Green Lantern is not a particularly good movie. That said, I do think the critics are being a little hard on it. Everywhere I look, people are tearing it apart. One friend of a friend actually walked out. I'm sorry, but I just don't see where it was that bad. It's not brilliant, but what do you really want from a comic book movie? And this is a superhero who has powers from outer space, who uses a magic ring to conjure giant hands to punch people. Most people knew this going in. And yet, for some reason audiences were apparently expecting the gritty realism of The Dark Knight.
GL has never been one of my favorite super heroes. I don't like the "wish it and it will happen" nature of his powers. It's too much of a Deus Ex Machina - when you have a character that powerful, writers just don't have to work as hard. Heck, I don't even like the color green. So admittedly my expectations of the movie were low, and therefore easily met. So for what it's worth, I thought the movie was a lot of fun.
There's a few minor spoilers ahead, so watch out.
Some of the reviewers complained about the special effects, but I thought they were beautiful. There were a couple of examples of Special Effect Failure - one of the Guardians of Oa looked like he was rendered on a Playstation 2, and Hal's head seemed to change size now and then compared to his costume - but overall I loved the look of the film. I recognized a lot of the other Lanterns from the comics and cartoons, and I was very impressed at how realistically they were able to render characters that looked impossibly silly in the other media. I loved GL's outfit. I know it was the subject of a lot of internet backlash when it was first revealed, but I think the end product was great. I loved how it seemed so alive, with little light pulses constantly running through the lines of the outfit, almost reminiscent of Tron.
Ryan Reynolds was perfectly cast. Some people don't like how he played the same immature jerk he always plays, but I personally believe that's how Hal Jordan is meant to be played. In the Golden Age of comics, a "man without fear" meant some square-jawed boy scout with a one-dimensional personality. But in the more realistic modern age, fearlessness means you're too cocky and smug to be afraid when you should be.
I was particularly impressed with Sinestro. Everything about him, down to the most subtle facial expression, was spot-on with how I always pictured him. I am a little disappointed, however, that they still called him "Sinestro". Guardians, seriously, y'all are supposed to be some of the wisest creatures in the universe, but... his name is "Sinestro", you didn't see it coming? I was kind of hoping they would call him something else at first, and he would rename himself Sinestro once he got the yellow ring. Or at the very least, maybe they would give him a bit of backstory explaining how his name came to be.
With a power based on will, I was very afraid that the final confrontation would be some boring "Beam-O-War". You know what I mean, like in Harry Potter 4, when Harry and Voldemort have their wands locked. I was all set to see Hal shooting out a green ray, against an opponent's yellow ray, while both characters grunt a lot with the strain of their willpower, until Hal's finally wins out. I hate that kind of thing, as it's too easy to write, and not very satisfying on-screen. And then I heard that one of the villains was a cloud-like entity, and I was even more afraid. Having seen similar battles in Fantastic Four 2 and the first Hulk movie, I wasn't looking forward to such a vague battle. But the fights are actually pretty satisfying, with Hal using his powers in a lot of clever ways.
One of my favorite things in the movie was the lampshading of his so-called secret identity. Whenever Hal showed up with his little green mask on, I said to myself, "Oh, come on! There's know way they don't recognize him!" And I was right. Two people in the movie recognized him right off, not because he intentionally revealed his secret identity to them, but simply because they're not idiots.
I say this a lot, but I don't usually care whether a movie is bad or good, as long as it's not boring. Green Lantern did not bore me. But modern audiences must have higher standards than I do (and yet these are the same people keeping reality shows on the air). I think this goes back to my earlier blog about "All-Or-Nothing People": Since Green Lantern wasn't mind-blowingly excellent, then it sucked. People have lost the ability to rate a movie as "just okay". Unfortunately, "just okay" movies are some of my favorites.
Btw, I apologize for all the TVTropes links, but it's one of my favorite sites, and GL is a very tropey movie.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Friday, November 19, 2010
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1
Wow, that's a long title. Sure, they're all "Harry Potter and the x", but the "Part 1" somehow sends it over the edge.
Anyway, great movie. One of the best in the series. Goblet is still my favorite, but this might be runner-up.
I was skeptical about making it into a two-parter. The whole idea just screams, "Our cash cow is ending, how can we extend the franchise?" But I have to say, I really enjoyed the pacing. Unlike some of the others in the series, it didn't feel like they were rushing through, desperate to squeeze in all the events of the book. It actually makes me wish some of the others had been two-parters. The movie did lag at one point, but it was at a point where the book lagged too. (Or maybe I just don't like camping.)
They covered a lot more ground than I thought they would. There were several times when an important scene would happen, and I would think, "Annnnnd... credits." And then the movie would just keep going. In fact, it probably ended a full hour after the first time I thought it was going to end. But this does not mean it was an overly long movie. It is long, as are all the HP movies, but it's a good kind of long. Seriously, I saw the midnight showing, and it's usually hard for me to stay awake for those. But Deathly Hallows had my unwavering attention all the way through. And when it did finally end, it really was a perfect spot. It really left us wanting more. (...and needing to pee.)
I'm pretty sure I've already said this in previous Harry Potter blogs, but it's pointless to review this movie. If you've seen the other six, you know you're going to see this one. Who sees the first six movies in a series and then just stops? If you haven't seen the others, then you should definitely catch up before buying a ticket to Deathly Hallows or you're just going to be lost. And even if you don't care about being lost, the dramatic parts are more meaningful if you're already in love with the characters. But pointless review or not, I give it two thumbs up. It's a must-see... if you've seen the others.
Now, a bit more detail for those who've already seen it (or at least read it)...
*Spoiler Space*
*Spoiler Space*
Of course this movie was the most depressing of the bunch. Everything is coming to a climax, people dying left and right, and of course it ends at one of the darkest moments of the story. However, most of the deaths so far have been presented in a somewhat tame way. Harry barely sheds a tear for Hedwig, and Moody's death is just a snatch of dialogue. However, it ends with the very dramatic death of Dobby the house elf. I think this was a good way of showing parents that from this point on, it's going to get very dark, so you might want to think about pre-screening Part 2 before taking your littlest ones.
I wasn't as touched as I should have been by Dobby's death scene. I've never liked him; to me he's the Potterverse's version of Jar Jar Binks. I don't understand how Star Wars gets so much flak for CGI slapstick, while Dobby is loved for basically the same thing. So I wasn't sorry to see him go. To quote Chandler Bing, "Yes, it was very sad when the artist stopped drawing the deer." But my heart isn't made of stone. Heck, I cried a little in the first few minutes of the movie, when Hermione had to erase her parents' memories.
The only part of the movie I really didn't like was when Ron became a jerk for a while. It made more sense in the book, but it happened way too quickly in the movie and didn't have enough context. But that's a tiny little nitpick when the rest of the movie is so good.
Anyway, great movie. One of the best in the series. Goblet is still my favorite, but this might be runner-up.
I was skeptical about making it into a two-parter. The whole idea just screams, "Our cash cow is ending, how can we extend the franchise?" But I have to say, I really enjoyed the pacing. Unlike some of the others in the series, it didn't feel like they were rushing through, desperate to squeeze in all the events of the book. It actually makes me wish some of the others had been two-parters. The movie did lag at one point, but it was at a point where the book lagged too. (Or maybe I just don't like camping.)
They covered a lot more ground than I thought they would. There were several times when an important scene would happen, and I would think, "Annnnnd... credits." And then the movie would just keep going. In fact, it probably ended a full hour after the first time I thought it was going to end. But this does not mean it was an overly long movie. It is long, as are all the HP movies, but it's a good kind of long. Seriously, I saw the midnight showing, and it's usually hard for me to stay awake for those. But Deathly Hallows had my unwavering attention all the way through. And when it did finally end, it really was a perfect spot. It really left us wanting more. (...and needing to pee.)
I'm pretty sure I've already said this in previous Harry Potter blogs, but it's pointless to review this movie. If you've seen the other six, you know you're going to see this one. Who sees the first six movies in a series and then just stops? If you haven't seen the others, then you should definitely catch up before buying a ticket to Deathly Hallows or you're just going to be lost. And even if you don't care about being lost, the dramatic parts are more meaningful if you're already in love with the characters. But pointless review or not, I give it two thumbs up. It's a must-see... if you've seen the others.
Now, a bit more detail for those who've already seen it (or at least read it)...
*Spoiler Space*
*Spoiler Space*
Of course this movie was the most depressing of the bunch. Everything is coming to a climax, people dying left and right, and of course it ends at one of the darkest moments of the story. However, most of the deaths so far have been presented in a somewhat tame way. Harry barely sheds a tear for Hedwig, and Moody's death is just a snatch of dialogue. However, it ends with the very dramatic death of Dobby the house elf. I think this was a good way of showing parents that from this point on, it's going to get very dark, so you might want to think about pre-screening Part 2 before taking your littlest ones.
I wasn't as touched as I should have been by Dobby's death scene. I've never liked him; to me he's the Potterverse's version of Jar Jar Binks. I don't understand how Star Wars gets so much flak for CGI slapstick, while Dobby is loved for basically the same thing. So I wasn't sorry to see him go. To quote Chandler Bing, "Yes, it was very sad when the artist stopped drawing the deer." But my heart isn't made of stone. Heck, I cried a little in the first few minutes of the movie, when Hermione had to erase her parents' memories.
The only part of the movie I really didn't like was when Ron became a jerk for a while. It made more sense in the book, but it happened way too quickly in the movie and didn't have enough context. But that's a tiny little nitpick when the rest of the movie is so good.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Metroid: Other M
I thought I wasn't going to get to play the new Metroid for while, because I just couldn't fit it in the entertainment budget for a couple of months. But then my friend Chris bought it for me. He's also the one who gave me his old X-Box 360 a while back, when he upgraded to a newer model. I kept meaning to thank him for that publicly, but never got around to it, so I'll do it now:
Never mind that we're polar opposites on every issue from politics to religion; that has no bearing on true friendship. Chris has always been something of a conversational sparring partner, but I've found I need that. People should challenge their beliefs now and then, else they run the risk of believing silly things for no other reason than they've always believed it. Besides, I love to debate, and I often get along better with people with whom I can argue. So I hearby grant Chris the honorable title "Greatest Of All The Living Individuals Currently Known, Especially Republicans" (actually that's a little wordy, maybe I'll just use the acronym "G.O.A.T.L.I.C.K.E.R." for short).
So anyway, Metroid: Other M. I'm not very far into this game, so this is more of a first impression than a full review.
I thought that this game was supposed to be reminiscent of the classic Metroid games, but it turns out it's something entirely new. The controls are not like any of the previous games, 2D or 3D. While the game is mostly third person, you can walk in all directions: left, right, towards or away from the camera. So even though the background doesn't rotate in third person mode, it feels like you're playing something like Mario 64. Some sections of the map are left/right, like classic Metroid, and some sections are forward/back, so so you find yourself staring at Samus's back as she runs forward. The level map is an overhead view of the level, unlike the 3D Metroids (where the entire map was 3D and went in all directions), and unlike the 2D Metroids (where the map was a left/right cross section and made you wonder if any part of the pirate fortress was more than 20 feet wide).
You can switch to first-person view any time you want, but you can't move around while in first-person, so it's mainly used when you're trying to find something in the room. That's also the only way to fire missiles or use the grapple beam. This makes some of the boss fights very difficult, since you have to keep switching back and forth. You'll use third person for running around and dodging the creature's attacks, then you'll switch to first person to lock on to the creature's weak points and fire your missiles. And of course you'll end up going back and forth like that several times before the boss dies. It can be quite disorienting.
The previous Metroid games were built around exploration, but this one feels more like an action game. While the older games had you generally taking out one or two enemies at a time, this one has you constantly getting surrounded by enemy swarms, and you have to shoot in every direction to take them out quickly. Your shots auto-aim at the enemy closest to the direction you're facing/pressing, so you don't have to aim upwards or anything if an enemy is flying. You also have some physical attacks when enemies get too close, so for the first time you're not just shooting at enemies. The available moves depend on the enemy; for example, one particular enemy can only be killed buy jumping on it's back and shooting it in the back of the head (a move that doesn't work on other creatures).
Some fights are pretty difficult. However, save points are frequent (so far), and sometimes when you die it will start you at a nearby check point. Enemies don't drop anything, so you have to rely on save points to fully recharge. You also have the ability to recharge your missiles (and some of your health, if it's low) any time you're not currently in battle. And even when you hit 0 hit points, you don't always die right away. The game sometimes gives you a chance to run to safety and do the recharge move, while your hit points fluctuate between 0 and 1. So if you can just avoid the monster's death blow, you might be able to get a second wind.
Exploration-wise, it's a lot more "on rails" than any Metroid game I've played so far. It feels most like Metroid Fusion: There's a guy in the command center who unlocks doors for you, and sends you messages telling you to check out a certain area. Samus technically starts will all the attachments she had at the end of Super Metroid, but isn't allowed to use them until they're unlocked by the same command guy. So it looks like the only things to find are additional missiles and energy tanks. Hidden items are marked on the map, so you know when there's something to find, but you still have to figure out how to get to it. Sometimes this involves going into first-person mode and moving your cross-hairs over every single pixel on the screen until you find the secret place where you can lock on.
The movie scenes are very well-done, and it looks like Samus is going to keep having flashbacks throughout the game that tell more of her childhood. That might not interest everybody, but I'm looking forward to learning more about Samus Aran. I've read that the flashbacks upset some fans, because it doesn't follow the continuity previously established by the comics and manga. However, I never liked the origin stories I'd previously read (they involved Samus being raised by the same Chozo creatures that left item-holding statues all over Zebes... give me a break), so I look forward to seeing what the story is now. I hope this one lets you play as Zero Suit Samus at some point, like in Zero Mission.
It also has a couple of elements that remind me of the "Survival Horror" genre. Like you'll come across a corpse (sadly not graphic or bloody, but what did you expect from Nintendo), and Samus will say something like, "What could have done this?" Then a few minutes later some creepy thing might burst through the wall and attack you. Or you might catch a glimpse of a strange-looking enemy through a window or on a monitor before you get to face it later. I've found one "instant death" scene so far. I was climbing up an elevator shaft, and had to stop when I reached the bottom of the elevator. Then a tough monster showed up below me and started climbing up towards me. I found a place I could shoot that made the elevator fall, killing us both instantly. The checkpoint started me out right before that room. This time I found an alcove to stand in before I shot the elevator release thing, killing just the monster and letting me climb farther up the shaft.
I'll say this - Though I'm having great fun, so far it hasn't wowed me. Other than the Metroid name, there really isn't much to write home about. It's like when you buy a game based on a movie, and it turns out to be just another generic shooter or beat-em-up, but you still like it anyway because it's cool to control your favorite character. I mean, sure, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles arcade game was pretty much just Final Fight with a makeover, but it was still more fun cracking heads with a turtle. If they ever got around to making a Metroid movie, this is probably what the tie-in game would be like.
It feels like they tried to take Other M in too many directions at once. The action doesn't control quite well enough to compete with true action games; in fact it feels like some of the early attempts to make a 3D Contra game for the PS1. The exploration aspect feels like they tacked it on (Manager: "It's a Metroid game! You have to give them something to find!") I kind of wish they'd played up the Survival Horror angle - I've always wanted a good "Resident Evil in space" game, like "Project Firestart" for the Commodore 64.
But please don't think I'm not enjoying it. I'd rather play the worst Metroid game than the best game of any other series, and this is not the worst Metroid game. It has its flaws, but overall my biggest gripe is that I just can't find the time to play it.
Chris, you're awesome.
Never mind that we're polar opposites on every issue from politics to religion; that has no bearing on true friendship. Chris has always been something of a conversational sparring partner, but I've found I need that. People should challenge their beliefs now and then, else they run the risk of believing silly things for no other reason than they've always believed it. Besides, I love to debate, and I often get along better with people with whom I can argue. So I hearby grant Chris the honorable title "Greatest Of All The Living Individuals Currently Known, Especially Republicans" (actually that's a little wordy, maybe I'll just use the acronym "G.O.A.T.L.I.C.K.E.R." for short).
So anyway, Metroid: Other M. I'm not very far into this game, so this is more of a first impression than a full review.
I thought that this game was supposed to be reminiscent of the classic Metroid games, but it turns out it's something entirely new. The controls are not like any of the previous games, 2D or 3D. While the game is mostly third person, you can walk in all directions: left, right, towards or away from the camera. So even though the background doesn't rotate in third person mode, it feels like you're playing something like Mario 64. Some sections of the map are left/right, like classic Metroid, and some sections are forward/back, so so you find yourself staring at Samus's back as she runs forward. The level map is an overhead view of the level, unlike the 3D Metroids (where the entire map was 3D and went in all directions), and unlike the 2D Metroids (where the map was a left/right cross section and made you wonder if any part of the pirate fortress was more than 20 feet wide).
You can switch to first-person view any time you want, but you can't move around while in first-person, so it's mainly used when you're trying to find something in the room. That's also the only way to fire missiles or use the grapple beam. This makes some of the boss fights very difficult, since you have to keep switching back and forth. You'll use third person for running around and dodging the creature's attacks, then you'll switch to first person to lock on to the creature's weak points and fire your missiles. And of course you'll end up going back and forth like that several times before the boss dies. It can be quite disorienting.
The previous Metroid games were built around exploration, but this one feels more like an action game. While the older games had you generally taking out one or two enemies at a time, this one has you constantly getting surrounded by enemy swarms, and you have to shoot in every direction to take them out quickly. Your shots auto-aim at the enemy closest to the direction you're facing/pressing, so you don't have to aim upwards or anything if an enemy is flying. You also have some physical attacks when enemies get too close, so for the first time you're not just shooting at enemies. The available moves depend on the enemy; for example, one particular enemy can only be killed buy jumping on it's back and shooting it in the back of the head (a move that doesn't work on other creatures).
Some fights are pretty difficult. However, save points are frequent (so far), and sometimes when you die it will start you at a nearby check point. Enemies don't drop anything, so you have to rely on save points to fully recharge. You also have the ability to recharge your missiles (and some of your health, if it's low) any time you're not currently in battle. And even when you hit 0 hit points, you don't always die right away. The game sometimes gives you a chance to run to safety and do the recharge move, while your hit points fluctuate between 0 and 1. So if you can just avoid the monster's death blow, you might be able to get a second wind.
Exploration-wise, it's a lot more "on rails" than any Metroid game I've played so far. It feels most like Metroid Fusion: There's a guy in the command center who unlocks doors for you, and sends you messages telling you to check out a certain area. Samus technically starts will all the attachments she had at the end of Super Metroid, but isn't allowed to use them until they're unlocked by the same command guy. So it looks like the only things to find are additional missiles and energy tanks. Hidden items are marked on the map, so you know when there's something to find, but you still have to figure out how to get to it. Sometimes this involves going into first-person mode and moving your cross-hairs over every single pixel on the screen until you find the secret place where you can lock on.
The movie scenes are very well-done, and it looks like Samus is going to keep having flashbacks throughout the game that tell more of her childhood. That might not interest everybody, but I'm looking forward to learning more about Samus Aran. I've read that the flashbacks upset some fans, because it doesn't follow the continuity previously established by the comics and manga. However, I never liked the origin stories I'd previously read (they involved Samus being raised by the same Chozo creatures that left item-holding statues all over Zebes... give me a break), so I look forward to seeing what the story is now. I hope this one lets you play as Zero Suit Samus at some point, like in Zero Mission.
It also has a couple of elements that remind me of the "Survival Horror" genre. Like you'll come across a corpse (sadly not graphic or bloody, but what did you expect from Nintendo), and Samus will say something like, "What could have done this?" Then a few minutes later some creepy thing might burst through the wall and attack you. Or you might catch a glimpse of a strange-looking enemy through a window or on a monitor before you get to face it later. I've found one "instant death" scene so far. I was climbing up an elevator shaft, and had to stop when I reached the bottom of the elevator. Then a tough monster showed up below me and started climbing up towards me. I found a place I could shoot that made the elevator fall, killing us both instantly. The checkpoint started me out right before that room. This time I found an alcove to stand in before I shot the elevator release thing, killing just the monster and letting me climb farther up the shaft.
I'll say this - Though I'm having great fun, so far it hasn't wowed me. Other than the Metroid name, there really isn't much to write home about. It's like when you buy a game based on a movie, and it turns out to be just another generic shooter or beat-em-up, but you still like it anyway because it's cool to control your favorite character. I mean, sure, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles arcade game was pretty much just Final Fight with a makeover, but it was still more fun cracking heads with a turtle. If they ever got around to making a Metroid movie, this is probably what the tie-in game would be like.
It feels like they tried to take Other M in too many directions at once. The action doesn't control quite well enough to compete with true action games; in fact it feels like some of the early attempts to make a 3D Contra game for the PS1. The exploration aspect feels like they tacked it on (Manager: "It's a Metroid game! You have to give them something to find!") I kind of wish they'd played up the Survival Horror angle - I've always wanted a good "Resident Evil in space" game, like "Project Firestart" for the Commodore 64.
But please don't think I'm not enjoying it. I'd rather play the worst Metroid game than the best game of any other series, and this is not the worst Metroid game. It has its flaws, but overall my biggest gripe is that I just can't find the time to play it.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Predators and Inception
We saw an unlikely combination of movies this weekend, Predators and Inception. Both were great, though obviously very different.
Predators
Predators was awesome. Sullivan spent most of the second period in the penalty box, but he scored three goals in the third. Wait, wrong Predators.
Predators the movie. Right. Well, after the AvP movies, I really wasn't expecting much when I heard they were making a new Predator movie. I knew I'd see it eventually, but I could wait until DVD. Then it actually started getting good reviews, at least in my circle. I'm sure the professional movie critics are blasting it, but they never like the same kinds of films I like anyway.
This is arguably the first good movie of the Predator series. Now, before you start booing me, hear me out. I've always loved the Predator series. I love the creature design, the technology, and the general idea of these creatures that kill us for sport. Alien invasions shouldn't always be about world domination; there has to be other reasons a hostile being might visit a planet.
But, the individual movies themselves... eh, I'm just not as into them as I thought I was. I used to own 1 & 2 on VHS, but rarely watched them. I currently own both of them on DVD, but those discs have never even made it to the player. I just like the idea of them more than the movies themselves. The first Predator was a little too manly for my tastes. The sequel was okay, but very much a sequel for sequel's sake. You know, just more of the same for those who wanted the first movie to be longer. And of course, the AvP movies were fun, mindless action flicks for those who just wanting to see a little blood on a Friday night.
The new movie is similar to the original. They're in a jungle again, and you know the drill from the beginning - they're all going to get killed one by one until someone faces the final boss. However, this is the first one of the series to actually have some decent acting, and a good script.
I think my favorite part is how the movie begins. They could have started with one of the character's backstory on Earth, and shown what he was doing before he was abducted, and so on. But come on, this is a movie for Predator fans! We don't care about exposition, we want to be dropped right into the action.
Okay, make no mistake, it's not Shakespeare. But if I want a good story, I'll wait for the DVD. In the theaters, I want to go on a ride.
Inception
You know how sometimes you're watching a movie, and an entire scene turns out to have been just a dream? Then a bit later, the waking world turns out to be a dream as well? And then, it turns out that you weren't even at the theater today, and you just dreamed you were watching a movie? But after you wake up from that dream, you realize that your entire life has all been just a dream? Inception is kind of like that, except you're also drunk.
Lest you think I'm being negative, it's a rather pleasant sort of drunk, the kind where you lose your inhibitions just enough that you actually experience some sort of clarity (or think you do), and you actually sound smarter to those around you.
I really can't go into the plot without giving away too much, and I'd seriously recommend you avoid reading too many reviews before you see it. Heck, don't even read the review I linked to above. It's one of those plots where the less you know going in, the more you'll enjoy the show. Believe me, it's worth your money, and you don't need to know why first.
You will experience a bit of Fridge Logic when you get home, and the movie's technology is of the "it works because it works" variety. But you'll be too busy counting layers and keeping track of who's mind is doing what to really care about the science.
Go see it.
Predators
Predators was awesome. Sullivan spent most of the second period in the penalty box, but he scored three goals in the third. Wait, wrong Predators.
Predators the movie. Right. Well, after the AvP movies, I really wasn't expecting much when I heard they were making a new Predator movie. I knew I'd see it eventually, but I could wait until DVD. Then it actually started getting good reviews, at least in my circle. I'm sure the professional movie critics are blasting it, but they never like the same kinds of films I like anyway.
This is arguably the first good movie of the Predator series. Now, before you start booing me, hear me out. I've always loved the Predator series. I love the creature design, the technology, and the general idea of these creatures that kill us for sport. Alien invasions shouldn't always be about world domination; there has to be other reasons a hostile being might visit a planet.
But, the individual movies themselves... eh, I'm just not as into them as I thought I was. I used to own 1 & 2 on VHS, but rarely watched them. I currently own both of them on DVD, but those discs have never even made it to the player. I just like the idea of them more than the movies themselves. The first Predator was a little too manly for my tastes. The sequel was okay, but very much a sequel for sequel's sake. You know, just more of the same for those who wanted the first movie to be longer. And of course, the AvP movies were fun, mindless action flicks for those who just wanting to see a little blood on a Friday night.
The new movie is similar to the original. They're in a jungle again, and you know the drill from the beginning - they're all going to get killed one by one until someone faces the final boss. However, this is the first one of the series to actually have some decent acting, and a good script.
I think my favorite part is how the movie begins. They could have started with one of the character's backstory on Earth, and shown what he was doing before he was abducted, and so on. But come on, this is a movie for Predator fans! We don't care about exposition, we want to be dropped right into the action.
Okay, make no mistake, it's not Shakespeare. But if I want a good story, I'll wait for the DVD. In the theaters, I want to go on a ride.
Inception
You know how sometimes you're watching a movie, and an entire scene turns out to have been just a dream? Then a bit later, the waking world turns out to be a dream as well? And then, it turns out that you weren't even at the theater today, and you just dreamed you were watching a movie? But after you wake up from that dream, you realize that your entire life has all been just a dream? Inception is kind of like that, except you're also drunk.
Lest you think I'm being negative, it's a rather pleasant sort of drunk, the kind where you lose your inhibitions just enough that you actually experience some sort of clarity (or think you do), and you actually sound smarter to those around you.
I really can't go into the plot without giving away too much, and I'd seriously recommend you avoid reading too many reviews before you see it. Heck, don't even read the review I linked to above. It's one of those plots where the less you know going in, the more you'll enjoy the show. Believe me, it's worth your money, and you don't need to know why first.
You will experience a bit of Fridge Logic when you get home, and the movie's technology is of the "it works because it works" variety. But you'll be too busy counting layers and keeping track of who's mind is doing what to really care about the science.
Go see it.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Coming Soon: Parody Movie
The original Airplane! is one of the greatest films of all time. As a parody movie, they just don't get any funnier. Not only is the humor clever (if silly), but they cram in a whole lot of it. Almost every scene is worth at least a chuckle. Even if the actors are having a serious conversation, there's always something going on the the background, or at least a funny sign on the wall.
How brilliant is it? Consider this: A large number of viewers don't even realize that the movie is almost a scene-by-scene parody of a movie called "Zero Hour!". They know it's based on some old airplane-related movies, but a lot of Airplane! fans never saw the specific film it spends most of the time mocking.
Yes, Airplane! would be even funnier to someone who's seen Zero Hour!, and actually got all the references they were making. But the humor in Airplane! is so well-done, you don't even need to have seen the source material to get a laugh. How many of Scary Movie's jokes would have still been funny to those who hadn't seen Scream? Hell, how many of Scary Movie's jokes were as funny as Airplane!, even to those who had seen Scream?
After Airplane!, there were very few movies that captured the same magic. Airplane II: The Sequel was almost as perfect, but to be fair, it did use a lot of the same jokes as the original. Top Secret! was also quite good, and remains one of my favorite parody movies. I enjoyed the original Police Squad! TV series, but the Naked Gun movies weren't quite as funny to me. I also like the first Hot Shots! movie a great deal.
But as time goes on, these parody movies just get less and less funny. The "____ Movie" series has its moments, but overall I can't recommend a single one. Instead of gag-a-minute, they seem to go for gag-every-five-minutes (then stretch it out for another 8), and half of those gags are cheap toilet humor. I'm not offended; it's just not funny. (I might not find it funny because I'm not offended, if that makes sense.) That kind of humor is just too easy, and it does nothing for me.
And now we have Vampires Suck:
Argh! I'm not one of those whiny internet critics who cries when Hollywood makes a movie they don't like. I don't mind the existence of bad movies, because usually I can just skip them. But this one annoys me because I want to see it! Granted, there's no shortage of Twilight parodies already out there, and this doesn't even look like one of the better ones. But I like the Twilight series just enough to want to see it parodied as often as possible. I just wish it would be clever! But it won't. But I'll see it anyway. Ugh.
EDIT: Here's a pretty good Cracked article on the subject of bad parodies.
How brilliant is it? Consider this: A large number of viewers don't even realize that the movie is almost a scene-by-scene parody of a movie called "Zero Hour!". They know it's based on some old airplane-related movies, but a lot of Airplane! fans never saw the specific film it spends most of the time mocking.
Yes, Airplane! would be even funnier to someone who's seen Zero Hour!, and actually got all the references they were making. But the humor in Airplane! is so well-done, you don't even need to have seen the source material to get a laugh. How many of Scary Movie's jokes would have still been funny to those who hadn't seen Scream? Hell, how many of Scary Movie's jokes were as funny as Airplane!, even to those who had seen Scream?
After Airplane!, there were very few movies that captured the same magic. Airplane II: The Sequel was almost as perfect, but to be fair, it did use a lot of the same jokes as the original. Top Secret! was also quite good, and remains one of my favorite parody movies. I enjoyed the original Police Squad! TV series, but the Naked Gun movies weren't quite as funny to me. I also like the first Hot Shots! movie a great deal.
But as time goes on, these parody movies just get less and less funny. The "____ Movie" series has its moments, but overall I can't recommend a single one. Instead of gag-a-minute, they seem to go for gag-every-five-minutes (then stretch it out for another 8), and half of those gags are cheap toilet humor. I'm not offended; it's just not funny. (I might not find it funny because I'm not offended, if that makes sense.) That kind of humor is just too easy, and it does nothing for me.
And now we have Vampires Suck:
Argh! I'm not one of those whiny internet critics who cries when Hollywood makes a movie they don't like. I don't mind the existence of bad movies, because usually I can just skip them. But this one annoys me because I want to see it! Granted, there's no shortage of Twilight parodies already out there, and this doesn't even look like one of the better ones. But I like the Twilight series just enough to want to see it parodied as often as possible. I just wish it would be clever! But it won't. But I'll see it anyway. Ugh.
EDIT: Here's a pretty good Cracked article on the subject of bad parodies.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse
I'll skip the usual "abusive relationship" rant. You know, Edward's too controlling, Bella co-dependent, it's anti-feminist, yada yada yada. All the stuff that's a little more forgivable the way it's explained in the books, but even then isn't very healthy. Meh... I agree with a lot of it, but it's all been said, all over the internet. Let's just talk about the movie itself.
A full review would be useless at this point in the series. If you liked the first one enough to see the second one, then you're probably committed to the series. This property is such a "love it or hate it" sort of thing, that my opinion isn't going to persuade anyone.
That said, I didn't really care for it. It had some decent action scenes, and a few funny moments here and there. But... where do I begin? The acting was terrible, most of the dialogue was bland, the historical flashbacks weren't convincing, there were bits of my arch-nemesis the shaky-cam, and it was still 90% shallow angst and hard-to-swallow romance. Oh, and lots of posing: "Hey, let's all stand perfectly still and stare into the woods, it'll look great on a thermos later."
Also, the lighting was bad. Actually, no, the lighting was too good. There were a couple of scenes where it didn't look even remotely overcast, yet Edward was outside in front of muggles, sans sparkle.
I'm not sold on they way they showed vampires getting smashed during the fight scenes, like they were made out of marble. I know the books always described the vamps as being hard like stone, but on film it looked sort of silly. I realize that the good guys were hitting them incredibly hard to make them shatter like that, and it's supposed to make them look even tougher, but it actually made them look kind of fragile. Like if Edward were to fall down the stairs, he would break into a million sparkly pieces.
Anyway, I'm not a Twihard, and I'm not the movie's target demographic. So it's no surprise that I didn't really like it. The action scenes were nice, in fact they were my favorite scenes in the series so far. But everything else was just boring.
However...
To be honest, Twilight-haters are actually annoying me more than the Twilight Saga at the moment. Seriously, don't these people get tired of saying the same things over and over? Not to mention all the critics who obviously only watched the trailers, and the nit-pickers who must have missed large amounts of dialogue. "I hate how Edward is so rude to Bella when he first meets her!" Well, if you'd read the books or at least listened to the dialogue, you'd know why.
I read all four books, telling myself the entire time that I was only reading it so that I'd have ammo to insult it later. But to be honest, I really didn't have a bad time. It's not great, and I don't see how it got to be so popular, but it's not the unreadable rubbish people think it is. And I still respect the opinion of those who love it.
"Oh no! This series that I don't plan to watch or read isn't very good! Since not being into something popular makes me feel stupid, the only way I can cope is to convince other people not to like it! Waah!" Seriously dudes, you need to accept that different people like different things, and that's okay. Repeat after me: "I don't particularly care for (insert name of movie, tv show, sport, video game system, web browser, font, religion, or sexual position), but that doesn't mean it sucks. It just means that it's not for me. I'll let other people enjoy it if they want to."
So... yeah, I think I'll alienate both sides today.
I guess I should be glad that Hollywood finally gave these uncreative, whiny, pathetic, brain-dead losers something to cry about besides the Star Wars prequels. I ranted earlier about people who complain that remakes are ruining their childhood memories. (My opinion: If your memories are that easy to damage, you might want to see a neurologist. Or just don't watch the remakes.) Well, the same idiots are worried that Meyer's sparkly vampires are somehow going to erase all the previous vampire stories from their minds, or that the popularity of this series means that people will stop making non-sparkly vampire movies. Short answer: Quit worrying and grow up.
But most importantly, there are a lot of very intelligent people who happen to enjoy the Twilight series. They don't take it seriously, and they have noticed the same problems with the series that you like to moan about. But for whatever reason, they still enjoy the story. You probably know more of these people than you think, because they're afraid to admit it. You'll get less ribbing coming out of the closet as a transvestite furry LARPer than as an adult Twilight fan. So keep that in mind: when you go off on Twilight, you are insulting your friends. Keep it up, and you won't have any. (And knowing is half the battle.)
As long as we're on the subject of Twilight, I would like to give a free plug for Rifftrax, the best way to enjoy bad movies (and even some good ones). For those who don't know: Do you remember Mystery Science Theater 3000, the show where a guy and two robots made fun of bad sci-fi movies? Well, those same guys are at it again, except now they're riffing mainstream movies.
Since they can't get the rights for these movies as easily, you just buy the audio track with their comments. Simply play the Rifftrax MP3 while watching the DVD, and follow their instructions to sync them.
Well, one of the best Rifftrax is the one for Twilight. You can watch a sample here. I've watched that Rifftrax several times, and it never gets old. They also have one for New Moon, and I'm sure they'll have one for Eclipse the moment it hits DVD.
A full review would be useless at this point in the series. If you liked the first one enough to see the second one, then you're probably committed to the series. This property is such a "love it or hate it" sort of thing, that my opinion isn't going to persuade anyone.
That said, I didn't really care for it. It had some decent action scenes, and a few funny moments here and there. But... where do I begin? The acting was terrible, most of the dialogue was bland, the historical flashbacks weren't convincing, there were bits of my arch-nemesis the shaky-cam, and it was still 90% shallow angst and hard-to-swallow romance. Oh, and lots of posing: "Hey, let's all stand perfectly still and stare into the woods, it'll look great on a thermos later."
Also, the lighting was bad. Actually, no, the lighting was too good. There were a couple of scenes where it didn't look even remotely overcast, yet Edward was outside in front of muggles, sans sparkle.
I'm not sold on they way they showed vampires getting smashed during the fight scenes, like they were made out of marble. I know the books always described the vamps as being hard like stone, but on film it looked sort of silly. I realize that the good guys were hitting them incredibly hard to make them shatter like that, and it's supposed to make them look even tougher, but it actually made them look kind of fragile. Like if Edward were to fall down the stairs, he would break into a million sparkly pieces.
Anyway, I'm not a Twihard, and I'm not the movie's target demographic. So it's no surprise that I didn't really like it. The action scenes were nice, in fact they were my favorite scenes in the series so far. But everything else was just boring.
However...
To be honest, Twilight-haters are actually annoying me more than the Twilight Saga at the moment. Seriously, don't these people get tired of saying the same things over and over? Not to mention all the critics who obviously only watched the trailers, and the nit-pickers who must have missed large amounts of dialogue. "I hate how Edward is so rude to Bella when he first meets her!" Well, if you'd read the books or at least listened to the dialogue, you'd know why.
I read all four books, telling myself the entire time that I was only reading it so that I'd have ammo to insult it later. But to be honest, I really didn't have a bad time. It's not great, and I don't see how it got to be so popular, but it's not the unreadable rubbish people think it is. And I still respect the opinion of those who love it.
"Oh no! This series that I don't plan to watch or read isn't very good! Since not being into something popular makes me feel stupid, the only way I can cope is to convince other people not to like it! Waah!" Seriously dudes, you need to accept that different people like different things, and that's okay. Repeat after me: "I don't particularly care for (insert name of movie, tv show, sport, video game system, web browser, font, religion, or sexual position), but that doesn't mean it sucks. It just means that it's not for me. I'll let other people enjoy it if they want to."
So... yeah, I think I'll alienate both sides today.
I guess I should be glad that Hollywood finally gave these uncreative, whiny, pathetic, brain-dead losers something to cry about besides the Star Wars prequels. I ranted earlier about people who complain that remakes are ruining their childhood memories. (My opinion: If your memories are that easy to damage, you might want to see a neurologist. Or just don't watch the remakes.) Well, the same idiots are worried that Meyer's sparkly vampires are somehow going to erase all the previous vampire stories from their minds, or that the popularity of this series means that people will stop making non-sparkly vampire movies. Short answer: Quit worrying and grow up.
But most importantly, there are a lot of very intelligent people who happen to enjoy the Twilight series. They don't take it seriously, and they have noticed the same problems with the series that you like to moan about. But for whatever reason, they still enjoy the story. You probably know more of these people than you think, because they're afraid to admit it. You'll get less ribbing coming out of the closet as a transvestite furry LARPer than as an adult Twilight fan. So keep that in mind: when you go off on Twilight, you are insulting your friends. Keep it up, and you won't have any. (And knowing is half the battle.)
As long as we're on the subject of Twilight, I would like to give a free plug for Rifftrax, the best way to enjoy bad movies (and even some good ones). For those who don't know: Do you remember Mystery Science Theater 3000, the show where a guy and two robots made fun of bad sci-fi movies? Well, those same guys are at it again, except now they're riffing mainstream movies.
Since they can't get the rights for these movies as easily, you just buy the audio track with their comments. Simply play the Rifftrax MP3 while watching the DVD, and follow their instructions to sync them.
Well, one of the best Rifftrax is the one for Twilight. You can watch a sample here. I've watched that Rifftrax several times, and it never gets old. They also have one for New Moon, and I'm sure they'll have one for Eclipse the moment it hits DVD.
Remakes
I hear this a lot: "What's with all the remakes? Has Hollywood run out of ideas? They're raping my childhood memories!"
I really don't understand why people get so upset about remakes. I guarantee you, they're not going to stop selling the original movie just because a remake comes out. Remakes are not replacements.
Have you ever seen the same play twice, but performed by a different group at a different theater? Did you demand your money back because it wasn't the "real" cast? When you saw Romeo & Juliet, did you demand they resurrect the original actors who performed it in Shakespeare's time?
Personally, I love seeing how different directors & casts handle the same story. I've seen a couple of different productions of "Little Shop of Horrors", and I loved seeing how each one handled the complicated props, especially since they had vastly different budgets. With movies, I love comparing and contrasting the various versions, looking at what choices were made, what they decided to leave out (and theorizing as to why), whether the improved special effects adds to or detracts from the experience, and so on. Yes, some versions will be better than others. I fail to see how that ruins your childhood memories. In my experience, it enhances them. Sure, the Anne Heche version of Psycho was sort of dull and pointless... but it didn't overwrite my memory of the original, and makes me appreciate the old one that much more.
I hear the argument, "that's time they could have spent making an original movie." But do you really think the guy directing the "Fall Guy" movie is doing so because he turned down the next Godfather? I see no evidence that these guys would be cranking out masterpieces if only they weren't wasting their time on remakes. Besides, how often do you see original stories anyway? How many movies have you seen that were really just "Die Hard" but on a boat/plane/space/cave/cabin? Aren't remakes at least more honest?
So I say, bring on the remakes. I want to see a comedy version of Ben Hur. I want to see the cast of Seinfeld perform My Fair Lady. I want to see Star Wars performed in the nude. I want to see a sock puppet version of The Birds. I want to see Jack Black play Atticus Finch. I want to see a version of King Kong performed by chimps, with the only human playing the title role. If I don't like the look of one, I'll skip it, but I won't cry that it got made.
(Okay, I'll admit my examples were tongue-in-cheek. I wouldn't actually pay to see any of those, except possibly the Star Wars one, if only to see how they handle the "disguise themselves as Stormtroopers" scene.)
And I would love it if Hollywood would do the following project: Write one script (one with a lot of room for interpretation), then give it to 10 different directors/casts, and see how the different versions turn out.
I really don't understand why people get so upset about remakes. I guarantee you, they're not going to stop selling the original movie just because a remake comes out. Remakes are not replacements.
Have you ever seen the same play twice, but performed by a different group at a different theater? Did you demand your money back because it wasn't the "real" cast? When you saw Romeo & Juliet, did you demand they resurrect the original actors who performed it in Shakespeare's time?
Personally, I love seeing how different directors & casts handle the same story. I've seen a couple of different productions of "Little Shop of Horrors", and I loved seeing how each one handled the complicated props, especially since they had vastly different budgets. With movies, I love comparing and contrasting the various versions, looking at what choices were made, what they decided to leave out (and theorizing as to why), whether the improved special effects adds to or detracts from the experience, and so on. Yes, some versions will be better than others. I fail to see how that ruins your childhood memories. In my experience, it enhances them. Sure, the Anne Heche version of Psycho was sort of dull and pointless... but it didn't overwrite my memory of the original, and makes me appreciate the old one that much more.
I hear the argument, "that's time they could have spent making an original movie." But do you really think the guy directing the "Fall Guy" movie is doing so because he turned down the next Godfather? I see no evidence that these guys would be cranking out masterpieces if only they weren't wasting their time on remakes. Besides, how often do you see original stories anyway? How many movies have you seen that were really just "Die Hard" but on a boat/plane/space/cave/cabin? Aren't remakes at least more honest?
So I say, bring on the remakes. I want to see a comedy version of Ben Hur. I want to see the cast of Seinfeld perform My Fair Lady. I want to see Star Wars performed in the nude. I want to see a sock puppet version of The Birds. I want to see Jack Black play Atticus Finch. I want to see a version of King Kong performed by chimps, with the only human playing the title role. If I don't like the look of one, I'll skip it, but I won't cry that it got made.
(Okay, I'll admit my examples were tongue-in-cheek. I wouldn't actually pay to see any of those, except possibly the Star Wars one, if only to see how they handle the "disguise themselves as Stormtroopers" scene.)
And I would love it if Hollywood would do the following project: Write one script (one with a lot of room for interpretation), then give it to 10 different directors/casts, and see how the different versions turn out.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
My D&D Blog
I'm moving most of my D&D-related entries over to my Campaign Journals blog. Partly because I know it bores most of my regular readers (*snicker* "regular readers" heh), and partly just so I can have everything in one place.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen
I'm a bit of a snob.
Back in school, I considered myself superior to my classmates, because I thought my tastes were more refined. Okay, granted, my favorite movie was "Aliens", which is by no means an art film. But the fact that I could enjoy plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, made me think that I was better than other people. I often thought of myself as Diane Chambers from Cheers, the only cultured person in a room full of lowbrow drunks. It wasn't until years later that I realized just how annoying that Diane character was, and that "pretentious" is a bad thing.
But everyone's tastes change when they get older. Some of my formerly-lowbrow friends finally got girlfriends/wives, and amazingly started to enjoy romantic comedies. Or if not enjoy, at least tolerate. Rom-coms are not exactly Shakespeare, but at least it's a step up from only watching action films. Well, a step sideways... either way, it's a broadening of horizons.
Meanwhile my own tastes may be heading in the opposite direction. I still love plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, but I don't need to pay big bucks for them. I'm happy watching my rom-coms on DVD. But on the big screen, I want explosions. That's the only reason to pay the increasingly outrageous theater prices. I want big special effects, giant monsters, space battles, and plots that defy logic. I want the director to build a gigantic technocratic post-apocolyptic city using nothing but CGI and Blade Runner references... then I want him to destroy it with a cybernetically-enhanced radioactively-mutated Cloverfield-esque psycho-monster.
I'm not sitting there to think. I do enough of that at home. When I pop in a DVD, I have a pause button I can freely use when I want to consider the ramifications of what was just said. If I want a deeper plot, I'll read a book. But in the theater I want to see things too big to fit on a home television. In that respect, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is pure win.
I went in to this movie with the knowledge that everyone was blasting it to pieces. Roger Ebert called it "a horrible experience of unbearable length." Well, of course Ebert only likes classy films, right? Except of course he liked the first one. A reviewer from the Bilerico Project (a LGBTQ group) walked out halfway, calling it "Homophobia in Disguise."
Maybe the bad press helped. Maybe it lowered my standards so I didn't expect too much from the movie. I do remember telling KJ a few times going in, "Now this is probably going to suck, so just enjoy the eye candy." But I think I would have liked this anyway.
Transformers: RotF is a fun movie. Now that I've seen it, I agree with everything bad that was said about it. It is too long. It does have touches of racism, sexism, and homophobia. It has a terrible script and some horrible acting. It does not deserve to win any awards.
Why can't more reviewers learn the difference between good and entertaining? I mean, The Exorcist is a wonderful movie. It's wonderfully written, perfectly acted, well-directed, the whole package. It deserves every accolade it's ever received. I'm glad I saw it... in a way, I feel like I'm a better person for having seen it. However, I would rather shave my head with a cheese grater than sit through it again.
I like a lot of good movies, and I like a lot of bad movies. But the most important factor to me is the entertainment factor. The worst thing a movie can do is bore me. A bad script is still interesting if it's really bad. Bad acting can be laughed at. But a boring movie can not be saved, even if it's a masterpiece in every other way.
Anyway, T:RotF is pure Michael Bay, a statement which will immediately either draw you in or send you fleeing. It's filled with slow motion explosions, rock-em sock-em robots, and lots of eye candy. A good portion of it feels more like a tech demo than a movie. It keeps your eyes busy; even when Transformers are just standing around talking, the camera keeps rotating around them just to show off the SFX.
Like the first film, the few minutes of human interactions involve embarrassing parental moments and crude humor, like replacing the first movie's masturbation jokes with humping dogs. They kept a lot of the T1's human cast, even in places where it doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, does everything happen to the same set of soldiers? Are these same soldiers always the closest ones to whatever is happening in the world? And bringing back John Turturro's character was both contrived and pointless, considering that he was one of the things dragging down the first movie.
Now, the offensive stuff... If you recall, the first Transformers had a few silly stereotypes in there, but spread out through the movie's many characters. Most notable was the over-the-top black kid whose dialogue felt like it was written by a staff of white guys trying to talk street. But other elements were there; the foreign phone operator, the Jive-talking Autobot Jazz, etc. One or two references don't bother me. If you have five African-Americans in a movie, and one of them talks like the "Jive Dudes" from Airplane!, it just means that the character happens to talk like that. But when all non-white characters in a movie perpetuate stereotypes, it seems like the director is a racist.
T2 manages to get it out of its system by wrapping up most of the movie's potential offensive elements into a pair of characters. Mudflap and Skids, collectively known as the Twins. They are silly/stupid gagbots, the kind of comic relief I always hate. Why so many writers think every script needs a Jar Jar, I'll never know. The writers do this to make it more entertaining to little kids, but even when I was a little kid I hated all the Orkos and Snarfs and T-Bobs in my favorite cartoons. But the Twins aren't just stupid klutzes like Jar Jar, they also go out of their way to be offensive in as many ways as possible.
But that's okay, because the movie establishes pretty quickly that the characters are stupid jerks. I don't mind if a stupid jerk is also shown to be a homophobe (for example), because that's like the director saying, "See? Homophobes are idiots." Not to apologize for these characters, but I do think the Bilerico Project article took it too hard. The reviewer complains about the use of "pussy" as a pejorative (sexist), and one of the twins taunting a guy with "you gonna go cry to your boyfriend?" (homophobic).
Both are things I do wish people wouldn't say. Accusing someone of being gay is no longer a relevant insult, because society should be trying to reach the point where being gay is no longer something to be embarrassed about. And calling someone a "pussy" as a synonym for wimp is blatantly sexist, and the insult needs to die right now. But in my experience, both insults seem to come more out of ignorance than malice. See Hanlon's Razor.
Labelling an entire movie as homophobic or racist, just because an idiot says something idiotic? That's going too far. The Twins may technically be "good guys", but they're definitely not good people (er... bots). I'll never understand why people get offended when bad people do bad things in movies. If James Bond nemesis Blofeld were to fire missles across Europe, killing millions of people, the audience would say, "Get him, James!" and keep watching on the edge of their seats. But if Blofeld were to use the "N word", people would picket the movie.
Not that the Twins are the only potentially offensive things in the movie (referring to former Oompa Loompa Deep Roy as a "munchkin" comes to mind), but they do manage to consolidate a lot of potential hatred into one place. Some will accuse the Twins themselves of being racial stereotypes, which is bad, but I don't really see it. They do talk some street, but they also talk some redneck, and overall they're like a conglomeration of idiots from all over the place. Think Jar Jar meets Eminem meets Larry the Cable Guy. In any event, they're dumb but forgivable, pretty much like the rest of the movie.
I probably will not buy this one on DVD, at least not until we have a bigger TV. This movie begs for big screens and insane sound systems. Without that, it's would be like watching roller coaster footage. Not totally un-fun, but it just makes you long for the real thing.
To sum up:
From a quality standpoint, that which you would call a "good movie", I give Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen one out of five stars. From a "totally kick-ass good time" standpoint, I give it four out of five stars. It's up to you which is more important.
Now, bring on GI Joe. It looks even worse, so you know it's going to rock.
Back in school, I considered myself superior to my classmates, because I thought my tastes were more refined. Okay, granted, my favorite movie was "Aliens", which is by no means an art film. But the fact that I could enjoy plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, made me think that I was better than other people. I often thought of myself as Diane Chambers from Cheers, the only cultured person in a room full of lowbrow drunks. It wasn't until years later that I realized just how annoying that Diane character was, and that "pretentious" is a bad thing.
But everyone's tastes change when they get older. Some of my formerly-lowbrow friends finally got girlfriends/wives, and amazingly started to enjoy romantic comedies. Or if not enjoy, at least tolerate. Rom-coms are not exactly Shakespeare, but at least it's a step up from only watching action films. Well, a step sideways... either way, it's a broadening of horizons.
Meanwhile my own tastes may be heading in the opposite direction. I still love plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, but I don't need to pay big bucks for them. I'm happy watching my rom-coms on DVD. But on the big screen, I want explosions. That's the only reason to pay the increasingly outrageous theater prices. I want big special effects, giant monsters, space battles, and plots that defy logic. I want the director to build a gigantic technocratic post-apocolyptic city using nothing but CGI and Blade Runner references... then I want him to destroy it with a cybernetically-enhanced radioactively-mutated Cloverfield-esque psycho-monster.
I'm not sitting there to think. I do enough of that at home. When I pop in a DVD, I have a pause button I can freely use when I want to consider the ramifications of what was just said. If I want a deeper plot, I'll read a book. But in the theater I want to see things too big to fit on a home television. In that respect, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is pure win.
I went in to this movie with the knowledge that everyone was blasting it to pieces. Roger Ebert called it "a horrible experience of unbearable length." Well, of course Ebert only likes classy films, right? Except of course he liked the first one. A reviewer from the Bilerico Project (a LGBTQ group) walked out halfway, calling it "Homophobia in Disguise."
Maybe the bad press helped. Maybe it lowered my standards so I didn't expect too much from the movie. I do remember telling KJ a few times going in, "Now this is probably going to suck, so just enjoy the eye candy." But I think I would have liked this anyway.
Transformers: RotF is a fun movie. Now that I've seen it, I agree with everything bad that was said about it. It is too long. It does have touches of racism, sexism, and homophobia. It has a terrible script and some horrible acting. It does not deserve to win any awards.
Why can't more reviewers learn the difference between good and entertaining? I mean, The Exorcist is a wonderful movie. It's wonderfully written, perfectly acted, well-directed, the whole package. It deserves every accolade it's ever received. I'm glad I saw it... in a way, I feel like I'm a better person for having seen it. However, I would rather shave my head with a cheese grater than sit through it again.
I like a lot of good movies, and I like a lot of bad movies. But the most important factor to me is the entertainment factor. The worst thing a movie can do is bore me. A bad script is still interesting if it's really bad. Bad acting can be laughed at. But a boring movie can not be saved, even if it's a masterpiece in every other way.
Anyway, T:RotF is pure Michael Bay, a statement which will immediately either draw you in or send you fleeing. It's filled with slow motion explosions, rock-em sock-em robots, and lots of eye candy. A good portion of it feels more like a tech demo than a movie. It keeps your eyes busy; even when Transformers are just standing around talking, the camera keeps rotating around them just to show off the SFX.
Like the first film, the few minutes of human interactions involve embarrassing parental moments and crude humor, like replacing the first movie's masturbation jokes with humping dogs. They kept a lot of the T1's human cast, even in places where it doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, does everything happen to the same set of soldiers? Are these same soldiers always the closest ones to whatever is happening in the world? And bringing back John Turturro's character was both contrived and pointless, considering that he was one of the things dragging down the first movie.
Now, the offensive stuff... If you recall, the first Transformers had a few silly stereotypes in there, but spread out through the movie's many characters. Most notable was the over-the-top black kid whose dialogue felt like it was written by a staff of white guys trying to talk street. But other elements were there; the foreign phone operator, the Jive-talking Autobot Jazz, etc. One or two references don't bother me. If you have five African-Americans in a movie, and one of them talks like the "Jive Dudes" from Airplane!, it just means that the character happens to talk like that. But when all non-white characters in a movie perpetuate stereotypes, it seems like the director is a racist.
T2 manages to get it out of its system by wrapping up most of the movie's potential offensive elements into a pair of characters. Mudflap and Skids, collectively known as the Twins. They are silly/stupid gagbots, the kind of comic relief I always hate. Why so many writers think every script needs a Jar Jar, I'll never know. The writers do this to make it more entertaining to little kids, but even when I was a little kid I hated all the Orkos and Snarfs and T-Bobs in my favorite cartoons. But the Twins aren't just stupid klutzes like Jar Jar, they also go out of their way to be offensive in as many ways as possible.
But that's okay, because the movie establishes pretty quickly that the characters are stupid jerks. I don't mind if a stupid jerk is also shown to be a homophobe (for example), because that's like the director saying, "See? Homophobes are idiots." Not to apologize for these characters, but I do think the Bilerico Project article took it too hard. The reviewer complains about the use of "pussy" as a pejorative (sexist), and one of the twins taunting a guy with "you gonna go cry to your boyfriend?" (homophobic).
Both are things I do wish people wouldn't say. Accusing someone of being gay is no longer a relevant insult, because society should be trying to reach the point where being gay is no longer something to be embarrassed about. And calling someone a "pussy" as a synonym for wimp is blatantly sexist, and the insult needs to die right now. But in my experience, both insults seem to come more out of ignorance than malice. See Hanlon's Razor.
Labelling an entire movie as homophobic or racist, just because an idiot says something idiotic? That's going too far. The Twins may technically be "good guys", but they're definitely not good people (er... bots). I'll never understand why people get offended when bad people do bad things in movies. If James Bond nemesis Blofeld were to fire missles across Europe, killing millions of people, the audience would say, "Get him, James!" and keep watching on the edge of their seats. But if Blofeld were to use the "N word", people would picket the movie.
Not that the Twins are the only potentially offensive things in the movie (referring to former Oompa Loompa Deep Roy as a "munchkin" comes to mind), but they do manage to consolidate a lot of potential hatred into one place. Some will accuse the Twins themselves of being racial stereotypes, which is bad, but I don't really see it. They do talk some street, but they also talk some redneck, and overall they're like a conglomeration of idiots from all over the place. Think Jar Jar meets Eminem meets Larry the Cable Guy. In any event, they're dumb but forgivable, pretty much like the rest of the movie.
I probably will not buy this one on DVD, at least not until we have a bigger TV. This movie begs for big screens and insane sound systems. Without that, it's would be like watching roller coaster footage. Not totally un-fun, but it just makes you long for the real thing.
To sum up:
From a quality standpoint, that which you would call a "good movie", I give Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen one out of five stars. From a "totally kick-ass good time" standpoint, I give it four out of five stars. It's up to you which is more important.
Now, bring on GI Joe. It looks even worse, so you know it's going to rock.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Why Is This So Popular?
And excerpt from "New Moon", second book of the Twilight series (spoilers):
Bella (the vapid twit who has set feminism back 30 years) and Jacob (the Native American werewolf with anger management issues) are being angsty in the kitchen. The phone rings. Jacob answers, even though it's Bella's house and she's just as close to the phone. But it advances the plot better when Jacob answers. It's Edward Cullen (the hearthrob vampire who inspires lust in all teenage girls, despite never doing anything even remotely romantic). However, for some strange reason Jacob believes it is Doctor Carlisle Cullen (Edward's sort-of vampire father), a misunderstanding which furthers the plot. Edward, who is afraid Bella might be dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot), asks to speak to Bella's father. Jacob answers, "He's at the funeral" (referring to a different funeral). Edward takes this to mean Bella's funeral, which confirms his belief that Bella is dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot). Afterwards, Janet and Chrissy (a pair of unicorns) help Jack (a leprechaun) pretend to be gay so he isn't evicted by Mr. Furley (a zombie), after getting locked in a freezer because of a misunderstanding.
Bella (the vapid twit who has set feminism back 30 years) and Jacob (the Native American werewolf with anger management issues) are being angsty in the kitchen. The phone rings. Jacob answers, even though it's Bella's house and she's just as close to the phone. But it advances the plot better when Jacob answers. It's Edward Cullen (the hearthrob vampire who inspires lust in all teenage girls, despite never doing anything even remotely romantic). However, for some strange reason Jacob believes it is Doctor Carlisle Cullen (Edward's sort-of vampire father), a misunderstanding which furthers the plot. Edward, who is afraid Bella might be dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot), asks to speak to Bella's father. Jacob answers, "He's at the funeral" (referring to a different funeral). Edward takes this to mean Bella's funeral, which confirms his belief that Bella is dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot). Afterwards, Janet and Chrissy (a pair of unicorns) help Jack (a leprechaun) pretend to be gay so he isn't evicted by Mr. Furley (a zombie), after getting locked in a freezer because of a misunderstanding.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Metroid Geek
Huzzah! In a couple of months, they're releasing "Metroid Prime Trilogy" for the Wii! All three MP games, on one disc, updated with Wii controls! I'm a huge fan of the Metroid series, but I never owned a Gamecube, so I missed the first two MP games. Yes, I know the Wii can play GC games, but I'm glad I waited anyway, because I love MP3's control scheme.
The original Metroid for the 8-bit NES was one of my first true loves. The first thing I ever heard about the game was the ending. Um... spoiler alert... the main character turns out to be a woman. That would have been enough to sell me in itself - I always like female leads, and Mulan-type plot devices. But then the game threw in dozens of other cool features. You have a cannon for an arm. You can turn into a ball. Exploration. Multiple weapons. Sci-fi setting. I simply had to own the game.
I remember being very into the game's plot. Now, we're talking about a time when some games actually did have well-developed plots, but those plots were only told through the instruction manual. With Metroid, there's a paragraph of text in the opening splash screen, and another paragraph when you beat it. Everything else is up to you to figure out. But the manual had several pages worth of exposition, explaining where the Metroids came from, and why Samus was hired to defeat the pirates. I won't lie, it was fairly cheesy. But I liked it so much at the time that drew my own comic books based on it.
The original Metroid for the 8-bit NES was one of my first true loves. The first thing I ever heard about the game was the ending. Um... spoiler alert... the main character turns out to be a woman. That would have been enough to sell me in itself - I always like female leads, and Mulan-type plot devices. But then the game threw in dozens of other cool features. You have a cannon for an arm. You can turn into a ball. Exploration. Multiple weapons. Sci-fi setting. I simply had to own the game.
I remember being very into the game's plot. Now, we're talking about a time when some games actually did have well-developed plots, but those plots were only told through the instruction manual. With Metroid, there's a paragraph of text in the opening splash screen, and another paragraph when you beat it. Everything else is up to you to figure out. But the manual had several pages worth of exposition, explaining where the Metroids came from, and why Samus was hired to defeat the pirates. I won't lie, it was fairly cheesy. But I liked it so much at the time that drew my own comic books based on it.
*old geezer mode* Kids these days just don't know how easy they have it. I don't know why they even keep printing those gall-darn instruction booklets, nobody reads them any more. Nowadays the plot is laid out in front of you as you play, and even the controls are taught to you one button at a time in the annoying tutorial mode. Why, the first time I played "The Legend of Zelda", I didn't know who Zelda was, what I was looking for, or how to bomb rocks to find secret entrances. And I didn't have no newfangled internet to look it up, either. I had to make do with my intellect, perseverance, intuition, patience, skills, and several hundred dollars worth of Nintendo Power magazines and strategy guides.
Another thing I liked about Metroid's plot was that it reminded me of the Alien movies. (There's a pretty good comparison at this site.) Alien has long been my favorite horror movie, and Aliens my favorite action flick, and of course they never made an Alien 3... seriously, they didn't... don't make me get the hammer... *ahem* Where was I? Okay, so cosmic jellyfish aren't anything like the creations of HR Giger, but there were a few plot similarities that I found entertaining at the time.
It was also one of the first games I played where the sequels formed a coherent storyline. Okay, there was the issue of, "Why doesn't Samus still have all the weapons she gained in the last game?" But I really enjoyed how the first game's ending led to Samus Aran's Metroid extinction mission in the second game, and how the one surviving Metroid at the end of Metroid II set up the plot for Super Metroid. The three make up a perfect trilogy, and any games after that are just a bonus.
Compare to Zelda - the second game was clearly a direct sequel, but what was with the third? The SNES Zelda was an incredible game, but when did it take place? Was it a sequel or a prequel or a remake? There are dozens of Zelda games now, and some of them are sequels to each other, but it seems like they reboot the franchise every third game or so. I hate it when the sequels screw up continuity like that. Like in Tetris - the pieces used to be called Tetrads, but now they're called Tetrominos. I mean, I can't even keep up with the storyline any more. Did the L-piece survive the war? Did the square-shaped piece ever avenge his father's death? For a while there was even a rumor that the straight piece wasn't really straight, but who can keep track any more?
...but anyway...
My take on the Metroid series, in not-quite chronological order:
Metroid (NES) - The game that started it all was really impressive back when it was released. It practically invented a lot of elements that are still being used in games today. It was one of the first side-scrollers to feature exploration instead of just moving to the right. It was one of the first console games made with the intention of NOT beating it in one sitting, instead giving you a password feature for continuing. The idea of a woman in a power-armor spacesuit with arm-cannon... well, the concept screams "Anime", but this was before Japanese animation was really flooding the States, so to me it was a brand new concept. Really, just having a female protagaonist was pretty new to me. Samus is by no means the first female game character, but she was one the earliest female video game badasses. (And I strongly suspect that Ms Pac-Man was actually Pac-Man in drag.)
However, the game itself hasn't really aged well. I love classic side-scrollers, but for me things really took off around 16-bit. I very much appreciate this game for starting the beloved series, but I will probably never play it again without updated graphics. I hate to say it, but the game's universe is better than the game itself. It's fairly damning to admit that I'd rather re-read the instruction booklet than to play the game.
Metroid II (Gameboy) - In many ways better than the first game, but I wish it hadn't been on the Gameboy. It had better play control than the first, and even had improved graphics (which is surprising, considering the system). But with the black & white screen, it was hard to navigate. You couldn't always tell what area you were in, making it difficult to know where to go next. This problem was compounded by the lack of visible screen area. Even playing it in color didn't improve things much.
Super Metroid (SNES) - IMO, the best video game of all time. Spot-on-perfect play control. The best graphics 16-bit had to offer. Lots of areas to explore, tons of weapons and items to find, and most importantly it was FUN. I do have one complaint, however... there was one special move, where you could bounce off of walls, that was too difficult to pull off. It was made worse by the fact that there was one area you could not pass without using this move. With enough tries you will make it, and once you do, you never have to do it again. But it's tedious, and is an unfortunate black mark on what could have been history's only 100% perfect game.
Metroid Fusion (GBA) - This didn't wow me, but it was nice after all this time to play another side-scrolling Metroid game. Regarding graphics and play control, it's probably every bit as good as Super Metroid, but I didn't really care for the set-up. The way it herds you around different sections of the space station make the areas feel too much like levels, giving the whole game a more "video-gamey" feel. The exploration is still there, but it's just a little too controlled. Enjoyable, if forgettable.
Metroid: Zero Mission (GBA) - This did wow me, but only because I'm such a Metroid geek. Zero Mission is a remake of the first Metroid game, but with SNES-style graphics, better play control, and actual exposition. I thought it was a little short, but a lot of handheld games feel too short to me. My only real regret is that with the release of the DSi (which no longer plays GBA games), that Zero Mission is effectively off the market. I hope it turns up again for another system, perhaps as a two-pack with Fusion. Or maybe they could alter the graphics enough to look good on a TV, and release it for Wii's Virtual Console.
Metroid Prime Pinball (DS) - I'm going to pretend this did not happen.
Metroid Prime Hunters (DS) - A beautiful game considering it's on a handheld system, but unfortunately marred by a complicated play control system. The game actually gives you two completely different control setup options, probably because they realized neither one was very good. Hunters is intended to be played online against other players, so the 1-player mode feels tacked on. However, the online mode is rough on beginners, since you will undoubtedly find yourself in a deathmatch against a pro. So you have to play through the bland single player mode just to learn the controls, in the hopes that you won't get creamed quite as quickly in the deathmatches.
Metroid Prime 1 & 2 (Gamecube) - I'll know in a couple of months.
Metroid Prime 3 (Wii) - A truly wonderful game that makes me wish I was still a kid. The controls feel complicated at first, but within 30 minutes you're Samus Aran. Your right hand is your arm cannon, and you use it just like she does. The nunchuck moves you, and the setup works so well, I never again want to play a First-Person Shooter using two joysticks. Even mouse/keyboard pales in comparison. There is simply no FPS control setup that works more intuitively than the Wiimote/Nunchuk combo. It's like your right hand is playing a "Duck Hunt"-style light gun game, while your left hand is exploring 3D worlds. It might take a little more practice for the stubborn, but it really pays off.
That said, Metroid Prime 3 is not a perfect game. It has some long (but creatitively-disguised) load times here and there, and some of the puzzles are too difficult, and sometimes you feel really lost if you get off track. Some of its features are designed for anal-retentive collectors, those who are determined to probe every square inch of the game. (I used to be one of those people.) And, towards the end, it actually features an escort mission. What idiots put that in? Don't they know that gamers got together a couple of years ago and officially declared escort missions to be the worst thing in the history of the universe?
But despite the flaws, it's still an incredible gaming experience. My nostalgic side still prefers Super Metroid, but the games are so different it's apples-and-oranges.
Related games - Metroids also appeared in Kid Icarus (under the name Komayto), while Samus has had cameos in games like Tetris (NES version), Super Mario RPG, and the Smash Bros series. I mention this only to show off my geekiness.
Minor rant, I was a bit disappointed when Nintendo finally settled on a design for Samus Aran's out-of-suit appearance. They'd featured the occasional unhelmeted drawing before, in places like Nintendo Power or the "Captain N" comic books, but it wasn't until much later that they seemed to pick one version and stick with it. What they picked - a blonde bombshell who looks like a Playboy model - is disturbing to me. She looks more like a "Dead Or Alive" fighter than a space bounty hunter. Is this the most creative they could get? Did they have to make her every 15-year-old's sterotypical vision of perfect beauty? Shouldn't she look tougher? Did she even have to be human? At least they could have made her a cyborg. Don't those watermelon-sized bosoms make it difficult to squeeze into that armor?
In the original game's instruction booklet, they say, "...but his true form is shrouded in mystery." Of course this is foreshadowing that she turns out to be female, but couldn't they have played with that a little? Given her a reason to be mysterious? Sure, her second-quest appearance in the original game looked like a normal human, but the sprite didn't have a lot of detail; they still had the leeway to make her more interesting. I don't hate her because she's beautiful. I just wish Nintendo understood she didn't have to be.
But whatever. I still love the series, even if I don't agree with every decision or play every game. It's going to be a long wait till August.
Update: Shortly after posting this blog, I learned of "Metroid: Other M" that was previewed at E3. Looks awesome, and I can't wait to find out more. I am a little worried about the play control, but I'm sure they'll pull it off.
Update 2: My early impressions of Metroid: Other M are here. I'm no longer sure they pulled it off.
Another thing I liked about Metroid's plot was that it reminded me of the Alien movies. (There's a pretty good comparison at this site.) Alien has long been my favorite horror movie, and Aliens my favorite action flick, and of course they never made an Alien 3... seriously, they didn't... don't make me get the hammer... *ahem* Where was I? Okay, so cosmic jellyfish aren't anything like the creations of HR Giger, but there were a few plot similarities that I found entertaining at the time.
It was also one of the first games I played where the sequels formed a coherent storyline. Okay, there was the issue of, "Why doesn't Samus still have all the weapons she gained in the last game?" But I really enjoyed how the first game's ending led to Samus Aran's Metroid extinction mission in the second game, and how the one surviving Metroid at the end of Metroid II set up the plot for Super Metroid. The three make up a perfect trilogy, and any games after that are just a bonus.
Compare to Zelda - the second game was clearly a direct sequel, but what was with the third? The SNES Zelda was an incredible game, but when did it take place? Was it a sequel or a prequel or a remake? There are dozens of Zelda games now, and some of them are sequels to each other, but it seems like they reboot the franchise every third game or so. I hate it when the sequels screw up continuity like that. Like in Tetris - the pieces used to be called Tetrads, but now they're called Tetrominos. I mean, I can't even keep up with the storyline any more. Did the L-piece survive the war? Did the square-shaped piece ever avenge his father's death? For a while there was even a rumor that the straight piece wasn't really straight, but who can keep track any more?
...but anyway...
My take on the Metroid series, in not-quite chronological order:
Metroid (NES) - The game that started it all was really impressive back when it was released. It practically invented a lot of elements that are still being used in games today. It was one of the first side-scrollers to feature exploration instead of just moving to the right. It was one of the first console games made with the intention of NOT beating it in one sitting, instead giving you a password feature for continuing. The idea of a woman in a power-armor spacesuit with arm-cannon... well, the concept screams "Anime", but this was before Japanese animation was really flooding the States, so to me it was a brand new concept. Really, just having a female protagaonist was pretty new to me. Samus is by no means the first female game character, but she was one the earliest female video game badasses. (And I strongly suspect that Ms Pac-Man was actually Pac-Man in drag.)
However, the game itself hasn't really aged well. I love classic side-scrollers, but for me things really took off around 16-bit. I very much appreciate this game for starting the beloved series, but I will probably never play it again without updated graphics. I hate to say it, but the game's universe is better than the game itself. It's fairly damning to admit that I'd rather re-read the instruction booklet than to play the game.
Metroid II (Gameboy) - In many ways better than the first game, but I wish it hadn't been on the Gameboy. It had better play control than the first, and even had improved graphics (which is surprising, considering the system). But with the black & white screen, it was hard to navigate. You couldn't always tell what area you were in, making it difficult to know where to go next. This problem was compounded by the lack of visible screen area. Even playing it in color didn't improve things much.
Super Metroid (SNES) - IMO, the best video game of all time. Spot-on-perfect play control. The best graphics 16-bit had to offer. Lots of areas to explore, tons of weapons and items to find, and most importantly it was FUN. I do have one complaint, however... there was one special move, where you could bounce off of walls, that was too difficult to pull off. It was made worse by the fact that there was one area you could not pass without using this move. With enough tries you will make it, and once you do, you never have to do it again. But it's tedious, and is an unfortunate black mark on what could have been history's only 100% perfect game.
Metroid Fusion (GBA) - This didn't wow me, but it was nice after all this time to play another side-scrolling Metroid game. Regarding graphics and play control, it's probably every bit as good as Super Metroid, but I didn't really care for the set-up. The way it herds you around different sections of the space station make the areas feel too much like levels, giving the whole game a more "video-gamey" feel. The exploration is still there, but it's just a little too controlled. Enjoyable, if forgettable.
Metroid: Zero Mission (GBA) - This did wow me, but only because I'm such a Metroid geek. Zero Mission is a remake of the first Metroid game, but with SNES-style graphics, better play control, and actual exposition. I thought it was a little short, but a lot of handheld games feel too short to me. My only real regret is that with the release of the DSi (which no longer plays GBA games), that Zero Mission is effectively off the market. I hope it turns up again for another system, perhaps as a two-pack with Fusion. Or maybe they could alter the graphics enough to look good on a TV, and release it for Wii's Virtual Console.
Metroid Prime Pinball (DS) - I'm going to pretend this did not happen.
Metroid Prime Hunters (DS) - A beautiful game considering it's on a handheld system, but unfortunately marred by a complicated play control system. The game actually gives you two completely different control setup options, probably because they realized neither one was very good. Hunters is intended to be played online against other players, so the 1-player mode feels tacked on. However, the online mode is rough on beginners, since you will undoubtedly find yourself in a deathmatch against a pro. So you have to play through the bland single player mode just to learn the controls, in the hopes that you won't get creamed quite as quickly in the deathmatches.
Metroid Prime 1 & 2 (Gamecube) - I'll know in a couple of months.
Metroid Prime 3 (Wii) - A truly wonderful game that makes me wish I was still a kid. The controls feel complicated at first, but within 30 minutes you're Samus Aran. Your right hand is your arm cannon, and you use it just like she does. The nunchuck moves you, and the setup works so well, I never again want to play a First-Person Shooter using two joysticks. Even mouse/keyboard pales in comparison. There is simply no FPS control setup that works more intuitively than the Wiimote/Nunchuk combo. It's like your right hand is playing a "Duck Hunt"-style light gun game, while your left hand is exploring 3D worlds. It might take a little more practice for the stubborn, but it really pays off.
That said, Metroid Prime 3 is not a perfect game. It has some long (but creatitively-disguised) load times here and there, and some of the puzzles are too difficult, and sometimes you feel really lost if you get off track. Some of its features are designed for anal-retentive collectors, those who are determined to probe every square inch of the game. (I used to be one of those people.) And, towards the end, it actually features an escort mission. What idiots put that in? Don't they know that gamers got together a couple of years ago and officially declared escort missions to be the worst thing in the history of the universe?
But despite the flaws, it's still an incredible gaming experience. My nostalgic side still prefers Super Metroid, but the games are so different it's apples-and-oranges.
Related games - Metroids also appeared in Kid Icarus (under the name Komayto), while Samus has had cameos in games like Tetris (NES version), Super Mario RPG, and the Smash Bros series. I mention this only to show off my geekiness.
Minor rant, I was a bit disappointed when Nintendo finally settled on a design for Samus Aran's out-of-suit appearance. They'd featured the occasional unhelmeted drawing before, in places like Nintendo Power or the "Captain N" comic books, but it wasn't until much later that they seemed to pick one version and stick with it. What they picked - a blonde bombshell who looks like a Playboy model - is disturbing to me. She looks more like a "Dead Or Alive" fighter than a space bounty hunter. Is this the most creative they could get? Did they have to make her every 15-year-old's sterotypical vision of perfect beauty? Shouldn't she look tougher? Did she even have to be human? At least they could have made her a cyborg. Don't those watermelon-sized bosoms make it difficult to squeeze into that armor?
In the original game's instruction booklet, they say, "...but his true form is shrouded in mystery." Of course this is foreshadowing that she turns out to be female, but couldn't they have played with that a little? Given her a reason to be mysterious? Sure, her second-quest appearance in the original game looked like a normal human, but the sprite didn't have a lot of detail; they still had the leeway to make her more interesting. I don't hate her because she's beautiful. I just wish Nintendo understood she didn't have to be.
But whatever. I still love the series, even if I don't agree with every decision or play every game. It's going to be a long wait till August.
Update: Shortly after posting this blog, I learned of "Metroid: Other M" that was previewed at E3. Looks awesome, and I can't wait to find out more. I am a little worried about the play control, but I'm sure they'll pull it off.
Update 2: My early impressions of Metroid: Other M are here. I'm no longer sure they pulled it off.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Star Trek Origins: Enterprise
(a.k.a. Lens Flare: The Motion Picture)
This weekend KJ and I saw Star Trek, and we both loved it.
As much as I love nearly all versions of Star Trek, I agree with J. J. Abrams that it was greatly in need of a reboot. But given the nature of Star Trek fans, I was afraid that such an endeavor would be doomed to failure. No, not because it was an odd-numbered Star Trek film (besides, this is zero, not eleven). It's just that sci-fi fanboys love to hate things... I've often said that the difference between a sci-fi fan and a regular person is that the regular person enjoys sci-fi.
The worst is that continuity-obsessed Trekkies insist on incorporating the silliness of the 60's series with the more modern productions. Look, nothing against the original series. It was ground-breaking and ahead of its time. But for me, Star Trek started with Next Gen. When the last TV series, "Enterprise" hit the air, gazillions of fans were livid, because they felt it screwed up the original series continuity. They were wrong, of course, for three reasons:
1. The show made great efforts to explain continuity. Especially in the final season, where they even explained the Klingon head-bumps thing.
2. The Original Series, revolutionary though it was, was full of continuity errors of its own. Not their fault, they just didn't know it was going to take off, so they didn't bother keeping track of everything. But in any event, I prefer to think of the OS as a retelling of events, like a holodeck recreation based on the captain's logs, rather than a perfect video of the story.
3. Enterprise takes place first, so anything it says takes precedence over the original series. It's also 1000 times better, so again it takes precedence over the original series. So if there's any continuity discrepencies between the two, Enterprise automatically wins, and the OS can suck it. My blog, my logic, so there.
I loved Enterprise (well, except for the Xindi season), so it pisses me off to no end that people who consider themselves Trekkies wouldn't even give it a chance. I feel a bit vindicated by the fact that there's an Enterprise reference in the new movie.
So some people will hate the new Star Trek movie no matter what, but I think it will please everyone who is actually capable of being pleased. I'll try to say this without spoilers, but they managed to both break continuity while maintaining continuity, in a way that should please both newcomers and life-long Trekkers. KJ, who knows the Original Series much better than I do, spent the first half of the movie counting the "mistakes" where it didn't agree with the 60's. But thanks to a bit of time-travel and its butterfly effect, every difference is explainable. At the end - okay, I can't avoid spoilers - it's a given that the entire TV series would have been affected in subtle ways... I can't wait to re-watch the DVDs and see if anything's changed. ;)
The casting is spot-on. My favorite was Simon Pegg as Scotty, though I wish he'd had more screen time.
Well, there was a bit of unevenness, IMO, in that some of the players seemed to be trying new takes on their characters, while others were trying to emulate the originals as much as possible, almost to the point of parody. For example, McCoy sometimes seemed like the actor was doing a comedic impression of the original character, while Sulu didn't even attempt to lower his voice. There were a few times when it felt like a bunch of fans playing dress-up for a convention, but most of the time I was able to lose myself in the movie.
I was afraid Kirk would be written as a total badass, someone who can accomplish anything just because he's the goddamn Kirk. But while he does have the "Never give up, never surrender" attitude parodied in Galaxy Quest, he actually gets his ass kicked in most of his fights.
This movie is a bit less family-friendly than previous Treks, but it was time. The squeaky-clean attitude was holding them back, and keeping them from being able to compete with stuff like Battlestar Galactica. To be honest, I've always preferred optimistic futures (like Star Trek) to pessimistic (post-apocalyptic, etc) sci-fi. Mainly because I like to believe that while humankind will always have conflict, overall things will get better and better. Otherwise, what's the point? Shows like the new Battlestar just depress me. But even so, Trek has usually been a little too clean. I think the new movie represents the best balance so far.
I really hope this takes off, and gets lots of sequels. I wish the movie was the pilot for a new TV series, which rewrites the original continuity. But I seriously doubt that's a possibility. Oh well, I'll take this new Trek however I can get it.
Abrams buffs: In addition to the standard Slusho reference, there's also a creature that, while not exactly like the Cloverfield monster, at least looks like it belongs in the same universe. And a question... I've never watched Lost. Is Abrams always so obsessed with lensflare? Every computer, every star, anything with light, makes bright streaks across most of the movie. It's pretty, but it gets a bit distracting after a while.
This weekend KJ and I saw Star Trek, and we both loved it.
As much as I love nearly all versions of Star Trek, I agree with J. J. Abrams that it was greatly in need of a reboot. But given the nature of Star Trek fans, I was afraid that such an endeavor would be doomed to failure. No, not because it was an odd-numbered Star Trek film (besides, this is zero, not eleven). It's just that sci-fi fanboys love to hate things... I've often said that the difference between a sci-fi fan and a regular person is that the regular person enjoys sci-fi.
The worst is that continuity-obsessed Trekkies insist on incorporating the silliness of the 60's series with the more modern productions. Look, nothing against the original series. It was ground-breaking and ahead of its time. But for me, Star Trek started with Next Gen. When the last TV series, "Enterprise" hit the air, gazillions of fans were livid, because they felt it screwed up the original series continuity. They were wrong, of course, for three reasons:
1. The show made great efforts to explain continuity. Especially in the final season, where they even explained the Klingon head-bumps thing.
2. The Original Series, revolutionary though it was, was full of continuity errors of its own. Not their fault, they just didn't know it was going to take off, so they didn't bother keeping track of everything. But in any event, I prefer to think of the OS as a retelling of events, like a holodeck recreation based on the captain's logs, rather than a perfect video of the story.
3. Enterprise takes place first, so anything it says takes precedence over the original series. It's also 1000 times better, so again it takes precedence over the original series. So if there's any continuity discrepencies between the two, Enterprise automatically wins, and the OS can suck it. My blog, my logic, so there.
I loved Enterprise (well, except for the Xindi season), so it pisses me off to no end that people who consider themselves Trekkies wouldn't even give it a chance. I feel a bit vindicated by the fact that there's an Enterprise reference in the new movie.
So some people will hate the new Star Trek movie no matter what, but I think it will please everyone who is actually capable of being pleased. I'll try to say this without spoilers, but they managed to both break continuity while maintaining continuity, in a way that should please both newcomers and life-long Trekkers. KJ, who knows the Original Series much better than I do, spent the first half of the movie counting the "mistakes" where it didn't agree with the 60's. But thanks to a bit of time-travel and its butterfly effect, every difference is explainable. At the end - okay, I can't avoid spoilers - it's a given that the entire TV series would have been affected in subtle ways... I can't wait to re-watch the DVDs and see if anything's changed. ;)
The casting is spot-on. My favorite was Simon Pegg as Scotty, though I wish he'd had more screen time.
Well, there was a bit of unevenness, IMO, in that some of the players seemed to be trying new takes on their characters, while others were trying to emulate the originals as much as possible, almost to the point of parody. For example, McCoy sometimes seemed like the actor was doing a comedic impression of the original character, while Sulu didn't even attempt to lower his voice. There were a few times when it felt like a bunch of fans playing dress-up for a convention, but most of the time I was able to lose myself in the movie.
I was afraid Kirk would be written as a total badass, someone who can accomplish anything just because he's the goddamn Kirk. But while he does have the "Never give up, never surrender" attitude parodied in Galaxy Quest, he actually gets his ass kicked in most of his fights.
This movie is a bit less family-friendly than previous Treks, but it was time. The squeaky-clean attitude was holding them back, and keeping them from being able to compete with stuff like Battlestar Galactica. To be honest, I've always preferred optimistic futures (like Star Trek) to pessimistic (post-apocalyptic, etc) sci-fi. Mainly because I like to believe that while humankind will always have conflict, overall things will get better and better. Otherwise, what's the point? Shows like the new Battlestar just depress me. But even so, Trek has usually been a little too clean. I think the new movie represents the best balance so far.
I really hope this takes off, and gets lots of sequels. I wish the movie was the pilot for a new TV series, which rewrites the original continuity. But I seriously doubt that's a possibility. Oh well, I'll take this new Trek however I can get it.
Abrams buffs: In addition to the standard Slusho reference, there's also a creature that, while not exactly like the Cloverfield monster, at least looks like it belongs in the same universe. And a question... I've never watched Lost. Is Abrams always so obsessed with lensflare? Every computer, every star, anything with light, makes bright streaks across most of the movie. It's pretty, but it gets a bit distracting after a while.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
"It's The Next Harry Potter!"
I finally saw Twilight, but I'm not here to review that. It really wasn't bad enough or good enough for me to care enough to analyze. What I do want to rant on a little is the hype it received when it was hot.
I don't know why this bothers me so much... but...
I hate trendwatchers. Twilight has been called "the next Harry Potter", probably by the same drooling idiots who called Kurt Cobain "the next John Lennon". Frankly, I'm getting sick of every new book being called "the next Harry Potter". Any time a book sells more than three copies lately, somebody labels it "the next Harry Potter." The phrase has very quickly become so overused, that it instantly fills me with rage. They said it about Lemony Snicket - did that really catch on? They said it about Eragon - anybody seen an Eragon T-shirt lately? Bedsheets? Candy bar? No? Why, just the other day I was using my Golden Compass toothbrush while wearing my Spiderwick Chronicles underwear! Seriously, though, none of these are bad properties, and they are perfectly deserving of whatever success they get. But that doesn't mean we'll see conventions and theme parks dedicated to them.
So I wish Twilight a world of success, and I didn't totally hate the movie. I haven't read the books, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume their popularity was well earned. But can we please stop the comparisons? It's apples and oranges. If we're judging it by content, then it should be compared to other vampire stories. But if we're just judging it by success, you might as well call the Nintendo Wii "the next Harry Potter."
IMO, Harry Potter was the next "Chronicles of Narnia" (1950). And Narnia was the next "Wizard of Oz" (1900). See a pattern here? You needn't start looking for "the next Harry Potter" until 2050! Even if you want to call Harry Potter "the next Star Wars", there's still a 20 year gap.
There probably won't be a successor to Harry Potter for a while. Possibly not in your lifetime. Get over it. Get on with your life. Continue to read and enjoy movies, but quit looking for things. Pottermania is the kind of thing that happens unexpectedly, not while you're looking for it, and definitely not when you try to force it. If you try to predict one of these things, I will laugh at you, and I will lose respect for you, and I will steal your car and run over your dog with it.
I don't know why this bothers me so much... but...
I hate trendwatchers. Twilight has been called "the next Harry Potter", probably by the same drooling idiots who called Kurt Cobain "the next John Lennon". Frankly, I'm getting sick of every new book being called "the next Harry Potter". Any time a book sells more than three copies lately, somebody labels it "the next Harry Potter." The phrase has very quickly become so overused, that it instantly fills me with rage. They said it about Lemony Snicket - did that really catch on? They said it about Eragon - anybody seen an Eragon T-shirt lately? Bedsheets? Candy bar? No? Why, just the other day I was using my Golden Compass toothbrush while wearing my Spiderwick Chronicles underwear! Seriously, though, none of these are bad properties, and they are perfectly deserving of whatever success they get. But that doesn't mean we'll see conventions and theme parks dedicated to them.
So I wish Twilight a world of success, and I didn't totally hate the movie. I haven't read the books, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume their popularity was well earned. But can we please stop the comparisons? It's apples and oranges. If we're judging it by content, then it should be compared to other vampire stories. But if we're just judging it by success, you might as well call the Nintendo Wii "the next Harry Potter."
IMO, Harry Potter was the next "Chronicles of Narnia" (1950). And Narnia was the next "Wizard of Oz" (1900). See a pattern here? You needn't start looking for "the next Harry Potter" until 2050! Even if you want to call Harry Potter "the next Star Wars", there's still a 20 year gap.
There probably won't be a successor to Harry Potter for a while. Possibly not in your lifetime. Get over it. Get on with your life. Continue to read and enjoy movies, but quit looking for things. Pottermania is the kind of thing that happens unexpectedly, not while you're looking for it, and definitely not when you try to force it. If you try to predict one of these things, I will laugh at you, and I will lose respect for you, and I will steal your car and run over your dog with it.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Moving In
Note, I'm transferring a lot of my old blog entries from MySpace. If you go to this blog through the main page, you should see my posts in chronological order. But if you are using Google Reader or other such site/program, then my posts might show up in the order I transfered them, which won't make a bit of sense. But from this point on, my posts should show up in a sane order again.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The Cat Burglar
Warning: Cutesy-Wutesy Kitty Story
KJ has been making pendants out of clay. When working with clay, she wooden tools. When she's not using them, she keeps them in a plastic bag, held together by a rubber band:
She keeps this downstairs, on the living room table. For the past few days, Sybil has been picking up the bag and carrying it around the room. I don't know, it must be a cat thing. We just keep taking it away from her, and putting it back on the table. So this morning, our precious Sybil brings KJ this as a present:
The plastic bag, still held together with the rubber band, minus the tools. She brought it to KJ as a gift, the same way a cat might bring its owner a dead mouse. But where were the tools? We looked all over the house, under every piece of furniture. We were dumbfounded. It seemed like there should have at least been a trail. I can picture her playing with them around the house, and losing them under furniture, as she often does with Q-Tips and milk rings. But there's nine tools in that set, we should have at least been able to find one of them.
In the end, it was Sybil who showed KJ where they were. Upstairs, in the bedroom, under some shoes. And neatly organized, for a cat.
Sybil was a bit protective of them, and didn't want to give them up. She kept complaining about us taking away her toy, and she keeps trying to get at them again.
KJ has been making pendants out of clay. When working with clay, she wooden tools. When she's not using them, she keeps them in a plastic bag, held together by a rubber band:
She keeps this downstairs, on the living room table. For the past few days, Sybil has been picking up the bag and carrying it around the room. I don't know, it must be a cat thing. We just keep taking it away from her, and putting it back on the table. So this morning, our precious Sybil brings KJ this as a present:
The plastic bag, still held together with the rubber band, minus the tools. She brought it to KJ as a gift, the same way a cat might bring its owner a dead mouse. But where were the tools? We looked all over the house, under every piece of furniture. We were dumbfounded. It seemed like there should have at least been a trail. I can picture her playing with them around the house, and losing them under furniture, as she often does with Q-Tips and milk rings. But there's nine tools in that set, we should have at least been able to find one of them.
In the end, it was Sybil who showed KJ where they were. Upstairs, in the bedroom, under some shoes. And neatly organized, for a cat.
Sybil was a bit protective of them, and didn't want to give them up. She kept complaining about us taking away her toy, and she keeps trying to get at them again.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Hancock
I'd really rather review the reviewers than the actual movie, if that's okay. Or even if it's not okay - it's my blog, so nyahh!
Dear Tennessean: Next time you don't do your homework, bring a note from your mother.
I read half-a-dozen reviews for this movie, and none of them were very positive. A typical review:
"Hancock starts out as a hilarious anti-hero movie, showing the flipside to the tired comic book formula. Unfortunately, halfway through the movie Hancock finds his morality, and from there it turns into the very type of movie it tried to parody - the standard formulaic super hero movie."
These reviewers are wrong. They're nuts. And worst of all, they're liars - they reviewed the trailer, not the movie. I know this because that's exactly the kind of review I might have written if I'd only watched the trailers. However, this is one of those cases where the actual movie bears very little resemblance to the trailers, which makes the reviewers flat out liars.
Regarding the first half of the movie, the reviewers are fairly close. Granted, they don't say anything you couldn't have found out from the trailers, but they're partly right. The Hancock character is a superhero who isn't very heroic, or rather a drunken slob who just happens to have super powers. There are a lot of gags to be had from this, but for the most part Hancock is just too much of a jerk for the jokes to really be funny. There is a blurry line between grungy anti-hero, and super-villian, but Hancock blatantly crosses it. He could save the world 100 times over, and I'd still want him locked away.
The second half is where the reviewers get it all wrong. From the trailers, I'm sure you thought that Hancock has a magical change of heart, and suddenly becomes sappier-than-Superman, and spends the rest of the movie helping people until he finally saves the world from some evil menace. Apparently the reviewers thought so too, because that's what they wrote. In actuality, it never becomes anything even close to resembling a typical formulaic super hero movie. What it does become is a bit of a mess, something harder to classify. But I will say that rather than fighting a final boss or having to move mountains to save humanity, it becomes more about Hancock's own past catching up with him. Spoiler alert, but how many superhero movies are resolved by having the hero literally run away from his problems (and, where it's actually a noble thing to do)?
It would be one thing if I'd only read people's blogs & message board posts. But a couple of the reviews I read were from actual papers, including my local paper. To be fair, in the case of the Tennessean, it might have been one of those national reviews that the local paper reprints. I've tried to find that paper again to see if that was the case, but it had already been thrown away. But regardless of where the review came from, someone was paid to write it, someone who didn't even bother to see the movie first. I've rarely seen such a clear-cut case of sloppy journalism. Telling people you saw a movie when you actually didn't, is the same as not doing your research on any article.
This is not a case of "I liked the movie, and reviewers didn't, so the reviewers suck." I have a few of those ready (Ask me about Starship Troopers sometime. Or Fantastic Four.), but this isn't one of them. I actually feel about the same way the reviewers did - lukewarm. Hancock is a decent matinee (though we got charged full price for a matinee due to Regal's new policy... but that's another rant altogether). The movie is flawed and uneven, with some cruel humor and some nonsensical plot twists. Some of the character motivations seem forced, as if the writers were so intent on it playing out a certain way, they didn't consider whether a certain character would actually do such a thing. But these flaws are not quite enough to make it a bad movie, and the good stuff makes up for the bad, IMO. Your mileage may vary.
But it doesn't matter that the reviewers and I agreed overall. The point is, that I actually bought a ticket (paying too much, Damn you Regal... *ahem*) and watched the thing, while the other guys got paid to write a review and didn't watch it. Maybe it's because I'm out of Cymbalta, but I think these reviewers should be shot, then fired, then shot again. Personally, I would love getting paid to watch movies and then write about them, and I know several people who would consider it a dream job. Can't these people see how good they have it? I might not be the best writer in the world, but if I were hired, I promise I would actually see the movies I'm paid to see.
Bottom line: Don't trust the reviews. And while we're at it, boycott Regal until they change the matinee times back.
Dear Tennessean: Next time you don't do your homework, bring a note from your mother.
I read half-a-dozen reviews for this movie, and none of them were very positive. A typical review:
"Hancock starts out as a hilarious anti-hero movie, showing the flipside to the tired comic book formula. Unfortunately, halfway through the movie Hancock finds his morality, and from there it turns into the very type of movie it tried to parody - the standard formulaic super hero movie."
These reviewers are wrong. They're nuts. And worst of all, they're liars - they reviewed the trailer, not the movie. I know this because that's exactly the kind of review I might have written if I'd only watched the trailers. However, this is one of those cases where the actual movie bears very little resemblance to the trailers, which makes the reviewers flat out liars.
Regarding the first half of the movie, the reviewers are fairly close. Granted, they don't say anything you couldn't have found out from the trailers, but they're partly right. The Hancock character is a superhero who isn't very heroic, or rather a drunken slob who just happens to have super powers. There are a lot of gags to be had from this, but for the most part Hancock is just too much of a jerk for the jokes to really be funny. There is a blurry line between grungy anti-hero, and super-villian, but Hancock blatantly crosses it. He could save the world 100 times over, and I'd still want him locked away.
The second half is where the reviewers get it all wrong. From the trailers, I'm sure you thought that Hancock has a magical change of heart, and suddenly becomes sappier-than-Superman, and spends the rest of the movie helping people until he finally saves the world from some evil menace. Apparently the reviewers thought so too, because that's what they wrote. In actuality, it never becomes anything even close to resembling a typical formulaic super hero movie. What it does become is a bit of a mess, something harder to classify. But I will say that rather than fighting a final boss or having to move mountains to save humanity, it becomes more about Hancock's own past catching up with him. Spoiler alert, but how many superhero movies are resolved by having the hero literally run away from his problems (and, where it's actually a noble thing to do)?
It would be one thing if I'd only read people's blogs & message board posts. But a couple of the reviews I read were from actual papers, including my local paper. To be fair, in the case of the Tennessean, it might have been one of those national reviews that the local paper reprints. I've tried to find that paper again to see if that was the case, but it had already been thrown away. But regardless of where the review came from, someone was paid to write it, someone who didn't even bother to see the movie first. I've rarely seen such a clear-cut case of sloppy journalism. Telling people you saw a movie when you actually didn't, is the same as not doing your research on any article.
This is not a case of "I liked the movie, and reviewers didn't, so the reviewers suck." I have a few of those ready (Ask me about Starship Troopers sometime. Or Fantastic Four.), but this isn't one of them. I actually feel about the same way the reviewers did - lukewarm. Hancock is a decent matinee (though we got charged full price for a matinee due to Regal's new policy... but that's another rant altogether). The movie is flawed and uneven, with some cruel humor and some nonsensical plot twists. Some of the character motivations seem forced, as if the writers were so intent on it playing out a certain way, they didn't consider whether a certain character would actually do such a thing. But these flaws are not quite enough to make it a bad movie, and the good stuff makes up for the bad, IMO. Your mileage may vary.
But it doesn't matter that the reviewers and I agreed overall. The point is, that I actually bought a ticket (paying too much, Damn you Regal... *ahem*) and watched the thing, while the other guys got paid to write a review and didn't watch it. Maybe it's because I'm out of Cymbalta, but I think these reviewers should be shot, then fired, then shot again. Personally, I would love getting paid to watch movies and then write about them, and I know several people who would consider it a dream job. Can't these people see how good they have it? I might not be the best writer in the world, but if I were hired, I promise I would actually see the movies I'm paid to see.
Bottom line: Don't trust the reviews. And while we're at it, boycott Regal until they change the matinee times back.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Mario Kart Wii
I love my Wii, and I love most of the games I've played for it so far. Of course, the best of the best - Wii Sports, Zelda, Metroid, Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros Brawl - are the ones made by Nintendo themselves. They're the only ones who really know how to get the most out of their system. So it's no real surprise that Mario Kart is a hit.
But what a hit... I can honestly say that this is the most fun I've had on the Wii so far. Of course the game is fun, it's Mario Kart - they could have repackaged Mario Kart 64 with some updated graphics and I'd have been happy. And to some extent, that's what they did - there's really not a whole lot of new content here. But the overall package is so enjoyable, that I can't complain.
Well, okay, I can complain. There are a few major flaws that would absolutely cripple it, if it were a non-Nintendo title.
For one thing, I hate the way you lose your items whenever you crash, get hit, spin out, get electrocuted, fall, burn, blink, sneeze, or think about cabbage. In the older Mario Kart games, it was a good strategy to hoarde the best items when you get them, and use them at just the right moment. For example, if you fell off the course but you happened to have a mushroom boost on you, then you could get going again in a flash. In MKW, falling off the course makes you lose that mushroom. It's so easy to lose your items in MKW, that the best strategy is to try to use your items as soon as you get them, before somebody hits you with their items.
And you will get hit often. Which brings me to my next complaint - the newest items are just too powerful. And since it's now 12 racers instead of 8, items are getting used constantly. The way MKW is programmed, the player in the lead gets the worst items, and those bringing up the rear get unblockable psycho-uber WMDs. In theory this is a good idea. In the older MK games, if you found yourself in 8th place in the third lap, then there wasn't much chance you'd place above 7th. With MKW, there's always hope. Now you can go from last to first in the final stretch of the last lap, just by getting the right powerup. And everybody targets the guy in front. So now, when you're the kart in first place, you spend most of your time flattened and shrunk, with a storm cloud over your head, a shell on your ass, and a squid in your face. You're almost better off staying in second for most of the race until the finish line is in sight.
Sometimes it bothers me that I'm not feeling the speed. Often I don't feel like I'm moving any faster than you can run in any given Mario game. And with some of the game's gimmicks (the one where you bounce off mushrooms comes to mind), I almost feel like I'm playing something besides a racing game. Maybe Nintendo needs to make a "Wii Fan" peripheral that blows air in your face, depending on how fast you're going.
Unless I'm missing something, there's seems to be no two-player GP mode. That's too bad, because I always enjoyed unlocking the cups with a friend. You can still race other people, both online and off. But without working towards something, those kind of matches feel a little empty to me. MKW has a lot of new characters and vehicles to unlock, but you have to switch to single player to unlock most of them. And when you unlock things, it only unlocks for the player who unlocks them. So KJ and I will each have to master every GP and time trial by ourselves, if we both want all the characters and vehicles. There's a lot of stuff to unlock (14 characters and 18 vehicles, I think), so doing it twice is a pain. And from what I've read, a few of the characters/karts are going to be a downright pain to unlock.
But despite my complaints, most of the time I'm having too much fun to care. I've seen some mixed reviews of MKW so far... Well, most reviewers have loved it, but a few have made the same complaints I mention above. Also, Nintendo has been accused of just going through the motions for this one, and saying that this is actually a step down from the much more innovative "Mario Kart Double Dash" for the Gamecube. I never played MKDD, so I can't really say if that's true. In fact, I haven't played any of them since the N64 version, so I can only see MKW as a huge improvement.
Sidetrack - Should reviewers base their reviews on previous games in the series? After all, if MKW is only a disappointment to those who played Double Dash, then how many people is that, really? The Wii console has probably outsold the Gamecube several times over by now. This question has bothered me for over a decade. When Capcom released "Super Street Fighter II" for the SNES, EGM gave it a bad review because they were tired of Capcom re-releasing the same game over and over, with only a few improvements. While I agree with the sentiment, I think a game should be reviewed based on its own merits. If a game receives a high score, then a few months later they release a version that's the exact same except for a few improvements, how can it get a lower score? That's letting personal politics get in the way of your review. There might be someone out there who didn't buy the previous versions of the game, who is trying to decide between the second or third version. Then they see that the second version got a better score than the third version, and don't realize that the reviewer was just trying to punish the game company with a bad review.
Another example, and one that never fails to piss me off: When a game is released for a couple of systems I don't own, and gets killer reviews. About a year later, it finally comes to the system I do own, and every review I find says, "Well, it's as good as ever, with a few improvements even. But we've already played it on Systems A and B, and we've moved on. We've beaten it so many times that we're bored with it now, so we're giving it a low score." WTF? Not everybody owns all three current consoles. How about a review for those of us who haven't played it yet? I'm a late adopter. I tend to wait for the prices to come down before I buy something. So I don't mind playing games with last year's graphics. Heck, I still regularly play games with last decade's graphics.
Anyway, sidetrack over, back to MKW. The online mode is a lot of fun. It's hard to say what's different, except that real people are a lot less predictable than computer AI. And knocking someone off the track is somehow more fulfilling when you know there's another human at the controls, than when it's just another bot.
The wheel works a lot better than I thought it would. I personally do better with the classic controller, as it's what I'm used to after all these years. But I have played with the wheel, and it's pretty responsive and a lot of fun. KJ does great with it, and it's all she uses. I just might have to buy a second wheel when I get the cash.
So if you have a Wii, and you've enjoyed any of the Mario Kart series in the past, you should pick this one up. It's flawed but fun. I wouldn't buy a Wii just for this game, but I wouldn't buy a Wii without it.
Anyway, if any of you also have a Wii, and want to add me to your friends list and whatnot, here's my Nintendo codes. Like Smash Bros, Mario Kart Wii requires its own code, different from the Wii console's friend code. Remember that I have to add yours as well, or nothing will happen. So if you put in my codes, you also have to send me yours.
Wii Console Friend Code:
7045 1920 7172 8881
Smash Bros Code:
4468 0854 8798
Mario Kart Wii:
Matt 0387-9165-2538
KJ 1504-6091-8383
But what a hit... I can honestly say that this is the most fun I've had on the Wii so far. Of course the game is fun, it's Mario Kart - they could have repackaged Mario Kart 64 with some updated graphics and I'd have been happy. And to some extent, that's what they did - there's really not a whole lot of new content here. But the overall package is so enjoyable, that I can't complain.
Well, okay, I can complain. There are a few major flaws that would absolutely cripple it, if it were a non-Nintendo title.
For one thing, I hate the way you lose your items whenever you crash, get hit, spin out, get electrocuted, fall, burn, blink, sneeze, or think about cabbage. In the older Mario Kart games, it was a good strategy to hoarde the best items when you get them, and use them at just the right moment. For example, if you fell off the course but you happened to have a mushroom boost on you, then you could get going again in a flash. In MKW, falling off the course makes you lose that mushroom. It's so easy to lose your items in MKW, that the best strategy is to try to use your items as soon as you get them, before somebody hits you with their items.
And you will get hit often. Which brings me to my next complaint - the newest items are just too powerful. And since it's now 12 racers instead of 8, items are getting used constantly. The way MKW is programmed, the player in the lead gets the worst items, and those bringing up the rear get unblockable psycho-uber WMDs. In theory this is a good idea. In the older MK games, if you found yourself in 8th place in the third lap, then there wasn't much chance you'd place above 7th. With MKW, there's always hope. Now you can go from last to first in the final stretch of the last lap, just by getting the right powerup. And everybody targets the guy in front. So now, when you're the kart in first place, you spend most of your time flattened and shrunk, with a storm cloud over your head, a shell on your ass, and a squid in your face. You're almost better off staying in second for most of the race until the finish line is in sight.
Sometimes it bothers me that I'm not feeling the speed. Often I don't feel like I'm moving any faster than you can run in any given Mario game. And with some of the game's gimmicks (the one where you bounce off mushrooms comes to mind), I almost feel like I'm playing something besides a racing game. Maybe Nintendo needs to make a "Wii Fan" peripheral that blows air in your face, depending on how fast you're going.
Unless I'm missing something, there's seems to be no two-player GP mode. That's too bad, because I always enjoyed unlocking the cups with a friend. You can still race other people, both online and off. But without working towards something, those kind of matches feel a little empty to me. MKW has a lot of new characters and vehicles to unlock, but you have to switch to single player to unlock most of them. And when you unlock things, it only unlocks for the player who unlocks them. So KJ and I will each have to master every GP and time trial by ourselves, if we both want all the characters and vehicles. There's a lot of stuff to unlock (14 characters and 18 vehicles, I think), so doing it twice is a pain. And from what I've read, a few of the characters/karts are going to be a downright pain to unlock.
But despite my complaints, most of the time I'm having too much fun to care. I've seen some mixed reviews of MKW so far... Well, most reviewers have loved it, but a few have made the same complaints I mention above. Also, Nintendo has been accused of just going through the motions for this one, and saying that this is actually a step down from the much more innovative "Mario Kart Double Dash" for the Gamecube. I never played MKDD, so I can't really say if that's true. In fact, I haven't played any of them since the N64 version, so I can only see MKW as a huge improvement.
Sidetrack - Should reviewers base their reviews on previous games in the series? After all, if MKW is only a disappointment to those who played Double Dash, then how many people is that, really? The Wii console has probably outsold the Gamecube several times over by now. This question has bothered me for over a decade. When Capcom released "Super Street Fighter II" for the SNES, EGM gave it a bad review because they were tired of Capcom re-releasing the same game over and over, with only a few improvements. While I agree with the sentiment, I think a game should be reviewed based on its own merits. If a game receives a high score, then a few months later they release a version that's the exact same except for a few improvements, how can it get a lower score? That's letting personal politics get in the way of your review. There might be someone out there who didn't buy the previous versions of the game, who is trying to decide between the second or third version. Then they see that the second version got a better score than the third version, and don't realize that the reviewer was just trying to punish the game company with a bad review.
Another example, and one that never fails to piss me off: When a game is released for a couple of systems I don't own, and gets killer reviews. About a year later, it finally comes to the system I do own, and every review I find says, "Well, it's as good as ever, with a few improvements even. But we've already played it on Systems A and B, and we've moved on. We've beaten it so many times that we're bored with it now, so we're giving it a low score." WTF? Not everybody owns all three current consoles. How about a review for those of us who haven't played it yet? I'm a late adopter. I tend to wait for the prices to come down before I buy something. So I don't mind playing games with last year's graphics. Heck, I still regularly play games with last decade's graphics.
Anyway, sidetrack over, back to MKW. The online mode is a lot of fun. It's hard to say what's different, except that real people are a lot less predictable than computer AI. And knocking someone off the track is somehow more fulfilling when you know there's another human at the controls, than when it's just another bot.
The wheel works a lot better than I thought it would. I personally do better with the classic controller, as it's what I'm used to after all these years. But I have played with the wheel, and it's pretty responsive and a lot of fun. KJ does great with it, and it's all she uses. I just might have to buy a second wheel when I get the cash.
So if you have a Wii, and you've enjoyed any of the Mario Kart series in the past, you should pick this one up. It's flawed but fun. I wouldn't buy a Wii just for this game, but I wouldn't buy a Wii without it.
Anyway, if any of you also have a Wii, and want to add me to your friends list and whatnot, here's my Nintendo codes. Like Smash Bros, Mario Kart Wii requires its own code, different from the Wii console's friend code. Remember that I have to add yours as well, or nothing will happen. So if you put in my codes, you also have to send me yours.
Wii Console Friend Code:
7045 1920 7172 8881
Smash Bros Code:
4468 0854 8798
Mario Kart Wii:
Matt 0387-9165-2538
KJ 1504-6091-8383
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Batblog
There's really no point in making a long blog about The Dark Knight. If you're reading this, you've probably already seen it. If not, you've probably read some of the many glowing reviews of it. If you're on the fence, seriously, see it, you won't regret it. Beyond this sentence, I can't promise there won't be spoilers.
It's very intelligent. Not just "smart for a comic book movie", but smart for any genre. It didn't miss a trick, throwing out ethical questions just as often as explosions. It was a little overlong, but that's my bladder talking. There's not a lot of scenes I would have removed.
The Joker is incredibly well-done. He's morbidly funny, but more importantly, he's crafty and scary. Part clown, part Hannibal Lecter. He is a true psychopath, unpredictable and unremorseful. His machinations are brilliant, making the movie feel more chess-like than most similar attempts I've seen. I can not tell you how much I hate that Heath Ledger died, and how guilty I feel that I'm so glad he finished this movie first, and how selfish I feel for wishing he was still alive for a sequel. It's like saying, "It's okay for most people to die, but not the ones that entertain me." But I didn't know him, and thousands of people die every day, so I can only process his death in the ways that it effects me personally. Still, as much as I admire Ledger's performance, it is copyable. Another actor could do it, with practice. With a thorough enough casting call, they could get another actor to replace Ledger if they're determined to put the Joker in a sequel. It helps that he wore clown makeup for the entire movie.
Two-Face was awesome. Yeah, yeah, the makeup/CGI blend was incredible, yadda yadda, but the writing is the key. He didn't go around pulling two-themed crimes and strapping Batman to giant coins; actually, he didn't have much time to do anything silly. Instead, his tragic tale is told very realistically (given the parameters), and given just the right amount of screen time. Some people were disappointed that his entire story is done as the movie's "B" plot, but I'm glad they did it this way. I don't think Two-Face (at least, post-accident) is a strong enough character to carry a 2.5-hour movie, nor do I think this version of the character had much farther to go. He experiences a tragedy, his mind snaps, and he seeks a quick and violent (though misguided) revenge. A longer movie would have had him become a crime boss, and that's just not what this version of Two-Face was about. His motivations were better served by a quick ending. He probably would have died from infections before too long anyway.
After the realism of the first movie, I was a bit worried that having colorful over-the-top villains would cheapen this one. It doesn't. Though I still don't want them to deluge us with sequels, throwing in every silly animal-themed villian from the Penguin to Killer Croc.
And that's maybe the only problem I have with this series. The movie itself is smarter than the concept. I'm watching the movie and thinking, "Hey, that's a good line... Hey, that's a brilliant plot twist... Hey, that's a deep character... Hey, the hero is dressed like a freaking BAT!" I love Batman, but that is hard to get past. His main schtick is creating an air of superstition around Gotham's underworld, making the bad guys wonder, "Is he real? Is he a man or a monster?" This strategy can only work for the short term. Once Batman gets more exposure - getting caught on film, speaking in public, etc - that part of his career is over. Criminals will no longer be afraid of him, or at least they won't fear him any more than they fear the police. He'd still be an effective detective and prime crime fighter, but at that point he might as well lose the silly ears and wear something more like a ninja costume. Or (*gasp*) become a legitimate detective and fight crime legally!
That's what bothers me about the comics & cartoons. They can start his origin over and over, but any time the same series has lasted long enough to be handled by enough different writers, then eventually the "legend" part dies and he's just another guy in animal jammies. Sooner or later he starts fighting in the day time, working with groups like the Justice League, making television appearances, telling kids not to do drugs, and so on. And that turns him from scary to silly. The comics will have you believe that the Batjet can be seen fighting off an alien invasion alongside Superman and Captain Marvel, as the world watches on TV... then the following week in Batman's own comic, the criminals still fear the mysterious Bat, who may or may not exist, who could be watching them at any time.
So one of the reasons the Dark Knight movie works for me, is that it appears to take place shortly after the first one. Therefore the legend hasn't had a chance to die. If they make a third one, I hope they continue to give it a short timeline. I just can't believe that a fear-based hero would work for very long. In the Dark Knight movie we already see a couple of villains who are no longer intimidated by Batman's song-and-dance, and I have to believe that this familiarity would spread quickly, reducing any fear the criminals have of the Bat.
I would like to see a third movie, but only if they actually have another intelligent story to tell. I don't want them to go into it thinking, "This is a money maker, so we have to hash out something" the way some movies do. I don't know which villian I would want to see. Batman's enemies are too flashy and silly, and while they're great fun, they just don't fit in this movie series. I don't care how serious they make him, nobody is going to fear a crime boss called "The Penguin". The Riddler is just a knock-off of the Joker. Most of Batman's enemies are insane, but we've already done the "Batman fights an insane person" plot. And the ones with super powers like Clayface are right out. First person who suggests King Tut or Egghead gets kicked in the nads.
I wouldn't mind seeing Bane, but only if they do it right. Forget the movie and cartoon versions, and give him the intuitiveness and craftiness he has in the comics. Give him a personality like John Malkovich in Con Air, and don't comically overdo his strength. I want the Bane who was raised by the prison system from birth, the one who figured out Batman's secret identity just by "knowing his enemy", the one who masterminded the Arkham breakout just to make Batman tired. But that's just me. (Edit: I also wouldn't mind Lady Shiva.)
I don't want to see this series turn into another villain-of-the-week battle, the way most superhero movies do. After all, one of the best parts of the Dark Knight movie is that it's not the same plot as Batman Begins. Not to put down other superhero movies; everything has its place. They can make 30 Spider-Man movies for all I care, each one siller than the last, each one the exact same movie with a different bad guy pasted in. I'll still see them all, and have fun doing it. But the Dark Knight isn't about finding flashier enemies and CGI effects. It's about having a great story, and telling it well.
If there is a third movie, I would like an ending that deals a major blow to Gotham's crime problem, thus eliminating the need for Batman. Have Batman retire at the end of the movie, and fade away into legend. Let Bruce Wayne concentrate on corporate means of making the world a better place. Didn't they say that most of Gotham's crime issues come from the corrupt cops? Do you honestly believe Bruce Wayne isn't powerful enough to have these cops removed and replaced with more honest officers? That combination of intelligence and wealth doesn't need a cape & cowl to be scary.
Then... when the time is right... make a fourth movie that takes place 20 or 30 years later, when the Batman is needed again. We could call it something like... "The Dark Knight Comes Back"? No... "The Dark Knight Unretires"? No.... Oh, I don't know, ask Frank Miller.
It's very intelligent. Not just "smart for a comic book movie", but smart for any genre. It didn't miss a trick, throwing out ethical questions just as often as explosions. It was a little overlong, but that's my bladder talking. There's not a lot of scenes I would have removed.
The Joker is incredibly well-done. He's morbidly funny, but more importantly, he's crafty and scary. Part clown, part Hannibal Lecter. He is a true psychopath, unpredictable and unremorseful. His machinations are brilliant, making the movie feel more chess-like than most similar attempts I've seen. I can not tell you how much I hate that Heath Ledger died, and how guilty I feel that I'm so glad he finished this movie first, and how selfish I feel for wishing he was still alive for a sequel. It's like saying, "It's okay for most people to die, but not the ones that entertain me." But I didn't know him, and thousands of people die every day, so I can only process his death in the ways that it effects me personally. Still, as much as I admire Ledger's performance, it is copyable. Another actor could do it, with practice. With a thorough enough casting call, they could get another actor to replace Ledger if they're determined to put the Joker in a sequel. It helps that he wore clown makeup for the entire movie.
Two-Face was awesome. Yeah, yeah, the makeup/CGI blend was incredible, yadda yadda, but the writing is the key. He didn't go around pulling two-themed crimes and strapping Batman to giant coins; actually, he didn't have much time to do anything silly. Instead, his tragic tale is told very realistically (given the parameters), and given just the right amount of screen time. Some people were disappointed that his entire story is done as the movie's "B" plot, but I'm glad they did it this way. I don't think Two-Face (at least, post-accident) is a strong enough character to carry a 2.5-hour movie, nor do I think this version of the character had much farther to go. He experiences a tragedy, his mind snaps, and he seeks a quick and violent (though misguided) revenge. A longer movie would have had him become a crime boss, and that's just not what this version of Two-Face was about. His motivations were better served by a quick ending. He probably would have died from infections before too long anyway.
After the realism of the first movie, I was a bit worried that having colorful over-the-top villains would cheapen this one. It doesn't. Though I still don't want them to deluge us with sequels, throwing in every silly animal-themed villian from the Penguin to Killer Croc.
And that's maybe the only problem I have with this series. The movie itself is smarter than the concept. I'm watching the movie and thinking, "Hey, that's a good line... Hey, that's a brilliant plot twist... Hey, that's a deep character... Hey, the hero is dressed like a freaking BAT!" I love Batman, but that is hard to get past. His main schtick is creating an air of superstition around Gotham's underworld, making the bad guys wonder, "Is he real? Is he a man or a monster?" This strategy can only work for the short term. Once Batman gets more exposure - getting caught on film, speaking in public, etc - that part of his career is over. Criminals will no longer be afraid of him, or at least they won't fear him any more than they fear the police. He'd still be an effective detective and prime crime fighter, but at that point he might as well lose the silly ears and wear something more like a ninja costume. Or (*gasp*) become a legitimate detective and fight crime legally!
That's what bothers me about the comics & cartoons. They can start his origin over and over, but any time the same series has lasted long enough to be handled by enough different writers, then eventually the "legend" part dies and he's just another guy in animal jammies. Sooner or later he starts fighting in the day time, working with groups like the Justice League, making television appearances, telling kids not to do drugs, and so on. And that turns him from scary to silly. The comics will have you believe that the Batjet can be seen fighting off an alien invasion alongside Superman and Captain Marvel, as the world watches on TV... then the following week in Batman's own comic, the criminals still fear the mysterious Bat, who may or may not exist, who could be watching them at any time.
So one of the reasons the Dark Knight movie works for me, is that it appears to take place shortly after the first one. Therefore the legend hasn't had a chance to die. If they make a third one, I hope they continue to give it a short timeline. I just can't believe that a fear-based hero would work for very long. In the Dark Knight movie we already see a couple of villains who are no longer intimidated by Batman's song-and-dance, and I have to believe that this familiarity would spread quickly, reducing any fear the criminals have of the Bat.
I would like to see a third movie, but only if they actually have another intelligent story to tell. I don't want them to go into it thinking, "This is a money maker, so we have to hash out something" the way some movies do. I don't know which villian I would want to see. Batman's enemies are too flashy and silly, and while they're great fun, they just don't fit in this movie series. I don't care how serious they make him, nobody is going to fear a crime boss called "The Penguin". The Riddler is just a knock-off of the Joker. Most of Batman's enemies are insane, but we've already done the "Batman fights an insane person" plot. And the ones with super powers like Clayface are right out. First person who suggests King Tut or Egghead gets kicked in the nads.
I wouldn't mind seeing Bane, but only if they do it right. Forget the movie and cartoon versions, and give him the intuitiveness and craftiness he has in the comics. Give him a personality like John Malkovich in Con Air, and don't comically overdo his strength. I want the Bane who was raised by the prison system from birth, the one who figured out Batman's secret identity just by "knowing his enemy", the one who masterminded the Arkham breakout just to make Batman tired. But that's just me. (Edit: I also wouldn't mind Lady Shiva.)
I don't want to see this series turn into another villain-of-the-week battle, the way most superhero movies do. After all, one of the best parts of the Dark Knight movie is that it's not the same plot as Batman Begins. Not to put down other superhero movies; everything has its place. They can make 30 Spider-Man movies for all I care, each one siller than the last, each one the exact same movie with a different bad guy pasted in. I'll still see them all, and have fun doing it. But the Dark Knight isn't about finding flashier enemies and CGI effects. It's about having a great story, and telling it well.
If there is a third movie, I would like an ending that deals a major blow to Gotham's crime problem, thus eliminating the need for Batman. Have Batman retire at the end of the movie, and fade away into legend. Let Bruce Wayne concentrate on corporate means of making the world a better place. Didn't they say that most of Gotham's crime issues come from the corrupt cops? Do you honestly believe Bruce Wayne isn't powerful enough to have these cops removed and replaced with more honest officers? That combination of intelligence and wealth doesn't need a cape & cowl to be scary.
Then... when the time is right... make a fourth movie that takes place 20 or 30 years later, when the Batman is needed again. We could call it something like... "The Dark Knight Comes Back"? No... "The Dark Knight Unretires"? No.... Oh, I don't know, ask Frank Miller.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Jumper / Vantage Point / Cloverfield
Spoilers abound, so I'll sum up first:
Jumper - Not bad, but not memorable.
Vantage Point - Pretty decent, but it's been done before.
Cloverfield - Awesome, but nausea-inducing.
Jumper:
Nothing memorable - you're not going to go out afterwards and buy the video game - but it's still a pretty good time. Hayden discovers he can teleport. No real scientific explanation is ever given, but random people are discovering they have this power. Sort of like X-Men, except everybody's Nightcrawler. What annoyed me most was the Paladins - a secret society of fanatics who know about the Jumpers, and want to kill them for no particular reason. The motivation of the Paladins was paper-thin - "Because no one should have that much power." - that might be enough to justify a few nutjob vigilantes, but a whole secret society? Plus, the concept that for every secret group, there's another secret group that knows about them. Like the Watchers on Buffy. Or the, uh, Watchers on Highlander. Even Anne Rice's Vampire books have a Watchers-type group.
If you want to see it just to make fun of it, there's plenty of humor potential in the "Anakin Skywalker Vs Mace Windu" theme. Jackson even uses an electric shocker stick that looks sort of lightsabery. Hayden's acting skills have improved some, but he's still not great.
Vantage Point:
This is not the movie I thought it was going to be from the trailers. My Supposition: The president gets shot, investigators find that six people in the crowd had video cameras, the footage is recovered, and the rest of the movie is a dramatic investigation in JFK-style. The Actual Movie: From the TV station's point of view, the President is shot and a bomb goes off. Then the movie rewinds the 23 minutes you've seen so far, and replays the same event from a different character's point of view, this time giving you a bit more insight. Then they do it again. It's the same story six times, from different characters' POVs, each going a bit farther and revealing a bit more of the plot.
Sitting next to me, Bryan kept thinking of that Star Trek episode where the Enterprise keeps blowing up. I kept thinking of Groundhog day, so every time the next segment started, I had to stop myself from singing, "You put your little hand in mine..." And for some reason, I whenever the action rewound to start the next segment, I wanted to say, "Previously on 24"... even though I've never seen 24.
I would call this movie groundbreaking and brilliant, if I hadn't seen the concept done before on various TV shows. I think there's even an episode of the Batman cartoon series that was done this way. And while Vantage Point is a pretty good movie, the gimmick is really all it has going for it. The story isn't very deep or interesting, and if it was shown straight through like a normal movie, it wouldn't have even made it to the theaters.
A pet peeve of mine: The trailer for this movie contains a major spoiler. It shows that the president is actually still alive, even though the movie audience doesn't find out until at least halfway through the movie.
Cloverfield:
This one get summed up as "Blair Witch meets Godzilla", and it's really not much deeper than that. And it's true what they say about the shakiness - if you get nauseous easily, you should definitely take a Dramamine first. Comparing action movies to amusement park rides is cliche, but this time it truly fits. Cloverfield is like one of those roller coasters that really makes you sick, but you ride it anyway because it's worth it. And Cloverfield is definitely worth it. I've seen plenty of "giant monster destroys city" movies, but I've never actually thought they were scary. But seeing it through the victims' eyes really does sell it. Never has a giant monster looked more menacing, because never have I seen a giant monster from this angle.
Some minor nitpicks, because it just wouldn't be me to call a movie perfect: The opening is a bit long. There's some very good reasons for it, and I don't begrudge the director one bit for giving us so much background on the characters. But when this puppy hits DVD, I'm fast-forwarding to the action. Some of the characters show superhuman toughness that can't just be chalked up to adrenaline. And... okay, this is really nitpicky, but... It's two thousand frikkin eight. Is there really anybody out there who has never held a video camera? And even if you've never touched one, are they really that hard to figure out?
Yes, I'm talking about the shakiness. This is the one type of movie where I not only forgive the use of a shakycam, but I even encourage it. But they still overdid it. I understand that when you're being chased by monsters, you're not going to worry about getting good footage. And even when standing still, if you're in a life-or-death situation, you still might have the shakes. But even at the beginning of the movie, when he's just walking around the party, he's shaking it, tilting it in odd ways, zooming badly, and so on. The amateurs on "America's Funniest Home Videos" possessed better camera skills 15 years ago.
But overall, Cloverfield is an awesome movie, and defintely worth a little queasiness. It relies heavily on the "what you don't show is as important as what you do" method of storytelling, and it leaves the audience with a lot of questions - but in a good way. Now I'm hearing rumors of other movies in the works using the same "found footage" format. I hope this doesn't become a genre. Once or twice is innovative, but beyond that it's just annoying.
Jumper - Not bad, but not memorable.
Vantage Point - Pretty decent, but it's been done before.
Cloverfield - Awesome, but nausea-inducing.
Jumper:
Nothing memorable - you're not going to go out afterwards and buy the video game - but it's still a pretty good time. Hayden discovers he can teleport. No real scientific explanation is ever given, but random people are discovering they have this power. Sort of like X-Men, except everybody's Nightcrawler. What annoyed me most was the Paladins - a secret society of fanatics who know about the Jumpers, and want to kill them for no particular reason. The motivation of the Paladins was paper-thin - "Because no one should have that much power." - that might be enough to justify a few nutjob vigilantes, but a whole secret society? Plus, the concept that for every secret group, there's another secret group that knows about them. Like the Watchers on Buffy. Or the, uh, Watchers on Highlander. Even Anne Rice's Vampire books have a Watchers-type group.
If you want to see it just to make fun of it, there's plenty of humor potential in the "Anakin Skywalker Vs Mace Windu" theme. Jackson even uses an electric shocker stick that looks sort of lightsabery. Hayden's acting skills have improved some, but he's still not great.
Vantage Point:
This is not the movie I thought it was going to be from the trailers. My Supposition: The president gets shot, investigators find that six people in the crowd had video cameras, the footage is recovered, and the rest of the movie is a dramatic investigation in JFK-style. The Actual Movie: From the TV station's point of view, the President is shot and a bomb goes off. Then the movie rewinds the 23 minutes you've seen so far, and replays the same event from a different character's point of view, this time giving you a bit more insight. Then they do it again. It's the same story six times, from different characters' POVs, each going a bit farther and revealing a bit more of the plot.
Sitting next to me, Bryan kept thinking of that Star Trek episode where the Enterprise keeps blowing up. I kept thinking of Groundhog day, so every time the next segment started, I had to stop myself from singing, "You put your little hand in mine..." And for some reason, I whenever the action rewound to start the next segment, I wanted to say, "Previously on 24"... even though I've never seen 24.
I would call this movie groundbreaking and brilliant, if I hadn't seen the concept done before on various TV shows. I think there's even an episode of the Batman cartoon series that was done this way. And while Vantage Point is a pretty good movie, the gimmick is really all it has going for it. The story isn't very deep or interesting, and if it was shown straight through like a normal movie, it wouldn't have even made it to the theaters.
A pet peeve of mine: The trailer for this movie contains a major spoiler. It shows that the president is actually still alive, even though the movie audience doesn't find out until at least halfway through the movie.
Cloverfield:
This one get summed up as "Blair Witch meets Godzilla", and it's really not much deeper than that. And it's true what they say about the shakiness - if you get nauseous easily, you should definitely take a Dramamine first. Comparing action movies to amusement park rides is cliche, but this time it truly fits. Cloverfield is like one of those roller coasters that really makes you sick, but you ride it anyway because it's worth it. And Cloverfield is definitely worth it. I've seen plenty of "giant monster destroys city" movies, but I've never actually thought they were scary. But seeing it through the victims' eyes really does sell it. Never has a giant monster looked more menacing, because never have I seen a giant monster from this angle.
Some minor nitpicks, because it just wouldn't be me to call a movie perfect: The opening is a bit long. There's some very good reasons for it, and I don't begrudge the director one bit for giving us so much background on the characters. But when this puppy hits DVD, I'm fast-forwarding to the action. Some of the characters show superhuman toughness that can't just be chalked up to adrenaline. And... okay, this is really nitpicky, but... It's two thousand frikkin eight. Is there really anybody out there who has never held a video camera? And even if you've never touched one, are they really that hard to figure out?
Yes, I'm talking about the shakiness. This is the one type of movie where I not only forgive the use of a shakycam, but I even encourage it. But they still overdid it. I understand that when you're being chased by monsters, you're not going to worry about getting good footage. And even when standing still, if you're in a life-or-death situation, you still might have the shakes. But even at the beginning of the movie, when he's just walking around the party, he's shaking it, tilting it in odd ways, zooming badly, and so on. The amateurs on "America's Funniest Home Videos" possessed better camera skills 15 years ago.
But overall, Cloverfield is an awesome movie, and defintely worth a little queasiness. It relies heavily on the "what you don't show is as important as what you do" method of storytelling, and it leaves the audience with a lot of questions - but in a good way. Now I'm hearing rumors of other movies in the works using the same "found footage" format. I hope this doesn't become a genre. Once or twice is innovative, but beyond that it's just annoying.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Three Movies & Six Minutes
Alien Vs Predator: Requiem
This is the type of bad movie I usually love. Good action, nice gore effects, bad script, bad acting. I had a lot of fun. But there's really not a whole lot to be said about this movie. If you like the AVP universe, it has some nice eye candy. After seeing the Aliens in mostly isolated sci-fi settings, it's pretty surreal to see them running around a modern day city. Spoiler alert (not that this movie has a lot of twists): There's only one Predator in this one, so it's not so much the war scenario we saw in the AVP, and more similar to the hunter scenario of the original Predator movies. And the hybrid Alien/Predator is pretty neat, but the action figure is cooler looking.
Sweeny Todd
According to Wikipedia, the Broadway musical Sweeny Todd opened in 1979. It was based on a 1973 play, which in turn was based on a 19th century legend. Well, I don't care. It was written for Tim Burton. This story fits Burton's style so much, that I can't picture anyone else filming it. KJ and I saw the play about a year ago, and loved every minute of it. However, the movie blows it away... which is not something I would usually say. It's like saying, "The movie was better than the book" - it's just not done, at least not by those who consider themselves intellectual. And I'm sure that we didn't see the best production of Sweeny Todd ever made; it was at a small playhouse with a low budget. But I can't imagine any play being able to capture the mood of Burton's theatrical version.
It's funny, if someone had simply told me, "They're making a movie version of Sweeny Todd", I wouldn't have had any thoughts about the casting. But if someone had told me, "Tim Burton's making a movie version of Sweeny Todd", I would have immediately known: Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter. And they both do fantastic jobs. A warning, the movie is a musical (for those who hate musicals) and it is very, very, very, very bloody. It's an unrealistically bright red blood that artistically offsets the lack of color elsewhere in the movie, but it can still be nausea-inducing for those who don't deal well with gore.
While not my favorite movie of all time, this is one of those few movies I consider "flawless", in that I really can't think of anything I would change.
I Am Legend
Great movie, but I don't think I'll see it again. This is the third movie based on the Richard Matheson novel, but variations of the plot have been used in dozens of other movies. So one way or another, you've probably already seen it. This is one of the better versions of the "last man on Earth fights mutants" story, but it's a little uneven, and I think a lot of the movie will be boring on repeated viewings. Also, the computer effects could have used a little polish. I hear that they decided to use computer-rendered mutants at the last moment (they tried makeup but it didn't look right), and it shows. It wasn't bad enough to pull me out of the movie, but it was bad enough for me to think, "Isn't this 2007?" Overall, I highly recommend the movie, especially if you see it on IMAX, where you'll see...
The Dark Knight preview
As much as I enjoyed "I Am Legend", this six minute preview of the upcoming Batman movie was better. You can find it online if you look hard enough, but seeing it on the IMAX screen was just awesome. It basically shows a bank robbery pulled off by the Joker's gang, with several plot twists already showing how delightfully devious the new Joker is going to be. Based on this preview, I really don't know if they're going to be able to keep the realism that I loved so much in Batman Begins... but I still think this movie is going to rock.
By the way, Happy New Year!
This is the type of bad movie I usually love. Good action, nice gore effects, bad script, bad acting. I had a lot of fun. But there's really not a whole lot to be said about this movie. If you like the AVP universe, it has some nice eye candy. After seeing the Aliens in mostly isolated sci-fi settings, it's pretty surreal to see them running around a modern day city. Spoiler alert (not that this movie has a lot of twists): There's only one Predator in this one, so it's not so much the war scenario we saw in the AVP, and more similar to the hunter scenario of the original Predator movies. And the hybrid Alien/Predator is pretty neat, but the action figure is cooler looking.
Sweeny Todd
According to Wikipedia, the Broadway musical Sweeny Todd opened in 1979. It was based on a 1973 play, which in turn was based on a 19th century legend. Well, I don't care. It was written for Tim Burton. This story fits Burton's style so much, that I can't picture anyone else filming it. KJ and I saw the play about a year ago, and loved every minute of it. However, the movie blows it away... which is not something I would usually say. It's like saying, "The movie was better than the book" - it's just not done, at least not by those who consider themselves intellectual. And I'm sure that we didn't see the best production of Sweeny Todd ever made; it was at a small playhouse with a low budget. But I can't imagine any play being able to capture the mood of Burton's theatrical version.
It's funny, if someone had simply told me, "They're making a movie version of Sweeny Todd", I wouldn't have had any thoughts about the casting. But if someone had told me, "Tim Burton's making a movie version of Sweeny Todd", I would have immediately known: Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter. And they both do fantastic jobs. A warning, the movie is a musical (for those who hate musicals) and it is very, very, very, very bloody. It's an unrealistically bright red blood that artistically offsets the lack of color elsewhere in the movie, but it can still be nausea-inducing for those who don't deal well with gore.
While not my favorite movie of all time, this is one of those few movies I consider "flawless", in that I really can't think of anything I would change.
I Am Legend
Great movie, but I don't think I'll see it again. This is the third movie based on the Richard Matheson novel, but variations of the plot have been used in dozens of other movies. So one way or another, you've probably already seen it. This is one of the better versions of the "last man on Earth fights mutants" story, but it's a little uneven, and I think a lot of the movie will be boring on repeated viewings. Also, the computer effects could have used a little polish. I hear that they decided to use computer-rendered mutants at the last moment (they tried makeup but it didn't look right), and it shows. It wasn't bad enough to pull me out of the movie, but it was bad enough for me to think, "Isn't this 2007?" Overall, I highly recommend the movie, especially if you see it on IMAX, where you'll see...
The Dark Knight preview
As much as I enjoyed "I Am Legend", this six minute preview of the upcoming Batman movie was better. You can find it online if you look hard enough, but seeing it on the IMAX screen was just awesome. It basically shows a bank robbery pulled off by the Joker's gang, with several plot twists already showing how delightfully devious the new Joker is going to be. Based on this preview, I really don't know if they're going to be able to keep the realism that I loved so much in Batman Begins... but I still think this movie is going to rock.
By the way, Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)