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.

5 Year Anniversary + Major Announcement!

Hey guys and gals! Can you believe it? It's been 5 years since I started this thing. Well, technically, I started blogging before this with a site called Boomstick Reviews that lasted maybe a couple weeks or so before I switched it over to this.

Due to this blog, over the last 5 years, I've had so many great experiences and made so many great friends--and even met some of them in person! In order...

Rachel Thuro (and Brad) - Just as fun to hang out with as she is to podcast with--and she's so far my first and only person to face-to-face podcast with!

Jess Rogers - I can safely say this was the most nervous I was meeting somebody (and although we didn't eventually work out, I don't regret it for a second).

Dylan Fields (and Susannah/Alexandra) - It was an epic of epic days as we traversed the Riverwalk of San Antonio. Oh, and there was some extensive Vlog filming, as well.

Tom Clift - Really cool guy, and it was a pleasure to hang out with him for the day talking movies and being bombarded by the homeless.

James Blake Ewing - I assure you, he's not a robot! And I'm glad I got to find that out personally.

But anyway, as the 5-year anniversary came closer and my life started altering, I started thinking...

I've had 5 years on the blog. I had 5 seasons of The Vlog. There have been 5 seasons of The Demented Podcast. I'm finishing the 50/50 List. There were (or will be) 50 video game movie articles. (And if you don't count that, I'm sure I've eaten a $5 footlong at some point.)

In just a couple months, I'll be moving to the other side of the planet to teach in South Korea. And, frankly, I'll be too busy to keep up my blog. So I figured I might as well go out while I'm on top. That being said, I'm officially announcing that at the end of this year, after I finish the 50/50 List and the video game movies list, I'll make at least one last post and close down the blog. The timing just feels right, especially since I'll be moving to Korea for at least a year. (Note: I won't just be disappearing. Steve and I are still going to attempt DemPod--part of that hiatus was to figure out if we could get it to work out while I'm over there. But it won't be until at least March or April or so.)

So for this post, to wrap things up here (despite the fact I'm gonna still post for the rest of the month), I'm gonna give you 5 Top 5 lists about the blog. The first four lists are going to involve films I've reviewed on the site--so they aren't just films I've seen, but specifically films I've seen and reviewed in some capacity on the blog over the last 5 years. Also, I am not counting any films watched for podcasts or on Man, I Love Films. They had to be written reviews for this blog. The last Top list is my Top 5 favorite posts that I've done... which is pretty self-explanatory. So here you go!

Top 5 Dullest Films Reviewed

This is a list of the most boring films I've had to sit through--and, oddly, only 2 of them were actually viewed specifically for the blog. I'm not saying these are all bad films. They're just ones I found the most painfully boring to sit through.

5) Casino
I had to watch it for my 60/60 List last year. I watched at least half of it while Facebook chatting with Steve Honeywell because I was so painfully bored with it.

4) Funny Games U.S.
I actually recently watched the original... which I strangely kinda liked. But this one is just bad. And it's bad because it's missing that certain something that made the original a little more captivating.

3) Nobody Knows
A 2-hour long Japanese drama (and true story) about a mom who leaves her young children alone in an apartment to fend for themselves for months on end. It's really depressing and unbelievably slow. It's a really good movie, but I don't think I could sit through it again.

2) Gosford Park
Ugh.

1) 2001: A Space Odyssey
Y'all knew this was coming. This was my most controversial post... probably ever. I reviewed this for my 60/60 List last year, and it led to quite a few arguments and one major falling out. But I still stand by my opinions--eff this movie (except the HAL9000 part. That was fine.)

Top 5 Weirdest Movies Reviewed

This was easily the hardest list to put together. I've apparently seen a LOT of really freakin' weird movies. Seriously. I tried to narrow this down to 5 from like 15 or 20 and was really struggling to do so. I think I finally managed to do it, though. Here's the Top 5 Weirdest. (And I mean weirdest. When the likes of Visitor Q, I'm a Cyborg But That's OK, Rubber, and Southland Tales don't make the list…)

5) Feast 3: The Happy Finish
Let me share a paragraph from my review on how the movie ends: "So the three, including Clu Gulager's character Bartender (who is at least in his 80s), walk out into the street. So then out of nowhere, Bartender is like 'We need to repopulate the Earth! We need to do it now!' and he rips off his shirt. But then a giant robot leg comes out of nowhere and steps on the other two survivors, crushing them. Bartender walks away, and a Mexican mariachi dressed like Elvis walks on screen and serenades the audience during the credits by summarizing the last 3 movies."

4) Eraserhead
It's David Lynch. It had to be on this list by default.

3) Super Mario Bros.: Peach-Hime Kyushutsu Dai Sakusen
Seriously. This little animated feature was BIZARRE. I mean, when you think of how a Mario movie would logistically work and how strange that would actually be... multiple that by 10 and you'll get this film.

2) The Happiness of the Katakuris
I remember basically nothing about this film except that it's directed by Miike and that it almost melted my brain from its bizarreness when I watched it. It's a dark comedy musical about a family that kills... or something.

1) Hausu
It's freakin' Hausu. It's like the ultimate Japanese weird-awesome movie. The weirdness level is off the charts, and the majority of the film makes no sense... but it's still so damn entertaining.

Top 5 Best Movies Reviewed

This isn't necessarily my Top Rated films (at least at the time that I rated them). These are the films that, for one reason or another, I watched specifically for this blog that I found had the best mix of quality and entertainment. In my book, these are five damn near perfect films (mostly classics) due to that fine mix. And yes, I reviewed all of them for either the 60/60 or 50/50.

5) North by Northwest
This was my favorite from Hitchcock Month, and I pretty much went straight out and bought it right after seeing it (still haven't re-watched it yet, but... soon).

4) Naked
A flawless performance by David Thewlis with such philosophical, stream-of-consciousness dialogue. It's darkly comic, and I was floored after it ended.

3) Double Indemnity
This became an instant favorite classic after I viewed it. I'll buy it eventually. Such a perfect mix of acting talent, writing talent, directing talent... all of the above and more.

2) A Clockwork Orange
I constantly go back and forth in my mind on which Kubrick film I prefer more--this or The Shining. But I think the mix of colorful yet strange visuals and cinematography, classical music, and a fantastic lead performance continues to put this one over the top. I love this movie.

1) Seven Samurai
I haven't watched it since my initial viewing last year, but I still maintain that, despite its long running time, this is one of the (if not the) greatest movie ever made. Drama, action, romance, comedy... this movie has it all, and it has it with masterful directing and visuals, as well as a cast that can pull off the perfect performances needed.

Top 5 Worst Movies Reviewed

Too bad I'm not counting podcast reviews, or else Catwoman would be on this list. This was also a tricky one to narrow down. As most of you know, I've watch a lot of shit films over the years. So finding the worst 5 was hard. I had to narrow the field somehow, so I decided to automatically cut the "so bad its good" films like Troll 2, The Room, and Shark Attack 3. From there, I basically narrowed it down to the films that gave me the strongest emotional reactions. And here is that list.

5) The Spirit
A friend actually forced me to see this in theater with her, despite my warnings. There were only about 3 other people in the theater with us. About 5 minutes in, we turned to each other and said "This is the worst movie I've ever seen." From that point on, we MST3K'd this bad boy, and I'm pretty sure the other patrons enjoyed our version much more.

4) The Last Airbender
What a disgrace to what is such an amazingly fantastic television show. It would have been difficult to screw this up any more than it did. Of course, it would be possible to do it. Because then you'd have...

3) Dragonball Evolution
Talk about ignoring source material. This film is so atrocious as both a film and an adaptation (and it's even worse as an adaptation). This film makes want to send a thank you card to Shyamalan for sticking as close as he did to the source material for Last Airbender (and if you've seen both the show and the film, you know how not true that is). Such a disgrace to the Dragonball franchise.

2) Seed
I think my review says it all.

1) Salo, Or The 120 Days of Sodom
Again, you had to see this coming. This movie is like my nemesis. And this is coming from a guy who has seen A Serbian Film. I will never watch this again. Hopefully.

Top 5 Favorite Posts

Finally, here are my favorite posts that I've done over the last 5 years. This one, actually, wasn't that hard to narrow down. I knew my #1 and had a couple ideas for others. Otherwise, I just went through all my posts looking for anything that jumped out at my memory. And this is what I came up with. And I will also link to all of these particular ones.

Runner-Up: Thoughts On The 28 ______ Later Movies

I wasn't going to do runners-up, but this one has a reason. This is kind of the post that started the "war." It really started on the second ever episode of the LAMBcast (Your Face is a Zombie Movie!), but here, before all that, I felt the need to explain in detail my feelings one why they aren't zombies.

5) 10 Possible Movie Character Spin-Offs
This was a popular post. It's really dated now, but for the time, I thought it was pretty fun.

4) Hollywood Darwinism: What Makes An Adaptation Good?
An exhaustive article that I think only one person read (or at least commented on). I really, really like this post as it goes into detail of what I think makes a film adaptation (whether from a book or TV show or whatever else) work or not work.

3) A Serbian Review
Jason Soto and I did a Joint review for A Serbian Film where we both watched it and compiled all of our thoughts into a very fun and talky review style that I think turned out very well.

2) TIE: Top 10 Worst Things About Harry Potter 1-5 AND The Exhaustive List Of The Harry Potter Books Versus The Films
OK, yeah, it's a tie. But it's practically the same post... sort of. The first is a Top 10 list where I go into extreme details for why certain things in the first 5 films don't work (Spoiler alert: Most of them lead back to Alfonso Cuaron). The second one details the first 6 films and what does and does not work between the translation from book to screen.

1) Troll 2 (Faux-Critique)
My favorite post ever is easily my positive review/snob critique of Troll 2, which was a response to some haters who thought I wasn't going in depth enough with my reviews or giving films the time and consideration they deserve. So that's exactly what I gave them... in a very tongue-in-cheek fashion.

-------------------------

Anyway, thanks to everybody for following along for 5 years! Stick around for the rest of the month! There's still more reviews to come, and at least one final post at the end of the year before closing up shop. I hope y'all have enjoyed my blog as much as I've enjoyed being here with all of you.

MonthWatch - November 2012.

[I'm going to keep a monthly tally of the movies I've both watched for the first time and as re-watches. I think it'll be interesting to see what all I've watched at the end of the year and how many. That being said, let's do it. Here's the next month.]

November

THEATRICAL (3)

Wreck-It Ralph - I loved it! And I had a great emotional connection with it.

Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 - It was fun, and strangely the best of the Twilight films (unironically).

Skyfall - Not big into Bond, but this was a lot of fun.

RE-WATCH (6)

National Treasure - I hadn't seen it in ages, but this one actually isn't as bad as its reputation. It's fun!

The Cabin in the Woods - Still one of my favorites of the year.

The Cinema Snob Movie (Commentary #1) - The more "making of" listen, which was interesting.

The Cinema Snob Movie (Commentary #2) - The "cast" listen, which is just funny.

The Amazing Spider-Man - I still really dig it, and I prefer Garfield over Maguire, though the initial high of the theatrical love might have dipped a bit.

To Boldly Flee - Showed a friend... it might be 3.5 hours, but it's a fantastic and fun 3.5 hours.

FIRST TIME (27)

Ruby Sparks - Not exactly what I was expecting. It was good, but a little depressing.

Safety Not Guaranteed - I liked it, but I wanted to like it more since I love Aubrey Plaza.

Out of Africa - For 50/50. Very pretty, but a bit dull for my tastes.

The Cinema Snob Movie - Any self-respecting film reviewer (especially if you also like exploitation or giallos) should watch this. It's so dang fun.

The Raven - I barely remember anything that happened in this movie. Pretty forgettable. The least of the 3 Cusack movies I watched this month.

Tekken: Blood Vengeance - For V.G. Movies. An overly WTF third act, but up until then it was pretty good.

John Carter - It's not a bad movie in and of itself. It's just really boring.

High Fidelity - For 50/50. Took me a while to stop hating John Cusack in this movie, but once I did, I really liked this.

Brave - Not perfect, but it's really pretty and enjoyable.

The Watch - Predictable and goes for the lowest common denominator. It's not terrible, but I'm sad this was "Moss's" big American debut. 

Shuffle - Ever wanted to see Memento and The Butterfly Effect merge and be acted out by half the cast of TV's Bones? Then this is for you! Not too bad, though a really schmaltzy ending.

Beverly Hills Cop - Quite fun!

Beverly Hills Cop 2 - Still quite fun!

In the Name of the King 2: Two Worlds - For V.G. Movies. This movie, like the first, was so bizarre and goofy that I couldn't help but enjoy myself.

Savages - I didn't care for it much even before the much-hated ending. It's OK, but I (for some reason) tend to have a lot of trouble getting into crime films centering around drugs.

Star Trek: First Contact - For 50/50. A bit disorienting at the start, but I eventually got into it and enjoyed it.

I Love You, Man - I loved it!

ThanksKilling - Eh. It has its moments, and it's goofy as hell, but I probably don't need to see it again.

A Good Old Fashioned Orgy - I thought it was pretty good... except for the fact there's almost zero drama or conflict (and what there was was very weak) and then the movie just kinda ends.

Painted Skin 2: Resurrection - A very pretty film with some interesting ideas, though a bit overly long and drawn out.

Perfect Blue - Even trippier than Black Swan (which is a pseudo-remake of this). They both have their strengths, but I think I prefer Black Swan a little more. Still, it's a very good movie.

Indie Game: The Movie - For V.G. Movies. Not quite what I was expecting--much more serious and/or depressing--but I still liked it.

Beverly Hills Cop 3 - Talk about changing genres... where'd the humor go? It was alright, but definitely not as good as the first two.

Grosse Pointe Blank - For 50/50. Loved this movie.

Excision - Now this was a screwed up little movie (which I did review!). Check it out if you're into psycho-dramas. It's kinda like if We Need To Talk About Kevin took it to the next level... and was a dark comedy at the same time.

A Fistful of Dollars - For MILF. Not big on westerns, but I liked it. I like Yojimbo more, though.

ParaNorman - The surprise of the month. For a kid's film, this was surprisingly scary and adult while maintaining some really good comedy. I loved it.

CURRENT COUNT

Theatrical - 23
Re-Watch - 166
First Time - 245
TOTAL - 434