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

Non-Stop

Non-Stop released in American theatres about two weeks ago by the time of this writing and I saw it last Saturday. It's an action/suspense thriller that's set on an international flight 40,000 feet in the air. To be clear, this is not a shoot-em-up sort of movie where everything explodes and yadda yadda. In fact, there's not much with which to fuel explosions at all since almost the entire film is shot aboard the plane.

The plot is actually very straight forward. Liam Nesson plays an Air Marshall who boards the flight like it's any other day. It isn't long before he starts to receive some highly sketchy text messages from an unknown person who threatens to kill a passenger every twenty minutes until $150 million is wired to some account of his. Nesson, whose character is named Bill Marks, takes this very seriously right off the bat, though his colleagues think he's just overreacting. In classic Jack Bauer form, he defies the commands of his superiors in order to stop the terrorist at any cost.

Liam Neeson is often typecast as the troubled cop-type character with a broken family and in this he's no different. Bill Marks has recently lost a daughter, his wife is God knows where (I don't recall it actually mentioning much of her), he's been discharged from the police force and on top of all that, he's a struggling alcoholic. One of the twists of the film comes about when the media gets hold of the developing crisis and starts slandering Marks to make him look like a delusional drunk who's hijacking the plane either for his own selfish benefit or just because he's gone mad. Despite it being his usual role, Neeson plays it well and makes it seem like a new character.

The other cast members are also pretty strong. In the airport scene before boarding the flight, the film briefly has a few shots of each character that's going to be important at some point in the flight. Julianne Moore plays a somewhat OCD woman named Jen Summers who, at first, I thought would be more of a throwaway character (just to get another big name) but she ends up being instrumental in the plot.

An interesting face to see was Cory Stoll who you may recognize as Peter Russo from House of Cards. He plays pretty much the same character except instead of a politician with a shitty attitude, he's a cop with a shitty attitude. Along with him are mostly C-level actors like Scoot McNairy, Michelle Dockery and Nate Parker who all play important roles that are each defined from each other.

But the real question is, does the movie deliver? Why, yes, it most certainly does. Non-Stop really is a non-stop ride from start to finish. It's paced in the opening scenes but once it gets going, it's full throttle suspense through and through. One possibly weird way to summarize this film would be if you combined the novel Airframe by Michael Crichton with the movie Scream. Drama and intrigue on a commercial jet where everyone is a suspect and keeps you guessing at the true killer until the very end. I'm usually fairly adept at figuring out the twist of a movie before it hits (Shutter Island was obvious), but I can honestly say here that I didn't see it coming until it came and it's not like the film just pulled some unguessable deus ex machina out of thin air, it makes sense. What looks like a simple heist from the outside may actually run a lot deeper.
After hunting the elusive killer down, uncovering several accomplices and having to work against the uncooperative passengers, police force and media, it all comes down to a final harrowing climax which is where most of the movie's action comes from. There are a couple of other combat scenes scattered about to keep you on your toes, one very exciting one in particular that involves the impossibly close quarters of the lavatory, but all flashiness is saved for the end. This contrast serves to make the final scenes that much more intense and by then your pulse will be way above usual.

There are of course some things that bring it down. The main issue I have with the movie is that by the end of the film, there were several plot points that seemed sketchy. Not that they were conflicting or that there were plot holes, rather there were a few mysteries that were simply never explained. You wouldn't likely notice it thanks to the editing and the fact that you're generally too concerned with what's happening to think about it, but further reflection warranted some areas that needed clarification. This is one of those few times that I really wish the villain had gone off on some gaudy speech explaining how he did everything. I suppose it's more realistic that the villain doesn't, but it's lazy writing if you ask me. The film was obviously not intended for the Michael Bay audience and expects us to not be stupid so it's not excusable to make that sort of error.
Overall, Non-Stop was a film that had some flaws but watching it, you'd be way too wrapped up in the heat of the moment to care. Definitely the thrill-ride that it promises and highly worth the watch.

9.25/10 - Very thrilling, keeps you guessing.

Iron Man 3

After much deliberation, I finally decided to bite the bullet and watch this movie. If you've read some of my past posts, you probably know that at this point in time, my relationship with the superhero franchise is not great. Captain America, Thor, Iron Man 2, The Wolverine, The Incredible Hulk and The Avengers were all disappointments and I had all but given up on the comic book craze. That is until I gave this one a watch and found a bit of gleaming redemption amidst the rest of the overhyped series.

As convoluted as most of these films are getting, the plot of Iron Man 3 is fairly straight forward. This terrorist named Mandarin wants to shake things up here in little ol' America and he does so via a string of seemingly untraceable bombings. It isn't long before these get a little too personal for Tony Stark, who's been suffering from bouts of immobilizing panic attacks, when his chief of security, Happy, is seriously wounded in one such attack. The always cocky Tony Stark takes it upon himself to challenge this Mandarin guy by broadcasting a threat to him over the news and it's just all downhill from there.

I'd like just to make a quick note that I find it somewhat disturbing that some of the terrorist bombing stock footage used in the movie were real bombings where real people really died. Of course, you wouldn't know that unless you spent some amount of time on Liveleak thereby recognizing the videos, but it's still kind of a fucked up thing to do if you ask me.

In a classic, this-type-of-movie cliche, one of the early scenes exhibits Tony showing off some fancy new gadget. This particular trick allows each of the components of the suit operate independently to remotely locate Stark wherever he may be and form the suit right there on the spot. While that may sound like the most ominous deus ex machina in action film history, Iron Man 3 is thankfully above that and doesn't cop-out in the heat of the action. Also on the other side of the spectrum, it's nice to note that this trick wasn't tossed in to only be used in one or two scenes, it's actually fairly essential and sees implementation in several scenes.

One of the things that makes this particular installment excel way beyond the dismal Iron Man 2 is it's high entertainment value. Iron Man 2 was too dull, too simple and too stupid to live up to it's far superior predecessor and with only two rushed scenes featuring the main antagonist actually fighting, it was highly disappointing. This one has much more action and doesn't feel so much like a sequel for the sake of being a sequel. One sequence in particular has Stark trying to catch a bunch people who were just sucked out of a falling airplane. It feels like a classic superhero kind of situation and his solution to it is clever. I also enjoy watching Stark's in-the-moment problem solving, as he employs little foresight whenever in a tense situation and rather opts for whatever can fix the immediate danger that he's in (e.g. launching out of his suit to avoid an attack but not having given any thought about where he intends to land). Of course just straight action doesn't make a film and this one still does not quite live up to the original film which was more intelligent by comparison.

And of course there are things that bring this film down. As a trade off to the greater amount of action, it's unsurprising that much of it tends to be pretty over the top with too much CG, however, if you're coming off of The Avengers, it'd probably look like the fucking Bourne Identity. It also suffers from the same problem as The Wolverine, as it fails to make any substantial developments in the protagonist's character. Sure, there's some kind of visible change that we can see, but like The Wolverine, I don't feel like we needed an entire movie just to cover it.

It also has some pretty stupid moments in it like in one scene where a kid doesn't recognize Tony Stark but then shows him a newspaper that he happened to be holding that has Tony Stark's face on the front page. I noticed that on my first casual viewing so I get the feeling that this is one of those movies that's potentially riddled with little plot flubs like that (if you've ever seen the CinemaSins episode, you know what I'm talking about). And of course there's the glaring "Where are the Avengers" thing, which I guess is going to be an unspoken plot-hole for the rest of comic book movie history. On top of that, I find it kind of lame that anyone can just throw on a suit and become Iron Man; who the hell needs Tony Stark in that case? It kind of destroys the sanctity of the superhero if anyone can be him and, I know I'm not as well versed on my comic book knowledge as I used to be, but isn't it that glowing thing inside Tony's chest that powers the suit? So how can anyone else fly it?

Also pretty stupid is the fact that you'd have to be an idiot to not realize that a certain character becomes the main bad guy even though the movie sets it up to seem like he's just a nice dude. Finally, I think that the Christmas setting was a gimmicky idea that just shouldn't of been done, this isn't Die Hard, people.

Also notable of this film is that holy shit, this is the fifth highest fucking grossing film of all time. Yeah, with a budget of $200 million (which is actually not too insane for movies like this anymore), it made 1.2 billion dollars. As these comic book films become only more and more impossibly popular the rate at which they are made (and hopefully the quality but don't hold your breath) can only be expected to continue going up. So hopefully, for your own sake, you're not yet sick of these movies because there's no way in hell that they're going away anytime soon.

So Iron Man 3 is actually not too bad a film. It's redeeming over the rest of the superhero flicks that have been flying out of Hollywood faster than one can count. It's still no masterpiece but it's entertaining, good action and maybe even worth a watch.

7.25/10 - Redeeming but still not great

The Crow

The darkest film in recent memory, The Crow, despite it's stylish appearances, is actually not an indie film. It's also probably one of the most black metal movies in existence, complete with tight leather, corpse face paint, ceremonial knives, gothic churches, angst, a fucklot of rain and a fucklot of night (all it needs is some Burzum). While it does come off as a somber and grim film, it manages to stay from bleakness and depression and doesn't leave the viewer unhappy.

The story goes that on October 30th (that's right, another Halloween film) some gang members are running about Detroit committing random crimes, as is the tradition of the annual Devil's Night. They break in upon a random, unsuspecting couple, who as fate would have it were to be married the next day, and brutally murder both of them. Skip ahead a year, and the murdered man, Eric Draven is awakened from his eternal slumber by a crow that alights upon his headstone. One of the interesting things that happens here is that Eric comes back delirious and totally confused and he stumbles after the crow through some rainy alleyways before he manages to make it back to his destroyed apartment where he recalls the events that led to his death. He cuts his hands on some glass only to watch as they immediately heal before his eyes in a Wolverine inspired way. He then dons his freakish face paint and sets out to find his killers.

If one were to take V for Vendetta and replace V with Rorschach from Watchmen and then set it in Sin City, the result would be The Crow. It's a surprisingly captivating supernatural action/thriller and feels completely fresh and unique. The main character, Eric, is such an interesting protagonist in that he is a good guy who follows a definite moral code, showing itself at several pivotal moments, but he's also fairly insane, acting out erratically and killing his victims in creative and resourceful ways. Not only can he heal himself, but he's an incredible fighter and he also can telepathically see through the eyes of the crow that guides him.

With a plot that sounds like an exploitation, drive-in gorefest, it doesn't come off as one in the least. It may actually suffer from the opposite problem, as it's just a bit too preachy with the philosophic aspect and may overstep its bounds just a bit as it gets into some quotes about love that just seem a bit out of place, not to mention the aforementioned angst. However, I've seen far, far worse offenders of that particular sin, so it's forgivable. Another somewhat weak point in this film is one of the main characters, a young girl named Sarah, who was cared for by Eric and his fiancé, doesn't particularly interest me. She has an important role and provides morality checks for Eric, but overall she's a fairly uninspiring addition to the film.

While also sporting some pretty awesome acrobatic action sequences that refrain from the cliche Matrix-esque over-the-top stuff. One scene in particular involves a lightning quick shootout in a huge meeting room that seems to belong in a big budget action film, followed shortly thereafter by a rooftop sword fight that's equally impressive.

It's an altogether unique and melancholy film that has amassed a minor cult following since its release. Rightfully so, as this one is worth the watch.

8.25/10 - Unique and worth it.

Satan's Little Helper

The small-scale cult horror film, Satan's Little Helper, actually has nothing to do with Christmas, despite the misleading pun in the title. It's a Halloween film that borrows from a few of the classic slasher films while managing to create something completely new. While having an obviously meager budget, this direct-to-DVD flick doesn't often show it, apart from having a low-quality camera and some less than oscar winning acting and it makes up for it in full thanks to it's inventiveness.

The plot goes that some kid named Dougie is obsessed with a game called Satan's Little Helper, wherein the goal is to cause all sorts of mayhem and mischief under the careful guidance of Satan. In fact, this kid is so into the game that he actually dresses up as Satan and he never talks about anything else. Seriously, I'm not sure if the kid has one single line that isn't directly related to Satan. Anyway, on Halloween night, he happens to bump into a mysterious character who's dressed up as the creep pictured above. The boy immediately latches onto his side and the wordless Satan employs him in order to carry out his bidding. What is said bidding? Well it mostly consists of murdering random people as well as foraying into nigh teenage level mischief as he impersonates a boyfriend in order to feel up a girl, steals candy from a convenience store, poisons a punch bowl and other such random crime.

It's a highly original concept that manages to be pretty creepy. One would think that Satan's eccentric affinity for goofing about with menial rebelliousness to be off-putting, but it adds a this-could-totally-happen-in-real-life aspect to it that in turn is disturbing in its own right. Though, don't mistake this film for scary, it's more of a dark comedy if anything else. Satan's law-breaking is often fabulously high-profile and his mannerisms can be funny just to watch as he carries out his actions with no regard to his own well-being.

There are a few things that bring it down of course. The lead child actor is pretty obnoxious and is over-the-top in all the wrong ways and you'd think that any self-respecting parent would be at least somewhat concerned with Dougie's avid obsession with Satan and Hell. Some of the crimes are simply too absurd to get away with, for instance there's a scene where Satan brings a fully-conscious, taped up hostage to a costume party and no one seems to care. Granted it's a costume party but it's stupid to think that anyone viewing the situation wouldn't guess that something was amiss. Not to mention, some of the character's thought processes make no discernible sense for example in one scene where a character wrongly believes that the guy in the Satan costume is his own father.

I would also note that the film sort of loses steam once Dougie gives up his blistering naïvety and figures out that Satan isn't playing a game. Then it sort of devolves into the characters trying to track the bastard down and in this, it runs on a bit too long for it's own good. There were several parts over the course of it's hour and 36 minute runtime where the film could've simply ended and would've had a decent cliffhanger, instead of trudging on to the point of mild campiness and reusing a few of it's gimmicks.

Satan's Little Helper is a pretty fun, slightly above-average horror flick that entertains with its unique ideas and macabre sense of humor. It's a good one to watch if you've got nothing better to do.

6.5/10 - Inventive. Not bad.

V/H/S

V/H/S is a horror film that does not follow the conventional plot progression of most films. It's one of those rare anthology horror movies wherein it is comprised of multiple smaller, "short" flicks put into one. It's much in tune with the drive-in sort of feel and reminds me strongly of a modernized Creepshow.

The story goes that a group of deviant, rapscallion twenty-year-olds carry out all sorts of high-profile law-breaking on camera for money. These sort of acts include breaking into a warehouse and destroying everything in sight, or attacking a random woman on the street and pulling her top off. So in short, they're real charmers.

One of the stunts they're tasked with, at the request of an anonymous source, is to break into a specific house to steal a video tape. Upon entry, they find that the only resident is a dead man sitting in front of a TV turned to static, who seems to have had a collection of hundreds of unmarked video tapes. So they start grabbing them all up in order to ensure that they get the right one. While this is happening, one of the criminals stays back to play whatever tape was in the VCR. The rest of the film is just the contents of this tape and a few other subsequent tapes that are inserted afterword.

It's unfortunate to note that the contents of these tapes, that is the selling point, are none too interesting. I found that they were all very much the same, i.e. "something is stalking me/us in the end it kills me".

The first is about some guys who are trying to record an amateur porn with a spy camera that's placed on the glasses of one of the perverts. As it happens one of the chicks turns out to be something other than human and she viciously murders two of them; and I mean fucking viciously, it actually shows her tearing off a dude's dick and balls. Why that's needed at all, I have no idea, it's obviously just in there for shock-value. Anyway, the third guy, who couldn't be worse at running away, makes it all the way outside before the demon-girl-thing sprouts bat-like wings and takes him away... so basically, what the fuck.

Demon-chick before demon-mode.

It's unfortunate that this film seems to stray away from being genuinely creepy; it almost gets there several times. Rather, it's more partial to gross-out gore, which is fine in small doses. Say, for instance, if only one of the tapes contained anything graphic, that'd be effective. Cramming violence into all of them is boring, cliche and not scary at all.

The following tape is worse, not in it's gore-factor, but in it's necessity. It's just about newly married couple on a honeymoon doing normal things. However when they spend the night in a motel, someone wearing a hood breaks in and removes $100 from the guy's wallet, pulls out a switchblade and doesn't do anything with it and scariest of all, throws a toothbrush into the toilet. The next day, the couple does more normal shit and then the following night the hooded person breaks into their motel again, this time stabbing the dude in the throat with the switchblade. Then we see the hooded guy is actually some chick and she starts making out with the woman who's husband just died and then it ends.

So not only is this installment not even remotely scary, it serves no point. Why should I care about the going ons of some couple I know nothing about and am not invested in. Not to mention, it's the only tape without anything supernatural going on, which only furthers the notion that it's simply adding runtime which thusly stands just shy of two fucking hours which is just way too long.

It's almost as if they tried to make them as cliche and predictable as possible and in that they succeeded.

The next clip is nothing short of a Friday the 13th knockoff and is about four teenagers who head out to a remote lake in the woods because one of them goes there every year. Ten seconds into this episode and you'd have to be an idiot to think that any of them are going to survive. But that's not enough foreshadowing already because we then get to hear the girl tell a chilling story about how a bunch of people were killed at this very lake! I mean, it isn't like we've all heard this a million times before, right? Well, as it turns out, there's a killer afoot who is only partially visible and appears to be obscured by glitchy tracking-errors and the girl lured all of her friends here in order to try and kill this guy. She fails, he kills all four of them with ease and eviscerates the girl. Fucking exciting.

There's almost no point in continuing to summarize these, they're not very interesting or very different. It bugs me that they all ended up using the same tired gimmicks over and over again. The found footage genre is clearly on it's last legs and by the end of this film, I was sick of it.

Creepshow remains the time-tested best example of an anthology horror movie. In that film, you get five totally different flicks that play on cliches but just enough so that it's not predictable and it's mixed with inventiveness that you don't see anywhere else. What we have in V/H/S is unvaried sameness that is only made worse by the found footage aspect which, while convincing and well done, serves to make all of the films that much more identical.

I think V/H/S had a lot of potential. If the content of the tapes had been genuinely creepy and mysterious rather than just gory and predictable, it would've made for a much more chilling experience. Don't show us three guys getting killed by a monster, there are literally hundreds of movies where that exact thing happens. Show us something we can't explain, something that leaves us to fill in the blanks; at least, that's how I would make it.

V/H/S was an interesting idea that had terrible execution. It ended up as some awkward cross between The Blair Witch Project and Goosebumps and put the final nail in the coffin of the found-footage revival that's been going ever since the first Paranormal Activity. V/H/S had it's moments, but they were few and far between and not worth it enough to sit through. It's a fine example of how shock-value and jump-out horror only goes so far.

4.5/10 - Could've been much better

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

I gave The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey a fairly disparaging review this time last year. Most notably, I griped over it's excessive usage of CG (in stark contrast to the Lord of the Rings trilogy) and it's goofy, kid-friendliness. Despite this, I maintained an expectation for The Desolation of Smaug, hoping beyond hope that it would be something of an improvement over the first film. Thankfully, it was.

As I said in my previous review, one of the strongest things that this movie has going for it is it's cast. I'm more fond of Bilbo now than I was watching the first one and besides being just as quirky and clever, his character is fleshed out more in this installment. He carries with him the One Ring that he thieved off of Gollum in the first movie and frequently uses it's invisibility. However, this power comes at a price and we see that the Ring's evil is already rubbing off as Bilbo casts the occasional dark stare and becomes intermittently aggressive during combat. It's not a subplot that leads anywhere, but it remains ever ominous.

The rest of the cast is strong as well. One of the most surprising appearences to see in this film was that of Evangeline Lilly of Lost fame who plays a likable Wood Elf named Tauriel. Ian McKellen is as great as always as Gandalf The Grey and the company of dwarves are much more interesting this time around as they too are explored much more and offer more than simply comic-relief.

I found this film to be something of a series of highs and lows. One scene would be invigorating and exciting and the next would be much less so. I'm not simply referring to action scenes versus talking scenes. Talking scenes can be just as interesting if the subject is something of interest. However I found that oftentimes this was not the case. I don't much care of the going ons of a small, malnourished lake-town or a bowman named Bard, no matter how charming his children. I understand that the writers are really reaching for filler, trying to stretch a single book over three films but in the end, filler is filler and I found myself bored more than once in the theatre.

On the other spectrum, the action in this one is worlds better than it was in the first. Gone is the slapstick silliness that encompassed much of An Unexpected Journey. In Smaug, we have action that feels much more like the Lord of the Rings that we all know and love. Heads are sliced from their shoulders, Orcs are impaled by arrows and I actually saw blood in one scene. Don't get me wrong, I'm not just a blood-hound who's in it for gore, but I prefer my Middle Earth to be geared towards adults rather than trying to pander to a broader age-group. It's still not on par with the "realistic" war sequences and gritty sword fights that was just one of the many things that made the original trilogy so exemplary, but it's a start.

My main complaint against this film besides the whole...

Who the fuck decided to shoot this film in forty frames per second that is so fucking annoying and no one liked it the first time so why do it again you stubborn bastards I hope the idiot who came up with that shitty idea fucking burns to death fuck.

Yeah, besides that, would be that nothing anywhere in the film, perhaps save for the wide, mountainous landscape shots, looks real or natural. Even the aged and gnarled tendrils of the Elven woods look remarkably set-like. Everything appears as if it's trying very hard to look old, ancient and intricate without actually being old, ancient or intricate somehow. It's stuck halfway between something out of a storybook and a real landscape and filling the cracks with CG didn't help to make the result any less awkward. Fresh off of Valhalla Rising, the "natural" world of Middle Earth has never looked more artificial to me.

I think that this one is worth the watch much more so than the first. If you watched An Unexpected Journey and liked that, you'll like this. If you didn't like An Unexpected Journey, then you should probably see this anyway because it's an improvement and the final scenes (which I won't spoil) make it worth it in full.

7.75/10 - An improvement over the first.

Valhalla Rising

One might be tempted to put this film on a list of movies that are not nearly as popular as they should be. Valhalla Rising is an ethereal tale of 11th century superstition and barbarism. It's not a film that is heavy on plot so much as it is atmosphere and visual quality and only few sparse lines of dialogue accompany it.

The film plays out in six distinct parts so attempting to coherently explain "what it's about" is easier said than done. Truly the only way to do so would be to summarize it completely and I have no desire to ruin the movie for anyone. The reason it is so difficult to talk about is because Valhalla Rising isn't really "about" anything. It follows a nameless, mute, Norse warrior who's blind in one eye and is being held captive by people unknown for reasons unknown. Here, he is tied to a stake and pitted against other prisoners in unarmed fights to the death.

The Norse prisoner, who is occasionally referred to by other characters as One-Eye is played by Mads Mikkelsen whom you may recognize as the main antagonist of 007 Casino Royale. Interestingly, Mikkelsen was blind in the very same eye in that film as well.

"One-Eye" delivers the finishing blow to a fellow prisoner.

It isn't long before "One-Eye" is able to escape his captors thanks to a vision he had that led him to discovering an arrowhead on the bottom of a river. Soon after his escape, he runs into a band of Christian Crusaders, standing over a fresh pile of corpses and on their way to Jerusalem. They ask One-Eye to join them in their quest and he complacently goes along.

I love that this film doesn't bother itself with anything it finds unnecessary. It gives you the bare minimum and lets the viewer sort everything out. We don't need a backstory on One-Eye and we don't need every mythological detail spelled out for us. The mystification of the film says more than words ever could.

Every single second of the 90 minute run-time of Valhalla Rising is beautiful. Shot entirely in the haunting mountains of Scotland, the film looks incredibly authentic and earthy which works wonders to illustrate the age of the Crusades and efficaciously defines the Norse theme. It's just one more example that the real thing is infinitely more effective than CG.

It's gritty, realistic and above all sparse employment of violence goes even further to set Valhalla Rising apart from your run-of-the-mill film. When violence happens, it happens and the movie doesn't linger or relish in it.

Valhalla Rising is a unique masterpiece of beautiful brutality. Of myth and war and religion. It slips between the real and the ethereal flawlessly and dramatically. This is exactly the way I would make a film if I were in the director's chair. It's very hard to talk about and must be seen to be understood. So see it.

10/10 - Perfection.

Assassin's Creed: Revelations

In light of the recent release of Assassin's Creed IV (which is actually the sixth installment in the series) I thought I would set aside some time and talk about Revelations. Why, you ask? Because Assassin's Creed: Revelations was easily the worst installment in the series so far. As with every Assassin's Creed game, that opinion is far from being across the board; there are some aggregates who called Revelations the best AC game thus far, but I think most people would agree, this was a low point for the series.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love Assassin's Creed. Nobody was more ready for Revelations than I was. I preordered it, I had the poster, I was obsessed with the trailer and watched it probably a dozen times along with the various other gameplay showcases and such, I read all of the news covering it and I even went back and renewed some of the experiences from the older games just so everything was all fresh in my mind. I really wanted to love this game when I put the disc into my console on November 15th, 2011.

What I got was a bit disappointing.

First and foremost were the graphics. Now, I'm not one to get all uppity over such a thing, most of my favorite games are featured on older consoles. I know that fancy graphics do not a great game make but did anyone else watch the release trailer? Was there any doubt that this game would look stunning beyond what any other game had previously accomplished? Ezio does not look like the badass assassin master that we saw with a noose around his neck in the trailer, he looks... homely. I can't quite place it but they messed up his face somehow.

Next we have the setting. Before I played the game, I thought that Constantinople would be a really great city for Ubisoft to work their creative magic. It seemed ripe for the assassinating. When I got there, however, I realized it wasn't quite as fitting as I'd originally thought it would be. It was crowded, shrouded and all very much the same looking. It made me miss the clear openness of the previous installments or the many completely unique structures and city squares that those worlds were littered with. I found myself becoming very board very quickly with this dull landscape that you'd expect would be just the opposite. And sure, it's vibrant at first but after playing for a few hours, you'll know what I mean.

The next major issue is the equipment used within the game. The hookblade was a big selling point for this installment and it was supposed to be this awesome new tool that would reshape the way you play the game. However, if you've played AC III, you know that the hookblade isn't in that game at all so obviously, this did not happen. The hookblade could be utilized in many ways to assist in combat, escape, climbing or just getting around. Despite all of that, I found that I barely used the damn thing. Every chance I had the opportunity to use the mechanic, I either didn't think of it, found it was too difficult to go out of my way to pull off or I simply didn't require it. For instance, you can do this neat escape maneuver that does a flip over a stationary guard while you maintain your speed in a sprint but instead of doing that, I found it much easier to just run around the guard, that way there's no chance of me fucking up the timed button pressing. The only thing I regularly used it for was for zip-lining which was, admittedly, really cool.

Another equipment inclusion would be that of the reimagined bomb system. Whereas in the old games, you had a bunch of smoke bombs that could be used tactically to either make an opening or stall for an escape, in Revelations you'd be able to construct your own bombs and tailor them for use in various situations. This is done by combining a plethora ingredients that you can acquire throughout the world be it from a locked treasure chest or off of a dead guard's body. This is a neat idea and I can see where they were going with it as it encourages the player to explore and think tactically. Depending on what ingredients you use you can control the size of the explosion, method of detonation and the effect of the bomb. For instance, one bomb could just kill while one is a smoke bomb while still another is a blood bomb that creates panic. At first I got all enraptured in this idea and thought it was great until I realized something: they're all pretty much the same. Yep. The only real difference between bombs is that you have ones that kill and ones that stall. Size? Always go maximum, no reason not to. As for the detonation, don't bother with anything that's not explosion on impact after being thrown. I found that even after all of my meticulous planning I still had a very difficult time getting guards to walk across my tripwire bombs and even then it wasn't worth much when I could easily just kill him myself and be done with it.

Pictured: Being done with it.

When I play through Assassin's Creed games, I don't take any part of it for granted. I do everything from even the pettiest of side quests to collecting all of those elusive feathers and achievements. You know what's fun? Putting effort into obtaining money and then purchasing land in order to build a strong tax base in order to buy more equipment as well as more land and then being satisfied as you reap your rewards. You know what isn't fun? Finishing that only to have someone erase your hard work before telling you to do it all again. This is what I faced with Revelations which tasked me with buying all kinds of land and properties in the exact same manner that Brotherhood had me do. At least they upgraded and modified the process from AC II to Brotherhood but here it's just copied and pasted. I didn't even give it the time on my playthrough and to this day, it remains unfinished. Who wants to do all that shit twice?

Another thing that remains begrudgingly the same would be the Borgia tower missions. AC Brotherhood introduced this feature wherein if you systematically take out the Templar-backed Borgia fortresses, you could gain land and footholds towards taking Rome for the Assassins. Revelations lazily recycles this idea and by now, it's just tedious.

What's even worse is the addition of the tower defense mini-game which received ubiquitous disapproval. In this mini-game which occurs randomly during gameplay, Ezio must command his assassins to defend one of the multiple towers that you've won from the assailing Templars. You do this by positioning various squads at different vantage points. This is fun all of one time, after which it's a drag and you'll wish the Templars could just take the stupid tower and coexist. Furthermore, this completely dissolves the whole idea of the enduring secret war between the Assassins and Templars that is a (if not the) defining point in the story that sets up the universe. All of this sniping and bombing and exploding and marching and armies just kills it completely.

Ezio signals commands to his Assassins during a high profile tower invasion.

But what's probably the biggest complaint I have for this game is your invincibility. I could probably count on two hands the number of times I died during my playthrough of Revelations (not including the times I deliberately committed suicide). With the first AC game, you were fairly weak and charging head on into a big group of guards was a pretty dumb move, at least in the beginning of the game. The second game was much the same way and Brotherhood added in the assassin follower mechanic wherein, you can summon your underlings to take out menial targets for you. This was an interesting and useful addition to the game that spared you the trouble of going way out of your way to kill everyone and probably saved you more than once.
But in Revelations it's flat out abused. In Brotherhood, it takes awhile before you accumulate enough assassins to pull these stunts off but in Revelations you have it really early on. On the other hand, you don't really need the assassins because you're already so armed to the teeth with bombs, swords, guns, crossbows and a whole shit load of other things to keep any foe at bay. Once you figure out the fighting mechanics, nothing can touch you and the entire stealth feature goes out the window. Why even bother sneaking or trying to run away when you could easily just kill your way through anything? I found that I never had to even think about something before I just dove right in. I could use eagle vision and plan out a complicated attack but there's simply no reason to do so.
Well, the game does add in the full-synchronization feature from the other games, which is basically a bonus objective to complete in each mission (e.g. don't be detected, don't take damage) but I hate it just as much now as I did then. I almost always make an attempt for these bonus points just out of a sense of obligation but they take a lot of the fun of the game away from the player. If it's telling you exactly how it thinks you should approach the situation then whatever happened to the whole 'choose your own methods' thing? Furthermore, just trying for these frustratingly difficult goals often had me throwing my controller in anger. Long story short, the normal game is too easy but the full-synchronization is just too fucking hard.

But even after all of that, Assassin's Creed: Revelations is not that bad a game. I loved that they brought Altaïr back and after all those years, it was nice to get some closure to his story. However it was admittedly pretty absurd that you were sitting in your living room controlling Desmond who's in the Animus controlling Ezio who is controlling Altaïr... still however a great addition and big selling point for this game.
After all, the game is called Revelations and Ubisoft definitely made good on that. They cleared up a lot of the questions that had been floating around since the end of the first game. As far the story aspect goes, this game satisfies and excels. Interestingly, I didn't find the plot-twist at the end to be that, well... twisty. The reason being is not by any fault of the game by any means but rather because of an intricate side-quest in AC II that tasked the player with tracking down numerous runes and symbols hidden in out-of-the-way, otherwise unremarkable places. These runes are invisible unless you view them through eagle-vision, making them all the more obscure. After finding one, you unlock a challenging puzzle mini-game and upon completing that, you'll be granted a few fractions of a second of a clip. When you complete the entire clip, the game rewards you with something that makes a huge allusion to what is eventually explained at the end of Revelations. After I took many hours to laboriously track these down and having months to think about and hypothesize about the clip, I was able to arrive at a simplified version of the conclusion we're treated with in Revelations.
One of the reasons I love this series is because you can go and do things like that and to me, that just adds so much intricacy to the game. That they had this whole elaborate puzzle that they must have known only a handful of people would figure out.

On the other hand, the online multiplayer is also a very rewarding distraction. For Revelations, they took the existing formula they created for Brotherhood and innovated upon it, expanding it to accommodate more game-types and to appeal to more styles. I wish that the techniques utilized online were as prevalent in the story mode. Online, if you go high profile by sprinting everywhere and jumping around, you're doomed. The game rewards creative and stealthy approaches to your kills whereas in the single player, I found that there were multiple times where I simply had no choice but to engage in a head-on assault which would've practically been blasphemy if it were in the first or second game.
I don't hate Assassin's Creed: Revelations, not by a long shot. It's still a good game however, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone unless you're involved with playing through the series, in which case, you can't afford to miss it as it's integral to the lore of the game. It's still full of great mechanics and it's built atop an already awesome series but it's terribly flawed. The problem with taking a leap and going out on a limb as the Assassin's Creed games often do is that some times, the innovations just don't work out. However, Revelations was a combination of this and the exact opposite problem. Not changing enough. AC II was a massive step above the original and Brotherhood took that formula and perfected it. After two games of that, by the time I got to Revelations, I was ready for change that didn't come. They innovated in places that didn't call for it and left things that should have been amended. Overall, not a bad game but definitely below the standard that I hold for this exemplary series.

7/10 - Good formula. Flawed execution.

Terrorvision

It's Halloween and I haven't been doing nearly enough horror related articles, so y'know what? Here's an obscure one for you.

Terrorvision is the film that future generations will use as the sole basis of judgement of the decade known as the 80's. Every inch of the film screams it with a fucking megaphone. You have your egregiously cliche adolescent stereotypes such as the fashion explosion of a teenage girl and her "metal" head boyfriend, and the younger boy who's into monsters and horror movies. These are our three protagonists that accompany us through this quirkiness. Alongside them are the two BDSM/sex obsessed parents who look goofier than they sound and the over-passionate veteran grandfather who brazenly brandishes his many medals across his chest for all to see.

However the over-animated cast of this film is merely the icing on the cake. The plot begins when the irate father is struggling with their satellite dish, trying to gain free access to the pay-per-view channels while the unhelpful repairman stands idly by. It isn't long before malfunctions occur and the satellite inadvertently intercepts the broken up particles of that horrific abortion of a movie monster that you see below. He vaguely reminds of the singing poo guy from Conker's Bad Fur Day but whatever, this predated that by multiple years regardless and, in all honesty, I've never seen movie monster quite like this guy. He's hilarious looking and I love the way he's always got a weird crooked smile.

So apparently, this sort of creature is kept as a pet from an alien planet however from time to time, the bastards mutate into whatever that thing is. Whenever that happens, the aliens callously fire the poo monster's molecules off into space and apparently this comes at the cost of a very, very slight chance of those molecules getting transmitted through human television sets causing them to reassemble within our unsuspecting living rooms.
So the whole plot centers around trying to deal with this grinning pile of fuck. After it gluttonously gorges itself on the parents and the couple they invited over to get freaky with, it's up to the kids to figure out what the hell to do with it. They try calling the generously endowed, horror-host, Medusa but she ends up being no help at all as she unmindfully dismisses their pleads for help with a scoff.

Good God.

So they take it upon themselves to try and house-train the thing. It happens to be quite accustomed to liquifying it's victims and then slurping up their goop. They try to feed it people food and lay out all sorts of processed goods in a pile atop a table but it's to no avail as the monster throws a fit and tosses everything aside. They try teaching it to talk but all he manages to do is sneeze all over them.
I neglected to mention that all the while, the characters have been going about ignorant of the alien broadcasting across their television screens who is desperately trying to warn them all about the monster. He instructs them to turn off all of their TV sets for at least 200 years but naturally everyone says, "yeah, fuck that," and they go right on TV watching regardless. Eventually the alien himself transports himself through the TV and into the living room in order to put to rest what he refers to as an inconvenience and humorously notes that he "might lose his job over this." The alien looks hilariously cliche and is something straight out of a 50's b-movie. He totes a comic-looking laser gun and wears a goofy fishbowl helmet that reminds me of the Robot Monster from the movie Robot Monster.

And speaking of Robot Monster, there's a clip in this very movie where the characters are watching Robot Monster. That's pretty funny to me but it's far from being the only classic horror film that can be seen on the television screen. In one scene they're watching 1000000 B.C. and in another scene they're watching The Giant (fucking) Claw. The portion of the movie spent watching the television is generous but it's a fun touch and I like trying to guess at what's on the screen.
But anyway, simply out of her own random interest, Medusa decides to show up at their house only to find a lot of strange goo and a big mess everywhere. She presumably arrives at the conclusion that what the boy was telling her over the phone might actually be real. So who could blame her for taking matters into her own hands when she sees this otherworldly extraterrestrial waving around a futuristic weapon? She promptly puts a hefty crack across his dome the alien's head pulls a Prometheus and explodes all over the inside of his helmet.
The setting of the house is so bizarre just in of itself. There's strange, artful porn all over the walls, roman statues and the color schemes and layout seem to make no logical sense whatsoever. It's all around just such an odd movie. One of the things I think is really strange is the backyard set. Past what looks like a small jungle of ferns and other various plants is, well... nothing. It's just an infinite blue void; no hills, no roads, houses or anything.
And y'know what, this needs to be said but I can't find a place for it in the review. There's a random moment where Medusa is talking and the camera just zooms in on her cleavage until it fills up the whole screen (didn't take much zooming). I don't know what that's about.

But for all of the frames of this movie I could show you, or all the random bits and details I could pick out, I couldn't ever do it any justice. It's something that needs to be seen to really be believed. I can't describe to you how the poo pile moves around and kills people but it's a delight to behold. I actually would recommend this movie because it's just good ol' cheesy stuff and it's quite funny in it's own right. I found my self laughing aloud more times than I could count while watching it. If you want something funny, quirky, self-aware and kinda out-there, Terrorvision is the film for you.

7.5/10 - Funny and different.

Gravity

Gravity is a film that is every bit as breathtaking as it sounds. It begins with a brief but effective pre-title sequence where a few sentences display upon the screen that say something to the effect of, "In Space, temperature fluctuates from x to y. There is no sound, no pressure, no air. It is completely uninhabitable." It's a great way to start a movie and it instills in us a sense of foreboding.

This film prides itself on it's incredibly long, continuous shots. It's impressive to be able to do something like that, and the camera moves all around from each spacewalking character in order to keep the audience from getting bored.

This of course would impossible as we're too busy feasting our eyes on the phenomenal cinematography. For movie-goers who enjoy a heavy emphasis on visual quality, Gravity is the pièce de résistance. Every single second of this film is jaw-droppingly gorgeous. From the massive still shots of the rotating earth, to the exquisite detail of the spaceship interior, every inch of Gravity is a sight to behold. Seriously, it can't even be emphasized it enough, visually, Gravity is easily one of the best-looking and most beautiful films in existence.

The cinematography is beyond impressive. The camera flawlessly glides about the set and it turns and rotates unpredictably which, at times, is a sickening effect but it effectively captures the sensation of zero gravity.

As far as the plot goes, it's very simple. George Clooney plays an experienced astronaut who's carrying out his last mission before retirement, while Sandra Bullock is just the opposite, a doctor on her very first job in space. It isn't long before Houston detects a deadly barrage of satellite debris heading straight for them. Their evasive measures fail catastrophically and the station they're inhabiting is severely damaged. The only survivors are George and Sandra and they now find themselves stranded 30,000 kilometers above the earth.

One of the things that make this film such an ethereal experience is that it's shaped with minimalism in mind. This is clearly discernible from the poster which depicts a tiny astronaut floating in an endless black void and even the short one word title. While Gravity certainly takes no moment for granted, it manages to maintain that style. There aren't many actors and there isn't always a lot going on during every moment. The movie is also full of distant shots that dwarf the actors against the brilliant horizon.

It seemed that throughout the film, the air would be sucked right out of the theatre as every audience member found themselves holding their breath. As the actors scramble to grab onto any nearby object to save themselves from soaring out into deep space, or as they desperately figure out how to navigate the skies, we as an audience feel like we're right there with them and it's downright, edge-of-your-seat thrilling.

But Gravity goes a step further and goes for a more emotional touch. We slowly learn about the characters little by little and Sandra tells a pretty heart-wrenching story about her daughter who passed away not very long prior. What it ultimately comes down to is finding the will to live.

Unfortunately, Gravity has received much backlash from audiences who choose to pick it apart and point out every minor scientific inaccuracy. It's very infuriating that this topic must be addressed yet again and it's simply beating a dead horse by now. Compared to the standard science-fiction film, Gravity seems genuinely real. There wasn't a single moment of outright, brazen unrealism and so Gravity is pardoned. If audacious fiction is distracting to the movie, that's where the line is drawn but in Gravity, this is far from being the case. Try to enjoy a film for what it is.

Gravity is an exhilarating, dazzling, beautiful blast of fresh air. There aren't too many films quite like it. I highly recommend seeing it before it goes out of theatres because seeing there is a wholly different experience.

9.5/10 - Don't miss it.

Law Abiding Citizen

This was another article that I submitted to my class. Sorry about this, guys, but again, I've been really busy with classes and such all month long. I'll try to put more time back into the site soon though. For now, enjoy this.

A thriller is a film that relies mainly on suspense and anticipation to draw in its audience. With all of the attention-grabbing, explosion montages that are dumping out of Tinseltown on what seems to be a daily basis, it’s relieving to watch a film that utilizes genuine plot twisting as it’s primary ingredient. Among every one of those, once in a great while, a film is made that redefines the genre; 2009 saw the release of Law Abiding Citizen, which did just that.

Law Abiding Citizen begins with a very disturbing scene during which the main character, Clyde, who is played by Gerard Butler, loses both his wife and daughter at the hands of two intruders, named Ames and Darby, who seem to have haphazardly selected Clyde’s house for thieving. Both criminals are eventually tried in court where prosecutor, Nick Rice, played by Jamie Foxx, is lacking the necessary hard evidence to secure a solid conviction of both offenders. Rather than put his conviction rate at risk, he strikes up a deal with Darby wherein Darby must plead guilty for crimes that would garner a considerably lesser sentence in exchange for testifying against Ames. As a result, ten years down the road, Ames is on death row while Darby’s sentence is up, despite the fact that Darby was the real killer while Ames merely tagged along. What at first appears to be Clyde’s plot for revenge is soon found to be deceptively simple as it unwinds into small-scale war against the entire American judicial system.

Law Abiding Citizen never tells you who to root for. In the beginning of the film, most audience members assume that Clyde is the good guy. At first he seems as though he may be our heartbroken hero and/or vengeful vigilante when he takes the law into his own hands by arranging the brutally shocking deaths of both Ames and Darby. However, Clyde doesn’t stop there and he carries a personal vendetta against everyone involved with the case, including the system itself and ultimately intends to bring the entire thing down to it’s knees.

What makes this film stand out is it’s remarkable ability to keep the audience guessing. Law Abiding Citizen hardly gives its audience a moment to breathe as it hurtles through it’s complex development. Nothing that Clyde ever does seems to make immediate sense; he’s not a gun-slinging, action star. Rather, he relies on arranging the deaths of his enemies in such a way that he may never even be in the same room as them. He’s a tactician and nothing happens unless he wants it to happen. This further heightens the suspense knowing that death could come at any time for these characters and having to wonder if they’re making intelligent moves or if they’re just playing the part in Clyde’s convoluted game.

The acting in this film, namely that of Gerard Butler, is satisfying to say the least. Butler takes it above and beyond and delivers a performance that’s versatile in of itself. In one scene he’s grieving, heartbroken and pitiful  while in the next he’s intense, dark and sinister. Overall, it’s a great example of incredible acting ability that is just not commonly seen in everyday cinema. The remaining cast is pleasing as well, but no one truly stands out as Butler does.

Classifying this film as a specific genre can be a formidable task. Is it a crime movie? A political thriller? Just a story of revenge? Law Abiding Citizen can accurately be classified as all of the above. Beneath it’s aphotic tale of vengeance lies a deeper message. It asks its audience, what is true justice? It’s nearly parody of our judiciary world as the ones who are meant to uphold the law must learn to break it in order to save lives. It is in this way that Law Abiding Citizen gives the viewer something to chew on even after the credits have stopped scrolling and the silver screen has faded to black.

This is a prime example of an underrated film. Law Abiding Citizen is one of the best thrillers to have been made since The Rear Window and it deserves it’s recognition for that. It’s intelligent, suspenseful, unpredictable and it keeps you on your toes. With all of your run-of-the-mill shoot-em-ups that is Hollywood is gladly using to pollute cinema, with it’s gritty realism and controversial message, Law Abiding Citizen is defined. It doesn’t stop at just “thriller” but rather it is a thriller that is garnished perfectly with drama, intrigue and uniqueness making it a film that no one should miss.