Now, before anybody gets the wrong idea, this is not a list of what I think are the five scariest video games. Nor is it a list of my top five favorite survival-horror video games. I'm ill-suited to write either of those due to the fact that...I am a big chicken. Let me give an example.
Years ago when "Resident Evil" was re-released onto the GameCube, I bought it thinking that I could finally experience one of the most talked about zombie games of all time. So, I popped the disc in and began playing what I thought would be a life changing experience. It turns out that the game's disturbingly quiet ambiance was too much for me handle, and I never actually made it past the first couple of rooms. As kind of a point of reference, the only zombie I ever saw was the first one near the dining room.
However, despite my cowardly tendencies, I like horror-related things. Zombies, vampires and other assorted monsters are all great in my book. So, this list is merely my favorite games that contain those kinds of creatures and elements. And now, without further adieu....
5. Dead Rising (Xbox 360; 2006) Cleary inspired by George A. Romero's "Dawn of the Dead," this sandbox game features the protagonist fighting off zombies in a shopping mall in order to survive for three days until his rescue helicopter comes. From what I can tell, the game does a good job of making the mall as expansive as possible. And thanks to the power of the 360 up to 800 zombies can be on screen at one time. Of course, the masses of zombies only matter if you can dispatch them in fun and creative ways. Luckily for the player, you can. I've seen umbrellas, 2 X 4's, and even Mega Man's Buster Cannon used as weapons. Truth be told, the only reason why this game is so low on my list is because I played less than two hours of it at a friend's house, and in that time I never got a good grip on the controls. So, while it seems like an awesome game, I had a slightly less-than-awesome experience with it.
4. Left 4 Dead (PC; 2008) Much like "Dead Rising," "Left 4 Dead" is centered around the idea that killing zombies is fun. And if there's anybody out there that doubts this premise, I challenge them to play this game and not enjoy themselves. You play as one of four characters and go through various maps trying to get from Point A to Point B without being killed by zombie hordes. At your disposal on this mission are a variety of firearms as well as molotov cocktails and pipebombs. As is true with Valve's other games, this one was made with top-notch production quality and thanks to the artificial intelligence dubbed "The Director," the title has a fair amount of replay value. Just make sure that when you play you don't disturb the witch (graphic).
3. Resident Evil 4 (GameCube; 2005) Finally, a Resident Evil game that I had no problem playing. That is, of course, because it's not scary. Any creepy atmosphere that I experienced in the first one was wiped out in this game. However, it was replaced with fluid controls that created one of the best third-person shooters that I have ever played. After beating the single player campaign, I spent hours upon countless hours in mercenary mode, which was a survival mode to see how long the player could last during an onslaught of zombies. The only game that saw more action on my GameCube was Super "Smash Bros. Melee." Also, another great thing about "Resident Evil 4" is that it helped spawn this video (graphic).
2. Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem (GameCube; 2002) If I were to compile a list of games that made the GameCube worth owning, that list would be very short. However, this title would be near the top of the list. The game centered on a woman whose grandfather was mysteriously and violently murdered. While snooping around his mansion for clues to his death, she finds a tome covered in human flesh. This book works as a sort of a MacGuffin and transports the player into the shoes of various characters throughout history. The story was unique and the composition was interesting, but what made this game a real gem was the Sanity Meter. This meter, as one might presume, measures how sane your character is at any given moment. If the meter goes below a certain point, then the character begins to hallucinate. These illusions could be something as simple as books floating across the room a la "Ghostbusters" to a myriad of other events. Not all were scary, but they were all fun to witness.
1. Zombies Ate My Neighbors (SNES; 1993) This is not only my favorite horror-themed game but one of my favorite games of all time. It is essentially a spoof of all B-Rated horror and sci-fi movies of the 50s and before, and everything in the game matches this tone. The art work, the music and especially the monsters all bring back memories of these cheesy cinematic gems. The premise of the game is that you need to go from level to level rescuing as many of your neighbors as you can before they get eaten killed by monsters. And the monsters themselves range from giant ants to demonic dolls to the eponymous zombies. Shoot, there are even giant babies that you have to take down with bazookas. This top down shooter had me addicted as a kid, and now children across the world can share my experience since "Zombies Ate My Neighbors" debuted on the Wii's Virtual Console earlier this week.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
You Got My Movie In Your Video Game!
Books are books. Music is music. Film is film. Those mediums seem to understand what they are and fulfill their purpose accordingly. Video games, however, seem a little confused nowadays. It seems to be a growing trend for video games to act like movies.
I don't point this out as a bad thing necessarily, but just as a strange thing. This occurrence doesn't happen with other forms of media. As my favorite video game critic pointed out, you never see films try to be more like books and display written words on the big screen for 90 minutes. You do, however, see video games containing 90 minutes of cut scenes such as the new "Uncharted 2." And in rare instances you can find video games with a solid 90-minute cut scene, such as in "Metal Gear Solid 4." That's the duration of a feature length film. Shoot, the theatrical release of "Crank" was only 87 minutes. But what does this mean as far as video games are concerned?
Films and video games are closely related in terms of how they work on their audience. Films use both sight and sound in order to convey meaning to the viewer. This way a variety of messages can be sent on both conscious and subconscious levels. Video games use this tactic, too, but there is one main difference: the action of the player. See, with films the audience is passive. Their only role is to simply digest what they see and hear. With video games the player is the cause of action. He or she is an active participant in the messages being conveyed. Forcing the viewer into this type of role-playing adds an entirely different, and I would argue stronger, level of persuasion.
So, when I see video games wear film's clothing, it confuses me. By adding in cinematic cut scenes, the developers are actually watering down their message. I get why they do it on a logistical level. There are limitations to game play, and the developers probably want to send some messages in specific ways. So, the easiest way to do that is by manufacturing a cut scene where they have control. The hybrid result is actually pretty effective, but I still believe that there is a more efficient way to deliver messages in a pure video game format.
Of course, what I'm imagining is still way beyond the horizon. To draw another parallel between film and video games, I think the development of both mediums is similar. The first film came by way of nickelodeon machines around 1905. These were short films that lacked any real narrative but provided entertainment. Then in 1915, the first feature length film and blockbuster was released (regrettably, the film was "The Birth of a Nation," but that's a side point). Twelve years later "The Jazz Singer" debuted as the first talkie. Other advancements and achievements have been attained since then, but even today the medium is still changing, albeit less drastically.
I'm declaring that the first video game was released in 1971 with "Computer Space." Since then only 38 years have passed. Film has had over 100 years to find its groove, and it's still working on it. What chance do video games have to find its place in just a few decades? Trends have come and gone such as the side-scroller phase of the late 80s and early 90s much like how film noir was a craze during 40s and 50s. The biggest difference between the growth of these mediums is that video games seem to be evolving at a faster rate. I predict that video games will be as settled as film is now in about 30 years.
But, in the mean time, I suppose cinematic video games will stay popular, at least for a little bit longer. "Metal Gear Solid 4" won multiple game of the year awards when it was released, and "Uncharted 2" seems to be paving a similar road. The French installment of the Playstation 3 Magazine awarded "Uncharted 2" 21/20. And while that rating is a gross hyperbole, it does speak volumes about the game's success. I, on the other hand, will be waiting for video games to embrace themselves and stop trying to live the Hollywood life.
I don't point this out as a bad thing necessarily, but just as a strange thing. This occurrence doesn't happen with other forms of media. As my favorite video game critic pointed out, you never see films try to be more like books and display written words on the big screen for 90 minutes. You do, however, see video games containing 90 minutes of cut scenes such as the new "Uncharted 2." And in rare instances you can find video games with a solid 90-minute cut scene, such as in "Metal Gear Solid 4." That's the duration of a feature length film. Shoot, the theatrical release of "Crank" was only 87 minutes. But what does this mean as far as video games are concerned?
Films and video games are closely related in terms of how they work on their audience. Films use both sight and sound in order to convey meaning to the viewer. This way a variety of messages can be sent on both conscious and subconscious levels. Video games use this tactic, too, but there is one main difference: the action of the player. See, with films the audience is passive. Their only role is to simply digest what they see and hear. With video games the player is the cause of action. He or she is an active participant in the messages being conveyed. Forcing the viewer into this type of role-playing adds an entirely different, and I would argue stronger, level of persuasion.
So, when I see video games wear film's clothing, it confuses me. By adding in cinematic cut scenes, the developers are actually watering down their message. I get why they do it on a logistical level. There are limitations to game play, and the developers probably want to send some messages in specific ways. So, the easiest way to do that is by manufacturing a cut scene where they have control. The hybrid result is actually pretty effective, but I still believe that there is a more efficient way to deliver messages in a pure video game format.
Of course, what I'm imagining is still way beyond the horizon. To draw another parallel between film and video games, I think the development of both mediums is similar. The first film came by way of nickelodeon machines around 1905. These were short films that lacked any real narrative but provided entertainment. Then in 1915, the first feature length film and blockbuster was released (regrettably, the film was "The Birth of a Nation," but that's a side point). Twelve years later "The Jazz Singer" debuted as the first talkie. Other advancements and achievements have been attained since then, but even today the medium is still changing, albeit less drastically.
I'm declaring that the first video game was released in 1971 with "Computer Space." Since then only 38 years have passed. Film has had over 100 years to find its groove, and it's still working on it. What chance do video games have to find its place in just a few decades? Trends have come and gone such as the side-scroller phase of the late 80s and early 90s much like how film noir was a craze during 40s and 50s. The biggest difference between the growth of these mediums is that video games seem to be evolving at a faster rate. I predict that video games will be as settled as film is now in about 30 years.
But, in the mean time, I suppose cinematic video games will stay popular, at least for a little bit longer. "Metal Gear Solid 4" won multiple game of the year awards when it was released, and "Uncharted 2" seems to be paving a similar road. The French installment of the Playstation 3 Magazine awarded "Uncharted 2" 21/20. And while that rating is a gross hyperbole, it does speak volumes about the game's success. I, on the other hand, will be waiting for video games to embrace themselves and stop trying to live the Hollywood life.
Friday, October 16, 2009
See As I See
My Netflix account has little trouble telling me that I don't like horror movies. Judging by how I rate scary movies, the video service can only recommend a couple of films from the genre. But I do like horror movies. I'm just a bit picky, I suppose. Generally speaking, I don't sacrifice my guidelines of quality just because a movie is of a certain genre. I except a horror film to meet the same standards as any other movie. It isn't my fault if most of them fall short.
So, imagine my happiness when in 2004 "Saw" was released just in time for Halloween. A promising scary movie just in time for the holiday based on fear. And lucky for me, the movie had everything I could want. There was action, albeit of the stagnant kind. While Dr. Gordon and Adam were chained up, they still managed to show that they were active. They found clues about the room, found out more about each other and so on. The characters, while a little vanilla, were engaging enough to keep me interested. I mean, even if you didn't like Adam or Dr. Gordon, the film built up enough suspense for you to want to know more about them.
The movie was intelligent. It posed moral questions regarding placing people in potentially deadly situations and asked why should people who are squandering their lives away be allowed to live. This film came out at a time where nearly everybody at my high school was emo, so that last question hit a personal chord back then. I got tired of their whining and general emo-ness, and seeing this movie was a means of venting. And if you want to dispute anything I've said about the film so far, fine, but the movie's visual style is definitely unique. The cool colors of the prison/bathroom, the lightning quick montages that signified a person pushing past their mental breaking point and the camera angles/lighting techniques used to create a feeling of tensity all gave this film a unique appearance. And as a result, this became one of my favorite horror movies.
Unlike the cynic that I am now, when it was announced that there would be a sequel, I was ecstatic. I had faith in the filmmakers to create a movie that would rival their first. Unfortunately, I was let down. The movie was ok, sure, but it didn't grab me at the same level the first did. The problem mainly came from the characters. Most of them I didn't care about, and some of them just weren't acted well. Franky G's line, "Let me see the back of your neck" became more of a punch line to me than anything else. It could have been a worse sequel, but it could have been better. When "Saw III" was announced I met it with cautious optimism more than sheer excitement. And it turns out that was for the best.
"Saw III" was the true beginning of the end of the series for me. The traps were getting boring, the characters served only as fodder for the traps (as opposed to creating an emotional bond with the audience) and it started focusing way too much on gore. As a tangent, if you watch horror movies only for gore, that's fine. Your choice. You probably loved this movie. However, I feel as though there is a weird sadistic/masochistic connection to enjoying gory films that feature people getting tortured to death. The sadistic part clearly comes from the audience member wanting to see the victim tormented. The masochistic part has to do with the viewer being disgusted by what they wanted to see, which inflicts an amount of mental harm to him or her. I understand that in horror films there is going to be gore. And I accept that. But, if you ask me, a movie focused solely on that is made by a lazy filmmaker. So, not surprisingly, "Saw III" was the last of the series that I saw in theatres.
It was actually the last "Saw" movie I saw until a couple of days ago. With "Saw VI" upon us, I had to know how the series was faring. A quick check at Rottentomatoes showed that both "Saw IV" and "Saw V" were panned by virtually every critic in the country. That didn't instill me with much confidence, but I'm a trooper, so I gave them a shot anyway.
The grievances I have with the movies are the same, so I might as well review them both at the same time. As far as action goes, sure there was plenty, but none of it was interesting. In the fourth, we followed around Riggs as he was forced to play into Jigsaw's games; in the fifth it was a similar idea but with the focus being Strahm this time. The action was centered on grisly death scenes and that can only carry a movie so far, like I said previously.
The characters were...all the same. I mean, maybe it's just me, but every character in these two movies were identical. It's like the director just told everybody to be dark and brooding. Granted, it's a horror movie so having happy Willy Wonka type characters walk around would be weird, but the director could have at least tried to differentiate them. Hell, Hoffman and Strahm even look alike, which got pretty confusing in the fifth film.
The intelligence left the films after number two at the latest and quickly became about the mysterious, interweaving storyline the writers are trying to piece together. Now, maybe if "Saw VI" ties everything together into some psychological masterpiece, then it will be worth all the work. But right now the movies resemble a second grader trying to come up with a scary story. "Well, you know that guy who you thought was a good guy? Well, he was actually the bad guy! And, uh, the pizza man was in on it, too!"
And the visual style, well, that remains to a degree. They still do the rapid montages to express mental breakdowns, which I genuinely like. But there are so many shots that are just close up of gore. Every time there's a trap it goes to a close up of which ever extremity is producing the most blood. If gore is your thing, then I can see why you like it. But if you want something else from a horror movie (like a spooky ambiance), then you might as well look elsewhere.
"Saw VI" is the series' last hope. I think so, at least. Everything I've heard has made me believe there won't be a seventh. And I promise you that if there is, it will be straight to DVD. It will join the ranks of other decent horror movies that went on too long like "Hellraiser" or "Wishmaster." But then again the "Saw" movies have a nasty habit of making tons of cash, so maybe Hollywood will sell a bit more of their soul and we can watch "Saw VII" on the big screen in 2010.
So, imagine my happiness when in 2004 "Saw" was released just in time for Halloween. A promising scary movie just in time for the holiday based on fear. And lucky for me, the movie had everything I could want. There was action, albeit of the stagnant kind. While Dr. Gordon and Adam were chained up, they still managed to show that they were active. They found clues about the room, found out more about each other and so on. The characters, while a little vanilla, were engaging enough to keep me interested. I mean, even if you didn't like Adam or Dr. Gordon, the film built up enough suspense for you to want to know more about them.
The movie was intelligent. It posed moral questions regarding placing people in potentially deadly situations and asked why should people who are squandering their lives away be allowed to live. This film came out at a time where nearly everybody at my high school was emo, so that last question hit a personal chord back then. I got tired of their whining and general emo-ness, and seeing this movie was a means of venting. And if you want to dispute anything I've said about the film so far, fine, but the movie's visual style is definitely unique. The cool colors of the prison/bathroom, the lightning quick montages that signified a person pushing past their mental breaking point and the camera angles/lighting techniques used to create a feeling of tensity all gave this film a unique appearance. And as a result, this became one of my favorite horror movies.
Unlike the cynic that I am now, when it was announced that there would be a sequel, I was ecstatic. I had faith in the filmmakers to create a movie that would rival their first. Unfortunately, I was let down. The movie was ok, sure, but it didn't grab me at the same level the first did. The problem mainly came from the characters. Most of them I didn't care about, and some of them just weren't acted well. Franky G's line, "Let me see the back of your neck" became more of a punch line to me than anything else. It could have been a worse sequel, but it could have been better. When "Saw III" was announced I met it with cautious optimism more than sheer excitement. And it turns out that was for the best.
"Saw III" was the true beginning of the end of the series for me. The traps were getting boring, the characters served only as fodder for the traps (as opposed to creating an emotional bond with the audience) and it started focusing way too much on gore. As a tangent, if you watch horror movies only for gore, that's fine. Your choice. You probably loved this movie. However, I feel as though there is a weird sadistic/masochistic connection to enjoying gory films that feature people getting tortured to death. The sadistic part clearly comes from the audience member wanting to see the victim tormented. The masochistic part has to do with the viewer being disgusted by what they wanted to see, which inflicts an amount of mental harm to him or her. I understand that in horror films there is going to be gore. And I accept that. But, if you ask me, a movie focused solely on that is made by a lazy filmmaker. So, not surprisingly, "Saw III" was the last of the series that I saw in theatres.
It was actually the last "Saw" movie I saw until a couple of days ago. With "Saw VI" upon us, I had to know how the series was faring. A quick check at Rottentomatoes showed that both "Saw IV" and "Saw V" were panned by virtually every critic in the country. That didn't instill me with much confidence, but I'm a trooper, so I gave them a shot anyway.
The grievances I have with the movies are the same, so I might as well review them both at the same time. As far as action goes, sure there was plenty, but none of it was interesting. In the fourth, we followed around Riggs as he was forced to play into Jigsaw's games; in the fifth it was a similar idea but with the focus being Strahm this time. The action was centered on grisly death scenes and that can only carry a movie so far, like I said previously.
The characters were...all the same. I mean, maybe it's just me, but every character in these two movies were identical. It's like the director just told everybody to be dark and brooding. Granted, it's a horror movie so having happy Willy Wonka type characters walk around would be weird, but the director could have at least tried to differentiate them. Hell, Hoffman and Strahm even look alike, which got pretty confusing in the fifth film.
The intelligence left the films after number two at the latest and quickly became about the mysterious, interweaving storyline the writers are trying to piece together. Now, maybe if "Saw VI" ties everything together into some psychological masterpiece, then it will be worth all the work. But right now the movies resemble a second grader trying to come up with a scary story. "Well, you know that guy who you thought was a good guy? Well, he was actually the bad guy! And, uh, the pizza man was in on it, too!"
And the visual style, well, that remains to a degree. They still do the rapid montages to express mental breakdowns, which I genuinely like. But there are so many shots that are just close up of gore. Every time there's a trap it goes to a close up of which ever extremity is producing the most blood. If gore is your thing, then I can see why you like it. But if you want something else from a horror movie (like a spooky ambiance), then you might as well look elsewhere.
"Saw VI" is the series' last hope. I think so, at least. Everything I've heard has made me believe there won't be a seventh. And I promise you that if there is, it will be straight to DVD. It will join the ranks of other decent horror movies that went on too long like "Hellraiser" or "Wishmaster." But then again the "Saw" movies have a nasty habit of making tons of cash, so maybe Hollywood will sell a bit more of their soul and we can watch "Saw VII" on the big screen in 2010.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
What Would the Cranberries Say?
Among the most popular horror movies are zombie flicks. The craze started with George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" in 1968 and spread across the world to countries like Italy (Zombi 2) and Japan (Versus). More than 40 years later people still love a good zombie flick as shown by the strong showing of "Zombieland" at the box office (it made back its $23 million budget in its opening weekend). But there is an overlooked question that comes with these movies. What is a zombie?
Throughout the years there have been tons of zombie movies, but the featured zombies are rarely the same. The creatures in "Dawn of the Dead" differ from those in the film's 2004 remake. The monstrosities in "Quarantine" have little in common with the ghouls in "Dead Alive." So, when considering the vast differences among the representation of zombies you have to ask what the common thread is. After talking about it with some friends, I haven't come up with any hard rules but there are some general guidelines.
To be a zombie you typically have to be undead. This means that you have to have died and then become reanimated. "Night of the Living Dead" started this trend and most films since have followed it. However, "28 Days Later" departs from this and treats the zombie-status as an infection. If the infection does kill the victim first, it is never clearly shown. When the character Frank gets infected by a drop of blood that fell into his eye, he rampages for a bit before seemingly becoming one of the Infected. So, with movies like this even the idea of zombies needing to be undead comes into question.
Zombies are also stupid. This can be proved by nearly every zombie film I've ever seen, but even this tendency is changing. Zombies started out thoughtless, only capable of capturing prey by their overwhelming numbers. But with "Land of the Dead" that stopped being true. It showed zombies develop plans and strategies and even use weapons. Now, seeing as the movie was particularly bad I doubt this characteristic of zombies will catch on, but the film is officially part of zombie history and should be kept in mind.
Lastly zombies eat people, right? "Night of the Living Dead" zombies ate people, "Shaun of the Dead" zombies did the same. But there are two problems here. First, there was a divide created in zombie films between the creatures who ate only brains versus those who ate any and every part of humans. I think the latter is more legit considering that the Romero's original movie had zombies eating things like intestines and flesh. The second problem, though, is that not all zombies eat people. Again, I go to "28 Days Later" to show how this pattern of zombies has been broken. The rage virus in the movie makes the Infected brutally kill people, but I have not witnessed one of them actually eat a person.
In the end, I guess I can't explain what a zombie is. There are too many variations to set down any hard and fast rules. Some are slow, some are fast. Some a smart, some are stupid. Some technically aren't even dead. So, much like what a supreme court justice said about what is obscene, my official statement on zombies is going to have to be "I know it when I see it."
Throughout the years there have been tons of zombie movies, but the featured zombies are rarely the same. The creatures in "Dawn of the Dead" differ from those in the film's 2004 remake. The monstrosities in "Quarantine" have little in common with the ghouls in "Dead Alive." So, when considering the vast differences among the representation of zombies you have to ask what the common thread is. After talking about it with some friends, I haven't come up with any hard rules but there are some general guidelines.
To be a zombie you typically have to be undead. This means that you have to have died and then become reanimated. "Night of the Living Dead" started this trend and most films since have followed it. However, "28 Days Later" departs from this and treats the zombie-status as an infection. If the infection does kill the victim first, it is never clearly shown. When the character Frank gets infected by a drop of blood that fell into his eye, he rampages for a bit before seemingly becoming one of the Infected. So, with movies like this even the idea of zombies needing to be undead comes into question.
Zombies are also stupid. This can be proved by nearly every zombie film I've ever seen, but even this tendency is changing. Zombies started out thoughtless, only capable of capturing prey by their overwhelming numbers. But with "Land of the Dead" that stopped being true. It showed zombies develop plans and strategies and even use weapons. Now, seeing as the movie was particularly bad I doubt this characteristic of zombies will catch on, but the film is officially part of zombie history and should be kept in mind.
Lastly zombies eat people, right? "Night of the Living Dead" zombies ate people, "Shaun of the Dead" zombies did the same. But there are two problems here. First, there was a divide created in zombie films between the creatures who ate only brains versus those who ate any and every part of humans. I think the latter is more legit considering that the Romero's original movie had zombies eating things like intestines and flesh. The second problem, though, is that not all zombies eat people. Again, I go to "28 Days Later" to show how this pattern of zombies has been broken. The rage virus in the movie makes the Infected brutally kill people, but I have not witnessed one of them actually eat a person.
In the end, I guess I can't explain what a zombie is. There are too many variations to set down any hard and fast rules. Some are slow, some are fast. Some a smart, some are stupid. Some technically aren't even dead. So, much like what a supreme court justice said about what is obscene, my official statement on zombies is going to have to be "I know it when I see it."
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The Impossible Question
About a week ago I was talking to somebody about how I want to be a film critic. This was the first time we ever met, so she asked me what kind of movies I liked. As much as a movie nerd as I am, I've never came up with a satisfying answer to this question. So, my best reply was "good movies." She smiled at my non-answer and asked what I thought a good movie was. Again, I was left without an answer, but I've been thinking about it since, and I think I have come up with a few general guidelines.
First, I want to be entertained. Now, different things entertain different folks, but here I can only talk about what entertains me. I am entertained by the feeling that something is actually happening on the movie screen. I like "Die Hard" where Bruce Willis has to save a high-rise from international thieves. I like "Crank" where Jason Statham is virtually bouncing around the frame trying to keep is heart pumping. In other words, I like action. I like a spectacle. But I do have standards in this category. The biggest reason why I didn't like "Wolverine" or "Transformers 2" is due to the lack of worthy action. Both films were full of boring chases, dull fights and explosions taking the place of drama.
Besides sheer entertainment value, I look for characters and stories that I can sink myself into emotionally. If a film is full of whiny, angst-ridden characters ("Donnie Darko," "Twilight," "Chumscrubber") then I'm not going to find the film engaging. If the film is full of real, or at least relatable, characters, then I can become a part of it ("American Beauty," "Funny People," "Annie Hall"). After all, film is an emotional medium. It should be a requirement for films to pull some sort of feeling from the audience. And if the movie fails to do this, it gets a knock against it in my book.
Now, not to sound too stuffy, but the next thing I look for is intelligence. What I mean by this is twofold. First, I don't want the movie to pander to me. Every Disney movie that comes immediately to mind does this. It shoves a sugarcoated ending down our throats that makes us feel warm and fuzzy. And that's stupid, boring and cliche. Ultimately, I think those endings actually do harm to us as a society, but that's another story. And, of course, I'm not saying every movie needs a sad ending, just a believable one. Not every little details needs to be wrapped up in a perfect little bow.
Second, I appreciate it when the characters in a film or the filmmakers themselves discuss intelligent things (with dialogue for the characters, and via visual techniques for the filmmakers). The philosophy of mind, the nature of humans and the idea of self-sacrifice all make great subjects in film (as shown by "The Matrix," "The Dark Knight" and "9" respectively). It helps show that the people making the movie actual put some thought into it, and leads to a richer experience in the end.
Lastly, I look to the visual style when deciding the quality of a film. Does it just use boring wide-shots and medium-shots everywhere (every romantic comedy ever made), or is it more adventurous? The French New Wave filmmakers were the first to popularize jump cuts and that made them stand out visually. In Asian cinema they show more visually than we do with pages of dialogue. You need only view "Ichi the Killer," "Oldboy" or "Rashomon" to see that. And I believe visual style is so important because, again, film is a visual media. There's no point in making a movie if you aren't going to take advantage of the medium.
It should be noted, though, that not every movie I like is a perfect 10 in each of these categories. "Cheats" contains engaging characters but lacks visually. "Die Hard" is entertaining, for sure, but isn't exactly the most intelligent film ever made. Often times, filmmakers have to willingly sacrifice one quality for another. But as long as a movie does well in at least one of these aspects, I'll walk away happy. "A Perfect Getaway," a moderately suspenseful thriller that came out this summer had engaging characters and had some visually stimulating shots, so I was glad. "G. I. Joe" had decent action sequences, so I didn't complain after the credits rolled.
So, maybe the next time somebody asks me the question as to what makes a good movie, I'll be a little more articulate. I'll be able to enunciate that I like visually-stimulating, dynamic films with engaging and intelligent characters. Or maybe I'll just give them the link to this post and make them read my answer. We'll see.
First, I want to be entertained. Now, different things entertain different folks, but here I can only talk about what entertains me. I am entertained by the feeling that something is actually happening on the movie screen. I like "Die Hard" where Bruce Willis has to save a high-rise from international thieves. I like "Crank" where Jason Statham is virtually bouncing around the frame trying to keep is heart pumping. In other words, I like action. I like a spectacle. But I do have standards in this category. The biggest reason why I didn't like "Wolverine" or "Transformers 2" is due to the lack of worthy action. Both films were full of boring chases, dull fights and explosions taking the place of drama.
Besides sheer entertainment value, I look for characters and stories that I can sink myself into emotionally. If a film is full of whiny, angst-ridden characters ("Donnie Darko," "Twilight," "Chumscrubber") then I'm not going to find the film engaging. If the film is full of real, or at least relatable, characters, then I can become a part of it ("American Beauty," "Funny People," "Annie Hall"). After all, film is an emotional medium. It should be a requirement for films to pull some sort of feeling from the audience. And if the movie fails to do this, it gets a knock against it in my book.
Now, not to sound too stuffy, but the next thing I look for is intelligence. What I mean by this is twofold. First, I don't want the movie to pander to me. Every Disney movie that comes immediately to mind does this. It shoves a sugarcoated ending down our throats that makes us feel warm and fuzzy. And that's stupid, boring and cliche. Ultimately, I think those endings actually do harm to us as a society, but that's another story. And, of course, I'm not saying every movie needs a sad ending, just a believable one. Not every little details needs to be wrapped up in a perfect little bow.
Second, I appreciate it when the characters in a film or the filmmakers themselves discuss intelligent things (with dialogue for the characters, and via visual techniques for the filmmakers). The philosophy of mind, the nature of humans and the idea of self-sacrifice all make great subjects in film (as shown by "The Matrix," "The Dark Knight" and "9" respectively). It helps show that the people making the movie actual put some thought into it, and leads to a richer experience in the end.
Lastly, I look to the visual style when deciding the quality of a film. Does it just use boring wide-shots and medium-shots everywhere (every romantic comedy ever made), or is it more adventurous? The French New Wave filmmakers were the first to popularize jump cuts and that made them stand out visually. In Asian cinema they show more visually than we do with pages of dialogue. You need only view "Ichi the Killer," "Oldboy" or "Rashomon" to see that. And I believe visual style is so important because, again, film is a visual media. There's no point in making a movie if you aren't going to take advantage of the medium.
It should be noted, though, that not every movie I like is a perfect 10 in each of these categories. "Cheats" contains engaging characters but lacks visually. "Die Hard" is entertaining, for sure, but isn't exactly the most intelligent film ever made. Often times, filmmakers have to willingly sacrifice one quality for another. But as long as a movie does well in at least one of these aspects, I'll walk away happy. "A Perfect Getaway," a moderately suspenseful thriller that came out this summer had engaging characters and had some visually stimulating shots, so I was glad. "G. I. Joe" had decent action sequences, so I didn't complain after the credits rolled.
So, maybe the next time somebody asks me the question as to what makes a good movie, I'll be a little more articulate. I'll be able to enunciate that I like visually-stimulating, dynamic films with engaging and intelligent characters. Or maybe I'll just give them the link to this post and make them read my answer. We'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
