Thursday, August 4, 2011

More Stainless Steel, The Power Of The New Microwave: The GE JES1142SJ Microwave!



The Good: Cooks things fast and hot, stylish appearance
The Bad: Cooking power fades with any splatter inside
The Basics: With its easy-to-use controls and great heating ability, this is a durable microwave for daily use.


I'll admit, I usually stick to entertainment reviews because there's so much I can say about such things. After all, with a movie, you have the writing, direction, acting, plot, character development and special effects all to take into account. With things like a microwave, there is much less I can say, as I might have made clear in my review of the Samsung microwave I reviewed here! Style is certainly subjective and related solely to the room in which an appliance goes. Function and durability seem to be the real aspects that can be rated for most appliances.

I've had a GE JES1142SJ microwave for a little over two years now. I lost my last microwave when frequent blackouts and power surges fried it. For a long time, I kept this new microwave on a power strip (until that got fried), so I'm unsure how susceptible this model is to such disasters.

This microwave looks great. I have a thing for stainless steel. It tends to look nice, it cleans well and I suppose I just go for that whole futuristic look thing. What can I say, I was raised on science fiction. Stainless steel is also less conducive to germs and the like, so that works out well for me.

This microwave functions very well. It is a powerful little microwave (1100 watts) and that cooks food up very quickly. The keypad is very easy to use and the truth is, it is so well designed that I did not need to read the manual to learn how to operate the microwave. Everything is very straightforward as far as basic operation. In fact, there are some shortcuts that are very cool with this microwave; simply hit the start button and it will give a full power blast for thirty seconds. It's a cheap way to save time, just hitting the star button for thirty second intervals when you have something that needs up to a minute thirty seconds of cooking.

The only thing that is not as obvious is the power level change button. The button must be hit to lower the power from 100% down in increments of 10 until one reaches the desired power level. Only after the power level is adjusted can the cooking time be entered. For some reason, that seemed backwards to me when I've tried to lower the power.

So, this unit is very easy to use and it works great. Things get hot all the way through. When I first received the microwave, I recall heating up a soup from the freezer and I was pleased to find that it was reheated all the way through but it was also homogeneously hot. I've had the same level of quality heating from the microwave for almost two years.

Almost.

This unit is finicky about being clean. Everything cooks up great so long as the unit is clean on the inside. Like immaculately clean. If there is any splatter left on the inside surface of the microwave, the performance suffers. Noticeably. This just means one needs to be obsessive compulsive with wiping out the interior. The only time that has seriously been a problem for me is when I'm cooking for parties and dishes are flying in and out of the microwave. Otherwise, it's fine.

And it's not like it's a hard unit to clean. The GE JES1142SJ is very easy to clean, provided residue does not cool on its surface. It's a simple unit to wipe clean and so long as nothing solidifies, it's easy. The turntable fits perfectly in my dishwasher as well and that makes keeping that clean easy.

I like my microwave and I recommend it because it fits my decor (this fits in perfectly with any other stainless steel kitchen appliances) and it works well, consistently. The microwave has a one year warranty and I've never had a problem that would make me need to have it replaced or fixed. Come to think of it, what is the average lifespan of a microwave? Odds are, if they are still making this type when this one does go, I will replace it with the same.

For other kitchen appliance reviews, please visit my reviews of:
Westinghouse WST3037 4-Waffle Waffle Maker
Chef's Choice 675 Electric Kettle
Frigidaire FEF336EC Electric Range

8/10

For other home and garden reviews, please check out my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

Ben Finally Delivers With Bounce!



The Good: Ben Affleck's acting, Pacing, Dialog
The Bad: Predictable plot and character arcs, Duration of setup
The Basics: A competent romance film that has a contrived plot, Bounce has sensible characters arcs that result in a very real sense of how people interact.


Those of you who read my reviews know I've been waiting, desperately for a film with Ben Affleck that I like and would love to recommend. I want to like his work. For some reason, I keep forgetting he's in Dogma (reviewed here!). Anyway, he didn't dazzle me in Reindeer Games nor Forces Of Nature (reviewed here!). In Bounce, Ben Affleck comes through for me.

Bounce is pretty much your typical romance flick. Buddy Amaral is your confident, cocky, party-type drunk who works for an advertising agency. On his way back from a business trip, he meets up with two people and when flights are delayed, he ends up giving his ticket to one and going to bed with the other. Then, the plane crashes. Shortly thereafter, Buddy does too. After detox and rehab, Buddy goes out and finds Abby Janello, the wife of the man Buddy swapped tickets with.

Okay, we can see a mile away that Buddy and Abby are going to fall in love. Abby lies right away, saying she is divorced, not widowed, Buddy omits that he knows this and knew her late husband. So, we have the pretty predictable drama set up. We know the plot almost right away.

What saves this film is the dialog. It's tight, it's real. The film is packed with an overwhelming sense of loss and mourning. There's a whole tone of unhappiness and desperation to connect that "reads" as very real throughout. Anyone who has lost a loved one will recognize the struggle Abby is going through in the film. It is written and executed with realism in mind.

And therein lies the weakness of the film. It's very real. And in real life things are difficult and clunky (perfectly illustrated by Abby's near constant failure to recognize Buddy's jokes) and they take a while to come together. Well, that level of realism occurs in Bounce and it's almost the death warrant of the film. The first half hour is all set up. That works well for realism, even a little for drama, but not entertainment. This opens the film with necessary detail and efficiency, but with little entertainment.

Throughout the remainder of the film, the realism works. It is aided by surprisingly good acting by the principle characters. Ben Affleck works well as Buddy tackling a serious role well. Gwyneth Paltrow succeeds far better than she did in Shakespeare In Love (reviewed here!) and her job as Abby is made real by her amazing facial control. She has detail and nuance which she brings to Abby. She works. The child actors playing Abby's sons are surprisingly good as well.

So, it's a romance and people fall in love and they are tested and so it goes and so it goes. Bounce works because the characters work, even if they're following a plot arc we've seen a hundred times. What works is that it's not simply a romance, everyone loves each other, everything works. The conflict here is not contrived, it's genuine. Buddy isn't a terribly nice guy, Abby isn't as honest as she projects. The film works.

Strangely, this is usually recommended as a date flick. I don't think it works as that because it's far too somber, the tone is too immersed in the sense one gets when one knows one is lying about something that we know will hurt another. That nagging feeling an honest person gets under such circumstances drowns this film.

But, at the very least, it's a film worthy of a watching and Ben Affleck finally comes through.

For other works featuring Gwyneth Paltrow, please visit my reviews of:
Glee - Season Two, Volume 1
Iron Man 2
Iron Man

7/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

Decent Song, Poor Use Of The Medium, “Mary Jane's Last Dance” Isn't Worth Buying.



The Good: Catchy tune, Decent performance, Collectible value?
The Bad: Poor use of medium, Unremarkable cut.
The Basics: A disappointing one-track c.d. single, “Mary Jane's Last Dance” offers nothing the album it was from does not already have.


C.d. singles take a beating from me as a reviewer, but it is hard for me to have compassion for them, especially in the age of digital downloads and especially when the producers of such things are wholly unimaginative about them. C.d. singles, at one point, sought to overcome the limitations of the cassette single by providing more than just the single and a b-side. For a long time, b-sides were tracks that weren't even released on the album the single was associated with. And with the emergence of the c.d. single, listeners often got tracks not from the album as well as remixes of the named single. Thus, when scouring the internet for rarities from one's favorite artist or performer, there is little more disappointing than a one-track single, like the single for “Mary Jane's Last Dance” by Tom Petty And The Heartbreakers.

“Mary Jane's Last Dance” appeared both commercially and at radio stations as a one-track c.d. single intended to promote the first Greatest Hits album by the band. It was a successful single for the band with its catchy lyrics and easily grooveable sound. The song did well, but on its own single it is truly a waste of money. The reason for that is simple: the one-track single contains only the album cut of the song. As a result, those who hunt this down are not getting anything they couldn't already get on a very common c.d.

With only one song occupying less than five minutes of space on the disc, “Mary Jane's Last Dance” is hardly an inspired use of the c.d. medium, but it is a fair example of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, at least as they were in the mid-1990s. The band wrote the song, Tom Petty provides lead vocals and the band played all the instruments on it. No one in the band produced the single, but because their long-time producer was involved, one suspects this is the sound the band wanted for the single.

“Mary Jane's Last Dance” is a musical storysong with a very simply tune which is plucked out on guitars and bass. The percussion is minimal until the choruses, but the song is very danceable and fun with a quirky undertone that comes from the lyrics and vocal performance. This is a surprisingly poppy performance from the classic rock band.

Tom Petty’s vocals on the song are fun and actually sound almost like he is doing a parody of Bob Dylan. Petty drawls many of the lines and one can almost hear him smirking through the simple rhyme scheme and amusing story of Mary Jane, even though it is arguably the story of a young woman killing herself. Petty’s vocals are smooth and articulate but come out with a twang that is uncharacteristic for the artist. Petty actually strains to the lower registers of his vocal range – keeping the lyrics clear the entire time – while the backing vocalists go for falsetto accents to his lines.

Lyrically, “Mary Jane's Last Dance” is a simple musical storysong. With obvious rhymes like “. . . she grew up tall and she grew up right / with them Indiana boys on an Indiana night / Well she moved down here, the age of 18 / She blew the boys away, was more than they had seen / I was introduced and we both started groovin’ / She said ‘I dig you baby but I got to keep movin' . . .” “Mary Jane's Last Dance” has a singsong feel to it that masks the depth of the musical protagonist's depression. The song is well-written and enjoyable, if a bit simple.

Sadly, the simplicity might be fun, but wasting time and money is not. There is nothing but the one track on this c.d. single and fans deserve more. There are better ways to get “Mary Jane's Last Dance” than shelling out for the c.d. single.

For other c.d. singles, please check out my reviews of:
"Gimme More" - Britney Spears
"Don't Look Back In Anger" - Oasis
"Was It Worth It?" - Pet Shop Boys

4/10

For other music reviews, please click here to visit my index page with a listing of all of the c.d. and singles reviews I have written!

© 2011, 2010 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Just The Right Mix Of Humor And Violence: Why 30 Minutes Or Less!


The Good: Funny. Decent character development, Action is entertainment.
The Bad: The acting is nothing to write home about.
The Basics: 30 Minutes Or Less is a very simple premise that works because it is funny and has enough action to be engaging.


The last few years, there have been a number of disturbing trends in cinema. The first, for me, has been the combination of graphic nudity and sex and explicit gore/violence. I don't see the point in getting turned on only to get so repulsed to the extent that one might want their genitals to just shrivel up. The other disturbing trend is the mix of humor and violence. I don't mind the concept of mixing humor and violence, but so often the movies I have seen, like Observe And Report and Pineapple Express (reviewed here!) are far more disturbing in their violence than they are funny. So, with the concept of 30 Minutes Or Less was one that had limited appeal for me. I mostly went to the preview screening because I enjoyed Jesse Eisenberg in The Social Network (reviewed here!) and director Ruben Fleischer impressed me with Zombieland (reviewed here!).

30 Minutes Or Less worked, though. It was funny and there was enough action and suspense to balance it well. The balance was enough to make me care about the characters, even though the acting was nothing extraordinary. Still, it had some decent lines and it was enjoyable to see Jesse Eisenberg yet again. He plays Nick and Nick is a nice change from prior characters I have seen him play. But the film is far from flawless and while it goes quickly, after preview screening, I realized that because the premise was so simple, there was actually remarkably little to write about the movie.

Nick speeds around Grand Rapids, Michigan working for Vito's Pizza. Their motto is "30 minutes or less" and when he fails to make a run, he swindles the kids who scammed him out of their money with the promise of beer. Nick sees those in his life moving on, his best friend Chet has become a teacher at the elementary school and Chet's twin sister Kate has just gotten a job at the Four Seasons in Atlanta. Dwayne and Travis are lowlifes who have no real ambitions, Dwayne living with his millionaire ex-Marine father. One day at the strip club, Dwayne tells Juicy that he wants his father's last million and Juicy tells him that he has a way to kill the Major, but it will cost him $100,000. Innovating, Dwayne decides to "think like a millionaire" and he and Travis have Nick deliver a pizza to them at the scrapyard.

Nick awakens with a bomb strapped to him and the directions to rob a bank for the hundred thousand dollars Dwayne wants for his "tanning salon." Despite the serious falling out that Nick and Chet had the day before, Nick goes to Chet's school and begs him to help him. Chet and Nick realize that the vest will not come off without Nick losing his arms, at the very least. So, they prepare to rob the bank, as Dwayne works to line-up the killer needed to put the Major down.

One of the serious problems with 30 Minutes Or Less is that the plot is predictable. When Nick has the chance to tell off his boss, he runs to tell Kate good-bye. When the heist takes a turn for the violent and Nick messes up the money transfer with the killer, that decision to visit Kate comes back to bite him in the ass. The thing is, this move was telegraphed when Travis follows Nick during the rendezvous.

Moreover, the acting is nothing to write home about. Aziz Ansari is amusing as Chet. Ansari's entire routine as the sidekick seems to be raising the pitch of his voice and bugging out his eyes. It works, but the longer the movie goes on, the less impressive the performance seems. And while Jesse Eisenberg embodies - well - a character unlike any he has ever played, Danny McBride is well within his safe zone from his performance in Pineapple Express (which is the only other movie I have seen him in), as is Nick Swardson as Travis. The acting is mediocre at best for the bulk of the movie.

That said, 30 Minutes Or Less is funny and it is entertaining enough to recommend. There is a cute Facebook reference that allows Jesse Eisenberg to deliver one of the movie's best tongue-in-cheek lines. And the introduction of Chet is punctuated with the memorable line, "The alcohol should wash the taste of you out of your mouth." Michael Diliberti and Matthew Sullivan craft a script which is actually very funny and has some wonderful lines.

But the movie also has some decent action moments or moments atypical to a comedy. For example, after the car chase, Chet has a piece of the car embedded in his back. As Nick has to pull the shrapnel out, I sat and considered that I had never seen a moment like that in a comedy or action film. Sure, war films and doctor shows, but not an action comedy. And it worked.

30 Minutes Or Less is an entertaining film and one of the funniest moments is after the credits. But it's definitely a movie worth only one viewing.

For other works featuring Michael Pena, please check out my reviews of:
Battle Los Angeles
Everything Must Go
Million Dollar Baby
Crash
Homicide: Life On The Street - Season 6

6/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject.

© 2011 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Data, And The Borg, Go Psychotic In "Descent, Part 1!"



The Good: Excellent acting, Great character development, Intriguing plot
The Bad: Somewhat drawn-out pacing
The Basics: When Data experiences his first emotion, he is horrified to discover he may be a psychopath as the Borg resurface as killing machines.


Data's character, by the sixth season finale, was in a fairly dominant position and the season finale "Descent, Part I" is a Data story through and through. While "Time's Arrow," which preceded the finale in the fifth season sought to be an ensemble piece, "Descent, Part I" makes no such claim. It's a Data story and it wants everyone to see that from the beginning.

The Enterprise responds to a distress call on Oniaka Three to find the inhabitants there slaughtered. The culprits soon reveal themselves to be Borg and they mercilessly attack the Away Team. In the process of combating these new, vicious Borg, Data engages in hand to hand combat with one of them. He is surprised to find himself overcome with an emotion; hate. His killing of the Borg drone leads Data on a troubled journey to understand how he experienced the emotion and what he might do about it. The Enterprise, meanwhile, has recovered a Borg drone from the incident and Crosis, as he is named, gives the crew few clues to the change in the Borg, as the Enterprise is beset by an alien ship. Crosis tempts Data and it becomes clear he is manipulating the android and the pair escapes the starship through a transwarp conduit before the Enterprise crew can stop them. With Data in the hands of the Borg, Picard fears the worst and leads a mission to find him and discover the truth behind Data's emotive incident.

Perhaps one of the moments the writers of Star Trek The Next Generation were most in tune with the depth of humanity that they sought to explore through Data was the moment that the android turns to Counselor Troi and asks, "What if the only emotion I am capable of feeling is anger?" This fear is entirely understandable given the android's lack of emotion. How scary must it be to awaken to emotions only to have to wonder if you are a psychopath?

"Descent, Part I" makes a reasonable exploration of Data's human emotions and the scenes are troubling as he delves into his own motivation. The holodeck exercise he creates to slaughter Borg in the attempt to feel the emotion again is both disturbing and humorous.

But more than simply a "Data story," this episode integrates other characters into that search. While Geordi LaForge has been along the whole time, Counselor Troi - who has largely been absent from Data's periods of self-discovery since the third season's "The Offspring" (reviewed here!) - reasserts her importance by helping Data deal with his emotions.

Throughout "Descent, Part I," the seasoned Star Trek The Next Generation viewer must be asking "Where's Hugh?" and fortunately, so is Picard. The rogue Borg are obviously a result of the Captain's last encounter with the Borg in "I, Borg" (reviewed here!). Indeed, the episode is less understandable without having seen that piece.

Despite feeling like the writers were drawing a simple good idea out longer than it could bear, "Descent, Part I" makes excellent use of the actors it employs. Levar Burton earns his paycheck for playing LaForge as both the concerned friend and the analytical mind in the mission briefing. Burton does quite a bit here to emote his emotions given that much of his face is obscured by the VISOR. Similarly, it's refreshing to see Marina Sirtis once more in the role of actual counselor.

But it is Brent Spiner who walks away with the acting cake here. Spiner manages to create an angry, confused and somewhat psychotic Data without having the viewer feeling like we are watching his psychopathic killer from "Power Play," nor his evil twin Lore. Such a distinctive performance takes real class and talent and here Spiner delivers it wonderfully. There is not a single moment in this episode that the viewer does not feel they are watching DATA go through these obstacles.

A bit hard to swallow for those who are not fans of Star Trek The Next Generation, "Descent, Part I" is a gripping science fiction tale that leaves the viewer clamoring for more. Fortunately, by getting the tapes, the viewer need not wait long.

[Knowing that VHS is essentially a dead medium, it's worth looking into Star Trek: The Next Generation - The Complete Sixth Season on DVD, which is also a better economical choice than buying the VHS. Read my review of the penultimate season by clicking here!
Thanks!]

8.5/10

For other Star Trek reviews, please click here to see the full list, in chronological order, of episodes, movies and seasons I have reviewed!

© 2011, 2008, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Worth Hunting For: "The Hunters" Is A Hard-to-find The Lord Of The Rings TCG Set!



The Good: Easy to learn, Good image quality, Fun to play, Rarity
The Bad: Problematic collectibility issues (foils offer nothing new), Impossible to make complete set from boosters decks.
The Basics: Despite a printing error in the common set, "The Hunters" endures as one of the most valuable The Lord Of The Rings Trading Card Game sets!


As The Lord Of The Rings Trading Card Game neared its inevitable end with the collapse of the product from the end of the movies (new material does seem to be the lifeblood of merchandising), Decipher, Inc., which was producing the cards, began to limit their production runs. In the long term, this has the effect of increasing the value of the later sets which also happens from the fact that these cards are not reprinted or repackaged in any other products. The set where the lack of supply began to be truly noticeable was "The Hunters."

Fans of The Lord Of The Rings TCG picked up "The Hunters," the fourth full "second edition" set of cards and the start of the "Hunters" block to try mixing their game up with things like new versions of the primary heroes and a new sense of threat from the villains of Middle Earth who were hunting them.


Basics/Set Composition

"The Hunters" set was the fifteenth set of The Lord Of The Rings Trading Card Game cards created by Decipher. Envisioned as a game played by two to four people, players created decks of cards utilizing their own version of the Fellowship and prepared to seed the adventure path with obstacles to thwart other players' Fellowship. For those unfamiliar with the concept, CCGs (or TCGs) are basically a late-teen oriented product designed to capitalize on the youthful desire to play with the acknowledged maturity of the target audience. The result is something that is a midpoint between the freedom and creativity of action-figure free play and the structured rules and rigidity of a board game.

Players might prefer that I describe the game instead as a strategy game that is like a Role-playing game with cards. The break here is that the characters, artifacts, and scenarios are all already conceived by others. The original concept was to find a way to make play socially acceptable for an older audience and it generally worked.

"Hunters" is a 221-card set focusing on characters, location, artifacts, villains and scenarios presented in the The Lord Of The Rings films. Released following the debut of the Extended Edition of The Return Of The King on DVD and a bit of a hiatus from producing new sets, this card set utilizes material from all three films, presenting a well-rounded playing environment from Middle Earth. The set consists of 60 common cards, 60 uncommon cards, 60 rare cards and 14 starter deck exclusive cards spread through two different starter decks, with the most popular characters being presented as rare cards. This provides a sense of balance and allows different character traits to be exploited among the various versions. As well, there are twenty-seven foil reprint cards of the most popular rare cards, which receive additional exposure as Legends and Legends Masterworks foil cards.

The 194 card non-foil set features 2 One Ring, 9 Dwarven, 17 Elven, 12 Gandalf, 15 Gollum, 18 Gondor, 23 Men, 26 Orc, 22 Rohan, 12 Shire, 26 Uruk-Hai, and 6 Wraith Affiliation cards, and 8 Site cards. These are generally broken down evenly between Fellowship (your cards you play with) and Minion (cards you set upon your opponent) cards. Within the various affiliations, there are: 2 One Ring (unique cards representing the powerful One Ring and are governed by special rules), 2 Artifact (unique items found on Middle Earth, in this case, the Mirror Of Galadriel and the Gift Of The Evenstar), 36 Companion (cards depicting primary characters and those who may join your customized Fellowship, like Eomer and Gandalf), 34 Condition (cards illustrating long-term changes to Middle Earth that remain in play more than one turn, like the Chamber of Records and the establishment of an Orkish Camp), 30 Event (cards depicting temporary effects on players, like it being Later Than You Think or hobbits having a Second Breakfast), 7 Follower (supporting people who aid the Fellowship, but do not join it, like a Hobbiton Brewer or Dinedal), 59 Minion (cards depicting villains used to obstruct your opponent, like a Sentry Uruk or Gollum), 18 Possession (cards depicting objects used to enhance the natural strength or endurance of a character, like a Great Axe or Elven Bow), and 8 Site (cards depicting locations in Middle Earth, they form the "board" for the game).

This set continues the game with a very broad sense of the Middle Earth universe as characterized by The Lord Of The Rings films. The booster pack boxes are comprised of thirty-six packs per box with eleven cards per pack. The eleven cards are portioned out with seven common, three uncommon, and one rare or foil card. A foil card replaces a rare in approximately five packs. The foils are simply reprints of the standard rare cards; there are no cards that are uniquely foils in this set.


Playability

At its most basic level, this is a board game where one constructs the board and pieces out of a selection of cards. The purpose of the game is to survive to the end of the ninth site in the Adventure Path, which (theoretically) indicates the end of the Ring Bearer's quest. The basic idea is to assemble a sixty card deck, lay out the board (Adventure Path) and play against an opponent. The deck is evenly split between Fellowship and Shadow cards, so players ought to have a hand that allows them to play and attempt to thwart their opponent at any given time.

This game uses a "payment" system where cards have a cost. The rulebook recommends something like poker chips or glass beads to establish the twilight pool and wound indicators and I've found small poker chips (not included) work very well for this.

Sites form the board for the game, known as the Adventure Path. Sites are seeded in accordance to the rules of bidding (all of this is clearly established in the rulebook, which is available in the starter decks). The rulebook clearly defines what each deck must possess in terms of numbers of the card types. But basically, one starts by laying out a board, determining which player goes first, then setting them off through a Fellowship Phase (wherein the current player adds any characters they can and moves to the next site), Shadow Phase (Shadow players seed Minions to set against the current player's Fellowship), Maneuver Phase, Archery Phase (archers fire and it becomes the first chance to try to take out enemies), Assignment Phase (villains target Fellowship Companions), Skirmish (they actually battle) and then Regroup.

This is a fairly complex trading card game, but it represents a level of gaming sophistication designed to appeal to younger adults and actually challenge them, which is a decent idea given the complexity of Middle Earth. The problem, of course, is that most people who would be most stimulated by this game do not have the time or effort/interest to learn to play it. As a result, the mid-teens that basically run the CCG players world seem to have had mixed impressions about this game. Many players seem to enjoy that cards have a "cost" to them, adding a sense of risk to playing many of the better cards.

It takes a great deal of time and energy to learn the game, but once one has played a few hands of it, it is a pretty easy concept for an adult to master and the challenge becomes assembling a strong fellowship and accompanying minion deck and being creative (and lucky) about how the cards from one's hand are used.

Rules/Rule Changes

The rulebook for this game is forty pages long; it's not so much the function of a review to rehash all that as it is to evaluate it. The rules are fairly clear and the game basically follows the same format at laid out in the rulebooks that were updated in "Bloodlines" (reviewed here!).

As well, there is a new mechanic in "The Hunters;" appropriately enough entitle "Hunters." This mechanic is described in the rulebooks, but it basically boils down to a quicker way to pursue Fellowship characters and keep Shadow cards in play.

Highlights

Players, collectors and fans of The Lord Of The Rings franchise will appreciate the image quality of the characters and scenarios from the films. "The Hunters" set features a great deal of the principle cast of "The Lord Of The Rings," like Legolas, Smeagol, and all four hobbits. The set also features Gollum, Trolls and all sorts of Uruk-hai! This set powerfully fleshes out the diverse characters and scenarios in Middle Earth and it does so with larger images than many other trading card game cards have. While I usually go with a Minion as my highlight, there is a powerful Fellowship Companion who finally gets a chance to shine in "The Hunters!"

The highlight is 15R38 Treebeard, Enraged Shepard. The Ent leader makes his appearance and he is powerful. With a cost of only five Twilight Tokens, the player gets a Companion that has a fair shot of taking on a Troll or a whole bunch of little annoying minions. As well, Treebeard represents the best chance most Fellowship players have of not being overwhelmed by Sauron or the Balrog if an opponent plays either of those!


Collectibility

Rares are evenly distributed in the booster packs, making only one of each of the two starter decks necessary for those collecting a master set, as the starter decks each have a many cards that cannot be found in the booster packs.

Beyond that, die-hard, obsessive collectors who want the thrill of collecting can collect the Legends and Legends Masterworks foils. These are eighteen and then nine foil reprints of the most popular characters. The problem here, though, is that they picked the eighteen and then the nine are foil reprints of the foil reprints with an alternate "O" numbering, so essentially the most valuable foils (Legends Masterwork, which are on average only one per box) are also the most reprinted rares within "The Hunters" set. As well, it is somewhat disappointing that if Decipher is going to bother to alter its annoying tradition of making foil reprints of each and every single card (yea for that!) that they would not follow a late "Star Trek Second Edition" model and make a few cards that are unique to the foil set, perhaps previewing the subsequent series.

This set also seems to have been VERY shortprinted, enhancing its overall value. Despite this there were a few printing errors, most notably the numbering for a Shire card (No Visitors) putting it right in the middle of the Uruk-Hai run. Outside that, it's a very solid set.


Overview

"The Hunters" is a very cool set of gaming cards and offers one of the most fun adventure scenarios in the Middle Earth world. It might take quite a bit to track down the cards to assemble a set, but this is one with enduring playability and collectibility, setting it apart from many CCGs!

This set culls material from the The Lord Of The Rings Extended Edition Trilogy, reviewed here!

This set was preceded by the Deluxe Draft Boxes (reviewed here!) and followed by "The Wraith Collection" (reviewed here!).

This is a set of The Lord Of The Rings gaming cards I occasionally get in stock. For my current inventory, click here!

7/10

For other card reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Droll, Repetitive And Not Collectible, "Gimme More" Is A Britney Spears Single No One Needs!



The Good: Does not waste time or space with album version.
The Bad: Short, Uninspired remixes, Better versions exist, Sounds like several other Spears songs.
The Basics: A banal to begin with single, "Gimme More's" radio remixes are just awful and not worth hunting the two-track single down for.


There comes a time in virtually every musical artist or performers lifetime when they either pioneer off in a new direction or they begin to release works which sound a lot like their prior works. In the case of Britney Spears, by the time she got to her album Blackout, she was already creating songs which sounded like one another, so it is unsurprising that she presented the bland pop-dance track "Gimme More" as the album's first single. The song sounds a lot like "Womanizer," which came after and "Toxic," which came before. Either way, the single version of "Gimme More" is not at all original music.

The two-track version "Gimme More" does, however, appear to be an anomaly that was presented more as a promotional device than anything else. There were at least eight versions of the "Gimme More" single and the one which features only the "Paul Oakenfold Radio Mix" and the "Kaskade Radio Mix" appears to have been created solely as a promotional unit for dance-pop radio stations and has since filtered into the marketplace as a collectible. That said, it is not worth picking up even now. The reason for that is simple, both mixes, plus an additional three were part of a "Gimme More" maxi single (EP) of remixes, so one can usually find that album less expensively and get more for their money with it.

With only two tracks, occupying a little over seven minutes of the c.d.'s capacity, "Gimme More" is a very obvious Britney Spears single which illustrates none of her already arguable talent. Spears was not involved in the writing, instrumental accompaniment, production or remixing of this song. Instead, she provides the lead vocals and it was passed off to others to make a hit single from and they did. The thing is, these two tracks don't even have the hit single version, they have dance remixes which are just terrible, making Spears sound even more manufactured and assembled than she already did.

Both the Oakenfold and Kaskade mixes feature louder bass, more rhythm machine accompaniment and have produced the vocals so "Gimme more" (the line) is repeated even more than it was in the original. The clear intent of this synth-driven song is to get people to dance and move and it might be marginally successful for that.

Sadly, Spears' vocals are so mechanized they might as well be coming from a computer on "Gimme More." This single is so overproduced that any hint of Spears' natural voice has been lost and dubbed and overdubbed over. The result is that after her initial spoken word statement, the song degenerates into a vocal presentation more worthy of a Macintosh Computer impersonating Alvin and the Chipmunks than a female pop diva.

"Gimme More" is even pretty lyrically uninspired. Spears is singing about her own celebrity, yet cannot even muster up the enthusiasm to write her own song about herself. The result is a pretty bland celebrity song with lines like "We can get down like there's no one around / We keep on rocking, we keep on rockin' /Cameras are flashing while we're dirty dancing / They keep watching, keep watchin' / Feels like the the crowd was saying / Gimme more." This is not at all the most inspired celebrity-based pop-dance song and the whole thing has a remarkably skanky sound and feel to it.

Ultimately, neither remix is better than the original and they take a dance-pop song that was overproduced and manage to make it less listenable. And even for those who like that sort of thing, there is a better version on the market.

For other reviews of Britney Spears music, please check out my reviews of:
. . . Baby One More Time (single)
From The Bottom Of My Broken Heart (single)
Stronger (single)
Don't Let Me Be The Last To Know (single)
Britney
I'm A Slave 4 U (single)
Overprotected (single)
Me Against The Music (single with Madonna)
Toxic (single)
Blackout
Circus
The Singles Collection
The Singles Collection (2-disc CD/DVD with videos)

0/10

For other music reviews, please be sure to visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2010 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Focus Group Food That Works: Whoppers Strawberry Milkshake Malted Milk Balls!



The Good: Taste good, Good aroma (really!)
The Bad: Taste is not really strawberry, No real nutritional benefit (and some detractions)
The Basics: A good candy, but not one to stock up in bulk on, Strawberry Milkshake Whoppers make for a different malted milk ball experience.


Some months ago, I discovered a new product from Hershey's that actually made me think about how candies are made and developed. Around Easter, I found Whoppers Strawberry Malted Milk Eggs and I posited that the flavor and concept was focus-group tested to develop. And if they were, the taste somehow left me with that feeling - strange as it is. Well, apparently the focus group work, as well as people like me purchasing the egg-shaped strawberry malted milk eggs, because now there are little pink cartons of Whopper's Strawberry Milkshake Malted Milk Balls popping up all over.

After several months of not tasting these, I picked up a carton - available in a carton and bulk packs of those cartons - and was generally satisfied that the formula had not been changed. They make for a good snack, but I see little point in stocking up on them. Once or twice a year picking up a carton, sure. But for most of us, we don't need fifteen.

Basics

Whoppers are milk chocolate malted milk balls and Strawberry Whoppers Milkshake Milk Balls are little (1 1/2 cm in diameter) spheres that are pink, strawberry-flavored chocolate malted milk balls. They are a delightful candy that comes in a 3.5 oz. carton (like a pint-size milk carton) that opens with a folded cardboard spout. According the the nutrition facts, a serving of Strawberry Whoppers Milkshake is 18 milk balls and there are roughly 2.25 servings per container. In my 3.5 oz. container, I discovered 42 balls as opposed to the estimated 41! I do not know how consistent that is as I only have picked up the one carton (so far). The strawberry milkshake malted milk balls are cute, bright pink and not bad.

For those who have never had a malted milk ball before, malted milk balls are a firm sugary sphere that is coated in chocolate. Moisture - or saliva - dissolves the ball within the coating, so many people who savor malted milk balls either let the coating melt away in their mouth and let the malted milk center dissolve without chewing. That works perfectly well for the Strawberry Whoppers Milkshake.

The coating of the Strawberry Whoppers Milkshake is a white chocolate coating dyed and flavored to taste like strawberry, it is not a strawberry chocolate flavor, but rather a strawberry and white chocolate flavor that comes through with this candy's coating. The coating is strong enough to prevent the candy from getting crushed and soft enough to melt easily in the mouth. Those who like yogurt-covered things (like yogurt-covered raisins or yogurt-covered nuts) will find this to be very similar in terms of texture and general taste.

Ease Of Preparation

Well, it's candy so preparation is pretty much limited to opening the carton and popping candy into one's mouth. Do not try to swallow a whole carton of Strawberry Whoppers Milkshake malted milk balls whole and you'll be fine!

Taste

First, what surprised me about Strawberry Whoppers Milkshake is that they smelled real good in the carton. Yes, knowing that I would be writing a review of these, I checked out the bouquet when I first opened the carton! And the scent is the precise scent of a strawberry milkshake. There is the vague frozen fruit smell mixing with the milky scent of cream. It smells exactly like what it is supposed to.

Popping one in my mouth, I was unsurprised to discover that the first few tasted more like bland, mass produced white chocolate than like strawberry. But three Strawberry Whoppers Milkshake milk balls in - they're addictive! - there was the taste of strawberry. Truth be told the makers of Whoppers got this one pegged; it is the flavor of a strawberry milkshake. To be clear (because I've been critical of other strawberry products before), this does not taste like actual strawberries. This candy tastes like the mass-produced, accepted by society flavor we are told is strawberries, in this case mimicking the generic strawberry flavor that defines artificially flavored strawberry ice cream. That's not a complaint, but fruit fanatics who are raised on real fruit and who make their own ice cream will be largely disappointed by this.

I am not one of them. Sure, I love the strawberries I grow in my back yard, but if I could get the consistent and sweet flavor out of real strawberries like I get them from the Strawberry Whoppers Milkshake malted milk balls, I'd start planting these.

These are a decent treat and they taste enough like what they claim to get the "recommend." They are sweet and flavorful instead of just being sugary.

Nutrition

Well, it's candy, so one ought not to be living off it. The Strawberry Whoppers Milkshake are made primarily of sugar, partially hydrogenated palm kernel oil, and whey. After months of reviewing all-natural teas, it's somewhat disconcerting to review these; I can't pronounce at least one of the ingredients and that the artificial color is noted to be "Red 40 Lake" pretty much terrifies me. There are enough ingredients like that that I ought to not be surprised that there is no expiration date on my carton (there is what appears to be a batch number). I would assume the shelf life of these - under proper conditions - to be in the range of years.

Strawberry Whoppers Milkshake malted milk balls have 190 calories per serving, 70 of which are from fat and I think it's unrealistic to believe that most people eating these are going to vigilantly keep to only 18 of them! The 8 grams of fat represent 12% of the recommended daily value of fat and that's 40% of the daily recommended saturated fat. Wow, reading the ingredients sure sucks the fun out of this candy! At least it doesn't taste like fat!

There are three grams of sodium and 26 grams of sugars. Unsurprisingly, there is less than a gram of protein in a serving of Strawberry Whoppers Milkshake malted milk balls, but it is interesting to note that one gets 4% of their calcium by eating these. There are, obviously, far better ways to get one's daily calcium than this!

These are not nutritious, so if you were thinking of living off them, you might want to reconsider.


Storage/Clean-up

The Strawberry Whoppers Milkshake store just fine in their milk carton-style container and as long as they are kept in a cool, dry (preferably dark) place they ought to last for quite some time (I've never had a malted milk ball of any type go bad).

Because the coating is made with a resinous glaze (ewwwww.) the coating does not melt easily. As a result, unless one sticks these in their pocket, cleanup ought not to be an issue. If it becomes an issue, consult a fabric cleaning guide.

Overall

Whoppers clearly did not change their formula for making Strawberry Milkshake flavored milk balls when they changed the form from egg shaped to standard milk ball shape and they are good, though I tend to prefer mint chocolate or dark chocolate candies. Once in a while, Strawberry is good and when I am in that type of mood, I'll certainly come back to these.

I'm rating a light "recommend" for a single carton, not for the whole case. A case of these would be overkill. As it stands, now I think I've got some calories of fat and resinous glaze to go work off!

For other Hershey's products, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Whopper's Peanut Butter
Cadbury Creme Eggs
Hershey's Kisses Irish Creme

5.5/10

For other food reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Ultimate Teen-Appeal Film: Evolution Stinks.



The Good: The occasional joke, Production design
The Bad: Acting, Utter lack of real characters or development, Predictable plot
The Basics: Utterly unfunny and filled with preposterously lit special effects, Evolution fails to entertain or amuse, even when you're not expecting much.


When I sat down to Evolution, I had pretty low expectations. I had seen the previews when it was originally out in the theaters and I had considered going, but never got around to it. Someone I respect very much had seen the movie and not enjoyed it. She compared it to Men In Black (reviewed here!) which I did not like.

Evolution is pretty much the ultimate made for teens film. It is populated by recognizable celebrities (David Duchovny and Orlando Jones), a teen magazine heartthrob (Seann William Scott) and a clear skinned, beautiful woman (Julianne Moore). It has current music as well as a disco sing along in a fast car. It has jokes that turn on flatulence and anatomy (which can be fine, see Kevin Smith films like Dogma (reviewed here!) or Chasing Amy for intelligent "dick and fart joke" films). It has a lot of action, special effects and is low on plot or character intelligence.

The film follows two college professors, Ira Kane and Harry Block as they investigate a recent meteor crash. They take samples and discover that there is primitive life growing on the surface of the space rock and they begin to study the strange life forms. For reasons unknown to them at that time, there were microscopic life forms on and in the meteor and they are developing at an incredible rate from single celled life into vastly more complicated life forms. Kane and Block are accompanied early on by Wayne, a wannabe fireman who was at the site of the meteor when it impacted. When the military blocks Kane and Block's access to the meteor, they meet Allison, who is the obvious attempt for a romantic subplot in the film. The aliens continue to develop and multiply at an alarming rate and it appears they will take over Arizona and the state in only a few days!

Well, I have to say the first problem with Evolution is that it's not funny. I laughed twice and today I was in the mood for a dumb comedy.

David Duchovny reinforced the thesis that he either isn't given diverse roles or he simply can't act by playing Ira Kane very similar to how he presented Fox Mulder for so many years. Orlando Jones - through performance or the character as it was written - comes off like a cheap Chris Rock knock off, which was especially disappointing as Jones has a phenomenal range of personas, as evidenced from his years on MadTV. Julianne Moore illustrates her range by coming off nothing at all like her characters in Magnolia (reviewed here!) or Boogie Nights. Unfortunately, the role she's playing here is of a bungling moron and it's not a terribly good role.

Sadly, I can tell the film was trying to be something more. It wanted to be a comedy with complex characters and I can tell it wanted to be that by the fact that so many details of Ira Kane's backstory are thrown in. There are so many attempts made to make it clear that Ira had a life before the film began, from his military employment to his ex-wife. In this instance, it seems like the writer's are trying too hard. They focus only on Ira's backstory and little to none of the other characters and it comes across as an overcompensation or an afterthought. The movie "reads" like one that was written as a completely dumb comedy and the writers went back to add details to make it come out more intelligently.

The plot is one that is so predictable and so canned that the only people who will be surprised by the events in it are preteens.

Sadly, Evolution is a huge disappointment, failing to please or even entertain. It's a disappointment to your expectations if you're expecting it to be a disappointment!

For other works featuring Ted Levine, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Shutter Island
Memoirs Of A Geisha
The Silence Of The Lambs


1/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject!

© 2011, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Sister To My New Washer, My New Whirlpool WED9400S Dryer Satisfies!



The Good: Dries clothes without excessively raising the electric bill, Surprisingly quiet, Easy operation
The Bad: Stifling initial expense
The Basics: Rather expensive to begin with, the Whirlpool WED9400S Dryer seems relatively inexpensive to operate and is very easy to use!


In suddenly finding myself maintaining two homes, I have had the weird and wonderful experience of having more appliances to review and I've finally gotten around to doing that (the incentives work!). A few days ago, I reviewed my brand new Whirlpool WFW9400S front loading clothes washer (reviewed here!) and to keep my various reviews balanced, it has taken a few days to getting around to its mate. In my new house, I have a WED9400S Whirlpool energy efficient dryer and it is pretty wonderful because I purchased it together with the other unit and I have this stacked atop the washer (no water means this unit it lighter when operating and can be put atop the washer.

Before this, I only had my Frigidaire clothes dryer (reviewed here!), which was pretty wonderful, especially when it came to energy efficiency. My new Whirlpool WED9400S is pretty wonderful in its own right, though and I am finding the more I use it the more I like it, which is a pleasant surprise. After all, in my old place, virtually everything was Frigidaire and while I liked all I had, this gives me some experiences with a different brand. Right off the bat, the WED9400S has a lot more options and controls than my old Frigidaire and while the simplicity of the old unit was nice, the options with the new are pretty wonderful, too.

The Whirlpool WED9400S Dryer was chosen for me and the only real say I had in it was the color, which is a silver finish. I'm a sucker for stainless steel or the closest I could get for this appliance (it's a dull silver-gray color). Like virtually every dryer, this spins clothes around in the z-axis while passing hot air through it. This unit is electric - not gas - and it stacks atop the WFW9400S Front Loading Washer without the need for any other equipment. What impressed me in this regard was that while the WED9400S gets some speed going to the cycling of clothes, it is incredibly stable atop its sister washer.

This is a 7 cu. ft. dryer that I was originally drawn to because of its capacity (fairly large) and energy efficiency for that size it went with the washer that was being purchased anyway, so it made sense. What I don't quite understand is why the washer only 3.8 cubic feet and this has seven, but I assume the additional space is needed to pass the hot air through the clothes and actually operate. Another fairly useless measure (at least for me, whatwith not having scales in my laundry room or the patience to weigh wet clothes!) is that this dryer holds fifteen pounds of wet clothes. I've never had any problem with transferring whatever I have put in the washer into the dryer. Of course, that gets the drying started with a pretty intense spin cycle.

As a result, the WED9400S is remarkably environmentally friendly. It has better-than-average energy efficiency and while it runs on 240 volts (grounded), I've never in the month I've been running this had to put anything in beyond one forty-five minute cycle. The venting for this dryer was already in place when I bought the place so I cannot speak for how easy it is to connect this. The WED9400S sits thirty-eight inches tall by 27" wide with a front to back depth effectively of almost 32" (the front panel is a clear door that curves outward, adding a little more depth to the front than the unit would otherwise have).

As far as the installation goes, I remain somewhat ignorant; I watched the units get installed but it was pretty much a low impact event for me. I did, however, read through the manual and between the installing the dryer (made very easy by the exhaust port being at the proper level) and the stacking of the dryer on the washer, it looked remarkably easy. Reading along in the manual, the directions in the manual were quite handy; they included full details for leveling the unit. I have never had any problems with movement, which still impresses me given how the unit stacks and how quickly the drum inside can move.

Outside installing ducts - which, if you already have a dryer you won't need to worry about - this unit is basically a plug in and go type machine. One of the very convenient aspects of the machine is its easy to use controls. Usage is ridiculously simple. The Whirlpool WED9400S Dryer has fairly intuitive controls and after a few months of usage, I've found it to be very simple. Simply look at what materials are in the load, hit the button for that material, and depress the "start" button. In addition to the Use & Care Guide (a pretty obvious collection of notes on how to take care of the dryer) there is a whole cheat sheet with Dryer Operating Instructions. In truth, though, this unit, which is controlled by a series of push buttons for air temperature and activation, is a remarkably easy appliance to use. This Whirlpool seems to follow the same industry standard as their washers, which attempts to make operating this unit more or less idiotproof and this is very easy to use and diagnose problems when they occur. Indeed, since the first time I set the unit, I have essentially only had to hit the "power on" and "run cycle" buttons and it goes off!

There are ten cycles, with different temperatures, but I tend to just go with normal poly/cotton clothes at high heat and everything from jeans and t-shirts to underwear and towels dries within fifty minutes. One of the neat functions which I've seen used, but have not had cause to use on my own unit, is the moisture detection function. When set, the WED9400S evaluates the clothes in the dryer and if they are not getting dry enough, it beeps and adds ten or fifteen minutes to the drying time. This is an automatic function and it simply resets the digital timer display when it occurs. It's actually an intriguing bit of technology and I'm torn between being impressed at how efficiently my unit runs and disappointed that it has never so "rebooted."

Furthermore, this is a ridiculously quiet clothes dryer. The spin cycle on the accompanying washer is louder than this dryer with its normal or Quiet Mode operation. As a result, I have had times when I am working in the room adjacent to my new laundry room and have no idea where in the drying cycle the dryer is until the buzzer goes off. That type of quiet is pretty wonderful for this machine!

Operating the dryer once a week has not increased any of my electric bills, but this is a bit cost-intensive at the outset. It's tough to shell out $800 for a dryer, just to match the washer, but it does not seem all that expensive to operate. Between that, the ease of the controls and the fact that, above all else, this dryer WORKS, the Whirlpool WED9400S is a pretty wonderful clothes dryer.

Because I have had no problems after two month's use, I cannot speak to the customer service with the one-year warranty, but given how easy it is to use, I assume if anything went wrong it would be more of a freak accident than a design flaw. It is reassuring to know there is a warranty but given how I am flying solo and using this only once a week, I could not justify any extended service plan on it. Again, with the easy of the push-button controls with the various fabric and temperature settings, there are so few parts that even move, it's hard to imagine anything breaking down!

For other laundry-related reviews, please visit my reviews of:
Whirlpool WGD5200 Gas Dryer
Purex Complete 3-in-1
Purex Complete 3-in-1 Spring Oasis

8/10

For other home and garden product reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |