Transporter 3:
The 80s and 90s were the culmination of action movie franchises. The Die Hard series began in the late 80s and the newest addition came out in 2007. The Lethal Weapon series also began in the 80s with the newest film being released in 1998. It has been a while since a new string of action movies really took off. That's what made the Transporter movies so exciting for me.
The first Transporter film came out in 2002, and it was fantastic. Jason Statham did a great job playing the solitary Frank Martin, and the action scenes were unique and well paced. The sequel was released in 2005, and, it was less than stellar. Abandoning the European locale, this sequel took place in the States and apparently caught a bad case of American-film-itis. The action scenes were choppy, although still mildly entertaining, and the plot went from a slightly preposterous to saving the world from the apocalypse. So, what does the third one have to offer?
The writers, mistakenly, gave Martin more personality than the previous films. Instead of opening the film with Martin performing a job, it opens with him fishing with his detective buddy. This is the wrong way to open up a Transporter film. It is supposed to start with Martin preparing for his job in a parking garage. Even the awful second film got that right. Martin also is forced into giving an uncharacteristic strip tease, but more on that later.
The film took a step back from the second and reduced the impact of the antagonists. Instead of the possibility of the world being taken over by the baddies, only the Ukraine is at risk in this film. And it's threatened by evil, American polluters, no less. I don't necessarily like being portrayed as a villain, but anything is better than the group of villains from the second film. And the lead villain was played pretty well by Robert Knepper. He was the evil counterpart to Frank Martin, always obeying his own set of rules.
The action, again, was better than the second. The fight scenes (there was a whopping two of them) were still choppy and not as interesting as the first film's, such as the oil slick fight, but were well choreographed nonetheless. The heart of the action comes from other stunts. The crowning achievement was a scene where Martin gets carjacked, but has to stay within 75 feet of the car or else he'll explode thanks to a bracelet the villain put on him. It contains elements of parkour and has great pacing.
The only truly unique thing about this film is likely only to pique the interests of feminists. The leading lady, Natalya Rudakova, plays Valentina, a spoiled, privileged Ukrainian party girl who serves as the MacGuffin for the film. In the second fight scene, Martin utilizes his clothes as weapons against a group of baddies. He begins by taking off and using his coat, then his tie and finally his shirt. Valentina, watching from the car, is visually excited watching Martin undress. This is one of the few films I've seen where the Gaze is fixed on the man as opposed to the woman. And later in the film, Valentina steals the keys to the car and makes Martin strip for her in order to get the keys back. Again, seeing the woman in the position of power is rare, so the experience was refreshing.
Altogether, if you are a fan of the previous two films, then you won't be disappointed by this addition. The beginning and and scenes aren't great, but the middle section is above average. It has great action, a decent story and good acting. Watching this movie now is probably a better idea then waiting for the new Punisher movie coming out in December.
Sonic Unleashed:
I've only played several hours worth of the game, so this is more of a first look than a review. And, this first look isn't pretty.
Well, actually, the game is very pretty. I'm a big fan of the graphics. Some of the best I've seen on the Wii. Of course, if you're playing a game for the graphics, then the Wii isn't the console of choice. The Wii is all about the controls.
The controls aren't bad. The game is easy enough to play, but that's when you can actually play the game. The creators decided to deface the Sonic franchise (again) by making the game part point and click adventure. Part of the game is talking to villagers and trying to get information as to the whereabouts of somebody or something. A sonic game is about running, preferably running fast. It is not about talking to random people only to find out they don't have the information you're looking for.
Also, it should be noted you cannot skip the cut scenes. This wasn't a problem at first. I wanted to bask in the gae as a whole, so I watched the first few cut scenes. But it got to the point where it went from point-and-click adventure to cut scene back to point-and-click adventure. Wanting to get to the fast running, I began mashing buttons during the cutscenes, but nothing would let me skip the scene.
And, getting back to the controls, they kind of suck. Playing as the WereHog Sonic isn't fun. There's no enemy lock-on when fighting, so while shaking the Wii remote and nunchuck you have to keep pointing at your enemies. This doesn't sound difficult, but in practice it's a lot harder than it sounds. Also, there's no way to change the camera angle (much like the new Chrash Bandicoot game), so if you have to back track, you'll be running towards the screen, which is disorienting to say the least.
The only true perk I can think of is the actual running parts as regular sonic. If the game was entirely composed of this style gameplay, then I would enjoy the game one hundred times more.
But, alas, this is just a first look. My fingers are crossed that things will get better.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
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.
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.Monday, October 27, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, October 13, 2008
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
