Multi-Media Blog HQ

Movie Review: A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010)

2010-05-03T20:59:00.000-07:00

For some of us, "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is a cultural icon, as Wes Craven brought the world a new villain who was spontaneous, oddly cocky (and not afraid to be loud of it) an unbound by the laws of physics... literally the stuff of nightmares. Now, 26 years later, Samuel Bayer brings his vision of this icon to the screen to see if he can do the substance justice. Known for directing predominantly music videos (most notably "Smells Like Teen Spirit"). Picked for his visual flair, we all wondered... could he pull it off? Fears were assuaged when Jackie Earle Haley (known for his portrayal as Rorschach) was selected to play Freddy, even getting support from Freddy front man Robert Englund! The question everyone asked was if it would all work out? Well... in some cases it did.

The basic plot is extremely similar to the original. After the death of a friend, friends Nancy (Rooney Mara), Kris (Katie Cassidy), Quentin (Kyle Gallagher) and Jesse (Thomas Dekker) slowly start to admit to each other that they have been having nightmares of red sweatered, fedora toting maniac Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley). They wonder why these nightmares plague them, Freddy turns his sight on them. They try to figure out why he's going after them, they soon realize that they have a past with Freddy that has a closer connection than they thought.

What I Liked

The first thing I want to talk about is the visual style. Samuel Bayer really created a great dream world with dark, gritty look, focusing on dark values with either extremely cool or fiery hues. Visually, it does a great job at setting the mood. The boiler room, the classroom transition from reality to the dream world, all done extremely well. So yeah, moody lighting and cinematography effectively used together.

I really liked the opening diner scene in this film (save for the acting of the Dean character, which I'll get into later), once again a prime example of the visual style working in its favor. Even then, the pacing felt just right, aiding in the uneasiness. Expertly shot, with great tension and impending doom.

The cast, for the most part, was competent in their acting. Except for Dean (once again, I'll go more into that later), the cast never felt like they were over the top or underacting. Usually, acting stands out the most in a film, so I'm glad that this wasn't a problem. Jackie Hearle Haley (as expected) stands out as the strongest performer in the film, going in a different route with Freddy this time around, giving him a grungy, menacing tone (think Rorschach). When we dwelve into his past, he conveys a strange sense of innocence that one doesn't know whether or not to trust. His best line was a response to a "Fuck you!" from Nancy.

Also on the topic of Freddy, I do like the idea of going with Craven's original idea and making him a supposed pedophile rather than a child murder, considering we live in a society in which we consider pedophilia considerably worse than a murderer. This make his possible guilt all the more sinister if he really is what people believe him to be. Also a side note, he did have an ulterior motive to his revenge that, the moment it was revealed, made for an interesting idea.

A new factor added into the story compared to the original was something called "micronaps." Long story short, if you were up long enough, you would start dreaming while you were awake for several seconds due to the brain shutting down, and even worse, without proper sleep, you would be in a permanent state of sleep (basically a coma). It gave a somewhat damned if you do, damned if you don't situation to the film, reminiscent of the Twilight zone episode where the man with a failing heart had a nightmare of a women who would either kill him through fear or make his heart fail if he didn't sleep. In a sense it was a step up in terms of compared to the original in which all they had to worry about was falling asleep normally (although considering you have to worry about Freddy, that's still a big problem regardless).

What I Didn't Like

When "A Nightmare on Elm Street" came out, it was fresh and original. Hearing how the series was being "re-imagined" I was curious to see if they would breathe new life into the series. However, similar to the other Michael Bay produced "reimagining, "Friday the 13th,"" these hopes were dashed. Admittedly, it was even worse in "Elm Street" This movie wasn't really a re-imagining as more of a rehash with a couple changes. The plot and sequence of events were practically the same. Freddy was basically the same with a different tone, and the micronaps, despite being an original factor, didn't really add anything to the story. In essence, it was the same thing with superfluous material. That, while adding tension at moments, slowed down the pace somewhat.

To further the point about the rehash, this resulted in the movie becoming extremely predictable. As I said, overall same plot results in the same things happening, similar/ shot-for-shot scenes (i.e. the glove in the bathtub without the "wake-up" twist and character deaths). Even with the original death in the movie, you'll know EXACTLY how the character is going to die. Even worse, they actually ripped of lines from other movies that shouldn't have been in there (the main one being the "wet dream" line from Elm Street 4). This results in a lot of "no surprise there" moments in this film.

As I said, Jackie Earle Haley did a great job in this movie, but I have to admit, I felt the "grungy" Freddy didn't really fit. There was something that didn't fit about Freddy trying to sound dark while spouting his typical one liners. It just didn't mix that well.

The actor who played Dean in the diner scene was just plain bland. The best way to describe him was watching a blond Keanu Reeves. Generally flat and poor acting. Good thing his presence wasn't long lived (no pun intended)

As for the other characters, they were all just forgettable. Despite decent performances, every one of these characters are basically two-dimensional horror teen stereotypes that everyone's seen before. You have the outcast protagonist, the seemingly punkish bad-ass, the awkward love interest who comes together due to a common problem... it's all stuff we've seen before. With that, I found it really hard to care for the most of the characters (although to Nancy and Quentin's credit, their characters melded quite well). Even Freddy was basically dumbed down to an (even more so) "I'll get revenge on you" character. And as for his ulterior motive, it's basically explore for about 10 seconds. Had something been more properly explored or made slightly more evident throughout the film, it would have made for an interesting dynamic. Alas, it just ended up as a typical "going for the lead" plot point.

Another character note, a very important dynamic character set was missing from this film that helped propel the original: the parents. In the original, the parents played an important role that made not only for a better Freddy, but also an interesting idea of keeping us in the dark, as well "dark" means to reach a better end (i.e. Nancy's dad using Nancy to apprehend her friend). It also created an idea of "our generation will suffer for our ancestors' sins). There in the movie... but that's all they're really there for. Just to be there. All the parents do in this film is hide facts and reveal them whenever convenient for the plot. Without this dynamic, we are stuck with MORE two dimensional characters that we either don't care about or barely aid in the plot. This also results on a weak, typical horror movie revenge plot.

Also lost from the original was that sense of "what's real and what's not." Even with the idea of micronaps implemented, it's pretty easy to tell when they're facing reality and when they're in the dream world. This is one of those problems where the director's style works against him.

PARTIAL SPOILER ALERT! There were some contradictions in this film and plot holes that stood out. A lot of moments such as questioning Freddy's innocence, the ending, and a character death all stood out as illogical, both behind and on the screen. I really don't want to say much, but let's just say certain people question their judgement despite some rather... obvious evidence. As for Freddy's "fate" in the end, once again without giving away too much, it was also illogical (not realistic, just believable on Freddy's part) that he would "play along" with a weakness. This also results in the lack of a proper impact the original had with its famous double-twist ending. It also felt that the supposed "never being able to wake up again" problem had a rather simple solution, feeling a bit anticlimactic. Lastly, Krueger's intentions felt... conflicted. I don't want to give away what his "dastardly, bastardly plan" was, but long story short, he wants one thing and prepares to do the other. Like I said, lot of illogical moments.

Things That Were a Mixed Bag

One thing that people liked about Freddy from way back when was the mystery of the character. In the movie, they decided to explore his history a bit further. On the one hand, it makes him a well developed character. On the other hand, they decide to explore him to the point where he loses his depth. It is a double edged sword that is rather hard to find a balance.

Overall

Perhaps it was my fandom of the original series that brought my hopes up... maybe it was the staff involved (a stylistically great director, some once strong writers, and Jackie Earle Haley as a promising Krueger)... but in the end, I was extremely let down. Visually arresting, especially with a great opening, but the substance was dumbed down to your typical horror movie that we all knew what would happen.

A predictable movie that, despite great visuals and a strong performance from Haley, is an empty shell of the original film, lacking its depth, character dynamics, logic, and sense of reality that made the original so effective.

Overall: 3.5/10

Movie Review: "The Hurt Locker"

2009-07-25T20:12:00.000-07:00

Thank you for checking out my review of "The Hurt Locker." Lately we've been getting a few Iraq war movies that have been generally disappointing. "The Hurt Locker" attempts to rectify these past attempts to make one see the horrors while giving a somewhat fair view of it, showing that soldiers face incredible danger, both in psychological and physical aspects. The story is about three soldiers in 2004 Baghdad, Iraq, who scout and disable IED (Improvised Explosive Devices). After the team leader of Sgt. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) is killed by said explosive, they are assigned new team leader Staff Sgt. Will James, a very gung-ho and risky soldier, who faces threats head-on. Throughout the film, we see how these soldiers are forced to cope with the danger they face.

What I Liked

It's hard to make a movie create real tension. I have to say that I never felt so much tension in this film than did with another in a long time. Not even most horror movies made me stay at the edge of my seat like this did. Every moment the soldiers were on the battlefield I felt the paranoia that the soldiers felt. Anything and everything was possible, and danger waited to strike at the perfect time. The fact that it was possible to connect with the paranoia that the soldiers felt was even harder.

The characters all had very profound depth to them. Each character is given proper development through history, emotions, and their own views on death. This gave each character their own uniqueness as well, both in attitudes and experiences. James is shows more concern with others than himself, almost as if he doesn't care about his life anymore. Sanborn is the portrayed as a man who will fight for his life because it is all he really has. Eldridge tries to understand the "ambiguity" of dying or killing to live, only being able to express this to friend and doctor Col. Cambridge (Christian Camargo), who has an over-simplistic view of the war due to his "desk job" position. These different personalities create an even spectrum of ideas on death, although all still fear it regardless.

The direction in this film was spectacular. The shots in this film gave it a documentary feel to it, drawing you into the action while being able to let the audience member get the full feel of what is being portrayed. Thankfully, despite being hand held most of the time, the camera is generally steady and never out of focus. While some shots are grainy to help give it that gritty, realistic feel, there are some shots that are shown in crystal clarity to allow one to see things the way it should be. Right in the beginning, we see the devastation of an IED, showing the raw power of what one can do. It's impossible to describe this shot. It was that well done.

Regarding cinematography, the film felt like it was in war-torn Baghdad. I can only give an over simplistic description of it being desolate, in ruins, etc. All I can say is that there was a very good attention to detail in the surroundings and locales.

The dialogue in this film was also well done. The dialogue was believable almost all of the time and darkly humorous at different points. It came across as "self-comfort" dialogue, which I would expect from soldiers experiencing such tension as they are.

The acting was very strong in this movie. Nothing felt over or under acted and the actors delivered their lines near perfectly, except for a couple of lines with some flat delivery.

What I Didn't Like

If there was one thing in this film that truly bugged me, it was the believability that James would still be in the military after all the things he pulls off. I will simply say that is character is not "orthodox" in his actions and approach to solving problems. It seems that, except for an anger moment from Sanborn, he experienced no disciplinary action at all. Granted, this is a film, but at least make him experience SOMETHING for the trouble he causes.

Regarding the direction, there was one slow-mo shot that felt out of place. It involves a bullet falling to the ground after a shot is taken (and I will not say who was involved, as this was an integral part of the movie). I expect it may have been something to generate more tension, but it just felt unnecessary.

What Can Be a Mixed Bag

I am related to several people who have been in the military, but I know next to nothing about it. However, there are a few continuity things that may bug people who have been in the military regarding weaponry and armor. Because of my lack of knowledge, I was fine with it. For those who can spot the continuity and factual errors of said things, this may bug you pretty badly.

Overall

I had been waiting to see "The Hurt Locker" when it was first released. Having finally seen it, I can say it was well worth the wait. Probably the best film I've seen this year, I'm praying it gets an Oscar nomination for "Best Picture." This is probably the best Iraq war movie made to date (and it will probably stay the top film for a long time).

"The Hurt Locker" is a powerful film that puts audience members in the boots of the danger and paranoia that US soldiers face and experience while still keeping a strong narrative and well crafted characters.

9.5/10

Movie Review: Okuribitio (Departures)

2009-06-29T17:40:00.000-07:00

Some say "Okuribito" was a slow paced and predictable movie. In my opinion, pacing can very from movie to movie, but every movie is predictable nowadays. The fact of the matter is that originality is something that is almost dead. It's because of this that people need to figure out to film such predictable methods properly. If one can do that, than screw predictability. Now, a film can be cliche, which is totally different, as that revolves around something extremely trite and overly common. I'm sure your wondering which kind this film is.

"Okuribito" is film about orchestra cellist Daigo Kobayashi (Masahiro Motoki). When the orchestra he works for is dissolved, he forced to look at a new career choice, especially considering he is in debt, which is mostly due to the fact he bought an 18 million yen cello (which is roughly $180,000 to us). Daigo and his wife, Mika (Ryoko Hirosue) move to his old hometown of Yamagata, moving into a house left by his deceased mother. While there, he notices an ad for the "NK Agency," a nokan (encoffinment) business. He decided to check out the job, mistaking it for a travel agency (due to a misprint, which reads "assisting departures" rather than "assisting the departed). After meeting with the owner, Shoei Sasaki (Tsutomu Yamazaki) and being offered a 500,000 yen per month pay, Daigo decides to accept. Over time, he grows on the job, but people tell him to quit, calling it something shameful. Throughout the and confrontation, he is forced to make difficult choices, while going through a transformation process that gives him a better understanding of life, death, and acceptance.

What I Liked

The premise of the film felt original to me (although this is based on a book). The idea of dealing with death in a means in which one is responsible of taking care of was something that hasn't been used to my knowledge. The thought of focusing a film in one of the epicenter professions of death brings up questions of death in its greatest form, which strengthened the thematic elements of the film.

The themes themselves were properly expressed both in dialogue in imagery. The director made artful choices that were so well shot that one can't help but be entranced by the shots, as if it was made in a documentary fashion.

Of course, everyone reacts to death in different degrees, which this film showed in ways that are reflective while believable. Some reacted calmly, while others were forced to bicker amongst themselves, but all were deeply affected by such a thing. The diversity in seeing people attempt to cope with deaths of their loved ones always felt proper in placement and display.

I was actually intrigued by the the process and cultural ideals behind encoffening. The way it is done is done so in a respectful way, preserving the body in the highest possible form of dignity. Every time I saw it, it always drew my attention in.

Although the way the plot moves forward is formulaic (lets face it, it's hard to do otherwise), the way it was told was elegant and beautiful, which is the most important thing this film could have done. Daigo is constantly faced with life and death, which also makes him reflect on his own personal life, especially with a relationship problem he had with his father, who left him at an early age. Everything that happened had a purpose and was filmed in such a way that it all felt necessary, used to reflect on Daigo's enlightenment and enhance the emotional impact of what was trying to be conveyed.

Speaking of emotional impact, there is a moment in which many of the major characters surrounding Daigo are brought together and experience a revelation that changes their view of things. They way this scene was shot felt as if it had more care than some of the other scenes, acting as a concentrated emotional blast. Everyone was affected one way or another, bringing them together in a way so touching that I cried in the theater (and believe me, it was hard not to start bawling out loud). Not even the final scene could match this, despite being the most important part for Daigo.

The actors played the characters with finesse. Every character had an important role in this film, each one somehow creating an impact on Daigo one way or another. While certainly not the most original characters, they each had charm and good chemistry. Purpose, conflicts, and development make these characters enjoyable on the screen and very rarely cliche (if at all).

The movie is actually very humorous at times. Right away in the beginning, when we are introduced to the encoffening, something unexpected happens that I can't get into without absolutely ruining the humor and surprise of it all. The humor was very intelligent, coming from actions, dialogue, and even moments of charming innocence that never failed when it tried.

The music in this film was beautifully played. The cello was an instrument constantly played, but was done so in a soothing way that was subtlety complimented by other music. There were moments where it was basically just shots of him playing with various nature shots (which admittedly seemed strange at first, but the metaphors behind the images slowly became clear). Although some may find these pointless, I found these moments to be strangely relaxing.

What I Didn't Like

One thing I didn't like was Mika's overall reaction to Daigo's actions. She reacts to the debt as if it's nothing at all, although she's bothered by Daigo taking the encoffening job. Although she states that she did feel differently (and something in her eyes showed it in the beginning as well) about the move and such, it just didn't feel believable. There's something strange about being able to tolerate death but not an okay job choice.

Despite showing every other important moment in Daigo's growing as an encoffener, the director decided to leave out the first time he works on doing so by himself. He's called in and sets out... and then it shows him coming in the next day simply talking about it for a few seconds. I personally thought this was a rather odd choice and somewhat detracted from the narrative (although this was a trade-off for pacing).

There is a moment near the finale where a coworker of Daigo named Yuriko (Kimiko Yo) tries to relate herself to Daigo in terms of a situation to try and get him to see the other side of a personal problem he faces. Once again, I can't say what it is as this would ruin the overall impact of the finale itself. However, this was one openly cliched and contrived moment that annoyed me, albeit briefly. Thankfully, it was the only moment that really did so.

What Was a Mixed Bag

I'm not sure what it was about the pacing, but the way it was done so felt like a double edged sword. It constantly felt like it could have been trimmed down, but at the same time, all the shots felt necessary. The closest shots were some of the moments in which we see Daigo playing the cello. Although one might say that these moments were edited in a strange way and could be superfluous, I still feel that it would have been worse to take them out than to leave them in. I personally never felt bored or tired, but such pacing may bother some people more than it bothered me.

Another thing that may bother some people is the transition from comedy to seriousness. The opening scene is shot reflects the entire movie, being somewhat inconsistent instead of balancing out the pacing between the humor and drama. Once again, I was personally okay with this, but it can be somewhat annoying to some.

Overall

Okuribito was a movie that had me intrigued when I first heard about it. Although it only had a 72% on Rotten Tomatoes (with a 6.7 score), I felt this movie was so much better than that. The movie was rich in imagery and themes, and touches the idea of life and death in such a way that I can't help but wonder why some people didn't like this. Although there are some problems, I felt that they barely detracted from the overall experience of the film. If anything, they felt insignificant in comparison. Granted, if you have a trouble with slower paced films, you may have trouble sitting through this. However, I feel that if you can, the eventual payoff is more than worth the wait.

Sometimes humorous but always moving, "Okuribito" touches the ideas of life, death, and acceptance in beautiful and emotional way that will profoundly impact its viewers.

Score: 9/10

Game Review: Infamous

2009-06-28T11:01:00.000-07:00

"Infamous" is Sony's newest pet project, developed by Sucker Punch studios. This was one of those superhero games that got a lot of hype when it was first announced. Unfortunately, some superhero games had their share of problems and never fully delivered. I was worried that this would be the case for this game. For those of you who played the Spider-man games, this might make you think so. Although they were good, they never hit all the right spots, either having some moments of difficult combat or being too short (sometimes both). Thankfully, this was not the case for this game.

Story

The game starts off right away with an explosion in Empire City (which looks a LOT like New York). You play Cole, a messenger who is the soul survivor of those caught in the blast, who seems to be okay despite the destruction. This is strange, considering he carried the package that went off. While trying to get out of the epicenter of the ground zero, strange things begin to happen... very shocking things (and now I'm done with the puns). However, the city is also in quarantine due to this blast, which results in all out chaos in the city, spawning gangs and other problems as well. Now wielding the power of electricity in his very hands (literally), it's up to Cole to find out who caused this and deliver justice to them.

Although this is a very watered down synopsis of the main story, it is considerably deeper than this. Cole is constantly faced with moral decisions that you control, which could either save the city or ultimately destroy it. To further create conflict, there is an anarchist group constantly trying to give survival tips to the people and constantly puts blame on Cole due to his "terrorism," which sets off every one's hate for him. All of this results in losing his girlfriend Trish and being a social pariah, with the exception of his friend Zeke, who also wants a taste of Cole's power. The fact that both people of great importance are wanting him to in different directions also furthers the depth of the story, giving Cole a large amount of depth. Even villains make him question who he is and what he's becoming.

What really surprised me though was a side story in here, which involved searching for dead drops. I won't say how you meet this person, but an FBI agent named Moya asks you find these dead drops to acquire information relating to an undercover agent named John. This part of a deal in which by helping her out, you can be let out of Empire City. Although not exactly necessary to follow, it helps one understand the characters that you are facing, as well help the player understand how everything happened.

Of course, depending on what choices you make, it will ultimately decided how everything goes. By going the good route, you earn the city's respect and clean it up. Going the other route will create fear, panic, and destruction of the city. If gives you a chance to create your own story, rather than go on a deceptively linear one (like most superhero games these days). I never thought I'd see a superhero game take the Alan Moore route in development. In this game, it worked perfectly.

Score: 10/10

Gameplay/ Playability

I'm not sure what it is about the gameplay, but something about it feels very... unique. If not unique, then definitely done properly (which is probably what I find so intriguing about it in comparison to other super-hero games). When you first start off, you're given a very bare set of powers: you can shoot lightning, create a blast from hitting the ground, and drain electricity. However, as time goes on, you have the ability to make these powers grow into something more, eventually earning grenades, the ability to glide, speedily slide across electric wires, and more. What's interesting about this is that only certain powers can be unlocked by going a certain route. For example, when going the good route, your lightning strike gains you health, while going the evil route makes it more powerful.

There are various things that change your Karma level, which is generally decided by taking down enemies or innocents, as well as decided their fate, being it capture or death. However, the actions that heavily affect your Karma rating are moments of moral choices. Every now and then, there is a moment where Cole needs to make a choice. What's interesting is how he weighs each choice, generally giving each importance. For example, there is a moment where Cole can choose a poster; one makes him respected, while another makes him feared. He actually thinks to himself how he can be a sign of hope or how he can just scare everyone. There are heavier moments (such as feeding either himself and his friends or letting civilians get a crate of emergency supply food), but every one of these have huge effects on Cole.

In order to use these powers, you have to absorb electricity. Because you're in a city, you're given plenty of things to absorb energy from: cars, stop lights, lamps, generators, etc. Of course, each source has a different amount of energy it can give as well, so if you're in a bind, you better hope there's a phone booth nearby and not just a dead car.

Although one is given a multitude of powers to use, controls were very simply to use. Everything is mapped in a way that you can use your powers effectively. You would be surprised how easy it is to take down an enemy with a grenade and lightning when speeding along train rails. Also, some powers are actually created to be used with each other. The overcharge shot, which is basically one big ball of lightning, can eventually be redirected once you use the lightning strike on an enemy.

Something also well created was the building scaling mechanics. In the game, Cole can basically climb anything he wants, as long as it's a ledge or some sort of prefecture sticking out from the wall. These prefectures include lights, statues, etc. This makes it possible to scale almost any building with ease, which allows total freedom in exploring the city. The one really good thing about this is that due to Cole's powers, you won't die if you fall. As for exploration, the city is divided into three different areas, with different sections of them being "unlocked" after a short amount of time. With each area there are enemies unique to the place (and obviously, they get tougher). Each area is given a different feel as well. This helps create enough diversity that the landscape never feels repetitive.

There is a lot of things you can do in this game. There's a the main story mode, plus side quests that clears up territory and prevents enemies from coming back. Although one might think that they'd all be the same, the moral path you choose can unlock different side quests for you as well. Going the good path unlocks missions were you side with the police, in which you either escorts prisoners, protect protesters, etc. The evil path can have you do other things like instigate riots. There are plenty of goodies to find as well, such as blast shards (which let you use your powers for longer periods of time without having to recharge), and dead drops, which acts as a side story involving an FBI agent searching for an undercover agent named John.

Now, this doesn't mean that there aren't problems. Although the controls are easy to use, there were times were I found it difficult to aim my lightning strikes. The reticule is rather small, so you generally have to get up close and personal to really hit them at time. Of course, for the bigger enemies, this wasn't a problem, but one would think that this wouldn't be a problem at all. Another minor complaint is that while I was "surfing" the lines (once I got the power anyway), it was impossible to stop. Although it never hampered the game play, it certainly acted as a minor annoyance. Also somewhat problematic at times was the building scaling. It was generally easy to deal with 95% of the time, but there were moments where I tried to collect something or tried to go to a different ledge. One of the things that this game does is an "auto-cling," grabbing whatever it can. When trying to get something, this can make it difficult to actually do so, as you may go a different way than you plan. There was no way to avoid grabbing these either (although it wasn't a problem to drop down from ledge to ledge).

Although there were problems present, I felt the overall gameplay was solid and sound. It allowed me to do plenty of things with general ease, and the amount I could do only grew over time. Definitely the pinnacle of super-hero gaming.

Score: 9/10

Graphics

Displayed at max res. of 720p

Everyone knows that the PS3 has the potential to display great things. When it comes to the exclusives, if delivers. The city looks phenomenal. Great draw distances, heavy detail, and plenty of diversity in the buildings and structures make Empire City come to life. It always seems like cities are the best part of a game.

Character models are pretty solid. The various inhabitants are fairly diverse (although they do appear repetitive after a while). One of things that impressed me the most about them was the shading; it seemed that the character models were meant to showcase the complexity of lighting, as the slightest change in movement drastically changed how they appeared. As for the texture work on them, it was very good, although not as great as other games. Then again, considering the size and scope of the city, it would be pretty hard to appear much better. Even more impressive is that, despite all this, there was were only one or two moments of slowdown during the times I played.

I will probably say what I liked the most in the graphical department were the story cutscenes. Instead of using gameplay graphics or pre-rendered cutscenes, the game had comic book cutscenes, narrated by Cole. This fit the spirit of the subject matter, yet didn't distract me from the story. The quality of the cutscenes were very good as well; the art looked bright, vibrant, and highly detailed.

Although the graphics are great, there are some problems. One of the main problems are latent texture pop-ups. There were a definitely a few moments where these textures wouldn't appear for about a second. Also bringing down the score are the character animations. There were a lot of times that the movements just seemed robotic. Particle effects were a mixed bag. Things like Cole's power's looked great. Other things like explosions and electricity surging in certain areas seemed... generic. Despite these discrepancies, the overall graphics were solid.

Score: 8.5/10

Sound

Sound was tested on 5.1 DTS settings.

I have to say the audio in this was just astounding. It made sure to take full advantage of the system. There was always constant activity in the city: vehicles moving, people chatting, and the trains passing by all brought the city to life. It sounded just the way it should have... a real city. Other sound effects sound great and immersive as well, such as explosions, surges, and other various effects caused by chaos that comes with fighting. Of course, playing this is in DTS simply made it even better, boosting it's clarity and overall quality. What surprised me most about all this though was how they handled the people. It seemed that despite the multitude of people, there were heavy loads of different dialogue used between the people. It never felt like the dialogue or the voices I heard was repetitive. Such was the case with the voices. There was a vast diversity of voices throughout the city.

As for the main characters, they were able actors who delivered well-written dialogue with great professionalism. The acting always felt believable and the actors cast generally felt well cast. Although if I had one main complaint in this game, it's who was cast for Cole. Although a great voice actor, there was something that was up with hearing a Solid Snake wannabe while in a leather biker jacket and jeans. He always sounded like this, despite the path you choose. Admittedly though, I think it was the inconsistency in his voice that bothered me more than the voice itself. During gameplay (as I stated), he sounds like David Hayter. However, during the comic-style cutscenes, he sounds fairly normal, losing the grave voice. If it wasn't for this one problem, I'd probably give it a perfect score.

Score: 9.5/10

Replayability

If you haven't figured it out from the gameplay, there is a lot to do in this game: missions, side missions, collectibles, trophies, and others. The fact that there are two different story paths, each with their own unique features, simply makes this game a joy and will never make you feel bored. Although it may seem repetitive to go over some of these missions again, the ability to make a different karma choice helps aid in the diversity. Being able to customize your character differently through another play through also aids as well. This game isn't Elder Scrolls in terms of length, but it certainly gives you a lot more do than most other games today, and that is a major plus. One can probably net a total of 20-30 hours of gameplay with this this. Definitely more bang for your buck.

Score: 9/10

Overall

This is definitely one of the best games of the year, if not THE best so far. With so many great things about this game, it would be hard for anyone to really dislike this game. One would be hard-pressed to make something better than this title in this particular genre as well. If anyone does though, I'll be waiting. While I do so though, I'll probably just be playing Infamous all the while.

An open ended game with a deep narrative and characters, long lasting playability, well crafted technical aspects, and solid gameplay; Infamous is the newest epitome of greatness in the super-hero game genre.

Score: 9/10

What makes something good and another entertaining...

2009-06-25T08:24:00.000-07:00

I made it pretty evident that in terms of quality film-making, "Transformers: RotF" had a lot of problems: bad dialogue, a plethora of hollow characters, and some major inconsistencies. You know what? I'm okay with that. The reason being is because I knew what this film set out to do and it delivered on my expectations. It entertained me and did its job. This brought up an interesting discussion with a friend of mine in which we were talking about the difference between "quality entertainment" and "mindless entertainment." My friend mentioned that if a movie is entertaining, there has to be some good in it. It took me a while to get my point across, but I eventually did it.

So makes a film simply meant to be entertaining just that and another film a "quality" film? It's all about treatment. Entertaining films are simply meant to (you guessed it) entertain, doing what the set out to do; if it's comedy it makes you laugh, and if it's action, it just slams it in your face. They don't always have to concern themselves with important factors such as character and story. Generally they just need to assault the visual and audible senses in over the top ways that you can't help but scream in your chair. Some films can do this by being so bad, that you can't help but laugh the whole way through at it. Now, what makes a film good are what critics look for: character development, an interesting plot, thematic elements, well-written dialogue, etc. Now some movies can still be both (certain sci-fi films, comedies, and action flicks). If you ask me, people who can do both really know how to make a movie.

Let me present you with a couple of examples. "Punisher: War Zone." It was a bad movie, but it was so bad it was funny and kept me in tune the whole way through. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all movies set out to entertain are bad. One such example is "Wanted." The movie had its moments of camp, but it was still more intelligent than it looked on the surface. The movie had some great dialogue, interesting characters that had some depth, a twisting storyline, and thematic elements about fate. Granted, it wasn't the best film out there, but it still managed to entertain while retain qualities of what makes a film decent.

Of course, some movies can still be good, yet somehow not be entertaining in the way I use it. My favorite example is "The Godfather." Was I entertained by it? Not really. I was, however, invested heavily in the movie in a sort of scholarly way, which is what this movie aimed for. A film so serious and well-made does not beg to be found as entertainment, but rather something that deserves respect as a cornerstone of expert film-making. Deep and interesting characters, actual suspense, great dialogue, plenty of thematic elements, an intricate storyline, and memorable performances. Nothing felt like it was done wrong, and it could all be taken seriously. So was I entertained? No. But I was heavily invested in everything that made it.

Obviously, the definition of entertainment can very from person to person. In the film sense, I define it as a means to escape reality and just have a good time. Some movies do it, and some don't. One just needs to realize the difference between being entertaining and being good though. Still, in the end, all that really matters is that they enjoy what they see. As long as that happens with what I see, I'm happy.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen review

2009-06-24T18:31:00.000-07:00

One of the talked about summer blockbusters was "Transformers." Featuring ground breaking special effects (which I personally felt got the shaft at the Oscars), good action, and entertaining characters. Now granted, it wasn't a great film, but it was still entertaining, which people probably wouldn't have wanted any other way. I can assure that this was the case for "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," for better or for worse.

For those of you who don't know, the story is simple. Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is ready to start a normal life and go to college, while most of the Autobots (Bumblebee excluded, acting as Sam's "guard" and car) act as an anti-Decepticon task force, along with members of the military. However, while examining an old jacket of his that he wore during the fight between Megatron (Hugo Weaving) and Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen), a piece of the All-Spark is revealed to have been left. Upon touching it, he begins to see symbols and signs in his mind. Meanwhile, Decepticons bring back Megatron, who plans revenge to not only conquer earth, but give power to a Decepticon known as The Fallen, who is basically the one who started the group. With the Decepticons needing the All-Spark to find an object that can give them power, they decide to go after Sam, who has the information in his mind now. Aided by Mikaela (Megan Fox) and the Autobots, Sam must prevent the Autobots from finding this object and try to defeat them once and for all.

What I Liked

As I said, the first had amazing special effects. The effects were actually noticeably improved. The Transformers looked better than before, blending in better with the environments, and boasting a more real look to them. The carnage that ensued simply had me awestruck as well. The careful details they put into the destruction of environments, vehicles (especially the aircraft carrier you've seen in the trailer, which looks even better in the film), and even the Transformers themselves just made me stare in amazement. If you're watching this in IMAX, you're in for a real treat.

Also improved upon was the overall action. The first film had a fair amount of it, but it still felt like there wasn't enough at times for some because the amount of screen time of people overshadowed the Transformers. This time though, one would be hard pressed to feel there wasn't enough. It starts off with it and consistently gives it to the audience to never let them feel bored. Once again, it's a treat for those who watch the IMAX version as Bay apparently extended some of the battle scenes, which made it even sweeter.

The amount of Transformers was huge. They probably doubled the amount of Transformers present. When Bay said there would be more, he was NOT kidding. It was interesting to see how he made some of them, and I always looked forward to seeing some of them.

More back story was added to the Transformers this time around, showing more as to how the war between Autobots and the Decepticons started. One of the ones that intrigued me the most was "The Primes," which were a group of what some could consider the "elders" of the Transformers world.

I found the movie to be very funny. A lot of the dialogue was humorous, with some of the Transformers having interesting interactions amongst each other. Granted, a lot of it was cheesy, but it still made me laugh.

What I Didn't Like

This movie was meant to be entertainment, not some piece of art... which lead to many problems. There were a lot of things that jumped out at me, such as plot holes, editing problems, and other inconsistencies. For example, when someone (I won't say who) was tazed and rendered unconscious, yet five seconds later, he was awake and ready to go. These moments just jumped out at me and acted as a distraction.

Although it's good that there were more Transformers, there can always be too much of a good thing. This was definitely the case. A complaint of the first movie was that there weren't enough Transformers and too many two dimensional humans. This time, it was somewhat switched (except the two dimensional problem still stuck around). Many of these Transformers just acted as a fan service and served no purpose in appearing, if only to blow things up. Transformers like Soundwave, Arcee, and several others were just there. Unfortunately, the people suffered as well, as they were just taken down a notch in terms of development and quality. It made the movie feel... empty.

It doesn't matter if dialogue will make you laugh or not; if it's cheesy, it's cheesy, and this movie had a lot of it. The dialogue was worse in comparison to the first movie, which makes me think I might have been laughing at some of it for all the wrong reasons.

One of the things that bothered me was how two characters were made to be the most negatively stereotypical Transformers you could see. I had no problem with the characters... but the portrayal was something that was pretty offensive. There was an addition of two Transformers that some dub "The Twins" named Mudflap and Skid. These two were entertaining, but dear God... they were the most stereotypical "gangland" black guys that the media would ever seek to do news coverage on if a crime were to occur. They have the stereotypical talk, appearance (to make a point, they have big ears and one of them has buck teeth, one of them being gold), and even mention "that they can't read." I was just... shocked.

Things That Were a Mixed Bag

It seemed to me that the acting wasn't quite as good as the first movie for some of the actors. Shia LaBeouf was still decent overall, but there were moments that he felt somewhat flat and hurried with his dialogue. Megan Fox, who I thought did a fine job in the first movie, seemed a lot flatter as well this time. In my opinion, she did fine with the "emotional" scenes and moments where she treated a captive Decepticon like a pet, but as I said, the overall acting level amidst the actors was good, but just felt less decent in comparison to the first.

The music was also a mixed bag. On one hand, Hans Zimmer made a fitting score for the movie. However, there were a lot of moments were it seemed the music was just a variation of "New Divide" by Linkin Park. Every time I heard it, it just stuck out to me.

Overall

For those of you who watch Transformers, you know what you're watching it for: robots beating the metal and oil out of each other. This movie accomplished this to an even greater extent than the first accomplish. Unfortunately, in terms of overall quality, it was weaker as a film than the first one (which seemed somewhat difficult to do). It's because of this, I'm going to give the film to scores. If you want to just be entertained, this movie will do more than its fair share (I'd give it an 8/10 on an entertainment scale). If you're looking for an actual good movie, I'd recommend you stay away, lest you be bombarded by a myriad of problems. In short:

"Transformers: Rise of the Fallen" is an entertaining summer flick that's brought down by bad writing, disposable characters, and an fairly empty plot. - 4.5/10

Game Review: Terminator Salvation (Playstation 3)

2009-06-23T21:32:00.000-07:00

It's well known that "Terminator Salvation" was not a great movie. To its credit, it had some good action and good performances from Sam Worthington and Anton Yelchin. Now, just because a movie sucks doesn't mean a game will suck too. If anything, it can be the exact opposite. Anyone who's played "Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay" will know this. I'm not ragging on the Riddick films. The critics were divided over the first and less than kind on the second. I still found them both entertaining. Now that I've said this, I want to assure you... this is not the case for this game. If anything, it made the movie seem better in comparison. I never thought I'd say that...

Story

The game takes place two years before the Terminator Salvation movie. It's been some years since Skynet, the mechanical army, has all but destroyed the world through nuclear annihilation. Groups of humans are scattered about, with some of them fighting back. These humans act as a military power, known as The Resistance. Part of this resistance is recurring protagonist John Conner. Through this game we see how John rises from being a foot soldier to a commander, starting him on his path to become the leader of the human resistance he was destined to be. We also get an introduction to other film characters, including Blair (who is a fellow soldier) and Barnes. Anyway, while on a mission gone bad and awaiting evacuation, John Conner receives a distress call from several soldiers at a Skynet base area, and John decides to go try and rescue them (due in part to his believe that "no one gets left behind"), despite orders not to go. The whole way through, he must face adversities, including the various terminators, traps, and falling morale.

The story feels somewhat typical. Good guy goes on a suicidal mission, meets people, kills the enemies, and encounters deaths of team mates, all before accomplishing his goal and dealing a fatal blow to the target enemy. I will say though that this game does a good job at setting up the story for the movie, as well as showing how John Conner got to where he was. The impact of his actions show how capable of a person he is. If anything, I would have preferred this storyline to the movie's. Also important is the whole belief of fighting for humanity is actually made important in the game more so than the movie. There is constant chatter about morality, perseverance, and what is important. Sure it might seem a little cliche, but Terminator is all about overshadowing these problems with humanity, and the story in this game does manage to do so, albeit barely. Then again, I could say that the movie might have lowered my standards. Still, it passes in my opinion.

6.5/10

Gameplay

I will say right off the bat that this felt like a poorly executed version of "Gears of War." You're given a third person perspective with an over the shoulder aiming reticule to kill enemies with. The shooting is probably the only thing in the game that really works in the game without any problems. The accuracy is generally consistent and it's easy to get your reticule where you want it. Also similar to "Gears of War" are the cover mechanics. When you take cover against a wall, you can aim from over the wall or along the side of it. When you move, you'll generally transition fairly easily between varying heights. You also have the ability to make a quick cover change, by moving the left analog stick over to the direction of nearby cover and press X to slide or dart over to it. Unfortunately, this didn't work as well as I hoped.

There were several moments in which I tried to take cover behind something that should have been easy to hide behind. For some reason, I wasn't able to, and I was left in the open to be shot at by various Terminators. There were other moments in which I tried to transition from one spot to another, but in many instances, I either couldn't do so (even though it was EXTREMELY close by and easy to get to) or I went to the wrong spot, despite the given direction of the spot. Even more annoying was that there were moments that when I tried to get off of a cover spot due to crowding from my AI teammates, and the moment I get off, the AI slides over and takes my spot, once again leaving me out in the open. This leads me to another gripe: the AI.

The AI ranges from fair to extremely stupid. In many instances, when surrounded by enemies, I have to rely on my teammates to distract them so I can flank them (which you will have to do all the time). Some of the times, they'll do a decent job in distracting the enemy. Other times, they'll just hide and let the enemy just shoot at you as long as they like, even when your teammates are safe. In terms of consistency, this is the same for the enemy. They'll either be diverse in trying to take you and your teammates out or they'll make some of the stupidest mistakes possible (and leave me wonder how in the HELL did they destroy humanity). They can also be extremely unfair. Despite the fact that T-600s should have been distracted by my team, there are various instances in which they walk towards me for no apparent reason and just punch me out in one blow. Unfair, I know.

"Gunner segments," in which the AI drives and you shoot, are short and annoying to deal with at times. It's easy to aim, but some of the targets are difficult to hit, due to the fact that they either move quickly or come at you in swarms (and generally it's both). The moment where you're given the chance to drive a harvester terminator unit is the one moment that it really works: you're given multiple weapons, fair levels of enemy activity, and multiple weapons to choose from. Unfortunately, this one, like all the other gunner moments, are too short, lasting only a few minutes at a time.

Controls were simple but unintuitive. You were given the typical set-up of the the analog sticks for looking and moving, one shoulder button to aim and another to fire with another shoulder button to toss grenades. Like I said, simple, but unintuitive. At least the controls worked well enough.

In terms of available weaponry in the game, you're given five weapons to pick from: an M4 machine gun, SAW machine gun, shotgun, rocket launcher, and grenade launcher. In terms of explosives, you can use either a frag grenade or a pipe bomb. The weapon selection is extremely limited, but each weapon is at least given their own strengths and weaknesses. As for the explosives though, I had trouble with them. My main gripe is that for some reason, I could never switch between grenades and pipe bombs (be it through picking them up or trying to switch to them through controls). I was forced to use grenades all the time. If there weren't any nearby when I ran out, I was SOL.

The sad thing is that this game is still relatively easy despite these problems. I played this game on the Hard difficulty setting, and I still found it relatively simple to blow through the game's story. In a matter of six hours, I beat the story mode (and in doing so, earned all the trophies). The game offers very little challenge despite the annoyances that are present. The fact the story mode was as short and linear as it was seriously hampered the experience about as much as the technical problems. Had they found a way to if these problems and expand the story mode, this would have been a solid experience. Alas, it's simply poor.

4/10

Graphics

Game was displayed at max res. of 720p

The graphics were a mixed bag. A lot of the environments looked solid enough. They had good texture work and really resembled a ruined LA (from what I could see). There wasn't too much latency in texture pop up either (if any at all). With this environment came a cold, bleak color palette. Obviously, this was meant to match the ruined landscape, and it worked very well. The machines themselves looked decent, although not quite as good as the environments. Despite decent textures, there weren't many polygons used to build them up. Still, seeing the diversity in some of them intrigued me. In terms of conceptual appearances they were great. As for in game, they were slightly above average. Admittedly, the T-800 terminator head that is used in the loading screen looked astounding. While you wait for the game to load, you have the ability to look at the terminator head with 180 degrees horizontal camera movement and top-bottom scaling. Despite the constant loading, I never grew tired at looking at it. The characters, on the other hand, looked very poor. The character models looked bland, sometimes disfigured, and for the film characters (with the exception of Barnes), they looked nothing like their counter-parts. Particle effects also felt somewhat underwhelming. The cinematics were also mixed bags. The opening and ending cinematics weren't anything spectacular, but the detail was good, the overall quality was clean, and overall did the game justice. The rest, however, were barely a step above the in-game graphics, looking bland and making me feel like there was some compression. In short, certainly not the worst graphics, but definitely not the best.

5.5/10

Sound

Sound was tested in 5.1 Dolby Digital

Probably the best part of the game. The sound felt consistently good, both in quality and design. First off, the effects. I can assure you that it does what the Terminator Saga always does: take advantage of it. There is always something going, be it explosions, dialogue, or machines moving about. The effects are always used in ways that it makes you feel something is going on. Because of the frantic activity, you will feel like you're surrounded by war-time activity. The fact that the audio is nice and crisp helps as well. Also helpful was the fact that the weapons are given their own sound effects, each one sounding different. However, the weapons still sound generic over all.

In terms of voice acting, it did its job, although some things bothered me. I will say that Moon Bloodgood, who reprised her role as Blair, was actually decent as a voice actor. Certainly not the greatest, but she didn't over or underact. John Conner on the other hand, always bothered me. It wasn't that he was bad, but it was the fact that it was obviously not Christian Bale. Some games do a good job finding replacements, like in "Matrix: Path of Neo" and "Wanted." For some reason, Conner sounded like a deeper voice version of Cam Clarke at times, but never like Bale. As for rapper turned actor Common, who reprised his role as Barnes, he was simply average. While he wasn't emotionless, his lines felt like there they were underacted. Despite this, the VA's did a good job overall.

The music was less than thrilling however. The music definitely had the terminator feel. However, it also felt repetitive. It seemed like they repeated the same bits and instruments within the music every two seconds, which just got on my nerves after a short while. Also somewhat annoying was how they transition at times. When encountering enemies, the music was loud and exciting. If you retreated, the score changed with a simple fade; sometimes, the music would just go silent. If you went back in, the battle score would start up somewhere in the middle. It threw off the pacing and ruined the mood of whatever situation was occurring.

7.5/10

Replayability

This game has basically no replayability whatsoever. As I stated earlier, this is a very linear game that I beat on Hard in approximately six hours, earning all the trophies. For the sake of mercy though, I will say that not everyone will play this in on the hardest difficulty. For those who don't, there's still replayability in attempted to earn trophies for beating the game on various difficulties, but by the time you beat the game, I doubt one would find them worth it. On the plus side though, there is a co-op mode (which I didn't get a chance to try out). It would really hurt (you) to bring a friend in. As the saying goes, "misery loves company."

2/10

Overall

This is another failure in the "movie-game" genre. Although the story itself wasn't bad and boasting a good sound design, the game is marred by the most important thing a game needs: gameplay. It's average and, even worse, dysfunctional. The lack of replayability doesn't help either. Even the graphics, despite being decidedly average, were better made than the gameplay itself. I'd only recommend this game for a very quick set of 12 trophies (11 gold and 1 platinum). But I even have a hard time recommending renting this game. Best to just stay away unless you were as bored with nothing to do as I was.

4.5/10

Beatles Rock Band: Favorite vs. Greatest

2009-06-23T09:23:00.000-07:00

I'm going to say it out loud: I think The Beatles is the greatest rock band in the history of music. They had a great sound, original ideas in their later years, and hands down helped truly revolutionize rock and roll. Because of this, I know that "Rock Band: The Beatles" will be my favorite music game to come. The fact that their adding harmonizing (which is something I wanted since the release of the first game), along with other features only increases my desire to own this game. Now, this being said, I want to explain why this, despite most likely being my favorite game, will not be the best of the Rock Band games.

One Band = Little Diversity

I have no problem doing nothing but listening to the Beatles all night long. I could survive on these guys alone because of their huge music catalog. However, not all people are like that. Some people want to play a different group, and with this game, it's going to be impossible. Even Guitar Hero: Aerosmith and Metallica (and most likely Van Halen) had "guest acts," which were songs from other groups. Granted, AC/DC was a one group only disc as well, but these could be transfered over to the other Rock Band games as well. Rock Band: Beatles WON'T do this, which leads me to the next problem:

No Transfering

Rock Band: Beatles is a stand alone game. This leads to a problem of moving getting more tracks. The good news is that you can still buy DLC for the game. The bad news is that, like Guitar Hero: Metallica, you can only buy DLC that is related to the band. Even more bad news: the music can't be transferred to Rock Band or Rock Band 2, nor can music from RB and RB2 be transferred to RB Beatles (but of course, that's to be expected). One would think that they would just do what they did with the first Rock Band and allow it to be transferred to Rock Band 2 for a nominal fee. That isn't going to happen. I would prefer having one huge library that I can easily browse through instead of having to switch between discs and limitting what I can play.

Less Creativity, Less Freedom

This is a rather small gripe. I'm playing this for The Beatles, so I could care less about this. For others, however, one of the more "fun" and well-liked features in this game was the ability to create characters and instruments. Since you're playing the Beatles, you're playing what you handed. This means that you can't create anything, and the venues will be less liberal (if it will be at all) in the various venues. Like I said, though, I'm playing this for the Beatles and their history, so I'm good either way in this aspect.

Now, since this is my reasoning of the idea, this doesn't mean this will be the case. Plenty of this looked good and completely sucked. Other things looked like they'd be hampered by problems by in reality they worked out just fine. To further make a point, I'm still looking forward to this game despite these problems because I know the overall experience will be greater than the faults. I wouldn't be surprised if I had more fun with this than the other games, despite the setlist I've acquired over time.

The Hangover Review

2009-06-22T17:50:00.000-07:00

The Hangover
Genre: Comedy
Release Date: June 5, 2009

Right, to get back on track at this website, I thought I'd start off with a review. What better movie could I start off with than "The Hangover?" Seriously, nothing really good came out in the past couple of weeks so I might as well. Anyway, for those of you who don't know, "The Hangover" is a buddy comedy about three "friends" Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) going on to a bachelor party with soon to be husband Doug (Justin Bartha). However, things go wrong when the group apparently parties to hard; Doug goes missing and the group has no idea what happened during the night. With Doug's wedding nearing and with concern growing, they go out to see what happened to Doug, as well as what happened throughout the rest of the night. As the facts unravel, things turn out to be wilder than even THEY could have anticipated.

What I Liked

What can I say except this movie was really funny. The dialogue was offensively and disgustingly witty in a consistent manner, holding nothing back. A lot of the jokes felt original, and even if they weren't, they were used in the right way. Speaking of which, many people I've talked to and myself felt that Ken Jeong was golden as Mr. Chow. Every line he said was just hilarious. Even his introduction having me laugh due to disgusting hilarity. I really can't give away anything without completely ruining the humor, so I won't do anyone that injustice.

The scenario may seem outlandish, but this movie made it seem fairly believable, which is one of the most important things for any movie. Some movies can be realistic, but that doesn't make them believable in terms of execution (like Tears of the Sun). This goes the route of certain Apatow productions, where if such a thing were to happen, this is probably exactly how it would happen. Even the performances were believable. Nothing felt over or underacted by the characters (although admittedly, it's easy to get away with certain things in a comedy, so I might have lowered my standards in certain areas).

I was intrigued as to what happened to Doug, as well as the trio searching for him. This simply sucked me into the film. For the most part, all of these things are gradually explained at an even pace, which didn't leave me impatient with some factors or bored trying to figure out others.

What kind of surprised me was that the trio had some depth. Phil is constantly stuck in a situation where he had to either find Doug discreetly or Doug's fiance that he's gone missing; either way, he's in trouble (which helps prevent it from being completely unoriginal). Alan seems like an idiot, but he's always trying to do something for the better of the group and thinks he's doing the right thing (instead of being an idiot for the sake of being an idiot). Stu is probably faced with the most conflicts, including lying to his wife to be with Doug, being forced to choose between loyalty and being with a better-characterized woman, etc. It's hard to make these kinds of character without being cliche about it.

What I Didn't Like

There were a few things that irked me. The biggest one was what happened to Doug. I won't say what happened... just that they should have thought of it a lot earlier (but then again, there'd be no fun in that). Some things weren't explain either (namely what happened to the hotel room that they stay in).

Things That Were a Mixed Bag

This movie had a LOT of frontal nudity... a lot more than I would have wanted. I will admit, it was all used in disturbingly hilarious ways. Still, it doesn't matter how it's used, because it will ALWAYS disturb me.

Conclusion

This is a solid comedy movie... one of the funniest I've seen in a good long while. Featuring actually witty dialogue, some memorable performances, and an interesting take on mystery and buddy comedy genres, I think most people will like this film a lot. Fair warning though, there is a lot of disturbing content in here that aren't for those with a high gross out tolerance level. If you can get past that and a somewhat lame "revelation," I think it's a pretty easy flick to enjoy.

A consistently funny film that has interesting characters, sometimes disturbingly witty dialogue, and a nice take on the buddy comedy genre.

Overall: 8/10

REBOOT!

2009-06-22T17:47:00.000-07:00

I did not realize that I had disappeared from this failed site about one year ago (two days away no less). Anyway, I'm going to try and bring this back to life again in hopes of doing something good. That's all I can really say. I'm sure as hell not gonna make a "to make a short story long" speech here (cause for the people who will HOPEFULLY read this eventually) because I doubt anyone will want to. In the mean time, let me start over. "Hi, you can call me Jack!"

People Who Comment On Things They Hate Based Off What They Hate = Stupidity

2008-06-23T15:14:00.000-07:00

Alright, something has been bugging me for a while now. As human's, it's only natural for us to like somethings and hate others. I'd be lying if I said people and I didn't disagree with things regarding tastes: movies, music, books, etc. I myself am a cover artist on youtube for the most part. On that site, I get both praise and insults. Now here's the thing that bothers me: hating my work when hating the original work. For those of you who need me to elaborate, let me explain. I've done a few cover songs as a show of respect for the original artists. If you don't like my rendition, I'm fine with that; I don't care if you don't like my singing, my guitar playing, or just me in general. However, when a person who hates the original song played by the original artist comes up and says they hate my rendition as much as the original, I'm sorry, that's just plain stupidity.

The point of a cover is to try and entertain the people who like the original and/ or show your respects towards the artist. It doesn't make sense for a person who hated the song and/ or artist to come up and say something like "I hated the original and you suck just as much!" My only response to that is "If you hated the original than why the hell did you decide to 'listen' to mine you f**king troll?" It annoys me to think that there are people out there who are so starved for attention that they just decide to flame someone. I'm curious, do these people think that this makes them feel bigger and more important than they really are? If they do, they are sorely mistaken; their comments just make them look like jackasses, and let's face it, they probably are.

I'm up for free speech and all, and I don't care if you hate me or not. However, I'm never happy if people hate me for the wrong reasons like the one I just described about. Of course, this applies to many situations that go far beyond myself. This applies to all forms of entertainment: movies, music, comics, and whatever else adapted something. If you don't like the original, don't watch/ listen/ read the adaptation. All these people do is look for an excuse to say something and waste everyone elses time in the process. May these hypocrites get what comes to them be insulted to the point where they feel as low as desired level of misery they tried to inflict on others.

George Carlin Dead at 71; One Act No One Will Find Funny

2008-06-23T08:36:00.000-07:00

Well, as many of you heard (or at least some of you) George Carlin has passed away at the age of 71 due to heart failure. The associated press had this to say:

"George Carlin, who died of heart failure Sunday at 71, leaves behind not only a series of memorable routines, but a legal legacy: His most celebrated monologue, a frantic, informed riff on those infamous seven words, led to a Supreme Court decision on broadcasting offensive language.

Carlin, who had a history of heart trouble, went into St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica on Sunday afternoon complaining of chest pain and died later that evening, said his publicist, Jeff Abraham. He had performed as recently as last weekend at the Orleans Casino and Hotel in Las Vegas."

I can honestly say this is probably one of the biggest deaths of the year. George Carlin was one of my favorite comedians/ actors to ever grace the stages. What can I say? He was a very, very funny man. The fact that he is gone is just sad. I remember him starring in my favorite movies, and it was him that made them more enjoyable when he appeared: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob Strike back, and several others.

His stand up was offensive yes, but he actually had intelligence behind it. His humor more than made us realize the stupidity or truths of various facts of life. The fact that nobody can hear it live again is definitely depressing. George Carlin, you will be missed.

Guitar Hero 4: World Tour and Why It'll Beat Rock Band

2008-06-20T14:38:00.000-07:00

As many of you know, Rock Band is the greatest music game out, allowing people to play drums, bass and lead guitar, and allow singing as well. However, Guitar Hero 4, aka Guitar Hero: World Tour, is shaping up to be quite the game. After reading up on it, I have got to say... it isn't Guitar Hero. Instead, it's an even greater version of Rock Band. I'm very certain it'll put Rock Band to shame as well. After reading up on it, I have my reasons.

IMPROVED INSTRUMENTS
---------------------------------
I've just read up on some of the instruments, and I've got to say, I'm heavily impressed. They look awesome, and each instrument have had upgrades compared the Rock Band counter-parts. First off, the guitar now has multiple functions to truly simulate the feel of a real guitar. First off, there is now a touch strip that you can use to alter pitches. You can run your fingers up and down the strip to adjust the notes, which works considerably better than the whammy bar as reported by some. Of course, the whammy bar is still in for those holding-notes. The guitar has has guitar tilting to adjust the notes, and interestingly enough, the guitar allows palm-muting. They've made this into one versatile instrument.

The drum set has also been improved in several areas. First off, it's grown from 5 buttons (four pads and a base pedal) to 6 (5 buttons and a pedal). And with this add on, comes an adjustment in design, which works for the better. It's now a two level drum set that's been given a fairly sturdy design. With these designs come some new features as well. What's interesting is that they were able to make the pads pressure sensitive. Basically, the volume of the instrument is based upon how hard you hit. The harder, the louder! The other thing that's great is that the drum set is wireless. No hassle setting it up and trying to find a place to plug it in when there are wires all about. It's all ready for you!

MUSIC CREATOR
---------------------
A new feature to the game that I also welcome is the Music Creator. That's right, every musicians dream has come true; GH allows makers to make their own music, using drums, bass, and rhythm and lead guitar. Unfortunately, one is not allowed to make songs with vocals. Most likely this would be due to pitch problems, because we all know how the slightest waver in vocals reults in a huge change in pitch. Apparently, the game allows you to save up to a hundred songs as well, which is quite impressive.

CHARACTER/ INSTRUMENT CREATOR
------------------------------------------------
Yes, Rock Band has a character creator. Let's remember though, that this is Neversoft's game, who were the creators of the oh so great (but lately unoriginal) Tony Hawk games, which created a character creator system that was second only to the THQ WWE series. GH is going to have a character creation system that is just as good as the Tony Hawk games. So epect one that is more liberal than that of Rock Band. It's also possible to make your own instruments (technically). You're allowed to make custom shaped and decalled instruments for your character, which is another neat addition.

For those of you who are looking forward to this game, I can pretty much assure you that this game will be a major improvement. New features, new gameplay modes (apparently the boss battles have been changed to a "Simon Says" style game), and new instrument styles, I've gotta say this will be a game that will entertain me for years to come. I just hope that it meets my expectations. To anyone who wants to talk about it, what do you all think of it?

Movie Review: The Love Guru

2008-06-20T13:25:00.000-07:00

I have to say, I found it impossible to love "The Love Guru." The movie was very juvenile, unintelligent, and rather "punderful." I've got to say, I expected to be some like "You Don't Mess With the Zohan," a stupid movie, but the good kind. Unfortunately, I found out otherwise. Zohan at least had some intelligence in some of its jokes (courtesy of Judd Apatow), and it was so unbelievably zany that I could look past its stupidity. Unfortunately, "Love Guru" had none of the qualities. Usually I like Mike Myers movies, no matter how bad they were. But this... there was no way I could appreciate it.

PLOT
-------
The plot centers on the Guru Pitka (Mike Meyers), a Guru who specializes in helping people with troubled relationships and self-help, but despite his success, he is only considered the second best, following the Guru Chopka. He hopes to get a fame boost by helping out a trouble hockey star named Darren Roanoake (Romany Malco), whose wife is together with rival hockey star Jacques "la coq" Grande (Justin Timberlake) when he is hired by the Toronto Maple Leaves' owner Jane Bullard (Jessica Alba) and coach Punch Cherkov (Verne Troyer). As he tries to help Darren, he realizes that he is bettering himself because, as he puts it so blatantly "my greatest student became by greatest teacher... or some bullshit like that." It's basically like any self help movie: he tries to help someone, falls for a woman, does something wrong and tries to make ammends, which results in a victory for himself and the others that he tries to help. I don't mind if it had been done before... I just want it done well, and other movies have done it better, like "Analyze This."

COMEDY
-----------
As I said, the humor is pretty stupid and juvenile, lacking ANY intelligence that would make these jokes funny. I will admit, some of the jokes made me chuckle, but that's about it. It was more based on the delivery rather than actual humor. Jim Gaffigan and Stephen Colbert were sportcasters, who delivered their lines perfectly, which actually got me to chuckle as often as I did. As for the humor itself, as stated, they were incredible juvenile. They were basically sex puns that you'd hear fellow high schoolers throw about each other. Others were jokes that were trying to get laughs through shock value (one of them almost succeeded too, getting me to scoff and chuckle in one run). So long story short... the humor is meant for the young and stupid... and I was surrounded by the young and stupid apparently.

OTHER NOTES
------------------
I've got to say, this was truly the most disappointing movie I've seen since Epic Movie. It wasn't quite as bad (I LEFT Epic Movie), but it was close. If it wasn't for the intermittent chuckles it gave me, I WOULD have left. I was also disappointed by the wasted talent that was in this movie: Mike Meyers, Stephen Colbert, Jim Gaffigan, Romany Malco, etc. There was one truly redeemable thing about this movie: the music. Hearing sitar and guitar renditions of some of my favorite tunes such as "More Than Words" or "The Joker" was entertaining. I found myself singing along to them and smiling rather happily. All I can say is that you need to avoid this movie unless you like completely idiotic humor. If it wasn't for some decent delivery from some actors that gave me chuckles, and an outtake with Troyer that made me laugh (that's right, an outtake was the best part of the movie), I'd say the movie was one of the worst movies ever made... actually it probably is.

Score: 1.5/10

Movie Review: The Strangers

2008-06-19T19:37:00.000-07:00

I understand what this movie was going for: the actual feel of terror that's based on mood, not by cheap shots. Well, it attained half of its goal. Throughout the movie, I felt that it was creepy, but not necessarily scary. Then again, the level of fear that's effective against one person isn't nearly as effective against others. So, I'll go point by point, and maybe that'll make a better understanding of what I felt.

Plot
-----
Couple of lovers who are apparently having a rather stressful day go up to a remote home, although under different circumstances than what was planned. Everything seems alright until a girl asks for someone that doesn't live there. Soon, the girl obviously comes back with others to bring havoc to the couple who try to find a way to outwit and escape their stalkers. Pretty generic, but serviceable. For those of you who want a comparison, think of "Vacancy," except with motives with as much meaning to it as "The Hitcher."

Acting
------
I will admit for a horror movie, I was impressed. I found the acting from Tyler and Speedman to be very believable. As stated by some others, they acted like they were truly frightened and panicked. It felt like they really were being stalked by a bunch of psycho's.

Mood
----
As I stated before, it constantly has a creepy mood to it. Sound and visuals are used in the appropriate place to set the mood. However, despite it actually being creepy, it was never actually SCARY. I found myself sitting in my seat calm and serene as I watched the movie play out. I suppose the reason it didn't really feel scary was because the movie felt predictable. Sure, I got a few shock jumps, but it was easy to see it all coming: when and where a person was going to jump out from, would the couple be alright by the end of the movie (I will say this, the beginning kind of gave you an idea, but even then, another moment with that ending felt predictable), etc. It just wasn't anything new, and therefore, I had no reason to be scared. I will say though, there WAS an instance that I definitely found surprising, and it was probably one of the more effective parts of the movie. I'm not gonna say much, but I will say a friend was involved.

DIRECTION
---------
These characters were given tight direction that resulted in a well paced, and intelligently acted (no pun intended) scenario. The actors were never idle and were always moving around the right way based on the scenario. They acted accordingly and intelligently in a situation that could have been deemed threatening or otherwise... of course, that's just my opinion. Also, I would have to say this would tie in with the mood, as it definitely kept the creepy mood going. However, it seemed that Liv Tyler's character was forced to do some rather... well, "curiosity killed the cat" actions that came right out of a teenage slasher flick.

OTHER NOTES
-----------
I have to say, as a first try by the director/ screenwriter, he did a very good job in trying to break free from the traditional "horror" movie. However, despite intentions of trying things new, his efforts fell flat. It seemed like the movie tried a bit too hard and ended up feeling like your usual horror film. It's a little hard to describe it. All I can say is that despite trying to do something different, the director didn't do it the right way. It eventually became extremely predictable, relied on jumpy moments to deliver the scares (and as I said, you could see them coming), and felt like it eventually turned into another typical horror flick. It's good for a single watch, but after that... well, it's best to leave it alone.

Score: 5 out of 10

Get Smart and Love Guru: Double Contenders

2008-06-19T18:14:00.000-07:00

Well, it looks like Get Smart and Love Guru are involved in more things things then one. As we all know, they are contenders for the #1 spot in the box office this week, with Get Smart being the predicted winner. However, they're already apparently predicted contenders in another competition: the Razzies. The IMDB studio briefing had this to say:

"Mike Myers's The Love Guru , which is being released on Friday, is receiving so many blistering early reviews that Los Angeles Times writer Tom O'Neil, who tracks films up for major awards in his column "Gold Derby," is predicting that the film may be a shoo-in for the Razzie for worst film of the year. For example, Moira Macdonald in the Seattle Times calls it "preadolescent humor with a few sitars thrown in." But Kirk Honeycutt in the Hollywood Reporter observes that Guru will have competition for the worst-film title from Get Smart, which also opens on Friday. Honeycutt concludes: "Quite possibly Love Guru will out-awful Get Smart.""

I have to say, I was a little surprised that these movies were already being thrown up for possible Razzies. I went over to Rotten Tomatoes, and I have to say that Get Smart seems to be in the clear... but Love Guru is understandably a a fair choice for a razzie. It already only has an 10% approval rating. I have to say that actually worries me. It's possible that it's just on a slow start, given how it hasn't hit its wide release yet. Or, it's just a crappy movie. I'm not too sure. Personally, I'm still going to watch both despite the reviews. I'm still going to be rooting for Get Smart though. I hope Love Guru isn't THAT bad. Well, time will tell this weekend. Hopefully I'll at least be entertained.

Gears of War Movie: Decent Director, Qestionable Writer

2008-06-19T14:46:00.000-07:00

Well, as many of us learned, we have our main makers of the "Gears of War" movie, Len Wiseman as the director, who directed Live Free or Die Hard and the Underworld movies, and Chris Morgan to write, who was the writer of Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, Cellular, and the upcoming Wanted movie. Now, some might wonder if this is good or bad. In my opinion, it's... possible it'll be good. I feel that the director shouldn't have any trouble, but the writer is another story. I have my reasons for thinking this.

Les Wiseman
-----------
He did an excellent job directing all his movies. Live Free or Die Hard had the manic, crazy action that one would want to see in a Gears of War movie. We had plenty of mayhem going around, which was especially showcased fairly when all of the street-wide technology went down. In Underworld, we see plenty of action that resembles the Gears of War game play: military operatives taking out any enemy they see right on sight. Now I will admit, I didn't like the second Underworld movie that much. It had a lame plot, some pretty bad acting, and some other problems. It just shows me that Wiseman is a better director than writer. Let's all remember, he's sticking to directing. So basically, we have the man who can handle mayhem AND stylish action. So I feel we have nothing to worry about here.

Chris Morgan
------------
Chris Morgan... he's got two movies on his resume. One was (kinda) hit, the other was (fairly) miss. Cellular was decent in my opinion. The movie was written to be fast paced, sensible, and had some decent dialogue. The premise was pretty good as well. FatF: TD, on the other hand... well, let me just say it was entertaining at least. Of course, if you've seen this movie, you'll realize that this contrasts Cellular to a greater degree. The premise was meh (then again, it was the THIRD FatF movie... still better than the second I suppose), dialogue was pretty bad, but on the plus side, it was all about the fast paced action. Although when I think about it, Gears wasn't about the dialogue. Then again, it was a game. When it's a game, you want to just destroy everything around you... the dialogue just had to be well acted. I still don't know what to think about this writer. I'll officially know what to think when Wanted comes out. If the writing appears to be in his favor, than I'll be comfortable with him writing Gears. For now... I just worry a smidge.

So, in my opinion, Gears has potential. Decent director with a questionable writer (but one who has potential, and I have my hopes for Wanted). It looks like with these two choices, Gears has a better chance of being good than bad. I hope it goes with those chances. For those of you who have their opinions, talk about what you think about this. Do you think these were wise choices?

Movie Review of the Day: You Don't Mess With the Zohan

2008-06-19T14:38:00.000-07:00

You Don't Mess With the Zohan is Sandler's latest comedy to hit theaters. I have to say though, this isn't necessarily his strongest movie. I'm not saying it's bad... I'm just saying it's not something I'd want to watch a second time. Normally I'm a Sandler fan; I loved Anger Management, Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison, and Big Daddy to name the ones I HAVE seen. This one... just felt a bit TOO wacky I suppose. It was the good kind of wack at first, but it soon became a repetitive wack that just became dull.

PLOT
----
As most of you know from the trailers, this is a movie about an Israeli counter-terrorist named Zohan (Sandler) who fakes his own death at the hands of a super-terrorist by the name of The Phantom (John Turturro), in order to start his new life as a hair stylist. I think as a main plot, it was serviceable as a Sandler one. It was goofy, something that didn't have to be taken seriously, and for the most part succeeds in the beginning. However, watching this with my father (who for the most part is another Sandler fan), we noticed the story eventually became uneven, throwing in several other story arcs, including a revenge plot from an Arab who had his goat taken from him after insulting the Zohan, The Phantom trying to kill the Zohan sub plot (which occurs in the beginning and continues near the end), the romance sub plot, and the growing tensions on the street between Arabs and Israelis... and an evil corporate tycoon trying to use that tension to his advantage to buy out everything. Basically, it suffered from the Spider-man 3 syndrome (aka too much is going on at once). It made the story feel uneven and disjointed. Really, the tycoon story felt kinda thrown in there, as it really served no purpose to the plot. Although Rob Schneider was a funny character, his character and plot really didn't fit in there as well, making it drag on. The fact that it constantly went here and there with everything just threw the balance. Then again, given the fact that there were 3 writers, its safe to say it was bound to happen.

COMEDY
------
I will admit it, the humor was stupid, but it was the good kind... at first. I admit that in the first hour, I laughed my head off as the movie progressed. However, as they basically used the same joke over and over again, I found myself laughing less and less... to the point where I was lucky to even chuckle. So basically what I'm saying is that the humor wasn't bad, it was just overdone. That was the key difference I found in this Sandler movie; usually it wasn't the same joke over and over again, and if they did repeat a joke, they gave it some time before they went back to it.

I have to say the cameos were probably the best part of the movie; seeing people like Chris Rock, Kevin James, and Mariah Carey pop up was delightful. I found it humorous how Mariah Carey was a complete self-absorbed diva (she might be, I don't know, but she did a good job acting out of character), and seeing Kevin James just compare Johnny McEnroe, who we all remember being a total "bad boy" in Mr. Deeds, to the terrorists was funny as well. I have to say though that seeing a red-neck fall into a gay party with George Takei and Dom Deluise just took the cake. I busted into laughter at Takei's reaction to his entry (if you've ever seen the Family Guy episode where Peter sues Dr. Hartman, you know exactly what to expect).

OTHER NOTES
-----------
Granted, there are less things to talk about then my other reviews, but in a movie that begs to be taken seriously, you have to focus more on the acting, direction, and other factors compared to a movie such as this. I would like to talk about the movie's message though. Something that I did find decent was that it constantly tried to show a message of peace, comparing the Arabs and Israelis and showing how ridiculous the fighting really is. It's definitely on of the riskier group to preach this message to, seeing how tense the relationship is between the two nationalities. It's even riskier given how the movie makes fun of them. So in closing, it's a funny movie, and it gives a message... but it only stays funny for a little while. The unfocused and uneven plot really didn't help either.

Score: 4.5 out of 10

A Birth of a Blog

2008-06-19T14:11:00.000-07:00

Well then, this is one small post for man... and, that's about it. Anyway, I'd like to welcome you all to the Multi-Media Blog headquarters. As stated, this will be a place where I will constantly talk about various forms of media regarding video games, movies, and most likely other bits of technology that appear to be major in our oh so interesting lives. Anyway, for those who come here, I hope you have an interesting time and receive the news and input that you all want and deserve. So sit down, relax, and read some posts. Have a good day, everyone.