The World Ends With You (TWEWY)

By Squarenix and Jupiter

Now reviewers have been throwing perfect scores at this game for quite some time now and i got curious to see what the big deal is. Now, admittedly, picking your forms of entertainment based on what some loud-mouthed internet reviewer with a shtick says is the height of stupidity, but when EVERY loud-mouth idiot with a schtick on the internet is giving it a perfect score, maybe there's something to it.

Of course, they might all just as equally be gushing fanboys with nothing relevant to say. Don't believe me? Check out all the "perfect 10's" in the "reader reviews" section of IGN at http://rr.ds.ign.com/rr/ds/ - there are 2 pages of them.

But i digress: after all, you're all here to hear what i, and i alone, think, right? Well...

When i first sat down to play TWEWY, i thought it was gimmicky, hard to control, disliked its "stylized" graphics and music and thought it had a predictable story. However, since i'm not so jaded as to call a game a flop after an hour or so of gameplay, i decided to stick it out and damn-it all if i didn't enjoy it. But here's the kicker: all those previous complaints STILL STAND. The controls are awkward, the fighting seems gimmicky, the story's predictable and i STILL don't like the stylized graphics and music. But, that's not to say it's a bad game.

Gameplay and Control:

The number one thing that bugged me about the game was by FAR the control: it's both gimmicky and non-responsive. Running around the map is fine, but when you enter a battle you're forced to attack using a series of pins that are activated with various stylus controls. Problem is, the game has a punishingly difficult time trying to discern whatever the hell you're trying to do. This is only compounded by the vague and often stupidly worded instructions given to you by the game itself:

"Touch empty space to fire a bullet in that direction". It took me more than half the game to figure out that "touching empty space" is pointless and the effect i wanted was better accomplished by tapping repeatedly on whatever enemy i wanted to hit. So, why didn't they say "tap repeatedly on the enemy you want to hit"? Well, because that's the control sequence for a DIFFERENT set of pins (guess how those pins work).

I'd like to say you get used to this kind of thing, but you won't - anyone who says otherwise is a liar. Instead, you'll use a subset of pins with control sequences that you've "learned" to do and sparingly (if ever) use the rest.

But wait, there's more!

On top of trying to control your own character on the bottom screen, you have to control a partner character who fights along with you on the top screen. They use the D-pad (or abxy if you're a lefty) to fight. Controlling your partner is more straightforward than the stylus commands, but still non-trivial as you have to build up "fusion attacks". To do so, you have to attack "in a certain way" to generate fusion stars. Collect enough stars and you get your fusion attack.

The fusions aren't really necessary, but they do a shit-load of damage and restore health, so they're highly desirable, especially in a pinch. Problem is, each partner (there are three of them) generates fusion stars in a different way. Add on that you're probably trying to get your main charater's attack to work the way you want it and the fusion stars end up largely being generated "by chance".

Now, controlling two characters separately and simultaneously on 2 different screens is nothing short of a painful exercise in multitasking. But thankfully, the game provides you with some VERY basic AI to control your partner so you can focus a little more on the lower screen. Of course, the AI will only work hard enough to make it look like your partner's not deliberately trying to die - no harder. Ultimately, by the end of the game, you will be controlling both fighters, if only to avoid perpetual death at higher difficulties.

Graphics and Music:

Well, now that we've talked about the controls, let's move to the graphics and music. They both pretty much have the same feel, imo: they both feel overly stylized. I'm not normally one to complain about graphics, but it just bugs me that each and every character was drawn with a waist no thicker than their already absurdly thin wrists. It's grating for the eyes! Bitch about "deformed, big headed Link" all you want, at least it's not visually painful to look at. When i can see the bones jutting out of the characters hips and limbs, i get incredibly squeamish. I don't know, this may be just me, but it's still a very valid criticism (moreso if "big headed link" is considered "valid criticism").

The music, too, seems to have some kind of style it's trying to force on the player. This isn't a bad thing: lots of games have style (edgy, dark, whatever). But what i noticed the most was that TWEWY's music... had lyrics! Yes, lyrics in a game, let alone a squarenix game. At first i was blown away. "This is great," i thought. Having a song you can sing to (not that i'd ever do that... out loud), is very inventive and not often seen in video games. But, let us examine WHY most games don't have lyrics. Do you know? Oh, i bet you do. (ed: whiny reader "no, i swear i don't! Please, oh master of the internets, explain it to me!")

Lyrical music, even the best of it, gets tiresome after a while. This is because lyrics "jump out" at a listener (compared to purely melodic music which can drift into the background). When you're listening to the same 100 minutes of songs for many many hours of gameplay you can't help but get bored with them and find even the music you liked at the beginning a little "played out". So, while i commend the game makers for their innovation, i do have to say that i'd prefer non-lyrical music in my games. The music is the background to a game's gameplay and story and that's where it should stay.

The Story:

Arguably one of the most important aspects of any game, particularly RPG's. I mean, let's face it, game play is largely identical for games in the same genre. Having played Final Fantasy's 1-8 inclusive, i can safely say there's very little difference here, yet people still buy and play the next one... why? Story. Story, story story... (though, even with final fantasy's they come to look all the same, too).

So what's the story of TWEWY? I'm not gonna say! After all, that's giving away one of the bigger parts that you should probably experience yourself... just like the frustrating controls.

No, the story's not terrible, but it's not all that great, either. I mean, not all that great compared to other RPG's. Maybe it's because i'm a writer and i'm used to thinking deeply about plot lines or because i've played so damned many RPGs already, but i found the story quite predictable. Many of the "big secrets" didn't hold any punch and even the misleading clues they'd throw in weren't effective. The more ferociously they pushed a clue, the more i'd discount it:

"Gee, they're really pushing this angle... i bet it's wrong." And i'd always be right. Guess it's not really the game's fault. Sort of a problem with stories in general these days. Anyway, it's still worth a mention.

Now, given i've complained in non-significant terms about control, music, graphics and story, what could possibly be left that would make me like this game? Well, that's where my next heading comes in:

Characters:

Yes, characters. While the story is, at the best of times, average, it does a remarkably good job of establishing the characters you encounter. This is most definitely deliberate since the story's sort of about how the main character (Neku) hates other people (a kid after my own heart), but learns a lesson about friendship anyway (quitter!).

In his adventures around Shibuya (a section of Tokyo), Neku encounters a number of characters and sees how they interact with each other and their surrounding. Their interactions, though not always realistic, are all believable and charming in their own ways. It's quite entertaining to watch how the background characters will play out their own independent stories in the background, completely oblivious to the game's main plot.

But it's not just the background characters that are charming in their own way: the game even provides you with some foreground characters who have breadth and depth all their own. One villainous character has even risen the ranks to become a verifiable fan favourite: Sho Minamimoto. A twisted "math genius" (i give the game extreme leeway here) with aspirations of dominance who can't help but spout mathematical puns and mnemonic devices at every opportunity. Sounds stupid, right? Well it's not!

I, myself, loved the usage of stupid math puns and references. Minamimoto uses mnemonics like "Soh Cah Toa" (trigonometry) and "FOIL: First Outer Inner Last" (binomial multiplication) as threats while deriding Neku as "so zetta slow" (that is, "10^21 slow". What?). It's so corny, it goes past the line separating "good" from "bad", all the way around the world and ends up back on the "good" side. You really have to hear it to know what i mean.

Of course, these "threats" only have any real impact thanks to the BRILLIANT voice acting - and i emphasize brilliant here. What makes the voice acting so good?

First of all, the voice acting is done SPARINGLY. While most games with voice acting push it for every single vocalization, doing so makes the game feel drawn out and kills immersion. If you've ever played an Ace Attorney game (or any game with ample text and story to it), just imagine how painful it would be if every single word was vocalized.

Yeah.

The other thing that makes the voice acting superb is the voice ACTORS. Consider my good friend Minamimoto again (NB: he's not actually a friend. He spends the game trying to kill you). Whoever did his voice for the english dub deserves a bloody medal. Yelling out those mathematical puns couldn't've been easy on the soul - i know, i've tried. But he still had all the emphasis and inflection required of the role.

I know this sounds like I'M gushing now (ed: whiny reader "you love everyone"), but i'm truly in awe. After seeing so many other (probably better paid) actors doing half-assed jobs in movies and on tv, refusing to do some scene or take certain roles because they "don't do ", it's just so refreshing to hear/see someone actually, ya know, acting!

*sigh*

Anyway, i could go on on this, but there's literally so much more to talk about in the game and the review's already "so zetta long" (ed: whiny reader "what does that even MEAN!?"). There's a lot more nitpicking i could do, but ultimately there's nothing really all that bad with the game. I stand by what i said: even though i've now completed the game and enjoyed it very much, the control in combat, graphics and music still leave something to be desired. But none of what it could be detracts from what it currently is.

All in all, The World Ends With You is fun, challenging and worth hours of game play. I give it my highest grade ever: a B plus plus.

Mortal Kombat (1995)

So, how do you turn a tournament based fighting game with no real plot into a movie? Well, apparently you can't. This is a movie so bad, it's gotta be a joke. Either this is the dumbest action movie in existence or it's the longest, most drawn out punch line to the most mediocre joke ever.

Now before i start what passes for a review these days (on what passes for a movie in the '90's) i have to say, i don't really know all that much about the GAME Mortal Kombat. I played it a few times, am vaguely aware of the character names, but largely i don't really know anything about it, so if i'm missing some of the more "clever" moments of the movie (as if!), that's why.

Now, as for the Mortal Kombat the MOVIE, it's a one dimensional piece of cinematography that basically follows the "plot" of the games. That is, it's one tournament style fight after the next with no connections what so ever. The film utilizes the best special effects of the '80's to bring to life such characters as Subzero, Scorpion and Goro from the game to fight in kombat to the death.

Now, as for the characters, they are divided into two groups: those who do not have background stories, and those who try to have background stories. The latter are our "heroes". For the most part, there's really only three of them: Liu Kang, Johnny Cage and Sonya Blade.

Two guys and a girl? Gee, i wonder what will happen here. For the uncurious, when she first meets Cage, Sonya puts a gun to his head, so you know the two of them "are meant to be" - 'cause nothing says lovin' like a gun to the head (it's probably the easiest way to get someone into bed with you).

As far as their motivation is concerned as to why they're competing, "revenge" kinda sums it up for Kang and Sonya. Cage, on the other hand, has something a little different. He's currently a movie star and wants people to take him seriously as a "real martial artist". It's probably the only known time in movie history where the (usually comical) answer of "respect" is an acceptable answer to the question "what do i get if i win?".

The three stock heroes are lured and or tricked into entering Mortal Kombat, which is described by Raiden (another "good guy", but relegated to overseer role) as a tournament on which the fate of the world depends! The whole exchange goes something like this:

Sonya: (in disbelief) the fate of the world depends on a tournament?
Raiden: exactly.

After which, everyone believes Raiden and it's never brought up again.

We're introduced to a number of other characters at this point, including Subzero and Scorpion (don't worry, they don't matter), Shang Tsung (the bad guy) and Kitana. Kitana's female and catches Liu Kang's eye, so you know she'll become a good guy. Naturally, even though Kang's never seen Kitana ever before, he trusts her implicitly, presumably because of her looks. This isn't as crazy as it seems; maybe Kang knows he's in a shitty movie and the femme fatale is always, ALWAYS a closet ally.

We, as the viewer, know this already, so when Kitana and Kang are told to fight (because it's a tournament, remember?) it comes as no surprise that they spend their time grappling and clutching at each other as they role around, locked in each other's warm embra... death grip. In other words:

MORTAL SEX ACT!

Dun dun dun, dun dun dun dun, dun dun dun, dun dun dun dun!

...

Yeah, yeah, i know it's terrible and it doesn't rhyme. But like the movie, i just didn't feel like trying anymore.

Anyway, as it turns out, the heroes mop up all their random fights (and they ARE random) and Shang Tsung is left with only one choice: have his 4-armed monster, Goro, fight the nameless black guy of the group (his name's actually "Art Lean" according to the credits - is he from the games, too?).

Now, if you have a pulse and have seen any movies in your life, you probably know that this poor bastard is about to pay the ultimate price for his foolhardy decision to be a minor character. In fact, it's only a 3 minute long fight and ends with him dying to Goro before he can land a single blow. Shang Tung notes that it was a "Flawless Victory" for Goro. He then steals the losers soul (pun definitely intended).

I love how in this scene Sonya "the maneater" Blade screams when Art Lean has his soul taken (even though she never interacts with him to any meaningful degree before hand).

Sonya: NOOOOOO!
Sonya (thinking): i never even got to learn his NAME!

And this is the point of the movie where Sonya's character changes from "carpet eating, man hater" (if ya know what i mean, heh heh heh ) to "damsel in distress" in a single beat. This is actually a step FORWARD for her character, though, as she really didn't have any to begin with. Besides, her character change would later give this shittastic movie its only redeeming quality: the easy-on-the-eyes Sonya (Bridgette Wilson) tied to a couple of pillars in a rather skimpy outfit. Though, sadly, even this brief moment of fanservice could've been done so much better (ed whiny reader: pervert!).

So anyway, Cage and Kang decide they are going to go save Sonya (the "plot" has to move somehow, i suppose) by chasing her and Shang Tsung into another realm where Liu Kang promptly gets jumped by another character that looks like Scorpion/Subzero (Reptile, i think?), resulting in a solid 10 minute fight. Meanwhile, Johnny Cage patiently watches from the sidelines - after all, it's *only* "the fate of the world" at stake.

Anyways, after Kang defeats Reptile, he, Cage and Kitana (she just kinda showed up) go on to save Sonya. Kang fights Shang Tsung and spends half the time getting kicked around before finally winning after some last minute character development. He ends the fight by echoing back Shang Tsung's final words to Art Lean: "Flawless Victory".

"Flawless"? After getting his ass kicked for 10 solid minutes? I don't think the writers (or at the very least, Kang) know what this word means.

Anyway, the movie ends with Cage and Sonya and Kang and Kitana pairing off as the writers intended and the audience is left with something of a cliffhanger ending. Could it be a sequel on the way? Who knows! Guess we'll just have to wait, right?

I give this movie one sonya blade tied to one of 100 empty posts.

Coraline

What happens when a writer suffers migraines and uses opium to cope? Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. What happens if you read a lot of lewis carol books - and possibly also take opium (to cope?)? Coraline. The latter (movie) is based on Neil Gaiman's book of the same name which i'm just going to go ahead and assume no one read. Go on: prove me wrong! I DARE you!

Now, since the movie's a few weeks old now, i'm probably not the first person to draw parallels between Coraline and Lewis Carol's books. However, i feel it bears repeating since it's more than just the surreal world of Coraline that invoke the images of Lewis Carol's work (Coraline even has her own cheshire cat!).

The first thing i want to note about this movie is actually something non-artistic or plot related. Coraline, though it uses claymation (a breath of fresh air given the overuse of CGI in the last decade) and was marketed as a tim burton film is, in fact, NOT a tim burton film. I mention this because this is something that came as a surprise to me when the opening credits began to role. Tim burton was involved with the film, but his name only appears as the producer credit... and we all know about movies that advertise based off of the producer! Personally, i rank the "from the producer of" credit as highly as "from the set designer of" or "from the guy who brought the danishes for the director of". It just doesn't matter.

Anyway, let's move on from tim burton and talk about the film and plot.

The movie starts with our young heroine (addict?) using a dowsing stick to find an old well. The whole sequence seems to have little other purpose than to set up last minute plot elements and introduce a nosy neighbour boy with an unfortunate name (that Coraline makes fun of a LOT). The neighbour boy tries to befriend Coraline, but she seems to find him more annoying than anything else.

Wait wait wait! Boy + girl + awkward and mixed feelings? I wonder where this will go... Ah, to hell with it, i'll spoil the surprise: it's a romantic subplot! (C'mon, you were surprised just a little, right?)

To be fair, the romantic subplot isn't a major subplot (but still clearly a present one) and takes a little longer than other romantic subplots to play out. Also, because the protagonists ARE clearly prepubescent, it ends more in a "close friendship" than anything else.

Anyway, as it turns out, our young heroine addict and her family have only recently moved into an eerie house that for some reason reminds me of the house from Betelgeuse (NB: the author of Coraline has stated he grew up in an "addam's family house"). While Coraline's parents are more preoccupied with their upcoming book they're publishing, they give their restless daughter some busy work to keep her out of their hair, setting her about to explore their new home (mom and dad of the year: "count the windows, honey"). During her search, she turns up a strange crawl space door that's been mysteriously bricked up and wall-papered over. While the door initially holds a lot of intrigue for Coraline, she promptly forgets about it due to its largely unassuming nature.

Meanwhile, our would-be romeo has found a mysterious doll that looks EXACTLY LIKE Coraline but with button eyes and decides to give it to his new neighbour as a present ('cause girls don't find guys they just met who give them dolls that are facsimiles of themselves creepy or anything).

So, where'd this doll come from? Well, apparently it just appeared mysteriously shortly after Coraline and her family moved into the house. Needless to say, this eeriness is lost on EVERYONE, except, miraculously, our young heroine (addict?). But even she just writes it off as "the neighbour boy's a creep" and leaves it at that. Though, to be fair, a doll that looks exactly like her IS a lot less out of the ordinary than, say, a mouse circus, a talking cat and a piano that "plays you": all of which she encounters later on in her story and reacts to as if they're only mildly spectacular.

Well, i don't want to give away too much of the plot here, but as it turns out, that mysterious door is a gateway (like a looking glass) to an alternative world (like a wonderland) where everything is "too good to be true" - her parents are attentive, the nosy neighbour boy is a mute and the fields are sown with poppies. In short, it's everything our heroine (addict?) always wanted! Of course she falls for the ruse hook line and sinker... right up until the twist that she has to sacrifice her eyes for buttons; then that life "she's always wanted" doesn't seem all that great anymore. Coraline gives her "other mother" the proverbial middle finger and after a slow set up, the plot finally finds its stride. Coraline spends the remainder of the movie figuring out what's really important to her and fighting (at times, literally for her life) to get it all back.

It's worthwhile to note that while Coraline is in her drug-induced dreams, the claymation that's employed to make the world marvelous and creepy all at once is nothing short of awe-inspiring. I have to say, seeing animation other than CGI being used to create such an elaborate world is, at the very least, a treat for the eyes. The work and effort that went into crafting the world certainly shows in everything from the dynamic facial expressions of the characters to the tiniest poppy seed in the garden (ed, whiny reader: ENOUGH WITH THE "HEROINE JOKES"!).

While it's not REALLY a tim burton movie, there are quite a few nods to his work and i'm sure even a non-fan can pick up on some of the homages, particularly in background and set design. Ultimately, though, i just felt like the movie wasn't anything special and was at times simply trying to be "alice in wonderland" for the sake of being "alice in wonderland". The coherence of the plot definitely suffers from the rushed pacing at the end, and i just never felt the urgency that's supposed to be associated with the more urgent scenes.

All in all, there's not much i can say bad about this movie, just like there's not much i can say that's good. Is Coraline the greatest movie ever? No. Is it the worst? No. Coraline is one of the most average movies i've ever seen. It doesn't try to over step its boundaries, but nor does it fall short of those expected of it. There's nothing explicitly wrong with it, but you'll still walk out of the theatre feeling like something was missing.

I give Coraline a painfully painfully average grade: C+.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (and a woman).

To start this review off, i thought i'd do something different. No, i'm not going to stop talking down to you, dear reader. I just decided to let the characters of the movie (as i envisioned them) tell you a little bit about themselves... in comic form! You might have to click on the (linked) image files to get the full view... i can't seem to figure out how to increase the bloody margins.




Back? Ok, now to talk about the movie itself:

The setting is late 19th century (1890 something, i think it says): a lone villain is terrorizing europe with the goal of causing tension between the nations and thrusting the world into a catastrophic, and yet unheard of, "world war" that will no doubt result in MILLIONS of people dying (good thing he's gonna to fail, right?).

In response to growing tension among the european nations, britain sends forth an elite team of superhumans tasked with the sole goal of stopping this mysterious villain and averting world war. And who is this superteam? Well, it's an eclectic mix of free-domain characters (the best kind of characters, if you lack originality): Dorian Grey (his picture ages, but he does not), Dr Jeckyl/Mr Hyde, an invisible man, Captain Nemo, a chickified Dracula (actually, a female character from stoker's book) and, of course, Sean Connery and an american as themselves, for they are the most extraordinary ones of all! Sadly, that last part isn't a joke; the movie genuinely seems to believe this.

Ok, so sean connory and the american are actually supposed to be john quartermaine and tom sawyer (the former i'd never heard of), but really these alternative identities only come into play in the naming and nothing more - sawyer doesn't even trick anyone into painting a fence.

Now, before we go into the rest of what passes for a plot, let's just take a moment to analyze this situation. We have a team of heroes composed mostly of men, including two (visible) young men (tom sawyer and dorion grey), and a single woman.

Hmm, i wonder if there'll be a bit of statutory romance subplot?

Anyways, this entire "super" team isn't actually formed yet and the first half of the movie has Sean Connery (the team leader) tasked with enlisting a few more members before going off to venice where they are to fight the villain and avert the impending war. Seems simple enough, right?

However, in the process of trying to enlist some of the members, sean connery and company find themselves confronted by the very villain they've set out to stop. Naturally, our heroes aren't the type to let this little obstacle get in the way of their mission and they quickly mop up all but the main villain before continuing on with their journey, enlisting more men and heading off to venice... to stop the badguy.

...

Anyway, as the team heads off to venice, there's a brief interlude aboard nemo's sub (the nautilus, if you're not familiar with the story, "20,000 leagues...") where it's shown that romantic tensions are abound (shock!) as both sawyer and dorion have designs on the sole female member (i didn't see it coming, i swear!). Sawyer is obviously supposed to be the audience's favourite and the fact that she's icy to him at first just reinforces the notion that we know he's going to win her in the end. There's also some brief "character development" that takes place, mostly between connery and sawyer, but it's largely uninteresting and too vague for anyone to possibly care about. I'm sure it's tied in with connery's character, quartermaine, but who honestly cares?

Before you even try to answer that rhetorical question, i'm going to beat you to the punch: not even the movie!

That's right; i know this is going to sound weird, but it's like the writer's got tired of the script halfway through and just sort of ended it. By the time the team gets to venice, all the "plot development" that had been taking place up to now just sort of ends (thank god?) and we're left with a bunch of loose ends that seem to get tied up out of grudging obligation. After a lengthy (and surprisingly dull) fight in venice, the characters all seem to forget their various independent motivations and become firmly attached to a track that finishes out the movie and ends with "the good guys win". The random character development ends, the teams' internal conflicts are resolved, evil is defeated and the world is saved. Period. And it all happens exactly like that: one moment, mistrust and rivalry amongst the team, the next, everyone's buddies. There's not even lingering sentiment!

Oh, and that love story they were setting up earlier? It also just sort of ends. No, it's not that it never actually was supposed to be a romantic subplot; i mean, they have the awkward romantic tension, the "she's warming up to you" scenes and everything else you'd expect from a romantic subplot. In fact, the only thing missing is the "final kiss" scene we all know should be there at the end, but for some reason isn't. The most we get is the vampire and the american standing "close-ish" to each other at the end of the movie (well, closer than females stand to me, at least) while the team walks off into the sunset to embark on their next wacky and, no doubt, poorly written adventure.

And that's it.

It's really all kind of stunning. I mean, i don't know what else i can say about the movie because even the movie seemed to have given up on itself; it KNEW it was bad.

At any rate, if you paid good money to see this movie, i pitty you. If you enjoyed this movie, there's obviously something wrong with you because even the movie doesn't think itself good enough for a complete plot. I give this movie one imaginary star (out of any number of real stars) just for knowing when to end it... halfway through and with hanging plot elements. Hats off to you, league!

Slumdog Millionaire

So, the academy awards are over and i have an exam early tomorrow morning. What better time to waste an hour and a half writing a movie review, right? For the record, it doesn't take me an hour and a half to think up what i'm writing (ed. whiny reader "it shows"), i just type painfully slowly.

Moving along, if you watched the academy awards this past sunday, i can only assume you have nothing better to do with ~5 hours of your life (i could say something dirty like "try touching yourself" but those jokes get old and 5 hours is an exceptionally long time), but i can also assume you got to see Slumdog Millionaire cleanup in half the categories, including a music category that had as its nominees two songs from Slumdog and one "other" - "Down to Earth" from WallE, which incidentally won best animated movie (called it!). You probably also got to see the "total surprise" of Heath Ledger winning best supporting actor (if you didn't predict that one coming, get your head checked).

Normally, i don't see the best picture movies until after the oscars (because i like hype backlash and being severely disappointed). But this time was different as i'd actually already SEEN the best picture winner and i have to say: it deserved it.

Slumdog Millionaire is characterized by a "rags to riches" story of a slumdog (ghetto urchin of india) and his journey through life along with his brother and another orphan girl. The movie was adapted from a book which i'm sure is better, but i probably won't read it (and neither will you, so don't even TRY to judge me on that). I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're not retarded (it's a risk, i know!), so i can safely say "he also wins the million dollars" and you won't be surprised (if you are, slap yourself. HARD!).

The best thing about Slumdog is the WAY the story is told. The use of the game show to tell the story of the main character's life is actually very well done. While it's expected (by the characters, at least) that a lowly slumdog (Jamal) can't possibly know anything, the events of his life have lead him down a path of unique knowledge that just happens to pay off in spades later on... and as tacky as that sounds, from a literary standpoint, it actually works!

Now, like all movies, Slumdog Millionaire was required by law to have that romance story put into it. However, unlike most movies, the romance story actually seems to be an intricate part of the actual story and not some side-line element that's added in in a desperate attempt by executives to appeal to everyone in the world simultaneously (think action movie love stories).

Yes, Jamal spends his entire life (and hence the movie) pining for the woman of his dreams (the orphan girl, Latika, from his childhood), but it actually seems to evolve naturally from the story telling as opposed to just some random lust after a chicky who inexplicably works her way in and becomes the central piece of his life midway through.

What's more is that the love story itself is well developed and naturally touching. While you know in your heart of hearts that "everything will work out" (it's hol.... bollywood, after all), the barriers encountered along the way are largely believable.

The movie ends with everything coming up "Jamal" when he not only captures the 20 million rupee prize, but the girl of his dreams and the wonder of the nation in one fell swoop, nearly bringing this reviewer (and undoubtedly others in the audience) to tears "in the good way". The movie ends, as i'm sure all bollywood movies end, with the entire cast coming out to a dance number as the credits roll.

Now, as a critic, i'm OBLIGED to single out flaws and slander the movie for them as a result. However, there really isn't much out of place in this movie about spectacular odds and love conquering all. Even the acting was good! The child actors of india's slums seem to put the pampered rich child actors of hollywood to some sort of awful shame in this regard.

I guess the biggest thing that bothered me about the movie was the questions asked on the game show itself. Most of the questions asked (particularly in the latter half) were embarrassingly easy. I suppose the excuse used is that "it's india" and maybe the answers aren't that easy for people IN india, but that argument really doesn't fly all that well. I'm going to refrain from giving particular examples here, but suffice it to say that some trivia knowledge is pretty universal. The last question in particular is the sort of question you'd expect at ~1000$ level in the US version of the show. However, this is largely forgiven since the question (and answer) are very much plot derived and i'm sure anyone in the audience would know what the question is going to be long before the host even reads it out.

Anyways, i've purposely gone out of my way to be as vague about the movie as possible (probably because i'm a dick). But dick-hood aside, it's my hope that you will go out and see the movie yourself, since it is very much worth the admission price to see it in theatres even.

As a reviewer and writer, i give this movie a 5/5. Even though i've not seen all of 2008's movies, i agree with the academy: this is definitely one of the best.

Gran Torino

Writen, directed, starring, focusing on and showcasing Clint Eastwood.

Gran Torino (it's his CAR!) is a movie that doesn't fall in the area of movies i typically see. It's not great and it's not horrible. It is very painfully average - the fact that this warrants a 75% freshness rating on rottentomatoes.com (as of this writing) is cause for alarm. Are our movies really getting that bad?

Firstly, nothing will make you appreciate good acting like terrible acting. While normally i "don't care about" actors, Clint Eastwood is the only one in the movie who does anything that can be mistaken for acting. Even then, his role was largely one of "reticent anger" similar to, oh, i don't know, everything else he's ever done.

The characters start off (yes, all of them) relatively unlikeable in a wide array of ways. In the intro, Clint Eastwood's wife has just died and his family's in mourning. Due to the funeral, Eastwood is forced to spend time with his whiny, self-centred and arrogant grandchildren and unsympathetic and estranged children. But, considering Clint himself is portrayed as an evil, racist, hate-filled cunt, you kinda feel like it's par for the course.

The first half of the movie is punishingly sluggish as it "builds the setting". You're introduced to Eastwood's "gook neighbours" as he'd call them (not me) and shown that they, too, are largely unlikable for a variety of reasons. As this later turns out not to be an important part of the story, it makes you wonder why it was brought up to begin with. However, considering every character is portrayed as negatively as possible, it's probably not "that" reason.

By this point in the movie, since you probably haven't identified with any of the hateful characters, you might think "how can this turn out good?". Well, cue the writer's favourite device: the heel-face turn. For those of you not fluent in the lingo, it's when an unlikable character turns into a likable one... often done (as is the case in Gran Torino) as clumsily as possible (for emphasis?). Systematically, each and every main character will go from outwardly hostile toward each other to heartwarming love-fest in roughly 20 minutes of real time. Yes, it's that jarring. To make matters worse, the 20 minutes of real time is roughly equivalent to a couple weeks in movie time. Given that their hostility was directed toward each other for most of the movie (and implied to be long before that) it's jarring even in context.

I'd like to continue on here and tear apart the plot, but the sad fact of the matter is... i can't. The ending is actually good (I mean, apart from all the terrible acting): It's emotional, gripping and entertaining all in one. The characters who don't get their heel-face turn are slapped instead and the movie ends on a story-writing high note. Clint Eastwood sings as the credits role.

...

Let me repeat that for those of you who missed it: Clint Eastwood... SINGS. And it's every bit as awful as you can imagine it to be - probably worse if movies have killed your imagination (yes, yes,. Normally here i'd make a joke about how Eastwood's singing will somehow get him nominated for a Golden Globe, but it seems reality has beaten me to the punch. While the movie didn't get any nominations in "prestigious" categories (and it shouldn't!) it DID receive one for "Best Original Song": the song sung by Eastwood himself.

As far as i see it, this is an average movie. A good movie to walk in on halfway through: 2 and a half stars (out of 5).

In Bruges review

Or why (some) mainstream movie reviewers should quit their day jobs.

What can you say about a movie like In Bruges? I guess i can start by listing all the film's negatives:

It's hard to find.

...

Really, that's about it.

In Bruges is a movie that (like any good movie) is not easily type-cast. It's not a comedy with action parts, it's not an action with drama, and it's not a dramedy. It's a movie that contains elements of action, elements of comedy and elements of drama, but is itself just a very well put together story. As such, it's won high praise from almost everyone who's seen it. This movie is, in essence, what a good movie should be: a good story. And no one can fault a good story.

In fact, most criticisms i've heard for this movie come from those who live and die by the classification system of movies:

"Not enough action for an action flick."
"Not enough comedy for a comedy."
"Not enough drama for a drama."

People who hated this movie are the same types who (self proclaimed, even) are the types that think a movie about hitmen should start and end at Pulp Fiction. Now, don't get me wrong: Pulp Fiction is a good film, but these critics are the very reason hollywood churns out so much god damned trash to begin with. Unoriginality rules the day and anything the least bit original scares or confuses these people.

Why is the concept of two hitmen in bruges a bad idea? Apparently because the "two hitmen" strategy was done once by quinten tarintino in Pulp Fiction. How DARE anyone use two stock characters again, even if they are in a totally different story!

When i deride a movie, i always do so in the same manner: i take specific plot elements and explain HOW it's bad or why i see it as such. What's more, i try very hard to do so in a way that doesn't "give away" the overall plot (with the exception of truly awful movies; but that's more out of sympathy for you). Most other reviewers (sadly, not just the negative reviewers i'm talking about here) will gleefully give away entire plot points, often going as far as recapping the entire movie and NEVER explaining how certain plot elements are bad beyond just stating it. Expect wholesale criticisms of "clunky direction" and "poor tone shifting" without any specific examples*. And yes, it's possible to give specific examples without giving away the plot (i do it all the bloody time). All this adds up to make me wonder what the hell anyone even sees in "mainstream reviewing" at all.

I guess it's not fair to paint all the critics of In Bruges with the above brush: some hated the movie for entirely shallower reasons. I read one review that claimed the writing was purposely "anti-american" for the sake of being edgy (or something like that). However, the amount of "anti-americanism" (politically loaded fictional concept that it is) that exists is confined solely to how characters perceive things. Hating a movie because of a character's character (especially one that's not presented entirely sympathetically, as is the case in In Bruges) is truly bizarre. It's kind of like hating carrots because Hitler was a vegetarian. It may be a fact that the character hates americans or Hitler was a vegetarian, but that in and of itself really doesn't make the movie or carrots less good as a result. Well, maybe not entirely true for the carrots thing.

Anyway, In Bruges is an excellent movie that does the one thing movies should do: tell a story. In a world where too many movies just showcase actors and follow focus-group delivered plots, it's a refreshing breath of fresh air to finally see something that isn't one of those two things. I give it a 9.5 out of 10... because i never give perfects (ask my students).

*both these claims appear in critical reviews of In Bruges and (unsurprisingly) without examples to back them up.