Round Up

Here's what I've been up to with my limited free time:

de Blob:

“De Blob” is a game reminiscent of “ToeJam and Earl in Panic on Funkotron;” it’s a very funky game, and that’s where most of the appeal comes from. The story, while being charming and funny, doesn’t make itself necessary. You could ignore any sign of a narrative, and as long as you followed the prescribed objectives, you’d be fine. There are essentially four types of missions in the game: follow the markers, paint certain structures certain colors, kill the enemies and transform landmarks. Most missions aren’t hard, but some curve balls are thrown from time to time. The game doesn’t getting noticeably difficult until the final boss, who is still manageable. The game is fun though, and considering other Wii games, this one stands out in a positive way.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno:

I had high hopes for this movie, and they were met. This crossing between Judd Apatow’s clan and Kevin Smith’s clique was exactly what a fan of either would expect. The movie was touching, had a good soundtrack and had plenty of laughs. There was a good chemistry between Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks, who played the title characters. Craig Robinson, better known as Darryl on TV show “The Office” played his character perfectly as he typically does. The rest of the cast did a good job as well, but what makes the movie is Kevin Smith’s pen. His knack for writing the perfect dialogue hasn’t left him since “Clerks II.” This isn’t Smith’s funniest movie, nor is it his deepest movie, but if you like dirty humor, then it’s one you shouldn’t miss.

The Color of Money:

This is an old movie (1986), and I only rented it because I watched the preceding film, “The Hustler” (1961). Initially I rented “The Hustler” because it was a pool movie, but then I realized there was more to it than that. “The Color of Money” is similar, but not as good, even with Scorsese directing. “The Color of Money” has some great pool, and the actors (Tom Cruise and Paul Newman) did the brunt of their actual shots. Newman was a joy to watch. Even considering how old he was during this role, he had the energy of a young man. And Cruise, well, he was a young man who had the energy of an even younger man. This was a good movie, but the main problem was that it was directed by Scorsese and it wasn’t amazing. Had anybody else been in charge, then my opinion would probably be different.

Mega Man 9:

I should start by saying I haven’t beaten this game yet, and I am pessimistic that I ever will. I have defeated all of the robot masters, but I can’t make it through Wily’s Castle (if you’ve played a Mega Man game, then you know what I’m talking about. If you haven’t played a Mega Man game, then you probably don’t care about this mini review). The robot masters are what I’ve come to expect from the series, meaning they are equal parts imaginative plus equal parts cheesy. Some levels aren’t very difficult at all, such as Galaxy Man whom I beat with only several tries. Other levels are drastically more difficult, such as the disappearing block challenge in Plug Man’s stage. Mega Man 9 is a fun experience, and I would love to see companies make more games in this fashion.

Disgustingly Adequate

Film, while a passive form of media, has a lot of potential to make people feel a certain way. However the audience feels depends on the movie. If a group of people were watching Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, then the audience is supposed to be laughing and feeling jovial. Film has this power due to both its narrative and the way its filmed. The narrative gets the audience's attention on a conscious level, and the cinematography usually hits at a subconscious level.

As solid as a model most movies are, there's room for improvement. One way to improve upon the model is by filming with a subjective camera, meaning film from somebody's point of view. The first great example of this can be seen in The Blair Witch Project. This movie was blatantly filmed as a fake documentary and meant to put you in the shoes of the "filmmakers." It can be argued as to whether or not it was effective, but manipulation of the audience was the goal.

The newest in the line of these cinema verite (flashy documentary-style filmmaking) is the horror movie Quarantine. In this film we see through the eyes of a camera man who is working with a reporter following a couple of fire fighters around for the night. All was quiet, but then the inevitable happened and they were sent out on a call. They were sent to an apartment where an old woman was sick and acting strange. She attacks one of the police officers, everybody inside the building gets locked in and character after character gets picked off.

More or less, this film is a zombie movie, and, as such, succeeds in a number of ways. The movie begins with enough character development to cause the audience to care when somebody gets killed off. This is especially true in the case of the reporter, the camera man and the two fire fighters. The movie is gross, but significantly less than others of the same genre (i.e. Diary of the Dead). So, instead of relying on gore to carry the film, it relies on the building of suspense to scare audiences. Typically, this is a good thing. Gore is easy to produce, but creating tension takes more work. And while there are some blunt clues, there never is an exact answer as to what started everything.

While the film deserves credit for those accomplishments, that wasn't enough to save the film from mediocrity. Besides the four main characters, not much connection is made between the secondary characters, so when they start dying there isn't much emotional resonance. Also, not falling back on gore to carry the film is admirable, but if the movie is going the route of suspense, then the director ought to be damned sure he can deliver. In this case, he couldn't. Many moments were meant to be scary and full of tension, but often fell flat or became laughable (the young girl "turning" is a great example of that). But the biggest mark this movie missed is in the use of the subjective camera.

Cloverfield is the perfect example of what you should do in a cinema verite film. It gives a first person view of the movie's world, but still allows you to see other things. For example, with the exception of several hectic scenes, you can clearly see what's going on in most of Cloverfield. Whether the characters are in a dark subway station or at a party at somebody's apartment, the viewer can always make out what's going on. Quarantine failed at this. On purpose, too.

Quarantine subscribes to the belief that what the audience can't see is what scares them the most. As a result, the filmmaker decided to make it so the audience couldn't see half the movie. It did add some ambiance to the film, but it took away so much more. It'd be easy for a viewer to spend most of the movie trying to figure out what they're looking at as opposed to paying attention to the events of the movie. This gets particularly frustrating during the last stretch of the film.

Also, Cloverfield used this filming technique correctly. In one scene, where the main party goes back to rescue their friend from a nearly destroyed apartment building, they find the friend pinned down by a piece of metal. The camera man in this movie sets the camera down to help lift her off of it. The camera is left behind a piece of rubble partially blocking the audience's view. So, the audience is left looking at only the friend's legs as she's being lifted off the metal. This builds tension because the audience can hear what happening, and the audience is imaging something worse than what could have been filmed. This sequence could have been easy to mess up, but the director did a good job putting together everything in the frame well.

Quarantine is a mediocre film. It has some jumps, some neat ideas and an interesting story. But all of these qualities only take the film halfway to its mark. Instead of reaching its full potential, it's left in the middle ground of average. In reality, seeing a movie with such potential end up so common is worse than the movie outright sucking.

Jason Voorhees Walks Yet Again

I am a fan of Friday the 13th movies. These cinematic masterpieces are the epitome of slasher films. They all star an indestructible villain, have immoral teens getting butchered and, most importantly, there have been a line of never-ending sequels. Friday the 13th movies are too classic not to love. But, much like an old dog, there's time when something needs to be put down.

The new movie, simply titled Friday the 13th, is coming to theatres February 13, 2009. It is a new member of the long line of horror movies that are being "re-imagined." This is a fancy term the studio uses when it doesn't want to tell the audience that they're being ripped off.

Re-imagining a movie doesn't have to be bad. Many consider Batman Begins to be a re-imagining of the Batman movies, and it was one of the most popular to date. And its sequel, The Dark Knight, has been doing nothing but breaking records since it debuted. So why does a re-imagining of Friday the 13th leave a bitter taste in people's mouths?

Horror movies, as a general rule, aren't great. They are made cheap and easy, and they make back tons in profit. So, if you are making a sub par movie without using any effort, but are reeling in tons of money, then why try to make a good one? Nobody, especially businessmen, want to reinvent the wheel.

The recent remake of Prom Night made $57 million so far, but only cost $20 million to make. House of Wax, which was released in 2005, cost $40 million to make, but earned back $68 million. And one of the most profitable re-imagings in recent history was the 2006 version of The Hills Have Eyes, which had a budget of $15 million, but grossed nearly $70 million. And each of these movies were panned by critics across the country.

Perhaps the most pertinent example would be the 2007 re-imagining of the Halloween movie. Rob Zombie's version of the John Carpenter classic was a commercial success. It cost $20 million to make and has raked in $78 million. However, it too, even with the enthusiasm of Zombie's fans, was a critical flop. Writer for the New York Daily News Jack Mathews claims the Halloween remake shows the laziness of today's horror directors.

"The new breed of horrormeister, Zombie included, works to shock rather than scare, and does it by heightening the imagery of violence rather than by heightening the tension."

In theory, there's nothing wrong with updating a classic for the current generation's audience. Halloween, while regarded as a crown jewel of horror movies, is too slow for some people's attention span. So, why not redo it? The problems come up when the director doesn't remake it for the viewers. When the director sees a classic like Halloween and wonders how to make money off of it today, well, that's when re-imaginings get the stigma hey have today. And with the poor history of remakes as evidence, there's no reason to be optimistic for the new Friday the 13th movie.

Iron Man Versus The Dark Knight

This was a good year for comic book fans (i.e. nerds). Not one, but two good movie adaptations of two beloved characters were released. The first, Iron Man, debuted on May 2 and earned nearly $100 million its opening weekend. Beyond that first weekend, it has grossed $318 million domestically, $571 million world wide (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ironman.htm), and was the year's best reviewed movie until Wall-E was released (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron_man/?critic=creamcrop). And Iron Man’s biggest feat was turning an unknown Marvel superhero into a household name over night.

The Dark Knight, released on July 18, was an even bigger commercial and critical success. In its opening weekend, The Dark Knight grossed $158 million, and has almost made $1 billion worldwide(http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=darkknight.htm). Critically, The Dark Knight easily rivals Iron Man, garnering an equal amount of positive praise(http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/?critic=creamcrop).

Which movie is better, though? Is there a superior movie? Many people have their own opinions (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080901101601AAHtuYk), but let's try to look at this objectively.

Iron Man is about a multi-billion dollar business owner, Tony Stark, who inherited his parents’ business. He went through a traumatic experience, and even though he has no supernatural powers, he decided to use his God-given brain to create a suit and gadgets to fight bad guys.

The Dark Knight is about a multi-billion dollar business owner, Bruce Wayne, who inherited his parents’ business. He went through a traumatic experience, and even though he has no supernatural powers, he decided to use his God-given brain to create a suit and gadgets to fight bad guys.

There seems to be a similarity.

As much as the characters resemble each other, their profiles are where the similarities end. Iron Man is a patriotic film, bordering on nationalistic, about a capitalist business owner seeing the wrongs made in his company’s name. He then exercises responsibility and tries to amend his company’s wrong doings. Tony Stark has a crush on his personal assistant, and his business partner and former mentor, Obadiah Stane, ends up being the evil behind Stark Enterprise's shadowy actions.

Iron Man uses a lot of bight colors for effects and on sets. The colors could be to make the movie more dynamic, to give a certain representation of California and/or Stark as a person, or just to appeal to younger audiences.

The movie was geared towards younger audiences by avoiding graphic violence (although Stark does murder at least a dozen people in the film) but maintaining a continuous pace of action. Also by having a sense of humor made the film child friendly, as well.

The themes in Iron Man are shallow, but they exist. Responsibility is a major theme. As Stark goes through his journey he takes responsibility for what Stark Enterprises has done around the world, and he takes the responsibility to fix what he can. Also, in attempting to be responsible, Stark shuts down the weapons program his company runs.

Besides responsibility, there are other shallow themes such as perseverance, brain over brawns, and ingenuity. These, however, are touched on lightly and don’t add much depth to the film.

The Dark Knight is about Batman trying to clean up Gotham City, as per usual, but being interrupted by The Joker. The Joker, proving to be a devious fly in the ointment, creates a bigger and bigger name for himself until he nearly takes over the city. Bruce Wayne, however, is trying to resolve things with his would-be sweetheart and come to terms with her relationship to the district attorney Harvey Dent.

This movie is the epitome of dark, and considering the subject matter, it shouldn’t have been shot any other way. Batman, as his name implies, works at night. So, there’s a good reason for the film to be dark right there. But the characters are more menacing than run-of-the-mill comic book movies. The Joker, what many claim to be the best part of the movie, is sadistic, and even worse, nihilistic. He stands for nothing, lives for nothing, and is willing to die for anything if it fits his cause. His cause just happens to be destruction, so he’s willing to die for quite a lot in this movie.

The themes in this movie run throughout and have many tributaries that run off. One of the topics the film addresses is the concept of heroes. Does wearing a cape make you a hero, or does going out there and showing your face to the public everyday make you one? Which type is better for the public? And, possibly the biggest theme in the movie is the idea of human nature. The Joker spent most of the movie arguing, and proving, that people are scared, pathetic, and willing to do whatever it takes to save their own hides. Batman believes differently, and shows The Joker the error of his beliefs.

Both movies are great, but to answer which one is better is for you to decide. If you want a movie you can enjoy on a lazy afternoon with some popcorn, then Iron Man is probably your choice. If you’re looking for a movie with great depth, philosophical themes, and complex characters, then The Dark Knight is more up your alley. Either way, it’s hard to go wrong with either of these films.

Who's Afraid of Horror Movies?

Horror movies are lucrative for film companies. Most of them cost less than $10 million to make and earn back about $30 million. That isn’t including the DVD sales and rentals either. For example, The Strangers starring Scott Speedman and Liv Tyler cost $9 million to make. That figure probably includes things such as advertising, too. As of right now, boxfficemojo.com shows it has earned $53 million, and the DVD won’t be coming out until this October.

Because horror movies are so cheap to make, and they almost always make a profit, film companies don’t particularly care about the quality of the horror movies. They look for blood, gore, and nudity, and if all three are present, then the movie is good to go. If the film companies are making money from doing this, then more power to them. However, it’s killing the genre. The artistic ability once required to make a good horror movie has been replace with the overuse of fake blood and CGI effects used to show decapitations. Hollywood has forgotten how to make a good horror movie, so here is a refresher course.

The biggest mistake Hollywood is making regarding horror movies is the dependency on blood and gore. It is understood there was once a time where film companies couldn’t film gory horror movies because they either didn’t have the technology or the social standards at the time wouldn’t allow them to. But, Hollywood is far beyond making up for lost times. Now they are filming gore in excess and completely forgetting what made horror movies great to begin with: suspense.

Sure, see a slasher jump from a bush and attack an unsuspecting teenager is shocking, but it isn’t scary. The ambush will make you jump, but it won’t be the thing that keeps you up at night. Suspense can best be explained by my favorite urban legend. Say there is a young woman babysitting for a family. The babysitter cooks the children dinner, plays with them, and then puts them to bed. While watching TV with a bowl of popcorn in the living room, she gets a call on the house phone. The caller is some creep who is panting into the phone. The babysitter hangs up disgusted. Then the phone rings again. It’s the same creep. His pants and grunts are deeper than before. The babysitter hangs up immediately. She gets a couple of other calls like this throughout the night before she calls the police. The police say they can trace the call if the creep calls again. The creep does and the police call back quickly to inform her that the call is coming from inside the house.

That example may be trite by now, however it still works to show how suspense is built up. It begins slowly. The babysitter was by herself, it was night time, and she was in an environment that she wasn’t used to. Then it started picking up when she got the phone call from the creep. Then it began gaining momentum when the creep called more frequently and started sounded more perverse. Then it climaxed when the cops told her the creep was in the same house as her. Most horror movies released nowadays don’t take the time with the suspense building and jump straight to the “Oh my God!” action, such as The Hills Have Eyes remake and sequel.

Besides taking time to build suspense, another trick to use when making a good horror movie is to not show everything. Yes, seeing a person cut in half is disturbing, but it isn’t scary. Why are people afraid of the dark? Because they can’t see what is going on. To make a good horror movie, this feeling should be duplicated. For instance, in Silence of the Lambs, when Hannibal Lecter escapes from his holding cell, he beats a guard to death with a night stick. But, instead of showing the audience the guard’s head crumbling in on itself, it shows Lecter. It shows small splats of blood splashing on his face, while Lecter has a crazed look. That is scary. And example of the opposite of this can be found in 30 Days of Night. There is a scene near the end where one character is taking an axe to a vampire. It is shot similarly to the scene in Silence of the Lambs, however, it shows you exactly what is happening to the vampire. It shows the axe connecting with the vampire’s body and all of the fore that goes with it. It was gross, definitely, but not scary.

Creating a good plot for a horror movie has gotten more difficult over the past couple of decades. The 80s was the decade of slasher films, and just about every plot can be found in a movie from the time period, whether it being a horror movie set in a summer camp, a prom dance, or just a regular suburban neighborhood. It is important, though, to make the plot relatable to the audience. When you take something a person is accustomed to, such as a summer camp, then you make the experience more real for them. The more real the experience, the scarier the movie. One plot that is overused is the “a traveling group that finds trouble” plot. You can find this in Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes, House of 1,000 Corpses, and many more. This plot is used so much, though, because it works. People, especially teens or young adults, take road trips to far away places. This fact makes the plot relatable. And when they’re out in the middle of nowhere, there’s nobody to help them, whether they need help with a flat tire or rescuing from a maniac with a chainsaw.

And pending on what kind of horror movie you’re making, a good antagonist is important. Once upon a time, Michael Meyers was the best horror movie antagonist because the audience knew just enough about him to make him scary. The audience knew he killed his older sister for seemingly no reason, but beyond that they knew nothing. Meyers just killed, as though there was nothing else for him to do. This blank face of evil was spooky. However, latter reincarnations of the Halloween movies have damaged the franchise and the character. The antagonist should be mysterious, but not random. Jason Voorhees from Friday the 13^th was mysterious. A pig-bear hybrid would be random.

What scares people is different on a person by person basis. Some people are afraid of sharks. Some are afraid of dogs. Others are afraid of goalies with chainsaws. However, people generally share the same basic fears. Dark places are scarier than bright places, and being alone is always scarier than being with a group. If Hollywood were to pay more attention to the basics, then some decent horror movies could be made again. But until then, you might as well look forward to Freddy Vs. Jason II: The Blood and Guts Edition.