That is a really depressing title. It's something we've all often thought about of our own world. Maybe just of the worlds we create if we are creators of fiction. We throw massive obstacles in the way of our characters to advance the story, sure, but sometimes just to make them suffer. I am a malevolent writer-god and I know it. Am proud of it.
It may surprise many when I say that I only recently (this year) have started watching - and am some ways through - cult classics Veronica Mars and Battlestar Galactica (2004 version). I was late to these two parties, but I am drunk and having a blast, screaming at the top of my lungs.
I didn't think much of the idea of Veronica Mars when I was in high school - it seemed like a show a boy shouldn't watch and I was embarrassed by what others thought of me. High school was pretty easy for me most of the time, but I was just as susceptible to my peers' opinions of me as the next emotionally unbalanced teen.
Having left the profound dumbness of all that behind, I dove headlong into Veronica Mars and am loving the ride. I've just started season 3 and love it still but it's confirmed something I felt from the start with this show. Nothing can ever go right and no one can be happy. This is never more true than the continuing story of Eli "Weevil" Navarro. Just goddamn. Lift up, crash down.
Season 2 was incredibly dour if but also exceedingly well-written, with a final episode that really punches you right in the gut. It just plays for keeps this show.
I get the same feeling when I watch Battlestar. This show doesn't fuck around. The reason I wanted to start watching it was actually because of the strategic board game - which is amazing and I highly recommend. At the end of every person's turn you must take a "Crisis card" wherein something impossibly awful happens to the crew or the ships - keeping in mind that up to at least 3 of the players can be Cylons.You keep through these 'missions', jumping in Faster Than Light (FTL) until you finally reach New Caprica (8 jumps).
When I started watching the show, I realized how accurate this was a representation of the life of those unfortunate enough to exist in the show's universe. Nothing good can ever happen. No one can be happy. You get a brief reprieve when something minutely good happens - someone didn't die! something got fixed! people are drinking and laughing! - before the show just gut-punches you again.
Again, this show is exceptionally well-written and cast and I can't recommend it highly enough. It will certainly keep you guessing. I'm in the middle of season 3 and I left myself at a massive cliff-hanger and I just want to skip work, go home and find out what happens!
It was just interesting for me to notice that a lot of the shows I absolutely adore contain - more often than not - awful things happening to good people and the seeming endlessness of their suffering. This applies to Game of Thrones too, though it has significantly more victories in it - and if you watch the show, you know that that's saying something.
Mahalo.
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Monday, May 6, 2013
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Defiance: Welcome to the Fold
I just finished watching the series premiere of the new SciFi program Defiance that takes elements of Firefly and Farscape and pushes them together to make something just as awesome. The Farscape influence is not only clear but definitely not accidental as one of the developers was none other than Rockne S. O'Bannon.
The show is a nice mix of post-apocalyptic war, sci-fi and Western with Dexter veteran Julie Benz as the Mayor of the town of Defiance and Australian-grown Grant Bowler as Nolan, the Han Solo-style ex-marine turned lawman. The first episode introduces you to the new Earth in 2046 where alien races have arrived and, after a long war, a shaky peace has been established. In the new frontier-style world everyone must fight to survive where of course the races don't necessarily all get along. The world is very much a character in this show, too, which is wonderful.
The characters are full and, although not complete yet, I expect them to be people to be reckoned with. There is already a family feud, a sassy brothel-owner, a wise-cracking doctor, a traveling ex-marine and his alien daughter - it promises to be quite a ride. This pilot episode is even remnant of the first episode of Firefly with its fighting and Farscape in its creative alien make-up.
Most interestingly is the idea that there is a video game of Defiance which ties directly into the show and things in the show affect the game and vise versa, so it will be intriguing to see how the experiences mirror and change each other.
My only fear is that this will become another wonderful one season show if not enough people watch it - so please get out there and check it out!
Mahalo.
The show is a nice mix of post-apocalyptic war, sci-fi and Western with Dexter veteran Julie Benz as the Mayor of the town of Defiance and Australian-grown Grant Bowler as Nolan, the Han Solo-style ex-marine turned lawman. The first episode introduces you to the new Earth in 2046 where alien races have arrived and, after a long war, a shaky peace has been established. In the new frontier-style world everyone must fight to survive where of course the races don't necessarily all get along. The world is very much a character in this show, too, which is wonderful.
The characters are full and, although not complete yet, I expect them to be people to be reckoned with. There is already a family feud, a sassy brothel-owner, a wise-cracking doctor, a traveling ex-marine and his alien daughter - it promises to be quite a ride. This pilot episode is even remnant of the first episode of Firefly with its fighting and Farscape in its creative alien make-up.
Most interestingly is the idea that there is a video game of Defiance which ties directly into the show and things in the show affect the game and vise versa, so it will be intriguing to see how the experiences mirror and change each other.
My only fear is that this will become another wonderful one season show if not enough people watch it - so please get out there and check it out!
Mahalo.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
The Old Devil's at it Again
"I'll fix it so you get cheap drinks," the woman at the bar said. "What band are you with?"
Before I could stop myself, I was saying, "William Elliott Whitmore."
"Oh, of course," the woman said. She sold us our drinks at five bucks apiece was gone, disappeared into the back room.
"What just happened?" I turned to Omar.
"Ticketed people get cheaper drinks, I think," he said, sipping his Jack and coke.
"I don't think that's right," I said. I turned and looked at the poster of punk rock, bluegrass artist William Elliott Whitmore. "I think she thinks I'm in the band with him. Because I sound like an American."
"Oh," Omar said. "You might be right."
The woman emerged from the back room and handed me the owner of the Annandale's card, "Show this at the bar and all your drinks will be at the special price," and she was gone again.
"No, this isn't right," I said.
"You're probably right."
We waited for the woman to return and when she did I said, "Excuse me, I think there's been some mistake. We're not with William Elliott Whitmore, we're just here to see him."
"Oh, oh my goodness," she said, taking the card back as I handed it to her.
"It's just, I'm Canadian, so," I started.
"See, this is me being racist," she laughed. "Thanks for being honest."
"It's all right," I said. "It would've eaten at me all night. And you would suspected something when I didn't go up on stage tonight."
"I'd have found you and hurt you," she smiled.
The night promised many excellent things. The drinks, the excited buzz of the crowd, this was going to be good. So it was such a disappointment when, at 8:30, Nick van Breer went up first and was terrible. He awkwardly introduced himself and his song and began playing. The way he sang sounded like two things. One, as if he'd never been near a microphone before and two, as if it were still breaking at the age of 25. The writing of said songs was as if he wrote them at the age of fourteen and had never bothered to rework them. Over the din of the crowd that was ignoring him sailed the words, "she walked away" and "we can take on the world/like we always wanted to".
Sufficed to say, Omar and I were done with him, too.
Even when he brought up banjoist Dave and they dueled on banjos for a while, it was unimpressive and dry. The banjos were too quiet and the vocals too boring.
When his set finished at 9:15, we were not confident about the second opener.
"Let him be up and done," I said. "Bring on William!"
"Who knows," Omar said, finishing his Jack. "He could be really good."
"I doubt--"
And through my doubt blared a sound. The sound of passion striking a guitar with force and a blazing harmonica solo. A tall man, thin and bearded, was Lincoln le Fevre. He wore a sailor-style cap and beat on that guitar, brow-beating the audience into silent admiration. Then, after a blissful moment of passionate playing, he sang the song a Capella, right into our hearts.
"We're so bored, we're so bored of this," was his passionate cry.
And the audience sang it back.
The man knew what he was doing. This was what confidence looked like.
With power in his belly and fire in his heart, he sang to us stories of lost loves and drinking and home. Everything he said resonated. His meter and words were outstanding.
"All right," Lincoln said. "Here's the point in the show where I try to break your hearts."
"What have you been doing up until now, buddy?" Omar said next to me, his face a mask of awe, like mine.
"I haven't played this one live before," Lincoln said. "So it could be shit. Or not. Cool story, Lincoln, shut up."
Laughter.
People were listening to what this man said and for a reason.
When he finally finished up, Omar rushed like a speeding car out to the merch table and bought us each a copy of his CD Resonation. I recommend it.
"I met him at the bar," Omar said when he got back. "He's really nice."
"Hey," a voice from the stage said, "How's everybody doin'?"
After only a few minutes of wait and setting up his gear himself, there he was - Mr. William Elliott Whitmore.
"Can I start early?" he seemed to be asking us. "Or should I just go ahead backstage and get stoned?"
The bar staff seemed to say that he could start whenever he wanted.
"Well, all right then," he drank from his beer. "Let's do this then."
Then began a wonderful hour and ten minutes of musical joy. His songs were either played on guitar, banjo or just a Capella. He had a bass drum with which to add beat and force when needed.
He played with mirth and hunger and violence and passion. It was magical.
"I don't really like to do a set list," he said after the first three songs. "So just shout out what you wanna hear. I'm happy to oblige."
Although my cries of "I'm Diggin' my Grave" went unanswered, the set list was amazing, including "Hell or High Water" and "Old Devils".
"Getting arrested is one of the worst things ever," he said at one point. "As soon as those cuffs go on, it's the worst feeling. You feel like an animal. And they make an inventory of all the stuff you had on you at the time. One beer bottle, one dirty handkerchief, one empty chip packet in pocket. Why did they write that one down? Why did I even have it?" he drinks from his beer. "I told them it was for sentimental reasons. Anyway, this song's called Johnny Law."
He kept playing and we kept begging for more.
At one point, the man was handed a shot from the bar. Someone had bought him a drink.
"Why thank you," he said. "What's your name?"
"Josh!"
"Well Josh, I'll pay you back," he said. And he meant it. "I'll sip this like a gentleman."
He shot the shot back.
"I'm so happy to be here," he said. "This is feeling so good. So close. I'm just happy to be anywhere. To be alive. Thank you all so much for coming out. Really, from the bottom of my heart, thank you."
The experience was beautiful as his songs washed over us. At the end, Omar and I went up and shook his hand. He was so genuinely pleasant and affable that it only added to how wonderful it all was.
I stopped by the merch table and said thank you to Lincoln.
Our buses had run out so Omar and I walked to Central station and then took the train home. It was one a.m. when we got to bed and we'd be tired for work tomorrow. But we didn't care at all.
Before I could stop myself, I was saying, "William Elliott Whitmore."
"Oh, of course," the woman said. She sold us our drinks at five bucks apiece was gone, disappeared into the back room.
"What just happened?" I turned to Omar.
"Ticketed people get cheaper drinks, I think," he said, sipping his Jack and coke.
"I don't think that's right," I said. I turned and looked at the poster of punk rock, bluegrass artist William Elliott Whitmore. "I think she thinks I'm in the band with him. Because I sound like an American."
"Oh," Omar said. "You might be right."
The woman emerged from the back room and handed me the owner of the Annandale's card, "Show this at the bar and all your drinks will be at the special price," and she was gone again.
"No, this isn't right," I said.
"You're probably right."
We waited for the woman to return and when she did I said, "Excuse me, I think there's been some mistake. We're not with William Elliott Whitmore, we're just here to see him."
"Oh, oh my goodness," she said, taking the card back as I handed it to her.
"It's just, I'm Canadian, so," I started.
"See, this is me being racist," she laughed. "Thanks for being honest."
"It's all right," I said. "It would've eaten at me all night. And you would suspected something when I didn't go up on stage tonight."
"I'd have found you and hurt you," she smiled.
The night promised many excellent things. The drinks, the excited buzz of the crowd, this was going to be good. So it was such a disappointment when, at 8:30, Nick van Breer went up first and was terrible. He awkwardly introduced himself and his song and began playing. The way he sang sounded like two things. One, as if he'd never been near a microphone before and two, as if it were still breaking at the age of 25. The writing of said songs was as if he wrote them at the age of fourteen and had never bothered to rework them. Over the din of the crowd that was ignoring him sailed the words, "she walked away" and "we can take on the world/like we always wanted to".
Sufficed to say, Omar and I were done with him, too.
Even when he brought up banjoist Dave and they dueled on banjos for a while, it was unimpressive and dry. The banjos were too quiet and the vocals too boring.
When his set finished at 9:15, we were not confident about the second opener.
"Let him be up and done," I said. "Bring on William!"
"Who knows," Omar said, finishing his Jack. "He could be really good."
"I doubt--"
And through my doubt blared a sound. The sound of passion striking a guitar with force and a blazing harmonica solo. A tall man, thin and bearded, was Lincoln le Fevre. He wore a sailor-style cap and beat on that guitar, brow-beating the audience into silent admiration. Then, after a blissful moment of passionate playing, he sang the song a Capella, right into our hearts.
"We're so bored, we're so bored of this," was his passionate cry.
And the audience sang it back.
The man knew what he was doing. This was what confidence looked like.
With power in his belly and fire in his heart, he sang to us stories of lost loves and drinking and home. Everything he said resonated. His meter and words were outstanding.
"All right," Lincoln said. "Here's the point in the show where I try to break your hearts."
"What have you been doing up until now, buddy?" Omar said next to me, his face a mask of awe, like mine.
"I haven't played this one live before," Lincoln said. "So it could be shit. Or not. Cool story, Lincoln, shut up."
Laughter.
People were listening to what this man said and for a reason.
When he finally finished up, Omar rushed like a speeding car out to the merch table and bought us each a copy of his CD Resonation. I recommend it.
"I met him at the bar," Omar said when he got back. "He's really nice."
"Hey," a voice from the stage said, "How's everybody doin'?"
After only a few minutes of wait and setting up his gear himself, there he was - Mr. William Elliott Whitmore.
"Can I start early?" he seemed to be asking us. "Or should I just go ahead backstage and get stoned?"
The bar staff seemed to say that he could start whenever he wanted.
"Well, all right then," he drank from his beer. "Let's do this then."
Then began a wonderful hour and ten minutes of musical joy. His songs were either played on guitar, banjo or just a Capella. He had a bass drum with which to add beat and force when needed.
He played with mirth and hunger and violence and passion. It was magical.
"I don't really like to do a set list," he said after the first three songs. "So just shout out what you wanna hear. I'm happy to oblige."
Although my cries of "I'm Diggin' my Grave" went unanswered, the set list was amazing, including "Hell or High Water" and "Old Devils".
"Getting arrested is one of the worst things ever," he said at one point. "As soon as those cuffs go on, it's the worst feeling. You feel like an animal. And they make an inventory of all the stuff you had on you at the time. One beer bottle, one dirty handkerchief, one empty chip packet in pocket. Why did they write that one down? Why did I even have it?" he drinks from his beer. "I told them it was for sentimental reasons. Anyway, this song's called Johnny Law."
He kept playing and we kept begging for more.
At one point, the man was handed a shot from the bar. Someone had bought him a drink.
"Why thank you," he said. "What's your name?"
"Josh!"
"Well Josh, I'll pay you back," he said. And he meant it. "I'll sip this like a gentleman."
He shot the shot back.
"I'm so happy to be here," he said. "This is feeling so good. So close. I'm just happy to be anywhere. To be alive. Thank you all so much for coming out. Really, from the bottom of my heart, thank you."
The experience was beautiful as his songs washed over us. At the end, Omar and I went up and shook his hand. He was so genuinely pleasant and affable that it only added to how wonderful it all was.
I stopped by the merch table and said thank you to Lincoln.
Our buses had run out so Omar and I walked to Central station and then took the train home. It was one a.m. when we got to bed and we'd be tired for work tomorrow. But we didn't care at all.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises: Gotham's Reckoning
Since the end of The Dark Knight, like any fan, I have been eagerly anticipating The Dark Knight Rises. It was like seeing The Empire Strikes Back and waiting so long to know the end of the story as it comes in Return of the Jedi. I don't think I could make this paragraph any geekier. Sufficed to say, I was excited.
I was concerned though, too, that I was hyping myself up too much and that - because my expectations were so high - I would ruin the movie for myself. It's the same trap we all fall into for a highly anticipated movie - especially a sequel to a much loved film.
In all honesty, however, I was not disappointed. The sheer scale of TDKR is one of the things I found so astonishing. Christopher Nolan said he wanted to make a large scale film in the behind-the-scenes featurette and how he has prevailed.
In the film, Gotham is about to get its comeuppance by criminal mastermind Bane (Tom Hardy). Batman (Christian Bale) has been off the streets for 8 years in the wake of Harvey Dent's (Aaron Ekhart) death in The Dark Knight. Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is the only one who knows the truth and is tortured by it. Meanwhile, hothead cop and idealist Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is on the streets, believing that Gotham needs the Batman again.
Anne Hathaway does a magnificent job as Catwoman - the best ever rendering of the character on film to date. She embodied the sensuality, the slyness and the violence that accompanies the character in the comics, and did so without ever making one bad cat pun, or purring.
This was definitely Christian Bale's best Batman performance, starting with a weakened Bruce Wayne and back into the swing of Batman. He portrayed a depth and brooding to the character that was remarkable.
But truly, my hat must be tipped to Tom Hardy. His performance as Bane was not only magnificent, but terrifying. Those who have read the comics know what Bane can do and has done. He is a monster of the highest calibre, and Tom Hardy did not disappoint. Honestly, if the track was laid down by Heath Ledger for his performance as the Joker, it's all set for Hardy to receive his own Oscar nomination (at least).
This film was so epic in scale, it was mind-boggling. The sheer number of extras required, the amount of story that occurred, character arcs coming to conclusion! The sheer Dr. Zhivago-esque grandeur of the film is unmistakeable.
If you are a comic book fan - and I speak as one - thenthis movie was pretty perfect. Elements of Batman: Knightfall, The Dark Knight Returns and Gates of Gotham. A glance of some of the comics that influenced Nolan during filming are outlined here. Even if you're not a comic book fan and merely enjoyed the first two movies, this film will not disappoint you. It is a fitting ending to the trilogy and does so in a way that we've come to expect from Christopher Nolan. 9/10
Mahalo.
I was concerned though, too, that I was hyping myself up too much and that - because my expectations were so high - I would ruin the movie for myself. It's the same trap we all fall into for a highly anticipated movie - especially a sequel to a much loved film.
In all honesty, however, I was not disappointed. The sheer scale of TDKR is one of the things I found so astonishing. Christopher Nolan said he wanted to make a large scale film in the behind-the-scenes featurette and how he has prevailed.
In the film, Gotham is about to get its comeuppance by criminal mastermind Bane (Tom Hardy). Batman (Christian Bale) has been off the streets for 8 years in the wake of Harvey Dent's (Aaron Ekhart) death in The Dark Knight. Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is the only one who knows the truth and is tortured by it. Meanwhile, hothead cop and idealist Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is on the streets, believing that Gotham needs the Batman again.
Anne Hathaway does a magnificent job as Catwoman - the best ever rendering of the character on film to date. She embodied the sensuality, the slyness and the violence that accompanies the character in the comics, and did so without ever making one bad cat pun, or purring.
This was definitely Christian Bale's best Batman performance, starting with a weakened Bruce Wayne and back into the swing of Batman. He portrayed a depth and brooding to the character that was remarkable.
But truly, my hat must be tipped to Tom Hardy. His performance as Bane was not only magnificent, but terrifying. Those who have read the comics know what Bane can do and has done. He is a monster of the highest calibre, and Tom Hardy did not disappoint. Honestly, if the track was laid down by Heath Ledger for his performance as the Joker, it's all set for Hardy to receive his own Oscar nomination (at least).
This film was so epic in scale, it was mind-boggling. The sheer number of extras required, the amount of story that occurred, character arcs coming to conclusion! The sheer Dr. Zhivago-esque grandeur of the film is unmistakeable.
If you are a comic book fan - and I speak as one - thenthis movie was pretty perfect. Elements of Batman: Knightfall, The Dark Knight Returns and Gates of Gotham. A glance of some of the comics that influenced Nolan during filming are outlined here. Even if you're not a comic book fan and merely enjoyed the first two movies, this film will not disappoint you. It is a fitting ending to the trilogy and does so in a way that we've come to expect from Christopher Nolan. 9/10
Mahalo.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
The Rum Diary Nails It
As a rule, I am always wary of film adaptations of books I thoroughly love. I was disappointed in the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest film - despite it being, in and of itself, a good film - and I fear I will be disappointed by the upcoming On the Road film. In spite of this, I am tremendous fan of Terry Gilliam's adaptation of Fear and Loathing in Leas Vegas; not only because Johnny Depp was astounding as Hunter S. Thompson/Raoul Duke, but because the film captured the insanity of the text, the essence, the spirit.
To this end, I was (perhaps to my own surprise) not disappointed with Bruce Robinson's adaptation of Hunter S. Thompson's The Rum Diary.
Initially, I was incredibly skeptical due to the overtly comedic take that the trailer seemed to imply. The Rum Diary's not an overtly funny book, I thought as I watched it, what have they done? Robinson is also the man responsible for Withnail and I, a British Fear and Loathing-style film that I was not too keen on.
So, from the get go, we're off to a bad start.
Not only was I proved wrong, I was proved so thoroughly wrong; the film was so effective, so emotive, that I was literally left in a speechless daze after I left the cinema.
Paul Kemp (Johnny Depp) is a struggling novelist and journalist who is trying to make it and takes a freelance job at the San Juan Star, a local newspaper in Puerto Rico. Once there he meets his boss Lotterman, played perfectly by Richard Jenkins (Six Feet Under, Burn After Reading), and his eccentric co-workers Sala, portrayed by Michael Rispoli (Kick-Ass, Rounders) - whom incidentally was the performance I was by far most impressed with - and the infamous Moberg, classic weird guy Giovanni Ribisi (Avatar, Saving Private Ryan).
He must deal with the local culture of seemingly endless madness and the imposed culture of the ex-patriots who live there, like money-hungry Sanderson, stylishly pulled-off by Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight, Thank You for Smoking). Wading through this, he meets beautiful blonde Chenault (Amber Heard) and deal with his feelings for her.
"You smell that?" Kemp asks Sala and Moberg. "That's the smell of bastards."
Johnny Depp can do so much with the smallest of movements, and he captures perfectly the essence of a Hunter S. Thompson protagonist - keeping in mind, of course, that this is pre-Fear and Loathing Hunter. Kemp is an understated, frumpy fellow with a drinking problem whom I found thoroughly likeable.
The real joy, however, came in watching Michael Rispoli be constantly sweaty and grimy Sala, the staff photographer. His constant talking at Kemp is a real joy of this film. Ribisi's performance, too, as Moberg- the crime and religious affairs correspondent - echoes deeply classic Hunter S.; madness with a very thick coating of depth.
It was wonderful to see Eckhart portray a real bastard in this film, one of the few times we get to see this handsome all-American be a tight-jawed money-grubber. And no, he was more Wall Street evil, not Two-Face evil.
For her part, Amber Heard held up her role well and she was a perfect choice for the character; a outgoing and spontaneous woman, with more than a hint of sheer danger.
There is practically nothing I didn't like about this film; the dialogue was tight, it was beautifully shot and it had a great mix of humour and serious depth reminiscent of Gilliam's Fear and Loathing. I did find at times that the comedy was sometimes taken a little too far, such as a certain car-and-stairs sequence, but in general I found it was a well-thought-out and well-constructed adaptation of a great book that clearly came from the heart. 8.5/10
Mahalo.
To this end, I was (perhaps to my own surprise) not disappointed with Bruce Robinson's adaptation of Hunter S. Thompson's The Rum Diary.
Initially, I was incredibly skeptical due to the overtly comedic take that the trailer seemed to imply. The Rum Diary's not an overtly funny book, I thought as I watched it, what have they done? Robinson is also the man responsible for Withnail and I, a British Fear and Loathing-style film that I was not too keen on.
So, from the get go, we're off to a bad start.
Not only was I proved wrong, I was proved so thoroughly wrong; the film was so effective, so emotive, that I was literally left in a speechless daze after I left the cinema.
Paul Kemp (Johnny Depp) is a struggling novelist and journalist who is trying to make it and takes a freelance job at the San Juan Star, a local newspaper in Puerto Rico. Once there he meets his boss Lotterman, played perfectly by Richard Jenkins (Six Feet Under, Burn After Reading), and his eccentric co-workers Sala, portrayed by Michael Rispoli (Kick-Ass, Rounders) - whom incidentally was the performance I was by far most impressed with - and the infamous Moberg, classic weird guy Giovanni Ribisi (Avatar, Saving Private Ryan).
He must deal with the local culture of seemingly endless madness and the imposed culture of the ex-patriots who live there, like money-hungry Sanderson, stylishly pulled-off by Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight, Thank You for Smoking). Wading through this, he meets beautiful blonde Chenault (Amber Heard) and deal with his feelings for her.
"You smell that?" Kemp asks Sala and Moberg. "That's the smell of bastards."
Johnny Depp can do so much with the smallest of movements, and he captures perfectly the essence of a Hunter S. Thompson protagonist - keeping in mind, of course, that this is pre-Fear and Loathing Hunter. Kemp is an understated, frumpy fellow with a drinking problem whom I found thoroughly likeable.
The real joy, however, came in watching Michael Rispoli be constantly sweaty and grimy Sala, the staff photographer. His constant talking at Kemp is a real joy of this film. Ribisi's performance, too, as Moberg- the crime and religious affairs correspondent - echoes deeply classic Hunter S.; madness with a very thick coating of depth.
It was wonderful to see Eckhart portray a real bastard in this film, one of the few times we get to see this handsome all-American be a tight-jawed money-grubber. And no, he was more Wall Street evil, not Two-Face evil.
For her part, Amber Heard held up her role well and she was a perfect choice for the character; a outgoing and spontaneous woman, with more than a hint of sheer danger.
There is practically nothing I didn't like about this film; the dialogue was tight, it was beautifully shot and it had a great mix of humour and serious depth reminiscent of Gilliam's Fear and Loathing. I did find at times that the comedy was sometimes taken a little too far, such as a certain car-and-stairs sequence, but in general I found it was a well-thought-out and well-constructed adaptation of a great book that clearly came from the heart. 8.5/10
Mahalo.
Monday, January 23, 2012
The Muppets Do It Again!
Last night I had the pleasure of watching the new Muppets flick, co-written, co-executive produced and starring Jason Segel. First, let me say, I never thought that at my age that a Muppets movie would be able to make a tear roll down my cheek. I was sorely mistaken in thinking that.
The movie centres around Gary (Segel) and new Muppet Walter (voiced by Peter Linz). Gary wants to take his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) to LA for their anniversary and they invite Walter with them to go and see the old Muppet Studios. When they find it in disrepair and an evil oil magnate, Tex Richman (Chris Cooper), buying up the plot to tear it down, they decide to seek out Kermit and bring the gang back together for one last show to try and raise money to keep the plot. Hilarity, insanity and self-referential humour ensues!
Segel was seemingly born to play this role. With his enormous smile, happy eyes and a permanent look of childlike wonder on his face, it's amazing how well he seeped into the Muppet universe. Adams, too, was astounding her role, being a beautiful, Smalltown, America kind of girl and performing some wonderful songs alone and with the occasional Muppet.
As is the custom with Muppet films, celebrity cameos abound! Alan Arkin, Whoopi Goldberg, Neil Patrick Harris and Bill Cobbs to name a few. I won't spoil them all for you!
If you ever loved the Muppets as a kid or now, you will very much enjoy this trip down nostalgia lane, with its fresh new take on the Muppets and some wonderful songs composed by Bret McKenzie of New Zealand comedy duo Flight of the Conchords. And if you need any further convincing as to seeing this movie, it's purely for the AMAZING casting choice for Walter's human counterpart and these three words: Chris Cooper rapping.
A solid 8 out of 10 for being able to keep The Muppets for both children and adults, keeping it in tune with the original, brilliant Muppet releases.
Mahalo.
The movie centres around Gary (Segel) and new Muppet Walter (voiced by Peter Linz). Gary wants to take his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) to LA for their anniversary and they invite Walter with them to go and see the old Muppet Studios. When they find it in disrepair and an evil oil magnate, Tex Richman (Chris Cooper), buying up the plot to tear it down, they decide to seek out Kermit and bring the gang back together for one last show to try and raise money to keep the plot. Hilarity, insanity and self-referential humour ensues!
Segel was seemingly born to play this role. With his enormous smile, happy eyes and a permanent look of childlike wonder on his face, it's amazing how well he seeped into the Muppet universe. Adams, too, was astounding her role, being a beautiful, Smalltown, America kind of girl and performing some wonderful songs alone and with the occasional Muppet.
As is the custom with Muppet films, celebrity cameos abound! Alan Arkin, Whoopi Goldberg, Neil Patrick Harris and Bill Cobbs to name a few. I won't spoil them all for you!
If you ever loved the Muppets as a kid or now, you will very much enjoy this trip down nostalgia lane, with its fresh new take on the Muppets and some wonderful songs composed by Bret McKenzie of New Zealand comedy duo Flight of the Conchords. And if you need any further convincing as to seeing this movie, it's purely for the AMAZING casting choice for Walter's human counterpart and these three words: Chris Cooper rapping.
A solid 8 out of 10 for being able to keep The Muppets for both children and adults, keeping it in tune with the original, brilliant Muppet releases.
Mahalo.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Limitless Ltd
"Limitless" was pretty much going to be the drug movie of the new age; the "Requiem for a Dream" of the 21st Century. It didn't really turn out that way. While it may have prompted me to read the book, it delivered some other, stranger messages. One of them seeming to be "drugs are great" and "if you do enough of them, you'll be president someday" which I find a little odd. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.
The film is about Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper), a writer who is creatively-blocked, unkempt and just got dumped. He is glowering in the worthlessness of himself when he runs into his ex-wife's brother (Johnny Whitworth) and is given a mystery drug that bestows upon him more or less superhuman abilities. Of course, from here, things can only go up. Nevermind that the brother was, at a time, a derelict drug-dealer who should never be trusted.
Bradley Cooper was, as he always is, excellent in this role. He broke out of his normal role to play someone with a lot more depth and emotion, while also remaining a stylish and charming son of a bitch.
About halfway through the film, though, I couldn't help but ask: wait, wasn't Robert de Niro supposed to be in this movie? And he is. For very little of it. It kind of looks like they just got him in because it was a big name that would draw crowds, but he was still great in the role of tycoon Carl van Loon.
Sure, bad things do happen to Eddie even after he's taken the super-drug - most of the bad things caused by it - but I didn't feel there was any kind of evolution. He was a failure, he took drugs and became awesome. Period. I'll leave it up to you whether this fits the mould of a redemption or evolution story, but I don't think it does - and to its detriment. Usually, I'm all for subverting a genre and changing things up, but this just didn't seem to gel with me. Still, watching Bradley Cooper act for 2 hours up against de Niro was definitely worth the money and the cinematography and music were both excellent. 7.5/10
The film is about Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper), a writer who is creatively-blocked, unkempt and just got dumped. He is glowering in the worthlessness of himself when he runs into his ex-wife's brother (Johnny Whitworth) and is given a mystery drug that bestows upon him more or less superhuman abilities. Of course, from here, things can only go up. Nevermind that the brother was, at a time, a derelict drug-dealer who should never be trusted.
Bradley Cooper was, as he always is, excellent in this role. He broke out of his normal role to play someone with a lot more depth and emotion, while also remaining a stylish and charming son of a bitch.
About halfway through the film, though, I couldn't help but ask: wait, wasn't Robert de Niro supposed to be in this movie? And he is. For very little of it. It kind of looks like they just got him in because it was a big name that would draw crowds, but he was still great in the role of tycoon Carl van Loon.
Sure, bad things do happen to Eddie even after he's taken the super-drug - most of the bad things caused by it - but I didn't feel there was any kind of evolution. He was a failure, he took drugs and became awesome. Period. I'll leave it up to you whether this fits the mould of a redemption or evolution story, but I don't think it does - and to its detriment. Usually, I'm all for subverting a genre and changing things up, but this just didn't seem to gel with me. Still, watching Bradley Cooper act for 2 hours up against de Niro was definitely worth the money and the cinematography and music were both excellent. 7.5/10
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Thor: A Hard Look At
Everyone shoule be pretty much aware by now of the newest comic-book-superhero-to-film-superhero film "Thor" that is currently gracing our cinemas. The film is the newest link in the chain that wukk eventually culminate in the superhero extravaganza "The Avengers", to be directed by Joss Whedon.
First, let me say how surprised I was to find out that this was directed by directing giant Kenneth Branagh - yes, the one and same who did "Frankenstein" with Robert de Niro. The film is so far out of his style it's in another world - which, I suppose, suits the fact that these characters are not from Earth. By the way, that's not a spoiler. Promise.
Second of all, I want to express how impressed I was by Australian "Home and Away" star Chris Hemsworth. Despite his humble beginnings on an Australia after-school soap that's been running for so long, he's come to Hollywood poised and ready. The first time I saw him, which was not on "Home and Away" but as George Kirk in the 2009 J.J. Abrams "Star Trek", I was immediately impressed. The fact that his role in that film last only about 12 minutes shows just how grabbing he was. The emotions were palpable.
Unfortunately, the emotional range for a character like Thor is a little less diverse. He is a prince from an alien world whom visited Earth and whom the Vikings worshipped as gods. So, he's arrogant and boastful, but his comedic timing when exiled too Earth sans-superpowers, is priceless. Also, it helps that he developed himself into some worthy eye-candy for all the gay and female movie viewers - hot damn did I feel inadequate.
The film is supported by the ever beautiful Natalie Portman and Kat Dennings, who play his science-nerd friends once on Earth, and the always enjoyable to watch Anthony Hopkins as his father Odin. Stellan Skarsgård was fun in his father-like role to Portman and Dennings, and newcomer Tom Hiddleston was impressive and believable as Thor's mischievous brother Loki.
Story-wise, it was a typical evolution/redemption story with some elegant action scenes thrown in for kicks. Admittedly the story seems lifted right from the comic book - and I knew that this hero would be the hardest to adapt to film because he was so, well, brazen. The dialogue is, at times, a little trite and couples itself with the wafer-thin storyline, but it does end in a way that I felt it should end - you'll see what I mean when you see it; and for the love of god stay after the credits!
Of course, while most of you are aware of my dislike of 3D as a medium, it can be done well. This film didn't need to be in 3D, but it wasn't too intrusive. The beautiful, sweeping landscape shots of Asgard are worth donning the 3D glasses, but anything on Earth - which is the majority of the film - isn't helped along at all by this new, hyped medium.
This film is an enjoyable, light movie and I do think is as good an adaptation of the comic as we're bound to get. 7/10
First, let me say how surprised I was to find out that this was directed by directing giant Kenneth Branagh - yes, the one and same who did "Frankenstein" with Robert de Niro. The film is so far out of his style it's in another world - which, I suppose, suits the fact that these characters are not from Earth. By the way, that's not a spoiler. Promise.
Second of all, I want to express how impressed I was by Australian "Home and Away" star Chris Hemsworth. Despite his humble beginnings on an Australia after-school soap that's been running for so long, he's come to Hollywood poised and ready. The first time I saw him, which was not on "Home and Away" but as George Kirk in the 2009 J.J. Abrams "Star Trek", I was immediately impressed. The fact that his role in that film last only about 12 minutes shows just how grabbing he was. The emotions were palpable.
Unfortunately, the emotional range for a character like Thor is a little less diverse. He is a prince from an alien world whom visited Earth and whom the Vikings worshipped as gods. So, he's arrogant and boastful, but his comedic timing when exiled too Earth sans-superpowers, is priceless. Also, it helps that he developed himself into some worthy eye-candy for all the gay and female movie viewers - hot damn did I feel inadequate.
The film is supported by the ever beautiful Natalie Portman and Kat Dennings, who play his science-nerd friends once on Earth, and the always enjoyable to watch Anthony Hopkins as his father Odin. Stellan Skarsgård was fun in his father-like role to Portman and Dennings, and newcomer Tom Hiddleston was impressive and believable as Thor's mischievous brother Loki.
Story-wise, it was a typical evolution/redemption story with some elegant action scenes thrown in for kicks. Admittedly the story seems lifted right from the comic book - and I knew that this hero would be the hardest to adapt to film because he was so, well, brazen. The dialogue is, at times, a little trite and couples itself with the wafer-thin storyline, but it does end in a way that I felt it should end - you'll see what I mean when you see it; and for the love of god stay after the credits!
Of course, while most of you are aware of my dislike of 3D as a medium, it can be done well. This film didn't need to be in 3D, but it wasn't too intrusive. The beautiful, sweeping landscape shots of Asgard are worth donning the 3D glasses, but anything on Earth - which is the majority of the film - isn't helped along at all by this new, hyped medium.
This film is an enjoyable, light movie and I do think is as good an adaptation of the comic as we're bound to get. 7/10
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Paranormal Activity
Ok, so I know I'm a little slow on the uptake as this movie came out some time ago, but still, bear with me.
First of all, I want to say that this movie was fantastic. It was very well put together, simple and effective - the simplicity is what made it scary. Kind of in the same way "Buried" was. The effects were simple and I couldn't figure them out, which was a nice, fresh perspective on the horror/haunting genre.
Sure, most people would say "oh, it's just "The Blair Witch Project" but set now" and to them I say, fuck you and shut up. ANY movie that uses first person camera as part of the film is going to be seen as Blair-Witch-esque because, no matter your thoughts on that film, it started off a style of genre (known as the "found footage" genre) that wasn't really used before - outside of the 1980, not-too-well-received, Italian movie "Cannibal Holocaust" which was the first recorded instance of a "found footage" film. Also, I think "Paranormal Activity" did it better. The characters weren't as annoying.
Now, on the characters, this is important. Fuck. Me. The boyfriend is a dumbass in this film. I know, I know, if he wasn't, the climax wouldn't be the same and, hell, the whole film would probably be really different and less exciting. But damn.
Ok, I mean, obviously he doesn't know he's in a horror film, but after the first few experiences of the title's events, you'd think he'd be a little more aware or at least say, "ok, some shit is going down, let me call a professional" or "maybe I shouldn't piss it off". But now. He decides to take the "hey, this should be fun - let's piss it off and call it names" route.
That's not a spoiler, that's just the whole movie.
Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat, who play characters by those names, are excellent and it really is great to see some talent in a small budget, enjoyable horror flick like this. They are understated and believable.
Go and see it!
Note: this post doesn't have anything to do with "Paranormal Activity 2" or the apparently upcoming 3rd installment, seeing as they both return in those films - or, at least, Katie is slated for the 3rd so far. You'll see why this seems dumb and counter-intuitive to the first, and kind of ruins the whole experience of it.
First of all, I want to say that this movie was fantastic. It was very well put together, simple and effective - the simplicity is what made it scary. Kind of in the same way "Buried" was. The effects were simple and I couldn't figure them out, which was a nice, fresh perspective on the horror/haunting genre.
Sure, most people would say "oh, it's just "The Blair Witch Project" but set now" and to them I say, fuck you and shut up. ANY movie that uses first person camera as part of the film is going to be seen as Blair-Witch-esque because, no matter your thoughts on that film, it started off a style of genre (known as the "found footage" genre) that wasn't really used before - outside of the 1980, not-too-well-received, Italian movie "Cannibal Holocaust" which was the first recorded instance of a "found footage" film. Also, I think "Paranormal Activity" did it better. The characters weren't as annoying.
Now, on the characters, this is important. Fuck. Me. The boyfriend is a dumbass in this film. I know, I know, if he wasn't, the climax wouldn't be the same and, hell, the whole film would probably be really different and less exciting. But damn.
Ok, I mean, obviously he doesn't know he's in a horror film, but after the first few experiences of the title's events, you'd think he'd be a little more aware or at least say, "ok, some shit is going down, let me call a professional" or "maybe I shouldn't piss it off". But now. He decides to take the "hey, this should be fun - let's piss it off and call it names" route.
That's not a spoiler, that's just the whole movie.
Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat, who play characters by those names, are excellent and it really is great to see some talent in a small budget, enjoyable horror flick like this. They are understated and believable.
Go and see it!
Note: this post doesn't have anything to do with "Paranormal Activity 2" or the apparently upcoming 3rd installment, seeing as they both return in those films - or, at least, Katie is slated for the 3rd so far. You'll see why this seems dumb and counter-intuitive to the first, and kind of ruins the whole experience of it.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Buried...
...is probably the scariest, most stressful movie I have ever seen. It was also cinematically brilliant. For those of you unaware, Buried is a film where Paul Conroy (played extremely well by Ryan Reynolds) wakes up to find himself bound in a coffin and buried alive. With him is a cell phone, his lighter and a flask of liquid, among other things. He has 90 minutes before he is left to die and must figure a way out.
Now, this sound like it's just a lame horror movie which ends in a Kill Bill-esque "punching through the coffin and crawling up and out of the ground", but you'd be wrong. The movie is an intricate exploration of loneliness, the American society and mortality.
The film is brilliantly shot never leaving the confines of the coffin - ever. All shots take place within the coffin and because of this, you feel like you're in there with Conroy. The lighting is only whatever the cell phone or lighter provides and the film is mostly quite silent, bar Conroy's talking on the phone and the occasional piece of dramatic music.
While I admire the excellent execution of the film and performance by Reynolds, and also the film-maker's ability to keep the audience interested for 90 minutes while never leaving the coffin or the single actor, I do not recommend it for the faint of heart. If you are claustrophobic or have a fear of being buried alive, this film is probably your worst nightmare and even had me - generally unaffected by films - shaking for a while afterwords, haunted.
Make no mistake, this is not a life-affirming movie, but is a great study of what it means to be alive.
Now, this sound like it's just a lame horror movie which ends in a Kill Bill-esque "punching through the coffin and crawling up and out of the ground", but you'd be wrong. The movie is an intricate exploration of loneliness, the American society and mortality.
The film is brilliantly shot never leaving the confines of the coffin - ever. All shots take place within the coffin and because of this, you feel like you're in there with Conroy. The lighting is only whatever the cell phone or lighter provides and the film is mostly quite silent, bar Conroy's talking on the phone and the occasional piece of dramatic music.
While I admire the excellent execution of the film and performance by Reynolds, and also the film-maker's ability to keep the audience interested for 90 minutes while never leaving the coffin or the single actor, I do not recommend it for the faint of heart. If you are claustrophobic or have a fear of being buried alive, this film is probably your worst nightmare and even had me - generally unaffected by films - shaking for a while afterwords, haunted.
Make no mistake, this is not a life-affirming movie, but is a great study of what it means to be alive.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Alice in Blunderland
Those of you who know me know that I am a great lover of Tim Burton's films. I find that he can practically do no wrong. Even though I was a massive fan of the original "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", I find Burton's was still good and as the two were so different, were practically incomparable. However, this is not the case with his new film "Alice in Wonderland".
The story is basically what happens if bad stuff happened after Alice left Wonderland, and so the various characters plot to bring her back to be their 'champion' against the Red Queen - or more famously known as the Queen of Hearts. But, alas, Alice has no recollection of ever being in Wonderland and she must relearn her lessons all over again. The film had promise to be an interesting follow up story to the events after the original "Alice in Wonderland" - the definitive version, I find, to be the Disney animated classic, but that's just me. Unfortunately what ended up happening was Alice was turned into an annoying teenage leading character who did nothing but complain and the plot may as well have been The Narnia Chronicles...in Wonderland.
Mia Wasikowska (Alice) can not be blamed I find for the poorness of the character, as she was mutated into a traditional misunderstood youth. Wasikowska first dealt performed in the Australian television show "All Saints", an episode directed by Robert Marchand. The role I find her best so far was in the short film "I Love Sarah Jane", in which she plays a young girl in a zombie apocalypse setting. Definitely worth a watch, it's available here.
Johnny Depp's performance as the Mad Hatter was clearly the best in the film. Though I am generally hard pressed to find a Johnny Depp performance I have disliked, this one was once again something new for the actor. The costume, voice and general physical movement of the character was so well carried out that simply watching him on screen was the saving grace of the film.
Anne Hathaway's performance as The White Queen was amusing in its own right because of her freedom to do with the character what she wanted, "When I was trying to work her out, I kept saying to myself, ‘She is a punk-rock, vegan pacifist.’" the actress said in an interview for Azrael Merrylan's blog.
What disappointed me most was by far the lackluster performance by Helena Bohnam Carter as The Red Queen. Now, normally, I am an incredible fan of the actress - I find she was practically flawless in "Fight Club" and "Sweeney Todd" - but this performance was simply not up to scratch. Albeit her subtle comedy in the role was well done, the screaming and general foolishness became frustrating to watch.
Voice work by Alan Rickman and Steven Fry in (respectively) the Blue Caterpillar and Cheshire Cat were very much up to scratch.
What annoyed me first about this film was that it did NOT need to be in 3D. Not at all. This is not "Avatar" where its only saving grace was the 3D used to make it and was basically just an exhibition of the possibilities of 3D animation. "Alice and Wonderland" and Tim Burton are a perfect match because ANYTHING is possible in both of their worlds (to paraphrase Anne Hathaway from the aforementioned interview) but Burton seems to have simply made a blockbuster film for the sake of it, not including the traditional Burton feel into it like in any of his other classic films. All in all, a massive let down. Mahalo.
The story is basically what happens if bad stuff happened after Alice left Wonderland, and so the various characters plot to bring her back to be their 'champion' against the Red Queen - or more famously known as the Queen of Hearts. But, alas, Alice has no recollection of ever being in Wonderland and she must relearn her lessons all over again. The film had promise to be an interesting follow up story to the events after the original "Alice in Wonderland" - the definitive version, I find, to be the Disney animated classic, but that's just me. Unfortunately what ended up happening was Alice was turned into an annoying teenage leading character who did nothing but complain and the plot may as well have been The Narnia Chronicles...in Wonderland.
Mia Wasikowska (Alice) can not be blamed I find for the poorness of the character, as she was mutated into a traditional misunderstood youth. Wasikowska first dealt performed in the Australian television show "All Saints", an episode directed by Robert Marchand. The role I find her best so far was in the short film "I Love Sarah Jane", in which she plays a young girl in a zombie apocalypse setting. Definitely worth a watch, it's available here.
Johnny Depp's performance as the Mad Hatter was clearly the best in the film. Though I am generally hard pressed to find a Johnny Depp performance I have disliked, this one was once again something new for the actor. The costume, voice and general physical movement of the character was so well carried out that simply watching him on screen was the saving grace of the film.
Anne Hathaway's performance as The White Queen was amusing in its own right because of her freedom to do with the character what she wanted, "When I was trying to work her out, I kept saying to myself, ‘She is a punk-rock, vegan pacifist.’" the actress said in an interview for Azrael Merrylan's blog.
What disappointed me most was by far the lackluster performance by Helena Bohnam Carter as The Red Queen. Now, normally, I am an incredible fan of the actress - I find she was practically flawless in "Fight Club" and "Sweeney Todd" - but this performance was simply not up to scratch. Albeit her subtle comedy in the role was well done, the screaming and general foolishness became frustrating to watch.
Voice work by Alan Rickman and Steven Fry in (respectively) the Blue Caterpillar and Cheshire Cat were very much up to scratch.
What annoyed me first about this film was that it did NOT need to be in 3D. Not at all. This is not "Avatar" where its only saving grace was the 3D used to make it and was basically just an exhibition of the possibilities of 3D animation. "Alice and Wonderland" and Tim Burton are a perfect match because ANYTHING is possible in both of their worlds (to paraphrase Anne Hathaway from the aforementioned interview) but Burton seems to have simply made a blockbuster film for the sake of it, not including the traditional Burton feel into it like in any of his other classic films. All in all, a massive let down. Mahalo.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
An Addendum
I feel an addendum must be made to my previous post about Bioshock 2. While my opinion of the single player aspect to the game remains unchanged, the multiplayer aspect is a different story. It would appear as if it was added as an afterthought, rather than a pre-thought-out portion of the game (Hmm, much like this addendum to an already fine article?). While it is cool to play a first person shooter game with others over the web using superpowers as well as weapons, the fashion in which it is done is slow and not worthy of the high status of game that fans have come to expect of Bioshock.
That is all. Mahalo.
That is all. Mahalo.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Legacy of Rapture Continues...
So, recently - several years after its initial release - I obtained a copy of Bioshock. And finished it quite promptly. To say the least, I was sucked wholly into the world of Rapture and its filthy and degenerate populace. The game's steampunk-esque world and intricate storyline are worth the buy alone. The game itself plays like a dream, alternating between plasmids (like superpowers...that become part of your DNA) and regular weapons. The hacking system was fun, the graphics beautiful, the game just the right level of challenging. And for those who like to simply rush through games in order to reach the ending, I don't recommend this for Bioshock. I recommend taking the extra few minutes to explore small areas and discover the tape recorders which reveal background plot and secret information about Rapture, widening its range even further. Although the end Boss fight was a might to quickly finished in my opinion, the game itself was hours of fun and includes hours of re-playability with different plasmid and tonic (like...body enhancements) choices.
The story is that you are a man on a plane in 1959 and you crash in the ocean, stumbling upon a lighthouse like structure in the middle of the ocean. You enter and discover the underwater city of Rapture, a city meant for the worlds best and brightest to be themselves with no hindrance - an intellectual Utopia. But it has all gone horribly wrong, with gene-splicers gone mad, raving and violent, everywhere. You are helped by man via radio named Atlas who tells you you must take down Andrew Ryan, Rapture's creator and current Head Honcho. Along the way you must collect ADAM to buy upgrades and extra plasmids and tonics. The only way to do so is to harvest or rescue a Little Sister...who is protected by the heavily armored and deadliest creature in Rapture, the Big Daddy.
Luckily for me, when I received and finished Bioshock, Bioshock 2 was only within a month of release. So, I pre-ordered, and I got. I finished Bioshock 2 and was left just as impressed as I was before, I refreshing feeling from a sequel. Considering it was almost three years on in development, I suppose it was likely to be good. The adventure continues, but this time it is ten years on since the end of Bioshock and you are playing the Alpha Series of Big Daddies, your name is Delta. One of the original, plasmid using, more independent thinking Big Daddies, your quest to save Rapture from itself continues.
The game-play did not go untouched, however. Plasmids have been edited and made severely better. Enemies have been made tougher, and some new faces show up - it can't be all the same, your a Big Daddy now. The system for hacking was changed, not for the better I feel, but I suppose to a more realistic format. At least, compared to previously. The ADAM gathering, which is now done by adopting a Little Sister as your own so she can collect the ADAM from the "angels" (Can you see the light in their tummies?), is incredibly hard. Or, can be. The game is surely tougher, despite the fact you are constantly dual wielding plasmids and weapons at the same time, including the signature Big Daddy drill.
The new nemsis, Sophia Lamb, has taken over Rapture and attempted to mold it in her image - and that imagine is reminiscent of a certain Dorian Grey. New splicers and Big Daddies attempt to stop you on your quest to save the Little Sisters and take down Sophia Lamb and her new weapons, the Big Sisters.
A fun game with many hours of game-play and re-playability, this game is highly worth the expense. And if you're into art and music, I recommend the Rapture Edition which includes the soundtrack of Bioshock 1 on vinyl, the soundtrack of Bioshock 2 on CD, the Art Book for Bioshock 2 and some Rapture posters. Mahalo.
The story is that you are a man on a plane in 1959 and you crash in the ocean, stumbling upon a lighthouse like structure in the middle of the ocean. You enter and discover the underwater city of Rapture, a city meant for the worlds best and brightest to be themselves with no hindrance - an intellectual Utopia. But it has all gone horribly wrong, with gene-splicers gone mad, raving and violent, everywhere. You are helped by man via radio named Atlas who tells you you must take down Andrew Ryan, Rapture's creator and current Head Honcho. Along the way you must collect ADAM to buy upgrades and extra plasmids and tonics. The only way to do so is to harvest or rescue a Little Sister...who is protected by the heavily armored and deadliest creature in Rapture, the Big Daddy.
Luckily for me, when I received and finished Bioshock, Bioshock 2 was only within a month of release. So, I pre-ordered, and I got. I finished Bioshock 2 and was left just as impressed as I was before, I refreshing feeling from a sequel. Considering it was almost three years on in development, I suppose it was likely to be good. The adventure continues, but this time it is ten years on since the end of Bioshock and you are playing the Alpha Series of Big Daddies, your name is Delta. One of the original, plasmid using, more independent thinking Big Daddies, your quest to save Rapture from itself continues.
The game-play did not go untouched, however. Plasmids have been edited and made severely better. Enemies have been made tougher, and some new faces show up - it can't be all the same, your a Big Daddy now. The system for hacking was changed, not for the better I feel, but I suppose to a more realistic format. At least, compared to previously. The ADAM gathering, which is now done by adopting a Little Sister as your own so she can collect the ADAM from the "angels" (Can you see the light in their tummies?), is incredibly hard. Or, can be. The game is surely tougher, despite the fact you are constantly dual wielding plasmids and weapons at the same time, including the signature Big Daddy drill.
The new nemsis, Sophia Lamb, has taken over Rapture and attempted to mold it in her image - and that imagine is reminiscent of a certain Dorian Grey. New splicers and Big Daddies attempt to stop you on your quest to save the Little Sisters and take down Sophia Lamb and her new weapons, the Big Sisters.
A fun game with many hours of game-play and re-playability, this game is highly worth the expense. And if you're into art and music, I recommend the Rapture Edition which includes the soundtrack of Bioshock 1 on vinyl, the soundtrack of Bioshock 2 on CD, the Art Book for Bioshock 2 and some Rapture posters. Mahalo.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Zero-G
Steam recently released the free trial on all steam accounts of a new game called Zero-G. The game is basically a cuter version of Mario Kart, but with more jumping. The game is priced on Steam at $14.99 (USD) which seems fairly reasonable, considering you get more than just racing, with mini-games like soccer, hockey and a collect-the-points, tag style mini-game.
The game does offer customizable figures, which is a cute addition, considering all the characters are bizarre in the extreme from a cactus to a Cthulhu-like octopus, with extras like sunglasses, driving goggles and a brain-slug.
It is a fun and enjoyable game, despite some mildly debilitating driving problems that are caused by high ping rates and is a nice addition to the Steam collection. It can, however, be mildly frustrating as the turning circle and directional capabilities of the car seem somewhat small and slow. Mahalo.
The game does offer customizable figures, which is a cute addition, considering all the characters are bizarre in the extreme from a cactus to a Cthulhu-like octopus, with extras like sunglasses, driving goggles and a brain-slug.
It is a fun and enjoyable game, despite some mildly debilitating driving problems that are caused by high ping rates and is a nice addition to the Steam collection. It can, however, be mildly frustrating as the turning circle and directional capabilities of the car seem somewhat small and slow. Mahalo.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
PocahAvatar
Recently, the film world, critics and general viewers alike, has been aflame, raving with positive words for James Cameron's new epic "Avatar". There are some things I would like to point out as to why it does not deserve the 8 out of 10 it has been receiving.
Let me start by saying, I was entertained by the film. It was enjoyable to watch, but that was all it was, nothing deeper. Having said that, let me begin with the praise for the film. It was, undoubtedly, a masterpiece of film technology which was an absolute pleasure to behold. The world was intricate and intense - reminding viewers of older generations of the children's classic "Fern Gully" in some respects. The animals were creative and the native people were beautiful to behold, despite the fact it felt like they were merely alien mash-ups of pre-existing native peoples, but more on this later. The battle scenes were epic and kept you wanting to see more, and the sweeping shots made the 3D a very interesting experience, one which takes the first ten minutes of viewing to get used to. But don't get me wrong, 3D is the ONLY way to see this film on the big screen. I would also like to extend congratulations to relative unknowns Sam Worthington (Terminator Salvation) and Zoe Saldana (Star Trek) for their prowess at portraying their roles of Jake Sully and Neytiri respectively.
Now, the problems. As I mentioned earlier, the alien race of the Na'vi are merely a combination of blue skin and earthling natives. More specifically, they are seemingly racist stereotypes of Africans and Native Americans mixed with the fictional race of Night Elves from the online game World of Warcraft. I would also like to point out that aliens in films are always one of two things: either a) they vastly outdo Earthlings on the level of technology or b) are completely primitive. The fact that the Na'vi are the latter does not do much for the case of them not being racist stereotypes of existing native peoples.
Secondly, the story. Sure, it can be said that it is "an oldy but a goody", but that does not stop this film from being "Pocahantas" with Aliens. I suppose if it had been told in a way that wasn't completely the same as all the others, it would be great, but unfortunately, it's not. Also, when a film has to have a Deus Ex Machina as large as the one at "Avatar"s end, it does not show much for the screenplay.
Thirdly, the dialogue. Wow. I can't even express how bland, predictable and outdated the dialogue was, especially Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) seemingly taken from one of Cameron's other films, "Aliens". When there is actually dialogue like this in a film:
Sully: It's over!
Quaritch: It's not over as long as I'm still breathing!
Sully: I was hoping you'd say that.
it's obvious there is a serious case of 80's going on.
Lastly, I'd like to say that, despite enjoyable and accurate acting by the whole cast - Sigourney Weaver still being a pleasure to have on screen with her delightfully disagreeable Dr. Grace Augustine - the characters were frighteningly two dimensional and predictable.
In my humble opinion, this film deserves a 7/10 at MOST, and maybe even a 6/10 because story and characters are so important as far as a film goes - a film should not have to blind you with graphics to distract from its predictability and lack of depth. Mahalo.
Let me start by saying, I was entertained by the film. It was enjoyable to watch, but that was all it was, nothing deeper. Having said that, let me begin with the praise for the film. It was, undoubtedly, a masterpiece of film technology which was an absolute pleasure to behold. The world was intricate and intense - reminding viewers of older generations of the children's classic "Fern Gully" in some respects. The animals were creative and the native people were beautiful to behold, despite the fact it felt like they were merely alien mash-ups of pre-existing native peoples, but more on this later. The battle scenes were epic and kept you wanting to see more, and the sweeping shots made the 3D a very interesting experience, one which takes the first ten minutes of viewing to get used to. But don't get me wrong, 3D is the ONLY way to see this film on the big screen. I would also like to extend congratulations to relative unknowns Sam Worthington (Terminator Salvation) and Zoe Saldana (Star Trek) for their prowess at portraying their roles of Jake Sully and Neytiri respectively.
Now, the problems. As I mentioned earlier, the alien race of the Na'vi are merely a combination of blue skin and earthling natives. More specifically, they are seemingly racist stereotypes of Africans and Native Americans mixed with the fictional race of Night Elves from the online game World of Warcraft. I would also like to point out that aliens in films are always one of two things: either a) they vastly outdo Earthlings on the level of technology or b) are completely primitive. The fact that the Na'vi are the latter does not do much for the case of them not being racist stereotypes of existing native peoples.
Secondly, the story. Sure, it can be said that it is "an oldy but a goody", but that does not stop this film from being "Pocahantas" with Aliens. I suppose if it had been told in a way that wasn't completely the same as all the others, it would be great, but unfortunately, it's not. Also, when a film has to have a Deus Ex Machina as large as the one at "Avatar"s end, it does not show much for the screenplay.
Thirdly, the dialogue. Wow. I can't even express how bland, predictable and outdated the dialogue was, especially Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) seemingly taken from one of Cameron's other films, "Aliens". When there is actually dialogue like this in a film:
Sully: It's over!
Quaritch: It's not over as long as I'm still breathing!
Sully: I was hoping you'd say that.
it's obvious there is a serious case of 80's going on.
Lastly, I'd like to say that, despite enjoyable and accurate acting by the whole cast - Sigourney Weaver still being a pleasure to have on screen with her delightfully disagreeable Dr. Grace Augustine - the characters were frighteningly two dimensional and predictable.
In my humble opinion, this film deserves a 7/10 at MOST, and maybe even a 6/10 because story and characters are so important as far as a film goes - a film should not have to blind you with graphics to distract from its predictability and lack of depth. Mahalo.
Make Way, Make Room for the Brothers Bloom!
It is very rare to encounter a film which so immediately becomes one which you can watch and rewatch without its contents becoming tired and bland. Even rarer is it to come across such films whilst on a fourteen hour flight between Sydney and Los Angeles. As I flicked through the entertainment system on my flight, I came across an interestingly titled film called "The Brothers Bloom" which I had never heard of. This was strange to me, as I like to keep up with new films, and it had a cast including Adrian Brody, Mark Ruffalo and Rachel Weisz.
To use the words 'cute' and 'endearing' to describe this film would be an understatement. So would 'hilarious' and 'quirky'. The film opens with a fairytale-esque sequence of the main characters Steven (Ruffalo) and Bloom (Brody) as children, with narration that rhymes in a cadence similar to that of Disney films or other such children's films, but with a distinct dark humour to it. After this and as soon as the film opens properly, you are met with a story so intriguing and characters so compelling and likable that you are actually disappointed when the films ends, wanting more. The brothers Bloom are conmen who find their final mark in the form of eccentric (and beautiful) shut-in, Penelope (Weisz).
Although there are moments with the intricacy of the plot is confounding, it can be revealed upon further viewings, which will be wanted as a result of the overall sweetness and enjoyability of the film as a whole. It is a thoroughly enjoyable film and will leave you with tears of joy and the laughter of sadness. Mahalo.
To use the words 'cute' and 'endearing' to describe this film would be an understatement. So would 'hilarious' and 'quirky'. The film opens with a fairytale-esque sequence of the main characters Steven (Ruffalo) and Bloom (Brody) as children, with narration that rhymes in a cadence similar to that of Disney films or other such children's films, but with a distinct dark humour to it. After this and as soon as the film opens properly, you are met with a story so intriguing and characters so compelling and likable that you are actually disappointed when the films ends, wanting more. The brothers Bloom are conmen who find their final mark in the form of eccentric (and beautiful) shut-in, Penelope (Weisz).
Although there are moments with the intricacy of the plot is confounding, it can be revealed upon further viewings, which will be wanted as a result of the overall sweetness and enjoyability of the film as a whole. It is a thoroughly enjoyable film and will leave you with tears of joy and the laughter of sadness. Mahalo.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Interstella 5555: A film
So, I just finished watching the Daft Punk anime film "Interstella 5555" which is a film version of their concept album "Discovery". The film is very enjoyable in the sense of it being a sci-fi, family style anime with no dialogue content, the story being told through music and images only.
Despite it having no words of dialogue, the story is fairly effectively told, despite it being a very strange sci-fi story of apparent world domination through an ancient, undying evil...through the use of several music stars from other universes. It is a very strange story, but the characters are likable, and it's fun and interesting to see every song on the album fit to the animation built for it.
The film can also very easily be analysed through any number of lenses - the man who kidnaps the band forces them onto earth and makes them look human, and then to make the people of earth imiatate them in every way. This can be interpreted easily as a metaphor for both colonialism, and for capitalism. The film also focuses on the band's loneliness, perhaps being a comment on the disillusionment with being a celebrity.
All in all, it's a fun watch if you have a spare hour in your day, and enjoy the heavy electronic beats of Daft Punk.
Despite it having no words of dialogue, the story is fairly effectively told, despite it being a very strange sci-fi story of apparent world domination through an ancient, undying evil...through the use of several music stars from other universes. It is a very strange story, but the characters are likable, and it's fun and interesting to see every song on the album fit to the animation built for it.
The film can also very easily be analysed through any number of lenses - the man who kidnaps the band forces them onto earth and makes them look human, and then to make the people of earth imiatate them in every way. This can be interpreted easily as a metaphor for both colonialism, and for capitalism. The film also focuses on the band's loneliness, perhaps being a comment on the disillusionment with being a celebrity.
All in all, it's a fun watch if you have a spare hour in your day, and enjoy the heavy electronic beats of Daft Punk.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Lost: A Review
Recently, I ingested the entire five seasons J.J. Abrams' hit TV show "Lost" from beginning to end in barely a month. At first, I was a "Lost" hater - I hated it, and I enjoyed hating it and I wasn't in the mood to be budged on the matter. What was the worst about this was, I had never even watched it. I hated it purely based on the concept and false assumptions. But, I had to go and tell this to a rather pushy "Lost" fan, "Go on, watch the pilot episode if," he said, "if after that you don't want to watch any more of it, I won't push it." So I said fine. At the end of the movie-length premier, I was hooked and needed more "Lost". The complaints I had heard that it "all of a sudden" became a sci-fi show were, now, unfounded as "Lost" is in its essence, a sci-fi show. What's more, it's a good sci-fi show - which are rare to find. What's better is it was in the vein of the first season of "Heroes" and set in a very relatable real-world setting, but a lot less cheesy.
All the misconceptions I had had about the series turned out to be unfounded upon a proper viewing of the show. The show did not, as I thought, take place over a year each season but was actually a month, the first season being the first 44 days on the island - this created an interesting time paradox involving the actors and the events on the island - and it was not the only time paradox, as time is a predominant theme in the show.
What I found most intriguing about "Lost" is the surprising depth of it. To paraphrase a review given to the novel "World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War", "Lost" is smarter than any sci-fi show has a right to be. Every character is based in some way around an historical figure or philosopher, the most obvious of which is the character of John Locke named after...well...John Locke. The 'main' character - a term I use loosely as a result of the inordinate number of main characters, the season six containing all previously seen twenty-six characters - Jack Sheppard seems to me to be based upon the famed Irish convict of the same name who is famous for escaping from prison something to the effect of fourteen times.
I have heard almost every possible interpretation of what "Lost" means, and what the Island is - that it's purgatory, that it's a prison, it's hell, it's not real, etc. etc. etc. ad infinatum. No one interpretation is right or wrong, and they are all well documented and correlated at LostPedia, an encyclopedia of everything that is "Lost".
For those of you who haven't seen "Lost" I won't be providing spoilers, so don't worry. The basic idea is that a plane crashes on a mysterious island, and somehow forty-seven or so people survive the crash - most of which are what we call "red shirts", named so after the character in "Star Trek" who would go down to the planet with the main characters and would...well...die, as they weren't leads, and they always wore red shirts. Of these, there are approximately 11-15 main characters at a time - it fluctuates as the seasons go on and characters die or are introduced. After some time on the island, they realize something is awry with the Island as they hear what they will frustratingly refer to as The Monster for five seasons, and soon realize they are not alone on the island. Major conspiracies, sci-fi concepts, philosophy and intriguing characters all make this show a worthwhile watch!
All the misconceptions I had had about the series turned out to be unfounded upon a proper viewing of the show. The show did not, as I thought, take place over a year each season but was actually a month, the first season being the first 44 days on the island - this created an interesting time paradox involving the actors and the events on the island - and it was not the only time paradox, as time is a predominant theme in the show.
What I found most intriguing about "Lost" is the surprising depth of it. To paraphrase a review given to the novel "World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War", "Lost" is smarter than any sci-fi show has a right to be. Every character is based in some way around an historical figure or philosopher, the most obvious of which is the character of John Locke named after...well...John Locke. The 'main' character - a term I use loosely as a result of the inordinate number of main characters, the season six containing all previously seen twenty-six characters - Jack Sheppard seems to me to be based upon the famed Irish convict of the same name who is famous for escaping from prison something to the effect of fourteen times.
I have heard almost every possible interpretation of what "Lost" means, and what the Island is - that it's purgatory, that it's a prison, it's hell, it's not real, etc. etc. etc. ad infinatum. No one interpretation is right or wrong, and they are all well documented and correlated at LostPedia, an encyclopedia of everything that is "Lost".
For those of you who haven't seen "Lost" I won't be providing spoilers, so don't worry. The basic idea is that a plane crashes on a mysterious island, and somehow forty-seven or so people survive the crash - most of which are what we call "red shirts", named so after the character in "Star Trek" who would go down to the planet with the main characters and would...well...die, as they weren't leads, and they always wore red shirts. Of these, there are approximately 11-15 main characters at a time - it fluctuates as the seasons go on and characters die or are introduced. After some time on the island, they realize something is awry with the Island as they hear what they will frustratingly refer to as The Monster for five seasons, and soon realize they are not alone on the island. Major conspiracies, sci-fi concepts, philosophy and intriguing characters all make this show a worthwhile watch!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)