bess is a fairly famous musical with lots of history behind it, but I don't really know much of it. My evaluation of the show probably differs greatly from that of someone who has seen the original and has nostalgic feelings about it, either good or bad. I know that it was originally an opera, consisting of all singing. The production that I saw had a fair amount of singing, but also a good amount of spoken dialogue as well. My review is going to have some spoilers in it because this is a well-known story and has been around for nearly 100 years at this point.

The show takes place in the south, in a poor black community called Catfish Row in the 1920's or 1930's. Porgy is a disabled beggar who seems to suffer from club foot (at least that's what it looks like, I'm not totally sure), and he offers help to Bess, a drug addicted woman with loose morals. Bess is trying to break away from her checkered past and her lover Crown, who has recently killed someone in self-defense. Porgy and Bess develop a loving relationship, and this causes Porgy to find a source of happiness in his life and prompts Bess to make positive changes and become a part of the community. Unfortunately, there are many problems for both Porgy and the community, which include Crown's desire to run away with Bess, a drug dealing pimp named Sportin' Life, and crooked policemen.

Because the show is a reboot of an existing story, my review of the plot is a bit tainted. I feel like I have to give the show a pass on certain things because the writers have to work within the confines of what was already there. There are certain things in the story that I just don't understand, like why the townspeople don't tell the police that Crown killed Robbins at the beginning of the story. Although Crown kills Robbins in self defense, he is a violent, drug addicted criminal who will surely be a problem for Bess. Even if they don't want to tell on him at the beginning, why wouldn't they townspeople tell on Crown once Bess and Porgy get together? Crown is hated and doesn't have any friends. There's also a scene where Bess submits to Crown's violent sexual advances, but she returns back to the community as if she's experienced some kind of sickness and psychotic episode. She doesn't look very sick in the previous scene, but she's in really rough shape afterwards.

The story's ending is definitely not a happy one, but it is left open-ended; one could make the argument that a positive ending would eventually happen, but I think more people would likely make the argument that there's going to be more heartache in store for the characters.

One thing that I really enjoyed about the show is that there are many characters, but it is easy to remember who everyone is. There's a whole pack of folk, but everyone refers to everyone so often that you won't forget a name during the performance. I know this may seem like a silly positive note, but I always hate it when either a movie, play, or television show hits you with many names all at once, and the names are sometimes difficult to remember, so you end up being confused by some dialogue. 

There are many songs throughout the show, but they never feel excessive, which is probably a testament to both the singers and the songs. Generally, when I see most musicals, I get sick of the musical numbers by the end of the show. I never once felt this way, and I wouldn't have had a problem with another song or two.

Everyone in the show gave an impressive performance. Audra McDonald was totally believable as Bess, and her voice was pretty amazing. Although her voice was amazing, because of her opera-like style of singing, there were times where I had to focus very hard on exactly what she was singing. She's not the only singer who does this throughout the show, and it isn't a huge deal, but it is worth mentioning. Norm Lewis played an equally impressive Porgy, and he was able to perform the entire show with his leg twisted to the side. Initially, I thought there was perhaps some kind of trick to his costume which made it appear that his leg was constantly twisted to the side, but it is just him actually twisting it. Finally, David Alan Grier is so much fun as Sportin' Life,  you still find him humorous and enjoyable although the character is possibly the most despicable villain in the show.

Although I really enjoyed the content of the show, the set was nothing that special, at all. This was probably done intentionally, but I was not a big fan of this. There's a shabby wooden floor, and there some moments where cast members sit down pieces of furniture to "build" the next scene. You're going to have to use some imagination during the play because Porgy's home looks the same as the picnic field which looks the same as the funeral which looks the same as the fishing pier. There's no real difference. The scene with the hurricane has some limited effects, but it really is nothing special.

Out of the three shows that I attended, this one had the largest theater by far. There were nearly 70 steps to get to the level where my seat was, which was a trip that many people struggled with, including an elderly woman who had to stop and take a break. The seats were extremely comfortable, and the staff there was very polite and helpful. 

I give Porgy and Bess a 9 out of 10. It is definitely worth seeing, whether you are a big fan of musicals or not.

The Columnist and John Lithgow's bottom

On May 17, 2012, I had the pleasure of seeing the 2:00pm show of The Columnist at The Samuel J Friedman Theater. The show begins immediately with showing you a nude John Lithgow. He isn't putting on a show where you see him prancing about without his clothes, but he does remove his robe in such a way that he isn't trying to prevent you from seeing his bottom. It is quite a shock though. John Lithgow is a fairly famous actor, but for some reason it isn't common knowledge that he bares his buttocks on stage. When other actors/actresses do it, it is big news. Not for Dick Solomon.

I will break the rest of the show down by reviewing the plot, performances, and the theater/audience.Other than John Lithgow's bottom, the show is very good. It definitely was not what I expected; the blurb where I i first read about the show mentioned that it was a one-man show, but there were definitely a few more people in the performance. In fact, I was not the only person who expected a performance consisting of only John Lithgow; there were other people in the audience who also expected a solo show.

The Columnist is based on the life of journalist Joe Alsop, a closeted gay man who is very powerful in the world of journalism and politics. There is a bit of US history mixed throughout the play, so having a little bit of knowledge about JFK and Vietnam is fairly helpful, or some of the play just won't make sense. In fact, the play moves forward in time months and sometimes years, and a couple of these flashes forward in time are made evident by what is going on politically. The show is based on a book by Gore Vidal, which is based on Joe Alsop. Although I never knew Mr. Alsop personally, I imagine that the story does take some liberties, especially with both the opening and closing scenes. From the very start, the show makes it clear that Alsop's character is not one dimensional; he is arrogant but sometimes kind, he's gay, which is a hefty plot point, but the story doesn't need to bludgeon you with his sexuality, and there are many moments throughout the story where you expect him to have learned something from an interaction with another character, but you learn that he hasn't learned anything.

The plot is very enjoyable, up until the very end for me. I will not spoil anything, but I would have been fine with the play ending with the funeral scene. The last couple scenes were completely unnecessary in my opinion, and they feel so unrealistic that they break the illusion that you are watching something real. The cast of the play consisted only of six people or so, with a couple of the characters only being in a couple scenes. John Lithgow was in nearly every scene throughout the show, and it did not take long for you to forget that he was John Lithgow and to believe that he was this other person. He had a few flubbed lines, but this wasn't a big deal and they didn't detract from the performance. The show featured other actors who are all famous in their own right, but I don't remember any of their names and my playbill is not handy as I sit and type this at Bryant Park.

The theater was surprisingly small, which means that any seat you have is a good seat. It is off the main Broadway drag, so there weren't huge crowds or multiple food,drink, and souvenir peddlers, and the peddler who was there lacked the enthusiasm of the peddlers found at the bigger named shows. The audience consisted mainly of the elderly, which was something that I did not expect. The elderly audience members on both sides of me fell asleep multiple times during the show. There were also lots and lots of talkers, but also people who scolded them aggressively and suggested that they move outside. Coughers, sneezers, and all forms of sick people were present as well and performing their noisy crafts to the best of their ability.

I give this play a 8.75 out of 10. The overall experience was very enjoyable, and I would definitely recommend the play to others, especially if you enjoy John Lithgow, journalism, or politics.

Flashdance Musical in 2013! What a feelin'

Just recently, I've learned that a Flashdance musical will begin touring in 2013! According to Wikipedia, there already has been a Flashdance musical overseas in the UK, but this will be the first one stateside. I get the impression that this production will be different from the already existing one as it has connections to the director of The Addam's Family and Memphis.

Flashdance is a really interesting choice for a stage show; the soundtrack is excellent, but I don't believe that the movie really has any singing in it. It makes me wonder if any of the main characters will actually sing or if the focus of the movie will be scenes taking place with singers in the background.

Although the movie is a favorite of mine, it is hard to deny that the story is flimsy. The characters are all loveable, but you never really learn much about anyone. The beauty of the movie is that you never really care. You're just having so much fun, the lack of story really isn't bothersome. Although I'm less than fascinated by dancing, the dancing scenes are all so original and well-choreographed, they grab your attention.

Will the content of the movie be changed? I'm curious to find out if they pick a leading man similar to Michael Nouri, who appears to be old enough to be Jennifer Beals' father in the movie, and also nowhere near attractive enough to get her. That's definitely a part of the movie that never made sense: Alex is a talented young woman who wants to follow her dreams, so why does she hook up with a dirty old man who is also her boss? She's not a gold digger, so what is it about him? He's nothing that special. He's a rich man, but not especially charming or intelligent.

It is unlikely that all of the scenes from the movie will show up in the play. Of course, the intense "Maniac" dance workout scene will remain and the inspirational ballet tryout at the end will be there, but what about the other scenes? Will the ice skating scene remain? Will the strip club scene remain? Maybe we'll be treated to a nice background story for the main characters. Maybe we'll get some fun new scenes that will tie together some loose ends from the movie.

When the show is released, check out this blog for a review of the show. In the meantime, check out http://flashdancethemusical.com/ for updates.

Little Nemo: The Dream Master review

Little Nemo: The Dream Master is a game by Capcom released on the NES in 1990. The game is based on a movie that is based on an old comic strip (I've looked at the comic strip, and it appears to be a bit racist, which isn't super unusual for the time). The basic premise of the game is that Nemo is in Slumberland and on a little adventure where he rides animals and finds keys. There's more to it than that, but I doubt that anyone plays a game like this for the story.

Little Nemo is a pretty nice looking game. Of course, I mean that it looks nice for 1990, and the basic sprite graphics have not aged poorly. The backgrounds are nice and detailed, and you can tell what everything is when you look at it (if you've played many NES games, you know that sometimes you have to rely on the power of deduction to actually tell what some objects are). There is definitely some noticeable flickering, but this is to be expected with a number of NES games and it doesn't really take away from the experience.

The game controls well and in a simple fashion; I bought the loose cartridge without any manual and it was fairly easy to figure everything out on my own. Nemo jumps and throws candy. Pretty simple for the most part.

The music is catchy and fun. The tunes are pretty nice and will stay with you.

Unfortunately, Little Nemo's difficulty is ridiculous. Extremely ridiculous. In the game, all you have to do is collect keys and reach the end of the level. To achieve this, you have your candy attacks and animals you either ride or transform into. Nemo's candy attack will only stun an enemy for a couple seconds. I haven't encountered a single enemy that Nemo's candy can actually kill. What really makes the candy incredibly ineffective is the fact that the attack is sometimes a hindrance. Because your jump is so low, you rely on the movement of some enemies in order to clear them; when you attack them with candy and stun them, you won't be able to clear them with your normal jump! Also, you cannot attack while climbing, which is fairly annoying when you consider that you will be attacked aggressively whenever you have to climb for something.

A really fun part of the game is the fact that you can ride on the backs of and transform into various animals, including a gorilla, a bee, a lizard, a mole, and an adorable little froggy. Unfortunately, some of the animals are plain defenseless! When you're a lizard, you've basically got nothing but your reflexes because you can't attack any enemies. Riding on the back of the gorilla affords you the ability to punch, but you become such an absurdly large target that you are very easy to hit.

Did I mention that you can't take many hits? Nemo can take three hits, but certain actions like touching a spike will kill him instantly. Some animals will give Nemo a slightly larger health capacity when you're riding them, but it still isn't much. You'll find yourself in numerous situations where you are so easily killed if there are numerous enemies around. As is the case with many games, when Nemo is hit, he flickers for a moment, and you are invincible during this time. With Nemo, this amount of time is far too short.

Out of seven total levels, I've only made it to the third (when playing the game straight through without the level select cheat). The first level can be beaten on your first try without much effort. The difficulty immediately spikes with the second level. The NES is notorious for having games with insanely high difficulty levels. As an unspoiled kid, if I got a game that was really hard, I just kept playing it anyway. I was guaranteed a game on my birthday and a game on Christmas. There were always used games here and there in-between, but you never knew when they were coming, so you had to make due. As a spoiled adult, I have a much different view of game difficulty. I'm fine with a game being difficult and having increasing levels of difficulty as long as I can use the skills that I've gained throughout playing to achieve future success. Examples of this can be seen in numerous games, but to make it simple, just think of fighting games and the Tony Hawk series. If I'm playing a fighting game where I learn a moveset and gain skills with practice, if I'm really good, as I increase the difficulty or move on to another CPU opponent, I'm still going to be pretty good. In the Tony Hawk games, if you've mastered aspects of the game where you understand how to perform tricks and gain high scores, you're always going to be good, even as you're presented with new levels.

In Little Nemo, you can be the best dodger, candy thrower, and key finder in the world, but when you move onto a new level, you will never beat it on your first, second, third, or fourth try. You will need to MEMORIZE, and that's a commitment made only by the most die-hard fans with something to prove. If you do not MEMORIZE and MEMORIZE some more, you won't win.


Please do not take the review to mean that I dislike Little Nemo, I just feel that it isn't a game for me or for most people. Although I enjoy old-school gaming, I do not enjoy the requirement of near perfection that it can require. Modern games can also sometimes require perfection, but generally not for the main quest of a game. Usually, there is some unlockable or achievement that requires a great deal of patience and perfection, but it is optional. If you want a game with a very high level of challenge, pick it up, but if you don't have a very high level of patience, this is not the game for you.