Ok, so this is probably the first documentary i've reviewed and incidentally, the first movie i reviewed i really really liked. So, before i get into the details, here's an overview:
The Trap is a three part documentary made by Adam Curtis and produced by the BBC. Now, i'm not normally a fan of documentaries nor the BBC in general since i find documentaries are typically deeply flawed and the BBC tends to be quite a bit more biased than the idiotic "i love everything british" fan-boys think (yes, it's no CNN, but a three legged weasel is still a weasel). But The Trap is different.
The Trap, like many of adam curtis' works, looks at the rise and effects of neo-liberal policies and practices since the second world war (arguably the starting point for all this madness). The Trap specifically analyzes the rise and effects of laissez-faire capitalism, negative freedom and game theory and how they shaped our current economic mindset (specifically those of the us and uk).
The film talks about how governments and groups like the Rand Corporation worked to build an economic theory that they thought was logical and intelligent, simply because their theory was internally mathematically consistent. This theory was built on the mathematics of game theory and would later lead to the ever proliferating ideology of Libertarianism (a form of mental disorder that spreads like a virus and effects grossly ignorant people). According to their theory, all individuals acting, in what's called a "rational self interested way", will invariably benefit not only themselves, but those around them as well. Basically, the idea that the invisible hand of the market can and would correct for any mistakes through the power of economics where governments had failed in the past.
This theory isn't "new". It was first proposed by the likes of adam smith... and even HE didn't invent it (adam smith only observed the economic structure in operation at the end of the 19th century in britain... then wrote a book about it). However, new or old, this theory is strewn with many flaws and the need for the "invisible hand" should act as an indicator of such. The Trap discusses many of these flaws, using expert testimony from credible sources, including the father of economic game theory, dr john nash himself in a thorough and convincing fashion. Of course, i'd like to point out that while libertarians believe in the model of the "rational self interested" human, the very existence of libertarians themselves should at least be proof that the "rational" part is completely wrong.
Ironically, the best thing about The Trap is the part that i found most aggravating about it. For the entire first hour, hour and a half, The Trap comes off (to me) as almost completely unwatchable. So how is it that i'm able to still give it a glowing review? Well, it's because this is exactly what a documentary SHOULD do! While other documentaries, like Sicko and Bowling for Columbine (say) are well received from beginning to end, the only ones doing the receiving are michael moore's dedicated personal fan club. The Trap doesn't do this "preaching to the choir" as it were. It starts off with a detailed look at all the benefits of game theory and how it rose to popularity. So, while people like me (ie, intelligent people) will be put off by the paranoid rantings and ravings of a schizophrenic dr nash, the very people who SHOULD be watching the documentary (ie, libertarians) will be completely sucked in, only to find, later on, that dr nash is his own worst enemy. It's a completely new way of conducting a documentary, but it is, in my view, the right one. As aggravated as i was with the first hour, its purpose is to fully explore how such nonsensical theories came to light and how the most foolish of us were misled to believe their own bullshit.
Now, i'd like to end on a bit of a different note. While i don't want to be repeating the points of the documentary, there's one point i'd like to drive home here, and that's the point of the "invisible hand". While libertarians and capitalists in general view the market as a totally infallible god-like entity (hence the "invisible"-ness) capable of manipulating society into the best point of equilibrium, this all stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how capitalism works. Capitalisms proponents state that the system works because each and every individual will exchange something they don't want for something they want (whether that's goods for cash or vice versa). The object you acquired you clearly wanted more than what you gave up for it and in time, the system will adjust and correct to create an equilibrium that best serves the sum of its parts.
This theory works great... so long as the transactions are dealing with "non-required" goods/services. However, once the transaction is for a good or service that you require (like, say for example, healthcare) the theory fails as there's nothing a person isn't willing to give up for a necessity of life (no amount of cash) and so the self interested aspect catered to in a purely capitalistic society ends up delivering a veritable Hell onto the sum of its parts; a far cry from the utopia predicted by myopic libertarian philosophy. An important part of capitalistic theory, ignored by many of its proponents, is that the theory ONLY WORKS if the option to opt out of a transaction entirely exists as part of your consumer choices. No amount of "competition" can replace this option and once it's removed the theory breaks down and you end up with the "utopian paradise" of the third world.
In other words, as adam curtis so elegantly put it, "the invisible hand of the market is invisible because it isn't actually there."
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Pirates of the Caribbean, At world's end
Pirates 3.
Wow, i must love punishment. I mean, watching a sequel is pretty much asking for crappiness anyways, but why is it that the third movie is invariably always the worst? Godfather 3, Spiderman 3... Pirates 3. It's not like it can't be done well; i liked Return of the Jedi and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was quite exceptional. But i digress, Pirates of the Caribbean was an ok series and, maybe it's just me, but i actually liked the first two. However, the third one falls way short of this mark.
I guess the main thing that's wrong with this movie is that it sort of muscles through the plot devices as if subtly is out of fashion. The movie starts in Singapore (which the heroes go to sans boat, apparently), then goes to somewhere in the antarctic and then ends up in the afterworld, all in the span of about 20 minutes. Even the scenes in the underworld where Jack Sparrow has himself and his ship rescued make no sense. At one point, a veritable sea of rock-crabs wash jack and the black pearl back to the shorelines of the afterlife. But, where these rock-crabs come from and why they're helping him is left as a complete mystery (at least for now) and you, as the viewer, just have to accept that this is how things unfolded.
The other thing wrong with this movie in general is that they seem to be struggling to keep alive all the characters of the previous movies. while the film predominately focuses on the crew of the Black Pearl, we are shown brief snippets of Norrington and Elizabeth's father before both are quickly dispatched after what must've been 10 minutes of total screen time combined.
I guess it's ok that they killed them off. After all, they really did serve no purpose and it would've been distracting if they'd not been included at all. However, to see such major characters from the previous films just "vanish" really does them no credit, particularly since Norrington, a master swordsman by his own rite, was killed by a lowly member of the Flying Dutchman without so much as having a harsh word thrown.
Meanwhile, the film sticks to the previous formula (if you can call it that) of having a completely new villain, this time filled by the leader of the East India Trading Corporation. I forget what his name is, but the plot is that he has Davey Jones' heart and hence commands the Flying Dutchman to do his biddings. As far as badguy's go, he's not bad (as in, decent), but his plan is so nonsensical that even the writers felt embarrassed by it. As a result, the film's major focus is on constant battles between the Flying Dutchman and her crew and the Black Pearl and hers. By the end of the movie, you're so detached from the actual plot of the film that you don't care that it doesn't seem to actually resolve itself.
While it's true that the action scenes eclipse the plot, it's not because they were spectacular. In fact, compared with the previous movies, they kind of suck. Where were the epic sword fights with 2 or more combatants that keep switching sides? Those were the best parts, damnit! And this movie didn't have them!
Another thing that falls short is the comedy. The previous films had loads of comedic scenes in a variety of fashions from the visual comedy of seeing Jack on a shish-kebab to the concept humour of Jack freaking out about Elizabeth burning all the rum to make a smoke signal. However, the best this film can do is a delusional jack seeing dozens of himself manning all sorts of rolls. At first it's funny, but by about the third time, it's played out and you just want to see something different for a change.
All in all, the movie itself's not horrible, but it's not good either. It's definitely far weaker than its previous installments and while it does end on a note that leaves it open to sequels, you find yourself hoping that they just let this franchise die. But then, if writers knew when to kill the bastard offspring they produce, we wouldn't all be watching the 19th season (or whatever we're at) of the Simpsons, now would we?
Wow, i must love punishment. I mean, watching a sequel is pretty much asking for crappiness anyways, but why is it that the third movie is invariably always the worst? Godfather 3, Spiderman 3... Pirates 3. It's not like it can't be done well; i liked Return of the Jedi and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was quite exceptional. But i digress, Pirates of the Caribbean was an ok series and, maybe it's just me, but i actually liked the first two. However, the third one falls way short of this mark.
I guess the main thing that's wrong with this movie is that it sort of muscles through the plot devices as if subtly is out of fashion. The movie starts in Singapore (which the heroes go to sans boat, apparently), then goes to somewhere in the antarctic and then ends up in the afterworld, all in the span of about 20 minutes. Even the scenes in the underworld where Jack Sparrow has himself and his ship rescued make no sense. At one point, a veritable sea of rock-crabs wash jack and the black pearl back to the shorelines of the afterlife. But, where these rock-crabs come from and why they're helping him is left as a complete mystery (at least for now) and you, as the viewer, just have to accept that this is how things unfolded.
The other thing wrong with this movie in general is that they seem to be struggling to keep alive all the characters of the previous movies. while the film predominately focuses on the crew of the Black Pearl, we are shown brief snippets of Norrington and Elizabeth's father before both are quickly dispatched after what must've been 10 minutes of total screen time combined.
I guess it's ok that they killed them off. After all, they really did serve no purpose and it would've been distracting if they'd not been included at all. However, to see such major characters from the previous films just "vanish" really does them no credit, particularly since Norrington, a master swordsman by his own rite, was killed by a lowly member of the Flying Dutchman without so much as having a harsh word thrown.
Meanwhile, the film sticks to the previous formula (if you can call it that) of having a completely new villain, this time filled by the leader of the East India Trading Corporation. I forget what his name is, but the plot is that he has Davey Jones' heart and hence commands the Flying Dutchman to do his biddings. As far as badguy's go, he's not bad (as in, decent), but his plan is so nonsensical that even the writers felt embarrassed by it. As a result, the film's major focus is on constant battles between the Flying Dutchman and her crew and the Black Pearl and hers. By the end of the movie, you're so detached from the actual plot of the film that you don't care that it doesn't seem to actually resolve itself.
While it's true that the action scenes eclipse the plot, it's not because they were spectacular. In fact, compared with the previous movies, they kind of suck. Where were the epic sword fights with 2 or more combatants that keep switching sides? Those were the best parts, damnit! And this movie didn't have them!
Another thing that falls short is the comedy. The previous films had loads of comedic scenes in a variety of fashions from the visual comedy of seeing Jack on a shish-kebab to the concept humour of Jack freaking out about Elizabeth burning all the rum to make a smoke signal. However, the best this film can do is a delusional jack seeing dozens of himself manning all sorts of rolls. At first it's funny, but by about the third time, it's played out and you just want to see something different for a change.
All in all, the movie itself's not horrible, but it's not good either. It's definitely far weaker than its previous installments and while it does end on a note that leaves it open to sequels, you find yourself hoping that they just let this franchise die. But then, if writers knew when to kill the bastard offspring they produce, we wouldn't all be watching the 19th season (or whatever we're at) of the Simpsons, now would we?
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Aka, Harry Potter 5.
This time i'm reviewing Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the movie. Now, it's not actually a movie i'd recently seen, but instead a movie i'd recently REseen. As a fan of the books, i've so far made it a point to see each film as they came out in theatres. Recently, however, my parents had rented Harry Potter 5 for my nephew to watch while he was over for the holidays and so i decided to sit in and see it again for myself. But i digress. Let's get on with the review, shall we?
As it is an adaptation from a book, it's impossible to discuss it without comparing it to the book. I'll try to be as fair as possible, though, as any movie adaptation, no matter how well done, is typically worse than the book it was based off. That being said, this movie is no different.
Since the movie is adapted from a 600 plus page book, the plot barrels forward like a freight train on steroids; subtlety and nuance be damned. The result of this is many characters who had failed to appear in the film they were supposed to are dumped in now without any introduction and for no other purpose than contrived plot devices:
"It's a good thing that witch who lives across the street from the Dursley's shows up when she does, otherwise Harry and Dudley would've been in real trouble. Of course, it would've been even MORE convenient if she had appeared 3 films earlier when she was actually supposed to."
Now, something directors often do when they have to emphasize a subtle point is have characters outwardly vocalize their thoughts because they can't internally soliloquize. To a degree this is necessary. However, sometimes a director has to trust that his or her audience isn't composed entirely of morons and that they WILL pick up on the strongly hinted at occurances without the need of an on screen character pointing it out for them. Apparently, the director/writers of Harry Potter don't know when this is appropriate and when it's not. As a result, throughout the movie, Hermoine serves the role of outward soliloquizer, pointing out all the giant pink elephants in the room as we go because apparently you have to be a genius to get this stuff.
"What's going on?" Ron mutters upon hearing the ministry-appointed, Professor Umbridge cut off the Hogwarts' headmaster and insert her own ministry-approved spiel.
"The ministry's interfering at Hogwarts!" Hermoine declares.
Ron and Harry look dumbfound.
Phew, it's a good thing she straightened that out for me. I NEVER would've figured it out. Or maybe it was for the onscreen characters only. Harry and Ron can be quite thick sometimes.
Another thing people do in book adaptations is change some elements of the story. Again, sometimes this is necessary. Unless the movie were 8 hours long, it'd be incredibly hard to be truly faithful to the book. So, to a degree, story changes are a necessary evil. Yet, for some reason, directors take this liberty to an insane level and often end up changing story elements into completely different story elements for no obvious reason. I remember Fred and George Weasley rebelling and using some kind of magical garden spell on the school. Why was this changed to fireworks in the movie? Did it add anything? Did it save time? As far as i can tell, the only reason it was done is because fireworks "go boom" and plants do not. At any rate, story-wise it felt like something was taken away from me.
Another thing they did was have Percy Weasley make a non-speaking appearance near the middle of the film. I guess this was to remind the audience he's not dead (despite having an important role in the first movie and none since). But it still makes me wonder. After all, if you're not going to introduce the growing rift in the Weasley family or have them even mention his name, why have Percy show up at all? This, ironically, would be the perfect point to have characters outwardly soliloquize their feelings on the topic. But we, as the audience, are left with it as an "easter egg" and nothing more. I suspect we'll see more of Percy in the coming movies, but if we do, it'll be awkwardly explained how he and his father had had a falling out.
All in all, the movie wasn't too bad. I think upon my second time through i found it more entertaining than before. Of course, my blood alcohol level was also significantly higher (it WAS the holidays). Either way, if you're a fan of the books, you'll probably want to see it, regardless; if you're not, you won't. So i guess this review was a total waste of time (like my others aren't?). Ah well, we all make mistakes. Let's just hope our mistakes don't all get turned into movies.
This time i'm reviewing Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the movie. Now, it's not actually a movie i'd recently seen, but instead a movie i'd recently REseen. As a fan of the books, i've so far made it a point to see each film as they came out in theatres. Recently, however, my parents had rented Harry Potter 5 for my nephew to watch while he was over for the holidays and so i decided to sit in and see it again for myself. But i digress. Let's get on with the review, shall we?
As it is an adaptation from a book, it's impossible to discuss it without comparing it to the book. I'll try to be as fair as possible, though, as any movie adaptation, no matter how well done, is typically worse than the book it was based off. That being said, this movie is no different.
Since the movie is adapted from a 600 plus page book, the plot barrels forward like a freight train on steroids; subtlety and nuance be damned. The result of this is many characters who had failed to appear in the film they were supposed to are dumped in now without any introduction and for no other purpose than contrived plot devices:
"It's a good thing that witch who lives across the street from the Dursley's shows up when she does, otherwise Harry and Dudley would've been in real trouble. Of course, it would've been even MORE convenient if she had appeared 3 films earlier when she was actually supposed to."
Now, something directors often do when they have to emphasize a subtle point is have characters outwardly vocalize their thoughts because they can't internally soliloquize. To a degree this is necessary. However, sometimes a director has to trust that his or her audience isn't composed entirely of morons and that they WILL pick up on the strongly hinted at occurances without the need of an on screen character pointing it out for them. Apparently, the director/writers of Harry Potter don't know when this is appropriate and when it's not. As a result, throughout the movie, Hermoine serves the role of outward soliloquizer, pointing out all the giant pink elephants in the room as we go because apparently you have to be a genius to get this stuff.
"What's going on?" Ron mutters upon hearing the ministry-appointed, Professor Umbridge cut off the Hogwarts' headmaster and insert her own ministry-approved spiel.
"The ministry's interfering at Hogwarts!" Hermoine declares.
Ron and Harry look dumbfound.
Phew, it's a good thing she straightened that out for me. I NEVER would've figured it out. Or maybe it was for the onscreen characters only. Harry and Ron can be quite thick sometimes.
Another thing people do in book adaptations is change some elements of the story. Again, sometimes this is necessary. Unless the movie were 8 hours long, it'd be incredibly hard to be truly faithful to the book. So, to a degree, story changes are a necessary evil. Yet, for some reason, directors take this liberty to an insane level and often end up changing story elements into completely different story elements for no obvious reason. I remember Fred and George Weasley rebelling and using some kind of magical garden spell on the school. Why was this changed to fireworks in the movie? Did it add anything? Did it save time? As far as i can tell, the only reason it was done is because fireworks "go boom" and plants do not. At any rate, story-wise it felt like something was taken away from me.
Another thing they did was have Percy Weasley make a non-speaking appearance near the middle of the film. I guess this was to remind the audience he's not dead (despite having an important role in the first movie and none since). But it still makes me wonder. After all, if you're not going to introduce the growing rift in the Weasley family or have them even mention his name, why have Percy show up at all? This, ironically, would be the perfect point to have characters outwardly soliloquize their feelings on the topic. But we, as the audience, are left with it as an "easter egg" and nothing more. I suspect we'll see more of Percy in the coming movies, but if we do, it'll be awkwardly explained how he and his father had had a falling out.
All in all, the movie wasn't too bad. I think upon my second time through i found it more entertaining than before. Of course, my blood alcohol level was also significantly higher (it WAS the holidays). Either way, if you're a fan of the books, you'll probably want to see it, regardless; if you're not, you won't. So i guess this review was a total waste of time (like my others aren't?). Ah well, we all make mistakes. Let's just hope our mistakes don't all get turned into movies.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Zelda: Twilight Princess
So i recently finished Zelda: Twilight Princess on Nintendo Wii. I have to say, it's not a bad game. But, there's something about it that just doesn't sit quite right. I'm not trying to compare it to Ocarina of Time; that was an absolutely amazing game. The story was enthralling, the controls fluid and the temples memorable. Yes, even the Water Temple. I spent HOURS playing through that temple... (ok, it just FELT like hours). But let's face it: when talking about a franchise series like Zelda, it's impossible to do any kind of meaningful review WITHOUT talking about its past incarnations.
Twilight Princess is a completely capable game of its own accord. It's fun, controls are intuitive and the formula is more or less the same (kidnapped princess Zelda, 7 or 8 temples, and Gannon as the final boss). But the thing is, even with all that, it's just... missing something. As far as the Temples go, it still has the oh-so-memorable "Water Temple" that you'll spend more time than you'd care to playing through, but it also has another entry (one players of Link to the Past and other Zelda titles may be remotely familiar with): the Ice Temple. A temple so predictable and concise you'll have guessed the ending at the beginning and verify it in a few short minutes of game play.
It's not that the Ice Temple is easy... on the contrary. Nintendo opted to make up for the brevity by ensuring none of the random enemies inside drop any hearts. So you'll either have to buy the (usually superfluous) health potions or just get used to playing with that annoying beeping sound you get at low hearts.
Anyways, moving on to the game as a whole, if you've played the Zelda games before, you're in for more of the same thing. As stated earlier, Zelda's been kidnapped, Gannon's the bad guy and you, Link, or whatever you choose to name yourself, has to rescue Princess Zelda and restore peace to the land. However, here's where a problem sets in. You only really know this if you've PLAYED other Zeldas before. After you've traveled the land and conquered the myriad of temples littering it, you finally enter the castle of the royal family where Princess Zelda is being held captive by the evil King Gannon. Of course, Gannon has not been mentioned before this point in any meaningful way and Zelda has had a total screen time of a few minutes in the game so far. As a zelda fan, you're happy to see the titular character and the staple bad guy, but i can't help but feel like they were more or less stuck in there at the last second. Now, admittedly, being in the, what? Twelfth installment of the series, it's probably pretty rare to find a gamer who's never heard of Zelda and/or Gannon. But it's still lazy not to include a story that builds up ALL of your characters! It's like watching a movie where the only characters you learn anything about are the ones you knew going into the theatre and everyone else in the movie is just there to piss you off (if you don't know what this is like, see Transformers).
Other things the game did wrong was the whole money issue. Zelda series in general seem to be unable to get this right (i've no idea why, it doesn't SEEM like it should be that difficult). In Zelda 1, you are literally STARVED for rupees while in Twilight Princess you're looking for excuses to spend them. The problem's compounded by the fact that the game awards practically all of your endeavors by showering you with MORE rupees. So much so that you get sick of opening treasure chests after a while. There were a number of times i'd go through an enormous deal of trouble to get to a treasure chest only to find that it contains 100 rupees, not the heart piece i had hoped it would. Because of the games new feature where Link only takes rupees that'll FIT into his wallet, most of these treasures went unopened in my game. Even with the magic armor that actually CONSUMES rupees as you wear it, i was constantly turning down chest after chest. If only real life were this full of riches...
All that being said, the game's not bad. It's still entertaining and probably worth a few dozen hours of game play at the least (more if you do the side quests). But if you're expecting it to be another Ocarina of Time, you'll be pretty disappointed. In fact, you may have to lower your standards a bit in order to fully enjoy this one. But, on the plus side, at least you won't have to spend most of the game sailing.
Twilight Princess is a completely capable game of its own accord. It's fun, controls are intuitive and the formula is more or less the same (kidnapped princess Zelda, 7 or 8 temples, and Gannon as the final boss). But the thing is, even with all that, it's just... missing something. As far as the Temples go, it still has the oh-so-memorable "Water Temple" that you'll spend more time than you'd care to playing through, but it also has another entry (one players of Link to the Past and other Zelda titles may be remotely familiar with): the Ice Temple. A temple so predictable and concise you'll have guessed the ending at the beginning and verify it in a few short minutes of game play.
It's not that the Ice Temple is easy... on the contrary. Nintendo opted to make up for the brevity by ensuring none of the random enemies inside drop any hearts. So you'll either have to buy the (usually superfluous) health potions or just get used to playing with that annoying beeping sound you get at low hearts.
Anyways, moving on to the game as a whole, if you've played the Zelda games before, you're in for more of the same thing. As stated earlier, Zelda's been kidnapped, Gannon's the bad guy and you, Link, or whatever you choose to name yourself, has to rescue Princess Zelda and restore peace to the land. However, here's where a problem sets in. You only really know this if you've PLAYED other Zeldas before. After you've traveled the land and conquered the myriad of temples littering it, you finally enter the castle of the royal family where Princess Zelda is being held captive by the evil King Gannon. Of course, Gannon has not been mentioned before this point in any meaningful way and Zelda has had a total screen time of a few minutes in the game so far. As a zelda fan, you're happy to see the titular character and the staple bad guy, but i can't help but feel like they were more or less stuck in there at the last second. Now, admittedly, being in the, what? Twelfth installment of the series, it's probably pretty rare to find a gamer who's never heard of Zelda and/or Gannon. But it's still lazy not to include a story that builds up ALL of your characters! It's like watching a movie where the only characters you learn anything about are the ones you knew going into the theatre and everyone else in the movie is just there to piss you off (if you don't know what this is like, see Transformers).
Other things the game did wrong was the whole money issue. Zelda series in general seem to be unable to get this right (i've no idea why, it doesn't SEEM like it should be that difficult). In Zelda 1, you are literally STARVED for rupees while in Twilight Princess you're looking for excuses to spend them. The problem's compounded by the fact that the game awards practically all of your endeavors by showering you with MORE rupees. So much so that you get sick of opening treasure chests after a while. There were a number of times i'd go through an enormous deal of trouble to get to a treasure chest only to find that it contains 100 rupees, not the heart piece i had hoped it would. Because of the games new feature where Link only takes rupees that'll FIT into his wallet, most of these treasures went unopened in my game. Even with the magic armor that actually CONSUMES rupees as you wear it, i was constantly turning down chest after chest. If only real life were this full of riches...
All that being said, the game's not bad. It's still entertaining and probably worth a few dozen hours of game play at the least (more if you do the side quests). But if you're expecting it to be another Ocarina of Time, you'll be pretty disappointed. In fact, you may have to lower your standards a bit in order to fully enjoy this one. But, on the plus side, at least you won't have to spend most of the game sailing.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Transformers
Well, since Hollywood's ruined Batman, Spiderman, Ninja Turtles and Ghostbusters from my childhood, i guess it's only fair that they ruin this for me, too. But given that they ruined the former movies in sequels mostly, it's unforgivable that they ruin this one with the first installment (with promise for FUTURE installments. Joy!).
How does this movie suck? Let me count the ways!
First off, the plot is horrible. Not bad, not average, HORRIBLE! It's basically the same as the overall concept of the damned television show! Bad robots show up and good robots have to stop them. This is ok for a TV show to have as an overall basis, but to make this the entire plot of a movie is just LAZY!
Compounding this is the craptacular character development. It's already pretty sad that the most likable character in the movie is a robot, but do the actual human characters have to be as interesting on a personal level as a toaster? The main character's sole purpose in life, it seems, is to get together with the local hot chick who's so deficient of personality, you just know the only reason he wants to get with her is to nail her for bragging rights.
"Yeah, i banged her... and then i never called her back!"
"Nice, man. Nice!"
*high fives all around*
But whatever, he's the main character, so you root for him none the less. You don't care enough to remember his name (i think it's billy, but i can't be bothered to be sure of this) but you do root for him. What the hell, he's the main character right? Gotta root for somebody.
Now, i might be being too hard on the main couple, but that's only because they aren't the worst characters in the movie ("worst", here, meaning "most unnecessary"). The film actually starts by introducing us to a half dozen US soldiers operating in the middle east who we're instantly supposed to respect and admire since they are given back stories, personalities and even hints at their future hopes and aspirations. In short, characters more fully developed than the main characters. However, just as you think these characters are supposed to be integral to the plot, the drop out of existence for the duration of the film, appearing once more at the end to provide meaningless supporting roles that could've been filled by Joe Everyman.
Things turn from bad to worse in the character department when (in practically the next scene) we're introduced to three MORE characters. This time, the super-attractive, impossibly young code breakers that've been summoned by the US government to help crack the codes of the evil robots. They're easy to spot, even before the film singles them out. They're the only ones under 60 in the room and the movie makes a special point of noting that they're geniuses. Again, we as the audience are misled to believe that these characters (particularly the girl) are important and play integral roles in the film. Then, the movie forgets about them to focus on more important things. However, all is not lost as they return to these brilliant teenage code-crackers later on in the movie, but only to show that they're less brilliant than we were previously lead to believe. In fact, while they (indeed all of the code breakers) are finding it impossible to break this alien code of the bad guys, the hot female code breaker admits that she knows someone who CAN break it! So she steals the information and sneaks out to find this mysterious person. Sweet! Just what this movie needs: more unneeded characters!
Anyways, our sexy code breaker finds her friend and nobody is surprised to learn that it's the token black guy of the film. Naturally, he's also a computer genius because that's what the film requires him to be. Of course, we never get to see him BEING a computer genius since shortly after arriving at his place, the girl and her friend are promptly arrested for stealing US government property and we never see them again.
Blah, so whatever! The characters suck. This is supposed to be an action film, right? Last i checked, action films don't seem to require good character development (mostly because relying on Arnold Schwarzenegger to flesh out a character is asking for trouble). So what about the action bits? Well, you'd think they'd be AMAZING, right? I mean, it's transformers! How can they lose? Well, somehow they found a way.
First of all, understand this about action flicks: they typically consist of "busy" action sequences. The camera's all over the place, shaking and barely catching glimpses of the action as the actors engage in the struggle. This was done because, as actors, they weren't supposed to be really hitting each other. So, how does one make it LOOK like your hitting someone when in fact you're not? By making the action sequence busy. You dance around the actors with the camera, never really getting a good shot, because you CAN'T have the actors actually punching, kicking, stabbing and shooting each other. However, when you're dealing with larger than life, fully computer animated robots like the transformers, there is no such restrictions. Yet, whenever there's an action sequence in the film, it's so busy that you, as the viewer, are totally lost as to what's going on.
There were a number of sequences where i was on the edge of my seat... trying to figure out what the hell was going on:
"Wow, look at Optimis Prime hit that guy!
...
No, wait, he's just rolling around on the ground trying to put out that fire."
Seriously, if you're going to go as far as to pay millions for a kick-ass graphics team, USE THEM! There is NO EXCUSE for such busy action sequences when the combatants are entirely computer generated.
I guess on the plus side, Hollywood's being consistent. It's just too bad it's "consistently bad".
How does this movie suck? Let me count the ways!
First off, the plot is horrible. Not bad, not average, HORRIBLE! It's basically the same as the overall concept of the damned television show! Bad robots show up and good robots have to stop them. This is ok for a TV show to have as an overall basis, but to make this the entire plot of a movie is just LAZY!
Compounding this is the craptacular character development. It's already pretty sad that the most likable character in the movie is a robot, but do the actual human characters have to be as interesting on a personal level as a toaster? The main character's sole purpose in life, it seems, is to get together with the local hot chick who's so deficient of personality, you just know the only reason he wants to get with her is to nail her for bragging rights.
"Yeah, i banged her... and then i never called her back!"
"Nice, man. Nice!"
*high fives all around*
But whatever, he's the main character, so you root for him none the less. You don't care enough to remember his name (i think it's billy, but i can't be bothered to be sure of this) but you do root for him. What the hell, he's the main character right? Gotta root for somebody.
Now, i might be being too hard on the main couple, but that's only because they aren't the worst characters in the movie ("worst", here, meaning "most unnecessary"). The film actually starts by introducing us to a half dozen US soldiers operating in the middle east who we're instantly supposed to respect and admire since they are given back stories, personalities and even hints at their future hopes and aspirations. In short, characters more fully developed than the main characters. However, just as you think these characters are supposed to be integral to the plot, the drop out of existence for the duration of the film, appearing once more at the end to provide meaningless supporting roles that could've been filled by Joe Everyman.
Things turn from bad to worse in the character department when (in practically the next scene) we're introduced to three MORE characters. This time, the super-attractive, impossibly young code breakers that've been summoned by the US government to help crack the codes of the evil robots. They're easy to spot, even before the film singles them out. They're the only ones under 60 in the room and the movie makes a special point of noting that they're geniuses. Again, we as the audience are misled to believe that these characters (particularly the girl) are important and play integral roles in the film. Then, the movie forgets about them to focus on more important things. However, all is not lost as they return to these brilliant teenage code-crackers later on in the movie, but only to show that they're less brilliant than we were previously lead to believe. In fact, while they (indeed all of the code breakers) are finding it impossible to break this alien code of the bad guys, the hot female code breaker admits that she knows someone who CAN break it! So she steals the information and sneaks out to find this mysterious person. Sweet! Just what this movie needs: more unneeded characters!
Anyways, our sexy code breaker finds her friend and nobody is surprised to learn that it's the token black guy of the film. Naturally, he's also a computer genius because that's what the film requires him to be. Of course, we never get to see him BEING a computer genius since shortly after arriving at his place, the girl and her friend are promptly arrested for stealing US government property and we never see them again.
Blah, so whatever! The characters suck. This is supposed to be an action film, right? Last i checked, action films don't seem to require good character development (mostly because relying on Arnold Schwarzenegger to flesh out a character is asking for trouble). So what about the action bits? Well, you'd think they'd be AMAZING, right? I mean, it's transformers! How can they lose? Well, somehow they found a way.
First of all, understand this about action flicks: they typically consist of "busy" action sequences. The camera's all over the place, shaking and barely catching glimpses of the action as the actors engage in the struggle. This was done because, as actors, they weren't supposed to be really hitting each other. So, how does one make it LOOK like your hitting someone when in fact you're not? By making the action sequence busy. You dance around the actors with the camera, never really getting a good shot, because you CAN'T have the actors actually punching, kicking, stabbing and shooting each other. However, when you're dealing with larger than life, fully computer animated robots like the transformers, there is no such restrictions. Yet, whenever there's an action sequence in the film, it's so busy that you, as the viewer, are totally lost as to what's going on.
There were a number of sequences where i was on the edge of my seat... trying to figure out what the hell was going on:
"Wow, look at Optimis Prime hit that guy!
...
No, wait, he's just rolling around on the ground trying to put out that fire."
Seriously, if you're going to go as far as to pay millions for a kick-ass graphics team, USE THEM! There is NO EXCUSE for such busy action sequences when the combatants are entirely computer generated.
I guess on the plus side, Hollywood's being consistent. It's just too bad it's "consistently bad".
Monday, December 17, 2007
Spiderman 3
Well, well well. So this is my first review? I thought i'd open a blog so i can spew my common-as-an-asshole vitriol onto the web, just like everybody else. I'm cheap, so i'll typically only ever review movies, games or whatever long since they've fallen out of fashion. That being said, let's get on with the review:
I saw spiderman 3 recently. All i have to say about it is it's "George Clooney playing spiderman" away from being the worst superhero movie i've ever seen. I could go on and talk about all the problems with it... so i will (tribute to Yahtzee over at The Escapist!):
Firstly, the Sandman plot was entirely unnecessary. He shows up, like, 4 times in the movie: the first to show he's in existence, the second turning into sandman via a "particle physics" experiment (that doesn't look anything like any particle physics experiment i've ever heard of... but what would i know, being IN particle physics!) the third and forth as fights with spiderman.
While sandman's story with his daughter is a footnote in the plot, we find out that all this time, apparently he was the one who shot uncle ben... but the police felt it unnecessary to inform the parker's until after he escapes from prison (which the parker's handle with a tone of anger and apathy). It doesn't seem to serve any purpose that he killed ben except that it "makes peter mad" and leads to a poorly done fight with black-spiderman in the train-riddled underground of NY city. At the end of hte film, he fights spiderman again, this time as a giant sandmonster (for some reason, he didn't do this earlier) and you have to infer his defeat as the director (lazily) decides to leave him out after he takes a few shots that seem to hurt him. But fear not, he shows up once more at the end to "clear things up" over the uncle ben thing and blows away in the wind. Apparently his daughter no longer matters, and you as the viewer don't care.
Speaking of the rest of hte movie, mary jane spends the first third of it acting like a bitch. Peter retaliates in the second half by acting like a prick. But, peter parker is forgiven because he has "the black spiderman suit", which makes him more aggressive, talented and rude. Mary jane has no such excuse, so naturally, you just hate her for being a bitch to peter for no reason, so it's virtually impossible to care when she's moping about about how hard done by she is. This all
climaxes in a wishy-washy "all is forgiven" finale were peter, mary jane and harry (green goblin) all forgive eachother on harry's deathbed.
Speaking of harry, he only forgives peter after his butler (played here by the worst possible actor ever) tells him he's long since known harry's father killed himself with his own weapon (cause i guess he has a degree in pathology). Naturally, watching harry be consumed by
misguided vengeance for years and years didn't worry him and only after peter explicitly asks for his help does he think to let harry know of his errors.
Speaking of bad actors, the movie is littered with them. I mean, even small parts like the news woman is caste as badly as possible without it being played by a one armed monkey. But, it's hardly noticeable, only because the rest of the movie is so distractingly bad, you just accept this when it comes along.
Speaking of bad actors, let's talk aunt mae: now, i know it's "more realisitc" to have her telling bad stories because some people can't tell stories well in real life. But seriously, couldn't they make her remotely interesting? It's gotten to the point that whenever aunt mae's on screen you're like "damnit, again?" and just look at your watch until she's gone. I suppose it's not really her fault, but that of the writers. Either way, she's simply an unlovable character you're supposed to think of as lovable.
As far as the venom subplot goes, it's too spaced out and plays out stupidly. The symbiot's introduced immediately, but does nothing for most of the movie. It's compounded by the fact that you don't even see spiderman do anything with it (fight-wise). Eddie Brock's character is interjected with all the subtly of a rampaging elephant and his "downfall" at peter's hand is so pathetic, you think he's just oversensitive and is "one good cry away from being a woman" (to take a line from that 70's show; the last good thing the actor playing eddie brock ever did). All in all, you end up thinking "why introduce venom at all?" But seeing as everything else is a spectacular crap-fest it just seems to roll off your back at this point as you're simply waiting for the movie to end, just for the "bragging rights" of saying you watched it.
I saw spiderman 3 recently. All i have to say about it is it's "George Clooney playing spiderman" away from being the worst superhero movie i've ever seen. I could go on and talk about all the problems with it... so i will (tribute to Yahtzee over at The Escapist!):
Firstly, the Sandman plot was entirely unnecessary. He shows up, like, 4 times in the movie: the first to show he's in existence, the second turning into sandman via a "particle physics" experiment (that doesn't look anything like any particle physics experiment i've ever heard of... but what would i know, being IN particle physics!) the third and forth as fights with spiderman.
While sandman's story with his daughter is a footnote in the plot, we find out that all this time, apparently he was the one who shot uncle ben... but the police felt it unnecessary to inform the parker's until after he escapes from prison (which the parker's handle with a tone of anger and apathy). It doesn't seem to serve any purpose that he killed ben except that it "makes peter mad" and leads to a poorly done fight with black-spiderman in the train-riddled underground of NY city. At the end of hte film, he fights spiderman again, this time as a giant sandmonster (for some reason, he didn't do this earlier) and you have to infer his defeat as the director (lazily) decides to leave him out after he takes a few shots that seem to hurt him. But fear not, he shows up once more at the end to "clear things up" over the uncle ben thing and blows away in the wind. Apparently his daughter no longer matters, and you as the viewer don't care.
Speaking of the rest of hte movie, mary jane spends the first third of it acting like a bitch. Peter retaliates in the second half by acting like a prick. But, peter parker is forgiven because he has "the black spiderman suit", which makes him more aggressive, talented and rude. Mary jane has no such excuse, so naturally, you just hate her for being a bitch to peter for no reason, so it's virtually impossible to care when she's moping about about how hard done by she is. This all
climaxes in a wishy-washy "all is forgiven" finale were peter, mary jane and harry (green goblin) all forgive eachother on harry's deathbed.
Speaking of harry, he only forgives peter after his butler (played here by the worst possible actor ever) tells him he's long since known harry's father killed himself with his own weapon (cause i guess he has a degree in pathology). Naturally, watching harry be consumed by
misguided vengeance for years and years didn't worry him and only after peter explicitly asks for his help does he think to let harry know of his errors.
Speaking of bad actors, the movie is littered with them. I mean, even small parts like the news woman is caste as badly as possible without it being played by a one armed monkey. But, it's hardly noticeable, only because the rest of the movie is so distractingly bad, you just accept this when it comes along.
Speaking of bad actors, let's talk aunt mae: now, i know it's "more realisitc" to have her telling bad stories because some people can't tell stories well in real life. But seriously, couldn't they make her remotely interesting? It's gotten to the point that whenever aunt mae's on screen you're like "damnit, again?" and just look at your watch until she's gone. I suppose it's not really her fault, but that of the writers. Either way, she's simply an unlovable character you're supposed to think of as lovable.
As far as the venom subplot goes, it's too spaced out and plays out stupidly. The symbiot's introduced immediately, but does nothing for most of the movie. It's compounded by the fact that you don't even see spiderman do anything with it (fight-wise). Eddie Brock's character is interjected with all the subtly of a rampaging elephant and his "downfall" at peter's hand is so pathetic, you think he's just oversensitive and is "one good cry away from being a woman" (to take a line from that 70's show; the last good thing the actor playing eddie brock ever did). All in all, you end up thinking "why introduce venom at all?" But seeing as everything else is a spectacular crap-fest it just seems to roll off your back at this point as you're simply waiting for the movie to end, just for the "bragging rights" of saying you watched it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)