I only realized a few short months ago that Mr. Incredible in Walt Disney/Pixar's The Incredibles (my favorite Pixar film) was voiced by Craig T. Nelson, best known for his role on the TV series Coach during the late 80's and early 90's. Then I realized that other than the woman who voices Violet in that same movie (I can't remember her name right now, though I can picture her), I have no idea who voices any of the characters. (I take that back, I know that the director, Brad Bird, voices the character of Edna)
Then I thought about other Pixar movies. I know that Larry the Cable guy voices Mater in Cars and Owen Wilson voices Lightning McQueen in the same movie and Paul Newman plays Doc Hudson, but other then those few people, I have no idea who any of the characters are in real life.
I don't remember exactly when I found out that Tom Hanks or Tim Allen were in Toy Story, or that Jim Varney was the slinky dog and John Ratzenburger the pig, Ham. All I know is that I had no idea who played the characters in the movie until far after I had actually seen the movie.
I am a huge movie buff who prides himself on being able to remember movies and the people in movies, so I was actually surprised when I thought about all of Pixar's movies and the relatively few actors that I actually knew from their films. And this, I believe, is the true genius that is Pixar. They make their films so very well that the actors truly disappear into their roles (a phrase that I usually find reprehensible and overly artistic when actors talk about their live action roles that way, it just seems to me to sound stupid, like what they're doing is so complicated that no one else could do it and they are so special because they can disappear into a character) and you don't even think about the people behind the voices. All you think about are the characters, and you don't even think of them as characters, you think of them as people...or whatever else they are in that particular movie. You think of Nemo as Nemo and Dory as Dory. You don't think of them as Ellen DeGeneres and...okay, I don't know who voiced Nemo, but you literally only think of them as Nemo and Dory.
This is a thing that is truly remarkable for an animation studio today, when every big animation release is pumped up to be the biggest thing in the world and every voice in it is talked about in previews and marketing materials for the movie (that's how I know the actors in Cars. If it weren't for interviews on the Tonight Show I don't think even I'd know anyone in it). I just find it amazing that they are able to do what they have done with all of their movies, which is literally make something that no one else could have made, and make it in such a way that you are hooked from the very first second of the film to the very last. That is movie magic, something that I think has been lost in recent years.
I also think that it is very much worth noting that this is an even bigger accomplishment because an animated film is a group effort, something that I think is sometimes forgotten when you think about an animated film. So, this accomplishment of making something so wonderful to experience that you forget who the people behind the characters are is really deepened by the realization that this wonderful illusion that you are throwing yourself into was created by 100-300 people. That's just mind blowing if you think about it for awhile. And, when you do think about it, you'll then realize that Pixar is a really special studio.
What they have done is something that few actors have ever done. In fact there are only two that I can think of right off of the top of my head. The first is Johnny Depp. You cannot imagine anyone other then him portraying Edward Scissorhands or Jack Sparrow. He disappears into a role so very well that watching him is just...amazing. Sure he has a similar voice in all of his projects (that's just kind of unavoidable) and he is easily recognizable (most of the time) but just a little bit into the movie you get past the part where you recognize him as Johnny Depp, and then you only think about him in terms of the character. The other actor that I can think of is Tom Hanks. I own several of his films, and in each one I am truly amazed at how he seems to be a completely different person. In Road to Perdition he's a father who works for the mob and decides to get revenge when his wife and child are killed. In The Terminal he's a middle-aged, chunky, foreigner who lives in an airport and eats crackers smeared with ketchup and mayonnaise. In Catch Me If You Can he's an FBI agent with a slight (and funny) accent, who is divorced and has one daughter. In Big he's a little kid in an adult's body. In Saving Private Ryan he's an English teacher turned soldier and forced into situations way beyond what he thinks he could ever handle. In none of these movies is he Tom Hanks. In all of these movies, he is truly the character that he is playing to the point that you sometimes forget that it is him.
This, I think, is the ultimate compliment for an actor, and so therefore it is the ultimate compliment for the group of 100-300 people who make each Pixar project truly come alive.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
What 'No Country For Old Men' Means - To Me
When a movie wins an Oscar,people go to see it. When a movie wins 'Best Picture', everyone goes to see it if it even looks a tad interesting. This year, No Country For Old Men won all of the big awards, and so people are flocking to see it, and with good reason.
The movie is a spectacularly vivid and violent piece of art. The movie is filled with beautiful imagery, tons of blood and violence, and tension that keeps it going until the end. The book is an oddly written (No apostrophes in dialog, no quotation marks) journey filled with (I think) even more tension and violence, making it into a wonderful read that keeps your attention the whole way through.
The first time I saw the movie, it was definitely not in ideal conditions - in a theater with a less than state of the art sound system that made it hard to hear half the dialog. At that time I had many questions simply because I couldn't hear half of what was said, and the ending (at that point) flat-out stunk.
It came out on DVD a little over a week later, so I rented it and watched it again, with subtitles on, because I wanted to appreciate it and understand it completely. Let me tell you, subtitles, if they don't bother you, help to answer almost any question that you might have about the movie. I know for a fact that they answered every single question that I had and also made me realize how amazing the movie actually was.
Now, if you are reading this then you have obviously seen the movie and are looking for an interpretation of the ending, which I will get to, but first let me write this little prelude:
The ending of No Country For Old Men is absolutely brilliant and the only ending that would work for this kind of work. There is no real dramatic ending, this is the only thing that works. At first viewing, and without reflection, this ending stinks. However, what makes it brilliant is the mere fact that after watching the movie you feel a need to understand the ending. I know that even though I was upset over the ending of the movie, I wanted to see the movie again because of how beautiful the rest of the movie was, as well as because of the fact that I wanted to understand the ending. That's what makes the ending perfect - it makes you want to see and enjoy the film again. It is also perfect because it is ambiguous and there is no right or wrong interpretation of the events. It inspires debate, and therefore the film and book will be remembered far longer then they would have otherwise been. It's sort of a ploy to get the film remembered longer, but it's brilliant because it inspires that sort of debate that will never end, because there is no right or wrong answer. Remember that. You may not agree with my interpretation, but please do not criticize, because there can be no absolute solution or interpretation of the ending, it is all up to whoever is doing the interpreting.
Now, onto my interpretation:
I've heard a lot of talk about how Chigurh and Bell are supposed to be the polar opposites of each other. Chigurh symbolizes unstoppable evil and Bell is just basically a man yearning for peace. I agree and I would definitely say that that is a major theme in both the book and the novel. In fact, on one forum that I frequently post to, I read a summary that interpreted the ending solely based on this thematic thread. The author of said post basically said that Bell's dream meant that he wished to head back to simpler times when things weren't so horrible. I'm not saying that that interpretation is wrong, but I personally don't think that it is. Again, there are many interpretations, none right, none wrong; this one just isn't for me.
I do think that the opposition (albeit not physical) between Chigurh and Bell is definitely a major thematic element to the movie, I just don't think that it has any real bearing on the ending. No, I think that the real meaning of the ending can be found during the conversation between Sheriff Bell and his Uncle Ellis (the dude in the wheelchair). In it (and I'm working from my memory of the movie), Sheriff Bell says something like, "I always thought that when I got older God would somehow come into my life. He didn't. I don't blame him." Then, in the dreams that he later talks about, he loses some money that his father gave him, and then in another dream his father goes ahead of him to get a fire ready for him when he dreams that they are old time cowboys.
I think that this means that Bell found God. Think about it. When he talks about losing his father's money, that parallels with the story of The Fall, where mankind lost the gift that God (Heavenly Father) gave them. Then, the man's father (paralleling God) going ahead to make a place for him (as Jesus said he would in John 14:2 - "In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.") directly parallels the Bible.
That's really the only evidence that I have for this theory, but I think that it fits. Again, this isn't the only right answer, but it's definitely not a wrong one. I was actually told flat out that I was completely wrong on the Game Informer forums, and I think that the person who told me that (I don't remember his user name) was apparently someone who doesn't like having his own views challenged. I'm not criticizing his theory (which is the one that I listed above mine) or him, I'm just criticizing his narrow view of an ending that can be interpreted any number of different ways.
Anyways, comments and thoughts and other interpretations are definitely welcome, so please, pile them on me.
Please?
The movie is a spectacularly vivid and violent piece of art. The movie is filled with beautiful imagery, tons of blood and violence, and tension that keeps it going until the end. The book is an oddly written (No apostrophes in dialog, no quotation marks) journey filled with (I think) even more tension and violence, making it into a wonderful read that keeps your attention the whole way through.
The first time I saw the movie, it was definitely not in ideal conditions - in a theater with a less than state of the art sound system that made it hard to hear half the dialog. At that time I had many questions simply because I couldn't hear half of what was said, and the ending (at that point) flat-out stunk.
It came out on DVD a little over a week later, so I rented it and watched it again, with subtitles on, because I wanted to appreciate it and understand it completely. Let me tell you, subtitles, if they don't bother you, help to answer almost any question that you might have about the movie. I know for a fact that they answered every single question that I had and also made me realize how amazing the movie actually was.
Now, if you are reading this then you have obviously seen the movie and are looking for an interpretation of the ending, which I will get to, but first let me write this little prelude:
The ending of No Country For Old Men is absolutely brilliant and the only ending that would work for this kind of work. There is no real dramatic ending, this is the only thing that works. At first viewing, and without reflection, this ending stinks. However, what makes it brilliant is the mere fact that after watching the movie you feel a need to understand the ending. I know that even though I was upset over the ending of the movie, I wanted to see the movie again because of how beautiful the rest of the movie was, as well as because of the fact that I wanted to understand the ending. That's what makes the ending perfect - it makes you want to see and enjoy the film again. It is also perfect because it is ambiguous and there is no right or wrong interpretation of the events. It inspires debate, and therefore the film and book will be remembered far longer then they would have otherwise been. It's sort of a ploy to get the film remembered longer, but it's brilliant because it inspires that sort of debate that will never end, because there is no right or wrong answer. Remember that. You may not agree with my interpretation, but please do not criticize, because there can be no absolute solution or interpretation of the ending, it is all up to whoever is doing the interpreting.
Now, onto my interpretation:
I've heard a lot of talk about how Chigurh and Bell are supposed to be the polar opposites of each other. Chigurh symbolizes unstoppable evil and Bell is just basically a man yearning for peace. I agree and I would definitely say that that is a major theme in both the book and the novel. In fact, on one forum that I frequently post to, I read a summary that interpreted the ending solely based on this thematic thread. The author of said post basically said that Bell's dream meant that he wished to head back to simpler times when things weren't so horrible. I'm not saying that that interpretation is wrong, but I personally don't think that it is. Again, there are many interpretations, none right, none wrong; this one just isn't for me.
I do think that the opposition (albeit not physical) between Chigurh and Bell is definitely a major thematic element to the movie, I just don't think that it has any real bearing on the ending. No, I think that the real meaning of the ending can be found during the conversation between Sheriff Bell and his Uncle Ellis (the dude in the wheelchair). In it (and I'm working from my memory of the movie), Sheriff Bell says something like, "I always thought that when I got older God would somehow come into my life. He didn't. I don't blame him." Then, in the dreams that he later talks about, he loses some money that his father gave him, and then in another dream his father goes ahead of him to get a fire ready for him when he dreams that they are old time cowboys.
I think that this means that Bell found God. Think about it. When he talks about losing his father's money, that parallels with the story of The Fall, where mankind lost the gift that God (Heavenly Father) gave them. Then, the man's father (paralleling God) going ahead to make a place for him (as Jesus said he would in John 14:2 - "In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.") directly parallels the Bible.
That's really the only evidence that I have for this theory, but I think that it fits. Again, this isn't the only right answer, but it's definitely not a wrong one. I was actually told flat out that I was completely wrong on the Game Informer forums, and I think that the person who told me that (I don't remember his user name) was apparently someone who doesn't like having his own views challenged. I'm not criticizing his theory (which is the one that I listed above mine) or him, I'm just criticizing his narrow view of an ending that can be interpreted any number of different ways.
Anyways, comments and thoughts and other interpretations are definitely welcome, so please, pile them on me.
Please?
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Game Review: Assassin's Creed (Xbox 360)
Assassin's Creed (Xbox 360)
Overall Score: 9/10
Pros: An interesting story, beautiful graphics, compelling gameplay
Cons: No real conclusion, aggravating fights
Basically, the end of 2007 was an interesting one in the world of gaming. Towards Christmas you had three games coming out, each one vying to become Game of the Year, with two other close contenders having been released just a couple of months earlier. The three games were Call of Duty 4, Mass Effect, and Assassin's Creed. The two other games that would have been contenders were BioShock and Halo 3.
In the end, BioShock won most GotY awards, though in my opinion Mass Effect should have held the crown. People loved Call of Duty 4 and quickly embraced its amazing graphics and addictive multiplayer. Assassin's Creed also received a lot of critical love, as well as high sales numbers, but in the end it is rarely now referred to, and is definitely pushed to the side a lot more than Call of Duty or BioShock or Halo.
I went into Assassin's Creed hoping that it would be a game that I could finish. One that was complex and deep and awesome, but not overly complicated or too complex.
The story, following a medieval assassin as he takes down nine targets throughout three large cities, was definitely involving and interesting and the modern day frame story helped it along. However, in the end I was left with a feeling of emptiness. The ending lacked finality. Basically you were told that you would be needed again eventually. Then the credits rolled and you were allowed back in the game to walk around or do whatever you please. That sucked, and what really sucked about it was that that line of, "We'll need you again soon," wasn't even spoken dramatically. The one guy just said it and then you watch as he walks out of the room. There wasn't anything to lead you up to such a dramatic moment, no music nothing, and then when it came there was another period of at least a minute before the credits rolled. A full minute of walking around at an excruciatingly slow pace and, really, doing nothing. That was the only part of the story that really sucked. One other thing about the story. It starts off slow and you basically have no information about what is going on. You are just thrust into the situation and as you go about the game your targets give you information and eventually you learn what it all means. Then the final conclusion, the final boss and all that, is a little bit too mystical for my taste. It just wasn't as realistic as the rest of the game.
The real meat of the game, which is actually not the story, is the gameplay, whereby you run around three gigantic cities, jumping off of buildings, climbing up buildings, leaping and flying everywhere; using your sword to fend off large groups of enemies, assassinating drunks and beggars, and then eventually driving your hidden blade into the neck of those nine men you are sent to kill. I was a bit worried about the fact that this game was being touted as letting you leap everywhere and do everything, because I was worried that the 360 controller just couldn't handle it, that there wouldn't be enough buttons to let you do everything that you should be able to do. I'm happy to say that not only do the controls work pretty much perfectly, but they do so without utilizing the shoulder buttons on the 360 controller. The control scheme uses the triggers, just not the bumpers, and to great effect. Running, climbing, dodging, diving, everything controlled perfectly, and, just like I said I could play hours worth of conversations in Mass Effect, I could also stand just running and jumping in Assassin's Creed for hours on end. My only complaint with the running, dodging, exploration controls are city specific. In Acre, near the docks, one mission, which takes place at the docks, gives you a route through the playable area that has you jumping from basically a log turned vertical to several other logs arrayed in a specific route in the middle of a harbor. The targeting in this area absolutely sucked. I can't tell you how many times I fell into the water, and to my death, before finally hunting and finding an alternate route to my objective. Also the combat controls are a bit wonky until you get the hang of them. When you do get the hang of them, however, then you will just roll over your enemies, and instead of feeling like the game's too easy because of this, you'll finally feel how truly awesome you really are. Assassinations go as smooth as possible, most of the time, and the hidden blade is one of the coolest and most functional video game weapons of all time. What I found out, and then went crazy over, is that you actually have access to the hidden blade all the time, not just when you're on specific assassination missions, and so you can use it to kill anyone that you want to. I used this many times when I was on rooftops I wasn't supposed to be on and there was a guard nearby. There was nothing like a flying leap that ended with my blade in the guard's neck. Then there were the memorable moments when I was walking through the city streets and suddenly there was a beggar in front of me, not letting me go forward, stopping me and bothering me with her requests for money that I didn't have. One tap of a button and I would stab her with my blade and continue on without a second glance, leaving her body to eventually fall to the street for someone else to discover. My only complaint about the combat was that sometimes they just overwhelmed you in a frustrating, not fun, sort of way. There was one fight in particular where I was facing about ten men at once, which isn't much as it turns out, with an archer overhead. I kept getting hit with arrows and I wasn't able to defend as more and more attacks came towards me. I bet I played that one fight ten times. That's when a game isn't fun. That's when it's annoying. However, later on when I got more experience with the combat system, I handled a crowd of 30+ enemies without any problems whatsoever. It was just that early battle that really got to me.
The graphics of this game are what really impressed me the most. I'm not one to care much about graphics-if a game has horrible textures and blocky characters but plays well and has an awesome story, then I'm all for playing it over and over again. This game, however, made me sit up and take notice like no other title has. This game is unlike other games that try to look realistic and have a unique visual style in that it has a unique visual style by being just that, completely and utterly realistic. You won't find any sort of filters or anything like that over the visuals to give them a unique look, everything just looks practically photorealistic, and the game benefits because of it. The characters in the game all look a little bit out of place and chunky, as do all video game characters, no matter what people say, but the environments look truly stunning. To get to a View Point in the game and look over any of the three cities was to look out upon what 'next-gen' truly is. I mean, when I clime a spire in Damascus or Jerusalem or Acre and look out upon the whole city and see literally thousands of people in the crowd surrounded by hundreds of buildings, every single one of which I can climb upon and 'play' upon....that's just breathtaking to me, and when all of it is completely realistic....I could go on for days and days about the graphics and the environments and how truly amazing everything in the game world is, but I won't. Instead I'll just count on you to go buy and play this game and see and appreciate the world that Ubisoft Montreal has created for you.
Now, I have to write briefly about my absolute favorite aspect of the game, the Leap of Faith. Basically you climb to an extremely high place to get more of your map filled in, then you jump off of a small piece of wood and land in a cart full of hay sometimes hundreds of feet beneath you. It may not exactly be the most realistic aspect of the game, but the visuals and the feelings that accompany it make it something truly awesome to experience. My favorite was one spire in Damascus that was the highest one in the game. I got to the top, filled in the portion of my map that needed filling in, and then jumped. I knew that it was just a game, but I got goosebumps when I saw how high up I was and how low the cart was beneath me.
Now, one last issue with the game that I must present. I'm all for long cinematics, specifically because I love seeing well-made cinematics. I mean, watching the cinematics of Metal Gear Solid 3 gave me feelings and emotions and overall an experience that was better then some movies I've seen. This game, with it's interesting historical background and relatively interesting plot, however, has some of the most long winded cinematics that I've ever seen. They're well made and entertaining and informative and interesting, but they are also horribly long winded and in some cases downright boring. Whenever you assassinate a target you are treated to a sort of conversation with them in this sort of blue void. It is here that many plot points are revealed and you find out a lot of useful information. In fact, it's where all of the plot is revealed. However, these are the worst of the cinematics because there's nothing interesting going on in them at all. It's just two characters in a blue void....talking. I liked the plot and everything that went on, but some of these were so boring and frustrating that I almost gave up the game for good.
Overall I would say that if you are at all interested in a game with awe inspiring graphics, amazing gameplay and an adequate story, then you need to check out Assassin's Creed.
Concept: Create a living, breathing world with some of the most fluid gameplay and detailed visuals ever seen in a video game.
Graphics: I could go on and on. I'll just say that they are the most 'next-gen' graphics I've seen yet in a video game.
Sound: The music was okay, and really helped add tension to tense situations. The voice acting was adequate, though nothing to write home about.
Playability: The smoothest third person controls that I've ever experienced. This thing controls like a dream...except in a few combat situations.
Entertainment: Endlessly entertaining when in the medieval setting (I could run around on rooftops for days on end) but outside (if you've played in then you know what I mean)...gets a tad slow and boring.
Replay Value: Very high, just for the graphics alone!
Overall Score: 9/10
Pros: An interesting story, beautiful graphics, compelling gameplay
Cons: No real conclusion, aggravating fights
Basically, the end of 2007 was an interesting one in the world of gaming. Towards Christmas you had three games coming out, each one vying to become Game of the Year, with two other close contenders having been released just a couple of months earlier. The three games were Call of Duty 4, Mass Effect, and Assassin's Creed. The two other games that would have been contenders were BioShock and Halo 3.
In the end, BioShock won most GotY awards, though in my opinion Mass Effect should have held the crown. People loved Call of Duty 4 and quickly embraced its amazing graphics and addictive multiplayer. Assassin's Creed also received a lot of critical love, as well as high sales numbers, but in the end it is rarely now referred to, and is definitely pushed to the side a lot more than Call of Duty or BioShock or Halo.
I went into Assassin's Creed hoping that it would be a game that I could finish. One that was complex and deep and awesome, but not overly complicated or too complex.
The story, following a medieval assassin as he takes down nine targets throughout three large cities, was definitely involving and interesting and the modern day frame story helped it along. However, in the end I was left with a feeling of emptiness. The ending lacked finality. Basically you were told that you would be needed again eventually. Then the credits rolled and you were allowed back in the game to walk around or do whatever you please. That sucked, and what really sucked about it was that that line of, "We'll need you again soon," wasn't even spoken dramatically. The one guy just said it and then you watch as he walks out of the room. There wasn't anything to lead you up to such a dramatic moment, no music nothing, and then when it came there was another period of at least a minute before the credits rolled. A full minute of walking around at an excruciatingly slow pace and, really, doing nothing. That was the only part of the story that really sucked. One other thing about the story. It starts off slow and you basically have no information about what is going on. You are just thrust into the situation and as you go about the game your targets give you information and eventually you learn what it all means. Then the final conclusion, the final boss and all that, is a little bit too mystical for my taste. It just wasn't as realistic as the rest of the game.
The real meat of the game, which is actually not the story, is the gameplay, whereby you run around three gigantic cities, jumping off of buildings, climbing up buildings, leaping and flying everywhere; using your sword to fend off large groups of enemies, assassinating drunks and beggars, and then eventually driving your hidden blade into the neck of those nine men you are sent to kill. I was a bit worried about the fact that this game was being touted as letting you leap everywhere and do everything, because I was worried that the 360 controller just couldn't handle it, that there wouldn't be enough buttons to let you do everything that you should be able to do. I'm happy to say that not only do the controls work pretty much perfectly, but they do so without utilizing the shoulder buttons on the 360 controller. The control scheme uses the triggers, just not the bumpers, and to great effect. Running, climbing, dodging, diving, everything controlled perfectly, and, just like I said I could play hours worth of conversations in Mass Effect, I could also stand just running and jumping in Assassin's Creed for hours on end. My only complaint with the running, dodging, exploration controls are city specific. In Acre, near the docks, one mission, which takes place at the docks, gives you a route through the playable area that has you jumping from basically a log turned vertical to several other logs arrayed in a specific route in the middle of a harbor. The targeting in this area absolutely sucked. I can't tell you how many times I fell into the water, and to my death, before finally hunting and finding an alternate route to my objective. Also the combat controls are a bit wonky until you get the hang of them. When you do get the hang of them, however, then you will just roll over your enemies, and instead of feeling like the game's too easy because of this, you'll finally feel how truly awesome you really are. Assassinations go as smooth as possible, most of the time, and the hidden blade is one of the coolest and most functional video game weapons of all time. What I found out, and then went crazy over, is that you actually have access to the hidden blade all the time, not just when you're on specific assassination missions, and so you can use it to kill anyone that you want to. I used this many times when I was on rooftops I wasn't supposed to be on and there was a guard nearby. There was nothing like a flying leap that ended with my blade in the guard's neck. Then there were the memorable moments when I was walking through the city streets and suddenly there was a beggar in front of me, not letting me go forward, stopping me and bothering me with her requests for money that I didn't have. One tap of a button and I would stab her with my blade and continue on without a second glance, leaving her body to eventually fall to the street for someone else to discover. My only complaint about the combat was that sometimes they just overwhelmed you in a frustrating, not fun, sort of way. There was one fight in particular where I was facing about ten men at once, which isn't much as it turns out, with an archer overhead. I kept getting hit with arrows and I wasn't able to defend as more and more attacks came towards me. I bet I played that one fight ten times. That's when a game isn't fun. That's when it's annoying. However, later on when I got more experience with the combat system, I handled a crowd of 30+ enemies without any problems whatsoever. It was just that early battle that really got to me.
The graphics of this game are what really impressed me the most. I'm not one to care much about graphics-if a game has horrible textures and blocky characters but plays well and has an awesome story, then I'm all for playing it over and over again. This game, however, made me sit up and take notice like no other title has. This game is unlike other games that try to look realistic and have a unique visual style in that it has a unique visual style by being just that, completely and utterly realistic. You won't find any sort of filters or anything like that over the visuals to give them a unique look, everything just looks practically photorealistic, and the game benefits because of it. The characters in the game all look a little bit out of place and chunky, as do all video game characters, no matter what people say, but the environments look truly stunning. To get to a View Point in the game and look over any of the three cities was to look out upon what 'next-gen' truly is. I mean, when I clime a spire in Damascus or Jerusalem or Acre and look out upon the whole city and see literally thousands of people in the crowd surrounded by hundreds of buildings, every single one of which I can climb upon and 'play' upon....that's just breathtaking to me, and when all of it is completely realistic....I could go on for days and days about the graphics and the environments and how truly amazing everything in the game world is, but I won't. Instead I'll just count on you to go buy and play this game and see and appreciate the world that Ubisoft Montreal has created for you.
Now, I have to write briefly about my absolute favorite aspect of the game, the Leap of Faith. Basically you climb to an extremely high place to get more of your map filled in, then you jump off of a small piece of wood and land in a cart full of hay sometimes hundreds of feet beneath you. It may not exactly be the most realistic aspect of the game, but the visuals and the feelings that accompany it make it something truly awesome to experience. My favorite was one spire in Damascus that was the highest one in the game. I got to the top, filled in the portion of my map that needed filling in, and then jumped. I knew that it was just a game, but I got goosebumps when I saw how high up I was and how low the cart was beneath me.
Now, one last issue with the game that I must present. I'm all for long cinematics, specifically because I love seeing well-made cinematics. I mean, watching the cinematics of Metal Gear Solid 3 gave me feelings and emotions and overall an experience that was better then some movies I've seen. This game, with it's interesting historical background and relatively interesting plot, however, has some of the most long winded cinematics that I've ever seen. They're well made and entertaining and informative and interesting, but they are also horribly long winded and in some cases downright boring. Whenever you assassinate a target you are treated to a sort of conversation with them in this sort of blue void. It is here that many plot points are revealed and you find out a lot of useful information. In fact, it's where all of the plot is revealed. However, these are the worst of the cinematics because there's nothing interesting going on in them at all. It's just two characters in a blue void....talking. I liked the plot and everything that went on, but some of these were so boring and frustrating that I almost gave up the game for good.
Overall I would say that if you are at all interested in a game with awe inspiring graphics, amazing gameplay and an adequate story, then you need to check out Assassin's Creed.
Concept: Create a living, breathing world with some of the most fluid gameplay and detailed visuals ever seen in a video game.
Graphics: I could go on and on. I'll just say that they are the most 'next-gen' graphics I've seen yet in a video game.
Sound: The music was okay, and really helped add tension to tense situations. The voice acting was adequate, though nothing to write home about.
Playability: The smoothest third person controls that I've ever experienced. This thing controls like a dream...except in a few combat situations.
Entertainment: Endlessly entertaining when in the medieval setting (I could run around on rooftops for days on end) but outside (if you've played in then you know what I mean)...gets a tad slow and boring.
Replay Value: Very high, just for the graphics alone!
Movie Review #14: Matchstick Men
Matchstick Men
Overall: 8/10
Pros: Interesting story, great cast and acting, great writing, fitting ending
Cons: Horribly slow to start with, and it doesn't get any faster towards the end
I read the back of this movie at Wal*Mart one day, and after reading it I was instantly hooked with the premise, and I wanted to see it right away. Four months later, I've finally seen it, and I can say that it is a really great movie.
Basically the idea is that Nicolas Cage is a con artist along with his partner Frank. Also, Cage's character is a germaphobe. Then, his fourteen-year-old daughter comes into his life for the first time and he has to experience being a parent. He eventually teaches little Angela a little bit about being a con just when he and Frank are pulling off a deal that will net them each $40,000. Things go a little downhill from there.
I was actually surprised to find out later on that this was a Ridley Scott film, and after watching it again today, this time I definitely recognize it as a piece of his work. The colors and shadows and lighting are all beautifully and perfectly done, as is everything else in the movie, just like all of Ridley's other movies. The casting was spot on and you really believe in the characters and what they're doing and what they're visibly feeling. All of the acting was truly superb, and I think that Nicolas Cage gave an absolutely perfect performance, at least in comparison to the other movies I've seen with him in them. Alison Lohman also did a terrific job portraying the fourteen-year-old daughter; her and Nic really gelled and worked perfectly with each other.
The music and the visuals of this film were completely spot on, just as I would expect from a Ridley Scott film. I find myself humming the main theme of the movie, composed by Hans Zimmer, even now as I write this, and I doubt that it will be out of my mind soon. The washed out pastel colors of the movie really go well with the whole premise and the way that the characters see life and the way that they view everything around them. Whoever decided upon that look for the film-you're a genius.
Now onto the meat of the film, the all important story. I can say that the story is one of cinema's greatest. The pacing is extremely slow and it never really gets any faster, but when you get to the end and you experience the twist, which I won't reveal here, then it makes it all worth it and it amazes you that they were able to pull the whole thing off as well as they did, both in the context of the movie itself, and in terms of the construction of the movie, as in, they didn't reveal too much about the characters too soon, they waited until the perfect moment.
This movie made me laugh throughout and at the end it left me with an impression of amazement at what they were able to do with this film. If you like good movies and you're up for one with a twist, then you owe it to yourself to see this film.
Overall: 8/10
Pros: Interesting story, great cast and acting, great writing, fitting ending
Cons: Horribly slow to start with, and it doesn't get any faster towards the end
I read the back of this movie at Wal*Mart one day, and after reading it I was instantly hooked with the premise, and I wanted to see it right away. Four months later, I've finally seen it, and I can say that it is a really great movie.
Basically the idea is that Nicolas Cage is a con artist along with his partner Frank. Also, Cage's character is a germaphobe. Then, his fourteen-year-old daughter comes into his life for the first time and he has to experience being a parent. He eventually teaches little Angela a little bit about being a con just when he and Frank are pulling off a deal that will net them each $40,000. Things go a little downhill from there.
I was actually surprised to find out later on that this was a Ridley Scott film, and after watching it again today, this time I definitely recognize it as a piece of his work. The colors and shadows and lighting are all beautifully and perfectly done, as is everything else in the movie, just like all of Ridley's other movies. The casting was spot on and you really believe in the characters and what they're doing and what they're visibly feeling. All of the acting was truly superb, and I think that Nicolas Cage gave an absolutely perfect performance, at least in comparison to the other movies I've seen with him in them. Alison Lohman also did a terrific job portraying the fourteen-year-old daughter; her and Nic really gelled and worked perfectly with each other.
The music and the visuals of this film were completely spot on, just as I would expect from a Ridley Scott film. I find myself humming the main theme of the movie, composed by Hans Zimmer, even now as I write this, and I doubt that it will be out of my mind soon. The washed out pastel colors of the movie really go well with the whole premise and the way that the characters see life and the way that they view everything around them. Whoever decided upon that look for the film-you're a genius.
Now onto the meat of the film, the all important story. I can say that the story is one of cinema's greatest. The pacing is extremely slow and it never really gets any faster, but when you get to the end and you experience the twist, which I won't reveal here, then it makes it all worth it and it amazes you that they were able to pull the whole thing off as well as they did, both in the context of the movie itself, and in terms of the construction of the movie, as in, they didn't reveal too much about the characters too soon, they waited until the perfect moment.
This movie made me laugh throughout and at the end it left me with an impression of amazement at what they were able to do with this film. If you like good movies and you're up for one with a twist, then you owe it to yourself to see this film.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Movie Review #13: Blade Runner {2007 'The Final Cut'}
Blade Runner {2007 The Final Cut}
Overall: 9/10
Pros: Still a great story and atmosphere, tons of amazing visual imagery
Cons: Still slow, a little bit plodding
I can say for sure that I have no real preference between the 1982 Theatrical Cut of Blade Runner or the newly released 'Final Cut'. I can also say that I don't really care if Deckard is a replicant or not; what really matters is that the question is there and the needless debate over the question will keep the movie in people's minds forever.
What matters is if the movie is good, and this movie is great.
The first time I saw the movie, as in, the first time I watched the 1982 cut of the movie, I was a little bit overwhelmed with the visual imagery, and while I loved it, I'm not sure if I really appreciated it. Now I have the image of the Tyrell Pyramid permanently burned in my mind, and Roy Batty saying, "All of these moments will be lost, like...tears...in rain," practically makes me weep. Now I truly realize and appreciate the beauty of this movie and its amazing look and execution.
I still have minor complaints about the pacing and the real lack of any sort of major plot, but I still think that the movie's brilliant. Really what I like most about this definitive cut of the picture is that it takes out the voice over which, while informative, detracted a little bit from the movie. This also still contains the unicorn sequence that was present in the 1992 'Director's Cut' which was the start of all of that 'Deckard: Replicant of Human?' stuff, and so I like the fact that it was in this cut because I like the fact that it has inspired debate amongst the fan base. But still, I truly have to say that I have no real preference between the two. I truly love both versions (voice over and no voice over) equally.
One last thing that I must mention: Roy Batty's final speech in the movie. I loved it in the 1982 cut of the film and thought of it as a great movie moment and a defining moment that gave definition and meaning to a film that was otherwise pretty much meaningless. At that time, however, I didn't realize how profound an effect it would have on me during this second viewing. This time, as the rain fell and the light turned blue and Rutger Hauer's speech came up, I was completely engrossed in the moment and, more importantly, in the character. As he told about the wonders that he had seen, the attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion and whatnot, I was completely inside this character and emotionally involved in how horrible a moment this was for him. And then when he started talking about the memories being completely lost in rain, memories that no one else has or could ever have, I was crying some, and every time I think about it I still almost cry because for some reason or another, I was completely emotionally involved in a film that initially polarized me in all respects. Before, I didn't realize how amazing this moment was and how important it was, even if only to science fiction fans, and now I must say that it is my absolute favorite moment from a film. The movie itself may not be my absolute favorite, but I will cherish that moment of this particular film forever.
Overall: 9/10
Pros: Still a great story and atmosphere, tons of amazing visual imagery
Cons: Still slow, a little bit plodding
I can say for sure that I have no real preference between the 1982 Theatrical Cut of Blade Runner or the newly released 'Final Cut'. I can also say that I don't really care if Deckard is a replicant or not; what really matters is that the question is there and the needless debate over the question will keep the movie in people's minds forever.
What matters is if the movie is good, and this movie is great.
The first time I saw the movie, as in, the first time I watched the 1982 cut of the movie, I was a little bit overwhelmed with the visual imagery, and while I loved it, I'm not sure if I really appreciated it. Now I have the image of the Tyrell Pyramid permanently burned in my mind, and Roy Batty saying, "All of these moments will be lost, like...tears...in rain," practically makes me weep. Now I truly realize and appreciate the beauty of this movie and its amazing look and execution.
I still have minor complaints about the pacing and the real lack of any sort of major plot, but I still think that the movie's brilliant. Really what I like most about this definitive cut of the picture is that it takes out the voice over which, while informative, detracted a little bit from the movie. This also still contains the unicorn sequence that was present in the 1992 'Director's Cut' which was the start of all of that 'Deckard: Replicant of Human?' stuff, and so I like the fact that it was in this cut because I like the fact that it has inspired debate amongst the fan base. But still, I truly have to say that I have no real preference between the two. I truly love both versions (voice over and no voice over) equally.
One last thing that I must mention: Roy Batty's final speech in the movie. I loved it in the 1982 cut of the film and thought of it as a great movie moment and a defining moment that gave definition and meaning to a film that was otherwise pretty much meaningless. At that time, however, I didn't realize how profound an effect it would have on me during this second viewing. This time, as the rain fell and the light turned blue and Rutger Hauer's speech came up, I was completely engrossed in the moment and, more importantly, in the character. As he told about the wonders that he had seen, the attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion and whatnot, I was completely inside this character and emotionally involved in how horrible a moment this was for him. And then when he started talking about the memories being completely lost in rain, memories that no one else has or could ever have, I was crying some, and every time I think about it I still almost cry because for some reason or another, I was completely emotionally involved in a film that initially polarized me in all respects. Before, I didn't realize how amazing this moment was and how important it was, even if only to science fiction fans, and now I must say that it is my absolute favorite moment from a film. The movie itself may not be my absolute favorite, but I will cherish that moment of this particular film forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
