The Expendables is total ’80s cheese, with all the blood and gore audiences of the ’90s demand from their hard R-rated actioners. However, I would still say this is toned down from Sylvester Stallone’s 2008 throat-ripping return to Rambo. Taking that into consideration I can admit I had some fun with this film, but the idea of bringing a large group of action stars together doesn’t really pay off as much as you may think it would.
Despite the large list of names, Sylvester Stallone and Jason Statham are pretty much the stars of the show, though Jet Li’s name is included in the opening credits as the other top-line star. The rest of the crew all gets second-billing and the film treats them as such. As for the trailers selling Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis as part of the cast, they get their five minute scene, but that’s it.
The story centers on a group of goofy-named mercenaries for hire made up of their leader Barney Ross (Stallone), knife specialist Lee Christmas (Statham), martial arts expert Ying Yang (Li), demolitions expert Toll Road (UFC fighter Randy Couture) and weapons specialist Hale Caesar (Terry Crews). This group has been hired to infiltrate the not-so-real South American island of Vilena where they are expected to overthrow General Gaza (David Zayas) who’s ruling the island like a dictator after entering into a deal with James Monroe (Eric Roberts), a dirty ex-CIA agent interested in starting up a little drug trade of his own and using the people of Vilena as slave labor.
Those curious about the cast members I’ve left out, but you’ve seen featured in the marketing, don’t worry I have you covered. One time pro wrestler “Stone Cold” Steve Austin plays one of Monroe’s henchmen, Mickey Rourke is a tattoo artist that once ran with Barney and the gang and Dolph Lundgren’s Gunner character is a bit of a story all his own that I won’t spoil for you here.As for the movie, if you’re looking for anything more than a bunch of explosions and bloodshed then you’ve come to the wrong place. Of course, if you are interested in this movie I have a hard time believing you are actually looking for anything else. You can trust me on this aspect, you get what you’ve come for, but I can’t say it’s so good it’s going to blow you away. However, the opening moments do offer a torso removal that sets the bar so high the extreme violence throughout can’t top it.
Stallone directed the film from a script he co-wrote with Doom co-writer Dave Callaham, which should give you a clear indication of what to expect in that department. For the most part it’s a “men on a mission” story, but with the involvement of so many men it’s hard to get a bead on any one of them outside of the paper thin background Rourke’s character offers on Barney and the relationship woes Christmas is involved in with Charisma Carpenter. And although I like the small bit of comedy Li adds to the film, Stallone doesn’t do much to show off his talents as Statham gets most of the glory in terms of the hand-to-hand fight scenes.
For what it’s worth, The Expendables is a fun hard-R actioner, but fun in the sense you know what you’re paying for and aren’t expecting much else. No new ground is broken here, but you will see gunfire, explosions and a large amount of chaos. I will say this for Stallone, his average is at the very least above the average of most others in this game.
Theaters: August 13, 2010
Directed by: Sylvester Stallone
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Eric Roberts, 50 Cent, Charisma Carpenter, Giselle Itie, Terry Crews, Brittany Murphy, David Zayas
Distributed by: Lionsgate Films
Genres: Action,Adventure
Running Time: 103 minutes
Produced by: Avi Lerner,John Thompson,Robert Earl,Kevin King Templeton
Screenwriter: Sylvester Stallone
Executive Producers: Boaz Davidson,Trevor Short,Danny Dimbort
Friday, October 8, 2010
RESIDENT EVIL – AFTERLIFE 3D (2010) REVIEW
Which brings us to Resident Evil: Afterlife, the first video game adaptation filmed with the 3D technology used in James Cameron’s Avatar. In many ways, it’s strikingly modern. Falling three dimensional droplets of water perfectly bookend a few fight scenes, 300-like slow motion nicely stutters breakneck action sequences allowing the viewer full appreciation of Alice’s samurai quickness, and hideous, CGI-ed beasts accentuate the fantastical, undead video game elements so many players fell in love with. But for all its twenty-first century camera tricks and eye-popping visual aids, Resident Evil: Afterlife doesn’t seem to comprehend that it’s not 1985. Story arcs can no longer exist merely to structure the action. We need real characters, we need real motivations and for God’s sake, we need a reason to give a shit.
Alice (Milla Jovovich) is a genetic anomaly, living in a wasteland populated almost entirely by zombies. The nefarious Umbrella Corporation, led by Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts), has been hunting her for years in an effort to harness her DNA, but all their vile aims, thus far, have failed abysmally. In return, Alice has devoted her life to finding other survivors and when the fancy strikes her, turning the umbrella inside out. Periodically, she’s joined on her quest by fellow human Claire Redfield (Ali Larter), but tragically, since we saw her last, she’s developed amnesia. This slight mental disability, thankfully, only proves a minor hiccup, and soon the pair commandeers a plane and hits up an old prison in an attempt to save a few fellow lost souls.
In a wild stroke of luck, one of those fellow lost souls turns out to be an ass-kicking machine named Chris Redfield (Wentworth Miller), who, wait for it, happens to be Claire’s long-lost brother. Along with the other survivors, Alice and company hatch a plan to escape and find Arcadia, a supposedly bristling utopia where disease-free people carouse. The plane initially seems like the right way to escape, but as it won’t hold everyone, the gang must forage through the sewer system to find a boat. We all know good things never happen in the sewer.
The problem with Resident Evil: Afterlife is not the story arc, it’s how that arc is compromised again and again in ways eerily-reminiscent of old, hollow video games. Take one of the side characters, a perky girl who may as well not have a name. The only real fact we learn about her is that she was a champion swimmer. How bizarrely handy when they need someone to dive into the water. Don’t worry about her though. She won’t be around after her skill is no longer needed. Take Claire’s amnesia. Why does she have amnesia? Because she can’t just start out cooperating with her brother. Then who would be left to triumphantly join forces? Take the hooded-goliath like creature who shows up to knock the prison walls down. Why, unlike the other zombies, is he able to use weapons and conceivably, powers of reason? Does he work for the Umbrella Corporation? Is he acting on his own agency? That’s right, he must be a boss, which means we must be at the end of a level.
In a lot of ways, Resident Evil: Afterlife is a product of this exact moment. It’s excited about its graphics, hung up on the new 3D technology at its finger tips, but in even more ways, in all of the important ways, it’s an adaptation which will soon feel decades behind its time. Just as the Spider-Man trilogy seemed trivial and surface-level after The Dark Knight, Resident Evil: Afterlife will lose all value when the luster of its new, cutting-edge graphics fades. Every day, new games like God Of War and Uncharted are being released that use violence to further the story arc. The novelty of cartoonish killing without well-developed backstory is over, soon the third dimension for third dimension’s sake will seem idiotic and outdated. What will that leave Resident Evil with? A few zombie fights in a sewer. We all know good things never happen in the sewer. Unless, of course, they involve
Theaters: September 10, 2010
Directed by: Paul W.S. Anderson
Starring: Milla Jovovich,Johnny Messner,Boris Kodjoe,Wentworth Miller,Ali Larter,Kim Coates
Distributed by: Sony Pictures
Genres: Action,Adventure,Sequel,Fantasy,Sci-Fi,Shot-In-3D
Running Time: 90 minutes
Produced by: Jeremy Bolt,Bernd Eichinger,Robert Kulzer,Samuel Hadida,Don Carmody
Screenwriter: Paul W.S. Anderson
Alice (Milla Jovovich) is a genetic anomaly, living in a wasteland populated almost entirely by zombies. The nefarious Umbrella Corporation, led by Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts), has been hunting her for years in an effort to harness her DNA, but all their vile aims, thus far, have failed abysmally. In return, Alice has devoted her life to finding other survivors and when the fancy strikes her, turning the umbrella inside out. Periodically, she’s joined on her quest by fellow human Claire Redfield (Ali Larter), but tragically, since we saw her last, she’s developed amnesia. This slight mental disability, thankfully, only proves a minor hiccup, and soon the pair commandeers a plane and hits up an old prison in an attempt to save a few fellow lost souls.
In a wild stroke of luck, one of those fellow lost souls turns out to be an ass-kicking machine named Chris Redfield (Wentworth Miller), who, wait for it, happens to be Claire’s long-lost brother. Along with the other survivors, Alice and company hatch a plan to escape and find Arcadia, a supposedly bristling utopia where disease-free people carouse. The plane initially seems like the right way to escape, but as it won’t hold everyone, the gang must forage through the sewer system to find a boat. We all know good things never happen in the sewer.
The problem with Resident Evil: Afterlife is not the story arc, it’s how that arc is compromised again and again in ways eerily-reminiscent of old, hollow video games. Take one of the side characters, a perky girl who may as well not have a name. The only real fact we learn about her is that she was a champion swimmer. How bizarrely handy when they need someone to dive into the water. Don’t worry about her though. She won’t be around after her skill is no longer needed. Take Claire’s amnesia. Why does she have amnesia? Because she can’t just start out cooperating with her brother. Then who would be left to triumphantly join forces? Take the hooded-goliath like creature who shows up to knock the prison walls down. Why, unlike the other zombies, is he able to use weapons and conceivably, powers of reason? Does he work for the Umbrella Corporation? Is he acting on his own agency? That’s right, he must be a boss, which means we must be at the end of a level.
In a lot of ways, Resident Evil: Afterlife is a product of this exact moment. It’s excited about its graphics, hung up on the new 3D technology at its finger tips, but in even more ways, in all of the important ways, it’s an adaptation which will soon feel decades behind its time. Just as the Spider-Man trilogy seemed trivial and surface-level after The Dark Knight, Resident Evil: Afterlife will lose all value when the luster of its new, cutting-edge graphics fades. Every day, new games like God Of War and Uncharted are being released that use violence to further the story arc. The novelty of cartoonish killing without well-developed backstory is over, soon the third dimension for third dimension’s sake will seem idiotic and outdated. What will that leave Resident Evil with? A few zombie fights in a sewer. We all know good things never happen in the sewer. Unless, of course, they involve
Theaters: September 10, 2010
Directed by: Paul W.S. Anderson
Starring: Milla Jovovich,Johnny Messner,Boris Kodjoe,Wentworth Miller,Ali Larter,Kim Coates
Distributed by: Sony Pictures
Genres: Action,Adventure,Sequel,Fantasy,Sci-Fi,Shot-In-3D
Running Time: 90 minutes
Produced by: Jeremy Bolt,Bernd Eichinger,Robert Kulzer,Samuel Hadida,Don Carmody
Screenwriter: Paul W.S. Anderson
WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2011
WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2011 empowers players more than ever to to define their gameplay experiences in a dynamic and ever-changing WWE. Along the way, gameplay scenarios change based on player decisions, allowing for more spontaneous WWE action in and out of the ring. Players can also enjoy a greater level of interactivity and have increased control of their destinies in the game’s popular Road to WrestleMania story-driven mode.
WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2011 has more creative tools than ever to customize their Superstars, finishing moves and story designs. In addition, searching and sharing content are greatly simplified with improvements to the highly regarded WWE Community Creations feature, which generated nearly 10 million downloads, including more than 7.5 million Created Superstars, 500,000 story designs and 500,000 finishing moves in its franchise debut.
WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2011 also features more than 70 of today's prominent WWE Superstars and Divas. In addition, a new physics system will ensure all matches and object interactions look and feel unique, dynamic and unpredictable to capture the full essence of the WWE Universe.
WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2011 has more creative tools than ever to customize their Superstars, finishing moves and story designs. In addition, searching and sharing content are greatly simplified with improvements to the highly regarded WWE Community Creations feature, which generated nearly 10 million downloads, including more than 7.5 million Created Superstars, 500,000 story designs and 500,000 finishing moves in its franchise debut.
WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2011 also features more than 70 of today's prominent WWE Superstars and Divas. In addition, a new physics system will ensure all matches and object interactions look and feel unique, dynamic and unpredictable to capture the full essence of the WWE Universe.
Gran Turismo 5: One Last Lap Before Launch
Gran Turismo 5 was announced in 2006, a few months before the PlayStation 3 was even released. It was before I worked in the videogame business. I've moved three times since then, fallen in love twice, had five different jobs, grown my hair halfway down my back, and then shaved it all off again. I've been to seven weddings, including my brother's, witnessed two funerals, and got to explain my Metroid Prime opus theory to Shigeru Miyamoto in a top floor suite in a Manhattan skyscraper. And that's the short version.
After all that time Gran Turismo 5 is almost here. If it hasn't already been certified and sent off to the disc-pressing factories, it will be imminently. As the November 4 launch date nears Sony came to New York with a demo build to show off GT5. For old time's sake. The demo was lovingly setup in a sturdy bucket seat with Logitech's officially licensed Gran Turismo wheel and 3D mode enabled. The demo was limited to two modes: Arcade, and Time Trial. There were two other options available in the menu—Drift Battle and 2 Player Battle—but both were crossed out with a forbidding red line. There was nothing in the demo that hasn't been shown before, but it provided one last look at the product of Kazunori Yamauchi's half-decade of love, labor, and car parts.
The most exciting thing I experienced was driving in Toscana, a dusty rally track set against the orange sky of a setting sun. I was racing with the traction control turned on but the feeling of sliding on the loose sand with the rumbling wheel pulling one way and then the other was fantastic. Completing a lap on this track in my Ford Focus RS WRC 07 '08 was a genuinely physical experience. My shoulders were tense the whole time and my forearm muscles were constantly trying to counterbalance the unbridled steering wheel. As I made it into the second lap, the sun dipped below the horizon, turning the sky dark blue and adding a small touch of eeriness to the race. The atmosphere was dramatic, a driver cutting through the desert in the middle of the night, relying on his headlights to keep him from catastrophe.
For the next race I took a tiny Fiat 500 1.2 8V Lounge SS 08 onto a city track, Tokyo R246. The aesthetic contrast with Toscana was immediate; the shifting desert sky traded for a changeless blue Tokyo afternoon, and long shadows crossing the asphalt. The feedback from the wheel provides a great sense of speed, pulling more as the speedometer climbs higher, while rumbling at different intensities when I drifted onto a patch of grass or one of the red and white safety runners. The car accelerated slowly and lost even more acceleration ability in higher gears, which felt about right for a small two-dour coupe shaped like a lunchbox from the future.
The last track I tried was the Super Speedway in Indiana, home of the Indy 500. I took a Zonda R '09 onto the track and got to let the engine roar into 6th gear with the accelerator floored for a few exciting seconds on the long straightaways. On a couple turns I'd let my speedy thrillseeker override caution and consequently went slamming into the barrier walls. This experience was disappointingly muted. After playing Need for Speed: Shift last year, I'd grown attached to the violent sense of disorientation and full body shake in that game's collisions. Going 110 miles per hour and slamming into a cement barrier only produced a small rumble and no real visual disruption. Yamauchi has reluctantly included a damage system in Gran Turismo 5, but it doesn't feel damaging. It's mechanical and detached, the product of a man more interested in the small differences of peak performance than the visceral consequence of failure.
It's easy to forget that games are built for our benefit, to give us experiences we couldn't have had on our own. The hype cycle of announcements, first trailers, and first hands-on sometimes give me the opposite impression: that we exist first as servants of the videogame industry, and as self-sacrificing buyers who funnel money into the ever-increasing pyre of visual splendor that remains so cherished in the game world.
A lot has changed since Gran Turismo 4 came out. I'm far removed from where I was the last time I sat down to tinker in Yamauchi's garage, pushing myself forward by half-second increments, fueled by millimetric tweaks. Playing Gran Turismo 5 one last time before it jumps the nest, everything felt remarkably familiar. The game has an exceptional physics simulation, bright and photorealistic visuals, a genuine cockpit view, and, at long last, car damage. Yet, it still feels the same. Or rather, the part of me that this kind of simulation appeals to feels the same. I haven't given it much attention over the last several years. GT5 reminded me it's still there. You could call that a lot of things, but one of them would have to be a gift.
After all that time Gran Turismo 5 is almost here. If it hasn't already been certified and sent off to the disc-pressing factories, it will be imminently. As the November 4 launch date nears Sony came to New York with a demo build to show off GT5. For old time's sake. The demo was lovingly setup in a sturdy bucket seat with Logitech's officially licensed Gran Turismo wheel and 3D mode enabled. The demo was limited to two modes: Arcade, and Time Trial. There were two other options available in the menu—Drift Battle and 2 Player Battle—but both were crossed out with a forbidding red line. There was nothing in the demo that hasn't been shown before, but it provided one last look at the product of Kazunori Yamauchi's half-decade of love, labor, and car parts.
The most exciting thing I experienced was driving in Toscana, a dusty rally track set against the orange sky of a setting sun. I was racing with the traction control turned on but the feeling of sliding on the loose sand with the rumbling wheel pulling one way and then the other was fantastic. Completing a lap on this track in my Ford Focus RS WRC 07 '08 was a genuinely physical experience. My shoulders were tense the whole time and my forearm muscles were constantly trying to counterbalance the unbridled steering wheel. As I made it into the second lap, the sun dipped below the horizon, turning the sky dark blue and adding a small touch of eeriness to the race. The atmosphere was dramatic, a driver cutting through the desert in the middle of the night, relying on his headlights to keep him from catastrophe.
For the next race I took a tiny Fiat 500 1.2 8V Lounge SS 08 onto a city track, Tokyo R246. The aesthetic contrast with Toscana was immediate; the shifting desert sky traded for a changeless blue Tokyo afternoon, and long shadows crossing the asphalt. The feedback from the wheel provides a great sense of speed, pulling more as the speedometer climbs higher, while rumbling at different intensities when I drifted onto a patch of grass or one of the red and white safety runners. The car accelerated slowly and lost even more acceleration ability in higher gears, which felt about right for a small two-dour coupe shaped like a lunchbox from the future.
The last track I tried was the Super Speedway in Indiana, home of the Indy 500. I took a Zonda R '09 onto the track and got to let the engine roar into 6th gear with the accelerator floored for a few exciting seconds on the long straightaways. On a couple turns I'd let my speedy thrillseeker override caution and consequently went slamming into the barrier walls. This experience was disappointingly muted. After playing Need for Speed: Shift last year, I'd grown attached to the violent sense of disorientation and full body shake in that game's collisions. Going 110 miles per hour and slamming into a cement barrier only produced a small rumble and no real visual disruption. Yamauchi has reluctantly included a damage system in Gran Turismo 5, but it doesn't feel damaging. It's mechanical and detached, the product of a man more interested in the small differences of peak performance than the visceral consequence of failure.
It's easy to forget that games are built for our benefit, to give us experiences we couldn't have had on our own. The hype cycle of announcements, first trailers, and first hands-on sometimes give me the opposite impression: that we exist first as servants of the videogame industry, and as self-sacrificing buyers who funnel money into the ever-increasing pyre of visual splendor that remains so cherished in the game world.
A lot has changed since Gran Turismo 4 came out. I'm far removed from where I was the last time I sat down to tinker in Yamauchi's garage, pushing myself forward by half-second increments, fueled by millimetric tweaks. Playing Gran Turismo 5 one last time before it jumps the nest, everything felt remarkably familiar. The game has an exceptional physics simulation, bright and photorealistic visuals, a genuine cockpit view, and, at long last, car damage. Yet, it still feels the same. Or rather, the part of me that this kind of simulation appeals to feels the same. I haven't given it much attention over the last several years. GT5 reminded me it's still there. You could call that a lot of things, but one of them would have to be a gift.
Killzone 3: Headshots with Move
This year Sony showed up to the New York Comic-Con in a big way. Bringing almost all of their big-name hits, the company was showing off new builds and slightly improved versions of the games that we last saw at Gamescom in Germany. Killzone 3 was in attendance with Sony Move support and jet packs ready to go.
The level we sunk our teeth into took place on a series of floating platforms and ships floating just off shore of a frozen coastline. The elements beatdown on environment with swirling snow and wind-blown particles filling the screen. At points it appeared as though there couldn't possibly be more visual effects fit onto one screen.
As we plowed through Helghan troops in the tight corridors of the ships the hallways swayed with the choppy water below us. It was reminiscent of first level of the original Modern Warfare, where the level seems to bob rotate around the player. You can get motion sick just watching it play out, so imagine what its like with Move drawing you further into the experience.
The rollercoster ride continued when we picked up one of the claw like jet packs worn by one of the Helghast. It doesn't so much allow players to torpedo through the air, as it boosts them upwards for short periods of time. The vertical platforms of the structures popping out of the water were the perfect setting to use this new toy.
As platforms exploded and collapsed in the heat of battle, we had to boost up and over the wreckage to the next firefight while somehow avoiding incoming fire all levels of the structure. The jet pack had claw like mandibles that hang down in front of the player, and these are equipped with jets. This means you can see when the jet pack is firing, giving players something to visual focus and helping them to keep their bearings.
Haters gonna hate... then die.
We already know that Move works, but its inclusion in Killzone 3 gives it a draw not unlike seeing a racing game in 3D. The screen bounces and twists with the action, and as you gesture and point at the screens feelings of vertigo and excitement are all the more palpable.
The level we sunk our teeth into took place on a series of floating platforms and ships floating just off shore of a frozen coastline. The elements beatdown on environment with swirling snow and wind-blown particles filling the screen. At points it appeared as though there couldn't possibly be more visual effects fit onto one screen.
As we plowed through Helghan troops in the tight corridors of the ships the hallways swayed with the choppy water below us. It was reminiscent of first level of the original Modern Warfare, where the level seems to bob rotate around the player. You can get motion sick just watching it play out, so imagine what its like with Move drawing you further into the experience.
The rollercoster ride continued when we picked up one of the claw like jet packs worn by one of the Helghast. It doesn't so much allow players to torpedo through the air, as it boosts them upwards for short periods of time. The vertical platforms of the structures popping out of the water were the perfect setting to use this new toy.
As platforms exploded and collapsed in the heat of battle, we had to boost up and over the wreckage to the next firefight while somehow avoiding incoming fire all levels of the structure. The jet pack had claw like mandibles that hang down in front of the player, and these are equipped with jets. This means you can see when the jet pack is firing, giving players something to visual focus and helping them to keep their bearings.
Haters gonna hate... then die.
We already know that Move works, but its inclusion in Killzone 3 gives it a draw not unlike seeing a racing game in 3D. The screen bounces and twists with the action, and as you gesture and point at the screens feelings of vertigo and excitement are all the more palpable.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Pro Evolution Soccer 2011 review - PES is back!
The new version of Pro Evolution Soccer threatens to redress the balance in the battle to be King of football games. Disappointed with poor showings in the last couple of versions, many PES fans have turned their back on the series in favor of the slicker FIFA titles. If you’re a Pro Evo fan then take note, it’s safe to come back now.
Having been glued to the demo of Pro Evolution Soccer 2011 this morning, I can safely say that it’s recaptured the feel-good factor of previous releases (i.e. anything before PES 2008). Rather than dithering around with silly little changes, Konami has ripped apart the tired gameplay of the last few iterations of Pro Evo and essentially started from scratch.
Defending is not as automated as it was, and now you really have to have your wits about you because the defenders no longer automatically trail the opposing attack. Attacking too has been revitalized by a new passing system and the inclusion of assignable flicks and tricks. Graphically, Pro Evolution Soccer 2011 looks better than ever, more game modes and leagues are included, and extras like the stadium editor and special content provided added value.
The key date for your diaries now is September 15th. This is not only when the PC demo of Pro Evolution Soccer 2011 is released but, not-so coincidentally, is also the day when you can download the FIFA 11 demo and see how to the two match up. For now, go check out my review of PES 2011 on Softonic and let me know what you think if you’ve already tried the demo on the PS3 Network.
Update: You can now download the demo of Pro Evolution Soccer 2011. Let me know your thoughts, and check back soon for my post about how it compares with FIFA 11.
Having been glued to the demo of Pro Evolution Soccer 2011 this morning, I can safely say that it’s recaptured the feel-good factor of previous releases (i.e. anything before PES 2008). Rather than dithering around with silly little changes, Konami has ripped apart the tired gameplay of the last few iterations of Pro Evo and essentially started from scratch.
Defending is not as automated as it was, and now you really have to have your wits about you because the defenders no longer automatically trail the opposing attack. Attacking too has been revitalized by a new passing system and the inclusion of assignable flicks and tricks. Graphically, Pro Evolution Soccer 2011 looks better than ever, more game modes and leagues are included, and extras like the stadium editor and special content provided added value.
The key date for your diaries now is September 15th. This is not only when the PC demo of Pro Evolution Soccer 2011 is released but, not-so coincidentally, is also the day when you can download the FIFA 11 demo and see how to the two match up. For now, go check out my review of PES 2011 on Softonic and let me know what you think if you’ve already tried the demo on the PS3 Network.
Update: You can now download the demo of Pro Evolution Soccer 2011. Let me know your thoughts, and check back soon for my post about how it compares with FIFA 11.
NBA 2K11 Review
It's fitting that NBA 2K11 prominently features Michael Jordan. After all, His Airness is the greatest basketball player of all time and NBA 2K11 is the greatest basketball game ever made.
2K Sports has delivered the most finely polished and fully featured sports game I've ever played -- and I've played a lot of sports games. The amount of work put into 2K11 is staggering -- perfect recreations of Jordan's historic games, streamlined controls, NBA teams that play and feel like their real-life counterparts, a franchise mode that includes sensible GM logic and intelligent team building.
This is one of the most incredible year-over-year improvements of a game imaginable. Madden, EA's NHL series, MLB 2K, and just about everyone else has been served notice. There are no more excuses for half-assed annual updates. Bring it every year or you will get booed out of the building.
NBA 2K11 is where amazing happens. When you first start the game, you get a slick visual treat hyping the greatness of Michael Jordan. And then the game transports you into the tunnel of Chicago Stadium for Game 1 of the 1991 NBA Championship. Jordan turns to look into the camera, right at you, and asks, "Are you ready?" Then he turns, runs out onto the court and the magic of NBA 2K11 begins. Before you ever see a menu, ever create a franchise, ever even get a whiff of all that 2K11 has to offer, you're playing in the finals with the Bulls, battling Magic Johnson and ushering in a new era in NBA history.
Unquestionably, the highlight of NBA 2K11 are the Jordan Challenges. MJ's greatest games are legendary and you get to relive them, tasked with equaling his stat lines. Can you average 11 assists in the '91 series against the Lakers? Or drop six treys and score at least 35 points in the first half against Drexler and the Trail Blazers to earn the famous Jordan shrug? Or light up the Knicks for 55 points in Jordan's return from retirement?
2K Sports created each of these 10 memorable moments with a surprising level of detail. The commentary for every game is custom-fitted with discussions on Jordan's potential in "The Arrival" game and talk of how much John Starks has frustrated Jordan in the "Double Nickel" game in Madison Square Garden. Each game is a window into NBA history and won't just give you an appreciation for No. 23's greatness but the quality of teams he went up against. Magic, Ewing, Dominque -- they play as they did in their prime. No opponent is a chump, even if Michael is destined to beat them all.
Complete all 10 Jordan Challenges and you can play a special version of the My Player career mode, bringing a rookie Michael Jordan into the current League to develop his talent and see how he stacks up against today's greats. Put him on the Heat if you want to be really unfair to the rest of the League.
The quality presentation continues outside of the Jordan-specific elements. There's a slick half-time show that accurately sums up the game and a really hot Player of the Game presentation when the final buzzer sounds. My favorite, though, is a fairly hidden (but awesome) feature you can find at the end of games called Pressbook. This is a slideshow gallery of photos (usually around 50) from the game. These snapshots often pick the best moments at compelling angles and can be uploaded for others to see. Posterize someone online? You've got a snapshot of it waiting for you at the end of the game.
More importantly, most of the NBA has been accurately captured. There are hundreds of unique animations for players and so many nice little touches that a big-time hoops fan like myself couldn't have loved the experience more. I was playing against the Lakers, and Kobe threw down a slam but landed off-balance. As he regained his balance, he extended his arms and did his little airplane move he throws out on very rare occasions. I watched Greg Oden shuffle down the court like an old man who'd lost his cane. I'm not trying to knock on Oden, but that's exactly how he checks out of plays when he's crashed the boards on the other end!
This isn't the first hoops game to throw in some flair on marquee players, but the unique traits extend to the bench. I know we toss around the phrase, "It looks like a real game" too often, but this time I mean it -- I watch probably a hundred NBA regular-season games a year (I'm hardcore, baby), and 2K Sports got this right.
Sure, there are a few mishaps along the way. Don Nelson looks like a melted marshmallow and Kobe looks like an alien, but the good far outpaces the bad. Add to the mix dynamic crowds that slowly fill in during the first quarter or don't even show for a Bobcat's game and you have the most accurate portrait of the NBA to date. And that 2K Sports got not only the current era but a decade's worth of MJ's history right is pretty impressive.
2K Sports has delivered the most finely polished and fully featured sports game I've ever played -- and I've played a lot of sports games. The amount of work put into 2K11 is staggering -- perfect recreations of Jordan's historic games, streamlined controls, NBA teams that play and feel like their real-life counterparts, a franchise mode that includes sensible GM logic and intelligent team building.
This is one of the most incredible year-over-year improvements of a game imaginable. Madden, EA's NHL series, MLB 2K, and just about everyone else has been served notice. There are no more excuses for half-assed annual updates. Bring it every year or you will get booed out of the building.
NBA 2K11 is where amazing happens. When you first start the game, you get a slick visual treat hyping the greatness of Michael Jordan. And then the game transports you into the tunnel of Chicago Stadium for Game 1 of the 1991 NBA Championship. Jordan turns to look into the camera, right at you, and asks, "Are you ready?" Then he turns, runs out onto the court and the magic of NBA 2K11 begins. Before you ever see a menu, ever create a franchise, ever even get a whiff of all that 2K11 has to offer, you're playing in the finals with the Bulls, battling Magic Johnson and ushering in a new era in NBA history.
Unquestionably, the highlight of NBA 2K11 are the Jordan Challenges. MJ's greatest games are legendary and you get to relive them, tasked with equaling his stat lines. Can you average 11 assists in the '91 series against the Lakers? Or drop six treys and score at least 35 points in the first half against Drexler and the Trail Blazers to earn the famous Jordan shrug? Or light up the Knicks for 55 points in Jordan's return from retirement?
2K Sports created each of these 10 memorable moments with a surprising level of detail. The commentary for every game is custom-fitted with discussions on Jordan's potential in "The Arrival" game and talk of how much John Starks has frustrated Jordan in the "Double Nickel" game in Madison Square Garden. Each game is a window into NBA history and won't just give you an appreciation for No. 23's greatness but the quality of teams he went up against. Magic, Ewing, Dominque -- they play as they did in their prime. No opponent is a chump, even if Michael is destined to beat them all.
Complete all 10 Jordan Challenges and you can play a special version of the My Player career mode, bringing a rookie Michael Jordan into the current League to develop his talent and see how he stacks up against today's greats. Put him on the Heat if you want to be really unfair to the rest of the League.
The quality presentation continues outside of the Jordan-specific elements. There's a slick half-time show that accurately sums up the game and a really hot Player of the Game presentation when the final buzzer sounds. My favorite, though, is a fairly hidden (but awesome) feature you can find at the end of games called Pressbook. This is a slideshow gallery of photos (usually around 50) from the game. These snapshots often pick the best moments at compelling angles and can be uploaded for others to see. Posterize someone online? You've got a snapshot of it waiting for you at the end of the game.
More importantly, most of the NBA has been accurately captured. There are hundreds of unique animations for players and so many nice little touches that a big-time hoops fan like myself couldn't have loved the experience more. I was playing against the Lakers, and Kobe threw down a slam but landed off-balance. As he regained his balance, he extended his arms and did his little airplane move he throws out on very rare occasions. I watched Greg Oden shuffle down the court like an old man who'd lost his cane. I'm not trying to knock on Oden, but that's exactly how he checks out of plays when he's crashed the boards on the other end!
This isn't the first hoops game to throw in some flair on marquee players, but the unique traits extend to the bench. I know we toss around the phrase, "It looks like a real game" too often, but this time I mean it -- I watch probably a hundred NBA regular-season games a year (I'm hardcore, baby), and 2K Sports got this right.
Sure, there are a few mishaps along the way. Don Nelson looks like a melted marshmallow and Kobe looks like an alien, but the good far outpaces the bad. Add to the mix dynamic crowds that slowly fill in during the first quarter or don't even show for a Bobcat's game and you have the most accurate portrait of the NBA to date. And that 2K Sports got not only the current era but a decade's worth of MJ's history right is pretty impressive.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Clash Of The Titans Review
Set in the timeless grandeur of Greek mythology, Clash of the Titans immerses players into the epic battle for dominance between the human race and the powerful gods Hades and Zeus. Through vast landscapes of swamps, mountains and the underworld, two modes of play let players embody Perseus' adventure from the film, or take on original new bosses in fresh, dynamic adaptations of one of the greatest mythological stories ever told.
Hydro Thunder Hurricane Review
Hydro Thunder Hurricane is an all new, adrenaline pumping sequel to the legendary Arcade hit Hydro Thunder! This XBLA title is bigger, better and more beautiful than ever. Dynamic water physics drives intense momentto-moment gameplay on ever-changing, water-based tracks. With gorgeously rendered visuals and over-the-top themed environments, Hydro Thunder Hurricane delivers adrenaline fueled water-based racing.
Inception Review
“True inspiration is impossible to fake,” explains a character in Christopher Nolan’s existentialist heist film Inception. If that’s the case, then Inception is one of the most honest films ever made. Nolan has crafted a movie that’s beyond brilliant and layered both narratively and thematically. It requires the audience to take in a collection of rules, exceptions, locations, jobs, and abilities in order to understand the text, let alone the fascinating subtext. Nolan’s magnum opus is the first major blockbuster in over a decade that’s demanded intense viewer concentration, raised thoughtful and complex ideas, and wrapped everything all in a breathlessly exciting action film. Inception may be complicated, but simply put it’s one of the best movies of the year.
“I’m asking you to take a leap of faith.”
Inception requires so much exposition that a lesser director would have forced theaters to distribute pamphlets to audience members in order to explain the complicated world he’s developed. During my first draft of this view, I realized I had spent three paragraphs simply trying to explain the plot. I will simply avoid this exposition and present the movie’s basic premise. Inception centers on a team of individuals led by an “extractor” named Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) who, through the use of a special device, construct the dreams of a target and use those dreams to implant an idea so that the target will make a decision beneficial to the individual who hired the team. To say that scratches the surface would be an insult to both scratches and surfaces. But since it takes Nolan about fifty minutes to set everything up, I hope you’ll forgive my brevity.
Why is it so difficult to explain the plot in depth? First, I don’t want to spoil you. Secondly, the film layers dreams on top of dreams to the point where a unique keepsake called a “totem” is required in order to inform a character as to whether or not he or she is still dreaming. Then you have people in particular roles like “The Architect”, “The Forger”, and “The Chemist” in order to pull off the job. Furthermore, dreams have rules: dying in a dream forces the dreamer to wake up, delving too deeply into a mind can cause an eternal slumber called “Limbo”, using memories to construct dreams is dangerous because it can blur the line between dreams and reality. In addition, intruding in the dreams of another will cause the dreamer’s “projections” (human representations created by the dreamer) to attack the intruders like white blood cells going after an infection. And these explanations only represent a fraction of the terminology, rules, exceptions, or details that are necessary for creating the world of Inception.
But it’s not a confusing movie if you provide it with your full attention. There are a lot of summer movies that ask you turn off your brain and enjoy the persistent-vegetative-state ride. Inception is not one of those movies. There’s a lot to take in, but the imaginative and thoughtful delivery of exposition keeps the viewer riveted despite the amount of information required in order to understand the premise, setting, and plot.
It tends to be the case that lots of rules create lots of loopholes. Filmmakers can use these to cheat and let audiences fill in the leaps of logics. But Inception always plays fair. It will twist your mind but it’s not a film built on twists. It’s a film built on possibilities and the boldness of pursuing those possibilities. On my first viewing, the film experienced a technical malfunction where a misplaced reel skipped the movie forward by twenty minutes and then played the scene upside down and in reverse. Inception had already sent the audience through such a strange narrative labyrinth that almost everyone in the theater wasn’t sure if something had gone wrong or if Nolan had just made another bold decision.
The film deserves, demands, and rewards repeat viewings, but from your first viewing you can grasp the events on screen and how they interact with each other as long as you force yourself to be an active viewer. But with set pieces so intricate, so jaw-dropping, and so breathtaking, you’ll find that there’s no exertion needed to stay focused. You’ll already be swept up in the whirlwind.
“And I will lead them on a merry chase.”
Inception features one of the best fight scenes of all-time. Take a moment to consider that: in the entire history of cinema, of every fight scene that has ever taken place, the one in this movie is among the best. Watching a fight without gravity is incredible. It’s not like in The Matrix where a character can defy gravity if they choose. The fight scene in Inception has no gravity to defy and Arthur (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), the team’s point man, has to figure out how to achieve his objective while fending off projections. I can only hope that someday in the distant future, when people with free time are on a space station in zero-gravity, they will re-enact this scene. In the meantime, Nolan’s spectacular visual effects will have to suffice.
With the exception of one set piece (which I’ll get to in a moment), the action scenes in Inception are spectacular. Visually lush and imaginative, Nolan transforms car chases into countdowns, fistfights into puzzles, and shootouts into…well, shootouts. There’s a mission on a snowy mountainside that doesn’t work as well as the other set pieces because there’s a poor sense of location, a lack of visual diversity, and sloppy editing. But that doesn’t really halt or hurt the film because Nolan brilliantly placed the car chase, the fistfight, and the shootout on top of each other. You would think this would cause action fatigue, but by cutting between three set pieces and having what happens in one set piece affect the others, the action climax of Inception isn’t exhausting—it’s exhilarating.
“If you’re going to perform inception, you need imagination.”
You can be the best action director around but you can only get so far if you lack characters worth caring about. With Inception, every character not only has a particular skill and task, but has a personality that mirrors their job description.
We learn about the characters of Inception not from long monologues about their past or even (with the exception of Cobb) delving into their dreams and memories. We learn about them by how they interact with each other. The small moments between Arthur and Eames, “The Forger” (Tom Hardy) indicate years of working on j tolerating each other on jobs but with no animosity between the two. Neophyte “Architect” Ariadne (Ellen Page) is a total jerk towards Cobb, but she’s the only one who’s willing to cut through his bullshit. Cobb’s relationship with his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) is the heart of Inception. The interactions among the supporting characters are standard for a well-made action movie, but the relationship between Cobb and Mal is yet another reason why Inception stands apart.
DiCaprio will take some flack for playing a similar character to his one in Shutter Island from earlier this year. Both Cobb and Teddy Daniels have become separated from their families, suffer from unbearable guilt, and have a tough time handling the nature of reality. Here’s another similarity: DiCaprio is great in both movies. I wouldn’t worry about him getting typecast as tragic-figure-with-tenuous-grasp-on-reality-as-a-result-of-intense-guilt-and-regret.
Two of the film’s stars will (hopefully) find their careers at the next level after this movie opens. Their names are “Joseph Gordon-Levitt” and “Tom Hardy”. Gordon-Levitt has excelled at playing lost boys, tortures souls, and recently a charming male lead in (500) Days of Summer. You can now add “bad-ass blockbuster action star” to that list. Gordon-Levitt’s versatility is why I will be excited for any movie that lists him as one of its stars.
Hardy’s critically acclaimed performance in Nicolas Winding Refn’s Bronson brought him to Hollywood’s attention. His performance in Inception will bring him the attention of countries. He brings a light-hearted touch to the film and while the script forces other characters to remain serious, Eames takes a more laid back approach to the mind-heist game. But he’s not comic relief and he’s not around to comment on absurd circumstances. Like everyone in the cast, he’s there to help the team achieve their goal (although the script functions in such a way that you could see each character as a representation of a specific idea).
The only actor who’s a little shaky is Ken Watanabe who plays Saito, the team’s employer. His performance is great. He pulls off the impressive feat of being threatening without being menacing. The only problem is that Watanabe’s Japanese accent is so thick that it’s sometimes difficult to make out what he’s saying. In a movie where the dialogue is as delicately crafted as the rest of the film, it’s unfortunate to lose a few lines due to something as simple as pronunciation. And it’s only noticeable because everything in Inception is so finely crafted.
The physical scope of this movie is astounding. Worlds fall on top of each other, a freight train can burst onto a city street, hotels can lose all gravity, and everything that we know is impossible appears completely natural. It’s not enough to say that the cinematography is gorgeous, or that the sound design is sensational, or that this is one of composer Hans Zimmer’s all-time best scores. There aren’t “supporting” elements in Inception. Just as the film layers its narrative structure and thematic subtext, so it does with its technical elements. You will notice the cinematography and the art direction and the sounds and the score. It’s like hearing beautiful solos mixed together in a glorious anthem.
“Dreams feel real while we’re in them. It’s only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange.”
As you’ve probably guessed, when I said at the beginning of this review that Inception was the first movie in over a decade to mix breathtaking action with thoughtful subtext, I was referring to 1999’s The Matrix. The comparisons are inevitable. Both movies deal with the nature of reality combined with pulse-pounding set pieces that will be included in any action-scene highlight reel. But The Matrix is a freshman level course compared to the doctorate held by Inception, and it has nothing to do with how far special effects have come in ten years. It’s about taking multiple genres, settings, ideas, emotions, and questions and weaving them into a rich tapestry that will have folks talking long after the credits roll. But then you throw in those advanced special effects and you have a summer blockbuster that will blow your mind.
You’ve never seen anything like Inception, and you’ll want to see it again and again.
Rating: A
“I’m asking you to take a leap of faith.”
Inception requires so much exposition that a lesser director would have forced theaters to distribute pamphlets to audience members in order to explain the complicated world he’s developed. During my first draft of this view, I realized I had spent three paragraphs simply trying to explain the plot. I will simply avoid this exposition and present the movie’s basic premise. Inception centers on a team of individuals led by an “extractor” named Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) who, through the use of a special device, construct the dreams of a target and use those dreams to implant an idea so that the target will make a decision beneficial to the individual who hired the team. To say that scratches the surface would be an insult to both scratches and surfaces. But since it takes Nolan about fifty minutes to set everything up, I hope you’ll forgive my brevity.
Why is it so difficult to explain the plot in depth? First, I don’t want to spoil you. Secondly, the film layers dreams on top of dreams to the point where a unique keepsake called a “totem” is required in order to inform a character as to whether or not he or she is still dreaming. Then you have people in particular roles like “The Architect”, “The Forger”, and “The Chemist” in order to pull off the job. Furthermore, dreams have rules: dying in a dream forces the dreamer to wake up, delving too deeply into a mind can cause an eternal slumber called “Limbo”, using memories to construct dreams is dangerous because it can blur the line between dreams and reality. In addition, intruding in the dreams of another will cause the dreamer’s “projections” (human representations created by the dreamer) to attack the intruders like white blood cells going after an infection. And these explanations only represent a fraction of the terminology, rules, exceptions, or details that are necessary for creating the world of Inception.
But it’s not a confusing movie if you provide it with your full attention. There are a lot of summer movies that ask you turn off your brain and enjoy the persistent-vegetative-state ride. Inception is not one of those movies. There’s a lot to take in, but the imaginative and thoughtful delivery of exposition keeps the viewer riveted despite the amount of information required in order to understand the premise, setting, and plot.
It tends to be the case that lots of rules create lots of loopholes. Filmmakers can use these to cheat and let audiences fill in the leaps of logics. But Inception always plays fair. It will twist your mind but it’s not a film built on twists. It’s a film built on possibilities and the boldness of pursuing those possibilities. On my first viewing, the film experienced a technical malfunction where a misplaced reel skipped the movie forward by twenty minutes and then played the scene upside down and in reverse. Inception had already sent the audience through such a strange narrative labyrinth that almost everyone in the theater wasn’t sure if something had gone wrong or if Nolan had just made another bold decision.
The film deserves, demands, and rewards repeat viewings, but from your first viewing you can grasp the events on screen and how they interact with each other as long as you force yourself to be an active viewer. But with set pieces so intricate, so jaw-dropping, and so breathtaking, you’ll find that there’s no exertion needed to stay focused. You’ll already be swept up in the whirlwind.
“And I will lead them on a merry chase.”
Inception features one of the best fight scenes of all-time. Take a moment to consider that: in the entire history of cinema, of every fight scene that has ever taken place, the one in this movie is among the best. Watching a fight without gravity is incredible. It’s not like in The Matrix where a character can defy gravity if they choose. The fight scene in Inception has no gravity to defy and Arthur (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), the team’s point man, has to figure out how to achieve his objective while fending off projections. I can only hope that someday in the distant future, when people with free time are on a space station in zero-gravity, they will re-enact this scene. In the meantime, Nolan’s spectacular visual effects will have to suffice.
With the exception of one set piece (which I’ll get to in a moment), the action scenes in Inception are spectacular. Visually lush and imaginative, Nolan transforms car chases into countdowns, fistfights into puzzles, and shootouts into…well, shootouts. There’s a mission on a snowy mountainside that doesn’t work as well as the other set pieces because there’s a poor sense of location, a lack of visual diversity, and sloppy editing. But that doesn’t really halt or hurt the film because Nolan brilliantly placed the car chase, the fistfight, and the shootout on top of each other. You would think this would cause action fatigue, but by cutting between three set pieces and having what happens in one set piece affect the others, the action climax of Inception isn’t exhausting—it’s exhilarating.
“If you’re going to perform inception, you need imagination.”
You can be the best action director around but you can only get so far if you lack characters worth caring about. With Inception, every character not only has a particular skill and task, but has a personality that mirrors their job description.
We learn about the characters of Inception not from long monologues about their past or even (with the exception of Cobb) delving into their dreams and memories. We learn about them by how they interact with each other. The small moments between Arthur and Eames, “The Forger” (Tom Hardy) indicate years of working on j tolerating each other on jobs but with no animosity between the two. Neophyte “Architect” Ariadne (Ellen Page) is a total jerk towards Cobb, but she’s the only one who’s willing to cut through his bullshit. Cobb’s relationship with his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) is the heart of Inception. The interactions among the supporting characters are standard for a well-made action movie, but the relationship between Cobb and Mal is yet another reason why Inception stands apart.
DiCaprio will take some flack for playing a similar character to his one in Shutter Island from earlier this year. Both Cobb and Teddy Daniels have become separated from their families, suffer from unbearable guilt, and have a tough time handling the nature of reality. Here’s another similarity: DiCaprio is great in both movies. I wouldn’t worry about him getting typecast as tragic-figure-with-tenuous-grasp-on-reality-as-a-result-of-intense-guilt-and-regret.
Two of the film’s stars will (hopefully) find their careers at the next level after this movie opens. Their names are “Joseph Gordon-Levitt” and “Tom Hardy”. Gordon-Levitt has excelled at playing lost boys, tortures souls, and recently a charming male lead in (500) Days of Summer. You can now add “bad-ass blockbuster action star” to that list. Gordon-Levitt’s versatility is why I will be excited for any movie that lists him as one of its stars.
Hardy’s critically acclaimed performance in Nicolas Winding Refn’s Bronson brought him to Hollywood’s attention. His performance in Inception will bring him the attention of countries. He brings a light-hearted touch to the film and while the script forces other characters to remain serious, Eames takes a more laid back approach to the mind-heist game. But he’s not comic relief and he’s not around to comment on absurd circumstances. Like everyone in the cast, he’s there to help the team achieve their goal (although the script functions in such a way that you could see each character as a representation of a specific idea).
The only actor who’s a little shaky is Ken Watanabe who plays Saito, the team’s employer. His performance is great. He pulls off the impressive feat of being threatening without being menacing. The only problem is that Watanabe’s Japanese accent is so thick that it’s sometimes difficult to make out what he’s saying. In a movie where the dialogue is as delicately crafted as the rest of the film, it’s unfortunate to lose a few lines due to something as simple as pronunciation. And it’s only noticeable because everything in Inception is so finely crafted.
The physical scope of this movie is astounding. Worlds fall on top of each other, a freight train can burst onto a city street, hotels can lose all gravity, and everything that we know is impossible appears completely natural. It’s not enough to say that the cinematography is gorgeous, or that the sound design is sensational, or that this is one of composer Hans Zimmer’s all-time best scores. There aren’t “supporting” elements in Inception. Just as the film layers its narrative structure and thematic subtext, so it does with its technical elements. You will notice the cinematography and the art direction and the sounds and the score. It’s like hearing beautiful solos mixed together in a glorious anthem.
“Dreams feel real while we’re in them. It’s only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange.”
As you’ve probably guessed, when I said at the beginning of this review that Inception was the first movie in over a decade to mix breathtaking action with thoughtful subtext, I was referring to 1999’s The Matrix. The comparisons are inevitable. Both movies deal with the nature of reality combined with pulse-pounding set pieces that will be included in any action-scene highlight reel. But The Matrix is a freshman level course compared to the doctorate held by Inception, and it has nothing to do with how far special effects have come in ten years. It’s about taking multiple genres, settings, ideas, emotions, and questions and weaving them into a rich tapestry that will have folks talking long after the credits roll. But then you throw in those advanced special effects and you have a summer blockbuster that will blow your mind.
You’ve never seen anything like Inception, and you’ll want to see it again and again.
Rating: A
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Salt Review
Bottom Line: A spy thriller more than worth its salt.
She never quite says: "The name is Salt. Evelyn Salt." But Angelina Jolie, for all intents and purposes, is James Bond in her new film "Salt," and it's really no surprise that Jolie, the only female action star in Hollywood, more than measures up to Daniel Craig.
Donning several guises while on the run in Columbia's spy thriller, she even -- with the help of considerable facial latex, mind you -- turns up as a guy in one scene. She makes a pretty ugly one, but it makes an amusing gag, a kind of acknowledgment that kick-ass action heroes now come in both genders. In Jolie's case, it's more convincing than ever because in those Lara Croft movies, she looked like an animated creature that popped out of a video game.
While preposterous at every turn, "Salt" is a better Bond movie than most recent Bond movies, as its makers keep the stunts real and severely limit CGI gimmickry. This is a slick, light summer entertainment that should throw considerable coin into Sony's coffers while re-establishing (if it needs re-establishing) Jolie's bona fides as an action star. The film certainly didn't need the assist, but recent news events have erased any objection from critics, tied to laws of plausibility, over the film's key concept that Russian sleeper spies still exist in the U.S. long after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Another talking point here is the similarity between this film, reportedly first developed for Tom Cruise, and the action-spy thriller he chose to do, the lamentable "Knight and Day." There are astonishing similarities: An American spy believed to be a rogue agent gets chased by the CIA, with the protagonist escaping by, among other tricks, leaping from one fast-moving vehicle to another on a major thoroughfare. These similarities only point up how smart "Salt" is in crafting its escapist fare.
Director Phillip Noyce and stunt guru Simon Crane, working from a clever though shallow screenplay by Kurt Wimmer, make sure the stunts in "Salt" look like a dangerous and demanding day at the office. In "Knight and Day," the movie's absurd physicality is played as effortless clowning replete with repartee that is supposed to remind you of 007 but in fact is embarrassingly flat and banal.
There's no joking around here. Jolie's Evelyn Salt is made of sterner stuff, the kind that can survive a North Korean prison without giving up the name of her employer, the CIA. Back in D.C. and married to a nice though naive German arachnologist (August Diehl) -- yes, he studies spiders and, yes, there is a payoff to that -- she is assigned to CIA desk duties when a supposed Russian defector (Daniel Olbrychski) walks in one day.
Nobody is particularly buying his act, especially Salt's superior, Ted Winter (Liev Schreiber), but she accedes to his plea to interrogate the man briefly before she heads home to an anniversary dinner. The Russian talks nonsense about sleeper cells and a plot to assassinate the Russian president on American soil. Then he happens to drop the name of the Russian sleeper spy: Evelyn Salt.
This apparently is enough to turn the Agency's counterintelligence officer, Peabody (Chiwetel Ejiofor), into her instant foe. Nothing that happens after this deserves any serious scrutiny, but it's fun to watch Jolie's Salt seemingly transforms into the Russian sleeper agent she is reputed to be -- escaping from a virtual lockdown, dodging cars and bullets, making her way to New York and through subway tunnels to confront the Russian president, then take on, seemingly, every Russian and CIA op in her way.
All those "seemingly" qualifiers are meant to indicate that no studio is going to cast Jolie as a villain or even an anti-hero. What do you think this is, the '70s? But there's just enough doubt for the ad copy to read: Who is Salt?
You can't say the movie keeps you guessing about this for long since most attentive viewers will figure out the true villain(s) well before the climax. But the chase is the whole point.
Here Noyce and his team excel. Propelled by James Newton Howard's nerve-teasing music and enhanced by Robert Elswit's clear-eyed, smartly positioned cameras, "Salt" moves ever forward -- pushing, pushing, pushing its heroine to greater feats every minute. It doesn't stop for martinis, either shaken or stirred, or any other detours. The movie is lean and muscular, looking for action even in situations where a little sleight of hand might have done the trick.
You do wish that maybe it did slow down to consider the human factor. Salt is married; let's dig into that. A marriage between an agent and a civilian is never explored. In making the husband a problem that needs solving, here -- not to give anything away -- the movie stumbles badly. At the end of the day, "who is Salt" is less a tagline than a criticism. Eventually, you know what Salt is. But who she is isn't satisfactorily resolved.
In story terms, that is. In Hollywood terms, there's never any doubt: Salt is Angelina Jolie.
She never quite says: "The name is Salt. Evelyn Salt." But Angelina Jolie, for all intents and purposes, is James Bond in her new film "Salt," and it's really no surprise that Jolie, the only female action star in Hollywood, more than measures up to Daniel Craig.
Donning several guises while on the run in Columbia's spy thriller, she even -- with the help of considerable facial latex, mind you -- turns up as a guy in one scene. She makes a pretty ugly one, but it makes an amusing gag, a kind of acknowledgment that kick-ass action heroes now come in both genders. In Jolie's case, it's more convincing than ever because in those Lara Croft movies, she looked like an animated creature that popped out of a video game.
While preposterous at every turn, "Salt" is a better Bond movie than most recent Bond movies, as its makers keep the stunts real and severely limit CGI gimmickry. This is a slick, light summer entertainment that should throw considerable coin into Sony's coffers while re-establishing (if it needs re-establishing) Jolie's bona fides as an action star. The film certainly didn't need the assist, but recent news events have erased any objection from critics, tied to laws of plausibility, over the film's key concept that Russian sleeper spies still exist in the U.S. long after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Another talking point here is the similarity between this film, reportedly first developed for Tom Cruise, and the action-spy thriller he chose to do, the lamentable "Knight and Day." There are astonishing similarities: An American spy believed to be a rogue agent gets chased by the CIA, with the protagonist escaping by, among other tricks, leaping from one fast-moving vehicle to another on a major thoroughfare. These similarities only point up how smart "Salt" is in crafting its escapist fare.
Director Phillip Noyce and stunt guru Simon Crane, working from a clever though shallow screenplay by Kurt Wimmer, make sure the stunts in "Salt" look like a dangerous and demanding day at the office. In "Knight and Day," the movie's absurd physicality is played as effortless clowning replete with repartee that is supposed to remind you of 007 but in fact is embarrassingly flat and banal.
There's no joking around here. Jolie's Evelyn Salt is made of sterner stuff, the kind that can survive a North Korean prison without giving up the name of her employer, the CIA. Back in D.C. and married to a nice though naive German arachnologist (August Diehl) -- yes, he studies spiders and, yes, there is a payoff to that -- she is assigned to CIA desk duties when a supposed Russian defector (Daniel Olbrychski) walks in one day.
Nobody is particularly buying his act, especially Salt's superior, Ted Winter (Liev Schreiber), but she accedes to his plea to interrogate the man briefly before she heads home to an anniversary dinner. The Russian talks nonsense about sleeper cells and a plot to assassinate the Russian president on American soil. Then he happens to drop the name of the Russian sleeper spy: Evelyn Salt.
This apparently is enough to turn the Agency's counterintelligence officer, Peabody (Chiwetel Ejiofor), into her instant foe. Nothing that happens after this deserves any serious scrutiny, but it's fun to watch Jolie's Salt seemingly transforms into the Russian sleeper agent she is reputed to be -- escaping from a virtual lockdown, dodging cars and bullets, making her way to New York and through subway tunnels to confront the Russian president, then take on, seemingly, every Russian and CIA op in her way.
All those "seemingly" qualifiers are meant to indicate that no studio is going to cast Jolie as a villain or even an anti-hero. What do you think this is, the '70s? But there's just enough doubt for the ad copy to read: Who is Salt?
You can't say the movie keeps you guessing about this for long since most attentive viewers will figure out the true villain(s) well before the climax. But the chase is the whole point.
Here Noyce and his team excel. Propelled by James Newton Howard's nerve-teasing music and enhanced by Robert Elswit's clear-eyed, smartly positioned cameras, "Salt" moves ever forward -- pushing, pushing, pushing its heroine to greater feats every minute. It doesn't stop for martinis, either shaken or stirred, or any other detours. The movie is lean and muscular, looking for action even in situations where a little sleight of hand might have done the trick.
You do wish that maybe it did slow down to consider the human factor. Salt is married; let's dig into that. A marriage between an agent and a civilian is never explored. In making the husband a problem that needs solving, here -- not to give anything away -- the movie stumbles badly. At the end of the day, "who is Salt" is less a tagline than a criticism. Eventually, you know what Salt is. But who she is isn't satisfactorily resolved.
In story terms, that is. In Hollywood terms, there's never any doubt: Salt is Angelina Jolie.
Toy Story 3 Review
I’ll be honest. In the past the very mention of Toy Story made my blood freeze. It triggered a ghastly train of associations that went something like this: Toy Story, toy shop, retail outlet, shopping mall, Bluewater, suburban sprawl, ecological tipping point, global apocalypse. The series that, back in 1995, ushered Pixar’s reign as purveyors of some of the smartest, most loved and certainly most profitable films of recent years, seemed to me vastly inferior to the same studio’s Ratatouille or Up, little more than extended plugs for kiddie merchandise.
Toy Story 3, what seems certain to be the final installment in the series, is a different matter altogether. Directed by Lee Unkrich and written by Michael Arndt, it has all the usual ingredients — squeaky toys, happy anticry, high-octane “To infinity and beyond” set-pieces and escapades — but something new too: a heart, a huge beating heart. It’s a film that moves as much as it entertains, that will make adults cry as much as — perhaps even more than — younger children.
What gives it its emotional heft is the sense of expiry and mortality that hangs over it almost from the outset. Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), Jessie (Joan Cusack) and the rest of the motley crew are on the brink of being separated from their owner Andy (John Morris). He’s older now, about to leave for college, and even though he decides to take Woody with him for sentiment’s sake, the game seems to be up: barely managing to escape being carted off on a rubbish truck, they wind up in a day centre for toddlers.
At first the place seems like paradise regained, a happy-slappy utopia. New toys to pal around with! New children with whom they can have funny-fits and giggles! But those children, it turns out, are brats who whack, batter and abuse them as — well, children tend to do. As for the other toys being kindred souls who might protect their backs — that’s a joke. Bossed about by Lots-o’-Huggin (Ned Beatty), a superficially-kindly bear nurses untold bitterness and against the world after being lost — worse: replaced – by his beloved owner, they shackle Buzz and pals in cages each night.
They have to escape. But to where? Their owner no longer wants them. Their future is seemingly lonely and Sisyphean. And if that seems a lofty frame of reference, I can only say that it barely touches the epochal grandeur of a scene in which the toys, faced with what appears to be certain death as they sink inexorably towards an incinerator, whose roaring light is itself redolent of a Dantean inferno, hold each others’ hands in a gesture of collectivity and mutual love.
Waste, trash, leftovers. Toy Story 3, like WALL-E, Ratatouille and even Cars, attempts a juggling act: redefining digital technology in the service of stories that hanker back to an earlier, analogue era. It doesn’t always pull it off: too often the film’s colours recall those of a gaudy confectionery stand or are over-lit like a boring vision of heaven, and sometimes there’s not enough depth of field (the 3D version doesn’t fully remedy this).
Still, by the end, these are minor caveats. The toys make the biggest transition of their lives. And we are reminded, beautifully and rather agonisingly, about how it’s both possible — and sometimes vital — to let go of those whom we most love.
Toy Story 3, what seems certain to be the final installment in the series, is a different matter altogether. Directed by Lee Unkrich and written by Michael Arndt, it has all the usual ingredients — squeaky toys, happy anticry, high-octane “To infinity and beyond” set-pieces and escapades — but something new too: a heart, a huge beating heart. It’s a film that moves as much as it entertains, that will make adults cry as much as — perhaps even more than — younger children.
What gives it its emotional heft is the sense of expiry and mortality that hangs over it almost from the outset. Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), Jessie (Joan Cusack) and the rest of the motley crew are on the brink of being separated from their owner Andy (John Morris). He’s older now, about to leave for college, and even though he decides to take Woody with him for sentiment’s sake, the game seems to be up: barely managing to escape being carted off on a rubbish truck, they wind up in a day centre for toddlers.
At first the place seems like paradise regained, a happy-slappy utopia. New toys to pal around with! New children with whom they can have funny-fits and giggles! But those children, it turns out, are brats who whack, batter and abuse them as — well, children tend to do. As for the other toys being kindred souls who might protect their backs — that’s a joke. Bossed about by Lots-o’-Huggin (Ned Beatty), a superficially-kindly bear nurses untold bitterness and against the world after being lost — worse: replaced – by his beloved owner, they shackle Buzz and pals in cages each night.
They have to escape. But to where? Their owner no longer wants them. Their future is seemingly lonely and Sisyphean. And if that seems a lofty frame of reference, I can only say that it barely touches the epochal grandeur of a scene in which the toys, faced with what appears to be certain death as they sink inexorably towards an incinerator, whose roaring light is itself redolent of a Dantean inferno, hold each others’ hands in a gesture of collectivity and mutual love.
Waste, trash, leftovers. Toy Story 3, like WALL-E, Ratatouille and even Cars, attempts a juggling act: redefining digital technology in the service of stories that hanker back to an earlier, analogue era. It doesn’t always pull it off: too often the film’s colours recall those of a gaudy confectionery stand or are over-lit like a boring vision of heaven, and sometimes there’s not enough depth of field (the 3D version doesn’t fully remedy this).
Still, by the end, these are minor caveats. The toys make the biggest transition of their lives. And we are reminded, beautifully and rather agonisingly, about how it’s both possible — and sometimes vital — to let go of those whom we most love.
Starcraft II: Wings Of Liberty Review
StarCraft II continues the epic saga of the Protoss, Terran, and Zerg. These three distinct and powerful races clash once again in the fast-paced real-time strategy sequel to the legendary original, StarCraft. Legions of veteran, upgraded, and brand-new unit types will do battle across the galaxy, as each faction struggles for survival.
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty's solo campaign will continue the epic saga where it left off in StarCraft: Brood War. The storyline chronicles the exploits of marshal-turned-rebel-leader Jim Raynor and features both familiar faces and new heroes. Players will be able to tailor the experience, choosing their own mission path and selecting technology and research upgrades to suit their playing style throughout the 29-mission campaign.
In addition to the solo campaign, dozens of multiplayer maps are available for competitive play through Battle.net. This improved version of the service has been built from the ground up to offer an unparalleled online play experience, with new features such as voice communication, character profiles and achievements, stat-tracking, ladders and leagues, cloud file storage, and more.
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty's solo campaign will continue the epic saga where it left off in StarCraft: Brood War. The storyline chronicles the exploits of marshal-turned-rebel-leader Jim Raynor and features both familiar faces and new heroes. Players will be able to tailor the experience, choosing their own mission path and selecting technology and research upgrades to suit their playing style throughout the 29-mission campaign.
In addition to the solo campaign, dozens of multiplayer maps are available for competitive play through Battle.net. This improved version of the service has been built from the ground up to offer an unparalleled online play experience, with new features such as voice communication, character profiles and achievements, stat-tracking, ladders and leagues, cloud file storage, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
