theinternetiscrazy Reviews

The Bucket List (2007)

Great potential, awful execution.

[3/10 · 28 April 2010]

*MAJOR SPOILERS... in case you really can't guess how this film will end*

So when someone comes up to you and tells you that there's this film, right? and it stars - get this - it stars none other than Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman, and it's about two terminally ill old men who decide to spend their last days together going on adventures learning lessons about life and friendship and etc! wow, right? sounds like a really heartwarming tale, if a bit formulaic.

So you sit down and you watch it and at the end everyone is standing up and saying stuff like "wow, that was really, like, profound and stuff?" while you realise that what you just watched was really really bad.

It honestly feels like this film has been created by some sort of Oscar-hunting robot who has observed many much better films in a similar vein and created a flowchart for academy success and followed it to the letter. Unfortunately, it's cold unfeeling mechanical mind failed to grasp the subtlety or complexity or nature or anything whatsoever about our strange organic "emotions". A theme concerning the nature of X and how Party 1 deals with it? CHECK. The effect that Party 1's decisions regarding X effect those they care about, and a plot that ties into this? CHECK. Two or more individuals discussing and discovering things about this? CHECK. Morgan Freeman narrating wisely on the merits of some white guy? CHECK. The script-robot, in order to give the audience an interesting backdrop, gave one of it's main characters billions of dollars and came up with a conceited reason as to how he ends up in the same hospital room with a middle-class hard-working average Joe. Adventures ensue which involve large quantities of pseudo-deep dialogue. After confrontation with several stock characters, one of the main characters dies, resulting in a form of emotional conclusion for the audience.

That is literally it. The two of them have some stock getting-past-appearances-banter involving wisecracking, then the man-putting-up-a-facade-to-hide-deep-wounds we're supposed to sympathise with and whose life is improved by Morgan Freeman (it shows how unoriginal the writers were when we receive narration from Freeman's character simply because it's Freeman, even when it would make far more sense for the purposes of plot for it to come from Nicholson's character) decides that they should GO OFF AROUND THE WORLD and all of a sudden, the fact that they are undergoing chemotherapy is tossed out the window and they RACE AND GO SKYDIVING! before we proceed to look at a slide-show of some terribly photo-shopped pictures of various predictable landmarks showing on a projector screen while Freeman and Nicholson stand around in front of it saying literally nothing profound or deep. Yadda Yadda Yadda contrived subplot estranged daughter solved without a fuss blah blah blah Then it seems all this excitement has reminded Freeman's character that he has cancer and whoops, he's back in hospital! cue the "touching" scene where aw look how they're both such good friends and how tragic yet life-affirming and now there's a funeral and OH SHUT UP.

In short: contrived plot, two main characters with such boring generic backgrounds and personalities that their only recognisable merits are the actors who play them, a lack of the kind of depth necessary to make this sort of thing work, that old skewed Hollywood perception of everything that means it bears no resemblance to real life, a heap of lifeless, dull dialogue, not a single subverted or averted cliché of this genre, all of it combined to make a film that isn't forgettable, but is actually annoying due to it's frequent and misguided attempts to tug our heartstrings without understanding how and even why.

Tell you what, go watch something like "million dollar baby" if you wanna see how to make this sort of thing. And then, go and watch "Last Holiday" it's got Queen Latifa in and is essentially a big dumb popcorn heartwarming family-film which still manages to be about twice as profound and deep than the Bucket List.

Dead Space (2008 Video Game)

Unoriginal, but...

[5 April 2010]

Dead Space opens with an extended sequence in which the player sits aboard a shuttlecraft gazing out the windows as it bears down on the massive Ishimura, preparing to land. You silently observe your fellow crew members as they try to work out what's going on - there's a communications blackout, there are no signs of life on the big creepy-looking ship and the nearby planetary colony has gone the same way. Lemme tell you now, it's a shame that Isaac Clarke, the player character, is a silent protagonist. If he could talk, and if he had any kind of sense whatsoever, he'd probably respond to the idea of LANDING on the Ishimura by saying "That's a horrible idea".

Dead Space offers a lot to like for any fans of hard Sci-fi. It might not do anything original... but it's not about doing it FIRST, it's about doing it BEST, and in terms of atmosphere, Dead Space nails it. The visuals and sound design are wonderfully beautiful, wonderfully creepy, and above all, will do their best to scare you witless. As you make your way through the abandoned decks of the ship, you'll wonder when the next monstrosity is going to drop from the ceiling to chew your face off. Will it be those spindly claw-like fellows, those mutated tentacled tots, or those crawly chaps with the tails? Dead Space certainly does it's best to make you wince, at least, at what it has you do. Lemme tell you, I never expected to play a game and end up stomping on the head of a screeching zombie baby that tried to bite it's way into my helmet. The combat mechanics work well, while still making you feel vulnerable, so for all intents and purposes, Dead Space is immersive and highly playable. It WORKS. and it's definitely worth buying.

However, a few aspects of the game have been slightly marred. The main factor is the lack of appropriate pacing - I say "lack", when "absence" might be more appropriate. There's no real mystery to it all. Yeah, the game keeps you guessing as to where the hideous slimebeasts COME FROM or what happened to the ship, but when you're trying to hack their limbs off then it hardly ever matters to you. The designers really missed a trick by not keeping the enemies hidden in shadows for a bit - having them sneak up on you or giving the player something new to fight is all well and good, but it doesn't happen enough. Most of the time, there's no real scariness to it, as you are standing in an open corridor fighting enemies in plain sight with a variety of powerful cutting tools. There are standout moments, mind you - half of them being times when the monsters aren't even anywhere to be seen. The monsters themselves just feel overused, and that's a shame, when something as simple as a bit more pacing and quiet creepiness would have gone a long way. For example, at one point a tentacle comes flying out a hole in the wall and grabs you, forcing you to figure out how to get free of it before it drags you into a deep dark hole. Awesome! Then it crops up TWICE MORE. IN THE SAME WAY. Oh dear. A spindly screechy alien thing disappears into the rafters as you enter a room! Awesome! you wonder what happened, and thing the game was probably bluffing you when nothing happens at all. Then you walk into the next room. Same thing happens again. Once more, nothing comes of it. Oh dear. Atmosphere is dead.

And for my one final gripe, developers need to figure out how relocatable characters work. It's revealed at the start that Isaac is going after his ladyfriend who was aboard the ship. But Isaac is a silent protagonist hidden in a suit of space amour who expresses no emotion save for one hilarious final scene in which he basically mimes his sadness. Overall, we're supposed to relate to Isaac, which is actually literally impossible, because we only see his face for a few seconds - the rest of the time, he might as well be a robot. Being a silent protagonist also obstructs the "relatability" of him (If that's even a word) because you start mentally urging him to start shouting at everyone else for being so damn stupid and complaining that he has to do absolutely everything while fighting monsters while getting no thanks at all. However, there was a bit of originality - the guy who was set up as "obstructive uptight commander" eventually decides to forget the mission and help the cast escape, becoming the likable guy, despite a dodgy accent. meanwhile, the lady who was set up as "likeable level-headed one" turned out to be a total bitch. The initial bickering between them eventually turns out to be justified on his part, because this lady is supposed to be annoying. It's just nice playing a game where stereotypes are not adhered to and where the characters work and don't get in the way too much. They're not exactly great, but at least they enhance the game somewhat.

Overall? um, I'm not giving you a numerical vote, that's too simple. What?!don't look at me like that, if your even on this site, you can read. Summary? fine, I suppose this was a garbled rushed review anyway... Good game, not as scary as it could be, works well, characters are at least decent (kind of) story is affably simple and functional. You should probably play this game.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (2009 Video Game)

What? ....What?!

[8/10 · 30 March 2010]

Get your copy of the original Modern Warfare. Transfer over all the excellent, finely polished game mechanics, improve them a bit, and then trade out the depth, pacing and subtlety of the original and replace them with large doses of stupidity and an increased emphasis on fancy explosion graphics.

Congratulations, you might as well have Modern Warfare 2! The original modern warfare, in summary, was a seemingly straight-out bang-bang shooter. It had all this brilliant gameplay, and get this: a brilliant story! Seriously, I was surprised as well! The story of the original was omnipresent, you could really see the effects of what went on unfolding as you progressed. It drove the game along with the right amount of grip - it didn't conspicuously vanish from time to time (As stories so often do in these games), and was used for a hell of a lot more than simply stringing shootouts together. What's more, it had some true poignancy to it. The original contained some very harrowing scenes and some very disturbing behaviour on the part of both sides, which formed an interesting commentary on the nature of war WITHOUT being clichéd, forced, or over sincere. (it's just a shame that a million hyperactive FPS fans interpreted it all as "YEAH KILL THE TERRORISTS WIV MAH GUN LOL"). Throw in some excellent characters, that you genuinely care about and there you go!

What an awful shame then, that Modern Warfare 2 goes completely overboard, with a serious, brooding grimace, while it's older brother looks on ashamed. It tries to force a shocked reaction with all the subtlety of flashing a big "YOU ARE SHOCKED NOW" sign in front of your face, while you actually just stroll around joyfully wasting civilians in an airport (a disturbingly satisfying section) wondering when the shock will set in. The second level has you ramp a jet-ski over a chasm. The story makes not a single bit of sense. Russia INVADES America. So much for that interesting Russian civil war idea, then! let's just turn them into generic Big Bads! I WOULD bang on about some of the most mind-numbingly stupid, overblown, embarrassingly overwrought and contrived reasons for more dramatic set pieces, but then I'd be spoiling the fun too much for those who haven't yet played it. The really striking thing about this game is that IT STILL TRIES TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. It's like some hardened General, standing on the battle lines saluting his fallen soldiers, while wearing a pink frilly dress. It doesn't just dive off the deep end, it does it with an anchor tied round it's feet and a heroic face on. You do owe it to yourself to play this game if you are REMOTELY into FPS games - the aforementioned set pieces to keep a tight hold on you as you fight through the game - in fact, only after you take a step back do you realise how laughable the whole thing was. At least the story is by no means bad - it certainly holds your interest, and it most definitely keeps the excellent gameplay going in a really smooth way. It's an astoundingly thrilling experience playing this, and when you're finished, you'll realise what an astoundingly idiotic one it was too. (ESPECIALLY compared to the very mature and meaningful tone of the previous instalment). I suppose that counts for something, right?

Killzone 2 (2009 Video Game)

A great technical achievement. That's all.

[6/10 · 12 February 2010]

Killzone 2. Where to start? in terms of technical achievement, it's unbeatable. The setup is revealed in a pretty impressive cinematic that has you pumped up and ready to take the fight to the "Helghast" - essentially intergalactic British Nazis led by fascist dictator Brian Cox and his lapdog, a smarmy git of a general who, upon speaking for the first time, will have you thinking "ooh that's thingy, what's he from again?"!

You start the game by waking up, bleary-eyed in your bunk aboard a fairly impressive spaceship at the start of yet another D-day recreation (only THIS TIME your in a spaceship and THIS time the landing craft are hovering impractical transport craft things and THIS TIME the Nazi's aren't actually Nazis, they just LOOK like future-Nazis) where the game does it's level best to impress you. As you follow your squad-mate through it's corridors, the graphics and atmosphere dazzle you immediately -the planet below looks natural and the sight of space cruisers bearing down on the hostile world below is almost breathtaking. Every detailed surface is polished and well-designed, and put through filters that make you feel like you're looking through a genuine pair of human eyeballs. This, combined with the controls and movement - which do take some getting used to - gives you an unparallelled feeling of immersion that shooters nowadays sorely lack. Your average COD fan is going to have a few problems adjusting here, as the somewhat sluggish, weighty movements of the player character and the incredibly tough, bullet-resistant Helghast mix with other game play elements to create a challenge that requires a bit more thought and skill than simple fast reflexes and an itchy trigger finger. The fights are fantastic and tactics come into play far more than in most modern-day cinematic shooters. The player can expect to be surrounded by hostile forces. Once again, a COD fan will have difficulties here, as the foes in this game will not simply run out and shoot like moving targets with guns attached, but will take cover often, distract, flank, and suppress you and your allies, making for a unique challenge. When I played through this, I was impressed as I moved through the game and eagerly did battle with any Helghast that stood in my way. But as much fun as I had with this,there is a crippling problem with this game.

As soon as you meet your squad mates (specifically Shaun Natco, voiced by Noah lee Margotts) you instantly feel like killing every last one of them for being a million times more unlikeable than any of your enemies. it doesn't stop there, either: he story has literally zero bite, giving you no reason to care. Luckily, a game can still be driven along by the atmosphere and game play itself, and this is where Killzone exceeds, so a shooter fan can have a good deal of fun with it. But how did the people behind this game end up putting so much effort into the graphics, controls and atmosphere without a single one of them thinking "oh, hang on, we forgot the coherent plot and the likable characters and the motivations behind their actions and any reason for the player to give a damn about what's going on"?

So that's Killzone 2, then. The story continues being barely a faint glimmer of motivation and reason behind the characters and events, the characters themselves, with the exception of perhaps Pertwee's Radec and Marshall's Templar, are unlikeable and 1-dimensional. I honestly became more attached to the faceless legions of generic cannon-fodder allies that were destined to die in various detailed and realistic ways, at least THOSE guys were helpful, kept their heads down and acted like real people. They, unlike the characters I was supposed to give a damn about, were mercifully freed from the idiocy of whoever wrote the story for this. Killzone 2's ambition is marred by it's failure to nail a fundamental aspect of a good game - good writing. I've heard people defend this by saying that it's "just a game" but you can look at plenty of other titles, many of them much older than this, if you want an example of a great game with great writing driving it along. Killzone 2 could have been so much more, it's intriguing premise of humanity fighting a mutated version of itself and the story of how this came to be are explained in a few brief sentences during loading screens, as well as character back stories. God, if they had this material, why didn't they actually USE it? Sure, the game play is a lot of fun, the graphics are impressive and the atmosphere immerses you, but when there's no REASON for it all, then how can the developers expect us to really get involved?

Oh, and, um, the multilayer is kinda fun. Yeah. not much to say on that.

...