Games:
Assassin's Creed 2
Ghostbusters
Killzone 2
InFamous
Uncharted 2
Forza 3
Dead Space Extraction
Episodes form Libery City
Saboteur
Movies:
Coraline
Knowing
Monsters vs. Aliens
The Soloist
Wolverine
Terminator: Salvation
Drag Me To Hell?
Taking of Pelham 123
Transformers 2
Hurt Locker
Ice Age 3
Public Enemies
Harry Potter 6
500 Days of Summer
G. I. Joe
9
The Informant
Zombieland
Damned United
The Road
Brothers?
And, of course, AVA-FUCKING-TAR.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Saturday, 23 January 2010
Avatar (2009)
...
I'm the only person in the world who hasn't seen this yet. Fear me.
It's not just about the will to see it, everytime I've had the oppurtunity to see it it's been either a) snowing, b) inconveinient or c) I felt like crap, with hidden option d) it was Christmas.
Only other showings are in the middle of the school day and which end at 11. Grrrr.
I'm the only person in the world who hasn't seen this yet. Fear me.
It's not just about the will to see it, everytime I've had the oppurtunity to see it it's been either a) snowing, b) inconveinient or c) I felt like crap, with hidden option d) it was Christmas.
Only other showings are in the middle of the school day and which end at 11. Grrrr.
Saw: The Video Game (2009)
Saw is a franchise that by now has 6 movies out of a possible 9, and according to most film reviewers the series hasn't really been that good since the second one. Quite frankly, I beleive the series could (and probably should) have ended with the fourth or fifth one - seriously, by the next movie, SAW WILL HAVE MORE MOVIES WHERE THE MAIN CHARACTER ISN'T IN IT THAN WHEN HE IS. That's signs of a franchise going out of control, right there, which is a shame because I think that Jigsaw (Tobin Bell, who thankfully reprises his role here) is one of the best and most original horror characters ever coneived, and who is now about as well known in horror as giants like Mike Myers, Freddy Krueger and Jason Vorthees, and the same thing happened to them: their film series all went on way, way too long.
However, I'm surprised that a Saw game hasn't been made already. I would have thought the idea of a terminally ill man punishing people in a disturbing game to make them enjoy life would have been perfect game material. To play as a person who has no idea why they're here, except that they've done horrible things and they are set to be punished? That could be great, it could be edge of your seat, terrifying stuff. It could have changed the horror genre, or, at least, did something a little different like the first two films did.
Unfortunatly, that makes it all the more depressing that Saw: The Video Game is a turd. It's a dud. A flat, non-scary, repetitive irritating dud. It cost me exactly £0.00 to play it and yet I want every penny of my money back. I couldn't even finish it it was so fiddly, so dishevelled, ugly and pointless. The traps are fiddly, the devices are REALLY irritating and generally, the game feels like it's trying too hard to be something different and ends up falling flat on its back when it could have done so much more.
You play as Detective Tapp who you may remember as Danny Glover from the first film, who here is not Danny Glover and who is also apparently a dick. He got his partner killed and now Jigsaw wants him to play his game to try and make Tapp overcome his obsession with him. At this point I'm not sure who to root for - Jigsaw does make a better point than Tapp however, and it says something when the bad guy is actually 'better' than your character, and you end up wanting Jigsaw to succeed but that might be the part of me that wanted Vader to crash the Death Star onto Yavin and then throw a wild party, instead of, you know, Luke actually saving the galaxy.
It doesn't help that every character has about as much depth and characterization as a grain of sand and that I couldn't give a crap what happens to Detective Tapp in the end, which is a bad thing considering I don't neccesarily have to care for my character but I should want my playable character to FUCKING SUCCEED. Reading the ending of the plot on Wikipedia it seems that another kick in the balls is delivered with the ending that I guess could be a nice twist but probably ends up being completely pointless and inept before some bastard you just saved from certain death calling you a dick and claiming it's all your fault.
The combat also sucks harder than most games, and Tapp is so sluggish that for every one hit, you'll be hit around by your enemy three times. And when your enemy has a nail bat or a knife, three hits is too many and you end up dead and restarting the level again.
I may be missing the point but the game isn't even that scary, not even from a blood and guts perspective especially compared to games like Dead Space, which leads me to ask what was the whole point of the game in the first place? Oh wait, I know - piggybacking onto a franchise that fans will buy anything related to it and regard it well, no matter how inept it is. Let me ask you this: Who genuinly cares about Saw? Who cares about the storyline? I'm almost certain that 85% of the people who watch the films and have this really don't care what happens to the crooked cops or Bell's estranged wife - they just want to watch people to mutilated and generally receieve the most brutal treatment possible, which could be replaced by any other film series, like, oh, I don't know, the new Nightmare on Elm Street film?
Overall: The graphics are so dark it's impossible to differentiate most things from most other things, the combat sucks, the characters are shallow and unlikeable, with the exception of Tobin Bell the voice acting sucks, it's repetitive, the mini games are too fiddly to be effective, it's not that scary, it's repetitive, it doesn't live up to its potential, it's generally irritating and of course, it's repetitive. Stay way, way clear, as the poor gameplay and pointlessness of it all is a more effective torture weapon than anything in this game.
3/10.
However, I'm surprised that a Saw game hasn't been made already. I would have thought the idea of a terminally ill man punishing people in a disturbing game to make them enjoy life would have been perfect game material. To play as a person who has no idea why they're here, except that they've done horrible things and they are set to be punished? That could be great, it could be edge of your seat, terrifying stuff. It could have changed the horror genre, or, at least, did something a little different like the first two films did.
Unfortunatly, that makes it all the more depressing that Saw: The Video Game is a turd. It's a dud. A flat, non-scary, repetitive irritating dud. It cost me exactly £0.00 to play it and yet I want every penny of my money back. I couldn't even finish it it was so fiddly, so dishevelled, ugly and pointless. The traps are fiddly, the devices are REALLY irritating and generally, the game feels like it's trying too hard to be something different and ends up falling flat on its back when it could have done so much more.
You play as Detective Tapp who you may remember as Danny Glover from the first film, who here is not Danny Glover and who is also apparently a dick. He got his partner killed and now Jigsaw wants him to play his game to try and make Tapp overcome his obsession with him. At this point I'm not sure who to root for - Jigsaw does make a better point than Tapp however, and it says something when the bad guy is actually 'better' than your character, and you end up wanting Jigsaw to succeed but that might be the part of me that wanted Vader to crash the Death Star onto Yavin and then throw a wild party, instead of, you know, Luke actually saving the galaxy.
It doesn't help that every character has about as much depth and characterization as a grain of sand and that I couldn't give a crap what happens to Detective Tapp in the end, which is a bad thing considering I don't neccesarily have to care for my character but I should want my playable character to FUCKING SUCCEED. Reading the ending of the plot on Wikipedia it seems that another kick in the balls is delivered with the ending that I guess could be a nice twist but probably ends up being completely pointless and inept before some bastard you just saved from certain death calling you a dick and claiming it's all your fault.
The combat also sucks harder than most games, and Tapp is so sluggish that for every one hit, you'll be hit around by your enemy three times. And when your enemy has a nail bat or a knife, three hits is too many and you end up dead and restarting the level again.
I may be missing the point but the game isn't even that scary, not even from a blood and guts perspective especially compared to games like Dead Space, which leads me to ask what was the whole point of the game in the first place? Oh wait, I know - piggybacking onto a franchise that fans will buy anything related to it and regard it well, no matter how inept it is. Let me ask you this: Who genuinly cares about Saw? Who cares about the storyline? I'm almost certain that 85% of the people who watch the films and have this really don't care what happens to the crooked cops or Bell's estranged wife - they just want to watch people to mutilated and generally receieve the most brutal treatment possible, which could be replaced by any other film series, like, oh, I don't know, the new Nightmare on Elm Street film?
Overall: The graphics are so dark it's impossible to differentiate most things from most other things, the combat sucks, the characters are shallow and unlikeable, with the exception of Tobin Bell the voice acting sucks, it's repetitive, the mini games are too fiddly to be effective, it's not that scary, it's repetitive, it doesn't live up to its potential, it's generally irritating and of course, it's repetitive. Stay way, way clear, as the poor gameplay and pointlessness of it all is a more effective torture weapon than anything in this game.
3/10.
Friday, 22 January 2010
Sherlock Holmes (2009)
This review may contain mild spoilers.
Sherlock Holmes is arguably the most recognisable detective of all time - some might also argue he is the most recognisable and popular character in English Literature since Shakespearean times, with the possible exception of Ebenezeer Scrooge. As is the case with many other books or popular comics, a lot of movies and TV series have been made about Sherlock Holmes, and so with every new one comes the question of how exactly good is it, does it live up to the original, and do they keep to the main characters.
Having seen Guy Ritchie's new version I can tell you the answer is a simple 'yes'. The plot is sound, it definatly lives up to the original text, taking from it everything neccesary and making the main characters as recognisable as possible without walking too far into fan-service and effectively alienating for the non-fans, a la Star Trek. The script is pretty good, the musical score is great and the dialogue is memorable, but the real joy is the acting and chemistry of the two leads: Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law.
The pair work incredibly well together, nothing feeling too forced nor too over the top. Jude Law plays incredibly well as Dr. Watson, playing not as the common bumbling fool but as a fellow collegue and at points, intellectual equal to Holmes. Downey Jr also is amazing - appearing not just as a know-all detective but as a childish, obsessive, borderline autistic brilliant madman, living up to the phrase 'brain and brawn' and doing it extremely well. It really is great to watch the two of them, both displaying gravitas and depth to the characters pretty much unmatched by most films this year.
Mark Strong also plays the part of the main antagonist Blackwood very well - portraying a rich man with everything he could need dabbling in the occult, in order to attempt to change humanity and the twist at the end is unexpected and very well done indeed, but at times it becomes obvious that Blackwood was meant merely as a set up to the bigger villain (Moriarty) in the next film - effectively Scarecrow or Ra's al Ghul to the Joker. Rachel McAdams puts in a great performence too as Irene Adler, Holmes' love interest who managed to outwit a smitten Sherlock twice. Also a joy to watch.
Overall: A great film, with the acting prevailing out. Downey Jr.'s great, Law is occasionally better, Strong is terrifying and McAdams is hot. What more do you want? :P
9/10
Sherlock Holmes is arguably the most recognisable detective of all time - some might also argue he is the most recognisable and popular character in English Literature since Shakespearean times, with the possible exception of Ebenezeer Scrooge. As is the case with many other books or popular comics, a lot of movies and TV series have been made about Sherlock Holmes, and so with every new one comes the question of how exactly good is it, does it live up to the original, and do they keep to the main characters.
Having seen Guy Ritchie's new version I can tell you the answer is a simple 'yes'. The plot is sound, it definatly lives up to the original text, taking from it everything neccesary and making the main characters as recognisable as possible without walking too far into fan-service and effectively alienating for the non-fans, a la Star Trek. The script is pretty good, the musical score is great and the dialogue is memorable, but the real joy is the acting and chemistry of the two leads: Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law.
The pair work incredibly well together, nothing feeling too forced nor too over the top. Jude Law plays incredibly well as Dr. Watson, playing not as the common bumbling fool but as a fellow collegue and at points, intellectual equal to Holmes. Downey Jr also is amazing - appearing not just as a know-all detective but as a childish, obsessive, borderline autistic brilliant madman, living up to the phrase 'brain and brawn' and doing it extremely well. It really is great to watch the two of them, both displaying gravitas and depth to the characters pretty much unmatched by most films this year.
Mark Strong also plays the part of the main antagonist Blackwood very well - portraying a rich man with everything he could need dabbling in the occult, in order to attempt to change humanity and the twist at the end is unexpected and very well done indeed, but at times it becomes obvious that Blackwood was meant merely as a set up to the bigger villain (Moriarty) in the next film - effectively Scarecrow or Ra's al Ghul to the Joker. Rachel McAdams puts in a great performence too as Irene Adler, Holmes' love interest who managed to outwit a smitten Sherlock twice. Also a joy to watch.
Overall: A great film, with the acting prevailing out. Downey Jr.'s great, Law is occasionally better, Strong is terrifying and McAdams is hot. What more do you want? :P
9/10
Surrogates (2009)
This review contains slight spoilers and Bruce Willis appreciation.
The idea of Surrogates has been one that's been around for a long time, but was mainly popularized by 'The Sims' and 'Sim City' - a virtual world, in which normal people control simulated CGI versions of themselves, as a way to escape reality. This is also why people get so addicted to MMOs and RPGs such as World of Warcraft or Oblivion - it's easy to lose all of the restraints of the outside world and therefore enter a fantasy, sometimes so immersive and believeable you'll never want to leave.
Surrogates takes this idea and puts it to use in every day life rather than a fantasy setting, where people control the titular 'Surrogates' using their mind - a set of robotic people without illness, creed, discrimination or violence. Crime rates have gone right down, and everything seems much better for the people. Or, so it would appear - until the first murder in years sets Detective Tom Greer (Bruce Willis) on a mission to see why, leading to a conspiracy that started over a decade ago that could change the human race forever.
Willis plays his part extremely well as the detective with an upsetting past but he really shines as his non-computerized counterpart - the genuine Tom Greep, as he tries to settle back into the world around him and re-adapt to the new population. Radha Mitchell also does very well in her part, at one point effectively playing three people and Rosamund Pike (Miranda Frost in Die Another Day, so you don't spend the entire movie wondering where you've seen her before) also does her best as the manic depressive Mrs. Greer, who never really got over the death of her son which keeps pushing her and Tom away, to the point where they barely speak and Maggie never removes from her surrogate, even in the privacy of her own home.
The thing about Surrogates is that whilst it is a good movie, there's not really much to say about it, other than the acting is good and the plot is solid. Nothing really groundbreakingly new happens - nothing that will staple Surrogates as one for the ages and no scenes really bring out a wow factor, despite some coming close - I'm sure if they had gone for the ending in the comic rather than the one on screen I may change that, but apart from that it's just a good 90 minute science fiction romp that does all it wants and achieves it well, doing eveything it needs to do right right and nothing really that badly.
Overall: It's worth a look, even just to see Willis or add it to the growing collection of 2009 good science fiction movies. See it, but don't expect Moon or District 9.
7.5/10.
The idea of Surrogates has been one that's been around for a long time, but was mainly popularized by 'The Sims' and 'Sim City' - a virtual world, in which normal people control simulated CGI versions of themselves, as a way to escape reality. This is also why people get so addicted to MMOs and RPGs such as World of Warcraft or Oblivion - it's easy to lose all of the restraints of the outside world and therefore enter a fantasy, sometimes so immersive and believeable you'll never want to leave.
Surrogates takes this idea and puts it to use in every day life rather than a fantasy setting, where people control the titular 'Surrogates' using their mind - a set of robotic people without illness, creed, discrimination or violence. Crime rates have gone right down, and everything seems much better for the people. Or, so it would appear - until the first murder in years sets Detective Tom Greer (Bruce Willis) on a mission to see why, leading to a conspiracy that started over a decade ago that could change the human race forever.
Willis plays his part extremely well as the detective with an upsetting past but he really shines as his non-computerized counterpart - the genuine Tom Greep, as he tries to settle back into the world around him and re-adapt to the new population. Radha Mitchell also does very well in her part, at one point effectively playing three people and Rosamund Pike (Miranda Frost in Die Another Day, so you don't spend the entire movie wondering where you've seen her before) also does her best as the manic depressive Mrs. Greer, who never really got over the death of her son which keeps pushing her and Tom away, to the point where they barely speak and Maggie never removes from her surrogate, even in the privacy of her own home.
The thing about Surrogates is that whilst it is a good movie, there's not really much to say about it, other than the acting is good and the plot is solid. Nothing really groundbreakingly new happens - nothing that will staple Surrogates as one for the ages and no scenes really bring out a wow factor, despite some coming close - I'm sure if they had gone for the ending in the comic rather than the one on screen I may change that, but apart from that it's just a good 90 minute science fiction romp that does all it wants and achieves it well, doing eveything it needs to do right right and nothing really that badly.
Overall: It's worth a look, even just to see Willis or add it to the growing collection of 2009 good science fiction movies. See it, but don't expect Moon or District 9.
7.5/10.
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
AND SO IT BEGINS
I realised earlier this week that I have no where to spread my pointless, rambling bullshit that I like to state as opinion/fact/gospel that I'm too scared to tell my friends, less I be taken away and placed into a room coated with mattresses for eternity.
I digress. I'm an average gamer of average skill who watches films and tv shows in his spare time. To put it bluntly, I'm basically like 95% of people on the internet. However, I am also someone who likes to make people laugh and occasionally come up with any two words I can strain together, and claim it as a story. So I'm basically like 100% of the internet.
The Galaxy Roadshow was merely an idea I had that could include not only my pointless drivel and reviews of things you've all already played or watched, but to include things that I am testing out.
Effectively you're all enjoying the first beta of a 14 year old geek.
Enjoy. :)
I digress. I'm an average gamer of average skill who watches films and tv shows in his spare time. To put it bluntly, I'm basically like 95% of people on the internet. However, I am also someone who likes to make people laugh and occasionally come up with any two words I can strain together, and claim it as a story. So I'm basically like 100% of the internet.
The Galaxy Roadshow was merely an idea I had that could include not only my pointless drivel and reviews of things you've all already played or watched, but to include things that I am testing out.
Effectively you're all enjoying the first beta of a 14 year old geek.
Enjoy. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)