tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63508767699853206032024-03-13T16:15:00.286+00:00Slightly RamblomaticOr: The Random Ramblings of RossRosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.comBlogger216125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-50811138805535080242013-09-26T19:34:00.000+01:002013-09-26T23:50:10.540+01:00Late to the Party #3 - Gee Tee Ay Musing<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Rostopher is usually...</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGKxjr1qe04mPvEIK7Bd-B8qW25g6wMbbO4BTD-IwFc-JO6CmcSueXhjBry78QKlqMDc6buexidDtMbfcrYH4c7BiVTch61fPs4NFYQUUflKb3bEUl7-92CCK-7tx6ScrqPtx2bVuTQLAi/s1600/Late+to+the+Party+logo.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="156" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGKxjr1qe04mPvEIK7Bd-B8qW25g6wMbbO4BTD-IwFc-JO6CmcSueXhjBry78QKlqMDc6buexidDtMbfcrYH4c7BiVTch61fPs4NFYQUUflKb3bEUl7-92CCK-7tx6ScrqPtx2bVuTQLAi/s400/Late+to+the+Party+logo.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i><b>#3 - Gee Tee Ay Musing</b></i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo3TKpq3dbVrlanHr9c3Lyu4pVJTPaAy_fiYUPFw_4BuM4Fz0ktiTU7nptAKKlESA2RLBrDu8dzHwM_kbGSTmhH69_fiIK7-ztwygp-yvogCraEkLS2PR-kw-YjfQfQYx3bR8PNLBYK51D/s1600/GTA+V.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo3TKpq3dbVrlanHr9c3Lyu4pVJTPaAy_fiYUPFw_4BuM4Fz0ktiTU7nptAKKlESA2RLBrDu8dzHwM_kbGSTmhH69_fiIK7-ztwygp-yvogCraEkLS2PR-kw-YjfQfQYx3bR8PNLBYK51D/s640/GTA+V.jpg" width="600" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>Spoilers throughout. You have been warned. </i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">So it has come to pass - Rockstar's generational opus is upon us, <a href="http://slightlyramblomatic.blogspot.com/2013/09/late-to-party-2-dont-hate-game-hate.html">as may have been hinted at ever so slightly in the last issue</a>. And now, I've had an opportunity to play it! Shocker, I know, but it seems curiously necessary to point out that <i>now</i>, I have actually played the game. Well, most of it. It's just that a lot of the cricism came <i>way </i>to early for people to have actually played through the whole thing. Just throwing that out that.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">Any-bally-hoo, we'll start with a micro-review, and about half-way through it, we'll move on to the actual meat of the matter, because...well, that's where it is: half-way through a review! </span></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">GTA V is a really quite brilliant game. On the technical side, it's hugely impressive, particularly given that it's currently running on 8-year-old hardware. The fidelity of the world is the highlight - a self-contained, satirical snapshot of modern American society. Los Santos' rotten, corrupt heart hidden beneath a sheen of sunshine, fast cars and palm trees; Sandy Shores, a blistering, dust-covered hickville...sorry, 'home of rural Americans'; Grapeseed, your quiet little whitebread town; and Paleto Bay, your tiny beach community. Despite the triple-protagonist gimmick eliminating their necessity, you'll still find yourself setting out on drives from one mission to another, or indeed from nowhere to nowhere else. </span></span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">Allow me to paint a picture - and in no way will it do justice to the majesty of it, but I'll do my damn best.</span></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">I had been messing about on a jetski as Michael, the mobster archetype protagonist, and found myself in Paleto Bay just as the sun set over the water. I beached the jetski, and wandered into town, locating a suitable unmanned vehicle and performing the titular crime. The radio tunes in to a station playing some impressively smooth jazz, and I pull into the local garage to clean the car up. I checked my map, and saw that Michael's next mission was back at his house in Rockford Hills, a wealthy suburb in north Los Santos. I set my sat-nav marker, and set off, the route carrying me along the west coast of San Andreas, chasing the sun as she hid herself beneath the horizon. On the cusp of her disappearing, I vanish into the tunnel that takes you underneath Fort Zancudo, and emerge into the night. Streetlights, brake-lights and headlights streak past as I cross the bridge over Lago Zancudo, and I take the turn-off onto Route 68, clambering steadily uphill and then heading down into the winding, challenging road through Tongva Valley. The hills either side suddenly give way, and I'm greeting by the glistening, festering, neon-glinting jewel that is Los Santos, the full moon hovering low over her, welcoming me back.</span></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMGa7nnIyvIxLOBxTZZiGRfkcpecmDrAMgzpcl1ZhjNXGv5_2ianRqo7enJvKF9AmfgXYxbMdvGU92W1-hH7SnIiy8a9-YRMrBxFADO1AP0idVSt44IoNWHSGeW8xiqbQC5RhgN90k0mOc/s1600/GTA_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMGa7nnIyvIxLOBxTZZiGRfkcpecmDrAMgzpcl1ZhjNXGv5_2ianRqo7enJvKF9AmfgXYxbMdvGU92W1-hH7SnIiy8a9-YRMrBxFADO1AP0idVSt44IoNWHSGeW8xiqbQC5RhgN90k0mOc/s320/GTA_2.jpg" width="600" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Something like this. Only with more smooth jazz.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">I pulled over.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">Sounds good, no? This is Rockstar's true achievement with this piece of software - a living, breathing, dynamic, infinitely intriguing landscape to explore. It's literally jaw-dropping.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">Controls-wise - whilst a bit fiddly to get to grips with in some scenarios, and not without occasional frustrations - are a slick hybridisation of three distinct gameplay types (namely third-person action, driving and piloting), and they're each satisfying enough that you can forgive some occasional control quirks. On top of the astounding diversity of stuff that you can mess around with - guns, bombs, cars, planes, bikes, boats, frikkin' <i>submarines</i>, and yes, the list goes on <i>after </i>'frikkin submarines' - there's an outrageously deep veneer of customisation.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"> <b>It's quite simply the most technically accomplished sandbox game released this generation, and a perfect generational swansong - showcasing exactly what the supposedly aging hardware in the Xbox 360 and PS3 was capable of all along.</b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">But it's in the story-telling, and its unexpectedly varied interpretation that we're going to be dwelling on for the rest of this piece. </span></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">As you are probably aware, Grand Theft Auto is gaming's grand crime saga - all set in the same fictional, twisted version of America, they tell tales of nobodies achieving the American dream rather more violently and sordidly than strictly necessary. This rodeo is a little different, primarily in that there are no less than three protagonists - which, in absolute truth, was the next logical step in GTA's evolution. But there's also the fact that all three are wash-ups, in their own way, rather than nobodies. Franklin, a sardonic gang-banger who alienates everyone around him; Michael, a witness-protected ex-bank robber whose lack of empathy is causing his family life to fall apart; and Trevor, a certifiably insane pseudo-Canadian redneck (yeah, get your head around <i>that </i>one!).</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">Their stories begin separate, but slowly intertwine as your progress through the game. You pull heists, run drugs, work for movie producers, and more, all in the name of making that sweet, sweet dollar.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">The writing is great - sharp, acerbic and bitterly satirical, Dan Houser, Rupert Humphries and Micheal Unsworth emulate Parker and Stone as they tar everyone with the same brush. Celebrity culture, gang culture, nerd culture, corporate culture, capitalism, communism, conservatives, liberals, crap TV, rednecks, white trash, gangsters, psychologists - everything is torn asunder, revealing corrupt, festering hearts within each by way of an elegant, biting (and occasionally delightfully juvenile) sense of humour.</span></span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">But most intriguingly of all, the game carries a fairly broad, blaring message, written in neon lights as glorious as Los Santos' nightscape:</span></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">This shit don't pay off. </span></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">Not in the long run. Heists go bad, loyalties are questioned, terrifying murderers (or, as they're more commonly known, governments) irreversibly pissed off. The only way to actually earn the stacks of cash required to buy up property in the game is to honestly invest - and dishonestly skew, if so inclined - in the virtual stock market it presents. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /><b>Which makes those decrying it for corrupting our minds, for being morally bankrupt, quite odd indeed. I'm going to say it - did these people actually play the game? Did they take it in as a whole?</b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">Is it the torture? It's the torture isn't it? Yeah, I thought you might say that. It's a fallacy, though. Sure, if you strip out every ounce of context, and presented me with a game that was literally just the torture part of the scene, I'd question your sanity, based on the fact that the barely interactive three-minute cinematic that you have there doesn't qualify as a 'game' in any sense of the word, saying nothing of its grimy, grotesque content.</span></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>But here's the thing - taken as a whole, Trevor is presented from the get-go as an unhinged psychopath. </b> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">There's not a single shred of moral consistency to his actions, from his fluctuating approach to the value of human life,<b> </b>to his catastrophic mood swings (he loses his rag at the mere mention of the word 'motherfucker'), to his flip-flopping between embracing and vilifying his Canadian-tinged accent.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Heck, he's the closest thing the story has to a main antagonist, in story populated <i>solely </i>by antagonistic figures. You are playing as the <i>villain</i> when you engage in the torture scene - it's not glamourised, it's not fun, and the disturbing look of glee in Trevor's eyes is a technical marvel. It's meant to disgust you - that's <i>what the scene wanted you to feel</i>.</b> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">It means you're a good person - give yourself a pat on the back!</span></span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicjvpV7x2MMs089iVmqqcXBQxT3JUNU0ekbycN0qgkmHPTrAdoOU9slJHI55xE2YXi3_CozAgtYqPt8BKhTZ37AMXA34xM9dSwUaiLuLiwnrXNndLo3lbhp9Qb3DlXbGFpX9Ph3Q9_JTAX/s1600/gta_3.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicjvpV7x2MMs089iVmqqcXBQxT3JUNU0ekbycN0qgkmHPTrAdoOU9slJHI55xE2YXi3_CozAgtYqPt8BKhTZ37AMXA34xM9dSwUaiLuLiwnrXNndLo3lbhp9Qb3DlXbGFpX9Ph3Q9_JTAX/s1600/gta_3.jpeg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This look glamourous to you? Then <i>you </i>need help, my friend.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">Then there's the broader point - the torture is contained within a segment whereby the torture is enacted on behalf of the 'FIB' (switching the letters! Subtle!), and it ostensibly extracts information about a high-value terrorist target. The victim himself all but admits that he's telling them <i>anything </i>to get them to stop. Yet the FIB act on the information, issuing the order to the cold, heartless Michael to execute the target, without a second thought given. By anyone. The scene in its entirety <i>decries </i>this method of 'warfare'. </span></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">The thing is, the one thing that I actually <i>did </i>think crossed the line hasn't been touched upon at all in mainstream media. The Escapist noted it in their fairly critical review of the game - a sequence wherein you unknowingly plant a bomb in the prototype of a smartphone about to be presented at a press conference, and proceed to detonate it on national television. I honestly went in expecting an ingenious, humiliating technological prank, not a brazen act of terrorism. This coupled with the fact that it's literally the only crime in the game with no risk of failure (a preceeding 'stealth' section is not challenging in the slightest) or any ramifications down the line makes it all the more unsettling. Yet the denouncement of torture is what gets us?</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">These're two ten-minute sections of a 25-hour-plus game. Did it attack the issues a little too bluntly? Maybe, but this is no reason to renounce the game unto Satan. </span></span></b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>It doesn't cross the line any more than any other media portraying torture, violence or depravity. I mean come <i>on!</i> We had a collective critical aneurism at the sheer bold brilliance of a scene that features a <i>pregnant woman getting stabbed repeatedly in the belly </i>in Game of Thrones. We <i>must</i> afford Grand Theft Auto the courtesy of being regarded on the same intellectual level, surely?</b></span></span></div>
</div>
Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-46752102804917358242013-09-18T21:29:00.000+01:002013-09-25T22:23:46.910+01:00Late to the Party #2 - Don't Hate the Game, Hate the Human<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Rostopher is usually...</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGKxjr1qe04mPvEIK7Bd-B8qW25g6wMbbO4BTD-IwFc-JO6CmcSueXhjBry78QKlqMDc6buexidDtMbfcrYH4c7BiVTch61fPs4NFYQUUflKb3bEUl7-92CCK-7tx6ScrqPtx2bVuTQLAi/s1600/Late+to+the+Party+logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="156" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGKxjr1qe04mPvEIK7Bd-B8qW25g6wMbbO4BTD-IwFc-JO6CmcSueXhjBry78QKlqMDc6buexidDtMbfcrYH4c7BiVTch61fPs4NFYQUUflKb3bEUl7-92CCK-7tx6ScrqPtx2bVuTQLAi/s400/Late+to+the+Party+logo.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i><b>#2 - Don't Hate the Game, Hate the Human</b></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSshVo9abBn4EhbbN2S-oK6uuX5DGlDQDIbZucaUrwDMEBXHwRGwHk2rOzPcC1pwHxH-Zu3am9CvkueclYnFsa6l4j5vz6eyQKIAQvZUBILZmkVEeHdQswrPlBwRL9a8KLJtafiRyQaM5m/s1600/VIOLENCE.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSshVo9abBn4EhbbN2S-oK6uuX5DGlDQDIbZucaUrwDMEBXHwRGwHk2rOzPcC1pwHxH-Zu3am9CvkueclYnFsa6l4j5vz6eyQKIAQvZUBILZmkVEeHdQswrPlBwRL9a8KLJtafiRyQaM5m/s1600/VIOLENCE.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So once again, Grand Theft Auto has drudged up the age-old 'video games are corrupting our souls!' argument. It's sad that the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24127999">BBC</a>, the Daily bleedin' Mirror (who I will not even dignify with a backlink. <a href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Daily+mirror+call+of+duty">Google it</a>), and even <a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/127906-GTA-V-London-Stabbing-Teens-Arrested">The Escapist</a> felt the need to stoke that particular fire, lending credence to the fact that the attack in London was motivated by a need to acquire <i>specifically </i>GTA V; instead of, y'know, being a crime of happenstance where the individuals were after <i>anything</i> of value that the victim happened to be carrying. Like his phone. And his wallet. Both of which were also taken in the attack. But no, GTA V is crowbarred into the headline, because 'vidya garms cores violins!!!1111'.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>However, in a surprise twist, I'm going to open(-ish) by saying something that may initially seem like I'm contradicting myself: violent video games <i>do </i>affect us.</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Stay with me. I would follow up by saying: 'in the same way that literally anything else violent affects us'. It's true - our advanced thinkerboxes are but one facet of our dominance of planet Earth; we're also fully capable of some really rather imaginative methods of offing other creatures, including each other. <b>If one of us does snap and decide to go postal, are we going to use the violence that we've personally witnessed as reference? You bet we are. There are, after all, no true originals left! But it's in the same way that we might reference, say, a funny line from a movie when we're trying to impress someone (or is that just me?).</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>The actual question that we should be asking ourselves is whether or not video games are a factor in the snap itself. The answer is a resounding <i>no</i>. (Imagine it echoing in a cathedral; that's the sort of resounding I'm going for.)</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Take Sandy Hook, when the media attempted to shoe-horn Call of Duty in as the scapegoat. But Adam Lanza was a deeply troubled person - the autistic son of a woman who was a gun enthusiast and 'apocalypse preperationist', if tales told are true. The already anti-social shut-in was probably not imbued with any sense of love for his fellow man, and he learned to shoot <i>from his mother</i>, <i>in a rifle range in their basement; </i>not from a video game - the notion of which is fundamentally ridiculous:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0_ZAasfANcZ1X2hHkj48FzwrHellJfV8v6cslU4ERQAXZ3QSorur3R5VK5penojHEm0cHBq1paTtZO8KyB8CmIvIyzGMu8TGDZEUNPihJoslvu3bUQ2pQfEnrm7fzyaNf4pxhFebtJGs7/s1600/Xbox-360-S-Controller.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="262" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0_ZAasfANcZ1X2hHkj48FzwrHellJfV8v6cslU4ERQAXZ3QSorur3R5VK5penojHEm0cHBq1paTtZO8KyB8CmIvIyzGMu8TGDZEUNPihJoslvu3bUQ2pQfEnrm7fzyaNf4pxhFebtJGs7/s320/Xbox-360-S-Controller.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdY_YjNSSu1XTTs9Bfi_wn-9GmNC6mBCkvicnrzbe83JWgB5uHX1_sl7-GG_F0FFM5G9UnwRPLXkzpZt0KryvBP85TF8GL8modpm4zz3XbfvMwbk0UjgsGC2LhuKXh7cCYHQi45ydD5Kxn/s1600/gun.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdY_YjNSSu1XTTs9Bfi_wn-9GmNC6mBCkvicnrzbe83JWgB5uHX1_sl7-GG_F0FFM5G9UnwRPLXkzpZt0KryvBP85TF8GL8modpm4zz3XbfvMwbk0UjgsGC2LhuKXh7cCYHQi45ydD5Kxn/s320/gun.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Essentially the same device! Right?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>When you look at each and every other case of this happening, the perpetrators are motivated by their own personal psychosis. The denouement of each inevitably has shades of whatever violent media they took in, but to blame video games - or films, or books, or rap music, or whatever else - is to ignore the actual problem.</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Now, maybe those arsehole kids <i>were </i>specifically targeting that poor guy in London for his copy of GTA - there're several plausible narratives that see this being the case. </b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>But video games are a <i>macguffin</i> in every single one. Replace videogames with 'a kitten'. (I know it's silly, but I'm making a point, dammit!) Do you blame the kitten for the attack? Or do you blame an irrational and violent response to a need to have something that's otherwise unavailable? </b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The problem is that we as human beings seek a conclusive answer to fucking <i>everything</i>. We need one big answer enshrined in stone, held aloft by some dude with a beard on a mountain as thunder cracks behind him. But the problem with the random attacks issue is that there is no single explanation for all of them. Each case is disquietingly unique, but we pounce on the easiest common thread to blame - the one that's seen as most inconsequential - whilst failing to recognise the single thing that they all <i>do </i>have in common: humans. <b>We just won't accept that sometimes, people do <i>really </i>awful shit to other people, for their own reasons. </b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Dowwwwwner! Here's the kitten:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN9RVJ4IfeuF3X77CGB4IUgVK42274e5GHc3ReRw_5AKyzsyfk2fFETQ9P0k8JtRzmmZn6Sofc2twLUeFuzdZH_NZeXCU2bcwNG79cghiggkgAIRyCkkw-qztIHFqByceF5tq5HpQpC-TK/s1600/a+kitten.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN9RVJ4IfeuF3X77CGB4IUgVK42274e5GHc3ReRw_5AKyzsyfk2fFETQ9P0k8JtRzmmZn6Sofc2twLUeFuzdZH_NZeXCU2bcwNG79cghiggkgAIRyCkkw-qztIHFqByceF5tq5HpQpC-TK/s320/a+kitten.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>How could you blame this?! YOU HAVE NO SOUL!!!</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Honestly, though? I would agree that there is perhaps an <i>over-abundance </i>of violence in video-games these days. It's an art-form in the final throes of a rebellious adolescence, over-saturated with boobs (hehehehe! Boobs! (I slapped myself, don't worry)) and aesthetisised violence. Of late, however, both the industry and gamers themselves have shown signs that they're growing up in their approach to both. But this is a separate issue - they still don't <i>force</i> people to vent their frustration with the world by shooting at it. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
I've been playing video games for a long damn while.
Some of my earliest memories are of playing Snapper (a.k.a Pacman But
Not Pacman) in gaudy 8-bit-o-vision on the BBC Micro with one of these
fucking things:<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="336" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8GO1OVpf84Zvp-IS5HkZhIBUxHsVe1e-4s32q1RwGUMIF1z5ep0ATTm6e0FAKBFeWN0PrLR5WU_jV2of2C4HHrBYcFUeN3M77441cGpkarLEIVzEpqhvo7pPyIUZA5Uxc3-LKmlqkzkJ1/s400/BBC+Micro+Joysticks.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The joysticks don't even auto-centre. <i>That's </i>how old-school we're talking.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
But as
the popular greetings card - and one of my t-shirts! - points out, none
of us are flitting about dark rooms as we chase ghosts, pop pills and
listen to repetitive electronic music! Okay...maybe not <i>none </i>of us...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>And heck, I'm an avid shooter fan - but I've only operated a firearm for a grand total of about 36 minutes (three separate occasions; none of which I actually had a choice in, I would add). It is an experience that I never, ever wish to repeat - the prospect of wielding an actual physical object designed to end another human's life repels me completely.</b> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
But the rush of pulling off a perfect strafing run on the enemy team in an attack helicopter in Battlefield? Of silently taking out a platoon of oblivious security guards in Splinter Cell? Sign me up! Why? Because it's all the associated adrenaline that stems from the aggressive nature of our species, but none of the risk of - or indeed <i>actual -</i> death.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>If <i>anything, </i>anything <i>at all</i>, violent video games - and other violent media where we can get our fix of this sort of rush - are <i>healthy and cathartic </i>to indulge in. </b>A way of reconciling the scholar with the savage, without a single drop of blood spilled. And who knows? Maybe James Wan and Eli Roth would be out there right now, <i>enacting </i>the awful things they thought up for the Saw and Hostel movies if the movie industry didn't exist. Instead, they made a film that let the rest of us closet psychopaths - that's <i>all </i>of us, by the by, and I'm using the term in the colloquial sense, before any psychologists pounce on me! - get our fix. Thanks guys!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
But the out-and-proud psychopaths (again, colloquial) who perform these senseless acts of violence ultimately just hate other humans - however they arrive there, that's their conclusion. We should send that hate right back at <i>them</i>, not at an innocent kitten. I mean goat. I mean...ah fuck it, you know what I mean. To demonise something that brings enjoyment, <a href="http://www.childsplaycharity.org/">comfort</a>, and <a href="http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/surprising-health-benefits-video-games"><i>health benefits </i></a>to millions of people the world over because of <i>one </i>arsehole who played <i>one </i>video game <i>one time</i> is just...just...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: x-large;">...really <b>fucking DUMB.</b></span></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdO9qJ-5W0sDLPkZ37CI3CfZ-xm0UqzgYe_ggLVt41FpgaOuZbdB0f4lI_gxtjpWlH_9CgfJSHg_EZ885en3OGFjmNItwwdzkUjHxWIuzTduKkYM0c9qATI7d2Y-F87LsgqquGOmZ75CRk/s1600/mic+drop.gif" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="157" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdO9qJ-5W0sDLPkZ37CI3CfZ-xm0UqzgYe_ggLVt41FpgaOuZbdB0f4lI_gxtjpWlH_9CgfJSHg_EZ885en3OGFjmNItwwdzkUjHxWIuzTduKkYM0c9qATI7d2Y-F87LsgqquGOmZ75CRk/s320/mic+drop.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Peace, y'all!</div>
Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-79715848003773330652013-09-11T19:20:00.000+01:002013-09-18T21:27:37.869+01:00Late to the Party #1 - The Goddamn BatfleckOkay so this is a new feature that will be semi-regular. Because fuck knows I don't post enough on this blog. Basically, I'd going to stream-of-conscious type my thoughts about a recent nerdy issue that may or may not be bang up to date. For those skim-reading, I've highlighted the key points in bold. Ladies and gentlemen (and you, Din), I give you, typing errors and all...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Rostopher is usually...</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2pmwcVUw1hhENI2vaTdUj1IcodI1zYdhdATXT8_HXW_XpDszN1E0K4FaDcGIbSbZIKOUNsQoAZotL7Gl43PXGe67QUJFbYZiyCQiGUFjiadnCdvowS6KrwvEOrOY3qeteX6EusafDbbpe/s1600/Late+to+the+Party+logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="157" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2pmwcVUw1hhENI2vaTdUj1IcodI1zYdhdATXT8_HXW_XpDszN1E0K4FaDcGIbSbZIKOUNsQoAZotL7Gl43PXGe67QUJFbYZiyCQiGUFjiadnCdvowS6KrwvEOrOY3qeteX6EusafDbbpe/s400/Late+to+the+Party+logo.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span>
<i><b><span style="font-size: large;">#1 - The Goddamn Batfleck</span></b></i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwGe08ATjVYaRkHxg5zlS8TarOuOSXRJkBjTHpQLs2shgTm-uSlRPzezjlIOI6hkXiwZSca22AS-JdfaqgIOYqkt5LJ4x0bFYZoR9QIoBVIavHQVTbLFN7vn0eetULL2uwtqfY7ecyQ89W/s1600/Batman-Ben-Affleck-700x500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwGe08ATjVYaRkHxg5zlS8TarOuOSXRJkBjTHpQLs2shgTm-uSlRPzezjlIOI6hkXiwZSca22AS-JdfaqgIOYqkt5LJ4x0bFYZoR9QIoBVIavHQVTbLFN7vn0eetULL2uwtqfY7ecyQ89W/s640/Batman-Ben-Affleck-700x500.jpg" width="600" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;">So Ben Affleck is Batman. And what an absolutely massive uproar about it there was too. Which was fun! Took a while longer than I expected to die down, but thankfully it has, and whilst there are of course still the so-called 'haters' out there, there's at least now what could be described as 'lukewarm' feelings towards the prospect.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;">To throw down my say early, I'm actually pretty happy with this casting. Sure, Mr Affleck has been in some stinkers - but it's been shown time and time again that to dismiss someone completely based on past performances is folly. Think Heath Ledger as The Joker; Hugh Jackman as Wolverine - heck, super-hero movies in and of themselves are rife with 'huh?!' choices that went good.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>Affleck is as good a choice as we were going to get, and don't read anything negative into that statement. After Bale's (and balls to the naysayers) towering performance as both halves of the character, literally no-one will feel right. </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;">He's got the jawline, he's the right height, build, and hair colour, so it's not like he won't look the part (pending any decision on Batsuit nipples... *shudder*). Daredevil and Paycheck (again, say what you will) showed he can competently beat the crap out of wave upon wave of Generic Non-Super Canon Fodder, and in truth, he's become a far better actor in recent years than Pearl Harbour and Gigli. Seriously, are those the only two Ben Affleck movies the naysayers have seen? And if so, are we really taking any complaint from these people seriously? These fools who haven't seen Chasing Amy, Good Will Hunting, The Company Men, Argo, The Town, Dogma, Shakespeare in Love (Britishfleck!), Hollywoodland or State of Play? He was also - I'm reliably informed - the bomb in Phantoms, yo.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;">Okay, so I see their argument. This is the man who got nominated for the Razzie for worst actor three times, for no less than <i>six </i>films. In fairness, this may have been less to do with his actual performances, and more to do with the fact that he was the exact epicentre of a massive media fuore, and it was somehow his fault that the movies surrounding him were terrible.</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>'He's <i>BEN AFFLECK</i>! How can he make a bad movie?!' was the sentiment of the time. </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>It's simple.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>Pearl Harbour wa<i>s </i>too long, badly written and held a tone that was at odds with Michael Bay's explosive sensibilities. Daredevil is actually okay, if you watch the director's cut - it still suffers from bland direction and Colin Farrell during <i>his </i>terrible phase, but the script and story are sound, and the castings are otherwise pretty good (Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin?! Genius! RIP, you massive, massive man.). Jersey Girl was Kevin Smith's attempt at doing something more serious - something to which he was and is ill suited. Paycheck was a fucking <i>John Woo </i>movie - what were we expecting? Whedon?! And the less said about Gigli (horrifying celebrity couple vehicle) and Surviving Christmas (throwaway holiday trash) the better.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Basically, the regrettable fact is that when Affleck was...shall we say, <i>not </i>at the peak of his acting prowess, he was also at his most prolific and scrutinised, for reasons technically outside of his control. These three things do not mix well, and he had a bad run. Any critic will tell you this - but since then, he's hardly put a foot wrong. Hollywoodland, and his entry into the directorial game with Gone Baby Gone were the gamechangers. His enjoyably daft cameo in the enjoyably daft Smokin' Aces aside, the work that followed was decidedly higher quality.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>But when you examine Affleck's vast and varied filmography, it's clear that his performances vary with how challenging and interesting the material is. And when he has total creative control? Turns out he's a damn fine filmmaker all round - one that rises to the occasion as the material demands.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;">So this brings us to the talent that he will be working with come Superman vs Batman, and that's where the real rub is. <a href="http://slightlyramblomatic.blogspot.com/2013/06/man-of-steel-review.html">I liked Man of Steel</a>. I did. <a href="http://slightlyramblomatic.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/theres-something-about-zack-snyder.html">Despite the fact that I really rate Snyder</a>, I can understand why those who don't...eh...don't. But the movie that we got was far better than one could've possibly expected, given the circumstances. <b>To completely garble a quote from its oft-quoted nemesis, The Dark Knight Trilogy - it was </b><b>way better than the Superman movie
we deserved (after the kicking we gave the hideously under-rated Superman
Returns ("You want more action? Here's Zack Snyder, fuckers," said the
'evil' movie executive)). But not as good as the Superman movie that we needed. Disappointment is a relative term, my friends.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">***** SPOILERS FOLLOW *****</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">But here's the thing - the main point raised against Man of Steel was that there was no way that a) Superman would allow that much damage to happen; and b) he would've killed Zod at the end. When I quizzed a since-childhood fan of Superman - <a href="http://slightlyramblomatic.blogspot.com/2013/07/and-then-emily-was-gone-comic-book.html">whose comics you should read, or else!</a> - on why it wasn't right, why Superman couldn't kill just once, and he said something that was equal parts profound and obvious: "He always finds a way." And that's Superman in a nutshell, isn't it? The very best of us - a man who has considerable power, but never uses it to harm or oppress the innocent. He's right too - in Man of Steel, Supes is practically reckless; as I pointed out in my review, he's a rougish brawler who steps up because he can, and kinda makes a mess of it, but wins out through plucky determination.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">***** SPOILERS END *****</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>But this is also very much a Superman for the modern era, where collateral damage and the death of innocents constantly sprawls across our news headlines. It's also a crushingly realistic portrayal of super-strong, super-tough, gravity defying individuals going at each-other like gangbusters.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>And who better to tame this rogue superpower, to teach him the value of damage prevention, subtlety and the power of a symbol, than fucking <i>Batman</i>, fully formed and having been fighting crime in Gotham for years. Given the speed at which the production is rolling forward, it's hard to not believe that this was the plan all along.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />Another complaint re: Man of Steel is that Superman was more broody and dark than previous incarnations. Assuming that the above was indeed the plan, surely if anything, the casting of Ben Affleck promises a sly reversal of the darkness and light in this particular relationship. This has been done with comic-book characters before - and with Batman no-less - and it made for genuinely interesting stories - what's to say this flick can't pull the same coup?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">The point I'm plodding towards is that there is no reason to think that the story of this next film will not work. Superman and Batman crossover plenty, and work almost exactly as often - Geoff Johns' current work in New 52's Justice League, as well as the supplement story 'Ghost Lights' at the end of Batmans # 19 and #20 are recent examples of how good this can be. But it's a challenge that needs to be risen to - and as we've established, Ben Affleck is a man who does just that.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>If Superman vs Batman is going to be bad, it's not going to be because of Affleck. We should be more worried on two counts - first, Christopher Nolan is no longer presiding over matters. Second, <i>Snyder </i>is helping craft the story and script. Massive warning signs on both these - but in theory, given Affleck's directorial and screen-writing creds, coupled with his known love of comic books, he can help temper there more insane urges. If any<i> single </i>conclusion can be drawn at this stage - which, as we have not seen the film, is as close to impossible as it gets - it's that Ben Affleck's involvement is a step in the right direction. I, for one, am looking forward to it.</b></span></div>
</div>
Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-72917253927809656352013-09-05T19:44:00.004+01:002013-09-06T13:17:21.824+01:00The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones Review<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqLd4_xAhG8aECa-tj2cQxuMJLBXBq2OuvSHMgzlIJgXttDlOz2W8MH46mZzmIvMiJ646wsxPfzqe15lej7v2NB9ByMukVE2Fbp6MtXX8KzgfVYjfHs4DorDeSQARzap_5wdeaSZMBTtkU/s1600/The-Mortal-Instruments-City-Of-Bones-banner.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqLd4_xAhG8aECa-tj2cQxuMJLBXBq2OuvSHMgzlIJgXttDlOz2W8MH46mZzmIvMiJ646wsxPfzqe15lej7v2NB9ByMukVE2Fbp6MtXX8KzgfVYjfHs4DorDeSQARzap_5wdeaSZMBTtkU/s400/The-Mortal-Instruments-City-Of-Bones-banner.png" width="550" /></a></div>
<br />
One has to remain open to these things. One does - one day, they'll make a good'un, and you kinda have to be there to see that when it happens.<br />
<br />
Okay, wow, way to give the game away early, Ross. Fuck it, have this, I'm putting my feet up: <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjskww7nGsXVs-H7KmCxC8pWuw7UDimg3NFEEjCIiJU5DRwRij-KI5r1RVJE5lLQVnB_w_ejCrc3Cs9fhR357GzWagW-b3CzjkdC7wAv8e7RqvsZURzMVmqu9A8ss4Eek446fSJ2k2JnwJI/s1600/2+stars.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjskww7nGsXVs-H7KmCxC8pWuw7UDimg3NFEEjCIiJU5DRwRij-KI5r1RVJE5lLQVnB_w_ejCrc3Cs9fhR357GzWagW-b3CzjkdC7wAv8e7RqvsZURzMVmqu9A8ss4Eek446fSJ2k2JnwJI/s320/2+stars.png" width="320" /></a> </div>
Oh...you're still here. Fine, I'll write something...Jeez, you guys are pushy.<br />
<br />
So I was clued into this by a friend who's read the books - according to both her, and the literary community at large, they're actually a pretty neat riff on the whole 'urban fantasy' thing, and were begging to have a movie made out of them. I can't honestly comment on the books - I've not read 'em, and I'm assured that they're 'completely bloody different!' from this trainwreck, so let's proceed to verbally beat the shit out of it, shall we?<br />
<br />
I suppose the most disappointing thing is that there was almost certainly a good film to be made from the script as is. A few cheesy (and we're talking Camembert levels of stink here) lines and some braindead decision-making aside, the story is actually surprisingly solid: in a modern world where 'every story you ever heard is true', there exists a breed of human known as the Shadow Hunter, who spend their waking hours fighting the unwinnable, but essential war against the forces of darkness. Clary is not one of these people - but she can see them, even when they use runes tattooed onto their skin to turn invisible. As she tries to figure out why, she becomes embroiled in a plot from within to undo the hunters, and their hidden-in-plain-sight base, The Sanctuary.<br />
<br />
It's at the very least interesting on its own terms - the mythology surrounding it in particular is most intriguing. It's a great shame that the execution is a stumbling, shambolic mess.<br />
<br />
This is almost entirely down to director Harald Zwart. The cast is decent, the production values solid and the script, despite the aforementioned stinkers, is a surprisingly tight adaptation - there's even some pretty decent special effects thrown into the mix. But Zwart botches it - it's clear that the extent of his familiarity with the fantasy genre is that it exists, and is mildly popular just now. There's not a single ounce of flair, style or substance in any of the framing, fight choreography or staging. Battles lack any sense of tension or threat. Romance comes off as dumb and corny as shit because of a soundtrack that's either intrusively, obnoxiously obvious, or as dull and pointless as the staging.<br />
<br />
Worse, Zwart fails to recognise when the characters he's marshalling are being utterly, utterly stupid. Case in point? Our heroine develops a power that can freeze adversaries in time - but rather than butchering the demons where they're stuck with their fancy demon-slaying weaponry, they move through the pack of claw-based death and leave them there. We're then supposed to care when the creatures reanimate themselves after the spell wears off, and murder a bunch of werewolves. You do know swords have unlimited ammo, right guys? <br />
<br />
The only thing that saves it from being thrown in the same bin as AvP2 and Battlefield Earth is that admid the turgidity, there're a few few-and-far-between moments where the strength of the story and mythology shine through. A flame-thrower that appears to fire holy napalm? Awesome. Mozart was actually a musical engineer who developed sequences of chords that sounded lovely to humans, but like nails on chalkboard to demons? Genius (even if Clary brazenly forgets this fact a mere 8 hours after she learned it). But as said, there's just not enough of them present for the film to pull itself from the mire. The cast are actually also do admirably considering the non-entity at the helm - Lily Collins and Jamie Campbell Bower were perfect castings, if the fan art I've googled is to be believed, and Robert Sheehan (of Misfits fame) sports an impressively honed American accent, and a decent performance to boot. In fact, his part of the film is the only one that's not hideously mishandled, and there's no doubt that it's down to his chemistry with Collins that this works.<br />
<br />
It's just a massive shame all round - this had the promise to be the anti-Twilight, a Shadowrun for tweens. Alas, what we've got is a watered-down pap - an incredibly basic film that's intended to sell its crappy teen-pop soundtrack and pictures of the admittedly highly attractive leads. Nothing more. Nothing about it works, it's only sporadically enjoyable, and if you've ever seen a single action-fantasy movie before this one, you'll facepalm at least three times in its bloated run-time. Unless you're interested in your eyeballs attempting to escape from your face in desperation, avoid.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjskww7nGsXVs-H7KmCxC8pWuw7UDimg3NFEEjCIiJU5DRwRij-KI5r1RVJE5lLQVnB_w_ejCrc3Cs9fhR357GzWagW-b3CzjkdC7wAv8e7RqvsZURzMVmqu9A8ss4Eek446fSJ2k2JnwJI/s1600/2+stars.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjskww7nGsXVs-H7KmCxC8pWuw7UDimg3NFEEjCIiJU5DRwRij-KI5r1RVJE5lLQVnB_w_ejCrc3Cs9fhR357GzWagW-b3CzjkdC7wAv8e7RqvsZURzMVmqu9A8ss4Eek446fSJ2k2JnwJI/s320/2+stars.png" width="320" /> </a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(still) </div>
Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-24202919963994479622013-08-22T14:42:00.000+01:002013-08-23T15:09:49.070+01:00Elysium Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglNnpPKJcF6A1u1D-DQCke2dxEfpIygnAv5LknJCnsmn827zTA2sXl7I4a4cQBTxiy3U2qXfgpRsLhyphenhyphen9SFyKPLwLVgW25WDRSKLb-MLOAji91_zOiJlBkWy8vCEsz1pjmSxBcaV_wld6dD/s1600/elysium-new-banner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Elysium" border="0" height="302" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglNnpPKJcF6A1u1D-DQCke2dxEfpIygnAv5LknJCnsmn827zTA2sXl7I4a4cQBTxiy3U2qXfgpRsLhyphenhyphen9SFyKPLwLVgW25WDRSKLb-MLOAji91_zOiJlBkWy8vCEsz1pjmSxBcaV_wld6dD/s640/elysium-new-banner.jpg" title="Elysium" width="600" /></a></div>
<br />
Sci-fi is something of a painfully neglected genre of late. Whilst there's no denying that your Iron Man Threes and your Man of Steels and your Star Trek In Darknesses are all very technically accomplished films and enjoyable films, there's a common theme throughout them - they're all modern updates of already existing franchises. The dearth of originality in this genre on the silver screen is perhaps more glaring than in others, with the last decent attempt - Joseph Kosinski's Oblivion - lacking the heart that made, say, Logan's Run or Silent Running such masterpieces, and lost amid the aforementioned swathe of franchise films.<br />
<br />
Step up Neill Blomkamp - having fully recovered from his stalled Halo project, and leaping off the back of the <a href="http://slightlyramblomatic.blogspot.com/2009/09/district-9-review.html">magnificent District 9</a>, with Elysium, he's shown that there's life in the old genre yet. Not just that, he's crafted a story that's got Oblivion's clarity of vision, but instead of a cold, soulless centre, you have sets of fully-formed human eyes staring back at you.<br />
<br />
In the mid-22nd century, the rich elite of Earth have fled from a planet that's become over-crowded and over-polluted to a giant orbiting space station named Elysium, where the wealthy can live forever, and the riff-raff are murdered on sight if they even dare approach. On the ground, an ex-vagrant named Max (Matt Damon) is trying to turn his life around, working on a production line which provides the station with it's all-powerful security force. After a horrifying accident leaves him with fatal radiation poisoning, and with neglectful leadership denying him readily available life-saving treatment, he resolves to get to Elyisum however he can. But all is not as peachy as it seems aboard the station, and as his plan progresses, he accidentally becomes embroiled in a plot engineered by the Secretary of Defense, Jessica Delacourt (Jodie Foster).<br />
<br />
The story, whilst perhaps not quite as impactful as D9's apartheid allegory, is still well crafted, and examines in detail various problems facing the contemporary developed world - exaggerating them to their logical conclusion, 150 years down the line. It also succeeds in keeping you guessing as to exactly how it's all going to pan out - though a side effect of this is a couple of story threads that seem a little stalled. The flipside of that coin, however, is a commentary on quite how interesting every facet of the story is.<br />
<br />
Then there's the action, and Blomkamp has outdone himself in this department. His penchant for exotic weaponry is on full show - the air-burst rounds are a particularly brutal stroke, but there's small touches everywhere, and they're integrated seamlessly into the world building. This is Blomkamp's true strength as a film-maker - his attention to detail allows him to construct a world that feels like it's been lived in: Earth is a breathing, stinking slum, and Elysium is Homeric in its execution. The special effects are a joy to behold too - particularly the intricate autons that police Earth's surface on behalf of those on high.<br />
<br />
The cast do a superb job of it too - Matt Damon's performance is subtle but brilliant, but we should expect nothing less from a man who hasn't put a foot wrong since those amnesiac spy movies. Jodie Foster - despite sporting one of the strangest accents (a mish-mash of French, British and American) this side of Gerard Butler's Irish - presides over Elysium maliciously, sneering through her teeth at those that question her questionable actions beautifully. The real, gems, however, are Wagner Moura and Sharlto Copley. The former plays an outrageously fast-talking people- and data-trafficker, and he's a joy when he's bouncing off Max's literal and figurative outer shells. Copley, on the other hand, belies his previous efforts to deliver a chillingly horrid villain - merciless, psychotic and seemingly impossible to kill, the tension between himself and Damon gives their scraps a sense of urgency and purpose that is most satisfying.<br />
<br />
If there are problems with it, it's two-fold. The allegory is a little on the nose, and some may come away with a bad taste in the mouth from its scathing skewering of America's current healthcare and immigration issues, despite it making an entirely valid argument. Most sad, however, is that whilst the action is still entertaining, it's curiously bloodless this time around. That the film carriers a PG-13/12A rating tells you all you need to know, and the result is a softening of its bite.<br />
<br />
But truth be told, it's impossible to not overlook these in favour of the other strengths on show. It's such a <i>complete </i>film, bucking the trend of everyone and their dog setting up for a potential sequel that may or may not transpire. The world it creates is believable, the actions sequences are fantastic (and on occasion even darkly humourous), and the performances top notch on all counts. There's even a curt nod to Halo which brought a smile to this gamer's face. Blomkamp has now proven himself to be a major player in the sci-fi scene, and you owe it to yourself to see this.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBLGHNkY2uygw5qEZBUjS4RiLeMM5bb6CLgWkLDGEoDXK9GxKyumVKe_8lyCVswQUBsXzIsoB0IwrI6JNaunhQQnjCuGTN_lmVpmA-AVMW6ul_Ongf3Sci20HEtThNgBKQoKsVV3AfSfJs/s1600/5+Stars.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBLGHNkY2uygw5qEZBUjS4RiLeMM5bb6CLgWkLDGEoDXK9GxKyumVKe_8lyCVswQUBsXzIsoB0IwrI6JNaunhQQnjCuGTN_lmVpmA-AVMW6ul_Ongf3Sci20HEtThNgBKQoKsVV3AfSfJs/s320/5+Stars.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-38102404776887963182013-08-17T16:42:00.001+01:002013-08-17T19:14:32.441+01:00Random Film Round-Up<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhodPVYc8DSzPzxkeO-x_H22wWoBHYsf9ObVVZSXagxJl0lIglJsfyrkfkWLA49rLGsXfBUuDv0UEu8I6GHCeTou4LFO9AQw4v-sCtg6JGmqx75qIL4Y2ViHs5qyjrfi9Hm_Ep2Wam7Dqbp/s1600/taylor-kitsch-john-carter-banner-poster-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="John Carter (of Mars)" border="0" height="143" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhodPVYc8DSzPzxkeO-x_H22wWoBHYsf9ObVVZSXagxJl0lIglJsfyrkfkWLA49rLGsXfBUuDv0UEu8I6GHCeTou4LFO9AQw4v-sCtg6JGmqx75qIL4Y2ViHs5qyjrfi9Hm_Ep2Wam7Dqbp/s320/taylor-kitsch-john-carter-banner-poster-1.jpg" title="John Carter (of Mars)" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I'm not really sure what all the fuss was about this; terribly reviewed, and shunned by audiences at the time of its release, it's...really not that bad. It's by no stretch of the imagination great but it's not the dud that it was reported to be.<br />
<br />
The world-building is top notch - whilst maybe not a born-and-bred action director, Andrew Stanton's eye for detail is second to none - Tylor Kitsch is actually bearable in the central role, and Mark Strong continues the proud British tradition of Hollywood villainy, along with adding to his own hand of intriguing villains played. The action sequences are a little flat and lack any real oomph, but the story carries it along, despite some turns towards the odd. Lynn Collins is most ill-served by this, her character skipping between warrior maiden and damsel in distress whenever the plot deems it appropriate. It's a shame, because the warrior maiden part is surprisingly well played - the damsel in distress is not.<br />
<br />
Overall, it's clear that it ultimately suffers at the hands of itself - John Carter is, after all, one of the archetypes upon which most superhero- and science-fiction is drawn from. Moments that may well have been original back in the late 19th century here feel derivative of the very things derived from them, in a spectacular moment of circular logic that is nearly impossible to get yourself out of. Still, for what it is, it's fun enough, and there's just enough interesting about it to have kept me watching until the end.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiquyFyO2g6SvmcifeH7KzdYQysFJ-ICmGQqPTT4T4XO1bOKUEH1qcv9sUqP5lrDtreViIbXCOR3RJfPVjB6i9M03KTEoWsbSDDWuSQmH70MNhDYUx-QIKzLAxYBNM40DkuL0SajaVNBuKx/s1600/3+stars.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiquyFyO2g6SvmcifeH7KzdYQysFJ-ICmGQqPTT4T4XO1bOKUEH1qcv9sUqP5lrDtreViIbXCOR3RJfPVjB6i9M03KTEoWsbSDDWuSQmH70MNhDYUx-QIKzLAxYBNM40DkuL0SajaVNBuKx/s200/3+stars.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxMGjuDo0ZvWaHA8ZT3wzqhGZq2WF_HKWcEIB9rV_EOUKiIOYLkYe3J683nTfNANOpWfCHEMv1HHctqcgZLl9G_VQoNNb4OpazSk-8t9EqqkUXHjYognWKjZ2FxRnaTIud3_ynvXHmMmxQ/s1600/savages-banner-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Savages" border="0" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxMGjuDo0ZvWaHA8ZT3wzqhGZq2WF_HKWcEIB9rV_EOUKiIOYLkYe3J683nTfNANOpWfCHEMv1HHctqcgZLl9G_VQoNNb4OpazSk-8t9EqqkUXHjYognWKjZ2FxRnaTIud3_ynvXHmMmxQ/s320/savages-banner-poster.jpg" title="Savages" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Odd one this - ostensibly adapted from a book, it comes to us by way of director Oliver Stone to craft a tale of murder, drugs and treachery. It's got Taylor Kitsch in it (apparently I'm on some sort of Kitsch binge...disaster) and he's...<i>not </i>bearable in this. Neither's Aaron Taylor-Johnson - they're both playing unlikable young drug dealers who stumble upon a particular intense strain of that there crazy pipe weed. They're also both in love with the same woman, here played by the ever-terrible Blake Lively.<br />
<br />
She gets kidnapped because reasons - mostly because they refuse to work with a Mexican drug cartel, who aren't willing to simply accept having their plants and distribution network under their control. Oh no, they want the two's 'expertise' (of which they have none) to help grow and sell the product. It more or less escalates from there, with double-crosses, corrupt government agents (John Travolta, continuing to fuel rumours that he's had something done to his face - I vote all nerve endings removed), and an utterly stupid ending that plays out twice. The first one would've actually been a decent place to leave these 'savages'. But no, that one was just in the girls head, and the real ending is an abrupt, deus ex machina moment that is just...dreary, really. <br />
<br />
If there is good about it, it's Benicio del Toro and Salma Hayek doing seedy villains, the former delightfully sleazy, the latter sultry yet intimidating. If only the rest of the piece were as good as its antagonists, we might've seen a better film. Alas, actors making hamfisted jobs and heavy-handed writing abound, and this was not an enjoyable experience.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjskww7nGsXVs-H7KmCxC8pWuw7UDimg3NFEEjCIiJU5DRwRij-KI5r1RVJE5lLQVnB_w_ejCrc3Cs9fhR357GzWagW-b3CzjkdC7wAv8e7RqvsZURzMVmqu9A8ss4Eek446fSJ2k2JnwJI/s1600/2+stars.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjskww7nGsXVs-H7KmCxC8pWuw7UDimg3NFEEjCIiJU5DRwRij-KI5r1RVJE5lLQVnB_w_ejCrc3Cs9fhR357GzWagW-b3CzjkdC7wAv8e7RqvsZURzMVmqu9A8ss4Eek446fSJ2k2JnwJI/s200/2+stars.png" width="200" /></a><b> </b></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.mediamikes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/immortals-banner.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img alt="Immortals" border="0" height="123" src="http://www.mediamikes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/immortals-banner.jpg" title="Immortals" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Seeing as Henry Cavill is now part of the Superman pantheon, I thought I'd finally give this a go. Coming from the stable of Tarsem - who previously gave us the shallow but visually striking films The Cell and The Fall. He bucks the trend somewhat here with a surprisingly interesting take on the Theseus legend from ancient Greece.<br />
<br />
Cavill is decent if a little stiff in the central role, but it's made up for by some excellent supporting work from Stephen Dorff, Mickey Rourke and Luke Evans, all in slightly over-the-top mode, as is appropriate for a story that features gods fighting among men.<br />
<br />
The story does some interesting things, trying to figure out what in reality might've inspired the legend, whilst at the same time allowing for the flights of fancy so common in Greek mythology. All of the battles - aside from exhibiting a curious beauty within the chaos - showcase same excellent fight choreography, and the set and costume design are wonderfully intricate. All of this gives rise to the film's best part - its interpretation of the Minotaur part of the legend. A
vast, impossibly strong henchman of the evil Hyperion who wears
bull-shaped helmet, it's a neat twist and the battle it produces is
spectacularly brutal.<br />
<br />
It does plod along at times, particularly at the start, but once it allows itself to get going, it's a great ride.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFms19E47cH3_8rDRbBcgQ-v4oguHa9zNtpHlUO5CSJhAzpqcHlyIZYDEHi31qPNLDNptkb3ILCYxMSR1Y8uusGeKvgDAovdzIdTvcmOM2q-WfYaPHrnxWP-BC6wIryW1KI5rkyXxUOFjK/s1600/4+stars.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFms19E47cH3_8rDRbBcgQ-v4oguHa9zNtpHlUO5CSJhAzpqcHlyIZYDEHi31qPNLDNptkb3ILCYxMSR1Y8uusGeKvgDAovdzIdTvcmOM2q-WfYaPHrnxWP-BC6wIryW1KI5rkyXxUOFjK/s200/4+stars.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-57800026353888921752013-07-26T12:53:00.000+01:002013-07-26T12:53:55.867+01:00"And Then Emily Was Gone" Comic Book Review<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKwetjOdPhVJm3oGUFxkmqnt3Galla3WsoAN2Po4krQKIDAkh7FZyyWknVu8hz-5JxHuf82lH519rvZzz36yRZIm9JBvn5box3dYpaaA38dhVuD6IFyvqIUtAc84jJ9p-bkceMd5lAWoB3/s1600/And+Then+Emily+Was+Gone.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKwetjOdPhVJm3oGUFxkmqnt3Galla3WsoAN2Po4krQKIDAkh7FZyyWknVu8hz-5JxHuf82lH519rvZzz36yRZIm9JBvn5box3dYpaaA38dhVuD6IFyvqIUtAc84jJ9p-bkceMd5lAWoB3/s640/And+Then+Emily+Was+Gone.jpg" width="424" /></a></div>
<br />
Fresh off the presses of the vibrant Scottish independent comic-book scene, this comes courtesy of engimatic writer/artist team John Lees and Iain Laurie.<br />
<br />
Set in Scotland, it tells the story of Greg Hellenger, an ex-detective whose nightmarish waking visions have cost him nearly everything, as he's set on the trail of the titular Emily - a teenager who vanished on a Scottish Isle under mysterious, perhaps even supernatural circumstances. This is at the behest of her best friend, who has the curious quality of making the nightmares stop. There's also Vin, who has an interesting job, oh yes - and an actual mystery box to be intrigued by (my best guess at this stage is that it's JJ Abrams' head in there...).<br />
<br />
It's a genuinely terrific read - Laurie's ever-so-slightly unsettling stylings gives the proceedings a Lynchian, dream-like quality, and Lees' script takes full advantage of its detailed nature, crafting a story where you can't be sure if it's all going to end in grim reality, or an even grimmer fantasy. It's a book that begs to be poured over immediately after you finish reading it, with details scattered about in both the writing and art that threaten us with a complex, disquieting and ultimately satisfying tale to come.<br />
<br />
There's also a fascinatingly awful moment of extreme violence that'll completely catch you off guard - bordering on being a darkly amusing anti-joke, it relies on pitch perfect structuring, sly dialogue, and stunning use of contrast to create a most impactful two-page spread that'll stick in your head for quite a while afterwards. It's very much the kind of moment that only sequential art could achieve, and that it's nestled inside such a gem of a story is icing in the chocolate fountain - it's all pretty sweet, and flows magnificently.<br />
<br />
The only problem is that it does feel a little slight, but this is down to it being the first half of a first act, so it's hardly fair to hold this against it. The feeling is also a direct result of enjoying it, and craving more - and given that this is indeed a mystery, that's job done, as far as anyone could possibly be concerned. WHAT'S IN THE BOX, GODDAMIT?!<br />
<br />
And in such a short space, perhaps the most impressive thing about it is how they've succeeding in creating a fictional horror mythology on a par with the Slender Man for quite how delightfully unsettling it is - flashes of reality interwoven with the fiction to make it just believable enough to make your skin crawl thinking about it, even after you put the book down. I won't mention her here...<span style="color: #1c1c1c;">BONNIE SHAW</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKwetjOdPhVJm3oGUFxkmqnt3Galla3WsoAN2Po4krQKIDAkh7FZyyWknVu8hz-5JxHuf82lH519rvZzz36yRZIm9JBvn5box3dYpaaA38dhVuD6IFyvqIUtAc84jJ9p-bkceMd5lAWoB3/s1600/And+Then+Emily+Was+Gone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
...<br />
<br />
Because she isn't real.<br />
<br />
She isn't real...<br />
<br />
She isn't...WHAT THE FUCK WAS THA-<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
AND THEN ROSS WAS GONE</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzvpSIspocsuw5ohbqhuAzvdv_yB1vC2rHUV9LnUn9EQ5nkGeUCKCkFYpvOZWsZH685ypvtyXYkUC5_Vi-OPn9_DJDzW8K1BR2hgk9iCUWyr_w_JQmXnPz6nA9kJ5JWgThRC_Oo1_kWRwt/s1600/4+stars.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzvpSIspocsuw5ohbqhuAzvdv_yB1vC2rHUV9LnUn9EQ5nkGeUCKCkFYpvOZWsZH685ypvtyXYkUC5_Vi-OPn9_DJDzW8K1BR2hgk9iCUWyr_w_JQmXnPz6nA9kJ5JWgThRC_Oo1_kWRwt/s320/4+stars.png" width="320" /> </a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<i>Post-script: </i>If you want to check out John Lee's other stuff, <a href="http://johnleescomics.wordpress.com/">head to his blog here.</a> If you're up for further perusal of Iain's mind to see what monsters lay inside, check out <a href="http://mothwicke.blogspot.co.uk/">Mothwicke</a>, <a href="http://powwkipsie.blogspot.co.uk/">Powwkipsie</a> and his previous release, <a href="http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/2012/iain-lauries-horror-mountain/">Horror Mountain</a>. You're welcome.</div>
Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-13737485458922861192013-06-23T21:43:00.001+01:002013-06-23T21:46:37.470+01:00Total Recall (2012) Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhH712Udnu9U8hjl9R9cQNFAM_bdKkumZ7YF4-1XaQysi0gf4sSYYeAXAw-2u00cnIKxczQYHNI-GFOvRau6yLBmjLf2CVbmyLLNrwInby6-2DQag-oWDmJ75w-5RFOhnNI0m6GLYbMxGg1/s1600/Total-Recall-2012-Movie-Poster1-e1342103315897.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhH712Udnu9U8hjl9R9cQNFAM_bdKkumZ7YF4-1XaQysi0gf4sSYYeAXAw-2u00cnIKxczQYHNI-GFOvRau6yLBmjLf2CVbmyLLNrwInby6-2DQag-oWDmJ75w-5RFOhnNI0m6GLYbMxGg1/s640/Total-Recall-2012-Movie-Poster1-e1342103315897.jpg" width="451" /></a></div>
<br />
Sometimes, you should really re-consider your title. Or at least, consider it in the first place, because had it not been for the association with the turn of the 90s Paul Verhoven actioner, this could've been held in higher regard, because as an action-orientated adaptation of 'We Can Remember It For You Wholesale', it actually works pretty decently.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Len Wiseman's always been one for boldly-staged set pieces - see his Underworld films, as well as the <a href="http://slightlyramblomatic.blogspot.com/2007/08/die-hard-40-aka-live-free-or-die-hard.html">irritatingly badly written Die Hard 4.0</a> - and he doesn't disappoint here, with scenes that sweep through a decently realised, if slightly derivative dystopian future. He does, however, retain the sense to keep the films he references within the Philip K Dick adaptation stable - everything from Minority Report to Blade Runner to A Scanner Darkly, as well as Verhoven's effort, are given visual nods. There's simply too many of them for them to really be described as derivative - rather, it feels like an effort to have all of these films take place in the same world. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Colin Farrell is solid in the lead role, believable as a bunched up and frustrated worker to whom there's more than is initially apparent. Kate Beckinsale - despite her husband's odd penchant for presenting her backside to the world - makes a fun switch from doting wife to futuristic femme fatale, and Jessica Biel, whilst hardly challenged, doesn't really bring anything particular impressive to her role as love interest/competition. It's nice to see Bill Nighy turn up once again in a Wiseman flick, and Bryan Cranston's evil dictator is like Walter White without the moral compass and more kung-fu skills, which is more or less as entertaining as it sounds.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It falters a little towards the end - the script not really sure what to do with itself, with screenwriters Kurt Wimmer (of Equilibrium and Ultraviolet fame) and Mark Bomback (of 'ruining Die Hard' fame) presenting us with possibly cinema's first quintuple agent, and ceasing to make any sense from there, resorting to just blowing shit up in lieu of figuring out its own clusterfridge of a story. The most interesting stuff happens when they attempt to play with the concept of rekall (with a K, no less), but this is ultimately restricted to a tense scene in the middle which sees Farrell's adversaries attempting to convince him that nothing he's done thus far is real.<br />
<br />
But the action is fun, the story just about engaging enough to keep you occupied (if Becksale's butt doesn't quite grab you, as Wiseman insists it should), and the vision of the future is pleasingly technophillic. Just don't expect a satisfying resolut-...'Rekall'!! It should've been called 'Rekall'!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiquyFyO2g6SvmcifeH7KzdYQysFJ-ICmGQqPTT4T4XO1bOKUEH1qcv9sUqP5lrDtreViIbXCOR3RJfPVjB6i9M03KTEoWsbSDDWuSQmH70MNhDYUx-QIKzLAxYBNM40DkuL0SajaVNBuKx/s1600/3+stars.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiquyFyO2g6SvmcifeH7KzdYQysFJ-ICmGQqPTT4T4XO1bOKUEH1qcv9sUqP5lrDtreViIbXCOR3RJfPVjB6i9M03KTEoWsbSDDWuSQmH70MNhDYUx-QIKzLAxYBNM40DkuL0SajaVNBuKx/s320/3+stars.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-39580969960085449942013-06-19T10:38:00.000+01:002013-09-11T20:52:03.077+01:00Man of Steel Review<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9_J3PgaBE0ZXsveLEHXd4Urab1YeGhpVlGwyf3CsuC_LFkk9aZtLrgflNPv1mvdc4Leneg4S5SkIsok_jfQLBXLla6cy5xt1okaX-3ahPsIdb2VhFe-Q5-4M4TJgx1sNz0LeRMFnjSGOv/s1600/Man-of-Steel_01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9_J3PgaBE0ZXsveLEHXd4Urab1YeGhpVlGwyf3CsuC_LFkk9aZtLrgflNPv1mvdc4Leneg4S5SkIsok_jfQLBXLla6cy5xt1okaX-3ahPsIdb2VhFe-Q5-4M4TJgx1sNz0LeRMFnjSGOv/s640/Man-of-Steel_01.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
If you're going to be making a Superman movie and you want it to be decent, you need two things. Well...three. First of all, obviously, you need Superman himself. Second, some heart - we need to be forming an emotional bond with this character, because otherwise, we just won't give a shit when the third thing starts. The third thing? Action - because what's the point of an invulnerable man if you can't chuck him about a bit?<br />
<br />
Sadly, the movie falls shortest in the heart department - though it's clear that the film had more at some point. Whilst Kal-El's exodus from Krypton is examined in detail, his time from landing on Earth to becoming Superman is more-or-less skipped over. You can practically feel Warner Bros - wary of Superman Return's lukewarm reception - breathing down your neck as snippets of this essential part of his story flash across the scene before being abruptly replaced. It ultimately means that Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are required to do quite bit with not a lot - the parental bond that humanises the character given a flashy, high-impact makeover here that smacks more of Spider than Super.<br />
<br />
It's a shame, because what is present of that aspect of the story is beautifully scripted - the scene where Martha rushes to school to coax a young Clark, terrified of his new-found power, out of a janitor's closet is rather wonderful. "The world's too big, Mom." I think we can all relate.<br />
<br />
There is of course the argument that Superman stories are about nothing if they are not about his heart. But it'd be unfair to say that the film has <i>no</i> heart. It's verging on bare bones, but it's there - hence my cunning use of 'shortest' - a groundwork upon which you are expected to lay your own familiarity with the character. It's difficult to hold this against them, given how firmly embedded our Friendly Neighbourhood Kryptonian is in pop culture's psyche.<br />
<br />
It's more than enough to invest you in the action, and as said, there's a lot of it. Thankfully, it's really quite enjoyable - no choppy wire-fu, rubbish CGI Bizarros or forced camera angles here. These are glorious, large-scale, effects-driven punch-ups, with actually rather concerning amounts of collateral damage as various Kryptonians barrel through the toughest human constructions, and humans themselves, like so much tissue paper. Snyder, ever the pop-culture masher-uperer (is that a word? Is now), references everything from The Matrix to the film's own predecessors as he wrecks various locales with gusto.<br />
<br />
He also cleverly subverts his own precedent - having filmed both of his previous comic-book adaptations with the stop-starting slow-motion that ostensibly became his trademark, here the action only ever plays out at full speed. Overall, this gives the action a velocity that nicely emphasises our hero's core powers, and serves as a neat counterpoint to Whedon's wit, and Nolan's muscularity.<br />
<br />
Cavill is a revelation - not only convincing as a flying man, but making us forget the ones that flew before him. No longer a clean-cut stalwart, this Superman is a something of a dashing rogue (is that... chesthair?!). But he doesn't just bring looks that will have folk swooning the world over - he nails a new physicality of the hero too, a brawler lacking in finesse, little more than instinct and determination overwhelming odds. Then there's a very cute twisting of the whole Clark Kent/Superman dichotomy throughout the film - almost like Goyer was intentionally referencing Tarantino, but I digress - and Cavill plays it brilliantly.<br />
<br />
The support is good too, despite Michael Shannon's Zod not quite feeling right - as if he's both taking it seriously, but phoning it in at the same time. Antje Traue's Faora is, surprisingly, the far more effective villain, an entity entirely replete of morals, the ferocity with which she fights for her cause unsettling in the best possible way. Amy Adams is decent as Ms Lane, and Lawrence Fishburne, whilst given precious little to actually do, is actually rather memorable as Perry White.<br />
<br />
Final mention must go to the composer. John William's iconic score (you know those first two bars by heart don't you, you nerd) was a tough act to follow, but true to form, Hans Zimmer forges a new musical iconography, and it's a soundtrack that is worthy of purchase by itself.<br />
<br />
What's here is great. So indeed, it's not quite what you might've <b><i>hoped </i></b>for - it was perhaps a mistake of the marketing that people were expecting blown minds on a scale akin to The Dark Knight - but saying that doesn't do it justice. It's less a reboot, and more a modern <i>clarification </i>of an existing character - throwing an otherwise fully-formed iteration of Superman onto the screen, and creating the foundations of a DC Cinematic Universe whilst it's at it. It does both of these rather triumphantly - keep your eye out for various name drops throughout. Thrillingly shot, neatly written and well performed - even, on occasion, funny - it's far more than we could've possibly <b><i>asked </i></b>for, and was more than worth the wait.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzvpSIspocsuw5ohbqhuAzvdv_yB1vC2rHUV9LnUn9EQ5nkGeUCKCkFYpvOZWsZH685ypvtyXYkUC5_Vi-OPn9_DJDzW8K1BR2hgk9iCUWyr_w_JQmXnPz6nA9kJ5JWgThRC_Oo1_kWRwt/s1600/4+stars.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzvpSIspocsuw5ohbqhuAzvdv_yB1vC2rHUV9LnUn9EQ5nkGeUCKCkFYpvOZWsZH685ypvtyXYkUC5_Vi-OPn9_DJDzW8K1BR2hgk9iCUWyr_w_JQmXnPz6nA9kJ5JWgThRC_Oo1_kWRwt/s320/4+stars.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-16934142859633279002013-06-18T17:04:00.002+01:002013-06-19T11:20:15.545+01:00The Charlesbearius Hug Grading Scale<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Charlesbearius Hug Grading Scale</b></span></span></div>
<br />
In the event that customers feel that the insults provided by our service are 'too mean', a hug will be offered in compensation. These will fall into one of five 'grades' or categories of hug:<br />
<br />
<b>Grade 1: </b>This is like getting hugged by a skeleton wearing an inside-out iron maiden, and will only be offered sarcastically.<br />
<br />
<b>Grade 2:</b> A standard hug - only enjoyable if you've not had any physical human contact in years. Otherwise, little more than a nuisance.<br />
<br />
<b>Grade 3:</b> A decent hug - comforting, encompassing and quite satisfying. Like being wrapped in a nice, thick duvet. If that duvet were a person.<br />
<br />
<b>Grade 4:</b> The sort of hug you'd expect to get from a lover. There may be kissing. And nuzzling. Only offered in particular circumstances.<br />
<br />
<b>Grade 5: </b>Like getting hugged by Christina Hendricks and her four clones.<br />
<br />
Note: hugs are strictly one-time redemption, and have no equivalent cash value. <br />
<br />
The gender of the person issuing the hug is pre-assigned. Once requested, there is no taking back of the hug.Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-10799248103537196182013-05-20T21:06:00.000+01:002013-05-20T21:30:06.208+01:00Star Trek Into Darkness Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFDSjjQk1FUjgLCi0p1riLsvaThyphenhyphenUZ-PwxPZVcBhu8Yd0TiywGsSHVs2hmwOx6ZSGNySB2Oc-sEb5hCN0e7EnToBytzdlDJXa681DfYzgHs8QWgORNC9UwAuxS_HaAOIl_fE_R9Z-xIj-k/s1600/star-trek-2-into-darkness-poster-404x600.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFDSjjQk1FUjgLCi0p1riLsvaThyphenhyphenUZ-PwxPZVcBhu8Yd0TiywGsSHVs2hmwOx6ZSGNySB2Oc-sEb5hCN0e7EnToBytzdlDJXa681DfYzgHs8QWgORNC9UwAuxS_HaAOIl_fE_R9Z-xIj-k/s640/star-trek-2-into-darkness-poster-404x600.jpg" width="428" /></a></div>
<span style="color: #660000;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span></span>
<span style="color: #660000;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span></span>
<span style="color: #660000;"><i><b>SPOILER WARNING: It is literally impossible to tell you what I think of the movie without revealing what it has up its sleeve</b></i></span><i style="color: #660000;"><b>. But seeing as it's now plastered all over the Internet (it's on Wikipedia, for crying out loud), I figure that you, dear reader, are more likely to already know it than not. But for those who haven't yet seen it and wish to remain surprised, read on at your own peril...</b></i><br />
<br />
Back when <a href="http://slightlyramblomatic.blogspot.com/2009/05/star-trek-review.html">I reviewed the first the new Trek movies</a>, I may have breathlessly extolled that JJ Abrams had the chops to become the new Steven Spielberg. With Into Darkness - and Super 8 in the interim, lest we forget - it's clear that whilst I wasn't exactly <i>wrong</i>, the road to that title is a lot longer than anticipated, and there are a few obstacles that he needs to hurdle before we let him grow The Beard.<br />
<br />
On the surface, he's certainly built a thrilling experience. The Enterprise has never been so realistically depicted, with action sequences that pack an unprecedented punch - the highlight being a confrontation between two Federation ships that will be difficult to top in terms of scale and tension. It's all accentuated by terrific sound design - thunderous base helps, so choose your cinema wisely - and a beautifully weighted orchestral score. The story, too, is masterfully edited, serving to draw you in with carefully paced reveals that all tie together come the end.<br />
<br />
But in spite of this sheen of slickness on the surface, there is a point almost precisely a third of the way through the film where you start to notice that this skin doesn't quite sit properly on its innards. From here, we're given a masterclass in how to give mediocre script work a triple-A makeover in the execution - that Abrams is able to defy the script's downward tug on the film's quality is somewhat miraculous.<br />
<br />
Scenarios, both in terms of action and character development, are lazily recycled wholesale from the previous movie - with dialogue that sees our players openly admit on behalf of the screenwriters that they ran out of ideas. It also shares a fair few plot points with The Wrath of Kahn, though with a contemporary twist (Terrorism! We're suddenly relevant again!), and cunningly hidden inside John Harrison's unfolding character arc. Whilst this is the most interesting thing about the film, it also serves to artificially create a twist where one simply wasn't necessary. Yes, Harrison is in fact Kahn, and if you're a newcomer to the franchise, don't expect who or what he is to be properly explained, because lazy script writing. Also, do you remember how Wrath of Kahn ended? Notice any similarities? They tried to trick us by reversing the roles and throwing in some more <i>deus ex machina - </i>as if we hadn't had enough - but fumbled the sleight of hand. Because lazy script writing (And now lazy review writing! It's infectious!).<br />
<br />
It's a shame, because performance-wise, there's joy to be had. Of particular note is Benedict Cumberbatch, - alternating between brooding darkly and kicking fifty shades of shite out of Kirk, Spock, Klingons, and anyone else who happens to get in his way. Cumberbatch is actually a revelation in that department - he fights here as a man possessed, scathing his way through his foes with a lithe brutality that serves to compliment Kahn's calm fixation on revenge. His showing is worthy of a newly forged character that tips his hat to the classic villain, rather than this lazy mark-two that ultimately ends up brushed under the carpet - though it's testament to the strength of the performance that it feels this way.<br />
<br />
Zachary Quinto's uncanny portrayal of a young Spock is still excellent, and regardless of everything that's wrong with the climax of the film, he does a good job of it, managing to scream the iconic 'Kaaaaaaaaahn!' without shedding his dignity. Zoe Saldana provides the emotional core of the piece elegantly, and Simon Pegg - whilst still sporting an accent worse than Gerard Butler's Irish one - is enjoyably daft as Scotty. Rounding out the headliners is Karl Urban, providing the rest of the film's comic relief with aplomb. Sadly, Chris Pine seems to be under the impression that nobody's watching, playing Kirk on auto-pilot until the denoument, where he suddenly ramps it up to 11. The rest of the cast aren't really given much to do, ranging from painfully under-written, to shameless eye candy - but they all do more than is required of what they're given.<br />
<br />
It's not that it's bad. Quite the opposite, there's a lot of fun to be had - as a sci-fi action movie, it more than delivers, with thrillingly kinetic action sequences, spectacular visual effects and in the few-and-far-between moments where the writers actually put some effort in, there's laughs and heartbreak to be had. But as a Star Trek movie, it falls flat somewhat - an echo in contrast to the first film's ballsy shout, meekly following in the footsteps of a now irrelevant predecessor. I'm sure we were promised different.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiquyFyO2g6SvmcifeH7KzdYQysFJ-ICmGQqPTT4T4XO1bOKUEH1qcv9sUqP5lrDtreViIbXCOR3RJfPVjB6i9M03KTEoWsbSDDWuSQmH70MNhDYUx-QIKzLAxYBNM40DkuL0SajaVNBuKx/s1600/3+stars.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiquyFyO2g6SvmcifeH7KzdYQysFJ-ICmGQqPTT4T4XO1bOKUEH1qcv9sUqP5lrDtreViIbXCOR3RJfPVjB6i9M03KTEoWsbSDDWuSQmH70MNhDYUx-QIKzLAxYBNM40DkuL0SajaVNBuKx/s320/3+stars.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-88532286598986222632013-05-16T10:26:00.001+01:002013-05-17T15:27:09.625+01:00Iron Man Three Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS4H7zMcMO1Zn6tkd5h-kwkJRR0ZcRcSv_TTN26KU7JjTivHdu-UAll2XhWW7OsrjGza21p7tgSkw2xpZO_AYkjITi9fE5xus3AGCUoyzF7j7XiVbPYCaMTkw6b2N7cyE_zw5VTVrtvAlh/s1600/Pepper-Potts-Gwyneth-Paltrow-Iron-Man-3-Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS4H7zMcMO1Zn6tkd5h-kwkJRR0ZcRcSv_TTN26KU7JjTivHdu-UAll2XhWW7OsrjGza21p7tgSkw2xpZO_AYkjITi9fE5xus3AGCUoyzF7j7XiVbPYCaMTkw6b2N7cyE_zw5VTVrtvAlh/s640/Pepper-Potts-Gwyneth-Paltrow-Iron-Man-3-Poster.jpg" width="424" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In a twist bewildering long-term geeks and nerds the world over, we now live in a post-Avengers world - not only is a movie about four superheroes teaming up one of the most successful films of all time, it's also been celebrated for being...y'know...good. What's more, after its clash of four separate stories, it's lain groundwork for a grandiose second act that bears nothing but promise. First up? Iron Man 3 (or Three...or 'the Third', or whatever the hell you like).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After the sheer scope of the Avengers' hoedown, it's surprisingly pleasant to skim back down to just the one primary hero in shot, and being reminded that Tony Stark will have problems of his own. Particularly after Stark's 'sacrifice play', which - we are informed at the beginning of the movie - has inflicted post-traumatic stress disorder on our hero, and he can't sleep. Couple that with a series of increasingly devastating bomb attacks overseen by a terrorist calling himself 'The Mandarin', as well as a shadowy figure returning from his past, Mr Stark has quite probably seen happier times. As you may have gathered, a dark tone has been set - words like 'shadowy' and 'traumatic' are being thrown about. It's <i>that </i>intense.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Snarkery aside, the story is cleverly structured and carefully paced, neatly balancing the newly introduced darker themes - pride coming before the fall, terrorism, industrial espionage, the whole PTSD thang - with the action-comedy tone of what came before. Most intriguing, however, is a mostly armour-free middle act that could've been a complete drag, even going so far as to have a mission where Stark's only tools are the contents of a local hardware store. It carries this coup off with aplomb, however - the emphasis on improvisation, adaptation and some good-old soul-searching brilliantly showcasing our hero's actual superpower. This also allows for a slow reveal of the Mandarin as both more and less than what he appears - genuinely, this is one of the biggest joys of the film: a most ingenious interpretation of a classic Marvel villain that subverts, twists, combines and stretches, but somehow fits perfectly within their new cinematic canon.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
New director and co-writer Shane Black's fingerprints appear throughout - touchstones seemingly lifted directly from the cutting room floor of Black and Downey Jr's previous collaboration, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. The dialogue has taken a silver-tongued turn towards Black's personal brand of quirk - to which Downey Jr is perfectly suited, let it be known - and he also retains his proven stylistic pretensions, giving the darker aspects of the story a deliciously noire-ish feel. This is particularly evident in its development of Pepper Potts from damsel in distress (in heels), to femme fatale (in track pants), with Black coaxing a fierce performance from Paltrow that surprises and thrills (and as evidenced by my choice of poster at the top, might be my favourite thing in it).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Elsewhere, Downey Jr is Tony Stark - if they intend to replace him at any point, they're going to have their work more than cut out. There would be more to say if he had put a foot wrong - but even with a slightly grimmer character to grapple with, his performance effortlessly adapts. Ben Kingsley is...eh...in the film. To say more about his performance is to spoil quite what makes it so good, so we'll move on. Guy Pearce is wondefully sly as industrialist Aldrich Killian, 'before' and 'after' aspects of the character juxtaposing mouse against snake. The transition is believable, and he does his fair share of service to the plot. Rebecca Hall, Don Cheadle and Jon Favreau are very much plot fodder, though they all do better than relatively under-written roles warrant. Best of the rest is James Badge Dale as First Henchmanâ„¢, lip-lickingly evil and very much the deserving recipient of a comeuppance.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Come the end of it. the very best thing about the film - as I've been hinting at - is the way that it doesn't quite play out how you think it might've. The narrative heads roughly down the expected path, but there's a couple of surprising turns come the end of the second and third acts that really speak volumes about quite how bold they're being with this whole thing. And it works - it's a great sequel, both to The Avengers, and to Iron Man 2, and an exciting, darkly humourous ride in its own right. Plus I was late seeing it, so if you haven't seen it at this point...what exactly have you been doing with yourself? See it. Again, if you have to.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFms19E47cH3_8rDRbBcgQ-v4oguHa9zNtpHlUO5CSJhAzpqcHlyIZYDEHi31qPNLDNptkb3ILCYxMSR1Y8uusGeKvgDAovdzIdTvcmOM2q-WfYaPHrnxWP-BC6wIryW1KI5rkyXxUOFjK/s1600/4+stars.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFms19E47cH3_8rDRbBcgQ-v4oguHa9zNtpHlUO5CSJhAzpqcHlyIZYDEHi31qPNLDNptkb3ILCYxMSR1Y8uusGeKvgDAovdzIdTvcmOM2q-WfYaPHrnxWP-BC6wIryW1KI5rkyXxUOFjK/s200/4+stars.png" width="200" /></a></div>
Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-28666269968591375622013-02-14T12:31:00.002+00:002013-05-16T10:39:41.065+01:00Warm Bodies Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn.bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/warm_bodies_ver9_xlg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://cdn.bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/warm_bodies_ver9_xlg.jpg" width="451" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When it comes to the zombie apocalypse, romance is hardly on the cards. Yeah, you can meet someone nice, and yeah, you'll have a whale of a time trying to survive, but social connections formed in apocalyptic scenarios are invariably based on desperation and little else, bringing together folk who might otherwise have never interacted. The genre - for all its horror trappings - feeds off of these mismatches in unforgiving circumstances to create engaging human drama. The zombies are set dressing - horrible, flesh eating set dressing, yes, but set dressing nonetheless. They're not meant to be engaged with. Are they?<br />
<br />
Imagine, if you will, my conjecture being vocalised in an abandoned bar to you, my fellow survivor. Suddenly, the door crashes in, and in shambles a zombie, a sticker with 'Hi! My name is Warm Bodies!' on its chest. But instead of trying to open our skulls like tinned chilli, he takes a seat, and tries to answer that question. Sums up the movie, really.<br />
<br />
Back to reality, with its male romantic lead a zombie, it's a clear attempt to take a fresh approach on no less then two genres. The mythology has obviously been adapted accordingly - one can hardly have a romance without a spot of spurning your brethren in its pursuit - and here, they're divided into two subsets. The first are the walking social commentaries featured in Romero's films: retaining some sense of who they were, and when not feasting on cerebellum, they're emptily going through the motions of a life half-remembered. Then there's the 'bonies', eyeless bags of bone and sinew, beyond saving and devouring anything with a heartbeat.<br />
<br />
It's an interesting play from the writers, and from a script point of view, it's difficult to fault beyond proceeding exactly as you might expect it to. So much so that I'm skipping sumarising the plot as a challenge to any reading this! This isn't restricted to the narrative either, with a few of the jokes only really funny because they may have crossed your mind when you were watching the same situation played straight elsewhere.<br />
<br />
But the laughs are there to be had - several, in fact, and good ones too - with the cast making a decent job of it. Nicholas Hoult and Rob Corddry's comic timing - and that's pretty much all they've got at their disposal here - are the stars of the show, bouncing off each-other and co-star Teresa Palmer enjoyably enough to buoy her enticing but ultimately uninteresting portrayal of The Girl (TM). John Malkovich is on autopilot in his role as the merciless military commander of the survivors - even the addition of Over-Protective Father (TM) hardly challenges him - so if you're hoping for something as fun as his turns in RED or Con Air, you'll need to keep looking. The rest are unremarkable, but never bad.<br />
<br />
The almost inevitable let down is in the execution. Whilst it's entirely competent from a technical standpoint, there was an decision made to open it up to the audience that it shares bare plot bones with - human falls in love with supernatural creature, and you can read that however you like. The result, stylistically, is a removal of bite from the human/zombie interaction. It's completely bloodless, and lacks a single proper scare - earning a 12A from the BBFC, the horror tagged as 'moderate'. Seeing as the horror is what would ostensibly be the forbidden aspect of this love story, this in turn undermines the romance, leaving the comedy to do the bulk of the entertaining, and this can't quite fill the two gaps. It's a story that, had they made the horror aspects horrifying, could have been an unexpected delight.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the lack of horror is a curious decision insofar as it's a clear pastiche of the supernatural romance - taken to a logical extreme, as pastiches invariably are. To open it up to the audience you're winkingly ripping into, and completely de-clawing your movie in the process, is bordering on madness. <br />
<br />
It's also a touch too long, meandering between plot points without any sense of urgency or threat, and it verges on outstaying its welcome in the flat finale. There's a tight, funny, blooded movie in the vein of Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead to be had from this story, and it's disappointing that this one squanders a good portion of its potential.<br />
<br />
Still, the ideas at its core are good, it's at least competently executed, and the comedy does work, even if you're mouthing the punch lines as they're projected. It's a shame the other two aspects of the story are so toothless, caught in a viscous cycle stemming from a business decision. But this is Hollywood, so having your figurative guts ripped out so more people will see you is par for the course. That the carcass is still entirely watchable is a testament both to the strength of the idea, and to the two male leads' zombified chemistry. Not one to rush out and see, but worth a look down the line.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga8i5ky1fYd59xvr0ilfLnM2skkPriwdZ_59-vcUJeA2BKuuvMRZU3I5UPI58_6KAI0cazFo3uXWpU4L1v709l8fyBdzPDCwdaOxENehwjeICj8FtZyWk4datCXce5yN23xU1pie67ZuJT/s1600/3stars.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga8i5ky1fYd59xvr0ilfLnM2skkPriwdZ_59-vcUJeA2BKuuvMRZU3I5UPI58_6KAI0cazFo3uXWpU4L1v709l8fyBdzPDCwdaOxENehwjeICj8FtZyWk4datCXce5yN23xU1pie67ZuJT/s1600/3stars.gif" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span></div>
Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-26752236464742007352013-01-23T20:42:00.002+00:002013-05-16T10:40:03.082+01:00The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://media.sfx.co.uk/files/2012/09/hobbit-dwarves-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://media.sfx.co.uk/files/2012/09/hobbit-dwarves-poster.jpg" width="435" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The time has come once again, young friends, to grab your walking stick, saddle up your pony (who's hopefully called Bill) and prepare for a trek through Middle Earth once again - for the first of Peter Jackson's latest string of Tolkien adaptations is upon us, and thankfully, whilst it's not an absolute triumph, it's entertaining enough to keep your eyes glued to the screen.<br />
<br />
If you're unfamiliar with the close-to-legend plot of the Hobbit, do yourself a favour: stop reading this review, and go buy a copy of The Hobbit. This'll still be here when you're finished. But for the lazy: wizard recruits titular little person to aid a group of thirteen other little (but slightly bulkier) people in their quest to reclaim their kingdom from the dragon what nicked it. Or to put it another way - it's <i>another </i>movie about fucking walking from the fucking Shire to a fucking mountain in the east.<br />
<br />
Don't let the pithy plot summary dissuade you, though, as Mr Jackson has done a sterling job of fleshing out the plot of the book - and whilst superficially, the plots are similar, there's a lot of emphasis placed on the telling, rather than the plot turns themselves. The embellishments on the six chapters of the novel that this, the first of three movies is based on is pleasing enough, mercilessly foreshadowing the dark times to come, and expanded on a few passingly-mentioned characters, upgrading Azog the Goblin from a long-dead enemy to a secondary antagonist, as well as an expanded role for Radaghast the Brown. As Gandalf muses at the start of the film: 'all good stories deserve embellishment', and whilst they may not sit entirely comfortably with Rings enthusiasts and scholars, in terms of the films structure, they work wonderfully.<br />
<br />
Stylistically, the change between the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit films is similar to the books - The Hobbit playing lighter and with a touch more humour about it, which Jackson translates to film elegantly whilst still maintaining his penchant for the visually epic and arresting. It doesn't quite reach the highs of the first of his previous trilogy, thanks to a relative lack of investment in the characters, and a strange bloodlessness that removes any real sense of threat. They're still visually arresting, and not without a touch of wit, but there's nothing that can quite match the Mines of Moria sequence here, despite their best efforts.<br />
<br />
From a technical standpoint, it's difficult to say exactly where I sit. 3D here is as perfunctory as it ever was - though there are a couple of moments where it's used to good effect, it still feels like a lame excuse to charge more for the entry fee. It is, however, the crispest 3D I've experienced since Avatar, thanks to the 4K resolution and high frame-rate filming. Unfortunately, this added fidelity can on occasion draw attention to the seams in...well...everything. From the irritatingly obvious join between actor's skin and skull-cap on Dwalin's head, to the almost toy-like quality of the various weapons wielded - now that we can see every tiny detail of a scene, it's easier than ever to have your suspension of disbelief come crashing back down to earth. The sheer breadth and majesty of Jackson's vision, as well as the absolutely stellar CGI work, go a long way to mitigating this, but as stated, such little irritations can prove distracting. <br />
<br />
Fortunately, the film is strongest when looking at it from a performance point of view - assisting in drawing your attention away from the visual oddities. Particular credit should go to James Nesbitt, Ken Stott, Dean O'Gorman and Aidan Turner, all bringing stoic turns with just the right amount of humour to their respective dwarves. Martin Freeman is great as Bilbo, and his scene with the always fantastic Andy Serkis - returning as Gollum - is as pitch perfect a rendition as one could possibly hope for. Richard Amitage is perhaps a touch flat as Thorin Oakenshield, and the rest of the dwarves aren't really given enough screen time to really appreciate.<br />
<br />
The most inspired bit of casting, however, must go to Slyvester McCoy as Radaghast - a shambling living earth-pile of a wizard who none-the-less displays the spryness of his less disheveled counterpart Gandalf - who is still elegantly played, less grumpy this time, by Ian McKellen. Whilst his scenes are almost entirely the creations of Jackson, Walsh and Del Toro's screenplay, McCoy plays them with a sly absent-mindedness that belies an over-active mind and his presence is missed after he vanishes about half way through the movie.<br />
<br />
Overall, An Unexpected Journey isn't quite the tantalising prospect of adventure that The Fellowship of the Ring was - in part due to it all feeling a little bit like a retread with less blood and more slapstick comedy - but it's still hugely enjoyable, and even though it's a stately 169 minutes long, it never feels it, and come the end, Smaug's desolation in December 2013 can't come fast enough.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf4p01K8aPjDn5MMcKptDPnrifOtdcQdFsw7IDOtjEBFk2NdEmNwgS3crZg5d5NtA_W5yamLO3yjfRfj8LPxVhssvYdsz7qOOaO1vt9xWk0_uZTtWY9KuyL5_D2slEhazF5pR-s_wQX6ib/s1600/4stars.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf4p01K8aPjDn5MMcKptDPnrifOtdcQdFsw7IDOtjEBFk2NdEmNwgS3crZg5d5NtA_W5yamLO3yjfRfj8LPxVhssvYdsz7qOOaO1vt9xWk0_uZTtWY9KuyL5_D2slEhazF5pR-s_wQX6ib/s1600/4stars.gif" /></a></div>
Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-37301911726350636752012-11-05T16:20:00.001+00:002012-11-09T18:14:29.508+00:00Skyfall Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBZRK0zhESyh76inhH1FbqvX0I7s0VHQk026hZX062MVi3Xeo387jzkQK9olSIn1t4J-jMpauJrztDNhwPs9BV3a0vJZHkTFA208A4YVtFHPNbRiijrYPXmVJzGo5hlIWN-yhKR-DijgYQ/s1600/Skyfall_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBZRK0zhESyh76inhH1FbqvX0I7s0VHQk026hZX062MVi3Xeo387jzkQK9olSIn1t4J-jMpauJrztDNhwPs9BV3a0vJZHkTFA208A4YVtFHPNbRiijrYPXmVJzGo5hlIWN-yhKR-DijgYQ/s1600/Skyfall_poster.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Carrying a legacy is no mean feat, by any stretch of the imagination - and it's more difficult than one might be able to conceive if that legacy is the James Bond film franchise, in it's 50th anniversary year. Couple this with a Bond whose appearance has divided critics and audiences alike, along with it being a follow-up to the relatively lacklustre Quantum of Solace, and you'll begin to get a sense of just how much was riding on Skyfall.<br />
<br />
It's a relief to report, then, that Sam Mendes has absolutely nailed it. There are a couple of snags at script level, but ultimately, this is an absolute return to form for the franchise - an ensemble cast that's never been finer, a story that neatly subverts a few stale tropes as it establishes a new status quo, whilst at the same time acknowledging the 50-year-old legacy that preceded it with a degree of subtlety that's almost unprecedented.<br />
<br />
It may have initially seemed like an odd choice for director, given his previous films - but Mendes is a genuine revelation as an action director. From the initial chase sequence that ticks every box you could imagine - cars, motorbikes, parkour and trains - to guerilla warfare in an abandoned old house, every beat of action is exciting, entertaining and above all, gloriously captured by Roger Deakins. The film's crowning moment - at least in my not-so-esteemed opinion - is the set piece involving Bond trailing and ultimately confronting an assassin in a glass office. A masterstroke of effectively setting tension before an action sequence, and then properly framing it - there's some cat-and-mouse play as Bond hides in the reflections in the glass, and the subsequent fist-fight between the two is done in a single slow zoom, silhouetted by the blue neon sign on the building behind them. It's one of those 'wow' moments unique to cinema, and I challenge you to sit through this scene without your jaw knocking out the person sitting in front of you.<br />
<br />
What's great about the direction is that there's an effort to connect Craig's newer, grittier Bond with the suave aloofness of Brosnan, Connery and Moore. Little details abound in each scene and set-piece that link the four portrayals together. There's also some interesting questions raised about just how useful an individual like Bond is in the age of digital intelligence. As Ben Wishaw's new incarnation of Q puts it: "<span class="bold quote_actor"></span><span class="line">I can do more damage on my laptop, sitting in my pajamas, before my first cup of Earl Grey than you can do a year in the field. But sometimes, a trigger needs to be pulled". The conclusion it draws? Very useful indeed - but that's the rub of the piece, and you should see it yourself for just how it comes to this.</span><br />
<span class="line"><br /></span>
<span class="line">Performance-wise, Daniel Craig continues to do his best to become everyone's new favourite Bond, and as said, there's a real effort, both from Mendes and from Craig himself to connect the blunt instrument of Casino Royale to the sophisticated, dapper agent that we were used to before he rocked up. Javier Bardem is deliciously unsettling as Silva, the villain of the piece - he's a nod to the slightly camper days of old, but coupled with a disturbing twist that creates a genuinely memorable villain. Judi Dench provides no evidence against the ostensible fact that she can't put in a bad performance as M, and welcome additions to the cast in the form of Naomi Harris and Ralph Fiennes help round out what is a fantastic ensemble.</span><br />
<span class="line"><br /></span>
<span class="line">It's perhaps a bit of a disappointment that the story sags a little in the middle, but this is mainly due to an unreasonable number of intriguing plot threads being juggled rather deftly, and physics dictates that there's going to be some form of inevitable downward motion, so it's easy to overlook this when taking the film in in its entirety. Less forgiveable is the glossed-over motivation of Silva, which feels a little too-quickly explained and poorly emphasised. It would've perhaps been more interesting to make him a Joker-like character - "Some men just want to watch the world burn" - rather than try to hastily cram an explanation into expositionary dialogue. Still, Bardem's interpretation of the character is so strong, so beautifully off-putting, that you'll simply be glad he gets to clash with Bond at all.</span><br />
<span class="line"><br /></span>
<span class="line">Ultimately, these two minor hiccups do prevent the film from taking its place alongside the likes of Goldeneye and Goldfinger - but the gap isn't exactly what one might refer to as large. It's exciting, it's engaging, it's thoughtful, and it's iconic, with a best-yet performance from Mr Craig. See it, and - if you're like me - see it again shortly afterwards.</span><br />
<span class="line"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf4p01K8aPjDn5MMcKptDPnrifOtdcQdFsw7IDOtjEBFk2NdEmNwgS3crZg5d5NtA_W5yamLO3yjfRfj8LPxVhssvYdsz7qOOaO1vt9xWk0_uZTtWY9KuyL5_D2slEhazF5pR-s_wQX6ib/s1600/4stars.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf4p01K8aPjDn5MMcKptDPnrifOtdcQdFsw7IDOtjEBFk2NdEmNwgS3crZg5d5NtA_W5yamLO3yjfRfj8LPxVhssvYdsz7qOOaO1vt9xWk0_uZTtWY9KuyL5_D2slEhazF5pR-s_wQX6ib/s1600/4stars.gif" /></a></div>
<span class="line"><br /></span>Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-48205777870522983982012-10-29T13:21:00.002+00:002012-10-29T13:21:08.354+00:00Looper Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQXbGJDuSrNyDc1c3EEqXAMnOGB5eY6V6uh4nWgmlJqjgTUfZNLmvyh75rJ2Se0XkEmb3Fya2_8ZMVIF6AzzhpS1NMQ5fgDd4mubS-zSn1EHLTQvZECRddydJZI49lo2BAaPT3TsLW5PkQ/s1600/looper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQXbGJDuSrNyDc1c3EEqXAMnOGB5eY6V6uh4nWgmlJqjgTUfZNLmvyh75rJ2Se0XkEmb3Fya2_8ZMVIF6AzzhpS1NMQ5fgDd4mubS-zSn1EHLTQvZECRddydJZI49lo2BAaPT3TsLW5PkQ/s640/looper.jpg" width="412" /></a></div>
<br />
<i>Warning: Mild spoilers-by-inference contained within.</i><br />
<br />
Perhaps the key to making a successful sci-fi film is to ensure that no matter how grand your ideas get, you always ground them in a relatable reality. <i>Avatar</i> was grounded by the incredible detail in its special effects. <i>Moon </i>was grounded by an incredibly human performance from Sam Rockwell. <i>Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind</i> (yes, it counts as sci-fi) was grounded by its central love story. And <i>The Matrix</i>? That was grounded by centralising an all-too-inevitable conflict between humanity and artificial intelligence. <br />
<br />
After the event, the fact that <i>Looper</i> has been even mentioned in the same breath as <i>The Matrix</i> is somewhat confusing - there isn't a single shade of the Wachiowski brothers' opus here.<br />
<br />
The story goes that in 2074, time travel is invented, but is immediately outlawed. That of course doesn't stop criminals from putting it to nefarious means, using the technology to circumvent their time's ability to track corpses - hurling people they want dead back in time to be murdered by people known as 'loopers' in 2044. When the time comes to end a looper's contract, they are sent back to get killed by themselves for a retirement-grade payday - a process known as 'closing the loop', and hence the name of the job.<br />
<br />
If anything, this should've been coined as <i>Back to the Future</i>'s psychotic younger cousin - it's newer, angrier and a whole lot more complicated. But the key difference that sets this<i> </i>apart from <i>The Matrix - </i>and indeed <i>Back to the Future - </i>is that the latter two work. Sadly, <i>Looper</i> does not.<br />
<br />
At least, not fully - I'm not necessarily saying that it's without merit. The central premise of time-travel as a means of assassination is one of the best ideas to be committed to film in quite a while, and it gives way to an astonishing sequence involving one of the titular loopers, his future self and a surgery table that is beautifully unsettling. If nothing else, it proves that Rian Johnson has come into his own as a director - everything is handled with a dark, dry sense of humour that has come to be his unique selling point even in the disappointing <i>The Brothers Bloom</i>.<br />
<br />
Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis are also fantastic as the present and future versions of Joe, with Gordon-Levitt in particular nailing the speech patterns and mannerisms of a 1980s Bruce Willis. This, coupled with the extensive make-up disguising him, makes for a compelling dynamic between these two aspects of the same character, and the best character moment is shared between the two in a Pulp Fiction-style stare-down in a remote diner. Jeff Daniels is laconically menacing as the mob boss who runs the loopers, and Noah Segan's bug-eyed secondary antagonist is a spluttering, incompentent joy to behold - the indignation when he's asked if he's blown off his <i>other </i>leg is fantastic.<br />
<br />
But despite the best efforts of everyone involved, the movie ultimately comes to rely on three central conceits that aren't particularly grounded. The first is that the film's take on time travel is not particularly consistent - not being able to choose between Twelve Monkeys' approach of one set timeline in which everything has already happened, and BttF's multiple timeline's approach. The stuff involving telekinetic powers is clearly just shoe-horned in to up the visual spectacle, and could've easily been excised whilst preserving the narrative.<br />
<br />
The final, crippling conceit, however - and this is the one large spoiler that you may wish to avoid - is the fact that the loopers are armed with weapons that cannot fire further the 15 feet. It's frankly ridiculous, and never properly explained - 'just because' is the best Johnson can come up with - but two of the film's major set pieces (including the chaotic finale) rely on this fact, and it completely undermines the joy of the admittedly spectacular sequences.<br />
<br />
Disappointing would be the word of choice on this one, though a part of this is the comparisons with <i>The Matrix </i>colouring my expectations. But even discounting this fact, the best that can be said about it is that it's an admirable mess, much like <i>The Brothers Bloom </i>that preceeded it. Johnson has a real talent for direction, but it's possible that self-indulgence is getting the better of him, and it may be time for him to direct something that he didn't write himself.<br />
<br />
But it's still certainly worth a look - the performances are great, the premise sound and inconsistencies aside, the story progresses in a relatively satisfying manner, with some excitingly played set pieces. It's also darkly amusing to boot - it's just such a shame that the story doesn't hold up to closer scrutiny. Have a pinch of salt ready, but otherwise, there are worse ways to spend two hours at the movies.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7FrvTFLKzuww-CMJ5tQ-RT3m6lOyPXv1PZymnfpNvDRsttn_5uxj2M_Tr6kVsTmc60E0DRi6oTYnkAdzGE8Uv6EPacLJ4HcGV9vPVnWpuKTHyzAsE9pEgdrUhrQOnfow8nhdsyhF-GnuI/s1600/3stars.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7FrvTFLKzuww-CMJ5tQ-RT3m6lOyPXv1PZymnfpNvDRsttn_5uxj2M_Tr6kVsTmc60E0DRi6oTYnkAdzGE8Uv6EPacLJ4HcGV9vPVnWpuKTHyzAsE9pEgdrUhrQOnfow8nhdsyhF-GnuI/s1600/3stars.gif" /></a></div>
<br />Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-9098668863987874602012-10-10T14:03:00.001+01:002012-10-10T14:04:34.669+01:00Dredd 3D Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkLTLQrl_XXo6dgp7fs7ysrAieC9sxt5lE8ZFr63ZbYmf4SPGo7ED8hKqytogioe7hk9BUhLfy_J3QR29EIAKZEfjzJDIWyOMM6IZxxk8Sz0WtR8McWMuxB7dm9H_b4Tlze2XSLVjO08zv/s1600/dredd.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkLTLQrl_XXo6dgp7fs7ysrAieC9sxt5lE8ZFr63ZbYmf4SPGo7ED8hKqytogioe7hk9BUhLfy_J3QR29EIAKZEfjzJDIWyOMM6IZxxk8Sz0WtR8McWMuxB7dm9H_b4Tlze2XSLVjO08zv/s400/dredd.jpg" width="270" /></a></div>
<br />
Character development is an interesting thing - whilst it's more or less essential for making a movie whose timeline encompasses the passing of a few weeks or months, what if a movie takes place more-or-less in real time? Can character development be sidelined in favour of character <i>presentation</i>? Can we get to know and even like a character based purely on their actions within a certain scenario?<br />
<br />
'Yes', is the reverberating answer that Dredd 3D tries to drill into you like a slow-motion bullet to the brainpan, and ultimately, it's quite successful. It's intriguing and exciting to see a comic-book movie that is not overly concerned about extolling an origin for its primary protagonist, instead opting for exploring the characters by having them react to a scenario, all of which is set up in a swift and elegant first 10 minutes.<br />
<br />
For those of you unfamiliar with Judge Dredd - and to be fair, I was hardly what one might refer to as an expert - he, and his fellow Judges, are the logical extreme of the American system of law. Judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one, Judges are empowered to apply the law as and when they see fit in the MegaCities of the future that serve as their jurisdiction. In one such MegaCity - where crime and drug abuse are rampant - Judge Dredd and his fresh-out-of-the-academy partner Judge Anderson are called to a triple homocide in a tower block - and whilst murder is never simple, these get particularly complicated particularly quickly.<br />
<br />
What follows this set-up is more or less 80 minutes of action, with a few stops for breath. It's beautifully filmed and directed, and whilst the 3D can feel a little perfunctory for the majority of the movie, there are a handful of moments that do make it worth sitting with those awful glasses on your face - not that you have much of a choice in the matter, if you wish to see the movie, given that there's no 2D release.<br />
<br />
However, any sequence which involves the MacGuffin narcotic 'Slo-Mo' is a treat, with the water droplets and shards of glass suspended amid over-saturated, prismatic colours, that quickly drop back to the dull grey of the unenhanced world. It elicits a modicum of sympathy for the characters that do use it - it's a way for them to escape their colourless existence in what may well be the closest thing to an actual Hell on Earth.<br />
<br />
The action packs a fairly meaty punch, too, with visceral slow-motion shots of bullets entering faces, chests, legs and other appendages from a variety of angles. There's some grim satisfaction, as well as mild horror to be had here, and the efficiency with which Dredd cleans up the bad guys is both impressive and a little unsettling, with the more tactical set pieces unfolding at such a blistering pace, and yet precise, technically accomplished camera allows the audience to keep up with it beat for beat. <br />
<br />
Performance-wise, there're no weak links. Karl Urban - or at least, Karl Urban's face from the nose down - is great as Dredd, all dogged surliness and pinpoint markmanship. He also gets the best lines in the film, and delivers them with a snarl that is pitch perfect to the character. The lion's share of the character development goes to Olivia Thrilby as Judge Anderson, and she does a convincing job of finding the grey areas in Dredd's black and white morality. Lena Headley is quietly menacing as the primary antagonist Ma-Ma, and a slew of strong bit players help to create a convincing world of rather facistic oppression.<br />
<br />
It sags a coupled of times between action sequences, and there's not as much satire as one might've hoped for, with Alex Garland himself admitting that the script was written as a wide-eyed teenager might interpret the character and world. It's still funny, but in a badass, one-liner way rather than as a skewering of the establishment. But given its strengths, it's easy to forgive the film for these minor blemishes.<br />
<br />
<br />
Considering that Dredd 3D has next to no introduction to its characters,
and even less by way of a plot - we're talking less plot points than
Star Wars, here - it's genuinely surprising that not only is it quite
enjoyable - in a darkly humourous, action-packed way - but thoroughly
so, with slick direction, great performances and a fantastic script that
characterises through action, not prevarication. A sequel needs to be earned, so go see it!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgwz1biwYLeRLjjfKaocQ1T78symT33KDiXNNEVFx5r5xmw8kvf4yB-c884buuo9LTBLss3e4KmMMGsQxJdfPTQ-Xae51K5xiL7Fj3MKlr_PNb7CAJ-QvkHxjRuip0K8nXEF_84lvuFSqJ/s1600/4stars.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgwz1biwYLeRLjjfKaocQ1T78symT33KDiXNNEVFx5r5xmw8kvf4yB-c884buuo9LTBLss3e4KmMMGsQxJdfPTQ-Xae51K5xiL7Fj3MKlr_PNb7CAJ-QvkHxjRuip0K8nXEF_84lvuFSqJ/s1600/4stars.gif" /></a></div>
<br />Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-7041761789081316172012-08-23T19:58:00.002+01:002012-10-29T13:55:32.904+00:00The Bourne Legacy Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/files/2012/08/The-Bourne-Legacy-poster-2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/files/2012/08/The-Bourne-Legacy-poster-2.jpeg" width="272" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
I<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969);">t's a rare sight indeed to see any series to maintain quality into a fourth iteration, and whilst there may indeed have been hope for the Bourne series - in the form of the great Mr Jeremy Renner stepping into Matt Damon's ass-kicking boots, and Tony Gilroy not only continuing writing duties, but also stepping into the director's chair - it's derailed by some strange additions to the mythos that don't sit comfortably within the context of the overarching story.</span><br />
<br />
There's a nice sense of foreboding built at the start, with stark Alaskan landscapes, and a rugged, ragged-looking Renner clambering through it rather expertly. This is juxtaposed against Edward Norton and Stacey Keach, prevaricating in suits in Washington as they deal with the fallout of Jason Bourne's escapades. It's here that the film is most interesting, laying a groundwork that is actually rather elegantly interwoven with what we know about Treadstone and Blackbriar, with cameos from various major players that serve as a constant reminder of the climate of intrigue in the world we are being presented.<br />
<br />
Performances are good - with Renner in particular going all out as Aaron Cross, notably performing the majority of his own stunts, and brooding both intensely and appropriately as the plot becomes silly around him. Norton brings his appealing brand of fast talk to the antagonist, and the supporting players all make a convincing go of it.<br />
<br />
It's nicely directed too, but given the grade of action that Greengrass gave us, this was never going to really measure up. There're a few beautifully dynamic shots - a continuous tracking shot of Cross scrambling up the side of a house, bursting through a window and putting down a government assassin is the most memorable - but for the most part, whilst solid, it can feel a little visually perfunctory.<br />
<br />
Then, about twenty minutes in, the story takes its uncomfortable turn - introducing a pair of pills that Cross has been taking that are...well, it's not properly explained at first, nor is it fully explained by the end. It feels a little cheap in terms of story-telling, using facts that the characters have known all along, but have simply foregone divulging to the audience to drip feed us ultimately incomplete information that plays against the hyper-realistic, psychological angle of the first three. Brainwashing, after all, isn't far-fetched at all - and whilst that element is still present, the movie also starts coining phrases like 'virusing out', and peppering the dialogue with pharmaceutical jargon that feels quite forced, and not in keeping with the precedent that has been set.<br />
<br />
It also never manages to make a case for the audience creating relationships with the characters, seeming to assume that we'll dislike or like the characters based on who they are aligned with from the previous films.<br />
<br />
In fact, were it not for the fact that we know Cross is meant to be the Bourne character of the piece, his character could be construed as the villain - a drug-addicted psychopath who more or less kills indiscriminately in pursuit of what he needs, as the powers that be do whatever they can to stop him. See this without knowing the story, and you'll likely be left scratching your head as to exactly whose side you're meant to be on.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, this is something of a disappointment - visuals that have dropped significantly in intensity, and a muddled plot that is both deeply rooted in, and yet somehow in polar opposition to its prologue, not really working on its own, nor as the Legacy that it purports to be. The performances and the action are entertaining enough to buoy the film just above the surface, and if we want to see Greengrass and Damon back in the saddle, it should be seen, but beyond that, it's the first real let down of the blockbuster season.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzxdjw-qKlCr3lUaR6IpWjRf7J6hLZZ9ff1syO_dr64mtwcfKdCCfT2bF-31M1ALur7hw2cBg_rNOYrQkBtt4uyVp6EOE9c2qLBRU4KBZpFTJ7LoUpUQGQbzgohcqeLHvxwngT29HeXeiM/s1600/2stars.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzxdjw-qKlCr3lUaR6IpWjRf7J6hLZZ9ff1syO_dr64mtwcfKdCCfT2bF-31M1ALur7hw2cBg_rNOYrQkBtt4uyVp6EOE9c2qLBRU4KBZpFTJ7LoUpUQGQbzgohcqeLHvxwngT29HeXeiM/s1600/2stars.gif" /></a></div>
Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-20510041928278617762012-08-22T20:31:00.002+01:002012-08-22T21:19:15.608+01:00Ted Review<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://c947212.r12.cf3.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Ted1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://c947212.r12.cf3.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Ted1.jpg" width="251" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
Given that this is a Seth MacFarlane comedy, it's probably safe to assume that you've already made a decision as to whether or not you'll be seeing Ted. In fact, in all likelihood, you've rushed out and seen it already! Which makes reviewing it seem a little fruitless, but what the hey.<br />
<br />
For those of you unsold on MacFarlane's unique comedy stylings, this isn't going to sway you onto him - the same scatological whimsy that is on display in his televisions shows pervades here, even so far as to cut to slightly silly asides that don't really hold any meaning beside being quite funny.<br />
<br />
It is, however, a terrific setup, playing on the nostalgia of similar 80s/90s movies - you know the ones, modern fantasies that have a hint of magic, riffing on them beautifully with Walter Murohy's deliciously chintzy score, and a slightly serious, yet oft-distracted narration from Patrick Stewart that is the source of the film's first laughs.<br />
<br />
Then there's the magic moment itself, and this is rather well built-upon, with Ted quickly becoming a celebrity, and then following the path of more than a few child stars as he grows up, retreating into obscurity<br />
<br />
But what's really remarkable is that the film does indeed have a soul - strip away the ostensible gimmick of the animated cuddly toy as protagonist, and it would still work. It has something to say about friendship, love, obsession, parenting, and more, and as it explores these with coarsely poetic dialogue swirled into outlandish slacker melodrama - recalling Kevin Smith at his best - it creates characters that you can actually invest in. Come the denouement, when what the BBFC might refer to as 'mild peril' is introduced, you find yourself concerned for the wellbeing of a stuffed toy that you're not even sure can die, which is something of an achievement.<br />
<br />
Whilst MacFarlane's direction is occasionally a little rudimentary, he never mishandles any particular aspect, though his talents are clearly more suited to some motes of live action over others. He does, however, drive it all forward himself with a great central performance as Ted, and his sense of comic timing also makes the overall transition to the big screen intact.<br />
<br />
The rest of the cast a good too: Mila Kunis has already established herself as a good leading lady, and Mark Wahlberg makes for a capable foil, ensuring the story stays grounded. It's nice that there's also no traditional 'straight man' within the trio. Each take their turn, and this lends the dialogue an organic feel that serves to make the comedy rather satisfying. The supporting cast - bit part cameos as a majority - are all fun to spot, and each gets a nice few moments in the limelight. Most notable are Bill Smitrovich as Frank, Ted's manager - a bit of an oddball, but a memorable one - and Giovanni Ribisi as Ted's stalker, a character that was drawn from the same part of MacFarlane's mind as Herbert from Family Guy. Funny, but also mildly creepifying.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, the film is simply good fun - tight editing eliminates dull moments, and MacFarlane's particular brand of comedy is as it ever was, and if it's your cup of tea, you'll find more than your share to like here. Certainly worth seeing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgwz1biwYLeRLjjfKaocQ1T78symT33KDiXNNEVFx5r5xmw8kvf4yB-c884buuo9LTBLss3e4KmMMGsQxJdfPTQ-Xae51K5xiL7Fj3MKlr_PNb7CAJ-QvkHxjRuip0K8nXEF_84lvuFSqJ/s1600/4stars.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgwz1biwYLeRLjjfKaocQ1T78symT33KDiXNNEVFx5r5xmw8kvf4yB-c884buuo9LTBLss3e4KmMMGsQxJdfPTQ-Xae51K5xiL7Fj3MKlr_PNb7CAJ-QvkHxjRuip0K8nXEF_84lvuFSqJ/s1600/4stars.gif" /></a></div>
Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-50094784775253137052012-07-31T19:38:00.003+01:002012-08-07T09:36:42.519+01:00The Dark Knight Rises Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news/31034/New_Dark_Knight_Rises_Poster_Arrives_Online_1337636698.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news/31034/New_Dark_Knight_Rises_Poster_Arrives_Online_1337636698.jpg" width="432" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<i><b>NOTE: I try to avoid spoilers, but one can always infer anything from anything, so be warned, ye Sherlock Holmes deductive reasoning types...anyway...LET'S DO THIS S**T!!</b></i><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>*trumpet fanfare*</b></i></div>
<br />
If I had to sum up The Dark Knight Rises in one word - and I don't, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to try - it would be simply: monumental. If you go away from is review with one thing in your head, let it be that: monumental. How the film achieves this is, of course, the rub of this piece, but let's say it again: monumental.<br />
<br />
For a film which, at least initially, wasn't really believed in - both by its creators and the public at large - Christopher Nolan has lost none of his meticulous approach to film-making, and, alongside the rest of the cast and crew, has crafted a film that not only completes a trilogy with a bold flourish, but serves as a monument to the Batman mythos, both in terms of this particular story, and the legend as an entity.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the story is that they've positioned it such a way that The Dark Knight can actually exist on its own. The only thing you need to know with regard to the second movie is that (actual spoiler alert) Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes are dead - nothing else carries over, and what does is conveniently replayed via flashback. This allows them to rather cleverly sidestep the problem of matching a matchless movie, and allows them to get on with finishing the story.<br />
<br />
In these terms, the Nolan brothers, along with David Goyer, simply couldn't have done a better job. The story they've created is expansive, and yet never forgets where it came from, taking story threads from the first film and intertwining them with threads lifted straight from the comics. It forges new backstories for most of the newly introduced characters, and whilst the web produced might not sit comfortably with fans of the stories that this draws on, it's still an elegant stripping down of the mythos that fits perfectly - both tonally and thematically with its predecessors - and is fully self-contained.<br />
<br />
Particularly impressive is the adaptation of Bane's character into the franchise. Whilst Ledger's Joker was a terrorist who 'just wants to watch the world burn' - representing our collective fear of the unpredictable nature of the psychologically unbalanced - Bane here is a force that's driven by belief in a cause, and a hatred of Batman so deep that you can smell it in his voice.<br />
<br />
It's not quite revealed why until the denouement, but the tension generated by the build-up is capitalised on brilliantly, and that culminates in a scene that,as it progresses, builds a horrible sense of dread - and this is a monument to the characters and stories that have been crafted, that you feel such genuine concern for those on screen.<br />
<br />
So having created a story that is essentially a duology with a Joker-based interlude in the middle, you have to set about filming it. And this, my friends, is where the truly spectacular stuff starts going down.<br />
<br />
The action chops that Nolan honed on Inception are in full show here, and it's all captured with Wally Pfister's jaw-dropping IMAX cinematography. Set pieces bristle with iconic imagery throughout, and the fist fights are abrupt but bone-crunchingly satisfying, filmed with a broader stroke here than in the previous two.<br />
<br />
Ferocious physical performances from all those involved also give the fights a harder, more immediate sense of threat than the previous films - and this is no small part of the above-mentioned dread-filled sequence. Tom Hardy in particular provides a predatory stalk to Bane that, coupled with his deeply unsettling vocal register, makes for a villain that is entirely different, but exactly as elementally terrifying as the late Mr Ledger's agent of chaos. Bale is still both a good Bruce Wayne and a good Batman, if only for the fact that the duality of the character has been mostly jettisoned. The scene-stealer is Anne Hathaway, though, smouldering dangerously as Selina Kyle, and pulling off a feline physicality without a single reference to cats. Then there's Joseph Gordon Levitt. To discuss his performance is to ruin the fun of it, so just keep an eye on him, yeah?<br />
<br />
If there are problems, they arise only due to the scope of the vision. Despite never truly boring, the story sags a little in the middle under the weight of its own plot threads, and takes a little while to pull itself back together. One appearing character feels almost crowbarred in, and it is occasionally a little too pacily edited for its own good.<br />
<br />
It's perhaps a little bit early to brand the film as the best of the series - a rewatch is in order, just to make sure it did all add up. But what's here is a terrifically exciting movie that only threatens to bore in a slightly overlong, Batman-free middle section, and considering the film is 2 hours and 45 minutes long, that this is only a threat is something of an achievement. The IMAX cinematography and the imaginative set pieces are the highlights, but it's also buckling at the seams with iconography that'll stand the test of time. See this monument. See it soon, and in as big a screen as you can.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4XGl6jtao_UZhuDe1Jpo1EyJT3oaH9lPJrInyOTyDr0PsuFgRzBe5fQvUdRiHWYl3R-8-kqhOUtxQqKKZEv7srcvSzKnazDWQvxagsHBb4LGArhaevhTSA9a2JuaPrSJKlTPROVbtRw35/s1600/5stars.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4XGl6jtao_UZhuDe1Jpo1EyJT3oaH9lPJrInyOTyDr0PsuFgRzBe5fQvUdRiHWYl3R-8-kqhOUtxQqKKZEv7srcvSzKnazDWQvxagsHBb4LGArhaevhTSA9a2JuaPrSJKlTPROVbtRw35/s1600/5stars.gif" /></a> </div>Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-74107547650868960762012-06-15T17:33:00.001+01:002012-10-22T17:10:30.320+01:00Prometheus Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn3.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/prometheus-michael-fassbender.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="391" src="http://cdn3.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/prometheus-michael-fassbender.jpg" width="600" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So here it is, after a 10-year wait - so long absent from science-fiction, the man who brought us Alien and Blade Runner finally makes his return to the genre. Not just that, but a return to the Alien mythos - albeit reduced in significance when compared to the original concept for the film. Couple that with the a title that has all sorts of mythological subtext, and you have it: Prometheus. Sadly, the film is very much one of two halves.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The set-up is genuinely fantastic. Archaeologists discover a curious constellation of stars that crop up in the artwork of many different ancient cultures on Earth, despite it being impossible for them to have communicated with each other. There's also the fact that there's only one possible star cluster that matches, and those that made the drawings couldn't possibly have been able to see it. So a plan is made to send an expeditionary force to the cluster - and specifically, a life-supporting moon in orbit around a gas giant - to find out what's there, and why it seemed like we were being told to go there.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first hour or so of the film's two-hour running time is dedicated to the set-up - motivating the characters, moving them to the aforementioned moon, and laying the framework for what initially promises to be a spectacular second and third act. Visually, it's absolutely breathtaking from the get go - the opening sequence is incredibly pure and thoughtful sci-fi, bringing to mind Arthur C Clarke's style of 'show, don't tell'. It offers no explanations - there's not a word dialogue - it just happens, and it's an incredibly arresting, disturbing and ultimately intriguing sequence that serves to make the set-up that little bit more effective.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That's not to say the rest of the film pales in comparison, with detailed, intricate special effects and a lovely contrast between the stark, industrial practicality of human technology compared with the organic, H R Geiger-designed and inspired alien architecture, an aesthetic brought over from the films that preceded it. The visuals are draped in Alien mythology, both overt and subtle, but never intrusive, and it's these design details, coupled with Scott's still-keen eye for the visually majestic, and Dariusz Wolski's gorgeous capturing of the really-quite-alien Icelandic landscapes, that give the film an incredibly rich visual palette.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The performances, too, are for the most part good, with the stand-outs being Idris Elba's ship captain Janek, Charize Theron's Vickers, the frosty commander of the mission, and Michael Fassbender's android David. It's Fassbender who truly steals the show, utterly nailing an unsettling, Lynchian vibe to the character. There's something not quite right about everything he does, and one of the film's better moments is a study of quite what androids get up to when all the humans are in hypersleep, although again, this appears in the film's first act.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Moving on to the second half, this is where the problems with the film start to raise their heads. For a group of individuals purporting to be on an expedition seeking out God himself - or the closest available substitute - the crew of the Prometheus do not make intelligent (or even <i>semi-</i>intelligent) decisions when under pressure. There's a lot of talking going on the first act - with the grand idea of finding the Creator being discussed with a decent level of intelligence and a dab of philosophy to boot and whilst this permeates the film, not a one of the character's actions in the second half reflects the grand plans made in the first.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In fact, not a one of their decisions <i>make sense</i> - all sorts of questionable behaviour abound, with characters not communicating with each other despite a pressing need to do so, and making immoral and bizarre choices that jeopardise both themselves and the crew, despite ostensibly acting in their own interests. Its not even a case of us, having seen the preceding films, being one step ahead of the characters - these people are on the frontier, light-years away from home, with the best communication technology imaginable, and they are simply <i>not using it, </i>logic be damned.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are some lovely moments - moments drenched in the mythology, moments of fascinatingly awful body horror, and moments of pulse-pounding adrenaline, but the decisions that chain them together simply don't smack of a crew who could ever or even <i>should </i>ever have been put together. Perhaps this is one of the movie's points - that putting together this sort of mission requires more than 2 years planning and a bit of money thrown at it - but in a world where horror and sci-fi tropes get subverted as often as they get played straight, in a film like this, intelligent characters making intelligent decisions is a must, and there's a distinct lack of this in Prometheus' second and third acts.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's other minor irritations, such as a dearth of actual answers to both questions we had before, and those that were raised whilst watching the film; the awkward, unnecessary international casting follies - Englishman playing American? Swede and Australian playing Brits? Really? Idris Elba did't need to be American; Noomi Rappace didn't need to be British; Guy Pearce didn't need to be in the film at all but for that one TED 2023 viral that went out. But perhaps the most irritating of all is a piece of body horror involving a robotic surgery machine that is well played visually, but is stymied thematically by an irrelevant contrivance in its build-up that is almost entirely endemic of the film having had its script drastically over-hauled during production.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For a film that had so much riding on it - both in terms of audience expectation, and in terms of the mythology driving it - the finished product is something of a mixed bag. The visuals impress, the attention to detail is astonishing - subtly integrating the film into Alien canon, whilst never dictating the direction of the plot - and as has already been said, the first hour of the film is a masterclass in setting the scene. But the sheer lunacy of some of the characters decisions, the lingering smell of grinning incompetence over the finale and a plethora of other oddities that all exclusively stem from weak writing in the second and third acts means the story lacks resonance, and without this, the film ultimately fails to engage properly. See it for the visuals and the deepening of the Alien mythos - even if it does raise more questions than it answers. Just temper your expectations of the story being told around it.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga8i5ky1fYd59xvr0ilfLnM2skkPriwdZ_59-vcUJeA2BKuuvMRZU3I5UPI58_6KAI0cazFo3uXWpU4L1v709l8fyBdzPDCwdaOxENehwjeICj8FtZyWk4datCXce5yN23xU1pie67ZuJT/s1600/3stars.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga8i5ky1fYd59xvr0ilfLnM2skkPriwdZ_59-vcUJeA2BKuuvMRZU3I5UPI58_6KAI0cazFo3uXWpU4L1v709l8fyBdzPDCwdaOxENehwjeICj8FtZyWk4datCXce5yN23xU1pie67ZuJT/s1600/3stars.gif" /></a></div>
<br />Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-34259074522949601022012-06-14T16:34:00.000+01:002012-10-11T16:35:26.870+01:00Max Payne 3 Review<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXZnoixu4Nr-NP9DozrnNQ8MMoM6EtqgC2TU-oMaPZvsNWdLq8NgetUnCL32PYTi9fv-NtJdMA5kCu_DAQBpW8NzQ-zKceNY46Wj9TraFuPBLKcghGd8dflg_Zc_gw3Y7bMrEkCaOJhzIH/s1600/maxpayne3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXZnoixu4Nr-NP9DozrnNQ8MMoM6EtqgC2TU-oMaPZvsNWdLq8NgetUnCL32PYTi9fv-NtJdMA5kCu_DAQBpW8NzQ-zKceNY46Wj9TraFuPBLKcghGd8dflg_Zc_gw3Y7bMrEkCaOJhzIH/s400/maxpayne3.jpg" width="282" /></a></div>
<br />
Sitting, as we are, in a year of long-awaiting entertainment - The Dark Knight Rises, Diablo 3, Halo 4, The Avengers, Prometheus...the list goes on - it's perhaps appropriate that one of the best games to saunter up is among their number.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Originally set for release in 2009, it was jostled about for a while - mostly thanks to a 'it'll be done when it's done' attitude - and has finally hit a console near you, and it comes with a heavy dose of history on its shoulders.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If you haven't played the first two Max Payne games, you genuinely missed out - the original is a prototype for the modern action game, with tight, beautifully responsive action wrapped in a gorgeously written story, told beautifully and intruigingly through the medium of graphic novel interludes, rather than cutscenes. It was a hallmark in cinematic gaming, bringing the concept of bullet time into gaming, and executing it flawlessly, with the gameplay not just looking great - bullets whizzing about your head in slow motion, sending your own right back as you fought your way through fantastically realised environments - but <i>feeling </i>great, with slick controls, a varied arsenal, and a satisfying difficulty curve keeping you engaged from start to finish.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The second, subtitled 'The Fall of Max Payne', continued the trend, coupling an escalating story - including a romance with what is still one of the best female co-leads any medium of story-telling has produced - with for-the-time incredible graphics, and a beautifully weighted adaptive difficulty system, all alongside the outrageously tight shooting mechanics that made the first so good. All of this meant that the franchise found its way into the 'fondly regarded' section of many a memory warehouse, and this was only mildly tainted by <a href="http://slightlyramblomatic.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/max-payne-review.html">that appalling cinematic entry.</a> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So along rumbles Max Payne 3. Gone are the original developers and writers - Remedy Entertainment and Sam Lake respectively - in are some new kids on the block. Or rather, some old veterans with a shotgun on the porch: Rockstar and Sam Houser. It's a shift in creative team that may make some wary, and others excited, but either way, it's actually a match made in heaven.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Shifting the story forward in real time, it picks up with Max a now-aged ex-cop<span style="background-color: white;">,
drowning his guilt and sorrow in bottle after bottle of whatever
alchohol is closest to hand, and a near-lethal daily dose of
painkillers, that - thanks to our gameplay habits in the first two games - he's now addicted to. After a run-in with the Punchinellos - ah yes, the first
act villains from the other two! - Max ends up working for a rich
Brazilian family in what was to be a cake walk, guarding their
brattish, drunken children from...well, nothing. But as ever, things
never seem to go right when Max is involved, and a botched kidnapping
attempt is the catalyst that creates a wave of violence and death,
leaving a trail of bodies straight to the heart of the endemic
corruption in Sao Paulo.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The shift in tone from
the dark, snow-draped visuals of New York to the brighter asthetic of
sunny Brazil is handled really rather well, with the first and second
acts juxtaposing the two design ethics before shifting into a
gloriously sun-kissed final act that, coupled with the story's noir
groundings, serves to give the game a vibe similar to that of the late Tony
Scott's opus, Man on Fire - darkness that simply cannot be
overwhelmed by the light, no matter how bright and heavily armed.<br />
<br />
This is all down to Houser's writing - and to make a bold statement, if video games have anything even vaguely close to a Quentin Tarantino, Houser is it. He's a man who understands video-games, who's grown up with them and he rides a fine balance between a gritty tale, seriously told and a knowing pastiche of both the games that preceeded it. Max's dialogue in particular is fantastically written</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In terms of execution,
the game is close to flawless. Characters look great without delving
into the uncanny valley that LA Noire so comfortable resided in, and
the detail in the animation, along with the fluidity of the
transitions, is genuinely astonishing. Changes in expression this
subtle are something of a rarity in video games, and this was done
without that fancy facial capture tech that practically broke Team
Bondi in half as they tried to get it working. The physics engine is
also beautifully integrated with the Euphoria animation system,
making for environmental interactions from both Max and the other
characters that is rarely the same twice, with glass smashing
realistically as you plough through it head first, then beer bottles
and wine glasses flying elegantly aside as you slide along a bartop,
mowing down a roomful of bad guys as you go, even as you haul
yourself back onto your feet.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Gameplay is split
between the above-mentioned
running-gunning-and-Shoot-Dodging-in-slow-motion that is the series'
hallmark, and the new addition of scripted set pieces that take a
page from Wanted: Weapons of Fate's book when it comes to quick-time
events.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But perhaps the most
impressive technical achievement on display here is Max himself. Not
some static, ever-regenerating man/tank hybrid - no, instead, he's a
character that actual changes as things happen to him. Bullet wounds
persist through cutscenes in each chapter, and Max noticeably starts
moving slower the more damage he takes.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This creates an
interesting dynamic in the controls - Rockstars mastery of this
particular aspect of making games means that it actually feels like
you're controlling a middle-aged, slightly drunk, slightly fat
ex-cop, with the trademark Shoot Dodge (yes, apparently we have to
capitalise that as well...) and Bullet Time being more or less his
only edge. This may seem like an odd compliment - 'who want's to feel
that?', I hear you ask - but it creates an attachment to the
character that goes beyond him simply being a well-written, fleshed
out human being. Then there's the fact that Shoot Dodging has a more
than reasonable number of great moments, peppered with moments of intentional comedy, and the odd minor irritation when you manage to
break the physics, or get filled with holes due to your being lying
on the ground out in the open, desperately scrambling to your feet.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This serves to make an
interesting tactical choice in game - there's a conflict between
looking, to coin a phrase, 'pretty fucking awesome', and the actual
practicality of the Shoot Dodge, encouraging you to find the
incredibly satisfying midpoint between diving about like a mad-man
and the more tactical, cover-based aspects of the gameplay.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If there are problems
with the game, they're three-fold. First, there's the obnoxiously
long loading times - I only have the Xbox version for reference, but
even after installing the game onto the hard disk, each chapter is
broken up by an excrutiatingly long loading sequence, and it serves
to break the flow of the story rather ferociously. It's lucky that
the game is very much worth waiting for, otherwise it might've been
verging on a deal-breaker. It's not so bad on your first play
through, but when it comes time to hit New York Minute mode, and the
multiplayer, the long waits for the action aren't particularly
welcome. It also fails to change the formula in any particularly
meaningful way - it's still you and your arsenal against wave after
wave of baddies, and it does start to get a tiny bit repetitive
towards the end. There're also three rather frustrating 'boss
battles', that didn't really need to be in there, but the adaptive
difficulty thankfully makes these pass quickly.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Overall, this is an
experience not to be missed. A writer who's never produced better,
coupled with a studio at the absolute top of their game artistically
and technically, it's moving, heart-pounding, often funny and above
all, entirely absorbing, drawing you in to a sleazy world of
corruption, violence and tragedy, with Max a broken guardian angel,
giving one last stab at dishing out some justice in an unfair world
that seems to be set against him. It's a sight to behold, and if you
only manage to play one game this year, make it this one.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4XGl6jtao_UZhuDe1Jpo1EyJT3oaH9lPJrInyOTyDr0PsuFgRzBe5fQvUdRiHWYl3R-8-kqhOUtxQqKKZEv7srcvSzKnazDWQvxagsHBb4LGArhaevhTSA9a2JuaPrSJKlTPROVbtRw35/s1600/5stars.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4XGl6jtao_UZhuDe1Jpo1EyJT3oaH9lPJrInyOTyDr0PsuFgRzBe5fQvUdRiHWYl3R-8-kqhOUtxQqKKZEv7srcvSzKnazDWQvxagsHBb4LGArhaevhTSA9a2JuaPrSJKlTPROVbtRw35/s1600/5stars.gif" /></a></div>
</div>
Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-12441424078541539642012-06-06T20:52:00.000+01:002012-06-08T14:56:36.499+01:00Men in Black 3 Review<br />
<a href="http://cdn4.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Men-in-Black-3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="250" src="http://cdn4.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Men-in-Black-3.jpg" width="400" /></a>Men in Black has had something of a varied history - originally a comic book that was adapted into a screenplay that 'utterly stank', according to Tommy Lee Jones, then subsequently - and <i>somehow </i>- morphed into a rather successful, and actually genuinely excellent slice of sci-fi comedy that never outstayed its welcome. Followed up by a sequel that <i>actually</i> stank to high heaven, it's been dormant for the last ten years - seemingly only resurrected due to us living in the age of adding 'D' to the titles of second sequels, for what I can only surmise is aesthetic reasons.<br />
<br />
And so Men in Black (in) 3(D) rolls up onto our screens, and in truth, it wasn't exactly the most tantalising prospect, given how very lacklustre the second film was. Barry Sonnenfield is a director whose movies have their quality dictated at the script level rather than the directorial level, and it's always clear that he started out his career as a cinematographer. His films have a joyous level of visual clarity - even that heinous Robin Williams vehicle (hah!), RV - but have recently, and without fail, been let down by the writers. See RV, Men in Black 2, Wild Wild West, and Big Trouble for what I mean.<br />
<br />
So yes, hopes were not high taking my seat in front of MiB3, though thankfully I didn't have to suffer the 3D version of the movie.<br />
<br />
Screenwriting duties here fall to Etan Cohen, of King of the Hill, Beavis and Butthead, and Idiocracy fame, and thankfully, the man has a decent science fiction head on him. The story hasn't exactly been wrestled away from Shakespeare, but it's actually surprisingly nuanced, bringing in a time-travelling element that doesn't suffer from the usual schizophrenic flitting between fixed and fluid interpretations of time travel - sticking with the Back to the Future 'timelines' execution rather doggedly.<br />
<br />
The story goes that a villain known as Boris the Animal ("It's <i>just </i>Boris!", he rages) escapes incarceration on a prison on the Moon, with only one thing on his mind - killing the man who relinquished him of his arm, Agent K. Only he also plans to get his appendage back as well, and thus hatches a plot to travel back in time to the day that he lost it, then kill K before the de-limbing commences. Thankfully, Agent J cottons on early, and chases Boris back in time, only to discover that there are a fair few discrepancies in procedure between MiB in the present, and that in the 1960s.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, whilst Jemaine Clement does an admirable job making Boris really quite deliciously unpleasant, there's little else to distinguish the character from any number of other villains-of-the-week that we've seen in science fiction of late, and ultimately, this makes the story a little bit flat, especially given its labyrinthine nature, and the fact that the script was unfinished at time of filming.<br />
<br />
The real joys of the movie are to be found in three places - first, the interaction between J and K. Initially it's between the ever-reliable Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones combination - all whip-crack jibes and surly grunts respectively, they're picking up from being the only thing that made the second film bearable, and their pairing doesn't disappoint this time either.<br />
<br />
But shortly after it starts, Jones hands the reigns to Josh Brolin, who proceeds to do a rather uncanny impression/interpretation of the character in his late twenties - after an accent and nose change, of course. Brolin does a great job here, and manages to devolve the character quite magnificently to his 'free-wheeling' late twenties.<br />
<br />
Next, and as mentioned, are Sonnenfield's visuals. Without 3D getting in the way - and some prefunctory objects-coming-at-you moments aside - the visuals are sharp, and have that curious, cock-eyebrowed sensibility that Sonnenfield perfected with the first iteration of the franchise. Sonnenfield also manages to keep the tone light and the pace rapid, creating a movie that once again never outstays its welcome.<br />
<br />
The final joy is an entirely new character known as Griffin. Played with wide-eyed wonderment by Michael Stuhlbarg - of Boardwalk Empire fame - the character is an alien being who can see all possible realities, before, after and as they happen. A genuinely intriguing creation, the only shame is that there's not more of him - but he provides the MacGuffin to drive the story forward, and a few of the movie's funnier moments.<br />
<br />
There're also other good things - Emma Thompson provides her dulcet tones and impeccable comic timing to O, Rip Torn/Zed's replacement, and there's a rather fun cameo from Bill Hader, as a version of Andy Warhol that's not quite all he seems.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, this isn't quite as good as the first one, if only because the novelty has worn off somewhat. But if we ignore the second film and take Men in Black as a duology of 1 and 3, it actually works suprisingly well, and rounds itself off quite nicely, in the only way that a time travel narrative really can. The dialogue is sharp, the majority of the characters memorable, and even if the story is ultimately a little flat, it's brought back that little thing known as 'fun', and that goes rather a long way. Better than expected, then, and certainly worth a look.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht221stjj16tUfLBZXWT7xI_n8H8W9J3sgCzJ-xi1P-LwsZdKqyDFi1bBXeV9YMJbWlU95T0JOuJ1dXKGCd8T10OLGVA1DfL0ps_cYeP4QHOgVWbayXLWA9YOdbH42e03-CrGpIH-VXi9m/s1600/3stars.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht221stjj16tUfLBZXWT7xI_n8H8W9J3sgCzJ-xi1P-LwsZdKqyDFi1bBXeV9YMJbWlU95T0JOuJ1dXKGCd8T10OLGVA1DfL0ps_cYeP4QHOgVWbayXLWA9YOdbH42e03-CrGpIH-VXi9m/s1600/3stars.gif" /></a></div>Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-35869650239933344912012-04-04T17:40:00.000+01:002012-04-04T17:41:56.876+01:00The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.empirecinemas.co.uk/_uploads/film_images/3847_2912.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.empirecinemas.co.uk/_uploads/film_images/3847_2912.jpg" /></a></div>
If you like Aardman - and let's face it, who doesn't? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Roeper">Apart from this prick...</a> - then you've probably already made up your mind as to whether or not you're going to see The Pirates! In An Adventure with Scientists - or 'The Pirates!', as I'm going to be insisting on calling it from now on, for the sake of my poor, over-worked fingers.<br />
<br />
It's also - you'll be rather glad to hear - a foregone conclusion that you're going to love it.<br />
<br />
Because once again, Aardman have produced a movie of such spectacular detail, of such sly wit, velocity and gregarious charm, that you simply cannot help but be swept along in the wake of a superlative script, tremendous voice work, and above all, triple-A grade stop-motion animation that will, on occasion, leave your jaw just a touch on the slack side.<br />
<br />
The story goes that The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant, and yes, that's actually the character's name) is out to win the 'Pirate of the Year' Award. Only there's a snag - he's a bit of a rubbish pirate, no matter how loyal a crew he may have garnered, and he faces stiff, far more competent competition. After a run-in with Charles Darwin (David Tennant), who points out that the ship's 'parrot' is in fact the world's last living dodo, the pirates join him in a bid to win 'Scientist of the Year' back in London. Only things are complicated by Queen Victoria, who really, <i>really </i>hates pirates.<br />
<br />
First up, there's an interesting contrast to be made between this film and Aardman's previous effort, Arthur Christmas. If anything, this is a rather clear argument that, at the end of it all, one should stick to not only what one knows, but what one does best. The difference in quality between the two films - both from different schools of animation - is astounding. Arthur Christmas was a flat, rather stale entry, with so-so CGI animation that lacks the soulful technical wizardry of Pixar opera or the goofy charm of Dreamworks' efforts. There was a vein of Aardman's trademark British humour, but it was mostly lost underneath the awkward sheen of the animation style.<br />
<br />
This is entirely not the case with The Pirates! - the animation is their traditional clay-mation style, and it's never looked better than it has in this movie. Character faces are expressive, and both standard movement and the slapstick antics flow beautifully. There are a few moments of relatively low frame-rate, but it's never a distraction, and you'll be far to entertained to really notice it. There is also, of course, that lovely hand-crafted feel to the film - as Mark Kermode almost invariably extols: 'you can <i>see </i>the fingerprints!'.<br />
<br />
Then there's the humour, and oh what humour it is - Aardman mastered the art of appealing to both kids and adults without segregating them years ago, and they continue to do it beautifully. There're a few naughty asides that are clearly aimed at the adults - 'Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate' being the crux of this particular matter - but the bulk of the humour is just pure silliness, and kids aged one to one hundred will get a kick out of Nick Lord's keen eye for slapstick action, as well as his anachronistic, anarchic sense of humour. There's also, of course, the sight gags, and literally <i>every single frame </i>has a joke in it - and not just one that may illicit a wry smile, but full-on belly laughs, should you be sharp enough to spot it. Personal favourite? A sign on a pub stating 'Live Sports: Urchin Throwing! Cockney Baiting!'. Giggled my socks off at that one...<br />
<br />
Performances are great throughout too - Imelda Staunton deserves special mention for her fabulously over-blown performance as Queen Victoria - or 'Vicky' as The Captain wonderfully refers to her as. You can practically hear her bug-eyes scraping against the pop-guard, and it's all the better for it. The rest of the cast make good showings of themselves too, but it's a testament to the quality of the production that everyone - even Staunton - seamlessly blends in with the rest of what's going on - to pick anyone else out would be doing an utter injustice to the animator who painstakingly synced those tiny, plasticine models with the rapid-fire dialogue recordings.<br />
<br />
A genuine marvel, this is a movie that literally anyone can go to see and get something out of. Funny throughout, and even occasionally moving, it's the <i>detail </i>of the humour that is so genuinely impressive. You can, of course, watch the movie on autopilot, absorbing the story, the action and the spoken gags, but this is to only see half the movie. Switch you brain even to half capacity, and you'll be laughing yourself literally red. See it with your kids, see it with your girlfriend or wife, see it with your parents...just bloody see it, already!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4XGl6jtao_UZhuDe1Jpo1EyJT3oaH9lPJrInyOTyDr0PsuFgRzBe5fQvUdRiHWYl3R-8-kqhOUtxQqKKZEv7srcvSzKnazDWQvxagsHBb4LGArhaevhTSA9a2JuaPrSJKlTPROVbtRw35/s1600/5stars.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4XGl6jtao_UZhuDe1Jpo1EyJT3oaH9lPJrInyOTyDr0PsuFgRzBe5fQvUdRiHWYl3R-8-kqhOUtxQqKKZEv7srcvSzKnazDWQvxagsHBb4LGArhaevhTSA9a2JuaPrSJKlTPROVbtRw35/s1600/5stars.gif" /></a></div>
<br />Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6350876769985320603.post-66351794865163535112012-02-21T17:45:00.000+00:002012-06-08T17:41:21.246+01:00Chronicle Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/Chronicle_Film_Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/Chronicle_Film_Poster.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Found footage is a gimmick that, for a lot of people, does not bode well. Representative of either extreme, vomit-inducing shakey-cam, or just general rubbishness - and yes, I'm looking at you, Blair Witch. But there are those of us who have a penchant for first-person shenanigans - and we've been richly rewarded for our tolerance with excellent movies such as Cloverfield and the first Paranormal Activity. And it's this subset of the population that will almost immediately fall in love with Chronicle.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Telling the story of an unpopular kid named Andrew, who acquires a 'old' video camera to not only create a barrier between himself and the real world, but also to document the systematic abuse that he suffers at the hands of his father. The trials of high school life inevitably get in the way, though, and he, his cousin and the most popular kid at school find themselves in a strange underground cave, where a glowing rock formation pulses with energy, and subsequently knocks them out. They wake up above ground, with no recollection of what happened - but whatever it was, they now have telekinetic abilities, and the film explores quite what the average high-school student might do in this predicament.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For reasons that'll become clear further down, let's start with heaping the praise on it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Story-wise, it's not the most original premise, but what it does have is a fresh take on the usual formula of the every-man superhero story. It's a flipside of Kick-Ass and Super's coin - or rather, it strips the usual superhero story of the 'hero' part, rather than the 'super' part. Filtering this through the rogues gallery of the American high-school is both ingenious and a no-brainer, and whilst it's been done before, in a year where Marvel and DC will be showboating with their primary film franchises, this is refreshingly small and simple, with a character-driven story that pushes forward at exactly the right pace. Story-turns - super-power granting rocks aside - never seem contrived, and the dialogue crackles with authenticity.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's also wonderfully performed by the core ensemble - with Michael B Jordan (of The Wire fame) putting in a particularly good performance, turning the popular, class-president archetype into an intriguing study in empathy: his Steve's ingratiation with Dane DeHaan and Alex Russell's losers not simply down to their single shared experience, but as the act of a genuinely kind individual. DeHaan escalates his performance as Andrew remarkably, and whilst Russell, playing the main character's stoner cousin, takes a little while to get warmed up, by the end, you're hardly holding it against him.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, all this praise under advisement, you can now understand my full meaning when I say that somewhere in here, there is a far, <i>far </i>better movie. The sad fact of the matter is that what prevents it from better is also its core gimmick - the found footage stylings. Had they transitioned between found footage and more traditionally cinematic shots in the manner of District 9, this could've been genuinely one of the best superhero movies in years. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are attempts at this towards the end, but it never actually emerges from within the found footage box, and because of this, they have to come up with more and more contrived reasons to have cameras in the frame. Don't get me wrong - the manner in which they tackle it is ingenious, and there is a commentary about quite how often, in the digital age, there is someone with a camera watching you, but the sense of contrivance never goes away. There's also a bit of awkwardness in the finale thanks to this, where there's a series of transitions between cameras in the action and the news helicopter that's trying to document it. The odd shift in audio dynamic as the view flicks between these two points mars what is otherwise an exhilarating set piece.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There're a few moments of odd dialogue that clunk a little, a couple of dubious directorial decisions and a few ropey special effects scattered about, but these aren't really noticeable thanks to the lightning fast pacing. The plot is a little sign-posted in terms of predictability, and it's <i>incredibly </i>streamlined, with a run-time of a mere 83 minutes. It doesn't make it any less satisfying, thanks to the relatively fresh angle, but a cynic might brand it simplistic were he to skip breakfast the day he saw it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All-in-all, it's tough to criticise something that's as technically proficient, visually engaging and thoroughly entertaining as this. The previous criticisms have been pondered for a good while before committing to t'internet, and even now I'm struggling to really justify them. It's a real cinema movie too- sparklingly clear visuals combining with a soundtrack whose bass rattles bones, engrossing you in the experience. There is that niggling sensation that a better movie could've been made given more money and more time, but it's just not enough to derail it. A fresh, darkly intriguing take on the superhero formula, and a great action movie to boot, we can only hope round two is bigger and bolder - because what a treat we'd be in for.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgwz1biwYLeRLjjfKaocQ1T78symT33KDiXNNEVFx5r5xmw8kvf4yB-c884buuo9LTBLss3e4KmMMGsQxJdfPTQ-Xae51K5xiL7Fj3MKlr_PNb7CAJ-QvkHxjRuip0K8nXEF_84lvuFSqJ/s1600/4stars.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgwz1biwYLeRLjjfKaocQ1T78symT33KDiXNNEVFx5r5xmw8kvf4yB-c884buuo9LTBLss3e4KmMMGsQxJdfPTQ-Xae51K5xiL7Fj3MKlr_PNb7CAJ-QvkHxjRuip0K8nXEF_84lvuFSqJ/s1600/4stars.gif" /></a></div>
<br />Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16781470316389559617noreply@blogger.com1