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!)

Merry Christmas!

And for your aural pleasure... Put that cookie down! NOW!

(Unfortunately the amazing original video has been removed, but here's the original audio, anyway...)

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!

The Demented Commentary #2: Season 5 (The Vlog).

Hey guys and gals... I'm sorry this took so long to get out. We actually recorded this weeks ago, but I was having trouble both with my computer and with getting it online. But I finally got it done.

So this is the Season 5 Commentary Track for The Vlog. I was joined by Sebastian Gutierrez, Dylan Fields, Jason Soto, and Tom Clift. We had a really fun time recording this. So if you'd like to hear a little inside, behind-the-scenes scoop of how and/or why things were done the way they were, as well as hear all of our reactions and thoughts on the events of this final season (and just be silly and goof off), please listen and enjoy!

This has been split into four 20-25 minute parts for your viewing ease.

PART 1: EPISODES 1-4 (Silent/Noir)



PART 2: EPISODES 5-8 (Zombie/Musical)



PART 3: EPISODES 9-11 (Adventure/Finale Part 1)



PART 4: EPISODE 12 (Finale Part 2)

(Note: This part was originally recorded within the Part 3 chunk, but I had to cut it in half for it to upload right. So the conversation that begins here is just in response to how the last part ended.)

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!