Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
When so much often goes wrong with movie adaptations of video games, it is always pleasant when the occasional one takes you by surprise and becomes a well written, well acted, adventure of a movie. Prince of Persia, directed by Mike Newell, previously of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, captures much of the fun of the video game while telling a compelling story obviously written for the screen, and not pulled straight from the game itself.
Prince Dastan, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, does a fitting job of balancing the devious and dignified sides of his character. Gemma Arterton plays the role of Tamina with good chemistry with Gyllenhaal, and their dialogue always seems to have a spark of something extra. Ben Kingsley and the rest of the supporting cast do a fantastic job of rounding out the story and providing a degree of comic relief, tension, and reasons to use the special effects budget. The special effects are as expected, coming from producer Jerry Bruckheimer, excellent. Still, they don’t distract or otherwise draw too much attention away from the story itself.
The movie, obviously enough, revolves around Prince Dastan and a mystical dagger that can turn back time for short periods. Despite the plot twists and turns (and there are several), this movie kept me guessing and absorbed in the story, but never confused. If you’re looking for a fun time at the movies to start the summer season, look no further than this lively and fun film.
Prince Dastan, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, does a fitting job of balancing the devious and dignified sides of his character. Gemma Arterton plays the role of Tamina with good chemistry with Gyllenhaal, and their dialogue always seems to have a spark of something extra. Ben Kingsley and the rest of the supporting cast do a fantastic job of rounding out the story and providing a degree of comic relief, tension, and reasons to use the special effects budget. The special effects are as expected, coming from producer Jerry Bruckheimer, excellent. Still, they don’t distract or otherwise draw too much attention away from the story itself.
The movie, obviously enough, revolves around Prince Dastan and a mystical dagger that can turn back time for short periods. Despite the plot twists and turns (and there are several), this movie kept me guessing and absorbed in the story, but never confused. If you’re looking for a fun time at the movies to start the summer season, look no further than this lively and fun film.
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Uncharted (2022) in Movies
Aug 2, 2022
Uncharted, because no one knows where their going..
Uncharted is a live action take on the extremely popular video-game franchise of the same name.
Featuring a bunch of top Hollywood names both past and present, the first installment focuses on the fourth installment of the games and changes a lot of the original plot making for some very interesting possible sequels.
A lot of great action scenes and sequences and some light humour (although more humour was needed) and a straight forward plot made this a very enjoyable action adventure.
The duo of Mark whalberg as Victor sully and Tom Holland as Nathan drake is a very odd but fitting piece that seems to work naturally.
Did you know?
Mark whalberg was originally set to play Nathan drake before being bumped to play Victor sully so Tom Holland could play Nathan drake.
Nathan fillion was also poised to play Nathan drake as fans wanted it, although it didn't happen, fillion did make a short film where he played uncharted's protagonist.
(it's on YouTube).
-maybe we'll see MW play Nathan drake one day.
Featuring a bunch of top Hollywood names both past and present, the first installment focuses on the fourth installment of the games and changes a lot of the original plot making for some very interesting possible sequels.
A lot of great action scenes and sequences and some light humour (although more humour was needed) and a straight forward plot made this a very enjoyable action adventure.
The duo of Mark whalberg as Victor sully and Tom Holland as Nathan drake is a very odd but fitting piece that seems to work naturally.
Did you know?
Mark whalberg was originally set to play Nathan drake before being bumped to play Victor sully so Tom Holland could play Nathan drake.
Nathan fillion was also poised to play Nathan drake as fans wanted it, although it didn't happen, fillion did make a short film where he played uncharted's protagonist.
(it's on YouTube).
-maybe we'll see MW play Nathan drake one day.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021
Hanks Does It Again
Tom Hanks interest in the men who fought in WWII is well known. From his starring role as Capt. Miller is what is (arguably) the definitive film about D-Day, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, to his Executive Producing role in, arguably, the best mini-series ever produced about WWII, BAND OF BROTHERS, Hanks has brought a face to the nameless heroes who fought in the middle of the last century.
Add his latest film GREYHOUND, to the list of films that brings a face to a heretofore unknown (at least to me) group of heroes.
Based on the book THE GOOD SHEPHERD by C.S. Forester and adapted for the screen by Hanks himself, GREYHOUND tells the story of a Commander of a U.S. Navy escort ship, helping cargo ships cross the Atlantic Ocean - an Ocean filled with enemy submarines.
Hanks, of course, plays Commander Ernest Krause, Captain of the USS Keeling, code named “Greyhound”, who is on his first mission. As one might imagine, Hanks imbues Krause with a common decency and you inherently trust Krause’s instincts as he makes split second decision after split second decision. What surprised me about Hanks in this role is his “steely resolve” in dealing with the problems. You can see his brain working as he makes pragmatic decision after pragmatic decision - sometimes not the most “human” decisions - but the right decisions after all.
This is both the strength and the problem with this film - Hanks’ character is NEVER wrong, so after awhile, the tension on the Bridge with Capt. Krause being questioned on his decisions, is never really there.
But, that is a “nit” in this film for Director Aaron Schneider has constructed a taunt and tight thriller that is non-stop action from start to finish. He wisely decided to keep the film at a tight 90 minutes and keep the action flying (versus putting in a couple of “character building scenes” that could have stretched the runtime). He does shoehorn in a flashback scene between Krause and his lady love (played by Elisabeth Shue), a scene that is not really needed, but besides this he focuses his attention on the Greyhound and it’s mission and this is a smart move that the film benefits from.
Director Schneider relies, heavily, on the Special F/X recreating the Atlantic sea battles and, for the most part, it succeeds. BUT…from time-to-time I felt like I was watching a video game - and not a film. The F/X (at times) was just not feature film quality that drew me away from the emotion and the action on the screen.
With the Global Pandemic, this film’s theatrical release was cancelled and it was put on Apple TV+(where you can find it today), so I can forgive the lower F/X results…but just a little.
All-in-all a fun thrill ride, with a terrific central performance, in a film that shows an aspect of WWII I had not previously scene portrayed on film before.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Add his latest film GREYHOUND, to the list of films that brings a face to a heretofore unknown (at least to me) group of heroes.
Based on the book THE GOOD SHEPHERD by C.S. Forester and adapted for the screen by Hanks himself, GREYHOUND tells the story of a Commander of a U.S. Navy escort ship, helping cargo ships cross the Atlantic Ocean - an Ocean filled with enemy submarines.
Hanks, of course, plays Commander Ernest Krause, Captain of the USS Keeling, code named “Greyhound”, who is on his first mission. As one might imagine, Hanks imbues Krause with a common decency and you inherently trust Krause’s instincts as he makes split second decision after split second decision. What surprised me about Hanks in this role is his “steely resolve” in dealing with the problems. You can see his brain working as he makes pragmatic decision after pragmatic decision - sometimes not the most “human” decisions - but the right decisions after all.
This is both the strength and the problem with this film - Hanks’ character is NEVER wrong, so after awhile, the tension on the Bridge with Capt. Krause being questioned on his decisions, is never really there.
But, that is a “nit” in this film for Director Aaron Schneider has constructed a taunt and tight thriller that is non-stop action from start to finish. He wisely decided to keep the film at a tight 90 minutes and keep the action flying (versus putting in a couple of “character building scenes” that could have stretched the runtime). He does shoehorn in a flashback scene between Krause and his lady love (played by Elisabeth Shue), a scene that is not really needed, but besides this he focuses his attention on the Greyhound and it’s mission and this is a smart move that the film benefits from.
Director Schneider relies, heavily, on the Special F/X recreating the Atlantic sea battles and, for the most part, it succeeds. BUT…from time-to-time I felt like I was watching a video game - and not a film. The F/X (at times) was just not feature film quality that drew me away from the emotion and the action on the screen.
With the Global Pandemic, this film’s theatrical release was cancelled and it was put on Apple TV+(where you can find it today), so I can forgive the lower F/X results…but just a little.
All-in-all a fun thrill ride, with a terrific central performance, in a film that shows an aspect of WWII I had not previously scene portrayed on film before.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Contains little tomb raiding
Academy Award-winner Alicia Vikander is probably not the first choice for many to portray legendary video game character, Lara Croft. Perhaps Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman or even Keira Knightley would have been above Vikander to be in with a shot of bagging the role?
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Saw (2004) in Movies
Dec 17, 2019 (Updated Jan 8, 2020)
The Start
Saw- this one started it all, this one started the franchise. This one is the best one out of all of them. This one has the best story, the best plot and the best twist ending to all of them. This one is more detective film than a tourture film, it still had tourture in it, but its more about the two main charcters trying to survivor and figure out where their are and the detective trying to find them. With introduction Jigsaw/John Kramer, doctor Gordon and Amanda Young.
The Plot: Photographer Adam Stanheight (Leigh Whannell) and oncologist Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) regain consciousness while chained to pipes at either end of a filthy bathroom. As the two men realize they've been trapped by a sadistic serial killer nicknamed "Jigsaw" and must complete his perverse puzzle to live, flashbacks relate the fates of his previous victims. Meanwhile, Dr. Gordon's wife (Monica Potter) and young daughter (Makenzie Vega) are forced to watch his torture via closed-circuit video.
After this one, the franchise became more of a tourture porn franchise, well it did become tourture porn in the sequels, with focus more on tourture and the traps rather than a story. The story is just sprinkled within inside the tourture porn and traps, you just have to find the story.
Like i said before this one is the best one out of all of them, the best story, the best plot and the best twist ending.
Want to play a game, do you punk? Well do you?
The Plot: Photographer Adam Stanheight (Leigh Whannell) and oncologist Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) regain consciousness while chained to pipes at either end of a filthy bathroom. As the two men realize they've been trapped by a sadistic serial killer nicknamed "Jigsaw" and must complete his perverse puzzle to live, flashbacks relate the fates of his previous victims. Meanwhile, Dr. Gordon's wife (Monica Potter) and young daughter (Makenzie Vega) are forced to watch his torture via closed-circuit video.
After this one, the franchise became more of a tourture porn franchise, well it did become tourture porn in the sequels, with focus more on tourture and the traps rather than a story. The story is just sprinkled within inside the tourture porn and traps, you just have to find the story.
Like i said before this one is the best one out of all of them, the best story, the best plot and the best twist ending.
Want to play a game, do you punk? Well do you?
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 23, 2020
You Won't Find A Better Game In Terms Of Presentation. (4 more)
Level Design Is Astounding.
Like The First Game, This Will Create A Conversation For Years To Come
Sound Design Is Incredible.
Takes Risks, And Some Do Pay Off.
A Flawed Sequel. (4 more)
Awful Pacing.
Structure Of Narrative Is Bad.
Some Terrible Dialogue.
Shoehorned Agenda.
The last of The Last of Us.
The video game industry doesn't get enough credit as a source of entertainment, in my humble opinion. Time and time again, the industry has proven that it can produce something magical, memorable, mesmerising to play, and even more so, something engaging to watch as someone not even holding the controller. Naughty Dog’s 2013 masterpiece, The Last of Us, became an overnight classic game because it was cinematic in presentation, and a rollercoaster of emotions in narrative. I sat and played the remastered version on my PlayStation 4 in 2017, and fell in love with the chemistry, love and heartbreak Joel and Ellie took with them, as they crossed a post-apocalyptic America. I was satisfied with the conclusion, and felt the story of these two characters was finished. I didn't need, or ever want a sequel. Then a few months pass, The Last of Us Part II is announced. Obviously, I was ecstatic, but also concerned. Trailers came and went, delays happened over and over, and leaks began to drip onto the internet. I was even more concerned with the leaks, and how this game was taking shape, but I remained open minded, and began playing the game.
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Werewolves Within (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021
An incredible ensemble cast. (2 more)
Plot stays true to the classic 'whodunit' formula.
Milana Vayntrub.
Not enough horror. (2 more)
Not enough werewolves.
The burning desire for a hard R-rating.
A Sleepover with Guns
A horror comedy film based on the 2016 Red Storm Entertainment developed, Ubisoft published multiplayer VR video game of the same name, Werewolves Within keeps the same mystery/whodunit element of the game by introducing audiences to a small town under attack from a werewolf and leaving them to wonder which of the townsfolk could be the actual lycanthrope.
Directed by Josh Ruben and written by Mishna Wolff, Werewolves Within begins as Ranger Finn Wheeler (Sam Richardson) arrives in Beaverfield for his new post. Finn hits it off with the local mail carrier Cecily (Milana Vayntrub), but the rest of the town is unusually eccentric, to say the least.
There’s Trisha (Micahela Watkins) and Pete (Michael Chernus) Aderton, a couple who makes weird miniature dolls of everyone they meet and care a little too much for their dog. Devon (Cheyenne Jackson) and Joaquim (Harvey Guillén) are a homosexual couple living off the riches of a successful technological company. The town’s resident mechanic is Gwen (Sarah Burns), a crude woman whose husband Marcus (George Basil) is largely regarded as the town idiot.
Elsewhere in town, rounding out Beaverfield’s colorful cast of characters, is the clingy owner of the local lodge, Jeanine (Catherine Curtin), canine attack expert Dr. Ellis (Rebecca Henderson), oil magnate Sam (Wayne Duvall) who hopes to install a pipeline through the town at any cost, and Emerson, a ‘scary’ hunter who hates people and lives on the outskirts of town.
One night, when the power suddenly goes out and with the town’s back-up generators in a state of disrepair, everyone in town takes refuge in Jeanine’s lodge. However, after a corpse is discovered underneath the lodge’s porch and the townsfolk barricade themselves inside the building in an attempt to protect themselves from whatever may be lurking outside, the werewolf manages to attack from within.
In the aftermath of the attack, everyone begins to turn on each other, as the monster’s strike from inside the lodge provides them with a shocking revelation: Somebody in the lodge is the werewolf.
The cast works so well together. Richardson is does an excellent job of portraying Finn, a guy so nice and soft spoken that he feels like an African American Ned Flanders attempting to take charge as the authority figure.
Similarly, Vayntrub is so charming as Cecily that it makes you wonder why she hasn’t been in much else outside of AT&T commercials and the occasional voice role as Marvel’s Squirrel Girl, while Guillén is just as funny here as he is on What We Do in the Shadows, albeit in a slightly different way.
However, the most entertaining aspect of the film’s casting is the way everyone’s eccentric chemistry bounces off each other in a way that evokes this palpable sense of quirky absurdity that you can’t really find anywhere else.
The formula of Werewolves Within is a lot like Knives Out or Murder on the Orient Express, as it’s a mystery wrapped within the confines of a horror comedy, with the ensemble cast taking center stage as they dance around the comedy genre and a mild R-rating while the horror aspect is mostly reduced to sitting in the backseat and tapping you on the shoulder from time to time.
In fact, to that same mysterious end, the eponymous werewolf isn’t actually revealed until the last ten or so minutes of the film.
As someone who hasn’t played the original video game, the film adaptation of Werewolves Within was, overall, a little disappointing from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the film is more of a whodunit than a straight horror film, and thus it’s understandable why it did not lean completely into the more gory and terrifying potential of its premise. Yet, even with this fact in mind, the film still feels particularly lacking when it comes to its actual horror elements.
It’s also one of the softest R-rated films to come along in quite some time. While some aspects, such as Finn biting his tongue or saying “Heavens to Betsy” instead of dropping an F-bomb make sense, it remains frustrating nonetheless that Werewolves Within constantly feels as if it’s purposely holding itself back.
Which is a shame, because there’s more to a film like this than silly on-screen hijinks and running attempts by the audience to figure out who the killer is – after all, some of us will pay good money to see the monster you’ve advertised your entire film.
Recently, there seems to be a rising trend among modern werewolf movies to barely feature a film’s respective monster on screen. This year’s Bloodthirsty is a great example and, as much as I love the film, The Wolf of Snow Hollow did the horror/comedy concoction to a much more satisfying degree than Werewolves Within, and yet totally massacred the idea of an actual werewolf being the culprit.
At the end of the day, Werewolves Within is a film where a bunch of weirdos in some-little-nowhere-town are forcibly crammed into a lodge during a snowstorm and proceed to irritate one another to semi-humorous results as a werewolf hides among them. The film is essentially a wolf in a person’s clothing, as while Werewolves Within is fine for what it is and features some great performances here and a couple laugh-out-loud moments, its potential seems to be far greater than what we received.
Ultimately, Werewolves Within leaves horror fans starving and salivating for more.
Directed by Josh Ruben and written by Mishna Wolff, Werewolves Within begins as Ranger Finn Wheeler (Sam Richardson) arrives in Beaverfield for his new post. Finn hits it off with the local mail carrier Cecily (Milana Vayntrub), but the rest of the town is unusually eccentric, to say the least.
There’s Trisha (Micahela Watkins) and Pete (Michael Chernus) Aderton, a couple who makes weird miniature dolls of everyone they meet and care a little too much for their dog. Devon (Cheyenne Jackson) and Joaquim (Harvey Guillén) are a homosexual couple living off the riches of a successful technological company. The town’s resident mechanic is Gwen (Sarah Burns), a crude woman whose husband Marcus (George Basil) is largely regarded as the town idiot.
Elsewhere in town, rounding out Beaverfield’s colorful cast of characters, is the clingy owner of the local lodge, Jeanine (Catherine Curtin), canine attack expert Dr. Ellis (Rebecca Henderson), oil magnate Sam (Wayne Duvall) who hopes to install a pipeline through the town at any cost, and Emerson, a ‘scary’ hunter who hates people and lives on the outskirts of town.
One night, when the power suddenly goes out and with the town’s back-up generators in a state of disrepair, everyone in town takes refuge in Jeanine’s lodge. However, after a corpse is discovered underneath the lodge’s porch and the townsfolk barricade themselves inside the building in an attempt to protect themselves from whatever may be lurking outside, the werewolf manages to attack from within.
In the aftermath of the attack, everyone begins to turn on each other, as the monster’s strike from inside the lodge provides them with a shocking revelation: Somebody in the lodge is the werewolf.
The cast works so well together. Richardson is does an excellent job of portraying Finn, a guy so nice and soft spoken that he feels like an African American Ned Flanders attempting to take charge as the authority figure.
Similarly, Vayntrub is so charming as Cecily that it makes you wonder why she hasn’t been in much else outside of AT&T commercials and the occasional voice role as Marvel’s Squirrel Girl, while Guillén is just as funny here as he is on What We Do in the Shadows, albeit in a slightly different way.
However, the most entertaining aspect of the film’s casting is the way everyone’s eccentric chemistry bounces off each other in a way that evokes this palpable sense of quirky absurdity that you can’t really find anywhere else.
The formula of Werewolves Within is a lot like Knives Out or Murder on the Orient Express, as it’s a mystery wrapped within the confines of a horror comedy, with the ensemble cast taking center stage as they dance around the comedy genre and a mild R-rating while the horror aspect is mostly reduced to sitting in the backseat and tapping you on the shoulder from time to time.
In fact, to that same mysterious end, the eponymous werewolf isn’t actually revealed until the last ten or so minutes of the film.
As someone who hasn’t played the original video game, the film adaptation of Werewolves Within was, overall, a little disappointing from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the film is more of a whodunit than a straight horror film, and thus it’s understandable why it did not lean completely into the more gory and terrifying potential of its premise. Yet, even with this fact in mind, the film still feels particularly lacking when it comes to its actual horror elements.
It’s also one of the softest R-rated films to come along in quite some time. While some aspects, such as Finn biting his tongue or saying “Heavens to Betsy” instead of dropping an F-bomb make sense, it remains frustrating nonetheless that Werewolves Within constantly feels as if it’s purposely holding itself back.
Which is a shame, because there’s more to a film like this than silly on-screen hijinks and running attempts by the audience to figure out who the killer is – after all, some of us will pay good money to see the monster you’ve advertised your entire film.
Recently, there seems to be a rising trend among modern werewolf movies to barely feature a film’s respective monster on screen. This year’s Bloodthirsty is a great example and, as much as I love the film, The Wolf of Snow Hollow did the horror/comedy concoction to a much more satisfying degree than Werewolves Within, and yet totally massacred the idea of an actual werewolf being the culprit.
At the end of the day, Werewolves Within is a film where a bunch of weirdos in some-little-nowhere-town are forcibly crammed into a lodge during a snowstorm and proceed to irritate one another to semi-humorous results as a werewolf hides among them. The film is essentially a wolf in a person’s clothing, as while Werewolves Within is fine for what it is and features some great performances here and a couple laugh-out-loud moments, its potential seems to be far greater than what we received.
Ultimately, Werewolves Within leaves horror fans starving and salivating for more.
Dana (24 KP) rated Ready Player One in Books
Mar 23, 2018
So I want to start off by saying that I read this for my book club with my friends, not that that changes anything, I just wanted you to know. Also, I did a hybrid reading of this. I would actually read the physical book for about half of it, but the other half, I listened to the audio book. (It's read by Wil Wheaton, y'all!)
Okay, so onto my review. I really enjoyed reading this book. I am not a gamer at all, but I do love 80s references., especially to movies. So even though I didn't understand a lot of the video game references (except Pac Man and a few others), I still understand the overall encompassing love of the 80s culture.
At first, this is a really cool dystopian sci-fi book focusing on a kid who is trying to win an Easter Egg hunt inside of a video game to get out of a crappy situation at home. By the end, there is action, romance, bad guys, and so much more. Kind of like what you would find in a typical 1980s classic film.
I think what I loved most about this is all of the hidden allusions to the 80s. Yes, there are the overt ones like to Ferris Buller's Day Off or Pac Man or Blade Runner. But there are a lot of little moments as well that are subtle that I barely caught. I don't want to give any away, so I won't spoil them on here. This book almost becomes it's own kind of easter egg hunt for the readers.
I loved trying to figure out the clues with Winston. A few of them, I did get, but some I did not. It was still fun trying to write down all of the clues and figure it out like a code cracker.
I loved the relationships in this book, especially since they weren't the main focus of the novel. It was refreshing to see people getting along and working together toward the same goal.
Overall, I really enjoyed this book and would highly recommend you see it before you go see the movie next year!
Okay, so onto my review. I really enjoyed reading this book. I am not a gamer at all, but I do love 80s references., especially to movies. So even though I didn't understand a lot of the video game references (except Pac Man and a few others), I still understand the overall encompassing love of the 80s culture.
At first, this is a really cool dystopian sci-fi book focusing on a kid who is trying to win an Easter Egg hunt inside of a video game to get out of a crappy situation at home. By the end, there is action, romance, bad guys, and so much more. Kind of like what you would find in a typical 1980s classic film.
I think what I loved most about this is all of the hidden allusions to the 80s. Yes, there are the overt ones like to Ferris Buller's Day Off or Pac Man or Blade Runner. But there are a lot of little moments as well that are subtle that I barely caught. I don't want to give any away, so I won't spoil them on here. This book almost becomes it's own kind of easter egg hunt for the readers.
I loved trying to figure out the clues with Winston. A few of them, I did get, but some I did not. It was still fun trying to write down all of the clues and figure it out like a code cracker.
I loved the relationships in this book, especially since they weren't the main focus of the novel. It was refreshing to see people getting along and working together toward the same goal.
Overall, I really enjoyed this book and would highly recommend you see it before you go see the movie next year!
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Assassin's Creed: Renaissance in Books
May 15, 2017
Descriptive writing (2 more)
Delving deeper into the story
Reading about plot points that weren't told until the sequel game
I am Ezio Auditore da Firenze. And like my father before me I am an Assassin...
The story of the Assassin from Italy, who we followed for 3 of the 13 console games (9 in the main series, 4 other games on Xbox - 3 of which are the Assassins Creed Chronicles, and 1 being Assassin's Creed: Liberation). The story of Ezio Auditore is one of vengeance, and discovery.
We begin with the story following his father however, another great installment in this series that gives us more back story that you can only find fragments of within the game and other media such as the short film Assassin's Creed Lineage. Ezio's story begins shortly after, when his father and brothers are killed, due to a betrayal, leaving behind Ezio, his mother and his sister. Together they flee the city and Ezio's story begins to unfold as he learns more about his father's secret, and the order to which his father and their ancestors belonged to. The Assassins.
Set in the beautiful time of Renaissance Italy, we follow Ezio as he travels to and from multiple cities, including his home, Florence, but also to the famous cities of Venice, Tuscany, and Rome. Each city introduces him to new friends, new enemies and more secrets begin to reveal themselves to Ezio which allow the character to become wiser and more developed over the years.
Oliver Bowden let's his readers delve far deeper into the stories of the characters than the games. The games are enjoyed more so for their game play and the freedom of your actions as you run around these historical landscapes. The books that Bowden has written, let us enjoy the adventure and the twists and turns of each story, told to us as though we were in the animus ourselves watching over Ezio but with no control over what happens to him.
If you play the games, then you know that each video game, in each of the settings, you will meet a historical figure. One thing that makes the franchise so brilliant is that the historical settings, and some of the events that takes place are historically accurate to the dates they happen. For example in the first Assassin's Creed, you meet King Richard the Lionheart, during the crusades in Jerusalem. In Assassin's Creed 2, and this novel, we are introduced to none other than the famous painter and inventor, Leonardo Da Vinci. Yes, THAT Leonardo Da Vinci, the same man that painted some of the world's most famous works of art such as The Mona Lisa.
As always Bowden's descriptive writing lets the reader truly feel the events unfold within our minds, and experience everything that the characters experience. The great joy of reading a book, is the imagination it can place into one's mind. As said before in my review on The Secret Crusade, the story is familiar and yet there are unfamiliar moments, that make the familiar story make more sense, and gives the readers and video game players a brand new experience.
We begin with the story following his father however, another great installment in this series that gives us more back story that you can only find fragments of within the game and other media such as the short film Assassin's Creed Lineage. Ezio's story begins shortly after, when his father and brothers are killed, due to a betrayal, leaving behind Ezio, his mother and his sister. Together they flee the city and Ezio's story begins to unfold as he learns more about his father's secret, and the order to which his father and their ancestors belonged to. The Assassins.
Set in the beautiful time of Renaissance Italy, we follow Ezio as he travels to and from multiple cities, including his home, Florence, but also to the famous cities of Venice, Tuscany, and Rome. Each city introduces him to new friends, new enemies and more secrets begin to reveal themselves to Ezio which allow the character to become wiser and more developed over the years.
Oliver Bowden let's his readers delve far deeper into the stories of the characters than the games. The games are enjoyed more so for their game play and the freedom of your actions as you run around these historical landscapes. The books that Bowden has written, let us enjoy the adventure and the twists and turns of each story, told to us as though we were in the animus ourselves watching over Ezio but with no control over what happens to him.
If you play the games, then you know that each video game, in each of the settings, you will meet a historical figure. One thing that makes the franchise so brilliant is that the historical settings, and some of the events that takes place are historically accurate to the dates they happen. For example in the first Assassin's Creed, you meet King Richard the Lionheart, during the crusades in Jerusalem. In Assassin's Creed 2, and this novel, we are introduced to none other than the famous painter and inventor, Leonardo Da Vinci. Yes, THAT Leonardo Da Vinci, the same man that painted some of the world's most famous works of art such as The Mona Lisa.
As always Bowden's descriptive writing lets the reader truly feel the events unfold within our minds, and experience everything that the characters experience. The great joy of reading a book, is the imagination it can place into one's mind. As said before in my review on The Secret Crusade, the story is familiar and yet there are unfamiliar moments, that make the familiar story make more sense, and gives the readers and video game players a brand new experience.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Battleship (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Basing a movie off of a videogame is often a risky proposition. For every “Resident Evil”, there at least a dozen others that are out and out disasters, “Mario Brothers”, “Wing Commander”, and “Double Dragon” are a few examples of how not to do it.
While Hollywood shows no signs of stopping videogame adaptations anytime soon, game development companies are becoming more savvy with allowing their products to become movies and are requiring uality scripts, cast, and directors before they enter into any film deal. Undaunted, Hollywood turned its eyes on children’s toys for inspiration. With the successful Transformers series, Hasbro has been targeted for their very popular line of board games as source material for future movies.
First out of the box is “Battleship”, director Peter Berg’s big-budget adaptation of the timeless naval strategy game that has been enjoyed for decades by players young and old. Since this is the era of video games, the simplistic style of the board game needed to be tweaked in order to make it appealing for the summer movie masses.
Gone is the classic strategy of the game and in its place, a loud and brash cast of 20-somethings, over-the-top special effects, and a plot riddled with more holes than the classic grids in the game that spawned the film.
Taylor Kitsch follows up his role in John Carter by playing Alex Hopper, a ne’er-do-well who despite the mentoring of his successful naval officer brother (Alexander Skarsgard), never seems to run out of ways to get himself in trouble. His latest efforts to impress a girl he met in a bar, land him in hot water with the authorities and his brother lays down the law and insists that Alex join the Navy and make something of his life.
The film jumps into the future where Alex is now dating the very attractive girl from the bar, Samantha (Brooklyn Decker), and trying to get enough courage together to ask her father for permission to marry his daughter. The fact that her father is Admiral Shane (Liam Neeson), only complicates the matter.
Despite holding the rank of an officer, Alex is still extremely headstrong and prone to getting himself in trouble. What what was supposed to be a friendly soccer match during allied naval exercises escalates, and Alex finds himself facing an ignominious exit from the Navy. He’s given a temporary reprieve as the ships in his fleet are suddenly faced with the threat of extraterrestrial origins.
Approximately around the same time Alex entered the Navy, scientists developed a way to amplify radio signals and directed them toward planets they believed could possibly support life. The signals were answered in the form of a hostile force that arrives on Earth only to cut a swath of destruction across the world as well as the naval fleet it encounters. Cut off from the rest of the fleet and reinforcements by an energy field, Alex is forced into command and must confront the deadly enemy at all cost to save the world.
What follows is a series of elaborate special effects that, while visually appealing, fail to pack much punch as the plot and characters are so underwhelming.
I understand that for films this type, especially given the source material, one must give a certain amount of leeway and accept, even grudgingly, the inconsistencies and impracticalities. That being said, not only are the characters about as thin and one-dimensional as they possibly could be, they are for the most part utterly devoid of any interesting qualities nor are they given much in the way of back story that makes us care for their outcomes. R&B star Rihanna spends a good chunk of her time looking tough and menacing, but isn’t given much more to do than occasionally fire a gun.
Kitsch is so utterly bland and unsympathetic that there’s just really no redeeming value to his character. Battleship is supposed to be a story of redemption but instead it’s a story of inconsistencies. Many times throughout the film common sense much less standard military procedures seems to go out the window.
For example, standard rules of engagement tactics were not used early in the film, but yet were readily deployed during the so-called big finale to the film with success. One has to wonder how more seasoned officers with far more resources at their disposal failed to utilize such tactics or have success with the methods that they employed. Yet ironically, this young lieutenant on his first command is able to out-maneuver these aliens when he decides to take to the offensive and lull the enemy into a fairly passive mode where they don’t do much more than watch.
The aliens, while interesting, are given precious little to do other than occasionally destroy or blow something up. We have no idea why they are on earth and to be honest, why they arrived in such small force. If the idea was to conquer Earth, it was poorly planned. Yet if proper procedures were followed, their incursion could have been dealt with very early and easily with the resources at hand. But that would’ve made for a short movie.
What I found puzzling was how surprisingly light on action the movie was. Yes there were firefights but they were spread sparingly throughout the film. You do not have one grand epic battle against overwhelming odds, you do not have legions of enemy troops for the Navy to wade through. It was pretty much a here-it-is-take-it-or-leave it, ho-hum finale.
The film does have some good points with Hawaii as its main backdrop. I did like the fact that there were a lot of active and retired soldiers and sailors used in the filming of the picture. It is clear that the filmmakers wanted to honor the soldiers who have so gallantly served our nation. I just wish they could’ve given them a much better showcase, because truthfully you’ll find far more thrills and enjoyment busting out the actual Battleship game than sitting through the film.
There is a scene post-credits that does hint at possible future installments, but I kept asking myself one question, “Why?” Rumor has it that several years goes Steven Segal attempted to revive his big-screen career by pitching an Under Siege 3 to Universal. Segal supposedly pitched the idea that his character would be on a naval ship that encountered extraterrestrial menace. The studio passed on this idea and, if there’s any truth to the rumor, they should have passed on this idea when it came time to make Battleship.
While Hollywood shows no signs of stopping videogame adaptations anytime soon, game development companies are becoming more savvy with allowing their products to become movies and are requiring uality scripts, cast, and directors before they enter into any film deal. Undaunted, Hollywood turned its eyes on children’s toys for inspiration. With the successful Transformers series, Hasbro has been targeted for their very popular line of board games as source material for future movies.
First out of the box is “Battleship”, director Peter Berg’s big-budget adaptation of the timeless naval strategy game that has been enjoyed for decades by players young and old. Since this is the era of video games, the simplistic style of the board game needed to be tweaked in order to make it appealing for the summer movie masses.
Gone is the classic strategy of the game and in its place, a loud and brash cast of 20-somethings, over-the-top special effects, and a plot riddled with more holes than the classic grids in the game that spawned the film.
Taylor Kitsch follows up his role in John Carter by playing Alex Hopper, a ne’er-do-well who despite the mentoring of his successful naval officer brother (Alexander Skarsgard), never seems to run out of ways to get himself in trouble. His latest efforts to impress a girl he met in a bar, land him in hot water with the authorities and his brother lays down the law and insists that Alex join the Navy and make something of his life.
The film jumps into the future where Alex is now dating the very attractive girl from the bar, Samantha (Brooklyn Decker), and trying to get enough courage together to ask her father for permission to marry his daughter. The fact that her father is Admiral Shane (Liam Neeson), only complicates the matter.
Despite holding the rank of an officer, Alex is still extremely headstrong and prone to getting himself in trouble. What what was supposed to be a friendly soccer match during allied naval exercises escalates, and Alex finds himself facing an ignominious exit from the Navy. He’s given a temporary reprieve as the ships in his fleet are suddenly faced with the threat of extraterrestrial origins.
Approximately around the same time Alex entered the Navy, scientists developed a way to amplify radio signals and directed them toward planets they believed could possibly support life. The signals were answered in the form of a hostile force that arrives on Earth only to cut a swath of destruction across the world as well as the naval fleet it encounters. Cut off from the rest of the fleet and reinforcements by an energy field, Alex is forced into command and must confront the deadly enemy at all cost to save the world.
What follows is a series of elaborate special effects that, while visually appealing, fail to pack much punch as the plot and characters are so underwhelming.
I understand that for films this type, especially given the source material, one must give a certain amount of leeway and accept, even grudgingly, the inconsistencies and impracticalities. That being said, not only are the characters about as thin and one-dimensional as they possibly could be, they are for the most part utterly devoid of any interesting qualities nor are they given much in the way of back story that makes us care for their outcomes. R&B star Rihanna spends a good chunk of her time looking tough and menacing, but isn’t given much more to do than occasionally fire a gun.
Kitsch is so utterly bland and unsympathetic that there’s just really no redeeming value to his character. Battleship is supposed to be a story of redemption but instead it’s a story of inconsistencies. Many times throughout the film common sense much less standard military procedures seems to go out the window.
For example, standard rules of engagement tactics were not used early in the film, but yet were readily deployed during the so-called big finale to the film with success. One has to wonder how more seasoned officers with far more resources at their disposal failed to utilize such tactics or have success with the methods that they employed. Yet ironically, this young lieutenant on his first command is able to out-maneuver these aliens when he decides to take to the offensive and lull the enemy into a fairly passive mode where they don’t do much more than watch.
The aliens, while interesting, are given precious little to do other than occasionally destroy or blow something up. We have no idea why they are on earth and to be honest, why they arrived in such small force. If the idea was to conquer Earth, it was poorly planned. Yet if proper procedures were followed, their incursion could have been dealt with very early and easily with the resources at hand. But that would’ve made for a short movie.
What I found puzzling was how surprisingly light on action the movie was. Yes there were firefights but they were spread sparingly throughout the film. You do not have one grand epic battle against overwhelming odds, you do not have legions of enemy troops for the Navy to wade through. It was pretty much a here-it-is-take-it-or-leave it, ho-hum finale.
The film does have some good points with Hawaii as its main backdrop. I did like the fact that there were a lot of active and retired soldiers and sailors used in the filming of the picture. It is clear that the filmmakers wanted to honor the soldiers who have so gallantly served our nation. I just wish they could’ve given them a much better showcase, because truthfully you’ll find far more thrills and enjoyment busting out the actual Battleship game than sitting through the film.
There is a scene post-credits that does hint at possible future installments, but I kept asking myself one question, “Why?” Rumor has it that several years goes Steven Segal attempted to revive his big-screen career by pitching an Under Siege 3 to Universal. Segal supposedly pitched the idea that his character would be on a naval ship that encountered extraterrestrial menace. The studio passed on this idea and, if there’s any truth to the rumor, they should have passed on this idea when it came time to make Battleship.