The release of "Shadow of Mordor" this week has been making some waves. Apparently, it could really be a sleeper game of the year candidate. I'm a cheap PC gamer, so I'm probably not going to get it till the price drops on Steam Sale, but apparently it has the best qualities of games like the Batman Arkham and Assassin's Creed games combined with an open-world setting like Skyrim. So if a game about Middle Earth like that could be made, what other badass ideas could we possibly have for new experiences in a market flooded with run-of-the-mill titles like Call of Duty? It really got me to thinking. Here's what I came up with.
1. Mortal Kombat action-adventure styled game starring Sub-Zero and Scorpion: They hinted that this could actually be a thing in the arcade ladder ending for Sub-Zero in the 2011 Mortal Kombat game. Actually, scratch that. Shortly after "Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks" came out, there was actually another one of those games set in the MK universe called "Fire and Ice." No, that's not referring to condoms, that's referring to Sub-Zero and Scorpion. So that nearly happened, then they pulled the plug on it. Real smooth. That's almost as bad as when Atari canceled the PS2 release of "Godzilla: Destroy all Monsters Melee." Anyway, if a game starring Scorpion and Sub-Zero ever got released, I could see it being done similarly to God of War. Of course but with elemental powers and co-op. And fatalities you can do on the fly.
2. Open-world game about the life of Miyamoto Musashi: Honestly, I don't know how a game about Miyamoto Musashi hasn't been made, yet. During his lifetime, the man was a pure, unadulterated walking machine of death and badass in the most awesome way possible. Plus, the time when he lived was fairly ... unstable and would definitely make for one of those open-world games where a lot of people are trying to kill you. It could make for a world like "Shadow of Mordor" or even Skyrim with a free-flowing combat style like Batman Arkham, only you're using a samurai sword. Ok, so it would basically be like Shadow of Mordor but focused on a person who really fought and killed. But you say Dynasty and Samurai Warriors touched on similar themes? Yes, but those weren't really realistic, were they? No, they were not. This one would be.
3. First-person shooter set during the Vietnam War: "Call of Duty: Black Ops" touched on this, but that was only a few levels. I'm talking about a story-driven narrative set during the entire war from start to finish. You know, kind of like when FPS games actually had campaigns that people played. If we had a Vietnam War game with a story like "Brothers in Arms" that had the type of action that "Call of Duty" and "Battlefield" have in their campaigns, then you'd get something I might actually buy.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Sunday, May 25, 2014
"X-Men: Days of Future Past" redeems the past
Time has gone by fast. My top two most anticipated movies of the summer have come and gone, and they were both amazing. Here is my review of the second one (the other was "Godzilla"). I remember really becoming an X-Men fan in 2003 around when "X2" came out in theaters. At the time, it was probably the best superhero-film out. It had good acting, good writing, and a sense of mystery because of the Weapon X flashbacks and the Phoenix teaser at the very end. I wanted the next one to be awesome so badly. Too bad it wasn't because Bryan Singer made the boneheaded decision to direct "Superman Returns" instead of the third "X-Men" movie. The result was a double-feature crapfest that most fans don't want to forgive not forget. Well fans, "X-Men: Days of Future Past" will make you both forgive AND forget "The Last Stand."
The aforementioned movie was based around X-Men's most beloved story arc of all time: The Dark Phoenix Saga, a story so beloved that it's #1 on my greatest comic book stories of all time. If that's #1, then Days of Future Past is probably #2 in Chris Claremont's unprecedented run on the series. Well, they basically took a shit on #1 with its screen treatment. And then they redeemed themselves with #2. They redeemed the shit out of themselves.
The storyline may sound familiar, but at the time it was written, it was ahead of its time for several reasons which are discussed in that comic book storyline post. Basically, it's a dystopian future not unlike the one portrayed in "Terminator 2." Mutants and the humans who support them get rounded up in concentration camps while those who resist are exterminated. By machines called sentinels. The X-Men are one such faction actively resisting the sentinels' oppression, but to do so they must be careful because those things literally cannot be stopped. They're like an entire army of terminators on steroids. So one day, Professor X gets tired of jumping from safehouse to safehouse and decides to do something about it. One member of the team, Shadowcat, somehow has the ability to transfer a person's consciousness back in time to said person's younger body. So they do it with none other than Wolverine in an attempt to prevent an assassination that will literally screw everyone over. Hijinks ensue.
The most common praise of the first 2 X-Men movies was their dark, cerebral tone along with well-developed characters. In contrast, #3 kind of felt rushed in an attempt to sacrifice plot and characters for pants-shitting moments (it didn't succeed ... ok it kind of did in some aspects but mostly not). DOFP returns to the glory days of the original movies while retaining the breakneck pacing and wit that "First Class" had. And actually, the humor is quite strong with this one, but it manages to still be rather dark and serious. It's a good balance, and that's part of what makes it such a strong movie.
The acting is also extremely top-notch for a superhero film. Literally everyone involved does an outstanding job. Special praise goes to Jennifer Lawrence, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and of course, Hugh Jackman since those are the main players (also of note: he may be the time traveler, but DOFP actually does not at all focus too much on Wolverine). Evan Peters also did a good turn, stealing every scene he was in despite not being in the movie for all that long. I know the acting was good because this was the most emotional X-Men movie yet. This was the polar opposite of "First Class." Especially with Professor X. When the man actually drops an F bomb in anger, you know he's not a happy individual. And if you saw "First Class," you'd know why. Either way, DOFP does an extremely good job at picking up those pieces of that break-up. The acting in the future scenes was about as good as you'd expect from the cast of the original movies, but the focus here is on the newer cast members. However, the scene in which Patrick Stewart and James McAvoy meet onscreen is a must-see and arguably the highlight of the film from an acting standpoint.
The effects were also top-notch. From the way they handled Quicksilver's speed to Magneto using a stadium as his personal mothership, everything was just mind-blowing. And the Blink portals in the future. Holy shit. Iceman using his abilities like never before? I need a new pair of pants. The sentinels were good, too. The past ones were kind of ho-hum robots, but the future ones were genuinely frightening and a legitimate threat to the X-Men. Think of them as, yes, an army of T-1000s. Everything was just so well-done, but I wouldn't expect anything less after hearing what the budget was. Hell, even the way they implemented the iconic theme music from "X2" was just awesome. When a movie's theme music playing in the title crawl gets my adrenaline pumping and makes me want to start yelling the way I do when the Texas Aggies enter Kyle Field, I know I'm in for a hell of an awesome ride.
But the reason for DOFP's perfection to me is as much what it accomplishes as it is the content of the movie. Like I said, the third movie was bad, and coupled with a disappointing Wolverine first solo outing, that left a bad taste for a lot of fans. And then look at what Marvel Studios and Warner Bros. accomplished. One managed to win a freaking Oscar, and another made the first shared cinematic universe that actually worked. While I don't think anyone is going to be winning Best Actor here, the performances were certainly a high enough caliber. But what it truly accomplished, without too many spoilers is a case in which a movie actually erased the continuity of a previous film and possibly established not one, but several potential alternate continuities in a franchise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that usually only gets done in actual comic books. I won't say how, but it did. It's incredible. If I recall from an earlier post, Fox put all their cards on the table for DOFP because they wanted to compete with Marvel and Sony. I think it's about to pay off. The balance of humor and seriousness is good, the performances are extremely strong and most importantly, the bad taste from "The Last Stand" was literally wiped out.
"X-Men: Days of Future Past" gets a 10/10. This is the X-Men movie I wanted immediately following "X2." It took Bryan Singer and Co. 11 years to make that happen, but they made it happen.
The aforementioned movie was based around X-Men's most beloved story arc of all time: The Dark Phoenix Saga, a story so beloved that it's #1 on my greatest comic book stories of all time. If that's #1, then Days of Future Past is probably #2 in Chris Claremont's unprecedented run on the series. Well, they basically took a shit on #1 with its screen treatment. And then they redeemed themselves with #2. They redeemed the shit out of themselves.
The storyline may sound familiar, but at the time it was written, it was ahead of its time for several reasons which are discussed in that comic book storyline post. Basically, it's a dystopian future not unlike the one portrayed in "Terminator 2." Mutants and the humans who support them get rounded up in concentration camps while those who resist are exterminated. By machines called sentinels. The X-Men are one such faction actively resisting the sentinels' oppression, but to do so they must be careful because those things literally cannot be stopped. They're like an entire army of terminators on steroids. So one day, Professor X gets tired of jumping from safehouse to safehouse and decides to do something about it. One member of the team, Shadowcat, somehow has the ability to transfer a person's consciousness back in time to said person's younger body. So they do it with none other than Wolverine in an attempt to prevent an assassination that will literally screw everyone over. Hijinks ensue.
The most common praise of the first 2 X-Men movies was their dark, cerebral tone along with well-developed characters. In contrast, #3 kind of felt rushed in an attempt to sacrifice plot and characters for pants-shitting moments (it didn't succeed ... ok it kind of did in some aspects but mostly not). DOFP returns to the glory days of the original movies while retaining the breakneck pacing and wit that "First Class" had. And actually, the humor is quite strong with this one, but it manages to still be rather dark and serious. It's a good balance, and that's part of what makes it such a strong movie.
The acting is also extremely top-notch for a superhero film. Literally everyone involved does an outstanding job. Special praise goes to Jennifer Lawrence, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and of course, Hugh Jackman since those are the main players (also of note: he may be the time traveler, but DOFP actually does not at all focus too much on Wolverine). Evan Peters also did a good turn, stealing every scene he was in despite not being in the movie for all that long. I know the acting was good because this was the most emotional X-Men movie yet. This was the polar opposite of "First Class." Especially with Professor X. When the man actually drops an F bomb in anger, you know he's not a happy individual. And if you saw "First Class," you'd know why. Either way, DOFP does an extremely good job at picking up those pieces of that break-up. The acting in the future scenes was about as good as you'd expect from the cast of the original movies, but the focus here is on the newer cast members. However, the scene in which Patrick Stewart and James McAvoy meet onscreen is a must-see and arguably the highlight of the film from an acting standpoint.
The effects were also top-notch. From the way they handled Quicksilver's speed to Magneto using a stadium as his personal mothership, everything was just mind-blowing. And the Blink portals in the future. Holy shit. Iceman using his abilities like never before? I need a new pair of pants. The sentinels were good, too. The past ones were kind of ho-hum robots, but the future ones were genuinely frightening and a legitimate threat to the X-Men. Think of them as, yes, an army of T-1000s. Everything was just so well-done, but I wouldn't expect anything less after hearing what the budget was. Hell, even the way they implemented the iconic theme music from "X2" was just awesome. When a movie's theme music playing in the title crawl gets my adrenaline pumping and makes me want to start yelling the way I do when the Texas Aggies enter Kyle Field, I know I'm in for a hell of an awesome ride.
But the reason for DOFP's perfection to me is as much what it accomplishes as it is the content of the movie. Like I said, the third movie was bad, and coupled with a disappointing Wolverine first solo outing, that left a bad taste for a lot of fans. And then look at what Marvel Studios and Warner Bros. accomplished. One managed to win a freaking Oscar, and another made the first shared cinematic universe that actually worked. While I don't think anyone is going to be winning Best Actor here, the performances were certainly a high enough caliber. But what it truly accomplished, without too many spoilers is a case in which a movie actually erased the continuity of a previous film and possibly established not one, but several potential alternate continuities in a franchise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that usually only gets done in actual comic books. I won't say how, but it did. It's incredible. If I recall from an earlier post, Fox put all their cards on the table for DOFP because they wanted to compete with Marvel and Sony. I think it's about to pay off. The balance of humor and seriousness is good, the performances are extremely strong and most importantly, the bad taste from "The Last Stand" was literally wiped out.
"X-Men: Days of Future Past" gets a 10/10. This is the X-Men movie I wanted immediately following "X2." It took Bryan Singer and Co. 11 years to make that happen, but they made it happen.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
"Godzilla" review: The king has returned to us
I don't remember if I put "Godzilla" at #1 or #2 on my top 5 most anticipated movies of 2014 list. Either way, it was at the top. Having been a fan of the big guy pretty much my entire life, I've seen pretty much everything starring Godzilla. I even liked the atrocious Roland Emmerich remake that came out in the late 90s because I was a 7-year-old at the time who didn't know any better. I still respect that sense of nostalgia that the movie gives me, but in hindsight, it was a steaming pile of radioactive crap that stinks worse than anything the titular character could probably ... defecate. So when they announced a reboot of the remake, I was cautiously excited. But still excited because dammit, it's Godzilla!
I wasn't too excited when they revealed production details. The director was this dude Gareth Edwards who I've never even heard of up until now. The actors weren't cast until last year, but now that I've seen the movie, none of that matters. Forget that Gareth is a director with one very low budget indie film to his name. I honestly could have given less of a shit if another actor other than Heisenberg aka Bryan Cranston was cast. It's about the monster. And folks, they got this one right.
If you're at all familiar with the Godzilla character, especially the original 1954 movie, the plot shouldn't be too complicated. I mean, this isn't exactly "Inception" we're dealing with here. Giant monster awakens, destroys city, goes back to the ocean, repeat. The only difference here in either a bit of homage or continuity screwing, they decided to tie "Godzilla" to its earlier predecessor. Only at the beginning of the movie I think they woke him up with nuclear testing then tried to kill him with more nuclear testing. Or something along those lines. The logic of trying to kill something radioactive with more radiation makes less sense than the actual plot point.
So then we fast forward to the late 90s when Heisenberg is working at a Japanese nuclear plant (on a side note, I took 2 years of Japanese in college, and Cranston's Japanese spoken lines actually are not bad for a non-native speaker here). He's some sort of head honcho, and under his watch the plant gets destroyed by an earthquake, and his wife dies. Then he goes crazy, but not in a Walter White sort of way. Or at least everyone, including his US Navy EOD tech son thinks so. Only he's not because it wasn't an earthquake. It was a completely new monster called a MUTO (massive unidentified terrestrial organism). Long story short, it awakens because some dumbass decided to build a nuclear power plant on top of the resting place of a creature that feeds off radiation. He then decides to go get laid. And then somehow Godzilla wakes up as well and decides that he has the MUTO munchies, and our plot kicks off from there.
The biggest difference between this and its late 90s predecessor is the treatment of the source material. As much as "Independence Day" was a mega-hit, it was still a B-movie at its heart. Sure, you can call "Godzilla" a B-movie as well, but only after he was turned from scary-as-hell atomic bomb metaphor into a Saturday morning cartoon-type hero. When Emmerich made "Godzilla" in the late 90s, well, I'd say he probably got drunk and made the movie after watching "Jurassic Park" one too many times because that's what it ended up like. A cheap ripoff of a sci fi classic. Gareth Edwards on the other hand seems to have nothing but utmost reverence for the source material. Although it has a monster fight in the spirit of the campier outings, "Godzilla" in terms of overall tone is much closer to the 1954 original. It's dark, serious and a metaphor for the arrogance of mankind and the destructive power of nature. Ironically, the whole dark metaphor thing was what Godzilla was originally intended for. In that sense, you can argue that "Godzilla" is the "Batman Begins" of its franchise in the sense that it's taking a character who was originally intended to be dark and serious and returning him to those roots, after way too many campy cheesefests. In fact, news broke today that they're already at work on a sequel. So then it could become the "Dark Knight saga" of its franchise and return. I'm OK with that.
The acting was ... about as good as you expect in a movie about giant monsters. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is passable but not spectacular as the leading man. Elizabeth Olsen doesn't do much other than provide occasional eye candy and gaze meaningfully at the camera. The clear standouts are Bryan Cranston and Ken Watanabe, and even between those two Cranston stands out more. Ken Watanabe isn't given much to do other than play the part of the really philosophical sounding Asian dude (I'm Asian in real life so I reserve the right to make stereotype comments). Cranston's performance, while somewhat brief, is very reminiscent of his best moments in "Breaking Bad." It's a good anchor for the rest of the film. But at the end of the day, an anchor is a small part of the ship. Crucial, but small.
The most praise goes to the way the monster battles are handled. To those expecting "Pacific Rim"-styled action, well, this is not really that. As I said earlier, "Godzilla" has more in common with 1954's "Gojira" than any other movie in terms of its tone. The monster battle does happen, and when it does, it's executed perfectly. But it's not totally what the movie's about. Most people probably have never seen the original, and in it I think Godzilla himself only had like 17 minutes of screen time. And up until the monster battle, Godzilla himself is treated like the shark from "Jaws." He's more of a presence. And it works very well here. If he were to be revealed early on and paraded around for the whole 2 hours, the movie itself wouldn't have been as satisfying. But as with "Jaws," once the titular monster is revealed, you'll shit your pants because the build-up was damn well worth it.
So to sum everything up, "Godzilla" for me hits all the right notes and restores a character from campy cartoon hero to the unstoppable force of nature he was always meant to be. It's not "Pacific Rim," so don't go in expecting that. Otherwise ...
9.5 out of 10
I wasn't too excited when they revealed production details. The director was this dude Gareth Edwards who I've never even heard of up until now. The actors weren't cast until last year, but now that I've seen the movie, none of that matters. Forget that Gareth is a director with one very low budget indie film to his name. I honestly could have given less of a shit if another actor other than Heisenberg aka Bryan Cranston was cast. It's about the monster. And folks, they got this one right.
If you're at all familiar with the Godzilla character, especially the original 1954 movie, the plot shouldn't be too complicated. I mean, this isn't exactly "Inception" we're dealing with here. Giant monster awakens, destroys city, goes back to the ocean, repeat. The only difference here in either a bit of homage or continuity screwing, they decided to tie "Godzilla" to its earlier predecessor. Only at the beginning of the movie I think they woke him up with nuclear testing then tried to kill him with more nuclear testing. Or something along those lines. The logic of trying to kill something radioactive with more radiation makes less sense than the actual plot point.
So then we fast forward to the late 90s when Heisenberg is working at a Japanese nuclear plant (on a side note, I took 2 years of Japanese in college, and Cranston's Japanese spoken lines actually are not bad for a non-native speaker here). He's some sort of head honcho, and under his watch the plant gets destroyed by an earthquake, and his wife dies. Then he goes crazy, but not in a Walter White sort of way. Or at least everyone, including his US Navy EOD tech son thinks so. Only he's not because it wasn't an earthquake. It was a completely new monster called a MUTO (massive unidentified terrestrial organism). Long story short, it awakens because some dumbass decided to build a nuclear power plant on top of the resting place of a creature that feeds off radiation. He then decides to go get laid. And then somehow Godzilla wakes up as well and decides that he has the MUTO munchies, and our plot kicks off from there.
The biggest difference between this and its late 90s predecessor is the treatment of the source material. As much as "Independence Day" was a mega-hit, it was still a B-movie at its heart. Sure, you can call "Godzilla" a B-movie as well, but only after he was turned from scary-as-hell atomic bomb metaphor into a Saturday morning cartoon-type hero. When Emmerich made "Godzilla" in the late 90s, well, I'd say he probably got drunk and made the movie after watching "Jurassic Park" one too many times because that's what it ended up like. A cheap ripoff of a sci fi classic. Gareth Edwards on the other hand seems to have nothing but utmost reverence for the source material. Although it has a monster fight in the spirit of the campier outings, "Godzilla" in terms of overall tone is much closer to the 1954 original. It's dark, serious and a metaphor for the arrogance of mankind and the destructive power of nature. Ironically, the whole dark metaphor thing was what Godzilla was originally intended for. In that sense, you can argue that "Godzilla" is the "Batman Begins" of its franchise in the sense that it's taking a character who was originally intended to be dark and serious and returning him to those roots, after way too many campy cheesefests. In fact, news broke today that they're already at work on a sequel. So then it could become the "Dark Knight saga" of its franchise and return. I'm OK with that.
The acting was ... about as good as you expect in a movie about giant monsters. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is passable but not spectacular as the leading man. Elizabeth Olsen doesn't do much other than provide occasional eye candy and gaze meaningfully at the camera. The clear standouts are Bryan Cranston and Ken Watanabe, and even between those two Cranston stands out more. Ken Watanabe isn't given much to do other than play the part of the really philosophical sounding Asian dude (I'm Asian in real life so I reserve the right to make stereotype comments). Cranston's performance, while somewhat brief, is very reminiscent of his best moments in "Breaking Bad." It's a good anchor for the rest of the film. But at the end of the day, an anchor is a small part of the ship. Crucial, but small.
The most praise goes to the way the monster battles are handled. To those expecting "Pacific Rim"-styled action, well, this is not really that. As I said earlier, "Godzilla" has more in common with 1954's "Gojira" than any other movie in terms of its tone. The monster battle does happen, and when it does, it's executed perfectly. But it's not totally what the movie's about. Most people probably have never seen the original, and in it I think Godzilla himself only had like 17 minutes of screen time. And up until the monster battle, Godzilla himself is treated like the shark from "Jaws." He's more of a presence. And it works very well here. If he were to be revealed early on and paraded around for the whole 2 hours, the movie itself wouldn't have been as satisfying. But as with "Jaws," once the titular monster is revealed, you'll shit your pants because the build-up was damn well worth it.
So to sum everything up, "Godzilla" for me hits all the right notes and restores a character from campy cartoon hero to the unstoppable force of nature he was always meant to be. It's not "Pacific Rim," so don't go in expecting that. Otherwise ...
9.5 out of 10
Sunday, April 6, 2014
"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" takes command (mild spoilers)
I'm a Marvel fan. I've met Stan Lee and have seen every single Marvel Studios film in theaters. This one was no different. But after the somewhat lackluster "Iron Man 3" and "Thor: The Dark World," we really needed "The Winter Soldier" to deliver to restore our faith in Marvel (yes, I don't care what your opinion was, the first two movies of the MCU's Phase 2 didn't quite meet the standard set by "Iron Man" and "The Avengers"). Well, kiddos, it delivered and then some. In fact, barring "The Avengers," this is the best film Marvel's done in quite some time.
The trailers made it look awesome, but when it first got announced, I was somewhat skeptical because of the choice of the Russo brothers to direct. I'd never heard of them. It was just that simple. At least all the other Marvel films had directors I'd heard of. But then when I heard of the tone they wanted to take, that was when I got interested. Rather than make this a period piece like the first Captain America, the tone they were shooting for was more of a political espionage thriller that just happened to feature Marvel characters. It has ended up becoming the boldest move of the franchise since the decision to create a shared universe (which is working beautifully, I might add).
"The Winter Soldier" picks up in real time after the events of "The Avengers." Cap is living in our nation's capital and doing black ops missions for S.H.I.E.L.D. (for the sake of my sanity in typing it out as an acronym, I'll simply just refer to it as SHIELD from here on out). Of course, Captain Rogers happens to be so damn good at what he does that he just grows tired of it, either out of boredom or because he doesn't like getting used as a pawn, or both. It is in this boredom and frustration that Nick Fury, the SHIELD director, introduces Cap to a plan that involves not one, but three helicarriers that will perpetually be stationed at a high altitude to eliminate any threat that may occur. This plot point in itself is actually somewhat relevant to our own society, but I'll get to that later.
Now being a man from the 40s where everything was a little ... simpler, Cap doesn't like this one bit. He then talks to Robert Redford, who happens to be the actual mastermind behind the whole thing, and then it all goes downhill from there after Cap doesn't agree with that guy from "All the President's Men." To sum it up, it's all a government conspiracy, and people die (or do they?). So then eventually, Cap along with Black Widow from "The Avengers" takes a little trip and finds out that this isn't actually SHIELD's plan. It was HYDRA's. Except, HYDRA is operating as sort of a little subfaction inside of SHIELD because of the boneheaded decision to recruit Nazi scientists of "strategic value" after World War II. It's actually a pretty brilliant plot twist for a comic book movie. Then Cap goes all 'Merica on us, takes the fight back to D.C., fights some dudes in some of the best action scenes Marvel's done. Yeah, it's actually more complicated than that, but I don't need to give away the whole movie.
The thing that really makes "The Winter Soldier" one of Marvel's best is how relevant it is to us today. It was filmed around the same time that the NSA got busted for spying on American citizens via mass surveillance of phones, emails, internet, etc. Now those that know me know I run a little right of center, but regardless of politics, I think it's reasonable to say that most people probably don't like being watched constantly. And that was one of the big themes of the movie: HYDRA, working inside SHIELD, somehow managed to cause enough fear and paranoia that people would actually trade their liberty for uncompromised safety at the cost of, yup, mass surveillance. It's not all that different from some of the things that we see on the news today. So without getting too political, props on the social commentary, Marvel.
One might think that Cap is the most one-dimensional of all the Avengers. Nope, I think that sums Thor up better. Chris Evans does a great job playing a conflicted man who is torn between loyalty to his superiors and the oath he swore back when he enlisted in the 40s (any readers who have served in the military know what I'm talking about). Because of this, Cap is actually the most interesting of the Avengers, even more so than Tony Stark. Oh and he can really fight. Thanks to the hours of training Chris Evans probably underwent, "The Winter Soldier" also has some truly awesome fight choreography. Scarlett Johanssen was also praiseworthy. A woman who can kick ass, is actually kinda funny and sexy as hell. Talk about a triple threat package. More praise also goes to Anthony Mackie as the Falcon, sort of a fellow military vet who has a lot in common with Cap. They did a good job retconning the character's origin to be more relevant while not taking away from him. Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury is the same as in his previous appearances, and Robert Redford does a good job playing the guy who does have good intentions, but is really just an evil bureaucrat. The SHIELD black ops guys were cool but one-dimensional, so there's not much to say on that front.
Now the titular Winter Soldier. Wow. Out of all of Marvel movie villains, I think Bucky has to be my favorite one. Loki was more charming, and it doesn't help that Tom Hiddleston is the nicest person on the planet, but Bucky Barnes as the Winter Soldier is by far the most menacing villain in the entire franchise. Killian from "Iron Man 3" wasn't that scary, and neither were the dark elves from "Thor." Bucky, on the other hand, is kinda like a superhero terminator, inspiring the same kind of dread that Schwarzenegger probably did when he first appeared as the terminator. He's emotionless, cold and efficient. Not to mention strong as hell and able to give Cap a run for his money. As a family friend put it to me, "I'd rather fight the entire Chitauri army than one Winter Soldier."
Now if we put all this together, we have the finest non-Avengers entry in the MCU since "Iron Man" came out in 2008. 9/10
Friday, March 28, 2014
Sabotage: Definitely more than the trailers crack this up to be (Spoilers present)
It's no secret that Schwarzenegger's been out of the acting game for a while. He's made a few passable entries since his return like "The Last Stand" and "The Expendables 2." Those were merely passable at best. The former didn't quite have the over-the-top violence that action movie lovers like myself crave. So now Arnie's back with "Sabotage," which in the trailers is advertised as an over-the-top Expendables-style flick in which Sam Worthington looks like the lead singer from Five Finger Death Punch and Joe Manganiello looks like ... I don't really know, but he has cornrows. But in reality, the movie's not quite like the trailer, and that's a good thing.
"Sabotage" is an adaptation of the classic Agatha Christie story "And then there were none." It is a story that hasn't really received a proper screen treatment in my opinion, at least until now. Because of this, "Sabotage" is more of a mystery/thriller than a balls out action movie like "Expendables." But that doesn't mean there's no action in it.
The film starts out with Arnie's character watching a snuff film of his wife getting tortured to death by a drug cartel. It then cuts to "8 months later." Some people who saw the trailer might thing WTF since it makes us believe that Arnie's family got kidnapped halfway through. Nope. That little opening, which like the rest of the movie pushes the envelope of good taste in movie violence, sets up the plot perfectly. So then cut to the present, and Arnie's leading a team of elite DEA agents in a safehouse bust. It becomes clear the minute we see them that these guys have more in common with, say, bikers or military spec ops because of the way they dress and act. The point is, these aren't your average pole-up-their-ass Feds. These guys are hardcore badasses and conduct themselves as such.
So during the bust, they find a big pile of money, not unlike the one belonging to Walter White in "Breaking Bad," and decide to steal $10 million (of cartel money) for themselves and split it up. They bury it in a sewage pipe to retrieve it another day, of course until, surprise, it's all gone because someone stole it. Then the killing begins, and these badasses start getting picked off one by one.
The most noteworthy thing that sets "Sabotage" apart from its competitors is the violence. Ho-LEE SHIEETT. While again, this isn't quite the testosterone-fueled ride the trailers seemed to suggest, the ways in which people die here are staggeringly brutal, and I'm a guy who's seen a lot of action movies. They're also actually pretty plausible, especially the guy dying early on after his RV gets hit my a train (spoiler: it's really, really messy). There's also plenty of up-close shots of people getting shot in the head, and again, it all feels very realistic. One of the ones that actually made me go "DAMN" was when a car crashed into one of those wrecker trucks in a manner that the bed basically sliced half the car in half horizontally. This is not a movie you want to take the whole family to see.
Where "Sabotage" really shines is the plot. For an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, it's actually somewhat smart. Up until the very last act, we're led to believe that a group of cartel assassins is picking the DEA team off one by one because some cartel boss got pissed that $10 million, a pretty small amount for cartel standards, got stolen. Now anyone who's read "And then there were none" probably could have seen this coming a mile away, but it's really someone on the team behind it all. And said perpetrator somehow managed to make everyone think it was the cartel assassins. It's all pretty clever, watch the movie.
The acting isn't that special. Arnie's the same as in all his movies. Sam Worthington's not bad, it's just quite like him to look more like a heavy metal frontman. Joe Manganiello does decent as the squad's "big guy," and this is certainly a little different fare for Terrence Howard, who again handles it well. Back to Joe Manganiello, I still can't take seriously a guy who played a character named "Big Dick Richie" in "Magic Mike." The real standout is Mireille Enos, who is absolutely convincing as a federal agent who's not really all there if you get what I mean. She's sexy as hell and absolutely nuts, which I guess is a good fit for an undercover agent. Olivia Williams does ok as the uptight homicide detective I'm sure everyone's seen a hundred times.
To wrap it all up, "Sabotage" is definitely not what the trailers said it would be. That's a good thing. Sometimes trailers inadvertently show the whole movie, so it's good when the actual product is a little different. Like most thrillers, this one may have you on the edge of your seat through most of the film, but that really really gets amplified in the final act. The violence is some of the most brutal I've yet seen in any action movie, and that makes this not at all a family experience.
7.75 out of 10 for being somewhat different than the competitors.
"Sabotage" is an adaptation of the classic Agatha Christie story "And then there were none." It is a story that hasn't really received a proper screen treatment in my opinion, at least until now. Because of this, "Sabotage" is more of a mystery/thriller than a balls out action movie like "Expendables." But that doesn't mean there's no action in it.
The film starts out with Arnie's character watching a snuff film of his wife getting tortured to death by a drug cartel. It then cuts to "8 months later." Some people who saw the trailer might thing WTF since it makes us believe that Arnie's family got kidnapped halfway through. Nope. That little opening, which like the rest of the movie pushes the envelope of good taste in movie violence, sets up the plot perfectly. So then cut to the present, and Arnie's leading a team of elite DEA agents in a safehouse bust. It becomes clear the minute we see them that these guys have more in common with, say, bikers or military spec ops because of the way they dress and act. The point is, these aren't your average pole-up-their-ass Feds. These guys are hardcore badasses and conduct themselves as such.
So during the bust, they find a big pile of money, not unlike the one belonging to Walter White in "Breaking Bad," and decide to steal $10 million (of cartel money) for themselves and split it up. They bury it in a sewage pipe to retrieve it another day, of course until, surprise, it's all gone because someone stole it. Then the killing begins, and these badasses start getting picked off one by one.
The most noteworthy thing that sets "Sabotage" apart from its competitors is the violence. Ho-LEE SHIEETT. While again, this isn't quite the testosterone-fueled ride the trailers seemed to suggest, the ways in which people die here are staggeringly brutal, and I'm a guy who's seen a lot of action movies. They're also actually pretty plausible, especially the guy dying early on after his RV gets hit my a train (spoiler: it's really, really messy). There's also plenty of up-close shots of people getting shot in the head, and again, it all feels very realistic. One of the ones that actually made me go "DAMN" was when a car crashed into one of those wrecker trucks in a manner that the bed basically sliced half the car in half horizontally. This is not a movie you want to take the whole family to see.
Where "Sabotage" really shines is the plot. For an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, it's actually somewhat smart. Up until the very last act, we're led to believe that a group of cartel assassins is picking the DEA team off one by one because some cartel boss got pissed that $10 million, a pretty small amount for cartel standards, got stolen. Now anyone who's read "And then there were none" probably could have seen this coming a mile away, but it's really someone on the team behind it all. And said perpetrator somehow managed to make everyone think it was the cartel assassins. It's all pretty clever, watch the movie.
The acting isn't that special. Arnie's the same as in all his movies. Sam Worthington's not bad, it's just quite like him to look more like a heavy metal frontman. Joe Manganiello does decent as the squad's "big guy," and this is certainly a little different fare for Terrence Howard, who again handles it well. Back to Joe Manganiello, I still can't take seriously a guy who played a character named "Big Dick Richie" in "Magic Mike." The real standout is Mireille Enos, who is absolutely convincing as a federal agent who's not really all there if you get what I mean. She's sexy as hell and absolutely nuts, which I guess is a good fit for an undercover agent. Olivia Williams does ok as the uptight homicide detective I'm sure everyone's seen a hundred times.
To wrap it all up, "Sabotage" is definitely not what the trailers said it would be. That's a good thing. Sometimes trailers inadvertently show the whole movie, so it's good when the actual product is a little different. Like most thrillers, this one may have you on the edge of your seat through most of the film, but that really really gets amplified in the final act. The violence is some of the most brutal I've yet seen in any action movie, and that makes this not at all a family experience.
7.75 out of 10 for being somewhat different than the competitors.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
"300: Rise of an Empire" review
When "300" came out seven years ago, it was a legitimate cultural phenomenon, at least among anyone male aged 16-25, myself included. And I'll have to admit, other than the overdose of testosterone that made everyone in my high school want to become a Spartan warrior, the film's use of CGI and slow motion was somewhat unprecedented. Also somewhat unprecedented was the way the entire main cast got into shape for the movie. Not since the 1980s had anyone seen so many buff bodies in a single movie. And although it was based on a graphic novel, "300" did well enough, and like anything that makes enough money in Hollywood, they made a sequel.
Fortunately, the original graphic novel is based on events set during a particularly turbulent time in Greece's history. So there was absolutely more than enough material to draw from in order to make a coherent follow-up story. And that's the thing. I can only call "Rise of an Empire" a pseudo-sequel because most of the movie isn't set after the events of "300." Instead, it touches on events that occurred before and concurrent to what was going on with Leonidas and company. The finale is set after Leonidas and the 300 got overrun. It's an interesting way to frame a follow-up movie.
"Rise of an Empire" starts out with Leonidas' widow (played by Lena Hedey of "Game of Thrones") recalling the Battle of Marathon, in which a then-nobody Athenian soldier named Themistocles managed to not only help an over matched Greek army drive back the Persian invaders, he also managed to kill the Persian King Darius. I won't really care much about spoilers because this is a fairly straightforward movie, and if you took any history classes, you should be at least somewhat familiar with what's going on here. Anyway, Darius dies as a result of his wounds, and his most loyal servant, Artemesia (Eva Green of "Casino Royale"), swears vengeance on the Greeks. But first, she somehow turns Darius' cowardly son Xerxes into the "god king" we all remember from the original movie. Xerxes (and Artemesia, who is manipulating him) blames all of Persia's previous problems on Greece and declares war again. And that's where our story really begins.
While "300" focused on the land battle in Greece's war against Persia, "Rise of an Empire" has a much more nautical feel to it. It follows the aforementioned Themistocles, who was actually present during events of the original movie (he narrowly missed the famous "THIS IS SPARTA" moment). While Leonidas wants to fight his battle on land, Themistocles challenges the Persians at sea. It's an interesting change of scenery and changes the overall hue from orange/bronze to blue. Either way, it's all still very obvious CGI done in the style that Zack Snyder made all the rage for stylish action movies. Like its predecessor, the battles here are over the top and a lot of fun to watch. The fact that most of "Rise of an Empire" takes place at sea make for a somewhat more tactical feel since it deals with ships and not just people. Leonidas was all about funneling large amounts of men into a tight space so that they could be slaughtered easily. Themistocles is more calculating and strategic, utilizing feigned retreats and deception that lead to some of the movie's best sequences. And for some reason, I found this entry to actually up the gore up from its predecessor. At least in the dismemberment arena. I won't say too much, but the finale is very satisfying to watch. However, the style of the action is not new. But that doesn't mean it's not fun, either.
These are not movies you watch for acting. Sullivan Stapleton, while passable, is no Gerard Butler in terms of stage presence (who wasn't even that good an actor in the first one to begin with considering how one-dimensional these roles are). The clear standout here is Eva Green. Her character of Artemesia is deliciously manipulative and quite frankly, sexy as hell. And that's what makes her such a great villain. She's not afraid to manipulate those around her to get what she wants. She's not afraid to sleep with the enemy. And like Darth Vader, she doesn't smile upon failure. Lena Hedey and David Wenham reprise their roles from the previous film, but they're honestly more like extended cameos.
Overall, "Rise of an Empire" accomplishes exactly the same thing its predecessor did. It introduces a very fantasized portion of Greek history to a new crowd, who might have been too young when "300" was first released. The score will get your adrenaline pumping, and there's a rather awesome use of Black Sabbath's hit "War Pigs" somewhere in there. It's a little less effective and jarring than its predecessor, but it still works. At least for an action-movie lover like me, watching these types of stylish, ultra-violent movies won't get old for a good long while.
7/10
Fortunately, the original graphic novel is based on events set during a particularly turbulent time in Greece's history. So there was absolutely more than enough material to draw from in order to make a coherent follow-up story. And that's the thing. I can only call "Rise of an Empire" a pseudo-sequel because most of the movie isn't set after the events of "300." Instead, it touches on events that occurred before and concurrent to what was going on with Leonidas and company. The finale is set after Leonidas and the 300 got overrun. It's an interesting way to frame a follow-up movie.
"Rise of an Empire" starts out with Leonidas' widow (played by Lena Hedey of "Game of Thrones") recalling the Battle of Marathon, in which a then-nobody Athenian soldier named Themistocles managed to not only help an over matched Greek army drive back the Persian invaders, he also managed to kill the Persian King Darius. I won't really care much about spoilers because this is a fairly straightforward movie, and if you took any history classes, you should be at least somewhat familiar with what's going on here. Anyway, Darius dies as a result of his wounds, and his most loyal servant, Artemesia (Eva Green of "Casino Royale"), swears vengeance on the Greeks. But first, she somehow turns Darius' cowardly son Xerxes into the "god king" we all remember from the original movie. Xerxes (and Artemesia, who is manipulating him) blames all of Persia's previous problems on Greece and declares war again. And that's where our story really begins.
While "300" focused on the land battle in Greece's war against Persia, "Rise of an Empire" has a much more nautical feel to it. It follows the aforementioned Themistocles, who was actually present during events of the original movie (he narrowly missed the famous "THIS IS SPARTA" moment). While Leonidas wants to fight his battle on land, Themistocles challenges the Persians at sea. It's an interesting change of scenery and changes the overall hue from orange/bronze to blue. Either way, it's all still very obvious CGI done in the style that Zack Snyder made all the rage for stylish action movies. Like its predecessor, the battles here are over the top and a lot of fun to watch. The fact that most of "Rise of an Empire" takes place at sea make for a somewhat more tactical feel since it deals with ships and not just people. Leonidas was all about funneling large amounts of men into a tight space so that they could be slaughtered easily. Themistocles is more calculating and strategic, utilizing feigned retreats and deception that lead to some of the movie's best sequences. And for some reason, I found this entry to actually up the gore up from its predecessor. At least in the dismemberment arena. I won't say too much, but the finale is very satisfying to watch. However, the style of the action is not new. But that doesn't mean it's not fun, either.
These are not movies you watch for acting. Sullivan Stapleton, while passable, is no Gerard Butler in terms of stage presence (who wasn't even that good an actor in the first one to begin with considering how one-dimensional these roles are). The clear standout here is Eva Green. Her character of Artemesia is deliciously manipulative and quite frankly, sexy as hell. And that's what makes her such a great villain. She's not afraid to manipulate those around her to get what she wants. She's not afraid to sleep with the enemy. And like Darth Vader, she doesn't smile upon failure. Lena Hedey and David Wenham reprise their roles from the previous film, but they're honestly more like extended cameos.
Overall, "Rise of an Empire" accomplishes exactly the same thing its predecessor did. It introduces a very fantasized portion of Greek history to a new crowd, who might have been too young when "300" was first released. The score will get your adrenaline pumping, and there's a rather awesome use of Black Sabbath's hit "War Pigs" somewhere in there. It's a little less effective and jarring than its predecessor, but it still works. At least for an action-movie lover like me, watching these types of stylish, ultra-violent movies won't get old for a good long while.
7/10
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Expectations for "Godzilla"
I'm a bit of a fanboy of Godzilla. Even though he's technically little more than a rampaging monster, he's arguably my favorite movie character of all time. And now he's getting the big screen treatment again for the first time in 10 years ("Final Wars" came out in 2004). As of a few minutes ago of the time of writing, they dropped the second trailer for the upcoming movie. They dropped the first one back in December. Even compared to the first trailer, this one really ups the stakes. Trailer #1 was more of a teaser. This one gave us more glimpses of the titular monster and even more scenes of destruction without giving away too much. Thus far I am very very impressed. The fact that this and "X-Men: Days of Future Past" drop within a week of each other really is making me a happy camper.
Enough of the digression. Here's what it looks like this movie is going to bring to the table.
First of all, it's dark. I mean, during the 1998 movie it was raining the whole time. But that one was somewhat more lighthearted and more of a "summer blockbuster" because it was from the same guys that brought us "Independence Day." The new movie definitely wins in the scenery department because it has more varied locales, but that doesn't mean it's going to be lighthearted. The trailers have shown us that the mood for this movie is very, very dark. As in, the world is actually coming to an end, and there's nothing we can do about it kind of dark. If the opening narrative by Bryan Cranston in the new trailer is any indication, "Godzilla" will have a very lingering sense of helplessness and dread.
Like I said before, this time, the humans don't have the situation under control. In the 1998 film, the monster was killed with a few missiles launched from fighter jets. That in itself is an insult to Godzilla, seeing as the true King of the Monsters would look at fighter jets the same way we look at mosquitoes. The new trailer had shots of fighter jets actually falling from the sky and a monologue by Ken Watanabe talking about how man always feels like it's in charge of nature and not the other way around. Then there's the scenes of destruction that are clearly not limited to one city. Godzilla is a monster who destroys whatever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants this time. That kind of sets the tone.
The acting should also be top notch. It's got Bryan Cranston ("Breaking Bad") and Ken Watanabe ("The Last Samurai," "Inception") in it. That should say enough.
The story also seems to have some kind of continuity with previous films. In the new trailer, Ken Watanabe's character mentioned that a creature was awoken in 1954 with nuclear bomb testing. Reference to the original movie? You don't say!
Finally, Godzilla is returning to his former glory. This will wipe out the bad taste that the 1998 movie brought. It's even a far cry from the campy Showa-era films that made him a protector who was willing to do battle with other monsters. In other words, the spirit of the original film is back. And that's how it should be. Godzilla is an unstoppable force of nature who treats the combined military might of the world with the contempt that humans show to insects. He's angry with us, he wants to destroy us, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
May 16 can't come fast enough.
Enough of the digression. Here's what it looks like this movie is going to bring to the table.
First of all, it's dark. I mean, during the 1998 movie it was raining the whole time. But that one was somewhat more lighthearted and more of a "summer blockbuster" because it was from the same guys that brought us "Independence Day." The new movie definitely wins in the scenery department because it has more varied locales, but that doesn't mean it's going to be lighthearted. The trailers have shown us that the mood for this movie is very, very dark. As in, the world is actually coming to an end, and there's nothing we can do about it kind of dark. If the opening narrative by Bryan Cranston in the new trailer is any indication, "Godzilla" will have a very lingering sense of helplessness and dread.
Like I said before, this time, the humans don't have the situation under control. In the 1998 film, the monster was killed with a few missiles launched from fighter jets. That in itself is an insult to Godzilla, seeing as the true King of the Monsters would look at fighter jets the same way we look at mosquitoes. The new trailer had shots of fighter jets actually falling from the sky and a monologue by Ken Watanabe talking about how man always feels like it's in charge of nature and not the other way around. Then there's the scenes of destruction that are clearly not limited to one city. Godzilla is a monster who destroys whatever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants this time. That kind of sets the tone.
The acting should also be top notch. It's got Bryan Cranston ("Breaking Bad") and Ken Watanabe ("The Last Samurai," "Inception") in it. That should say enough.
The story also seems to have some kind of continuity with previous films. In the new trailer, Ken Watanabe's character mentioned that a creature was awoken in 1954 with nuclear bomb testing. Reference to the original movie? You don't say!
Finally, Godzilla is returning to his former glory. This will wipe out the bad taste that the 1998 movie brought. It's even a far cry from the campy Showa-era films that made him a protector who was willing to do battle with other monsters. In other words, the spirit of the original film is back. And that's how it should be. Godzilla is an unstoppable force of nature who treats the combined military might of the world with the contempt that humans show to insects. He's angry with us, he wants to destroy us, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
May 16 can't come fast enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)