Judd Apatow is the new Hollywood golden child. Every movie he has any involvement with these days is immediately touted as being "From the people who brought you 'Knocked Up' and 'Superbad'." Which, let's face it, is a very helpful message for any movie to have since both were such successes both financially and in terms of laugh content. Unfortunately, Walk Hard does not quite live up to the same levels of hilarity those other two movies had.
Walk Hard is a pretty simple movie to describe. Essentially, writers Judd Apatow and Jake Kasdan took the basic plots of "Ray" and "Walk the Line", melded them together, added jokes when necessary, and called it a day. That's not to say that the movie does not work, because on the whole, it does. Functionally, the movie works rather well and uses the fact that John C. Reilly is playing the same character from age 14 to his 70s to a humorous advantage. The problem lies in the fact that the movie is not nearly as funny as Knocked Up or Superbad.
On the positive side, the laughs are pretty consistent. Most of the jokes are relatively humorous and there are a few very funny situations in the movie. It never bored me. I was constantly curious about what sort of wacky, out of control situation they would throw out next. So in that regard, the movie succeeds. There are also numerous small roles that are meant to illustrate the time period in which Dewey Cox is currently residing in, ranging from Elvis to the Beatles which are all very funny in the ways they send up the actual musicians.
The ultimate problem is that the movie just is not funny enough. There was nothing particularly memorable in the movie, except for the fact that a few penises are shown on display for no apparent reason than for people to go "Hey look, it's a penis." There is very little reason for them to be there, but I suppose the same could be said about the naked women in the movie. Except people are going "Hey look, they're boobies." But whatever.
It's also lacking the heart that the last two Apatow movies had. Knocked Up and Superbad were not only extremely funny movies, but included characters that you truly cared about and wanted to see succeed. They were flawed individuals who were trying to make their way in the world. Dewey Cox does not have that same connection to the audience that those previous characters had. I suppose that is somewhat the point in a parody movie, but when all the marketing materials are used strictly as a way to compare the movies, one cannot help but do an actual comparison.
For what they have, all of the actors do an extremely proficient job with their material. John C. Reilly is genuinely funny as Dewey Cox and the supporting cast including Kristin Wiig as Dewey's first wife, Edith and Jenna Fischer as his second wife, the June Carter send-up, Darlene, all deliver very funny scenes. The material they have to work with is just unfortunately somewhat lacking.
Despite the negatives, Walk Hard continues Judd Apatow's dominance of comedy. Even though it does not ultimately achieve the levels of greatness, it still exists as a funny movie that is leaps and bounds above such recent drivel as "Good Luck Chuck" or "The Heartbreak Kid". Apatow has raised the bar on himself, so it's just that much more obvious when he fails to meet it, even if the movie itself is an entertaining and funny way to spend two hours. Hopefully this is just a small slip-up in a line of excellent movies to come.
GRADE: B-
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
I Am Legend Review
"I Am Legend" had a very unique opportunity to become an intimate big budget picture. The fact that Will Smith and his dog are essentially the only two characters in this movie made for a rather interesting experience throughout the majority of the film. Unfortunately, the movie does not ultimately end in a satisfactory way, leaving me to ponder alternate ways things could have been wrapped up.
Being unfamiliar with the source material and the two films prior to this one that attempted to adapt it, I was able to come in with essentially zero preconceived notions about what it was supposed to be. Yet, it does make me wonder how different the original novel was, since the last 30-40 minutes or so seem to be a completely different movie.
The movie begins in a televised interview announcing that cancer has been cured using a modified virus that only attacks cancer cells. This is the only set-up, save for a few minutes of flashbacks, for the remainder of the film. Immediately we are thrown into the world of Robert Neville (Will Smith) who spends his days hunting for food and searching for survivors of the mutated virus that killed the majority of the population and turned the rest into zombie-vampires.
Will Smith carries this movie as really only he can. His performance is relatively nuanced in comparison to many of his other films and the fact that he is alone for such a huge portion of the movie speaks volumes to his capabilities as an actor. The interactions with his dog, Sam, show a desperation for contact that would not be nearly as evident in a lesser actor. Also, one particularly moving exchange happens between Neville and a mannequin that truly shows where he is emotionally. What this provides is a welcome departure from most big budget actioners which primarily focus on gigantic effects sequences and have little in the way of emotional development.
Unfortunately "I Am Legend" turns into exactly the type of movie that it seemed to be rebelling against in the last quarter. About 3/4 the way through, a major turning point happens in the movie and it becomes almost like the writers had no idea where to go from there, but realized that the movie needed to end. What follows is a few ridiculous conveniences that just seemed to undermine the psychological intensity of the majority of the movie. This coupled with an intense zombie/vampire showdown creates a complete lack of focus in an otherwise focused movie.
The resolution seems to be obtained too easily and much too quickly.
The zombie/vampires are also much too plain. Yes, they are dangerous, but they seemingly exist as just mindless challengers for Neville except when they are inexplicably able to set up elaborate traps. The movie certainly would have benefited from an exploration as to what the people infected with the virus have become, beyond these mindless zombie/vampires.
"I Am Legend" suffers from a few ailments that hold it back from being a really good movie, which, unless someone goes back and reshoots the last half-hour, will not change. As it stands, it's absolutely an engaging way to spend two hours if only to see Will Smith continue to improve on his movie star status and acting capabilities.
GRADE: B-
Being unfamiliar with the source material and the two films prior to this one that attempted to adapt it, I was able to come in with essentially zero preconceived notions about what it was supposed to be. Yet, it does make me wonder how different the original novel was, since the last 30-40 minutes or so seem to be a completely different movie.
The movie begins in a televised interview announcing that cancer has been cured using a modified virus that only attacks cancer cells. This is the only set-up, save for a few minutes of flashbacks, for the remainder of the film. Immediately we are thrown into the world of Robert Neville (Will Smith) who spends his days hunting for food and searching for survivors of the mutated virus that killed the majority of the population and turned the rest into zombie-vampires.
Will Smith carries this movie as really only he can. His performance is relatively nuanced in comparison to many of his other films and the fact that he is alone for such a huge portion of the movie speaks volumes to his capabilities as an actor. The interactions with his dog, Sam, show a desperation for contact that would not be nearly as evident in a lesser actor. Also, one particularly moving exchange happens between Neville and a mannequin that truly shows where he is emotionally. What this provides is a welcome departure from most big budget actioners which primarily focus on gigantic effects sequences and have little in the way of emotional development.
Unfortunately "I Am Legend" turns into exactly the type of movie that it seemed to be rebelling against in the last quarter. About 3/4 the way through, a major turning point happens in the movie and it becomes almost like the writers had no idea where to go from there, but realized that the movie needed to end. What follows is a few ridiculous conveniences that just seemed to undermine the psychological intensity of the majority of the movie. This coupled with an intense zombie/vampire showdown creates a complete lack of focus in an otherwise focused movie.
The resolution seems to be obtained too easily and much too quickly.
The zombie/vampires are also much too plain. Yes, they are dangerous, but they seemingly exist as just mindless challengers for Neville except when they are inexplicably able to set up elaborate traps. The movie certainly would have benefited from an exploration as to what the people infected with the virus have become, beyond these mindless zombie/vampires.
"I Am Legend" suffers from a few ailments that hold it back from being a really good movie, which, unless someone goes back and reshoots the last half-hour, will not change. As it stands, it's absolutely an engaging way to spend two hours if only to see Will Smith continue to improve on his movie star status and acting capabilities.
GRADE: B-
Saturday, December 8, 2007
The Golden Compass Review
Much has been written regarding "The Golden Compass" and the author, Phillip Pullman, with his apparent master plan of converting the world's children into atheists, if some are to be believed. Yet, while this may be an issue within the books themselves, none of that controversy is apparent in the finished film. And maybe by using those controversial elements, the movie would have been much better off.
As it stands, "The Golden Compass" is little more than a cheap imitator of fantasy films that have come before it, such as Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. The movie itself is a textbook situation of the whole being less than the sum of its parts.
To sum it up, Lord Asreal (Daniel Craig) has discovered "Dust", a mystical energy force that apparently allows people to travel between universes. The concept of Dust goes against the teachings of the Magesterium, so this organization, which controls the vast majority of the world it would seem, wants to stop Asreal from making the existence of other worlds known to the public as this would undermine everything they teach.
Meanwhile, 12-year-old Lyra (Dakota Blue Richards) is taken into the care of Mrs. Coulter (Nicole Kidman) where Coulter attempts to subdue Lyra, as Lyra is the child stated in the witches prophecy to be the one who decides the coming war. Lyra is also in possession of an alethiometer, or Golden Compass, which is an object that is capable of seeing the truth within any situation. Lyra escapes, and ends up on a whirlwind adventure that includes polar bears, sky cowboys, and witches.
There are so many issues with this movie it is difficult to find a place to begin. First and foremost, the movie is just too short. Clocking in at just under two hours, absolutely nothing is given any time to develop. Moments pass from one scene to the next with no real connection to any of the characters. In one example, Lyra uses her golden compass to ascertain the location of the great Polar Bear Iorek's (voiced by Ian McKellen) armor. She then tells him, he listens with no question of her motives or how she got this knowledge, picks up the armor and immediately becomes best friends with the child. Shortly after, a situation arises where Iorek's life is put into jeopardy and Lyra shows a connection with him that just does not make any sense whatsoever. No evidence was given in this movie to justify her reaction to the situation.
It is completely obvious that much was cut from the book in an attempt to fit into a sub-2 hour run time and ends up reading more like a cliff's notes on the novel instead of an adaptation. Other characters come and go with seemingly no compelling reason as to why they are there. Unfortunately, this means that it becomes impossible to connect with any of the characters on any more than a superficial level, making the movie less of a coherent whole and more of a mish-mash of situations.
The plot is also a difficult issue to grasp with as there does not seem to be any real goals until the movie is literally over. The characters stumble across things that lead them from one place to the next and very rarely do they ever take matters into their own hands. Every new character seems to lay out some clunky new exposition that attempts to fill the audience in on what has happened or is going to happen instead of just showing us. The movie then therefore follows into a large portion of summaries about the world instead of immersing the audience within the world.
Yet, not is all bad about the movie. There are individual moments of fun that are scattered throughout. The entire sequence with the Ice Bear army were probably the most engaging moments in the entire film, as they not only showed Lyra's true cunning and intelligence, but was also a showcase for an intense battle where the movie truly earns its PG-13 rating in a shocking conclusion.
Nicole Kidman's Mrs. Coulter is also an incredibly effective villain because she is just obviously off her rocker. Her desperate attempts to maintain self control are undermined by moments of pure insanity where it is clear that not much is right with this woman, and Kidman plays it wonderfully. Unfortunately, her time in the movie is very short and she is given very little to do when she is there. I certainly would have enjoyed to delve deeper into her story to understand her more, even though there was an unoriginal twist thrown into her character near the end. Yet, because there was such little explanation, it could turn into something much deeper in future films if they are made. Craig was also charismatic as Lord Asreal, but unfortunately he is in the movie for what seems to be all of 10 minutes.
Dakota Blue Richards delivers an excellent performance as Lyra, but again, her character suffers from the same problems as all the others, being a lack of development and a paint-by-numbers plot.
Ultimately, I found myself wanting to forget about this portion of the saga and more interested in what is to come. And hopefully, if they do make those other installments, they will learn to cut only what is necessary and focus on the characters much more. There have been worse ways to spend two hours, but I can think of so many better ways to spend them as well.
GRADE: C-
As it stands, "The Golden Compass" is little more than a cheap imitator of fantasy films that have come before it, such as Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. The movie itself is a textbook situation of the whole being less than the sum of its parts.
To sum it up, Lord Asreal (Daniel Craig) has discovered "Dust", a mystical energy force that apparently allows people to travel between universes. The concept of Dust goes against the teachings of the Magesterium, so this organization, which controls the vast majority of the world it would seem, wants to stop Asreal from making the existence of other worlds known to the public as this would undermine everything they teach.
Meanwhile, 12-year-old Lyra (Dakota Blue Richards) is taken into the care of Mrs. Coulter (Nicole Kidman) where Coulter attempts to subdue Lyra, as Lyra is the child stated in the witches prophecy to be the one who decides the coming war. Lyra is also in possession of an alethiometer, or Golden Compass, which is an object that is capable of seeing the truth within any situation. Lyra escapes, and ends up on a whirlwind adventure that includes polar bears, sky cowboys, and witches.
There are so many issues with this movie it is difficult to find a place to begin. First and foremost, the movie is just too short. Clocking in at just under two hours, absolutely nothing is given any time to develop. Moments pass from one scene to the next with no real connection to any of the characters. In one example, Lyra uses her golden compass to ascertain the location of the great Polar Bear Iorek's (voiced by Ian McKellen) armor. She then tells him, he listens with no question of her motives or how she got this knowledge, picks up the armor and immediately becomes best friends with the child. Shortly after, a situation arises where Iorek's life is put into jeopardy and Lyra shows a connection with him that just does not make any sense whatsoever. No evidence was given in this movie to justify her reaction to the situation.
It is completely obvious that much was cut from the book in an attempt to fit into a sub-2 hour run time and ends up reading more like a cliff's notes on the novel instead of an adaptation. Other characters come and go with seemingly no compelling reason as to why they are there. Unfortunately, this means that it becomes impossible to connect with any of the characters on any more than a superficial level, making the movie less of a coherent whole and more of a mish-mash of situations.
The plot is also a difficult issue to grasp with as there does not seem to be any real goals until the movie is literally over. The characters stumble across things that lead them from one place to the next and very rarely do they ever take matters into their own hands. Every new character seems to lay out some clunky new exposition that attempts to fill the audience in on what has happened or is going to happen instead of just showing us. The movie then therefore follows into a large portion of summaries about the world instead of immersing the audience within the world.
Yet, not is all bad about the movie. There are individual moments of fun that are scattered throughout. The entire sequence with the Ice Bear army were probably the most engaging moments in the entire film, as they not only showed Lyra's true cunning and intelligence, but was also a showcase for an intense battle where the movie truly earns its PG-13 rating in a shocking conclusion.
Nicole Kidman's Mrs. Coulter is also an incredibly effective villain because she is just obviously off her rocker. Her desperate attempts to maintain self control are undermined by moments of pure insanity where it is clear that not much is right with this woman, and Kidman plays it wonderfully. Unfortunately, her time in the movie is very short and she is given very little to do when she is there. I certainly would have enjoyed to delve deeper into her story to understand her more, even though there was an unoriginal twist thrown into her character near the end. Yet, because there was such little explanation, it could turn into something much deeper in future films if they are made. Craig was also charismatic as Lord Asreal, but unfortunately he is in the movie for what seems to be all of 10 minutes.
Dakota Blue Richards delivers an excellent performance as Lyra, but again, her character suffers from the same problems as all the others, being a lack of development and a paint-by-numbers plot.
Ultimately, I found myself wanting to forget about this portion of the saga and more interested in what is to come. And hopefully, if they do make those other installments, they will learn to cut only what is necessary and focus on the characters much more. There have been worse ways to spend two hours, but I can think of so many better ways to spend them as well.
GRADE: C-
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Halo 3 Hype: For Those Who Love It....and Don't
There is no denying the fact that the Halo 3 hype has reached almost insurmountable levels in these past few weeks. From soft drinks to fast food to pretentious marketing campaigns, Microsoft is looking to permeate every facet of society in an attempt to reach the largest possible demographic.
And the question therefore remains: Is there too much hype for the game?
The answer to that would have to be both yes and no.
But before we get into the why's and how's of this situation, let me give you a little background on my Halo experience.
I'm a huge Halo fan. In the summer of 2002 I heard that if I was to purchase only one game for my Xbox, then Halo it had to be. After taking that plunge I was absolutely immersed in the world. While I recognized that a good portion of the storytelling was ripped straight from Aliens, I still loved it. The game was relatively easy to pick up, fun to play, and I didn't even play multiplayer that often.
Two years later, in 2004, I jumped on the marketing train and took it all in. While not an active participant in I Love Bees, I made every attempt to follow the story as that was going. I downloaded every commercial. I borrowed "The Fall of Reach" and "First Strike" from a friend and read them prior to launch. In essence, I was preparing myself completely.
And following the release of the game, I played multiplayer extensively. There was something about being able to just jump in and play and not have to worry about finding a decent match or waiting for people to join my specifically hosted game that truly appealed to me. On the other hand, I did feel that the single player was a bit of a let down. It didn't have the scope that Halo 1 had, despite having much better graphics. The narrative was a little disjointed and who could forgive that horrific ending?
Yet, here we are almost three years later and a similar situation is upon us. Except after the massive success that the hype had on the second game, Microsoft feels content to multiply that by what seems to be 100.
So back to the original question: Is the hype too much?
...Yes.
Not everyone likes Halo. There are a huge contingent of people that despise it with every fiber of their being. They see Halo as a substandard First Person Shooter that does absolutely nothing new with the genre, is not a graphical revolution, and regurgitates standard Sci-Fi plots in an uninteresting manner. And many of these people are the hardcore of the hardcore. And they have every right to their opinion. So when this section of gamers sees their favorite pastime being enveloped by this marketing machine, it angers them immensely. Why should such a horrible, barely better than average game be getting all this attention? It's a travesty to all TRUE first person shooters that SHOULD be getting this attention. On top of all that, it dilutes how serious they take their gaming life and packages it in a soda can to be sold to them later.
For those people, the attention given to that creates the perception that MORE games like Halo (in their eyes a substandard shooter) should be made. And this, of course, is a terrible thing to them. And in that regard, it's completely understandable.
And I do feel the most recent ads are a little pretentious in treating that diorama like it was truly from the future, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's disrespectful to current servicemen and women.
The hype is also creating a lot of unrealistic expectations for people. How is it possible that a game that pretty much says "If Jesus were alive today, he would be wearing MJOLNIR armor" could possibly deliver on its promise?
The thing is, it doesn't have to. Which brings me to the second answer.
....No. It's not too much.
What we, as gamers, sometimes don't realize is that Microsoft is out to make money first, and entertain us second. This is the way of the world. Whether it is a movie, or a new CD, or a brand new television show, or Britney Spears at the VMA's, these things are pushed heavily so that the parent brand can profit off of them. And what happened with Halo 2 is that suddenly the profits on that game justified them doing what they are doing now. Mountain Dew, Burger King, 7-11, all these other cross-promotional partners are USING Halo 3 to their OWN advantage. They certainly would not do it if they did not think it would drive traffic into their stores. They saw the raw data of what Halo 2 was able to accomplish and realized that there was this whole subset of the population they could use to make money for themselves. And so they did and are.
It's no secret that Halo is Microsoft's Golden Child. And the struggle to obtain profitability in the games division has been a difficult one. So when they opportunity arises to take advantage of this, people do. But what is different about this in comparison to other marketing endeavors is that Microsoft isn't telling you anything that you didn't already know. It's attempting to get the common man, the man who only buys a game or two a year, excited about Halo 3. They're trying to make it an event, something that can be shared between friends.
And despite what might seem to be a whoring out of the franchise, I would argue that Microsoft/Bungie are doing anything but. They're not allowing substandard tie-ins into the marketplace. All the comics and storytelling material is tied into the actual universe. It's not some shameless ripoff. Say what you will about the "Believe" ad campaign, but it's certainly well crafted. (Even though Bungie did recently say the commercials weren't canon.) I mean, they created a completely new DRINK. They didn't just put a face on a Dew can and call it a day. An entirely new flavor was invented. I think it's terrible tasting, but they get points for trying.
If you look at the marketing of something like Spider-Man 3, if you had seen all the trailers, you could literally put the movie together in your head. They marketed it to death but they gave away too much. In so many other movies, you see the same thing. Halo isn't doing this. Regardless of what you feel about the story, you're not seeing anything about it. It's guarded and protected and doesn't ruin the plot for those interested.
The cross-promotions exist mainly to create awareness in the everyday man. Of course, if you're reading this you're probably thinking "But EVERYONE knows that Halo 3 comes out on September 25th, regardless of whether or not they want to!"
I think that is not necessarily the case. As gamers, we often surround ourselves with other people who have similar interests. We scour the internet for news, we talk to our friends, and in that we are acutely aware of the existence of Master Chief and his fight against the Covenant. There is a HUGE portion of the population that does nothing of the sort. And THAT is who the campaign is primarily for, not us.
But why is this a bad thing? It doesn't have to be. What it is doing is raising awareness to the public that a good portion sees the gaming community as Wii Sports Players. The campaign is attempting to prove that this IS a legitimate entertainment event on par with any major movie release. That there is a hardcore game that can get everyone involved. These people who are being targeted have no idea what "Saved Films" are or what "Forge" is. They're thinking "Hey, this looks like a cool game, I should check it out." I do not see how more people purchasing game consoles is a bad thing.
Yet, ultimately the reason that I feel the hype is not a bad thing is because if you let it, the hype can be fun. A huge community is sharing in the same experience. A large group of people who all enjoy the same thing are able to come together and follow the progress of what I believe is a great franchise. And people are looking for different things. Some people think that story is king, others want to do nothing other than play multiplayer. The same game is approached from many different angles. The game will probably not revolutionize the genre or have a radical departure in storytelling, but at the very least it will be fun. Whether or not you think it's deserving of all the attention is yours to decide. This is the final act of the trilogy and while there will be other Halo-related projects in the future, I highly doubt they will acquire the same attention as this one did. For the sole reason that they will be different formulas. Halo 3 is operating on the same tried-and-true formula that has helped it succeed the last 6 years.
There is a difference between "hype" and "expectation." Hype is the experience that surrounds the release of a product. It tells you what it wants you to believe. And the more money a product has, the more hype it's going to give you. The more proven its been in the past, the more intense they will be in the future. They're trying to alter your expectations.
Except your expectations can be completely separate from the hype. Will Halo 3 be the greatest game I've ever played? Maybe. But maybe not. Do I expect it to be? Not necessarily. But I do expect it to be fun. And I expect people who I normally wouldn't see on Xbox Live to be there. (Hopefully a larger contingent of respectable humans. God bless the new mute button.) And even if the game is the worst game I've ever played, I can accept that. But I think some of the fun is in the waiting period and I've certainly had some up to this point. And knowing that there are more and more people each day who are enjoying it to is a fun thought to have and will hopefully bring more opportunities to gaming as a whole.
In closing, I understand the frustrations of those who cannot stand it. But the only thing you can really do is try to ignore it. And to the Halo community, while it's hard to believe that there are people out there who don't like this franchise, they have a right to their opinion just as much as we do. And I hope that one day when the tables are turned and they're in love with a completely hyped game that I could care less about that they respect that in turn.
GAMERTAG: Seanny D
And the question therefore remains: Is there too much hype for the game?
The answer to that would have to be both yes and no.
But before we get into the why's and how's of this situation, let me give you a little background on my Halo experience.
I'm a huge Halo fan. In the summer of 2002 I heard that if I was to purchase only one game for my Xbox, then Halo it had to be. After taking that plunge I was absolutely immersed in the world. While I recognized that a good portion of the storytelling was ripped straight from Aliens, I still loved it. The game was relatively easy to pick up, fun to play, and I didn't even play multiplayer that often.
Two years later, in 2004, I jumped on the marketing train and took it all in. While not an active participant in I Love Bees, I made every attempt to follow the story as that was going. I downloaded every commercial. I borrowed "The Fall of Reach" and "First Strike" from a friend and read them prior to launch. In essence, I was preparing myself completely.
And following the release of the game, I played multiplayer extensively. There was something about being able to just jump in and play and not have to worry about finding a decent match or waiting for people to join my specifically hosted game that truly appealed to me. On the other hand, I did feel that the single player was a bit of a let down. It didn't have the scope that Halo 1 had, despite having much better graphics. The narrative was a little disjointed and who could forgive that horrific ending?
Yet, here we are almost three years later and a similar situation is upon us. Except after the massive success that the hype had on the second game, Microsoft feels content to multiply that by what seems to be 100.
So back to the original question: Is the hype too much?
...Yes.
Not everyone likes Halo. There are a huge contingent of people that despise it with every fiber of their being. They see Halo as a substandard First Person Shooter that does absolutely nothing new with the genre, is not a graphical revolution, and regurgitates standard Sci-Fi plots in an uninteresting manner. And many of these people are the hardcore of the hardcore. And they have every right to their opinion. So when this section of gamers sees their favorite pastime being enveloped by this marketing machine, it angers them immensely. Why should such a horrible, barely better than average game be getting all this attention? It's a travesty to all TRUE first person shooters that SHOULD be getting this attention. On top of all that, it dilutes how serious they take their gaming life and packages it in a soda can to be sold to them later.
For those people, the attention given to that creates the perception that MORE games like Halo (in their eyes a substandard shooter) should be made. And this, of course, is a terrible thing to them. And in that regard, it's completely understandable.
And I do feel the most recent ads are a little pretentious in treating that diorama like it was truly from the future, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's disrespectful to current servicemen and women.
The hype is also creating a lot of unrealistic expectations for people. How is it possible that a game that pretty much says "If Jesus were alive today, he would be wearing MJOLNIR armor" could possibly deliver on its promise?
The thing is, it doesn't have to. Which brings me to the second answer.
....No. It's not too much.
What we, as gamers, sometimes don't realize is that Microsoft is out to make money first, and entertain us second. This is the way of the world. Whether it is a movie, or a new CD, or a brand new television show, or Britney Spears at the VMA's, these things are pushed heavily so that the parent brand can profit off of them. And what happened with Halo 2 is that suddenly the profits on that game justified them doing what they are doing now. Mountain Dew, Burger King, 7-11, all these other cross-promotional partners are USING Halo 3 to their OWN advantage. They certainly would not do it if they did not think it would drive traffic into their stores. They saw the raw data of what Halo 2 was able to accomplish and realized that there was this whole subset of the population they could use to make money for themselves. And so they did and are.
It's no secret that Halo is Microsoft's Golden Child. And the struggle to obtain profitability in the games division has been a difficult one. So when they opportunity arises to take advantage of this, people do. But what is different about this in comparison to other marketing endeavors is that Microsoft isn't telling you anything that you didn't already know. It's attempting to get the common man, the man who only buys a game or two a year, excited about Halo 3. They're trying to make it an event, something that can be shared between friends.
And despite what might seem to be a whoring out of the franchise, I would argue that Microsoft/Bungie are doing anything but. They're not allowing substandard tie-ins into the marketplace. All the comics and storytelling material is tied into the actual universe. It's not some shameless ripoff. Say what you will about the "Believe" ad campaign, but it's certainly well crafted. (Even though Bungie did recently say the commercials weren't canon.) I mean, they created a completely new DRINK. They didn't just put a face on a Dew can and call it a day. An entirely new flavor was invented. I think it's terrible tasting, but they get points for trying.
If you look at the marketing of something like Spider-Man 3, if you had seen all the trailers, you could literally put the movie together in your head. They marketed it to death but they gave away too much. In so many other movies, you see the same thing. Halo isn't doing this. Regardless of what you feel about the story, you're not seeing anything about it. It's guarded and protected and doesn't ruin the plot for those interested.
The cross-promotions exist mainly to create awareness in the everyday man. Of course, if you're reading this you're probably thinking "But EVERYONE knows that Halo 3 comes out on September 25th, regardless of whether or not they want to!"
I think that is not necessarily the case. As gamers, we often surround ourselves with other people who have similar interests. We scour the internet for news, we talk to our friends, and in that we are acutely aware of the existence of Master Chief and his fight against the Covenant. There is a HUGE portion of the population that does nothing of the sort. And THAT is who the campaign is primarily for, not us.
But why is this a bad thing? It doesn't have to be. What it is doing is raising awareness to the public that a good portion sees the gaming community as Wii Sports Players. The campaign is attempting to prove that this IS a legitimate entertainment event on par with any major movie release. That there is a hardcore game that can get everyone involved. These people who are being targeted have no idea what "Saved Films" are or what "Forge" is. They're thinking "Hey, this looks like a cool game, I should check it out." I do not see how more people purchasing game consoles is a bad thing.
Yet, ultimately the reason that I feel the hype is not a bad thing is because if you let it, the hype can be fun. A huge community is sharing in the same experience. A large group of people who all enjoy the same thing are able to come together and follow the progress of what I believe is a great franchise. And people are looking for different things. Some people think that story is king, others want to do nothing other than play multiplayer. The same game is approached from many different angles. The game will probably not revolutionize the genre or have a radical departure in storytelling, but at the very least it will be fun. Whether or not you think it's deserving of all the attention is yours to decide. This is the final act of the trilogy and while there will be other Halo-related projects in the future, I highly doubt they will acquire the same attention as this one did. For the sole reason that they will be different formulas. Halo 3 is operating on the same tried-and-true formula that has helped it succeed the last 6 years.
There is a difference between "hype" and "expectation." Hype is the experience that surrounds the release of a product. It tells you what it wants you to believe. And the more money a product has, the more hype it's going to give you. The more proven its been in the past, the more intense they will be in the future. They're trying to alter your expectations.
Except your expectations can be completely separate from the hype. Will Halo 3 be the greatest game I've ever played? Maybe. But maybe not. Do I expect it to be? Not necessarily. But I do expect it to be fun. And I expect people who I normally wouldn't see on Xbox Live to be there. (Hopefully a larger contingent of respectable humans. God bless the new mute button.) And even if the game is the worst game I've ever played, I can accept that. But I think some of the fun is in the waiting period and I've certainly had some up to this point. And knowing that there are more and more people each day who are enjoying it to is a fun thought to have and will hopefully bring more opportunities to gaming as a whole.
In closing, I understand the frustrations of those who cannot stand it. But the only thing you can really do is try to ignore it. And to the Halo community, while it's hard to believe that there are people out there who don't like this franchise, they have a right to their opinion just as much as we do. And I hope that one day when the tables are turned and they're in love with a completely hyped game that I could care less about that they respect that in turn.
GAMERTAG: Seanny D
Saturday, September 8, 2007
3:10 To Yuma Review
As has been written numerous times before regarding the subject, the modern western seems to be dead. Given that there have been very few westerns over the last few decades, one might venture to guess that Hollywood has just lost faith in westerns in general.
But my personal philosophy is that if you can tell a good story, regardless of the genre, then that film deserves to be made. Fortunately, despite my predilection against westerns as a whole, 3:10 To Yuma is an incredibly well made movie that showcases even more evidence that Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are some of the finest actors around.
The plot of the movie as it exists is rather simple. Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is suffering through a harrowing drought on his farm. Since he cannot farm his own land, he has nothing to see to make the payments on his barn. If things don't change soon, then Dan and his wife and two children will be forced off their farm and into poverty. When the outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is captured, Dan volunteers to help escort Wade to a neighboring train station for $200 to help pay the bills. The one catch is that Wade's psychotic gang led by Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) is on their trail and will certainly not hesitate to kill and maim every person in the party.
Yet, this movie is less about the plot and more about the characters being able to explore what it means to survive in this world. Evans is a man who is beaten and broken and has something to prove. His son looks at him like he's a joke since he cannot even seem to provide for his family. His wife has been rather distant towards him lately. On top of all that, he has one wooden leg from a Civil War injury. Despite the danger, this is all that Dan can do to provide for himself and for his family. So he goes on the journey. Bale plays Dan with such quiet desperation that it is easy to feel for the situation in which he resides.
On the other hand, Ben Wade is a killer. He takes what he wants, and has no problem killing anyone who gets in his way. Yet, this is not with malicious intent, no. These people just happen to be between him and what he wants, so he takes care of the situation. Wade recognizes that no one is out there to do him any favors and that everyone is out for themselves, therefore he feels that he is not going to do any favors for anyone else, and just kill them.
This leads to the juxtaposition of the two men in a very interesting situation. The two of them are able to communicate and slowly begin to understand one another. They may not completely respect what the other is doing, but at least they being to have some understanding of it. This, ultimately, is why the film works as well as it does. The fact that these two archetypal men are given such layers of complexity in their characters speaks volumes about the quality of the film. Going in, one might think that Bale is the good guy and Crowe is the bad guy, but to come in with that assumption would be completely incorrect. No, these are characters with their own motivations that go beyond "I like to kill" or "I'm the hero." Gone is the idea that the Old West was so black and white and people now show up in many more shades of gray. That isn't to say that one cannot understand who is good or who is bad, but there is a deeper exploration of those themes that allows the viewer to contemplate the ramifications of the characters' actions and their reasons for ending up in the situations in which they ended up.
Yet, Bale and Crowe aren't the only strong actors in this movie. On the contrary, the supporting cast is filled out with a number of excellent actors, both young and old. Peter Fonda shows up as a Pinkerton agent named Byron McElroy who may be fighting for the side of the good but can be a bit of a ruthless man himself. This exploration of good vs. evil when coupled with Wade offers an interesting insight into the character of Wade himself.
Alan Tudyk is also excellent as the reluctant veterinarian Doc Potter who is forced on the trip in an attempt to make sure that McElroy does not suffer from his recently acquired gunshot wound. Despite his complete inability with a firearm, he moves on the journey with the rest, accepting the fate that stands before him.
This truly is one of the best character pieces I have seen in a long while. Director James Mangold (Walk the Line, Copland) crafts an excellent picture that rises above the stigma of a Western and can be placed in the same category as such westerns as "Unforgiven" and "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." Yet, it's not all character work. The action is also rather brutal and well-shot. The numerous gunfights throughout the movie are engaging and add to the intensity of the story. Even if you are not even interested in the subtleties of the actors, then I could recommend it based on the action alone. But when the action means something and this is recognized, then it amps things to a whole new level. The last scenes in particular are the ultimate culmination of everything that came before it. There is a new understanding for the characters and one that leads to an incredibly satisfying emotional conclusion.
GRADE: A
But my personal philosophy is that if you can tell a good story, regardless of the genre, then that film deserves to be made. Fortunately, despite my predilection against westerns as a whole, 3:10 To Yuma is an incredibly well made movie that showcases even more evidence that Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are some of the finest actors around.
The plot of the movie as it exists is rather simple. Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is suffering through a harrowing drought on his farm. Since he cannot farm his own land, he has nothing to see to make the payments on his barn. If things don't change soon, then Dan and his wife and two children will be forced off their farm and into poverty. When the outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is captured, Dan volunteers to help escort Wade to a neighboring train station for $200 to help pay the bills. The one catch is that Wade's psychotic gang led by Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) is on their trail and will certainly not hesitate to kill and maim every person in the party.
Yet, this movie is less about the plot and more about the characters being able to explore what it means to survive in this world. Evans is a man who is beaten and broken and has something to prove. His son looks at him like he's a joke since he cannot even seem to provide for his family. His wife has been rather distant towards him lately. On top of all that, he has one wooden leg from a Civil War injury. Despite the danger, this is all that Dan can do to provide for himself and for his family. So he goes on the journey. Bale plays Dan with such quiet desperation that it is easy to feel for the situation in which he resides.
On the other hand, Ben Wade is a killer. He takes what he wants, and has no problem killing anyone who gets in his way. Yet, this is not with malicious intent, no. These people just happen to be between him and what he wants, so he takes care of the situation. Wade recognizes that no one is out there to do him any favors and that everyone is out for themselves, therefore he feels that he is not going to do any favors for anyone else, and just kill them.
This leads to the juxtaposition of the two men in a very interesting situation. The two of them are able to communicate and slowly begin to understand one another. They may not completely respect what the other is doing, but at least they being to have some understanding of it. This, ultimately, is why the film works as well as it does. The fact that these two archetypal men are given such layers of complexity in their characters speaks volumes about the quality of the film. Going in, one might think that Bale is the good guy and Crowe is the bad guy, but to come in with that assumption would be completely incorrect. No, these are characters with their own motivations that go beyond "I like to kill" or "I'm the hero." Gone is the idea that the Old West was so black and white and people now show up in many more shades of gray. That isn't to say that one cannot understand who is good or who is bad, but there is a deeper exploration of those themes that allows the viewer to contemplate the ramifications of the characters' actions and their reasons for ending up in the situations in which they ended up.
Yet, Bale and Crowe aren't the only strong actors in this movie. On the contrary, the supporting cast is filled out with a number of excellent actors, both young and old. Peter Fonda shows up as a Pinkerton agent named Byron McElroy who may be fighting for the side of the good but can be a bit of a ruthless man himself. This exploration of good vs. evil when coupled with Wade offers an interesting insight into the character of Wade himself.
Alan Tudyk is also excellent as the reluctant veterinarian Doc Potter who is forced on the trip in an attempt to make sure that McElroy does not suffer from his recently acquired gunshot wound. Despite his complete inability with a firearm, he moves on the journey with the rest, accepting the fate that stands before him.
This truly is one of the best character pieces I have seen in a long while. Director James Mangold (Walk the Line, Copland) crafts an excellent picture that rises above the stigma of a Western and can be placed in the same category as such westerns as "Unforgiven" and "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." Yet, it's not all character work. The action is also rather brutal and well-shot. The numerous gunfights throughout the movie are engaging and add to the intensity of the story. Even if you are not even interested in the subtleties of the actors, then I could recommend it based on the action alone. But when the action means something and this is recognized, then it amps things to a whole new level. The last scenes in particular are the ultimate culmination of everything that came before it. There is a new understanding for the characters and one that leads to an incredibly satisfying emotional conclusion.
GRADE: A
Friday, August 10, 2007
Stardust Review
Now that the summer is coming to a close, I have to say that I have been pleasantly surprised by the movies that have been released. And not in the way I thought I would be. In retrospect, I probably gave the two big summer tentpoles (Spider-Man and Pirates) a little too much credit. I was dazzled by many of their special effects, but while watching them I could not help but think about all the problems they had. Spider-Man in particular I saw a great movie lying within the good one that I saw.
Which brings me to Stardust. Movies like Stardust are the reason I love going to the movie theater so often. I went in with very little expectations. I heard some positive buzz about the movie, and knew this was far from Matthew Vaughn's previous directorial effort (the slightly above average "Layer Cake", which shares almost NOTHING in common with this movie). While he does not do anything particularly new or innovating in the fantasy drama, Vaughn excels in telling a wonderful story about an incredible adventure and the pursuit of immortality.
The movie surrounds Tristan (Charlie Cox) who is desperately in love with the seemingly superficial Victoria (Sienna Miller). Realizing he comes from a modest background, he attempts to pull out all the stops to convince her to marry him and plans an elaborate evening next to The Wall. Meanwhile, the king of the neighboring Stormhold (Peter O'Toole), a magical kingdom that is separated from the human world by The Wall, is on his deathbed and tells his remaining four sons that the one who is able to return a ruby necklace back from a piece of glass would become king. The resulting transformation and dispersal of the necklace knocks the star Yvaine(Claire Danes) out of the sky and into the kingdom of Stormhold.
After witnessing what he believes to be nothing more than a small meteorite fall beyond the wall, Tristan pledges to retrieve the star in time for Victoria's birthday to prove his love to her and receive her hand in marriage. Of course, the queen witch Lamia (Michelle Pfieffer), along with her two sisters, is also aware of the star's presence and wants to find, kill, and eat the heart of the star to regain her youthfulness. Sounds fun. And so the quest begins.
If anyone out there considers themselves a fan of fantasy, you should really give this one a shot. While it seems to borrow from other fantasy elements, there is just the sense of excitement that the movie has that really emanates throughout the majority of the picture. Even if you do not like fantasy, I urge you to give it a shot. This is overall, some excellent storytelling that succeeds on so many levels.
Charlie Cox is very good in the role of the likable Tristan and truly does go through a journey from a boy to a man, as the narrator Ian McKellen simply states at the beginning. His start as a love-struck boy to a self-assured confident man is easily apparent. Claire Danes also is rather likable as the fallen star Yvaine, although she does have some instances of overacting and general annoyance when she first appears. Of course, this could be a result of her character not being human and attempting to adopt the mannerisms of a human so its either brilliant acting or slightly below average. That's for you to decide. Yet, since the movie rests essentially on the shoulders of these two, their chemistry more than makes up for any lack of acting on either part. The two of them play off of one another quite well and as the film goes on, there exist many situations in which that chemistry can be exploited.
The supporting cast is what really makes this an excellent movie. Michelle Pfieffer plays evil excellently and was a great villain. Robert DeNiro as the air pirate Captain Shakespeare along with Ricky Gervais' merchant Ferdy add a hilarious element to the movie. Shakespeare in particular is certainly not at all as he seems to be from first appearances and it really adds an unexpected twist to the whole story. Gervais is his usual self and he shows himself to be absolutely hilarious in seemingly every role he takes. And the ghosts of the dead princes added some hilarious comic relief at many unexpected moments.
The intensity of this movie also surprised me, and is one of the reasons I believe this will have a difficult time finding a very wide audience. At first glance, it looks like nothing more than a kid's movie with the aesthetic that it appears to have. But there are also some instances of real brutality and death along with quite a few risque innuendos and situations which would certainly not be present in any "kid's movie". Without a few cuts that were made, I could easily see how this could have obtained an R-rating, although I do not expect that we'll be seeing any "Unrated" cuts on the DVD. Yet, adults may shrug it off as for kids and parents might think that the PG-13 is too intense, leaving it in this unseen limbo.
But there are things that anyone can appreciate. The themes of love and immortality are handled in some surprising ways and it was welcome for me to not be able to predict what was going to happen right off the bat. When there is action, it is exciting and just when I thought that there would be no swordfighting in the movie, a creative, albeit short, swordfight ends up developing. I just feel you cannot give a character a sword unless he plans on using it for more than stabbing things. So fortunately, my swordfight quota was met with the movie.
There are a few issues to be had, though. The movie is a little overly long at two hours and 10 minutes. The first hour or so really takes time to pick up to the point where I found myself rather bored with the movie thinking that maybe this could be it. But once Tristan and Yvaine start on their journey, things seem to move much quicker and it becomes much more engaging. There are also a few other pacing issues that develop throughout the movie but nothing that was too distracting. I was also ready to complain about the swordfighting until the end when it actually happened. While this is nitpicking, also did not understand the concept of the kingdom of Stromhold. When it is shown on the map early in the movie, it appears to be rather small, no bigger than a city. But when they are traveling around the kingdom, it is obviously much larger than some small city. Also, the relationship with the human world is never fully explained, but I suppose it doesn't necessarily have to. The movie is primarily about the quest of one man to find out who he is and become a man, and this journey is followed closely. But I cannot say that I would have complained about the opportunity to understand just what this kingdom is.
Ultimately, this is an incredibly fun movie that had me smiling incessantly for the last hour or so. I was drawn in to this world and was happy I was given the opportunity to see it. The film may not bring anything new to the genre, but it was an exciting adventure almost from beginning to end and would easily recommend this to anyone who loves a good story.
GRADE: B+
Which brings me to Stardust. Movies like Stardust are the reason I love going to the movie theater so often. I went in with very little expectations. I heard some positive buzz about the movie, and knew this was far from Matthew Vaughn's previous directorial effort (the slightly above average "Layer Cake", which shares almost NOTHING in common with this movie). While he does not do anything particularly new or innovating in the fantasy drama, Vaughn excels in telling a wonderful story about an incredible adventure and the pursuit of immortality.
The movie surrounds Tristan (Charlie Cox) who is desperately in love with the seemingly superficial Victoria (Sienna Miller). Realizing he comes from a modest background, he attempts to pull out all the stops to convince her to marry him and plans an elaborate evening next to The Wall. Meanwhile, the king of the neighboring Stormhold (Peter O'Toole), a magical kingdom that is separated from the human world by The Wall, is on his deathbed and tells his remaining four sons that the one who is able to return a ruby necklace back from a piece of glass would become king. The resulting transformation and dispersal of the necklace knocks the star Yvaine(Claire Danes) out of the sky and into the kingdom of Stormhold.
After witnessing what he believes to be nothing more than a small meteorite fall beyond the wall, Tristan pledges to retrieve the star in time for Victoria's birthday to prove his love to her and receive her hand in marriage. Of course, the queen witch Lamia (Michelle Pfieffer), along with her two sisters, is also aware of the star's presence and wants to find, kill, and eat the heart of the star to regain her youthfulness. Sounds fun. And so the quest begins.
If anyone out there considers themselves a fan of fantasy, you should really give this one a shot. While it seems to borrow from other fantasy elements, there is just the sense of excitement that the movie has that really emanates throughout the majority of the picture. Even if you do not like fantasy, I urge you to give it a shot. This is overall, some excellent storytelling that succeeds on so many levels.
Charlie Cox is very good in the role of the likable Tristan and truly does go through a journey from a boy to a man, as the narrator Ian McKellen simply states at the beginning. His start as a love-struck boy to a self-assured confident man is easily apparent. Claire Danes also is rather likable as the fallen star Yvaine, although she does have some instances of overacting and general annoyance when she first appears. Of course, this could be a result of her character not being human and attempting to adopt the mannerisms of a human so its either brilliant acting or slightly below average. That's for you to decide. Yet, since the movie rests essentially on the shoulders of these two, their chemistry more than makes up for any lack of acting on either part. The two of them play off of one another quite well and as the film goes on, there exist many situations in which that chemistry can be exploited.
The supporting cast is what really makes this an excellent movie. Michelle Pfieffer plays evil excellently and was a great villain. Robert DeNiro as the air pirate Captain Shakespeare along with Ricky Gervais' merchant Ferdy add a hilarious element to the movie. Shakespeare in particular is certainly not at all as he seems to be from first appearances and it really adds an unexpected twist to the whole story. Gervais is his usual self and he shows himself to be absolutely hilarious in seemingly every role he takes. And the ghosts of the dead princes added some hilarious comic relief at many unexpected moments.
The intensity of this movie also surprised me, and is one of the reasons I believe this will have a difficult time finding a very wide audience. At first glance, it looks like nothing more than a kid's movie with the aesthetic that it appears to have. But there are also some instances of real brutality and death along with quite a few risque innuendos and situations which would certainly not be present in any "kid's movie". Without a few cuts that were made, I could easily see how this could have obtained an R-rating, although I do not expect that we'll be seeing any "Unrated" cuts on the DVD. Yet, adults may shrug it off as for kids and parents might think that the PG-13 is too intense, leaving it in this unseen limbo.
But there are things that anyone can appreciate. The themes of love and immortality are handled in some surprising ways and it was welcome for me to not be able to predict what was going to happen right off the bat. When there is action, it is exciting and just when I thought that there would be no swordfighting in the movie, a creative, albeit short, swordfight ends up developing. I just feel you cannot give a character a sword unless he plans on using it for more than stabbing things. So fortunately, my swordfight quota was met with the movie.
There are a few issues to be had, though. The movie is a little overly long at two hours and 10 minutes. The first hour or so really takes time to pick up to the point where I found myself rather bored with the movie thinking that maybe this could be it. But once Tristan and Yvaine start on their journey, things seem to move much quicker and it becomes much more engaging. There are also a few other pacing issues that develop throughout the movie but nothing that was too distracting. I was also ready to complain about the swordfighting until the end when it actually happened. While this is nitpicking, also did not understand the concept of the kingdom of Stromhold. When it is shown on the map early in the movie, it appears to be rather small, no bigger than a city. But when they are traveling around the kingdom, it is obviously much larger than some small city. Also, the relationship with the human world is never fully explained, but I suppose it doesn't necessarily have to. The movie is primarily about the quest of one man to find out who he is and become a man, and this journey is followed closely. But I cannot say that I would have complained about the opportunity to understand just what this kingdom is.
Ultimately, this is an incredibly fun movie that had me smiling incessantly for the last hour or so. I was drawn in to this world and was happy I was given the opportunity to see it. The film may not bring anything new to the genre, but it was an exciting adventure almost from beginning to end and would easily recommend this to anyone who loves a good story.
GRADE: B+
Friday, August 3, 2007
The Bourne Ultimatum Review
"The Bourne Ultimatum" is probably the best sequel this summer. The reason for this amounts to something very simple. The attempt was made to tell a good story, not to unnecessarily top themselves.
The trap that Spider-Man, Pirates, and even Shrek and some of the others fell into was that the first movies were big, so the attempt is made to keep making it bigger. Bigger battles, more characters, more complex plot. Yet, this is not the case in "The Bourne Ultimatum". The fights are in the same style of the earlier movies, but different. There are no out of control explosions or absurd amounts of gunfire. Only Bourne and his insanely proficient spy skills.
What I found most interesting about the movie is the way in which it is structured. In essence this could be edited together with the second movie to make one epic spy movie. Taking place over the course of about 7 weeks, the movie begins as Bourne (Matt Damon, in case you were somehow living under a rock) is attempting to bandage himself after suffering from a gunshot wound and following his confession to the daughter of his two first murders near the end of "The Bourne Supremacy." Then, approximately 3/4 through the movie, the final scene of the second movie is recreated, albeit now under a different context than shown in the second movie. Which makes the majority of the movie take place between the second to last scene in "The Bourne Supremacy" and the final scene in that movie.
This is a structure that I have never seen before in a movie, unless you count the direct-to-DVD cash-in of The Lion King 1 1/2. Which, fortunately, I do not. Giving context to that entire last scene was something that I was not expecting and that offered a fresh perspective.
In addition to this structural difference, the movie itself was a spy movie at its finest. Almost nothing is done in this film that could not happen in real life. There are no crazy gadgets like James Bond and no face changing like in Mission: Impossible. No, when a fight breaks out, it's brutal. The action is in your face and does not let up throughout the entirety of the movie. The car chases are also incredible and are the only point where the suspension of disbelief needs to be raised just a little bit. The way in which the characters are able to maneuver through traffic seems to be unrealistic, but then again, I am not a professional driver so maybe it isn't. Either way, the car chases are still more grounded in reality than most other movies.
That's not to say that there is no story. On the contrary, the story accommodates the action in such a way that it never feels forced. Bourne only uses force when necessary and never crosses the line. And the film is better for it. Still not able to remember his past, Bourne attempts to put an end to everything once and for all and follow his past back to the beginning. He desperately needs to put it all behind him in order to continue the life that he now wants to lead. Hot on his trail is Deputy Director Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) who knows who Bourne truly is and wants to make sure Bourne does not ruin anything for him. Also brought back into the fray is Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) who is convinced that Bourne wants to be left alone but argues with Vosen over what to do about Bourne. The dynamic between these two characters is very reminiscent of the dynamic between her and Brian Cox's character in the second movie. Yet, this time Pamela knows more and is more calm about her decisions than she was in "Supremacy".
What follows is a satisfying conclusion to the Bourne trilogy and an excellent way to end the series. The answers about Bourne's past, who he is, and what he is to become are all answered in a way that does not feel tacked on but part of an elaborate plan set up from the beginning. Given that the movies deviated so much from books, this is somewhat hard to believe but the way it is shown, it works very well.
All is not great with the movie though, as Julia Stiles' character Nicky Parsons seems to serve no real purpose to the story and was almost thrown in there just to give an unnecessary closure to her character. She shows up completely unexpectedly and coincidentally and what follows did not really work for me. I understood what they were trying to do with what they did, I just did not feel that it was necessary. Unfortunately, I cannot say more without giving it away, so I will just have to leave it at that.
All in all, this is an incredibly well-made, thrilling movie that deserves to be seen by anyone who considers themselves a fan of spy movies. Easily the best of the three, "The Bourne Ultimatum" stands strong against its predecessors and I find it nice to see that a sequel was done so well in this summer of disappointing sequels and especially three-quels.
GRADE: A-
The trap that Spider-Man, Pirates, and even Shrek and some of the others fell into was that the first movies were big, so the attempt is made to keep making it bigger. Bigger battles, more characters, more complex plot. Yet, this is not the case in "The Bourne Ultimatum". The fights are in the same style of the earlier movies, but different. There are no out of control explosions or absurd amounts of gunfire. Only Bourne and his insanely proficient spy skills.
What I found most interesting about the movie is the way in which it is structured. In essence this could be edited together with the second movie to make one epic spy movie. Taking place over the course of about 7 weeks, the movie begins as Bourne (Matt Damon, in case you were somehow living under a rock) is attempting to bandage himself after suffering from a gunshot wound and following his confession to the daughter of his two first murders near the end of "The Bourne Supremacy." Then, approximately 3/4 through the movie, the final scene of the second movie is recreated, albeit now under a different context than shown in the second movie. Which makes the majority of the movie take place between the second to last scene in "The Bourne Supremacy" and the final scene in that movie.
This is a structure that I have never seen before in a movie, unless you count the direct-to-DVD cash-in of The Lion King 1 1/2. Which, fortunately, I do not. Giving context to that entire last scene was something that I was not expecting and that offered a fresh perspective.
In addition to this structural difference, the movie itself was a spy movie at its finest. Almost nothing is done in this film that could not happen in real life. There are no crazy gadgets like James Bond and no face changing like in Mission: Impossible. No, when a fight breaks out, it's brutal. The action is in your face and does not let up throughout the entirety of the movie. The car chases are also incredible and are the only point where the suspension of disbelief needs to be raised just a little bit. The way in which the characters are able to maneuver through traffic seems to be unrealistic, but then again, I am not a professional driver so maybe it isn't. Either way, the car chases are still more grounded in reality than most other movies.
That's not to say that there is no story. On the contrary, the story accommodates the action in such a way that it never feels forced. Bourne only uses force when necessary and never crosses the line. And the film is better for it. Still not able to remember his past, Bourne attempts to put an end to everything once and for all and follow his past back to the beginning. He desperately needs to put it all behind him in order to continue the life that he now wants to lead. Hot on his trail is Deputy Director Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) who knows who Bourne truly is and wants to make sure Bourne does not ruin anything for him. Also brought back into the fray is Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) who is convinced that Bourne wants to be left alone but argues with Vosen over what to do about Bourne. The dynamic between these two characters is very reminiscent of the dynamic between her and Brian Cox's character in the second movie. Yet, this time Pamela knows more and is more calm about her decisions than she was in "Supremacy".
What follows is a satisfying conclusion to the Bourne trilogy and an excellent way to end the series. The answers about Bourne's past, who he is, and what he is to become are all answered in a way that does not feel tacked on but part of an elaborate plan set up from the beginning. Given that the movies deviated so much from books, this is somewhat hard to believe but the way it is shown, it works very well.
All is not great with the movie though, as Julia Stiles' character Nicky Parsons seems to serve no real purpose to the story and was almost thrown in there just to give an unnecessary closure to her character. She shows up completely unexpectedly and coincidentally and what follows did not really work for me. I understood what they were trying to do with what they did, I just did not feel that it was necessary. Unfortunately, I cannot say more without giving it away, so I will just have to leave it at that.
All in all, this is an incredibly well-made, thrilling movie that deserves to be seen by anyone who considers themselves a fan of spy movies. Easily the best of the three, "The Bourne Ultimatum" stands strong against its predecessors and I find it nice to see that a sequel was done so well in this summer of disappointing sequels and especially three-quels.
GRADE: A-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)