I think the only reason I wanted to see this film was because Guillermo did it. There were things I did, and did not, like about it; hard to say which one won out.
Bad news first. The underworld is way too open to the "real" world. Not that I mind such a flimsy barrier in my sci-fi stories, but the first Hellboy established a thicker wall, I think. Granted, I have not seen/read any of the other additional materials (comic books, animated series), so I have no idea if this is keeping in line with Guillermo's direction or not. The romance between Liz Sherman (pyro lady) and Hellboy are cute, but hardly believable, especially what they produce together. I also do not understand how Hellboy can go head-to-head with Prince Nuada; all Hellboy does is eat candy bars and watch TV. The whole concept of "area 51" (see that big 51 emblazoned in one of the rooms?) and keeping this paranormal research under the covers was overblown, especially the gimmicky way Tom Manning (played by Jeffrey Tambor) deals with the whole thing. Dr. Johann Krauss (the ectoplasmic guy) reminds me of a different comic antagonist, but now I cannot remember who. Anyway, just having him head up the paranormal research was rather dumb. Interesting character, though. A bit heavy on the gears motif.
Good news: I loved the scenes with the elves; beautiful artistic touches, nice design themes, great sense of dying power. It was not until I read a little bit more that I realized that Doug Jones not only plays Abe, but also the Chamberlain and the Angel of Death, as well as the Faun from Pan's Labyrinth and the Pale Man. The way he moves his hands is very similar in each one. I wonder if he ever tires of all the makeup. =) I liked Wink, and the Tooth Fairies were an unexpected twist. I really enjoyed Prince Nuada's swordmanship; made me wonder how we would stack up another trained sword-weilding Hollywood villian like Darth Maul (Ray Park). The questions that Prince Nuada plagued Hellboy with were intriguing and thought provoking; would he really want to kill off the last beings of a species? Not sure if this was mentioned in the first movie, but Hellboy is supposedly the son of the "Fallen One". Could have fooled me. *grin*
23 July 2008
Hancock, 2008
I love how Will Smith portrayed his character in this film. The posters and the first shots of him are so raw, so grisly, so un-Hollywood, it gave his character a sense of reality. Even when he got all cleaned up, he did not look like the Will Smith we were expecting to see. Which is a good thing, IMO.
I think I really appreciated the emotional depth conveyed by Will Smith's Hancock; you could feel the tension as he grappled with the pain of not being loved or liked, of being abandoned. He defense mechanism is "I don't care", but it is obvious he really does. Which makes the drama that much more pungent as Charlize Theron's character (Mary Embrey) gets more involved on screen.
However, at the same time, when Mary comes out of the closet (so to speak), I think the movie quickly went downhill. Even in the earlier parts of the movie, I was disappointed by the special effects/CG when Hancock flies around with an SUV in his hands, and finally drops it on a spire. It gets worse when Mary and Hancock start going at it. It just comes across as so fake. Part of it is the utter lack of reality. It is one thing for someone to have superpowers, but when natural laws of "cause and effect" are suspended, I start to loose my connection. For instance, flying through the air with an SUV.... that heavy thing is going to fall apart quick. Hitting a kid so hard he flies a couple miles into the atmosphere? And catching him when he lands? Purely cartoonish - the Gs would kill him.
I did like the concept; a superhero type of race that loose their powers when they pair up, thus making population growth a foregone conclusion. The struggle to stay apart, constantly fighting the magnetism of wanting to know one of your own. And the message of using one's powers responsibly was a good one, but not well cemented.
I think I really appreciated the emotional depth conveyed by Will Smith's Hancock; you could feel the tension as he grappled with the pain of not being loved or liked, of being abandoned. He defense mechanism is "I don't care", but it is obvious he really does. Which makes the drama that much more pungent as Charlize Theron's character (Mary Embrey) gets more involved on screen.
However, at the same time, when Mary comes out of the closet (so to speak), I think the movie quickly went downhill. Even in the earlier parts of the movie, I was disappointed by the special effects/CG when Hancock flies around with an SUV in his hands, and finally drops it on a spire. It gets worse when Mary and Hancock start going at it. It just comes across as so fake. Part of it is the utter lack of reality. It is one thing for someone to have superpowers, but when natural laws of "cause and effect" are suspended, I start to loose my connection. For instance, flying through the air with an SUV.... that heavy thing is going to fall apart quick. Hitting a kid so hard he flies a couple miles into the atmosphere? And catching him when he lands? Purely cartoonish - the Gs would kill him.
I did like the concept; a superhero type of race that loose their powers when they pair up, thus making population growth a foregone conclusion. The struggle to stay apart, constantly fighting the magnetism of wanting to know one of your own. And the message of using one's powers responsibly was a good one, but not well cemented.
Wanted, 2008
Don't you hate it when a preview shows you all the action scenes? Fortunately, Wanted was not like that, but it was close. I "wanted" to like this flick, and it was fun to watch it on the big screen. I loved the twists near the end. I hated the final punch at the very end (some cute smaller details, but....). So maybe this was a love/hate movie.
I appreciated the primary actor (James McAvoy); I thought he did a decent job, especially standing up next to some bigger names. He had a great mix of nervous trepidation and overconfident machismo, a perfect picture of an immature kid coming into his own (or in this case, a young man).
While I really enjoyed the special effects, the curving bullets "special power" got a little overused, especially since to engage said power one has to fling one's arm out in a most unhealthy and most inaccurate fashion. I really like the smaller details (and the not so small); the whole build-up with the mice, special messages on the bullets.
The whole thing with the loom was a disaster. 'Nuff said.
I appreciated the primary actor (James McAvoy); I thought he did a decent job, especially standing up next to some bigger names. He had a great mix of nervous trepidation and overconfident machismo, a perfect picture of an immature kid coming into his own (or in this case, a young man).
While I really enjoyed the special effects, the curving bullets "special power" got a little overused, especially since to engage said power one has to fling one's arm out in a most unhealthy and most inaccurate fashion. I really like the smaller details (and the not so small); the whole build-up with the mice, special messages on the bullets.
The whole thing with the loom was a disaster. 'Nuff said.
22 July 2008
His Dark Materials, Robert Pullman
After watching the movie "The Golden Compass", I was intrigued by the story and wanted to know more. Little did I know that there was so much controversy in religious circles about this novel. The more I heard from friends, the more I wanted to find out what all the fuss is about. In the end, I am glad I read the book; even though I hardly agree with everything, I think it was thoughtful, interesting and entertaining.
What I found disappointing about the movie, in retrospect, was that it ended on a note that veered wildly away from where the book was going - very misleading. The movie is based on Pullman's first volume (of the same title), yet there are two other volumes that come after which really dive into the mysteries and complexity of Pullman's story.
I enjoyed his characters, except that the children became way too adult-like to be believable. How come this so often happens in stories involving children heroes? Even if we grant them the right of passage based on bizarre and unusual circumstances, there is just way too much depth to their passion, convictions and persona. However, if one can imagine them being 10 or 20 years older, then everything seems to click in place a bit more readily.
I enjoyed the author's perspective, new to me, when exploring the nature of life and world views. These are so entwined with religious thoughts that we cannot separate them. I found it strange that the author acknowledges so many biblical stories (references to Adam and Eve, Enoch, Apostle Paul, God, angels, fallen angels, Satan, etc), while on the other hand he seems to putting forth the position that there really is no god at all. He acknowledges the enigma of good and bad, right and wrong, love and hate, and some how attributes these to the ultimate Enigma, Dust, his so-called "elementary particle".
What I found rather interesting about this approach is the criticism it has drawn. Christian circles seem to get a bit excited about Pullman's alleged attack on CS Lewis. I do not see it that way. I see a man who is terribly confused about reality, and is exploring his perceptions. True, Pullman paints a picture that might seem to say "there is no God", especially when he sets up a god-like central power figure that is actually a created being, the first angel. It all comes down to "What is Dust?" I saw an interview with Pullman when he emphasized that question and tried to answer it. I do not recall his reply very well (you can find it on the dark materials website), but he classified it as "particles with intent". Kind of a non-answer. His stories paint a picture of all good things coming from the presence of Dust; without Dust, people would go sour and start killing each other. With Dust, love and kindness abounds.
Given Pullman's extreme distaste of the "Church" (or the idea of the Church), I can only surmise that he had one or more negative experiences with such a body of folks. Yet it is obvious that he still struggles with the idea of where love comes from, where evil comes from, and why they wax and wane. Even more curious is Pullman's utter lack of mentioning "the dark one" except in two conspicuous places. The title, and a thought from a religious fanatic a couple pages before he did (mentioning Satan). Pullman obviously subscribes to the universal constructs of good and evil, and is equally perplexed by their ultimate origins and purpose in life.
There is one question that seems to be underlying this concept. "How can a good God allow bad things to happen?" That has been debated over and over. Tied up in that seemingly simple question is the paradox of predestination and free will. If you have an all-powerful being who has stated that he does not want people to do bad things, how come people do bad things? Or even more perplexing, how come bad things happen to "good" people? I get the impression that Pullman has concluded that since such a powerful, good God could not possibly allow such bad things to happen, then such a God must not exist. Or at least not as we traditionally define the concept and character of God.
What I found disappointing about the movie, in retrospect, was that it ended on a note that veered wildly away from where the book was going - very misleading. The movie is based on Pullman's first volume (of the same title), yet there are two other volumes that come after which really dive into the mysteries and complexity of Pullman's story.
I enjoyed his characters, except that the children became way too adult-like to be believable. How come this so often happens in stories involving children heroes? Even if we grant them the right of passage based on bizarre and unusual circumstances, there is just way too much depth to their passion, convictions and persona. However, if one can imagine them being 10 or 20 years older, then everything seems to click in place a bit more readily.
I enjoyed the author's perspective, new to me, when exploring the nature of life and world views. These are so entwined with religious thoughts that we cannot separate them. I found it strange that the author acknowledges so many biblical stories (references to Adam and Eve, Enoch, Apostle Paul, God, angels, fallen angels, Satan, etc), while on the other hand he seems to putting forth the position that there really is no god at all. He acknowledges the enigma of good and bad, right and wrong, love and hate, and some how attributes these to the ultimate Enigma, Dust, his so-called "elementary particle".
What I found rather interesting about this approach is the criticism it has drawn. Christian circles seem to get a bit excited about Pullman's alleged attack on CS Lewis. I do not see it that way. I see a man who is terribly confused about reality, and is exploring his perceptions. True, Pullman paints a picture that might seem to say "there is no God", especially when he sets up a god-like central power figure that is actually a created being, the first angel. It all comes down to "What is Dust?" I saw an interview with Pullman when he emphasized that question and tried to answer it. I do not recall his reply very well (you can find it on the dark materials website), but he classified it as "particles with intent". Kind of a non-answer. His stories paint a picture of all good things coming from the presence of Dust; without Dust, people would go sour and start killing each other. With Dust, love and kindness abounds.
Given Pullman's extreme distaste of the "Church" (or the idea of the Church), I can only surmise that he had one or more negative experiences with such a body of folks. Yet it is obvious that he still struggles with the idea of where love comes from, where evil comes from, and why they wax and wane. Even more curious is Pullman's utter lack of mentioning "the dark one" except in two conspicuous places. The title, and a thought from a religious fanatic a couple pages before he did (mentioning Satan). Pullman obviously subscribes to the universal constructs of good and evil, and is equally perplexed by their ultimate origins and purpose in life.
There is one question that seems to be underlying this concept. "How can a good God allow bad things to happen?" That has been debated over and over. Tied up in that seemingly simple question is the paradox of predestination and free will. If you have an all-powerful being who has stated that he does not want people to do bad things, how come people do bad things? Or even more perplexing, how come bad things happen to "good" people? I get the impression that Pullman has concluded that since such a powerful, good God could not possibly allow such bad things to happen, then such a God must not exist. Or at least not as we traditionally define the concept and character of God.
09 July 2008
Stardust, 2007
I enjoyed this piece. I wasn't crazy about it, but it was entertaining. Robert De Niro as a "moxie" pirate Captain Shakespeare totally rubbed me the wrong way. Ok, I can see some sort of humor in there, but... no.
I like the fantasy idea of a little, not-so-hidden but forbidden magical town with a deceivingly simple wall and a mystical break in that wall. I thought the story was well-written, and having some fresh new faces as main characters was refreshing. Some of the more tenured actors were fun to see around; in the outtakes, Peter O'Toole asked several times, very politely, almost to a fault, "may I do that scene again?". The best part of the movie, IMHO, was when the Star (Yvain) was approaching the wall that would end her life, as she is utterly heart-broken about loosing her new-found lover. However, I thought it was a bit too immature for her lover (Charlie Cox's "Tristan") to so blithely betray her as he did, and then so quickly grow up in a moment of epiphany and dump the "other girl". Given that the audience is in this ride too, it was too much too fast. But that's me. =) I did enjoy the build up to that scene, the depiction of "True Love", and how that change Yvain.
Tristan's connection to the royal blood is extremely sketchy. When watching the movie, it is not clear at all that his real mom (the slave girl) is a princess. Think about it; why would a princess be a slave, and how would nobody know that? That was mighty unbelievable. And then at the very end of the show, we find out that this slave girl is Una, whom all the dead prince ghosts finally recognize. Whatever.
Like I said, quite entertaining. I enjoyed most of the humor. It felt good when Tristan went back to his home town to face the apple of his eye, and to demonstrate that he had grown up and deserved more.
There is something about Claire Danes (Yvain) that reminds me of Gwyneth Paltrow. Hard to say what it is.
I like the fantasy idea of a little, not-so-hidden but forbidden magical town with a deceivingly simple wall and a mystical break in that wall. I thought the story was well-written, and having some fresh new faces as main characters was refreshing. Some of the more tenured actors were fun to see around; in the outtakes, Peter O'Toole asked several times, very politely, almost to a fault, "may I do that scene again?". The best part of the movie, IMHO, was when the Star (Yvain) was approaching the wall that would end her life, as she is utterly heart-broken about loosing her new-found lover. However, I thought it was a bit too immature for her lover (Charlie Cox's "Tristan") to so blithely betray her as he did, and then so quickly grow up in a moment of epiphany and dump the "other girl". Given that the audience is in this ride too, it was too much too fast. But that's me. =) I did enjoy the build up to that scene, the depiction of "True Love", and how that change Yvain.
Tristan's connection to the royal blood is extremely sketchy. When watching the movie, it is not clear at all that his real mom (the slave girl) is a princess. Think about it; why would a princess be a slave, and how would nobody know that? That was mighty unbelievable. And then at the very end of the show, we find out that this slave girl is Una, whom all the dead prince ghosts finally recognize. Whatever.
Like I said, quite entertaining. I enjoyed most of the humor. It felt good when Tristan went back to his home town to face the apple of his eye, and to demonstrate that he had grown up and deserved more.
There is something about Claire Danes (Yvain) that reminds me of Gwyneth Paltrow. Hard to say what it is.
03 July 2008
Mass Effect, 2008
I was intrigued by this game due to its sci-fi RPG niche target. It failed to do either really well; it does a decent job at both of them together. Perhaps one of my biggest disappointments is the heavy focus on the story; the cinematics are great, the little twists are decent. However, since the story itself is rather short, it is a bit unsatisfying when your character can so quickly grasp all the complexities of the situation and eliminate the opposition.
Another big disappointment was the enormous price tag for such a quick game. It is labeled as "open-ended", but I am having trouble understanding how that is so. Perhaps multiple endings? Replay value is astronomically low. Why?
Because there are just so many things wrong with the game. The eye candy is awesome, the sound effects are superb, and the acting is quite decent. But the guts of the game suck. The map blow chunks so large they almost did not find through my monitor; I was actually impressed by how bad the mapping features were. There is no way to tell where you have been, the map is completely 2D, markers do not always show up appropriately, and navigation is an absolute pain in the arse. You can receive a side mission to go somewhere and then have no idea how to get there. Even in a small environment like Citadel, even with the "Rapid Transit", I found myself bumbling around trying to make heads/tails of the stupid map.
While the side missions help distract away from the main story (and make an 8-hour game a 24-hour game), they are all so similar to each other. I got to the pointed where I hated traveling to a rocky planet (where is all the fauna?) bouncing around in my MAKO only to find a "hideout" that had one of three configurations.
I like the MAKO. I hated using it because of the scenarios. The sound effects of the gun punching holes were spot-on, and the cannon's explosive discharge was excellent, and the little click as a new round was slammed into the shaft was just a perfect way to top it off. The handling was a bit cartoonish; I found I could do flips, rolls and flat-out awful face-plants, and the MAKO always bounced back unto its wheels. But it was very prone to climb up the side of things, or spin out in a very unrealistic way. The only fun time I had using the MAKO was when taking out Geth or defensive positions.
I also liked the experience/point system, and building skills. That is RPG, after all. But it all seemed rather limited. I expected a lot more from a BioWare game; NeverWinter Nights had its faults, but limited class and skill growth was not generally among them. Not to mention that after playing Oblivion for a while, I most definitely wanted something more out of Mass Effect.
I hated the inventory. While it is nice not to have a weight limit, and it is nice to be able to morph any item into the moronic "omni-gel", trying to figure out how best to upgrade a weapon, for who and when was a nightmare. Perhaps I paid too much attention to that, and instead micromanaged where I should have been more laid back. The special effects on the guns were not as impressive as everything else, IMHO. Even grenades failed to impress me.
The "magic", or biotech as it is called, is rather impressive, but so dang narrow-minded. Yes, there are two branches, Biotics and Technology, which can be used to confound, harm, heal and do other wonderful things. But just a handful of things, getting bigger and better as the character grows in experience. I wanted more. Something like a chain-lightning effect would have been cool. Or what about mind control? The nemesis was able to control others, but we cannot.
I was also extremely disappointed that I could not have my technology specialist disarm/hack components that were too "hard" for my character. Why have them along in the first place. It is like the old D&D days and having a thief in the party for the sole purpose of picking locks. What if you had no way to tell the thief to pick the lock?
The manual is dismal. I never did figure out how to use the quickslots (didn't spend much time trying to figure it out). Perhaps this is the stamp of EA on the game? Hard to tell.
Some other things I have to get off my chest. The background musak when in the Navigation computer is downright annoying. And while the music in other environments was tastefully sci-fi, the same trak being cycled over and over just made it taste bad. The adrenalin pumping sounds/music and "exotic" new look of the last battle-scenes near the end of the game were great, if only because they broke the tired mold cast by the rest of the game. Collecting the little trinkets (medallions, writings, precious metals, etc etc) reminded me of the Ratchet & Clank little extra doodads one could collect, and just as worthless. Again, the mapping features (or lack thereof) utterly failed to bestow any kind of historical information or keep stats on where one has been.
The Reaper "Sovereign" was enticing; a teaser, really. I wanted to see it do more, and it went down too easily in the end. I wanted something that would compete and be able to go toe-to-toe. But then we start talking about space ships, and this game is not about space ships whatsoever.
There were a couple bugs, but not huge deals. I got stuck in an elevator once; after 20 minutes (I left to go run an errand), I killed the game and came back. I also once was pushed into a narrow crevice by some stairs (a biotic push) with one of my comrades, and the stupid character would not move out of the way so we could both get out of the crevice. Even if I gave instructions to move. Minor things.
I liked the game, but there are a number of serious flaws. It is most definitely not worth the "brand new, just released for PC" price! I would be curious what Halo fans thought of it. I usually do not like FPS (first person shooter) games, and now I have more reason to stay away from them. I am sorry if this is not fair to the FPS crowd; I realize this is allegedly a sci-fi/RPG first, a shooter second.
UPDATE: July 9, 2008
I played through once again to test my theory of replay value; it holds true. The single biggest advantage of replaying the game is if one can remember where things generally are, they can ignore the featureless maps. I continue to be disappointed by the fact that my tech squad members did not contribute enough decrypt skill to unlock all the goodies. I also tried a new task (not mission critical) of "Locating the Keepers". The result was enormously disappointing, especially since it utterly missed a grand opportunity to tie into the main story. I also tried to aim for a couple achievements, like having an Alliance soldier by my side for a majority of the game; I have no idea how I did not get that achievement, since Ashley was there 99% of the time. The achievements in general seem kinda nice, but not enough to entice me to play the game over and over and over. If only there were a way to turn off the cinematics, fast travel (getting better at Rapid Transit, but it is not enough) and vastly improved mapping functions. The game is fun, but in the end it was a waste of money.
Another big disappointment was the enormous price tag for such a quick game. It is labeled as "open-ended", but I am having trouble understanding how that is so. Perhaps multiple endings? Replay value is astronomically low. Why?
Because there are just so many things wrong with the game. The eye candy is awesome, the sound effects are superb, and the acting is quite decent. But the guts of the game suck. The map blow chunks so large they almost did not find through my monitor; I was actually impressed by how bad the mapping features were. There is no way to tell where you have been, the map is completely 2D, markers do not always show up appropriately, and navigation is an absolute pain in the arse. You can receive a side mission to go somewhere and then have no idea how to get there. Even in a small environment like Citadel, even with the "Rapid Transit", I found myself bumbling around trying to make heads/tails of the stupid map.
While the side missions help distract away from the main story (and make an 8-hour game a 24-hour game), they are all so similar to each other. I got to the pointed where I hated traveling to a rocky planet (where is all the fauna?) bouncing around in my MAKO only to find a "hideout" that had one of three configurations.
I like the MAKO. I hated using it because of the scenarios. The sound effects of the gun punching holes were spot-on, and the cannon's explosive discharge was excellent, and the little click as a new round was slammed into the shaft was just a perfect way to top it off. The handling was a bit cartoonish; I found I could do flips, rolls and flat-out awful face-plants, and the MAKO always bounced back unto its wheels. But it was very prone to climb up the side of things, or spin out in a very unrealistic way. The only fun time I had using the MAKO was when taking out Geth or defensive positions.
I also liked the experience/point system, and building skills. That is RPG, after all. But it all seemed rather limited. I expected a lot more from a BioWare game; NeverWinter Nights had its faults, but limited class and skill growth was not generally among them. Not to mention that after playing Oblivion for a while, I most definitely wanted something more out of Mass Effect.
I hated the inventory. While it is nice not to have a weight limit, and it is nice to be able to morph any item into the moronic "omni-gel", trying to figure out how best to upgrade a weapon, for who and when was a nightmare. Perhaps I paid too much attention to that, and instead micromanaged where I should have been more laid back. The special effects on the guns were not as impressive as everything else, IMHO. Even grenades failed to impress me.
The "magic", or biotech as it is called, is rather impressive, but so dang narrow-minded. Yes, there are two branches, Biotics and Technology, which can be used to confound, harm, heal and do other wonderful things. But just a handful of things, getting bigger and better as the character grows in experience. I wanted more. Something like a chain-lightning effect would have been cool. Or what about mind control? The nemesis was able to control others, but we cannot.
I was also extremely disappointed that I could not have my technology specialist disarm/hack components that were too "hard" for my character. Why have them along in the first place. It is like the old D&D days and having a thief in the party for the sole purpose of picking locks. What if you had no way to tell the thief to pick the lock?
The manual is dismal. I never did figure out how to use the quickslots (didn't spend much time trying to figure it out). Perhaps this is the stamp of EA on the game? Hard to tell.
Some other things I have to get off my chest. The background musak when in the Navigation computer is downright annoying. And while the music in other environments was tastefully sci-fi, the same trak being cycled over and over just made it taste bad. The adrenalin pumping sounds/music and "exotic" new look of the last battle-scenes near the end of the game were great, if only because they broke the tired mold cast by the rest of the game. Collecting the little trinkets (medallions, writings, precious metals, etc etc) reminded me of the Ratchet & Clank little extra doodads one could collect, and just as worthless. Again, the mapping features (or lack thereof) utterly failed to bestow any kind of historical information or keep stats on where one has been.
The Reaper "Sovereign" was enticing; a teaser, really. I wanted to see it do more, and it went down too easily in the end. I wanted something that would compete and be able to go toe-to-toe. But then we start talking about space ships, and this game is not about space ships whatsoever.
There were a couple bugs, but not huge deals. I got stuck in an elevator once; after 20 minutes (I left to go run an errand), I killed the game and came back. I also once was pushed into a narrow crevice by some stairs (a biotic push) with one of my comrades, and the stupid character would not move out of the way so we could both get out of the crevice. Even if I gave instructions to move. Minor things.
I liked the game, but there are a number of serious flaws. It is most definitely not worth the "brand new, just released for PC" price! I would be curious what Halo fans thought of it. I usually do not like FPS (first person shooter) games, and now I have more reason to stay away from them. I am sorry if this is not fair to the FPS crowd; I realize this is allegedly a sci-fi/RPG first, a shooter second.
UPDATE: July 9, 2008
I played through once again to test my theory of replay value; it holds true. The single biggest advantage of replaying the game is if one can remember where things generally are, they can ignore the featureless maps. I continue to be disappointed by the fact that my tech squad members did not contribute enough decrypt skill to unlock all the goodies. I also tried a new task (not mission critical) of "Locating the Keepers". The result was enormously disappointing, especially since it utterly missed a grand opportunity to tie into the main story. I also tried to aim for a couple achievements, like having an Alliance soldier by my side for a majority of the game; I have no idea how I did not get that achievement, since Ashley was there 99% of the time. The achievements in general seem kinda nice, but not enough to entice me to play the game over and over and over. If only there were a way to turn off the cinematics, fast travel (getting better at Rapid Transit, but it is not enough) and vastly improved mapping functions. The game is fun, but in the end it was a waste of money.
02 July 2008
Shoot 'Em Up, 2007
I was in the mood for guns and blowing things up. There was not quite the explosions I wanted. And to make up for it, they used a lot of blood. Too much.
There is a very interesting undercurrent; here we have this stranger who, apparently on a lark, decides to save a girl from something bad happening, only to end up with a baby in his arms (and a dead mommy). I say interesting because this is a rough 'n tumble guy, who can miraculously and unbelievably hit a bulls-eye 99% of the time even while he and his targets are moving. Interesting because this stranger/killer actually cares about the baby to some extent and wants it to be safe. It almost feels like the director and producer is trying to rip,wrench and tear some sort of sympathetic concern from this dirty lowlife.
Unfortunately, they overdid it by making the guy's "best friend" a queen of whores. It is almost as if they are trying to send a subliminal message: "See, even the world's worst kinds of people have some amount of human compassion."
While that small aspect of the film was interesting, the overall result is a basic failure to entertain. Granted, I found the artistic aspect intriguing; the "graphic novel" carry-over, reminiscent of "Sin City"; in fact, I was shocked not to see Frank Miller mentioned in the credits. I am not yet a big fan of that genre.
There is a very interesting undercurrent; here we have this stranger who, apparently on a lark, decides to save a girl from something bad happening, only to end up with a baby in his arms (and a dead mommy). I say interesting because this is a rough 'n tumble guy, who can miraculously and unbelievably hit a bulls-eye 99% of the time even while he and his targets are moving. Interesting because this stranger/killer actually cares about the baby to some extent and wants it to be safe. It almost feels like the director and producer is trying to rip,wrench and tear some sort of sympathetic concern from this dirty lowlife.
Unfortunately, they overdid it by making the guy's "best friend" a queen of whores. It is almost as if they are trying to send a subliminal message: "See, even the world's worst kinds of people have some amount of human compassion."
While that small aspect of the film was interesting, the overall result is a basic failure to entertain. Granted, I found the artistic aspect intriguing; the "graphic novel" carry-over, reminiscent of "Sin City"; in fact, I was shocked not to see Frank Miller mentioned in the credits. I am not yet a big fan of that genre.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)