DJANGO UNCHAINED.

Tarantino referred to his previous film, Inglorious Basterds, as his masterpiece. How does one follow up one's own masterpiece and not be a failure? Why, make up your own genre, of course. Westsploitation. Is that a thing? I think Quentin Tarantino just made that a thing. Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz) is a dentist-turned-bounty hunter who needs the help of a slave, Django (Jamie Foxx), who knows what his next marks look like. Freeing Django, Schultz enlists his aid and eventually trains him to be his partner. But when Django reveals that he has a wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), who was recently sold off to a new owner, Schultz vows to help Django get her back. But it won't be easy, as her new owner is Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), who owns one of the most infamous plantations in the south.

First and definitely foremost... this is one long movie. It's just shy of 3 hours, and it feels it. Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying it's slow or uninteresting. I'm just saying I really felt that 3 hours in that chair.  What didn't help was a moderately slow start. To me, the start of a Tarantino movie is one of the best parts. It's always this slow, deliberate story or conversation. This was perfected, in my eyes, in Christoph Waltz's introduction in Inglorious Basterds. Perfect pacing. Perfect amount of tension and menace and build-up. So here, we get another introduction with Christoph Waltz, so the film automatically sets you up to want a similar brilliance. But, to me, that doesn't happen. Yes, there is somewhat of a discussion that builds up to a moment of shock. But something about it didn't feel very... Tarantino. I didn't have that same thrill at the start that his films always hit off with.

And from there it's pretty much a collection of segments that depend on who the bad guy is at the time. And the film sure does put a fair number of "boss battles" to face throughout. And more often than not, those are the best parts of the film. The last... I don't know... 30-45 minutes--starting from the dinner table scene through to the end of the movie--is purely outstanding. The dinner table scene and the scene near the start of the film when they first ride into the little town and invite themselves into the bar are two of the best performed and written scenes in the film (showcasing Leo and Christoph respectively). Those are some classic Tarantino moments... and I think my biggest problem with the film is that it's nearly 3 hours long and the film doesn't have nearly enough moments like those. Sure, they're sprinkled throughout, some suspenseful and some comical (the KKK masks scene is fantastic, as well). But I felt that, particularly in the first half of the film (prior to Leo and Sam Jackson showing up, and yes, it does take about half the film to get to them), the Tarantino dialogue wasn't up to par. And I often wondered how much of that first half was all that necessary.

All of that being said, however, the second half of the movie more than makes up for any low points the first half might have had. Hell, that last 30-45 minutes alone are worth the price of admission. The violence, comedy, blood, and mix therein is all pretty damn entertaining. Glorious, even.

The acting is all fantastic, as well, from start to finish. Christoph Waltz gives another solid performance for Tarantino. He's no Hans Landa, but he's fun enough. Jamie Foxx has a lot of fun with the titular character. Jonah Hill does show up, but it's barely a cameo. He's on screen maybe five minutes tops and he doesn't say that much. DiCaprio kills it in the dinner scene in particular (and the scene that follows), and prior to that, he shows us he's having fun as a villain. But who steals the show is, of course, Samuel L. Jackson. He has a pretty decent-sized role this time, and he is both hilarious and potentially menacing.

I thought the film had a bit of a rocky start, but it really grew on me as it went on. When the scenes hit, they hit hard and strong. While every moment isn't like a Pulp Fiction or Inglorious Basterds wherein they have amazing dialogues or monologues, there are enough throughout the film that are good enough to eventually make up for it. And the violence is exploitation-level fun and over-the-top. The comedy is great. The acting is superb. Is this Tarantino's best film? No. But that doesn't stop it from being really, really good.


Royale With Cheese

50/50 Review #50: Infernal Affairs.

I'll come out and say it--I'm not a huge fan of The Departed. It's not because I think it's a bad film. It's not. I even liked it. But I only saw it for the first time maybe a couple years ago, which would still be at least 4 years after it came out. This movie had been hyped up like crazy. It was lauded as one of the greatest cop dramas of not only our time, but possibly of all time. I had 4 years to let that sink in when I watched it. Then when I did, I guess I missed something within the setup of the film and was totally lost and confused for the majority of it. I didn't know who was who or what was going on. I eventually caught on, but by that point, I hadn't become overly invested in the characters. It also didn't help that, not long before I finally watched it, a major character's death was spoiled for me (to avoid spoiling others, I'll say the elevator scene death). So the shocking twist that grabbed so many... had zero effect on me. Needless to say, everything was going against me when I watched that film. And I will be the first to admit that I need to rewatch it, and I will. But first let's talk about the original version.

The film follows pretty much the same story. Sam (Eric Tsang) is a Triad leader who wants to infiltrate the police. The mole that gets in is Lau (Andy Lau). At the same time, Superintendant Wong (Anthony Wong) sees potential in a new cadet named Yan (Tony Leung), who he sets up as an undercover cop in Sam's gang. Both moles are in their respective positions for years, moving up the ranks. But when each group realizes there's a mole in their organizations, both moles are tasked with finding out who the other is.

I don't know why, but for some reason, I really liked this version more than The Departed. I did start out slightly confused at different points as to what exactly was going on or if it was present day or a flashback or what, but that never lasted long. I know it's pretty much the exact same story, but I did like the tension that built up in finding out who the moles are... and its the moles who have to figure it out. I think what helps this one work out a little better than the other is pacing. This has a very fast pacing. The film is only 100 minutes, while The Departed is 2 and a half hours. Granted, I know it takes elements from the entire Infernal Affairs trilogy, but the primary story is the first film. I also really liked the whole morse code aspect, which is not in the remake. I thought that was clever and fun.

Another thing I really liked in this that wasn't in the remake was Lau's novelist girlfriend. She's writing a novel about a schizophrenic who starts to lose his identity. The themes between her book and what is going on in the film is pretty on-the-nose, but I really liked that aspect of it. It added a level of meta to the story, and you know how I appreciate meta.

On the whole, though, I really don't have much to say about the film. It was cheesy in parts with the melodrama of the music during certain scenes. But on the whole, I thought it was intense, it had a great sense of character and theme, and it had a great concept that it pulled off well. And the story wasn't bloated--it had a story to tell and it told it. It wasn't perfect, but it was still pretty dang entertaining and well made. Like I said, I'll go back eventually and re-watch The Departed (so you don't have to yell at me in the comments about it). But as for this one...


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. And that will wrap it up for both Kai's Month and the 50/50 List! Kai had a rather solid month all around. 3 Keanu's and a McLovin! I'd say that's pretty dang good! As for this project, keep an eye out on Friday for the wrap-up post on the 50/50 as a whole. It won't be as crazy in-depth as my 60/60 wrap-up, but it'll have some good lists and fun facts. And that'll about do it!)

V.G. Movies #50: Resident Evil: Damnation.

[Welcome back to the Evolution of Video Game Movies series. Every week, I will be moving forward through time, starting with the earliest and ending with the most recent of video game movies. I will be detailing the histories of the games and how the films came about, and both my and fan reaction to the adaptations. Practically all of my background information is either common knowledge or from Wikipedia. So without further ado, let's move on to the final film on the list.]

THE HISTORY

Finally, we come to the final video game movie! And how fitting is it that it's a Resident Evil flick (albeit from the animated film series).  There's really no special history here. I've gone over the Resident Evil games ad nauseam with all the other flicks. There's no real information needed that leads up to this sequel to Resident Evil: Degeneration. It just... happened. And it's no secret that I pretty much hated the first film in this animated "series" (there are only two films thus far, so it's hard to call it a series). I'm not expecting much of out this, but as usual... I'll try to go in with an open mind. Let's do this, shall we?

THE FILM

In the middle of a civil war within the Eastern Slav Republic, Leon (Matthew Mercer) is sent in to confirm rumors that bio-weapons such as Lickers are being used. And not only used, but controlled. As it turns out, the freedom fighters have been given a Plaga parasite which will help them control Lickers (at least until the Plaga takes over the person's body completely). But Leon is taken hostage by a couple freedom fighters named Sasha (Dave Wittenberg) and JD (Val Tasso) and has to work with them as they prepare to overtake the capitol building and overthrow their current president, Svetlana (Wendee Lee). All the while, Ada Wong (Courtenay Taylor) has been hired to get close to the president and find the source of the Plaga herself.

You know what? I was pleasantly surprised with this film. It was far and away much better than Degeneration. First, the CG animation looks pretty good, with the exception of a few characters. And the lip sync with the dialogue is off here and there. But on the whole, the movie looks really nice. The Tyrants at the end in particular look really cool and intimidating. Strangely with the visual style, though, they would do weird little things from time to time. For instance, sometimes they would go into a first-person perspective for a short period. And other little things like that. They weren't bad, they were just odd choices.

The action was very good and much better than Degeneration. While most of it was gunplay, there were a few highlights. First and foremost was a fistfight between Ada Wong and the president. Both the animation and the actual fighting looks really good in this segment. And again, when the Tyrants show up, they're such massive, hulking creatures, and they're animated so well that you feel every heavy step they take. So when one takes so long to take down, you can really believe it, and the suspense is high. And I liked the idea of being able to use Plaga to control Lickers, even if it meant your inevitable doom. And it added some really good action sequences later on.

Unfortunately, there were some pretty big negatives, as well. First, the character of JD was unbelievably annoying. He was this Russian wannabe-American gangster type. He would talk and act in these weird and over-the-top ways that it was really hard to not want to punch him in the face. And he was supposed to be likable. Second, almost everything that came out of Leon's mouth was painful. It's like they tried to be clever and witty, but it was just terrible. And not even ironically groan-worthy where it's at least cheesy. It's just bad writing. There's this whole bit near the beginning where he compares everything to the Wizard of Oz for some strange reason. And then he tries to give one-liners throughout, but they just don't hit. He only has one good line in the entire film, which is near the end when they're taking down one of the Tyrants. And that's about it.

It's definitely not a perfect film, but I was really entertained by it for the majority. It does go on about 10 minutes too long as it tries to wrap up every single storyline in this film while setting up cliffhangers for the Resident Evil 6 video game. It's like Lord of the Rings with all the endings it goes for. And that on top of a really long third act climax (albeit a fun one), it was just too much. The voice acting was solid, as well, even though JD got on my nerves. In the end, the decent story, nice visuals, and cool action won me over. Who'd have thunk?


I Am McLovin!

LINCOLN.

Keep in mind while reading this review that historical dramas aren't really my cup of tea. But I saw it because, well... it's Spielberg, DDL, and full of Oscar buzz. And I was honestly a little intrigued in seeing how Lincoln's life was handled. Most notably, I mainly wanted to see how his death was handled. The film follows Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) in the last few months of his life, but mainly in the month he strongly pushed to have the 13th Amendment (abolish slavery) ratified in the U.S. Constitution. During this time he struggles with his marriage as his wife, Mary Todd (Sally Field), continues to struggle with the passing of their son three years prior while their eldest, Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) demands to fight in the Civil War.

First, the positive. Daniel Day-Lewis was phenomenal in this film. I never once saw DDL. This was Abraham Lincoln surrounded by more modern-day actors in a film. If he wins the Lead Actor Oscar (and I believe he will), he deserves it. Hands down best performance of the year. And the other acting was pretty top notch, too. Tommy Lee Jones was awfully entertaining in the film, though he was honestly only playing Tommy Lee Jones. Still, it was a solid performance. Sally Field does incredibly well here, as well. And while Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a solid job, I felt his role was rather unimportant to the overall film. It added almost nothing except maybe one scene of drama between Lincoln and Mary Todd. He's barely in the movie as it is, and his whole fight to be a soldier pretty much amounts to nothing.

Unfortunately, the film is a bit overlong and quite slow in parts. If one of two things was happening the film was golden. First, if at any time Lincoln was telling a story (which he does quite often), I was totally entranced. He was totally captivating to listen to, and his stories were very entertaining and often humorous. Second, if Tommy Lee Jones was on screen (and usually yelling at or insulting somebody). If either of those things were happening, I was really digging the film. However, there are plenty of times when neither of these things are happening. And it felt like by the time we were maybe an hour and fifteen minutes into the movie, and I realized I still had over an hour left, I was dying. The story moved so slowly, particularly within that first half of the film.

Moving into some spoiler(?) territory, I was incredibly disappointed with the ending. I held out for two and a half hours just to see how the whole assassination and John Wilkes Booth thing was done. And what happens? A freakin' fake-out and you only end up hearing about it happening. How do you do a Lincoln biopic and not even show the shooting? And even worse than that, they pretend like they're going to show you but then you realize what they just did.

Besides that, though, this is almost assuredly going to win a ton of awards. Does it deserve them? Some of them, sure. Daniel Day-Lewis deserves an Oscar for this performance. And maybe another one here or there. But I don't think it deserves the sweep that is most likely going to happen. It's an incredibly well-made film. A brilliantly acted film. A superbly written film in its dialogue. It's just not my type of film. It was entertaining in parts, but too long and slow for my liking. And it was far more a film about passing the 13th Amendment than it was about Lincoln himself (there were entire chunks of the film without Lincoln in them). So for a score that looks at my entertainment over its own quality...

I Am McLovin!

50/50 Review #49: I'm The Angel Of Death: Pusher III.

Time to wrap up the trilogy. In this review, I'll talk about the film alone and then give my thoughts on the trilogy as a whole. But first, let's look at this. This film follows Milo (Zlatco Buric), a drug boss in the previous tow films. He's trying to kick the habit of using drugs, but it's becoming incredibly stressful due to it being his daughter Milena's (Marinela Dekic) 25th birthday, and he has to cook for 60 people. Unfortunately, after a misunderstanding with a drug trade, Milo ends up with about 10k or ecstasy instead of heroin. While waiting for his heroin to show up, he decides to entrust the ecstasy to Little Mohammed (Ilyas Agac), who says he can sell it quick. But when he doesn't show back up with the money and makes no contact, Milo gets into trouble with the other guys and has to make a deal... with some disastrous results.

Unlike the other two, I really had to think on this one. When it ended, I wasn't sure what I thought or felt. This film, while so similar in structure to the other two, feels different. It's more personal. Milo was the villain of the original film, so to have you sympathizing with him here and wanting him to succeed was an interesting maneuver. Fortunately, Milo is also a pretty great character, and I loved him in the first film, as well as his brief appearance in the second film. Radovan, Milo's partner in the first film, also makes a rather memorable appearance in this film--which is pretty cool considering he's probably the best character in the entire trilogy. But still, while the film was equally as gritty, the personal feeling of the story made everything that much more gut-wrenching (no pun intended... if you've seen the film).

But in the end, I do believe it's probably tied with the first film to me, ranking-wise. The characterization here was superb. Milo is such a complex character that you do kind of feel for, so that makes the overall film that much more depressing and difficult to watch as he just continues to lose it and slip further and further out of control. And everybody just pushes him around, from his colleagues to his spoiled brat daughter. The dangerous, in-control drug lord from the first two films is only a glimmer here, instead replaced with an old man caught in a transitory period where he wants to better himself and is failing.

It is a bit of a slow burn, though. The first 50 minutes, I found, were quite slow, and I checked the clock a handful of times. But the last hour it definitely worth the wait. Like the first film, the slow build of drama until things start spiraling out of control is needed, and the spiral itself is both suspenseful and hard to watch. The entire segment with the prostitute deal was intense, and all I wanted was Milo to snap and beat the crap out of some people. And then the final 20 minutes or so with Radovan was crazy and disturbing (and if you have a weak stomach, beware). And the way it was filmed--in Refn's style of "calm, nonchalant violence" (as best as I can describe it)--is used perfectly in the film's climax.

To briefly discuss the trilogy as a whole, it's one of the most solid trilogies out there. It's not perfect, but it's really dang good. I did prefer the first and third to the second, though I still thought the second was good... just in a different kind of way. I like the complex characters these films present, and I like how all the movies are at least loosely tied together in the characters they share. And what might feel like a flatter character in one film will be expanded on in another, which will give entirely new meaning to that character in the other film. All the films have an open-ending, and they all have different emotions that they leave you with. The first film ends almost as if it's to-be-continued and a sense of dread. The second film ends with a glimmer of hope. And the third film ends rather depressingly--empty and hopeless. To me, my favorite ending was ironically the second film, as it wrapped up things with the story, the character, and theme while still leaving it open to what actually happens. The ending to this one (the third) is currently my least favorite, as it just ends on what's pretty much a symbolic shot. It's not bad... it's just not my favorite type of ending. It's an open ending, but unlike the other two, I didn't leave the film asking (at least too strongly) "what happened next?" And, ironically, that's what made me have to think about my feelings on the film more than the other two. So perhaps that means this was the strongest ending, and to that I can easily concede. I just preferred the other two (particularly the second).

Overall, though, this third installment was very good. The acting was really good. The writing--especially the characterization--was fantastic, as it was with all the films. The direction was tight, especially when it came to any of the violence. I love Milo and Radovan, so seeing more of them is always a good thing to me. I do recommend the film, though you'll want to start with the first one. It was explained to me that this is a trilogy experience, and it really is. You don't need to see each one for them to make sense. They all stand alone. But they work best when you watch them in order, as the character connections and expansions are what make this trilogy such a treat. They're good alone. They're great together. But as for this one on its own...

A Keanu 'Whoa'

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY.

The Hobbit was actually the first major book I ever read. I was never much of a reader when I was younger, and outside of an occasional Goosebumps book, I never read much of anything. But sometime in about 5th grade, I found this book and pretty much devoured it (though I haven't read it since). In other words, I've been pretty hyped for this particular adaptation. The film follows about the first third of the book. Years after an ancient dragon named Smaug takes over a dwarven kingdom, Gandalf (Ian McKellen) gathers a group of dwarves led by dwarf prince Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) to travel back, defeat the dragon, and reclaim the kingdom. But they need a little more help, so Gandalf asks a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) to come along. On their travels, they face trolls, orcs, goblins, and an enemy from Thorin's past. There's also whispers of a new, dangerous sorcerer called the Necromancer, though he doesn't come into play just yet. Who does, though, is a strange little creature named Gollum (Andy Serkis), who has a run-in with Bilbo... who finds an important little bit of jewelry in the process.

This is much more of a children's film than the Lord of the Rings films. Everything is much more lighthearted here--no heavy political dramas or demonic, black-cloaked monsters. There are battles, but they're not as gritty and life-threatening. I mean, there's definitely a sense of danger, and it feels like anyone could die at any moment... but at the same time, you're pretty sure none of them will. The action is plentiful once the film gets to that part of the story, and it all looks pretty good. None of it is anything like Helm's Deep or the like, but it works for what it is.

Also, there is a lot of humor in this movie. I laughed quite a bit throughout. The film definitely plays up some slapstick, funny looks, and playful lines. And this is both a good and not-so-good thing. On the one hand, during some slower sections, you have Bilbo's reaction to things which are entertaining. And almost all the humor works and works well throughout the entire film. But on the other hand, sometimes it takes it a bit far. For instance, there's a moment where a big enemy is killed, and he gets a few humorous last words before dying. I get the idea of it, but it does take away from the seriousness of the situation or any drama or tension that could be been building up.

The acting is pretty top notch here. Of course Ian McKellen is still fantastic as Gandalf. And Andy Serkis' return as Gollum is probably the best part of the movie. It's fun, funny, and just pretty dang entertaining. Everybody is on top of their game in the film. But the true shout-out goes to Martin Freeman, who was brilliant as Bilbo. Everything from his comic timing to the sincere believability of his internal conflicts is just done so well. Even a simple look on his face or in his eyes was enough. Absolutely perfect casting. I think even people who might not end up liking the film could still give it up for his performance.

But now there are the two things everybody has been talking about--the look and the length. I got to see the film in a regular format. No 48 FPS or 3D. Just your average-looking film. And I must say, it looks really good as it is. Cinematography-wise, that is. Unfortunately, for some reason, Peter Jackson decided to use much more CGI in this version than guys in suits. Almost every creature is CGI in this movie, and that kind of saddens me. The Goblin King in particular looks a bit silly (and no, I dont mean David Bowie). He just overdid it on the computer graphics when he could have easily done what he did in the original trilogy. I hate that he took the easy way out and just CGI'd mostly everything. Not all of it looked bad, though, mind you. Just every now and then.

Then there's the length. It's pretty much almost an hour into the film before they even leave Bilbo's house. It feels like they're there forever. The beginning just drags for quite a bit, and I think they really could have cut down on a few things. There are also a few things in the middle that aren't exactly necessary for the current film, but are put in for the trilogy as a whole (like the Necromancer stuff). It also seems like there are 3 different climaxes to the film, and I was getting slightly antsy and wondering when or where it was gonna stop. Granted, it was really only in the last 10-15 minutes I started wondering. But it was like... things kept happening, so it gave the implication that the film was just going to keep going on.

Despite all of that, though, I really was into it for most of the movie. The pacing, like I said, only got to me at the beginning and right before the closing credits. And for a film that's almost 3 hours long, that's not too bad. The bulk of the film flows just fine. The action is good, the acting is really good, and the comedy is pretty dang entertaining. Don't go into this expecting another Lord of the Rings epic. This is still a fantasy epic, but it's much more of a children's movie than the darker, more adult themes of its predecessor. But a really good children's movie.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

V.G. Movies #49: Ecstasy Of Order: The Tetris Masters.

[Welcome back to the Evolution of Video Game Movies series. Every week, I will be moving forward through time, starting with the earliest and ending with the most recent of video game movies. I will be detailing the histories of the games and how the films came about, and both my and fan reaction to the adaptations. Practically all of my background information is either common knowledge or from Wikipedia. So without further ado, let's move on to the next film on the list.]

THE HISTORY

In the world of video games, most people will basically think two countries: U.S. and Japan. So it's pretty interesting that one of the best selling and most popular video games of all time... is Russian. In 1984, Alexey Pajitnov was working for the Soviet Academy of Sciences when he came up with a puzzle video game where every piece consisted of a design of 4 blocks. He mixed together the words tetromino (a geometric shape consisting of four blocks) and tennis (his favorite sport) and, thus... Tetris was born.

Numerous companies bought out the game and sold it for their consoles, though it was really the Nintendo Game Boy that skyrocketed sales of the game (selling over 33 million copies on its system alone). By 1989, half a dozen companies had rights to the game. It won plenty of awards and is still found on "best games of all time" lists all over the world.

Interestingly, whereas many people argue video games "rot the brain," Tetris is actually proven to be good for it. It's been proven that prolonged activity with the game increases cognitive skills and more efficient brain activity throughout the day. Even as little as 30 minutes a day for 3 months can enhance everything from critical thinking skills to reasoning and language.

Over the years, Tetris scores have been collected, particularly by Twin Galaxies (see my King of Kong review for more details on them). And that leads us to the following documentary...

THE FILM

In 1990, Nintendo held the Nintendo World Championships where a boy named Thor Aackerlund (his real name) won first place, had higher scores than anyone else had ever done at that time, and became the face of Nintendo for a short period of time... until he pretty much fell off the map. He declared he reached the impossible Level 30 on more than one occasion--something nobody had ever seen before even once--though there was no video proof of this. Jump ahead through time, and people such as Harry Hong and Jonas Neubauer certainly defeated his records, though nobody ever reached Level 30. So in 2010, Robin Mihara--who came in 3rd against Thor in 1990--sets up the ultimate Tetris Championship in L.A. for the best players in the United States. And he invites the reclusive Thor to begin gaming once again and prove that he has done what he's claimed and that he's still as good as he used to be.

This is pretty much the perfect companion piece to King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters. It's somewhat similar in style (though it's not really a good vs. evil battle... there's no good guys or bad guys, really). But we follow a handful of the best players leading up to the tournament and then the actual events of the tournament.

What I found particularly fascinating was how Thor was treated or acknowledged throughout. Ironically, he was treated as this mythical being or god amongst men who could do these extraordinary deeds that nobody else could... except there were plenty of doubters that he could actually do it. He's really set up similarly to a Billy Mitchell, but less of a douche and more of this (overly awkward) divinity that once showed up and then just... disappeared from the public eye. So that by the time he actually shows up in the documentary and you hear his side of the story... it's that much more hard-hitting.

Everybody in the doc was pretty likable. What I might have liked more from it is a clear underdog. Outside of Thor, you don't feel ask if there's really one person to openly root for or champion. They're all good players and have relatively average life stories (again, with the exception of Thor). It's just that Thor doesn't show up for quite a ways into the documentary, so outside of introducing these people to us and building up the legend of Thor, it really needed to focus on a few other things to pad out the documentary.

And it does so pretty well. A fascinating section of the film discusses the game's psychological effects on people. Besides the aforementioned increase in brain efficiency, it briefly discusses what's called "The Tetris Effect." This is something that I myself have actually experienced in the past, when I was a Tetris junkie for a while. It's basically when you start seeing the shapes even when you're not actually playing, so you start playing games in your head and even in your dreams. The discussion of why this happens and the game's neurological effects was pretty interesting in and of itself.

Otherwise, there's not much to talk about here. If you like King of Kong, definitely seek this one out. It really does work well with the former. The film does drag for a little in parts, mainly within the first 30 minutes or so, but on the whole it's really good. The documentary actually made me quite anxious while watching all the Tetris games going on, so it really invests you in what's going on. I was pleasantly surprised by this documentary, and Thor's story really is filled with some twists that you might not see coming.


Royale With Cheese

(P.S. This is the second time I've given this score for this project. The first? Yup...  King of Kong.)

50/50 Review #48: With Blood On My Hands: Pusher II.

After my surprising liking of the first film, the next two had a lot to live up to. I found out almost immediately that while this is a trilogy, it's not the typical trilogy where it picks up right where the last left off, regardless of the to-be-continued feeling the first film left off with. Though we do follow a familiar face in this film--Frank's best friend in the first movie, Tonny. At least a couple years after the first film, we follow Tonny (Mads Mikkelsen) as he's released from prison (something unrelated to the events of the first film). He goes to his father, the Duke (Leif Sylvester), to get work as a car thief for a chop shop, but his father doesn't trust or respect him. Meanwhile, he also discovers he might be the father of a baby boy from a promiscuous woman named Charlotte (Anne Sorensen). And on top of all of that, he needs to help is friend Kurt (Kurt Nielsen) get the money he owes or else it might be both their necks on the line.

This film is much more of a drama than the first film, which was basically a drama-thriller. This film is all about Tonny searching for a little respect and recognition. And if that theme isn't clear enough, the camera continually focuses on the tattoo on the back of Tonny's bald head which says "Respect." Nobody gives it to him, and he's verbally and emotionally abused throughout the entire film while he's trying desperately to please people and put his life back together.

I didn't like the film as much as the first, but I did still think it was well done. I also appreciate what it was doing by turning it into more of a character piece on Tonny and his hunt for redemption. While he wasn't as engaging of a character as Frank from the first film, I did feel for him by the end of the film and really rooted for him to come out on top somehow. Because while everybody else was calling him a pathetic loser, it always hit that much harder when you looked at how pathetic most of those people were.

Unfortunately, outside of Tonny, the film took everything I liked about the first film and pretty much dropped it. There were still hints at some of the realism of characterizations, but it wasn't as prevalent this time around. Instead, it amped up the focus on the drugs and how all the characters not only did drugs but centered their lives around them--in other words, the exact thing I appreciated the first film for not doing. And because of this, I had trouble connecting with any of the characters. I didn't think they were as strong as in the first film (outside of maybe Tonny and his father).

So while I didn't like it as much as the first film, I do think it's worth watching if you've seen the first. It does hint at Frank's fate from the first film, and the evolution of Tonny is done very well. I do really like the final scene of the film. And there's a pretty great scene that brings back Milo (who I believe will be the focus of the final film, as well). I wish it had the great dialogue and characterization of the first film, but what it does with Tonny is good, too.


I Am McLovin!

V.G. Movies #48: Dragon Age: Dawn Of The Seeker.

[Welcome back to the Evolution of Video Game Movies series. Every week, I will be moving forward through time, starting with the earliest and ending with the most recent of video game movies. I will be detailing the histories of the games and how the films came about, and both my and fan reaction to the adaptations. Practically all of my background information is either common knowledge or from Wikipedia. So without further ado, let's move on to the next film on the list.]

THE HISTORY

This is the most recent series on this list, and one that I know zero about. The first game came out in just 2009. Entitled Dragon Age: Origins, the first game was released by production company BioWare and Electronic Arts. The game's introduces a character of your creation to the country of Ferelden via a man named Duncan who gets you inducted as a Grey Warden--which is essentially a knight-type character. You eventually team up with others in order to stop an oncoming Blight--an attack of demon-like creatures called darkspawn and their archdemon leader, which is a presence that has taken over the body of a powerful dragon. The game was almost universally praised and won numerous awards.

After numerous expansion packs, a sequel was released in 2011. The sequel follows a man named Hawke who fled from Ferelden during the events of the first game. Over years, Hawke rises in power and fame and is involved in a handful of political-type battles, including a war waged between Templars and mages. This game also got positive reviews, though it wasn't as widely appreciated and loved as the first.

So after these two recent games became so well loved, it was clear a film was going to be made. But instead of going the live-action route, the game companies decided to take a page from Capcom and make a CG film. The film would follow one of the minor characters involved in the second game, Cassandra. So let's see how they fared, shall we?

THE FILM

The film follows a Cassandra, a form of knight called a Seeker. Seekers and their special-ops counterparts, the Templars, are trained to take down Blood Mages--a radical faction of mages that have separated from their Circle Mage brethren. The Blood Mages, with the help of a traitor, have kidnapped another mage who has the ability to control animals. They want to use her to control dragons and wage war. So Cassandra, who hates mages, is forced to team up with a Circle Mage named Galyan to stop the Blood Mages from completing their plan.

Have you ever watched any fantasy or quest film ever? Then you've seen this movie. It's beyond predictable and by-the-numbers. Cassandra is a hot-headed young warrior out to prove herself, and she has a troubling past as her brother was killed by mages. So of course she has to team up with a mage that she hates yet inevitably befriends and might even fall for. And in the end she proves herself worthy and is honored for it. Galyan is the weak yet charming sidekick. There is a high-ranked traitor (who they, thankfully, don't even attempt to make a surprise twist due to its obviousness). There are no surprises in this film, and you've seen everything it has to offer before.

But then, on top of that, there are plot and/or logic issues galore. In an effort to make Cassandra a badass, they completely undermine all villains. She has no trouble single-handedly taking down any Blood Mage or monster thrown in her way, even if 50 of them are thrown in her way simultaneously. The mages don't really fight with magic, yet they are somehow able to take out armies of these Templars and Seekers. Where is this struggling war, again? And then Cassandra is able to take down anything, including dragons and other giant, scary creatures. And not only does she take them down, but she does so--always--in about 1-2 swings of the sword. Five dragons? No problem! Let's just jump on their backs one at a time and stab them in the spine and head and move on to the next one without any kind of reaction from the dragons.

But, believe it or not, my biggest issue was with the animation. A lot of people seem to find this the film's only real perk, but I have to disagree. It's really uneven, with monsters and smaller animals looking nice, but everything else being down in this weird cell-shaded format. It makes it look like PS2 or Gamecube-era video game graphics. So not only is the animation not up to par for movie animation, it's not up to par for video game animation. The film ends up looking like an extended cut scene from an old, cell-shaded PS2 game.

All of that being said, the movie isn't terrible. It's just nothing new, and there's absolutely nothing original or spectacular about it. Hell, with only a few alterations here and there, the plot of the film is almost identical to the Dungeons & Dragons live-action film from 2000 (An evil mage wants to take over, so he attempts to gain the ability to control dragons and overthrow the current leader. From there, it's up to a hard-headed hero to team up with a mage (and he dislikes mages) and others to stop him). And that's not really a great comparison to make. (And the villain is equally stupid.) Overall, I didn't hate it, but I can almost assure you that I won't ever find the need to watch it again.


Feed Me, Seymour!

50/50 Review #47: Pusher.

I learned last year during my 60/60 Project that when it comes to crime films, the ones centering around drugs typically interested me the least (Hell, even with Pulp Fiction, my least favorite part is the Uma Thurman section). I didn't know what it was about them, but I just could not get into them for some reason. But now, after watching this, I think I've figured it out. The film follows Frank (Kim Bodnia), a drug pusher with incredibly bad luck. He's already in debt to drug lord, Milo (Zlatko Buric), but he takes one more favor and gets a lot of drugs to pull off a deal with a guy Frank was in prison with. But the deal goes bust when the cops show up and Frank loses all the drugs in a lake. With seemingly the world against him, Frank is running against the clock to get the money he owes Milo before it's too late.

I realized while watching this that the reasons I typically can't get into drug-related films are 1) The characters aren't likable or relatable to me and 2) the focus of these characters is usually either gaining power or looking to make their next score. And character is really important to me in any form of fiction. Even if you have a non-existant plot, if you have strong or interesting characters, I can overcome the former issue. Fortunately, Pusher doesn't fall into those problems.

What I noticed first off was that these characters are human. Their entire existence isn't drugs or power or any of that. Frank and his best friend, Tonny, goof around and act normal on their down time. They have some great dialogue together, and the first 30 minutes of the film is really there to make you feel for these characters and the relationships they build with each other. Even later it discusses the lives of other characters, like Frank's kinda-girlfriend, Vic. Even more than that, there's a great scene where Milo's right-hand man, Radovan, is talking with Frank about wanting to open up a restaurant and get out of the business. But what I loved about that scene was how it wasn't like every other "This is my dream to get out of this bad business" scene in these types of films. Instead, it was just a normal, lighthearted conversation. In other words, this film builds some good, realistic characters who I can really get behind and sympathize with.

Frank in particular is incredibly easy to root for. I mean, he's a drug pusher and isn't the greatest person in the world, but he has some of the worst luck ever. Things just get worse and worse for the guy, one thing right after the other. And it's not like he really did anything wrong (in his world) to be put in this situation. It was just a combination of terrible timing and the luck of Job (biblically speaking). And when he gets betrayed by people, it hits pretty hard since the film builds up relationships very well.

Like Refn's other films, there's a lot of sudden extreme violence. And while the film might not be as artistically or stylishly made as Drive--or even Bronson--you can see that same cinematic eye beginning to come together. It doesn't linger on the blood or make a big deal out of it. It's just part of whatever is going on at the time. And I think not stylizing it or glorifying its use like practically every other action or thriller film adds a layer of gritty realism to the film.

All of that being said, the movie isn't perfect. It feels about 20 minutes too long and could have been trimmed down a bit. I felt it right before the third act (where he has about 2 hours left). There's a chunk of the movie that focuses on him and Vic that just kinda goes on for a while and could have been cut down. Yeah, it's building up their relationship, but it does so for just a wee bit too long and slows down the pacing of the film.

But otherwise, I think this was a good start. I think Netflix knew my aversion to drug-related films and scored it low, but this is one of the rare instances where I think I'd score it a star higher than suggested. It's a really good little thriller, and as it's the first part of a trilogy (which, of course, I will be watching this whole month), it ends with a to-be-continued kind of feel to it (and aspects of the story feel incomplete). So if you're going to check it out, you might as well prepare yourself to watch a trilogy rather than a solo film. I don't know how worth it the entire trilogy is just yet, but the first film, at the very least, is pretty good.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

V.G. Movies #47: Second Skin.

[Welcome back to the Evolution of Video Game Movies series. Every week, I will be moving forward through time, starting with the earliest and ending with the most recent of video game movies. I will be detailing the histories of the games and how the films came about, and both my and fan reaction to the adaptations. Practically all of my background information is either common knowledge or from Wikipedia. So without further ado, let's move on to the next film on the list.]

(Special Note: This was originally supposed to be Ace Attorney, but that movie proved impossible to find. So I had to go back a few years and pop in another documentary.)

THE HISTORY

This year I've talked about films based on practically every type of video game: fighters, platformers, first-person shooters, simulators, horror, action/adventure, side-scrollers, volleyball, mission-based, puzzles, and role playing. I've talked about everything from arcade to console and at least one computer-based. But in this year, I have not talked about one of the biggest and most addictive genres currently available (next to first person shooters)--MMORPGs.

The Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game genre is for the most hardcore of hardcore gamers. Why? Because it takes all your time, money, and personal investment to play. Like regular RPGs, you get a character (though oftentimes you get to create that character nearly from scratch) and get to choose his or her destiny and evolution. But unlike regular RPGs, the worlds expand and evolve even when the player isn't playing as the games take place entirely online.

The genre pretty much began before it was even a genre, if that makes sense, with Dungeons & Dragons. This game inspired many types of early online games called MUDs, or Multi-User Dungeons. These were typically text-based adventure/fantasy games where you pretty much played D&D (or something similar) over an internet connection in a chat room-type setting. (They, of course, evolved from there.) MUDs soon became graphical MUDs, which--if you couldn't figure it out--added graphics to the text-based setting.

The first major fully graphical interface, multi-user RPG was Neverwinter Nights in 1991. These games continued evolving until 1997 when a man named Richard Garriott released a game called Ultima Online and coined the term MMORPG, and the genre hit its stride and became popular in 1999 with a game called EverQuest. Many incredibly popular games came out after, both for free and for pay. But none could ever come close (before or after) to the success of the fourth installment to a real-time strategy series called Warcraft. The fourth venture into the world of Azeroth changed its genre to MMORPG and has since become the most popular and best selling of its kind.

Unfortunately, with this came a whole new world of psychological studies. People became legitimately addicted, risking personal lives, health, and job security to continue playing WoW and other games like it. Entirely new ways of interacting began happening, including to the point of online marriages. These are games that can be fun in moderation but have literally destroyed many lives in the process. The following documentary follows the stories of some of these people.

THE FILM

This is normally where I talk about the film's story or characters, but there's nothing really concrete or central to really focus on. The film actually focuses more on the positives and negatives of MMORPGs and gaming addiction rather than looking at the games themselves. There are a couple constant people and stories to follow, which includes a couple who falls in love online, a group of friends who struggle to balance social lives with gaming, a woman whose son was a huge gamer and drove her to start up a self-help group for addicted gamers, and a guy who completely hits rock bottom due to gaming and seeks help.

This documentary's biggest issue is that it has a weak "thesis statement" (to put it in academic terms) and is, therefore, all over the place. It doesn't seem to know what it wants to say. What point is it trying to make? Yes, it has a fair and balanced look at the positives and negatives of online gaming. But at the same time, it throws in all these other things, like Chinese Gold Farms ("illegal" aspects of these games where what are essentially technical support sweat shops in China are run where people can use real life money to buy in-game gold to level up their characters faster). And then there are things like focusing on people who are clearly psychologically imbalanced (or, in some cases, socially incapable) prior to being involved in gaming, so it's not exactly a fair look.

A lot of these people in this movie are incredibly unlikable. Of course, not all of them... but a good chunk. For instance, there's one story where a guy's wife is pregnant with twins. She ends up delivering both but nearly dies during childbirth. This sends a bit of a reality check to the gamer husband (though not for long, as he does eventually become obsessed again). Immediately after this happens, his gamer friend comments that what sucks is his friend is going to stop or slow down on gaming now. Yes, that is the terrible thing that is happening in all of this.

The most memorable story is a guy named Dan who hits rock bottom because of gaming--he loses his business, his relationship, and his home. He considers suicide because his life is in shambles. So he goes online and finds this gaming addiction anonymous place run by an older woman named Liz. She proclaims she even goes so far as to have a safe house for people considering suicide, which Dan eventually goes to. Liz is another personality they interview throughout, and she's pretty strong against online gaming and how it ruins lives. As it turns out, she's a bit of a crazy lady who actually suffered a personal tragedy and decided to blame gaming for the issues. But this 12-step anonymous program she started was worthless; the safe house was nothing more than her own house that she would force Dan to sign a lease for*; and she would go around and demean and insult Dan in front of everybody else. (*Note: Some of this information came from a personal interview from Dan after the film was released.) The program was useless, and it's somewhat implied that this woman's domineering attitude might have been at least been partially responsible for the tragedy she faced.

The film also focuses pretty heavily on romantic relationships formed through MMORPGs, though the film doesn't really come to much of a conclusion on the matter. The primary couple meet playing EverQuest II (one's from Florida and the other is from Texas). As the film portrays them, it's clear both of these people have issues--the guy is a bit of a loner with social problems and the girl is the type who probably identifies with Bella from Twlight... she falls deeply in love easily and is too insecure about herself to drop a failing relationship. There are red flags everywhere, and the two have zero chemistry (at least on screen), but she ends up making him move to Florida to live with her in a new house they got together. As far as I know, they're still together, so more power to 'em.

On the flip side, the documentary also shows how things could work in a very positive light. There are couples interviewed sporadically that met online and work well together (though these sections are more of an ad for online dating than MMO players). There are experts who discuss the psychological aspects of why people play these games, and it totally makes sense. One of my favorite aspects of the movie is one of the shortest--it shows a young man named Andrew Monkelban who is mute and is mostly paralyzed from cerebral palsy. All he could do is move one of his index fingers, which is how he typed and would play these MMOs. As the story goes, the director found him while playing online and got to know him... but he didn't know about Andrew's condition until they met. The director was incredibly uncomfortable during their interview and didn't stick around too long. (This is immediately followed by another brief interview with another handicapped person who shares similar sentiments.) I would have loved to see more on that aspect of this subject. What about these people who need to escape to these online worlds because that's the best way they can live and be free to be who they are on the inside? That's the best way to express themselves.

Instead, what we end up with is a mostly depressing and confused documentary. It would have even worked had they spent the majority of the film on the negative and then, bam, pulled out the positive for the last third to show it's not all lunatics or people with addictive personalities who play MMORPGs. I mean, this is a bit of an overstatement, but this film is like the Requiem for a Dream of online gamers. It's just uncomfortable to sit through most of the time. The negative far outweighs the positive. It's pretty clear that the director saw this as an easy documentary subject to show a negative side to gaming, but the more he got into it, the more he saw that wasn't the case... so he tried to put in some very positive things in there, too, but it was a too little too late kind of thing. All of that being said, it's not a bad film, and it does have some really interesting aspects to it, but I do believe it shows a lot of things a bit unfairly and misrepresents some other things by leaving out some key information.


Stop Saying OK! OK.

LKMYNTS: Excision.

I usually don't do this, but this Little Known Movie You Need To See comes with a warning--this film is definitely not for everyone. I've seen a lot of screwed up movies in my day, but this film actually had me going "What the... holy... !" To me, this film is like what would happen if David Lynch directed Welcome to the Dollhouse as if it were a French Extremist horror film. Now, my description will not come close to getting into the visuals of the film, but... just trust me.

The film follows disturbed teen, Pauline (AnnaLynne McCord). She is a total outsider--unpopular, frumpy, and overall unpleasant. She dreams to one day become a surgeon, as she's obsessed with blood and biology. She doesn't seem to care for much except for her younger sister, Grace (Ariel Winter), who has Cystic Fibrosis and isn't doing all that well. Unfortunately, her mother, Phyllis (Traci Lords), is an overbearing, short-tempered nutcase, and they don't get along at all. Even her father, Bob (Roger Bart), is overpowered by his temperamental wife. Her mom knows there's something wrong, but she won't pay for a professional psychiatrist, so she sends Pauline to their priest (John Waters). And she also butts heads with her math teacher (Malcolm McDowell), sex ed teacher (Matthew Gray Gubler), and principal (Ray Wise). The film follows the family drama through Pauline's eyes as she tries to survive on a day-to-day basis... but her mother just makes her psychological problems worse and worse.

Now, you might be thinking "This doesn't sound that bad." Well, I have yet to mention the bizarre, Jodorowsky-esque dream sequences of her glamorized self in gory or sexualized (often a mixture) situations. Or the fact she has wet dreams/orgasms to the thought (or dreams) of sexing up dead or dying bodies in puddles of blood. Or any number of other mixture of blood and sex that happens throughout this film. And then there's the third act, which I won't spoil.

The acting in this film is phenomenal. Of course, AnnaLynne McCord totally sells this psychotic teen persona. But what's great about it is that while something is definitely wrong with her, you can tell she also just wants to feel loved and accepted, and her mother could easily help turn things around if she just tried (or had the mental capability of trying). This is truly a mother/daughter story, and both are basically sociopaths in their own ways. And none of it would work if it weren't for Traci Lords, who acts the hell out of this movie. You want to strangle this woman from scene one. To bring in a Harry Potter reference, she would be like what would happen if Delores Umbridge was a mother. Traci Lords makes the role work, though, and doesn't take it over-the-top of like something from Mommy Dearest. Everyone else is good, too. It's fun to see John Waters as a priest, and Malcolm McDowell as the math teacher is funny. Ray Wise is just goofy.

Though the thing that I haven't mentioned yet... is that this is a comedy. A very, very, very, very dark comedy, but a comedy nonetheless. There are situations of pure drama, and everything in this movie is pretty horrific--particularly the ending (and no, it's probably not what you think). But even if you look on IMDb, its first genre billing is comedy (then drama, then horror). And I can see that. It's definitely more of a dark dramedy, as it's not really your laugh-out-loud, knee-slapper kind of fare. But the dark humor is there, and it can be awfully amusing at times, despite the fact the people you're watching are, at times, despicable and/or psychotic.

If you're a fan of twisted, bizarre, or just plain screwed-up films, this is one you need to check out. I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since I watched it yesterday (as of this writing), so it's definitely a conversation piece. People declare it as a new type of horror film, and I can see that. It's drama-horror, which is something you don't really see. The closest comparison I can make is We Need To Talk About Kevin, but way more extreme and unsettling (and, at times, amusing). Do not see it if you have a weak stomach (it's not like Saw or Hostel or anything--it's not "torture porn"--but there are some pretty disturbing images nonetheless). Do not see it if you're easily disturbed. But if these things don't bother you, definitely check it out. The acting alone is worth it.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. I just wanted to mention the make-up job they did on AnnaLynne McCord was amazing. Here is a picture of her normally. Here is a picture of her in the movie. Seriously.)

50/50 Review #46: Grosse Pointe Blank.

Blah blah blah ambiguous intro here... why haven't I seen this movie before now? Martin Blank (John Cusack) is a professional assassin who once worked for the government and now works freelance. After screwing up a hit, the company that hired him forces him to take another job to make up for it, which just so happens to be back in his hometown... where his 10-year high school reunion is taking place. With a little push from his secretary Marcella (Joan Cusack) and kinda-psychiatrist, Dr. Oatman (Alan Arkin), he decides to go and face his past. While there he meets up with an old friend, Paul (Jeremy Piven) and a long-lost love, Debi (Minnie Driver), who he stood up at prom and never saw again until now. Unfortunately, things aren't that easy. Another hitman, Grocer (Dan Aykroyd) wants to start an assassin's union that Martin refuses to join, so he hires a couple FBI agents (Hank Azaria and K. Todd Freeman) to catch him in the act to take him down. Meanwhile, another assassin (Benny Urquidez) is after him because of another previous hit he screwed up. And all Martin wants to do is make amends with Debi.

I'll just come out and say it: Easily in my Top 5 of this year's project. This movie was so much fun. The dark humor between the situations is great, which really shined in the climax where he's killing people in between a heartfelt discussion. And I loved the fact he literally tells everybody he's a contract killer the entire movie and nobody believes him. Just the idea alone that a guy who grows up to be an assassin decides to go to his high school reunion is fantastic.

This movie really works due to John Cusack's charisma and delivery. You believe his moral and/or psychological conflicts, but at the same time he's able to pull off the fact he could easily kill someone. And his little ticks, like never liking his back to an open area or a window was great. Similarly, Dan Aykroyd as the villain was totally unexpected, but it worked, since he was totally trying to be a smarmy businessman at the same time. Jeremy Piven wasn't in it a whole lot, but I loved his scenes and his chemistry with Cusack. Arkin is good in his role, of course, though his role is technically where the film falls apart a little bit. And Joan Cusack's character was a little hard to get into at the start, but she grew on me by the end. And Minnie Driver was just incredibly adorable in this film and had great chemistry with John Cusack, as well.

This is one of those "really positive... not much to say" kind of reviews. I really liked everything about it. The comedy was good--I did laugh out loud at least once. The action was solid and fun when there was some. The characters were really good. And the soundtrack to this movie was also pretty dang fantastic. I know this was kind of a lame review, but that's what tends to happen when you love a movie and don't have much to say without getting repetitive or boring. If you haven't seen it yet, do so.


Royale With Cheese

(P.S. And that will wrap it up for Jess' Month! Got to end on a high note, huh? This month was scattered. There were low points (Out of Africa--good movie, just not for me), high points (this and High Fidelity... ironic), and mid-points (Star Trek: First Contact). But on the whole, it was quite an enjoyable month! And next month we wrap things up with 3 flicks that are actually a trilogy... and then the original version of a modern American classic. So for December, it'll be Kai's Month!)

V.G. Movies #46: Indie Game: The Movie

[Welcome back to the Evolution of Video Game Movies series. Every week, I will be moving forward through time, starting with the earliest and ending with the most recent of video game movies. I will be detailing the histories of the games and how the films came about, and both my and fan reaction to the adaptations. Practically all of my background information is either common knowledge or from Wikipedia. So without further ado, let's move on to the next film on the list.]

THE HISTORY

This is a tough one to discuss the history of, since the documentary in and of itself follows the history of these indie games. But I guess I can talk about indie games themselves. Basically, an indie game creator doesn't have all the restrictions of a mainstream game creator and can do what they want--they just have a limited (read: almost non-existent) budget to do it.

The idea began on PCs via shareware sites in the early 90s. These can be anything from flash games (the most prominent) to engine building titles. For instance, there were pre-built engines where you basically modified characters, stories, and/or landscapes in things such as RPGMaker or modified looks and fighting movies in Fighter Maker (both of which I've actually dabbled with back in the day).

But as mainstream games became more widespread, indie games suffered a bit due to a difference in both quality and availability. But then came the revolution that was online console gaming (XBox Live, Playstation Network, etc.). Due to this new turn in gaming history, indie games made a resurgence as the developers used these systems and methods to get their games out there. The expansion of social websites also helped grab casual gamers, as well.

However, earning a profit is a very difficult thing, as most profit for console titles will go to the distributors and web-based games usually don't catch enough speed to make much of anything. Most mainstream players still stick to mainstream titles, and indie game makers try to use this method as more of a jumping point than a commercial success.

So some people still succeed quite a bit, while others struggle to even get off the ground. Now for the documentary that shows all sides.

THE FILM

This was a very different kind of film than I was expecting. I suppose I expected something a little closer to King of Kong, though there are some tiny similarities here and there. But to fully talk about this film, I have to talk about it in parts. This film interweaves three games/stories that span three levels of completion and success, so that's how I'll be looking at it.

Braid (The Success Story)

Jonathan Blow came up with the game Braid after a friend looked at Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and pondered why there wasn't a game that could use time altering infinitely and could just rewind like a VCR. To date, Braid is one of the biggest independent game success stories both in sales and positive reviews. The documentary picks up already after the game has become a hit.

And this is the weakest of the stories, mostly because there's no story. For this film, Jonathan acts as more of a thematic focal point to the documentary--indie games are games that aren't meant to be the incredibly polished, big-budget, mainstream games. They're meant to have pieces of the creator's heart and soul. They will be very personal, taking pieces of their very essence and making something that, if it fails, it can crush/destroy the creators.

They show this story off and on for the first half of the movie but then drop it completely (bringing it back only at the very end, right before the credits, to restate the above theme to push it on home). But where this story really fails--besides the fact that it doesn't add much outside of that--is that it doesn't even match the theme itself. Jonathan comes off as kind of a pretentious douche. He's very "woe is me" about his success, complaining that all the people who praise it and love it do so for reasons that aren't connected to the real art and purpose of the game, so they miss the point. And the more success it has, the more annoyed and depressed he gets because these people just don't "get it." To me, this almost misses the point of this film, as he's bringing on this agony and depression himself since the game was almost an instant hit. Not to mention his reasoning for making the game is the least personal, and the path he takes to its release and success is (at least as shown in the film) almost conflict free, especially in comparison to the other two stories.

Super Meat Boy (The Rising Star)

Here we follow two guys: Edmund and Tommy. These guys live in different states, though they work on the game together. Tommy still lives at home with his parents in his childhood room, and Edmund is recently married, and they're on their own. Together they're making this game that promises to be a massive success--possibly even more so than Braid--but they're really pushing time limits and deadlines to get it out and to Microsoft so they can release it in time for a major sale on XBox Live.

This story was the most conflicting for me. On the one hand, Edmund seems to be a very cool, relatable guy who is very human and sincere. On the other hand, you have Tommy. Tommy has an insanely supportive family, although they are in debt. And he seems very grateful to them in wanting to pay off their debt if he makes money off the game. But everything else... he comes off like an ungrateful asshole. He's very similar to Jonathan Blow in that he doesn't want to hear good news or anything like that since he's making this game for himself and doesn't give a damn if people like it or not (but he says this in a very rude, obnoxious way). And he takes it even further. He publicly denounces some major gaming companies and declares all these popular, award-winning games are all crap and anything he does is infinitely better. He's an enigmatic character, because he's very smug, obnoxious, self-centered, foul-mouthed, and incredibly depressed individual... who really cares about his family.

But then you have Edmund. Edmund is very gracious and personal--in fact, he is really what this film is all about. Everything he makes he really puts his heart and soul and entire life into. Everything he's ever felt or loved or been hurt or scared by... he puts these things into his games because it's his passion. Art imitates life and whatnot, and his games are very close and personal to him, so if the game fails, you really believe that he could crumble. And while every person in this documentary is very depressed, he's the only one I actually felt for (though the next guy had some legit reasons, too... he wasn't nearly as personable to me... but I'll get to him shortly). The difference between Edmund and Tommy is exemplified perfectly in a scene where Tommy is flipping out about the game not showing up on the front page, while Edmund is chilling with his wife and trying not to think about it because--what's the point in getting worked up about first day sale numbers? Another scene where Edmund is laughing and enjoying seeing all these positive reviews and videos of people playing the game and loving seeing people enjoying his creation... then Tommy moaning about how none of that matters.

Besides the people, the story itself is not as interesting as the next one, but it's still decent. This one is definitely more focused on the juxtaposition of these two people and how they react to what's going on (and fortunately, the director decided to spend much more time with Edmund than Tommy). So in a way, this was both my favorite and least favorite story of the film, since I really wanted Edmund to succeed, but I wanted Tommy to fail and get punched in the face--though I couldn't have both since they were partners on the same game.

Fez (The Little Game That Could)

Fez was first announced back in 2008 to amazing reception. There was an award-winning demo released... and then nothing game of the game. At the start of its creation was Quebec-native (I'm assuming) Phil Fish and a business partner who helped develop the idea and whatnot. But I believe soon after the demo, the partner dropped off the project, leaving Phil to work on everything alone while making him deal with lawsuit issues, as it basically acted as a divorce and Phil needed to get all the rights from his partner who was refusing to finish signing all the paperwork. Meanwhile, his dad gets cancer, his parents get a divorce, and a hundred other really terrible things happen to this guy that slow production. And he's getting terrible, personal attacks from fans of the demo hating him since he hasn't finished the game yet (to which he lists off a handful of games that had thousands of workers that took 5 years, and he's just one guy). But now the PAX Expo is coming up and he wants to have another demo out at this point... if he can avoid a lawsuit and get his ex-partner to sign the forms so he can legally promote it on his own.

This is definitely the best story (and the most like King of Kong in that it tells a solid underdog narrative). You really want this guy to succeed, despite him having the luck of Job. (Things continue to go wrong throughout.) And despite everything, he comes out of it smiling, whether that's a forced smile or not.

Where this story is a little unbalanced is Phil himself. He's a very frustrated man, and understandably so. But he can be a little extreme and off-putting at times. We spend a good chunk of time, possibly too long, with Phil cussing out his ex-partner is frustrated rage that turns to murder threats. And at one point the interviewer asks what will happen if the game doesn't succeed, to which Phil responds "I will kill myself." And he's not kidding. He is completely serious in that he will take his own life if the results of this long venture are negative. And while I understand why they showed that in tying up with the film's theme, it really makes you uneasy. And between the suicide and murder threats, I really didn't know how to feel about this guy. But I did still really want him to succeed.

Overall

To me, the film was slightly unbalanced. There was also a little bit of redundancy and some stuff that just went on a wee bit too long. In other words, the film could have used a bit tighter editing. Though I did really like the section of the film that went into the history of stuff where it detailed how they made the games and the levels and all that. I was waiting for a while for them to get into that, but it happens right around the halfway point (right before the Braid story pretty much disappears for the rest of the film). But if this were a written paper or book, I'd say it needed one more revision. I still liked it, but it could have used a little more tightening up. And it didn't help that there are really 4 people in this movie (5 if you count Edmund's wife, but I don't) and 2 of them are unlikeable, while a third is questionable (albeit being an underdog and therefore root-for-able). But in the end, it's still a fascinating film, and if you're a fan of this kind of thing, I'd definitely check it out.

I Am McLovin!