Need For Speed

March 14th saw the release of the newest game inspired dice-roll, Need For Speed, starring the one and only Aaron Paul, who's probably now better known as Jesse Pinkman of Breaking Bad fame. Seeing him in this movie was kind of odd even though he plays a similar role. While I was disappointed that his script didn't include him calling anyone "bitch" one single time, I was also a bit let down that he couldn't find himself a more challenging role. After seeing him in Breaking Bad, we all know that he can act well enough of garner at least an Oscar nod if he played his cards right, and I would say that this character didn't really pander to his talents. The only scene of serious acting was one in which a grief-stricken Aaron, who's character is named Tobey Marshall, laments over a happening that's a spoiler which I'll refrain form ruining.

The rest of the cast is pretty good as well. Supporting actress (and misfortunately named) Imogen Poots has her first big role. Dominic Cooper, who the entire time I was convinced was actually Topher Grace, plays the antagonist whom I would complain was uncharacteristically douchey for no real reason, which is more a fault of bad writing than his. The only other memorable roles would be that of Tobey's energetic crew who are mostly in it for comic relief, not to mention, Michael Keaton is in this and plays a radio host who specializes in illegal street racing coverage and who's mostly there for remind the audience what's happening I guess. His inclusion felt necessary in the film, but in retrospect seems tacked on.

The plot isn't complicated and, as far as adaptations of plotless video games go, I guess I should be impressed. It centers around Marshall, a skilled street racer and mechanic who runs a shop with his couple of friends. Thanks to Cooper, who plays a guy named Dino Brewster, they end up losing the shop and Marshall spends two years in prison. After getting back out, he's confronted with a chance to reclaim his dignity along with $2 million in a high-stakes race on the far side of the country. He's got 48 hours to get there and by leaving the state, he breaks his payroll which ends up being the least of his many infractions.

Of course, I have to dock some points here for being too predictable. From start to finish, it isn't hard to guess what's going to happen next or figuring out the outcome of each sequence before it climaxes. Other than that, it's nothing too original, even as far as racing movies go. Sure it's pulled off well but that alone doesn't make it stand out or interesting.

One place where this film excels is in it's cinematography. Not only does this film showcase very little CG and more stunts than one could count, it's all shot very well. There's nothing that ruins some good action like a camera that seems like it's being held by meth-head and fortunately, we don't see that in Need For Speed. Stunts are shown clearly from multiple angles as if the filmmakers were highly proud of their work and want to show it off. That's how stuntwork should be done, not in barely visible blurriness that obscures what's likely a weakly performed trick. The dynamic camerawork heightens the action and gives a greater sense of speed as opposed to breaking it up with static laziness. Every shot and splicing is tight and important. Technically speaking, it's an impressive film.

Along with that goes it's sheer entertainment factor which receives a high mark here. The movie is, ironically, a bit slow in the beginning and some of the coke-addicts in the audience may get bored. The racing and chase sequences are all invigorating and pulse-pounding. How anyone could lose interest here is beyond me, though I've heard that's one of the major complaints against this film. In this instance, I'd blame the short-attention span of the audience. Sure you could say that going into a movie like Need For Speed, you expect a thrilling roller coaster ride, but don't fault the movie because your preconceived notions didn't line up.

As far as innovating, like I said, the movie wasn't anything completely new. It's highly reminiscent of the early Fast and Furious movies and I'm pretty sure Need For Speed was made in response to said increasingly over-the-top series. With absurd action, machine guns and strapping, sweaty combat sequences, it's safe to say that the string of movies that'd been running since the 90's, now six installments long, had gotten away from it's roots. Need For Speed intended to bring it back to what it's all about. Stunts and racing and it did. It has some stylish moments as well and manages to feel like a little more than just a movie on the screen.

So what the film comes down to is an all-around enjoyable experience. A good pop-corn movie that goes a little above and beyond the typical action flick standard by throwing in some emotion and style.

P:5.5

A: 7.25
C/VQ: 8.75

I/S: 7

EV: 8.5

7.4/10 - Enjoyable but nothing very memorable

Upcoming: Godzilla (New Trailer, More Insight)

It's been since December since the last update, and since then, a new Godzilla trailer has been released and more insight has been given on the plot. First, here's the theatrical trailer that released a few weeks ago.

Well, the first thing that I notice about this trailer is that opening line, "I want to talk to someone in charge." I'm wondering if that was an intentional reference to Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but it's possible that it's just a coincidence. The next thing I would pick out would be the shot at around 0:17. Notice those origami cranes looming over the city skyline like that? I seriously doubt that that was not a deliberate cinematographic move... perhaps foreshadowing?

But let's get to the important things. Have we learned anything new about the setting? Why, yes we have indeed. Gareth Edwards (the director) notes that this movie is about a global crisis and the trailer obviously is jumping all over the place. However there are a few shots that may hint to the main focus. Notice the desert setting and palm trees in many of these shots, then notice the Statue of Liberty. That background looks to be curiously unlike the New York harbor. Well, there are only three Liberty statues in the world and the only one that's in a desert is in Sin City. A Las Vegas setting seems like an incredibly unique idea for this movie, I don't think I've ever seen a monster movie that takes place there.

I love the idea that's suggested in this trailer that states that the nuclear tests taking place in the Pacific in the 50's didn't awaken Godzilla or mutate him from an iguana or something. No, they were trying to murder his ass. That's an amazingly un-cliche plot point for any giant monster movie, much more so for Godzilla.

Gareth pointed out in another interview that they are trying to capture an emotional aspect to the film rather than just go for straight dumb action. He said he expects people to tear up... not sure if he can make good on that promise but at least we can go into the theatre with the solace that it won't be a brain dead explosion fest. Evidence to this emotion is Bryan Cranston's performance, which we get to see a bit more of here. There's that one shot at 1:37 where he gets all choked up, presumably because he's being forced to part with whomever is on the other side of that closing blast door.

Also, Ken Wantanabe, whom you may remember as Ra's al Ghul from Batman Begins, has a great monologue in the latter half of the video. What role he has in the movie, there's no way to predict, but this part here almost makes him out to be an antagonist (which doesn't make that much sense, really).

Oh, and fuckin' a! We finally get a good glimpse at the new and improved King of the Monsters. It's a brief shot of him making his iconic roar and it only lasts for a few fleeting seconds, but hell, it's by far the clearest shot we've gotten to date. I really dig the updated image from what I've seen of it. It's clearly a new look but it's still recognizable as the Godzilla we all know and love, unlike the 1998 one which was so un-Godzilla like, it was renamed Zilla by Toho.
As for the enemy monster(s), there are all sorts of  forumers making all sorts of predictions. I've heard everything from Gigan to the Smog Monster being predicted, so what we'll end up with in the theatre is anyone's guess. The spider-like creature that I mentioned in my last post is still up in the air and the filmmakers have hinted at something called Muto which is sounding like it's going to be some kind of mutate insect type creature. I wonder if that's what that bizarre appendage at 2:07 belongs to. Speaking of which, go back to those hanging origami cranes from before. I wonder if that's implying that they will be more than one of those things... and/or that they can fly. But this is all just fan-made conjecture, what this Muto thing really is, no one can be certain.

Whatever all of these new hints and trailers truly mean, we can't know until we're in the theatre on May 16th. It's great to see that this film is shaping up to be something memorable made by someone who actually cares about the fans and the movie (and of course, Godzilla himself), rather than just someone who's in it to rape the name and be paid seven figures. Recent monster movies haven't seen much success, with Pacific Rim being a box office failure and critics speculate this is because the giant monster genre is old, tired and dead. I think this movie is going to prove all of them wrong. May 16th couldn't come soon enough and with so much of the movie being kept hush-hush under lock-and-key, it'll be fun going into the place not knowing what to expect. See you there.

Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island

Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island was the first and best direct-to-video, feature-length Scooby-Doo adaptations. After a five year hiatus from the canceling of A Pup Named Scooby-Doo, 1998 saw this film which may be responsible for starting the reemergence of Scooby-Doo that has continued with numerous films and TV series's, Scooby-Doo: Mystery Incorporated being the latest and greatest since Where Are You!

References kids don't understand. This show summed up

I've fancied myself a Scooby-Doo fan since I was a child. Although the original show, Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! predates me by a sizable margin, I watched it more than I watched Dragonball Z and I largely blame it for my horror obsession later in life. To this day, I still enjoy the show, whenever I can catch it on Boomerang, for it's deep roots in horror and it's humor (although I've found anything outside of the pilot series to be less redeeming). Despite that, the spin-off movies were great by my recollection, so I decided to revisit Zombie Island.

The movie starts with a classic chase through a gothic castle involving a Creature from the Black Lagoon lookalike. But as it turns out, it's just Daphne recalling the story during a talk-show. The characters are obviously more grown up now and we're quickly informed that the team has long-since split up. Daphne now hosts a show assisted and directed by Freddie, Velma runs a horror book shop and Shaggy and Scooby are baggage checkers at an airport.

Remember: This was pre-9/11

Daphne, bored of the hoaxes and costumes, desperately wants to find genuine, haunted houses. Fred decides to reunite the team and they set off unmasking ghosties "like old times".

Just when the gang is convinced they'll never find a legitimate story, they're invited to a bayou island that's hauntings are apparently the real deal. From then on, it's like a classic, light-hearted horror movie. They're told many times that the island is dangerous and that often people disappear, along with a few cryptic tales about the island's history but that only excites them further.

As the classic horror movie plot development goes, things start to get weird pretty soon but get creepier and creepier until you have an egregious pirate zombie attacking you. During this act, Fred and Velma busy themselves by trying to unravel the mystery but there's an underlying notion that maybe this case isn't some guy in costumes but something more...

The movie does occasionally sport some moments that are a little too childish, some of the acting is sub-par and this movie's enjoyment is probably limited to fans of the show but I think what's good about the movie overrides that.

Besides the fact that it's animated well, (interestingly done so by a Japanese studio called Mook Animation. I think just a tad of anime style carried over), it's humour and charm combined with a horror plot that's better than some legitimate movies I've seen, which boasts surprising twists actually make this a pretty rewarding watch. It's hard to rate this movie fairly just because I love Scooby-Doo, so it's a little biased, but I think it's veritably good. It's kind of hard to find, but if you ever do, give it a watch.

7.5/10 - Try it, you'll like it.

End of Watch

End of Watch is a movie that came out last year that stars Donnie Darko and Mark Walhberg's sidekick from Shooter who play the characters Taylor and Zavala, respectively. The film is told through the lens of Taylor's camera, who is chronicling a log about his work as a cop in the dangerous ass-end of LA. The entire movie is shot that way, through his cameras, which is interesting and gives the movie a unique flair, but it doesn't really add anything to the film and it could've been traded for the conventional method without any issue.
Being a cop drama, it's pretty gritty and riddled with language (actually it's the seventh most profane movie of all time). I guess the swearing was a bit over-the-top, but the violence is necessary and realistic. It's impressive that this film was even pulled off, given it's budget of a mere $7 million. I've seen movies that are way worse in every way that have several times that budget.

Ahem

None of that distracts from the story, though, which is heavily character driven. Speaking of which the acting is above top-notch; the characters are incredibly believable. You root for them the whole time and really want to see them through to the end. The only downside to that is that they're the only thing keeping the movie going. If it weren't for the protagonists, this would be just your run-of-the-mill cop drama.
It's a tragic and serious movie overall, but it shows that it can also be funny and lighthearted when it needs to be. Some of the transitions between those two moods are jarring but most of the time it works well.
Keeping this review brief, it's a good movie. Well written, well acted and it succeeds in seeming like something that could happen in real life. It also makes good use of Puscifer in it's soundtrack, so bonus points for that. If crime is your thing, this movie is a must.

8.5/10 - Memorable

Olympus has Fallen

I've been following the production of this movie for a little while now and I just arrived home after seeing it. It seemed to me like it was going to be a flashy, blockbuster-esque sort of flick where you turn off your brain and enjoy. Surprisingly, the movie wasn't quite what I was expecting.

It was actually quite grounded in reality. I didn't have a hard time suspending my disbelief because I never really had to. The only part that could probably raise speculation is the first action sequence, the siege on the White House, which serves as 'the big action scene.' It's got a bunch of flashy CG, a bunch of explosions and a bunch of death/destruction yadda, yadda. It's a pretty cool scene, but some people will undoubtably berate the film for being unrealistic in the ten minutes or so that it lasts.

Surprisingly, subsequent to that, the rest of the movie's action is quite tame. Gerard Butler goes around stealthily kicking ass with hand-to-hand combat, one terrorist at a time. The movie has itself an R rating, which is deserved. Fortunately, it's not one of those R action movies that throws in senseless violence, language and sex just to attain the rating; the violence in this movie is realistic and necessary. There's a disturbing scene where a woman is executed that effectively captures the grittiness of a terrorist situation and reminds the audience that this ain't no G.I. Joe: Retaliation and we're not fucking around. The film is successful in being suspenseful, rather than relying on cheap special effects, which did happen occasionally but mainly just in that one action scene. Unfortunately, some of it looked pretty bad, specifically the one shot where they throw the flag off of the White House. Y'know, that shot that made all of the posters?

But back to Gerard Butler, who is the main character as well as the co-producer. I'm quite fond of him after seeing his role in Law Abiding Citizen which is one of the best screen performances of the previous decade and in this he gives his usual job which is strong and believable. Needless to say, not even close to being on par with Law Abiding Citizen, but here it's not so much an emotional role as it was before, so it's not a fair comparison. The rest of the cast is strong too. No complaints as far as the casting goes.

The movie succeeded in investing me in the characters. It wasn't long before I genuinely wanted to see the good guys win and the bad guys lose, which is probably the most essential part of any film. If I can't get behind the characters, I'm not going to enjoy the movie, it's as simple as that.

While I'm on the subject, I did like the villains in this movie. They were North Koreans, which intrigued me, personally, because I've been heavily following North Korean politics for a lot of years now and it's a topic that piques my interest. But again, this film's bad guys are fun to hate.

After the disappointment of A Good Day to Die Hard, this movie is a breath of fresh air. Matter of fact, I'd say that this movie is more deserving of a spot in the Die-Hard franchise than it's most recent installment. It's clear throughout the film that it's very inspired, there are several nods to the first Die-Hard in particular that I'm guessing were quite intentional. I half-expected Butler to shout "Yippie ki yay!" in one scene (Spoiler! He didn't!).

So, overall, a good action film that slightly exceeded initial expectations. I enjoyed it. Matter of fact, I'll watch it again when it releases on home video.

8/10 - Above average action flick.

Dead Snow

What makes a good zombie movie? Most of the time, I'll walk away from this type of movie feeling it was a solid meh. A good zombie movie has to either be doing something really unique and different and/or be backed up by and very solid cast. Everyone seems surprised that I don't watch The Walking Dead. Well, that's why, the cast is terrible in that show. Let's be honest, the plot-line of a zombie apocalypse is not very interesting in of itself. It has to focus on the trials the characters have to overcome inside and out. So, where does the movie Dead Snow fit into this? Well, it doesn't. Remember that and/or statement back up there? Well, Dead Snow falls into the former of those two. It's fucking different.

The Norwegian film, Dead Snow, effectively shook up the western audience in 2009 after it's mild success in it's country of origin. I think it goes without saying for any film that depicts half of a severed head on the ground right on the poster, that it's balls to the wall, blood and gory-guts and this movie has no shortage of the good stuff.

No, sir.

This movie is a wet dream of badassery. A bunch of assholes go off into the mountains and Nazi zombies commence fucking their shit up. What else do you need to know and furthermore, how can you go wrong? This movie has it all from hanging off of a cliff by a line of intestines and fist fighting a zombie at the same time, to snowmobiles with mounted machine-guns, to improvisational chainsaw weaponry. It's definitely the sort of movie where you're expected to turn your brain off and just let it happen and people often forget that and critique the shit out of movies like this which is all wrong, it's just a drive in, grindhouse. With that kind of film, there really isn't much that can be said about it without talking about individual moments. It's just a movie about Nazi zombies in the cold, secluded peaks of Norway.

Red shows up nicely on white

So, gather some friends, find this movie, sit back and enjoy. It's one hell of a ride and I'd highly recommend it to any zombie fan.

7.5/10 - Check it out

Double Standards

The perceptions and standards of different forms of media

Can you remember all the way back to two and a half weeks ago when I posted about Mass Effect 2? I had briefly talked about how the sex scenes in that game were considerably less explicit than in the first game. This was because somewhere during the three year interval between the games, the first had come under fire from the media which was claiming that the game should be banned due to it's "graphic depictions of sex, nudity and sodomy." One blogger, Kevin McCullough, said about it,
"Mass Effect can be customized to sodomize whatever, whomever, however, the game player wishes," and "with it's 'over the net' capabilities, virtual orgasmic rape is just the push of a button away."

Now, obviously, this is a load of bullshit. After the media had been met with outrage from the fanbase and the devs, they retracted their statements. It turned out (not surprisingly) that not one of these accusers had ever once played the actual game. When they were shown the footage, one of them, an author named Cooper Lawrence, stated that she "has seen episodes of Lost that are most sexually explicit."

So, why the uproar over something that a public channel rated for ages 14 and up could get away with? Mass Effect is rated M for Mature. As the "Mature" part implies, it expects it's audience to actually be mature. But what that rating means, is that the content in the game is not appropriate for gamers under the age of 17. Keep in mind that that rating is equal to the film rating, R. Furthermore, Mass Effect is a video game. The characters, and anything, depicted within the game is digitally rendered, AKA not real people. Now, it's true that animating technology is quite amazing these days. We've come a long way from...

Yeah

But that still doesn't excuse the brazen disparity in treatment between the two mediums. Why does the media hold the video game to a different standard? No one ever had an aneurism over the sex or other such graphic content on TV or in the movies; parents bitch about it every so often, but there's generally not a huge upheaval.

The true issue at work here is simply a double-standard and in this case, it happened because something is defying a preconceived notion which, conscious or not, is deeply-held. Someone got word that Mass Effect had some sexual content and ran with it, probably sensationalizing it somewhat and everyone freaked out.

Trust me, if these games were half as graphic as people claim, they'd be much more successful.

So, where is the conflict here? It comes down to the fact that the older generation, the one making all of these accusations, grew up in a time where their kid's games looked like some obscure little bricks and you had to use your imagination. Games were generally aimed at a young audience and the content of those games reflected that. Over the years, as games became more advanced, they could flesh out and try to reach older generations as well. Nowadays, games have the power to shoot for any audience, there's no taboo on an M rated game, but despite this, the generation that knew the first games still holds that image in their mind. They unconsciously expect games to still be for kids. Therefore, the idea of explicit content seems abhorrant.

It begs the question, if the older generation can't handle some sex, but the younger one can and can just move on with their life, which is the more mature?

Behold, the most explicit frame in the entire trilogy.

This doesn't apply just to the realm of video games, although that is one area where it may be the most prevalent. Another area that a censure is held is anime. It's quite true that these days, anime has much more freedom than it did. There are plenty of no-barred, TV-MA shows that you can find.

Fucking ahem

Of course, it wasn't always this way. Back in the 80's, Dragonball Z had first came to the states. The infamous Canadian crew, Ocean, was responsible for the atrocious original english translation and dub of the show. Considerably less admonished, but still prevalent, is the horrible censorship of it; my personal favorite example is in one of the movies, Bardock's entire squadron was murdered by traitors and all he has to say is, "Those... meatheads!"

The older generation at that point was familiar with children's cartoons. The thought of having an animated show aimed at adults seemed silly. In other places, namely Japan, the medium had already reached an older audience, so shows like Dragonball Z were designed accordingly. If you've ever seen DBZ subbed, then you know that just about every other word is "damn". Regardless, the American culture refused to recognize that and the script was rewritten and scenes were cut to accomodate the young audience.

Now, I'm not condemning children's cartoons. Over time, people were slowly able to adapt to the idea of having a sophisticated and mature anime. It took anime a very long time for it to be taken seriously in the western hemisphere and it still isn't truly respected; most people assume it's all powering up and screaming, ignorant of shows like Eden of the East or Death Note.

On that note, this sort of standard is not simply for violence and sex, it also applies in the plot. Video games are at a point where they're finally starting to be taken seriously. That's why games like Heavy Rain can even be made.

That's a very high-brow and adult game. Games have come very far from charming fantasies like Mario or Zelda. Now, those games are great, no one disputes that. They're kids games but can be enjoyed by any age group. This generation of gaming is significant because it's debatably the first where sophisticated games like Heavy Rain and Mass Effect, that are geared towards a mature adult audience, can also see commercial success.

So, is this standard exclusive to anime and video games? No. It applies to cinema as well only in this case it's in reverse. In the modern day, movies are generally rather grounded in reality. Even the ones that aren't, the science fiction and fantasy, moviegoers have a hard time suspending their disbelief. They'll endlessly nitpick at films that have even trivial "mistakes" such as an unrealistic moment. Movies like Godzilla are unwatchable to a western audience; they just can't let themselves enjoy it. It's great to see that movies today can be as intellectual as they are, but it seems that you can never have both ends of the spectrum.

What could be done to refine the gaming standards? Making more games like Mass Effect and Heavy Rain. Over time, the generations will change, and the ones who are familiar with games such as this, will be used to the idea of a mature game and no one will freak out over trivial things like they did with Mass Effect.

Am I saying that all games should be full of violence and sex? No. Am I saying that all movies should be dumbed down? No. I just hate the idea of any medium being limited due to any sort of established precept. You shouldn't have to be forced to restrain a story based on some set of unwritten parameters. These mediums are often about expression. I'm not begrudging those "rules" because I want to see more graphic alien porn. The bigger picture is about the freedom. Throughout history, things like art and literature have been shunned due to this sort of conduct. It's unfortunate that similar things happen today. It's the kind of thing that can only be changed over time.

A Good Day to Die Hard

You may remember my mentioning this

Last month, when I published the article about most anticipated films for 2013, I had said that I'd do my best to go and see each film on that list. Well, A Good Day to Die Hard was on that list and it just came out on friday. I went to see it just a few hours ago and decided I may as well get the review over with.

Let me first start by saying that just prior to seeing the movie, I made the idiotic decision to take a glimpse at the ratings the movie was getting by critics on the internet. I was daunted by the horrible reviews it had garnered on sites like Rotten Tomatoes which gave it a disheartening one star. After seeing the movie, I can definitely say that that's way over-the-top. I'll give you my opinion on the film.

It's not as good as Live Free or Die Hard, not by a long shot. I didn't expect it to be, don't you expect it to be. For one thing, I'm not a big fan of Jack, John McClane's son in this movie. As far as being a sidekick goes, he's not at all on par with Justin Long from Live Free, who is unfortunately, absent from this movie. I don't know why he's not in it, I would've liked to at least see him have a few lines somewhere along the line. Long's dorky awkwardness perfectly coincided with McClane's brutish atitude and watching them scrape by the bad guys was very entertaining. Here, the two are kind of boring together, the personalities don't bounce off of each other humorously, they just exist.
In fact, other than Bruce Willis, the whole cast is pretty weak. The lead villain isn't even in the same world as the past ones such as Alan Rickman and Timothy Olyphant who were fantastic in their roles. The bad guys don't interest me. I don't care about their motives, I don't care about them in general, I don't even really want to see them dead because I found that I just didn't really care.
Besides the two leads and the bad guys, there really aren't any other characters. Why not? All of the other movies had a bunch of good guys, hell even Die Hard 2 was better in that respect.

At 90 minutes, the movie felt pretty short. It doesn't feel like it's rushed or anything, it just feels like there isn't enough plot to span it out any longer, like the plot is just an excuse for some action (Speaking of which, I'm not going to give away the plot, but I will say don't expect much). It's not anywhere near as interesting as the convoluted plot from the third one, it's not unique as the hacker one from the fourth one and it's not as simple as the thieves from the first one. It's just not very good. It was kind of weird, watching this movie. It was so unlike the other ones where there's all this stuff going on and development and whatever, this movie just kind of happened all at once (which is kind of hard to understand, but if you see it, you'll know what I mean).
I'm kind of against the idea of having it take place in Russia, whereas all of the previous ones were set in America. Yeah, maybe it was time for a change of pace, but it just kind of makes it stick out from the other ones.

Despite all of that, the action itself is amazing, It starts off strong with a crazy car chase that leaves dozens of vehicles in ruin and covers a lot of land. It's a great scene and had me on the edge of my seat. From there the action is all awesome too, but you may notice, as I did, that there's something curiously missing from it...
I think I figured out what it was. Much of what Die Hard and movies like it (e.g. 007) are all about at the core is taking the character, putting them in a situation where their survival is impossible and seeing how they survive. For instance, how the hell do you take out a helicopter with a car?

That's how.

The Die Hard movies are full of these. How do you get out of a pitch black highway tunnel? How do you get off of an exploding rooftop? How do you fight a jet with a truck? How do you kill an asian ninja bitch? (The answer is an SUV to the elevator shaft) A Good Day to Die Hard was largely absent of these moments, all of the action was just action. Shootouts and whatever else. If you changed the characters, it'd probably be completely unrecognizable as a Die Hard flick. The style just isn't there.
Everything flows so perfectly in the other ones like the way the Terminator statue falls on the delete button causing an explosion that kills the bad guy in Live Free. That was set up so well, y'know? You have that moment where you realize what's about to happen and you just lose your shit everywhere. I love that. That's Die Hard.

After all that, you probably think I hated it, but I didn't. I think it was still better than Die Hard 2, but I also think it could've been much better. Bruce Willis is still good in this movie and, like I said before, the action is great. This one is back to an R rating, as it should be, leaving Live Free or Die Hard as the only one with a PG-13 rating. Not that I have some sort of hardon for the word "fuck", but it's just not Die Hard if they're not dropping F-bombs all over the place. Fortunately, there is an unrated version of Live Free that includes all the violence and language, but it would be better if it were on the standard release rather than trying to pander to a larger audience by toning it down (PG-13 movies do better commercially than R). Besides, to my knowledge, it's not available on Blu-Ray and movies like Die Hard are much better when in high-definition.

As far as that one-star rating goes, I think the reviewer was in the wrong mindset. You can't go into a Die Hard movie expecting a riveting, multifaceted plot and in-depth characters; you go into a Die Hard movie to laugh at the jokes, cheer at the one-liners and gape at the action. People these days seem to be incapable of changing their mindsets and on a related note, suspending their disbelief. That's kind of depressing to me because when you limit yourself like that and don't allow open-mindedness, you miss out on a lot of great movies. I know people who I can't get to watch Studio Ghibli movies because they immediately dismiss it as "too weird" and drop it, not knowing they're missing out on a compelling story. The same goes for anime, people won't watch high-brow shows like Death Note or Fullmetal Alchemist just because it's anime. They instantly assume it's all

Which is great, don't get me wrong.

Not knowing it's more intelligent and engaging than 90% of the shit on American TV.

But anyway the movie was pretty decent, check it out if you have nothing better to do but it's not worth canceling your wedding over.

5.5/10 - Flawed but decent overall.

Skyfall

Just realized that I never did a formal review of this movie

What was I thinking, not doing a review of Skyfall? Well, I'll attempt it now anyway.

I did see this movie in the theatre and it recently came out DVD, so I had another chance to see it. As far as the action aspect goes, this movie is awesome. It's brimming with fantastic stunts right from the get-go. In standard Bond fashion, the action starts immediately and damn is it awesome. There's a great stunt where Bond drives a motorcycle over a bridge onto a moving train. Shit was cash. A lot of the hand to hand combat scenes were done free-flow, all in one take, which is a trend I've seen in a few movies now, for instance, The Book of Eli. I love it. I can't imagine all of the work it would take to choreograph that to get it all in one shot. And hey! This movie used CG right! That gives it my seal of approval!

The acting was awesome too. I've become a fan of Daniel Craig over the past several years so, it's always nice to see him. Judi Drench as M is great in this movie and, in my opinion, is the best she's ever been out of the times she played M. Ralph Fiennes, who you may recognize as Voldemort, plays a smaller role than the other actors, but gives a great performance as always. But the actor who steals the show, is Javier Bardem as the insane and eccentric Silva, who is the lead villain. You may recognize him as the also insane role he played in No Country for Old Men, Anton Chiguhr.

He is absolutely phenomenal in this movie. I think he was better in this movie than he was in No Country for Old Men. There's something about the way he says every line that he comes off as actually being quite funny. There were several scenes that had the audience laughing in the theatre, but I won't give any of it away.

This movie is unlike the other bond movies in the sense that, it explores the character Bond much more than the previous installments. What we have in this movie is an imperfect Bond. He makes mistakes, he doesn't get the girl, he's not the 100% perfect and suave killer that he's often portrayed as. He's only human. The line of work that he leads would take it's toll on anyone and it does to Bond, both physically and emotionally. Along with that, it's also the only 007 movie to give some serious backstory on Bond, but again, I won't give any of it away.

I'd say that this one was a huge improvement over Quantum of Solace, which I thought was pretty far down on the list of best 007 movies. When I first saw Skyfall, I thought that it was inferior to Casino Royale, but on a second viewing, I think I would alter that statement and say that Skyfall is the better film. The acting is great, the action is great and it goes where no other Bond film has gone before. On another random note, I really like the name, Skyfall. It kind of stands out when you compare it to other Bond movie titles such as the other two in this new trilogy, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. It's cool.

It's too difficult to think about exactly where this would go right now, but I think this would have to be somewhere within the top 5 007 movies of all time. It's a great film and I highly recommend it, even for a non-fan. There were scenes in the movie where the audience laughed, cheered and was captivated into dead silence. Only a great movie can do that and this movie is just that. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that this is my favorite movie to have come out in 2012.

10/10 Amazing. Do not miss this movie.

Top 8 Potential Videogame-Based Movies

If you're a video game fan

Then you must know how disappointing it is to wait and wait for your favorite title to be adapted, only to have it be done by Disney or star Angelina Jolie (i.e. suck major dicks). I can't think of any video game movie that left me not pissed off much less satisfied. This happens for many different reasons. A lot of times, it's just because the game doesn't have a lot of plot to it. Mortal Kombat isn't exactly known for it's rich storytelling and yet they attempted it nonetheless. Other times, it's because the game has too much plot. This is often the case with adventure games and RPGs especially. Seriously, try to cram an Elder Scrolls game into two hours. Not easy.

Another issue is that the directors and generally everyone involved in the filmmaking process, were not part of the generation that played the games therefore, they don't have any real respect for it. Of course there are less excusable reasons as well. Sometimes, it's just because the filmmakers had no understanding of the game at all and were simply too damn lazy to ask the creators or the fans and just gave it their own interpretation. And of course, there are the douchebags who just cash in on the name of the franchise and don't even try.

I'll be damned if this man so much as touches a fan-fiction.

But at any rate, weather or not game-based movies can be done well, I've compiled a list of what I think are the games with the best potential to be done well. Not saying any of them should be adapted just because of that rant up there, but if it's ever attempted, it'd damn-well better be someone who knows what they're doing. I'm going to exclude the ones that are absurdly obvious, e.g. Alan Wake, considering it's practically a movie as it is. Let's go.

8. Dead Space

I think Dead Space could be adapted into a pretty respectable sci-fi/horror movie as well. I think it could be done well if put in the right hands. It'd certainly be an edge of your seat thriller... oh yeah, it'd have to be gory as hell, otherwise, I wouldn't accept it.

7. Bioshock

And while I'm on the subject of horror games, this was one that got rumored a ton a year or so ago (maybe two). It could be made into a very good suspense/thriller/horror movie and it has a unique and interesting plot that's much more intelligent than most of the movies coming out these days. I'd see it.

6. Metroid

Who could say that this wouldn't be awesome? A tightass space bounty-hunter flies around on her ship and fucks up gnarly looking aliens. That has Hollywood written all over it. The main issue with making this movie would be getting the rights. Nintendo is really stingy with that sort of thing; I've read about what the guys down at Wreck-It Ralph had to go through, but if those rights could be acquired, it'd be a bitchin' movie. I think having Nintendo breathing down the filmmakers necks, as they tend to do, would actually help in this situation. No one wants to see a Mario Movie made out of Metroid. This movie is actually being rumored about right now, I hear. I've learned to ignore rumors because they're typically too good to be true, but you never know...

5. Halo

Yeah, you must've known that was coming. I remember this was rumored to be released in 2007 and it seemed pretty legit from the online hype and garnered some mention in some gaming magazines. I got really excited and then 2007 came around and nothing. I think that Halo has one of the best plots in it's genre, as far as shooters go. If anything, it'd make a badass summer blockbuster that would annihilate the box office. But who would ever think that making one of the most popular gaming franchises into a movie would be a good idea? And yes I know "H" is a stupid name, these posters aren't too easy to find, y'know what I'm dealing with here?

Yeah.

4. Uncharted

Remember when you could look forward to an Indiana Jones movie? Crystal Skull was a let down, for sure, but that doesn't mean that that style of movie can never be reproduced. Meet Uncharted. A game that is, at the core, very much Indiana Jones inspired and it's got a great and dramatic plot to boot. It'd certainly make for an memorable adventure movie.

3. Assassin's Creed

This series definitely falls into the category of having an overwhelmingly complicated and large plot, but I think it could be done very well if handled with care. Start with the first one, which would be the easiest. It has the least plot development, but it's gritty and suspenseful. If/when they ever made a second one, then that'd be where the plot really picks up. Maybe try to merge ACII with Brotherhood? It just takes some careful writing. It's all a matter of deciding what can be left out and what can't. Then you work from there.

 2. Mass Effect

I just published my Mass Effect article and mentioned that I would've certainly put it on this list had I had prior knowledge of the game at the time of it's writing. Thankfully, with the internet, I can edit this article and throw this in. Mass Effect is already a very cinematic game so, adapting it to a movie wouldn't be all that difficult. Just cut out much of the quests but keep the core storyline, with Saren and whatnot, intact. Also, keep the finale exactly the same. It was badass as hell. This would, of course, be the first of a trilogy which would make great summer blockbusters, if nothing else.

1. The Legend of Zelda

Duh. Of course. No shit. Obviously.

How could I not put LoZ here? The iconic series of games could be easily adapted into what could be an unforgettable fantasy film. I don't think anyone would want anything other than the main candidate for the source material to be The Ocarina of Time. That would be my choice too. It wouldn't be extremely hard to adapt, it's a very (very) unique plot, and it's probably the most beloved of all of the games. You don't have to look far to see all kinds of shit like that poster there surrounding this movie that probably will never exist. There are even entire fake trailers that have been made.

If you think about it, there are so many distinguished moments and scenes from OoT alone to make a movie. The Deku Tree, the Time Chamber, pulling the Master Sword, the Ocarina ect. Yeah, you could cut out a lot with all of that medallion collecting shit and probably all of the children quests if need be, and fill it with whatever else, it really doesn't matter much as long as the core story is the same and the iconic moments are still there... and of course it's important that it resembles the  games, I know this, non-existent commenters. Unfortunately, like Metroid, Nintendo would not sacrifice the rights to Zelda so easily, you'd have to convince the shit out of them. If the cards were played right and it was done by a true fan, The Legend of Zelda could very well be one of the greats of cinema.

Tying this all together...

It's hard to imagine a videogame-based movie being critically praised and going down in history but there's no reason to say that it's not possible. Movies are based off of other things most of the time anyway, hell they once based an entire movie off of a commercial. My point is, is that the only thing that's holding us back from achieving that goal of a great videogame movie is doubt and a lack of respect and appreciation for games which can and should be held to the same standards of cinema or literature. They're all just ways of expressing a compelling story and there's no good reason why mixing them won't work.

Pictured: A compelling story

The Descent

First things first, a thank you to my, I guess, existant fanbase, for recently giving me my 1000th page view! Alright! I do hope that you guys are readers and not just stumblers who quickly skim and move on because I put some thought into this shit. Nahh, anyway, I've been wanting to get around to this movie for awhile now. I'd heard a lot of good things about it, so I naturally wanted to check it out.

Well, my first complaint is the beginning. It's real slow. I think it's purpose was to let us get to know the characters before the movie picks up, which is naturally a good thing to do, but it doesn't do it well. The characters are mostly indistinguishable from each other and got them all mixed up anyway. Besides, it's not that important to know who's who, considering it's not a character driven story at all and I only ended up needing to remember two of them. The acting is what you'd expect from this type of movie... meh. It's not great by any means, but it does it's job and is just good enough so that it doesn't detract from the rest of the movie.

The plot is delightfully simple. A group of girls venture into an unexplored cave, get stuck and are attacked by monsters. For what it is, it's definitely more of a thriller than a horror movie (but thriller is just a subgenre of horror anyway). It's set up really well. You get glimpses of the monsters, they find old spelunking equipment and bones. Once the monsters come out, all hell breaks loose and the movie picks up a little. Unfortunately, just about all plot development ceases from there on and it's just about getting out but it's paced very well. It's like the director said, "[We didn't want to] take it up to 11 in the first few minutes and [not be able to] keep it up. We wanted to show all those terrible things in the cave: dark, drowning, claustrophobia. Then, when it couldn't get any worse, make it worse."

This movie is riddled with horror cliches, which, in turn, makes it pretty predictable. It's not like it'd be a feat to guess the ending from the beginning, I did. People venture off alone, there are jump scares, dreams; y'know, all that good stuff.

Another thing, I think the movie is too gory. It's not that I can't handle it or anything, but I think that the violence makes the movie feel a little lopsided. It's just too much for it's own good and it just doesn't feel scary. It would be better if the gore was more conservative and it relied more on suspense. This is a movie that could do really well and be terrifying if it were focused on that but it goes straight for the blood. I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering it was the same guys that made Saw and Hostel.

The cinematography is surprisingly good in this movie. The cave shots are all well done, and look very real. Apparently they were built at Pinewood Studios in London because filming in a cave is naturally, dangerous and time consuming, but you wouldn't know that just by looking at it, like I said, the sets are made very well. They effectively create the dark and claustrophobic atmosphere they were going for.

I really like the way the monsters look in this movie. They crawl around the caves, blind and screaming and look like bizarre goblins. They're quite creepy and they make a hell of a mess when they kill things.

The action in the movie is largely centered around fighting them and getting out and the action sequences are cool and all, but like I said before, I wished they'd gone for more of a suspenseful sort of approach. Maybe if they ran from them more often than they tried to fight them, for instance. Imagine scrambling through the cramped catacombs with those snarling beasts on your heels? That'd be a pulse-pounding sequence.

Well, anyway, for what it is, the movie is pretty good. It's not as good as the internet hype IMHO, but it's still entertaining. Not a very memorable movie by any means.

5/10 - Just your average film