House of Cards Season 4
Season 3 really turned me off. The in-fighting was logical character progression, but was still kind of boring, and there weren't really any likable characters. Season 4 changed that.
I like Claire and Frank working together again. I feel like they each regained a little of their humanity this season. The season was also filled with plenty of intrigue and suspense. It was just somehow fun again. If you dropped out because of Season 3, I'd definitely try picking it back up.
Daredevil Season 2
So, for those of you who don't know, Daredevil is the best show on Netflix. Possibly competing with Game of Thrones and Hannibal for the best show on TV in the last couple years; and remember this is coming from a guy who doesn't read (superhero) comic books and generally dislikes most superhero movies/shows.
Season 2 is good, and, in a lot of ways, better than season 1, but you probably won't like it as much, because it's season plot arc is a little less cohesive than season 1, and it does some weird stuff in the second half of the season. The production value has definitely increased (and it already looked pretty good).
Season 2's greatest strength is probably the way they use every principle character (Foggy, Karen, Electra, Punisher, Stick) as a foil of Matt. This show really understands character, and damn do they do a good job developing Matt, Foggy, and Karen.
It handles the Punisher really, really, really well. His character arc is good, but, even better, is the arc the show takes you the audience on with is character, changing your perspective of him.
If you watched Season 1, I don't have to tell you to watch season 2, because you already have. If you haven't checked out Daredevil yet, do so right now. Binge watch it immediately.
Trailer Park Boys Season 10
Weird. Weird season. Just like the last several, it's more of the same, but, if you're a fan of the show, it's still funny and charming, so there's that. As long as they keep making them, I'll keep watching them.
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Zootopia - or Don't be Racist
Zootopia was really cute and pretty darn funny. I loved it's heavy-handed social commentary. It basically holds it's back-hand to the audience and says in a very stern voice, "Don't be racist now. DON'T BE RACIST." Great message. Loved it. Everyone go see it.
Now. Let's talk about the dark side Zootopia doesn't want us to think about. . .
The movie hinges on this world where predators and prey live together in harmony. Okay, cool. But what they explicitly tell us is that all these animals are exclusively mammals. So where are the fish, birds, bugs, reptiles, amphibians, etc? How do you think predators and prey are able to live together, huh? That's right! The movie might not admit it, but I figured it out. The dark secret behind Zootopia is that birds and fish aren't people. It's kind of like that episode of Bojack Horseman.
Anyway, Zootopia is an awesome movie about how racism is bad. Y'all should watch it. Make your kids watch it. Make your racist family members watch it.
Now. Let's talk about the dark side Zootopia doesn't want us to think about. . .
The movie hinges on this world where predators and prey live together in harmony. Okay, cool. But what they explicitly tell us is that all these animals are exclusively mammals. So where are the fish, birds, bugs, reptiles, amphibians, etc? How do you think predators and prey are able to live together, huh? That's right! The movie might not admit it, but I figured it out. The dark secret behind Zootopia is that birds and fish aren't people. It's kind of like that episode of Bojack Horseman.
Anyway, Zootopia is an awesome movie about how racism is bad. Y'all should watch it. Make your kids watch it. Make your racist family members watch it.
Batman V Superman - The Donald Trump of Movies
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice
What the actual f--- did I just watch?
First of all, I did not pay to see this movie, so take heart knowing I did not contribute it any financial support. I would encourage anyone who has not yet seen it to do the same. Don't pay to see terrible movies. The way to speak to Hollywood is with your wallet, but that's a rant for another day. Also, I'm not going to proofread this, because, if I have to think about this movie anymore, I'm going to get angry; so I'm going to go write a review of some good things instead. Like Zootopia.
Two more things to get out of the way before I get into the meat of this review:
1) I come from the school that Batman (and, for me personally, almost all super heroes) should never kill. What makes Batman Batman is his moral code and how absolutely stubbornly he sticks to it. So that bothered me in BvS:DoJ, but I won't spend time on that moral debate, and I won't use it as an argument against the movie. I know that there are plenty of people who do not share that sentiment, and I respect their right to think that way (even if believe them to be inherently wrong). I also, by no means, claim to be even remotely an authority on super heroes or comic books, so I will not get into philosophical debates about these characters.
2) I hate Zack Snyder movies. Every one of them. For insight as to why I think they are terrible, refer to any CinemaSins review of one of his movies. But, just like item number 1, I will not use my predisposed biased against Snyder as a primary argument against this movie. This movie needs no help to explain why it's bad.
My primary complaints:
1) Context (or lack thereof)
2) Cohesion
3) Pacing
Thirty minutes into BvS, I was bored and confused as I had no idea what was going on. Batman's parents died?! Spoiler alert! Lois Lane is doing some stuff. Clark/Superman is also doing stuff. Lawrence Fisburne is also doing stuff. Oh, and Batman and Alfred are doing some excellent acting while also doing some stuff. The point is, movie, you haven't given me any clear indication of a plot yet, you haven't had any action sequences. Maybe it will get better?
Fifty-five minutes in: MOIVE, what is going on? After an hour you've still given me no discernible plot or character development. Oh, I'm sorry, how could I expect your characters to develop when you still haven't given me any context for them to begin with. What's that you say? Every character has very clear motivations and I should know that because other characters tell me so? F--- you, movie! I'm still bored and confused.
Two hours and twenty-two God-damned minutes in: . . . Go f--- yourself, movie.
Let me be a more clear. For such a long run time, BvS spends very little time on any little thing. It suffers from a problem I fear too many films suffer from (particularly Marvel movies and The Force Awakes), a problem I call ADD syndrome. It's as if filmmakers worry that audiences will get bored and go home if a movie has any breathing room. Breathing room and boring are not the same thing. Breathing room consists of scenes that give us some context for what we saw. They let us gather our thoughts and think about what's happening, let us reflect on the characters and the emotional stakes of the film. Such scenes actually make a film less boring because their added context draws us in, makes us emotionally invested in the characters and raises the stakes of the movie. But BvS gives us no context. Characters announce how they feel or why they or others are doing thing, but we are never shown these things. In fact we're not shown plot. We have to take the screenwriters' word that a plot is happening.
Case in point: Lex Luthor. Clearly he's orchestrating the whole Batman vs Superman conflict. Okay. How? Why? Batman and Lois kind of follow some breadcrumbs, but the breadcrumbs only take us as far as "Oh, I think Lex Luthor is behind all this!" How does Lex know the things he knows? Why is he behaving the way he is with his distaste for Superman? The only context we have is "because he's Lex Luthor, that's why." The same is true about literally every other character in the film.
Other people have said the one redeeming thing about this movie is the casting of Afflec and Irons, that they are so amazing as Bruce/Battman and Alfred respectively. I say, probably? I don't know. There wasn't enough of them for me to judge.
I have a problem with how consistently short every single scene is. I felt it created a lack of context and a lack of tension, which made the film incredibly boring. Okay, maybe that's just a Brad thing. Is that truly the problem with the movie's pacing? Well, you have a 2.5 hour runtime, but you're still not able to spend any significant amount of time developing any of your characters or your plot. The movie jumps from scene to scene to scene with little context or cohesion (probably much like this stream-of-consciousness review). In fact, there's little cohesion within scenes:
Case in point: The final action sequence. I'll admit, when Wonder Woman showed up (albeit out of nowhere), she was kind of a bad-ass (and that's the nicest thing I'll say about this movie). And in each shot, I could kind of see what was going on and tell "Oh, Wonder Woman is slashing Doomsaday with her sword. Got it." But from one shot to another, I was very confused about the screen direction and context and what was going on. It's Wonder Woman is slashing with her sword; then Batman grapples away from a random eye-blast; then Superman is dicking around with Lois in some stupid situation (Which situation is that, Brad? Doesn't matter, every situation Lois gets written into in this movie is pointless and stupid and a terrible waste of the amazingly talented Amy Adams). And now Wonder Woman has Doomsday in her lasso? I feel like her wielding that thing should have been a bigger moment.
And the car chase in the middle of the film with the Batmobile. I had no idea what was going on. That was so poorly shot and edited.
This movie made so little sense that other good movies are now bad simply by being movies and this thing also exists and is a movie. The Godfather and Casablanca have lost credibility, because both they and Batman V Superman are movies. For heaven's sake, Avengers: Age of Ultron was a more coherent, entertaining movie (and I thought that movie was shite).
I'm so. . . I can't. . . I read reviews before hand. I knew it was going to be bad. But I still couldn't believe what I was watching. It was so bad that I can not physically compile my thoughts on it together into a coherent review. If you watch this movie, you will be turned into a white girl, because, when you walk away from it, you just can't even. I'm kind of ashamed to work in the entertainment industry.
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is the Donald Trump of movies.
What the actual f--- did I just watch?
First of all, I did not pay to see this movie, so take heart knowing I did not contribute it any financial support. I would encourage anyone who has not yet seen it to do the same. Don't pay to see terrible movies. The way to speak to Hollywood is with your wallet, but that's a rant for another day. Also, I'm not going to proofread this, because, if I have to think about this movie anymore, I'm going to get angry; so I'm going to go write a review of some good things instead. Like Zootopia.
Two more things to get out of the way before I get into the meat of this review:
1) I come from the school that Batman (and, for me personally, almost all super heroes) should never kill. What makes Batman Batman is his moral code and how absolutely stubbornly he sticks to it. So that bothered me in BvS:DoJ, but I won't spend time on that moral debate, and I won't use it as an argument against the movie. I know that there are plenty of people who do not share that sentiment, and I respect their right to think that way (even if believe them to be inherently wrong). I also, by no means, claim to be even remotely an authority on super heroes or comic books, so I will not get into philosophical debates about these characters.
2) I hate Zack Snyder movies. Every one of them. For insight as to why I think they are terrible, refer to any CinemaSins review of one of his movies. But, just like item number 1, I will not use my predisposed biased against Snyder as a primary argument against this movie. This movie needs no help to explain why it's bad.
My primary complaints:
1) Context (or lack thereof)
2) Cohesion
3) Pacing
Thirty minutes into BvS, I was bored and confused as I had no idea what was going on. Batman's parents died?! Spoiler alert! Lois Lane is doing some stuff. Clark/Superman is also doing stuff. Lawrence Fisburne is also doing stuff. Oh, and Batman and Alfred are doing some excellent acting while also doing some stuff. The point is, movie, you haven't given me any clear indication of a plot yet, you haven't had any action sequences. Maybe it will get better?
Fifty-five minutes in: MOIVE, what is going on? After an hour you've still given me no discernible plot or character development. Oh, I'm sorry, how could I expect your characters to develop when you still haven't given me any context for them to begin with. What's that you say? Every character has very clear motivations and I should know that because other characters tell me so? F--- you, movie! I'm still bored and confused.
Two hours and twenty-two God-damned minutes in: . . . Go f--- yourself, movie.
Let me be a more clear. For such a long run time, BvS spends very little time on any little thing. It suffers from a problem I fear too many films suffer from (particularly Marvel movies and The Force Awakes), a problem I call ADD syndrome. It's as if filmmakers worry that audiences will get bored and go home if a movie has any breathing room. Breathing room and boring are not the same thing. Breathing room consists of scenes that give us some context for what we saw. They let us gather our thoughts and think about what's happening, let us reflect on the characters and the emotional stakes of the film. Such scenes actually make a film less boring because their added context draws us in, makes us emotionally invested in the characters and raises the stakes of the movie. But BvS gives us no context. Characters announce how they feel or why they or others are doing thing, but we are never shown these things. In fact we're not shown plot. We have to take the screenwriters' word that a plot is happening.
Case in point: Lex Luthor. Clearly he's orchestrating the whole Batman vs Superman conflict. Okay. How? Why? Batman and Lois kind of follow some breadcrumbs, but the breadcrumbs only take us as far as "Oh, I think Lex Luthor is behind all this!" How does Lex know the things he knows? Why is he behaving the way he is with his distaste for Superman? The only context we have is "because he's Lex Luthor, that's why." The same is true about literally every other character in the film.
Other people have said the one redeeming thing about this movie is the casting of Afflec and Irons, that they are so amazing as Bruce/Battman and Alfred respectively. I say, probably? I don't know. There wasn't enough of them for me to judge.
I have a problem with how consistently short every single scene is. I felt it created a lack of context and a lack of tension, which made the film incredibly boring. Okay, maybe that's just a Brad thing. Is that truly the problem with the movie's pacing? Well, you have a 2.5 hour runtime, but you're still not able to spend any significant amount of time developing any of your characters or your plot. The movie jumps from scene to scene to scene with little context or cohesion (probably much like this stream-of-consciousness review). In fact, there's little cohesion within scenes:
Case in point: The final action sequence. I'll admit, when Wonder Woman showed up (albeit out of nowhere), she was kind of a bad-ass (and that's the nicest thing I'll say about this movie). And in each shot, I could kind of see what was going on and tell "Oh, Wonder Woman is slashing Doomsaday with her sword. Got it." But from one shot to another, I was very confused about the screen direction and context and what was going on. It's Wonder Woman is slashing with her sword; then Batman grapples away from a random eye-blast; then Superman is dicking around with Lois in some stupid situation (Which situation is that, Brad? Doesn't matter, every situation Lois gets written into in this movie is pointless and stupid and a terrible waste of the amazingly talented Amy Adams). And now Wonder Woman has Doomsday in her lasso? I feel like her wielding that thing should have been a bigger moment.
And the car chase in the middle of the film with the Batmobile. I had no idea what was going on. That was so poorly shot and edited.
This movie made so little sense that other good movies are now bad simply by being movies and this thing also exists and is a movie. The Godfather and Casablanca have lost credibility, because both they and Batman V Superman are movies. For heaven's sake, Avengers: Age of Ultron was a more coherent, entertaining movie (and I thought that movie was shite).
I'm so. . . I can't. . . I read reviews before hand. I knew it was going to be bad. But I still couldn't believe what I was watching. It was so bad that I can not physically compile my thoughts on it together into a coherent review. If you watch this movie, you will be turned into a white girl, because, when you walk away from it, you just can't even. I'm kind of ashamed to work in the entertainment industry.
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is the Donald Trump of movies.
Saturday, March 12, 2016
10 Reasons "10 Cloverfield Lane" Is a Must-See
Can we talk about how awesome this movie was? Can we do it without spoilers?
1) John Goodman's performance is SO GOOD! His lends his character an amazing amount of complexity and subtlety that keeps you guessing his intensions and good/bad/innocent/scary alignment all the way through to the end.
2) If you saw the trailer, you've only seen clips from the first 20-30 minutes. After that, everything is a surprise, and it is absolutely glorious how little the trailer gives away. All the trailer did was show you the three characters and the setting. That's it.
3) The plot kept me guessing. Part of that was the awesome, nuanced performances from the actors, but a lot of it was from the clever writing and edge-of-your-seat suspense directing. Just when you think you've got some plot or character motivations figured out, BAM! The script throws a completely justified and curveball at you.
4) Set up and payoff. A lot of those curveballs work because the movie shows you all the major elements throughout the film and then utilizes them later. Set up and payoff.
5) The main character is a woman in a survival/horror situation, and she's actually smart and makes a lot of smart decisions. She actually asks a lot of the right questions and actively tries to get herself out of bad situations. She's a strong, independent woman who don't need no man.
6) And sometimes she fails! She tries something and kind of succeeds only to have her plan foiled. And her plan doesn't fail because antagonists are actually screenwriters. She fails because some of her schemes are short-sighted; good ideas in the moment but ones that just didn't pan out.
7) The whole movie has this kind of give and take. Tensions, relief, tension. Scary, intense, funny, rest. The audience reactions were really interesting to watch. After particularly intense sequences, the audience seemed to let out a collective sigh of relief. You could tell we were all engrossed in the story; we cared about these characters and were all trying to figure out what was going to happen next. And at one of the curves, the man a couple rows in front of me actually jumped out of his seat (like into a standing position) and shouted "OH DAMN!" And none of us was angry or bothered by this, because we were all thinking it. It was an astounding collective viewing experience. When the credits rolled, you could tell everyone walked away impressed.
8) Scale: It's three people in a bunker. There are things happening outside that make for a certain level of suspense and intrigue, but, for the most part, it's a very intimate, character-driven film. It's very contained (literally). You don't need to see Cloverfield to understand or appreciate anything going on in this film. It stands alone in the best way possible. . .
9) And yet, it leaves itself open for a sequel I would actually kind of like to see! I don't know if it would happen, but I would love to see a follow-up where [a certain character] has grown into this kick-ass Mad Max kind of hero, traveling the wastes, fighting monsters and baddies. I genuinely cared about the characters by the end and was kind of cheering for them (which I don't often get drawn in enough to do).
10) I love how much [this character] grows as a person by the end of the film. You're on this rollercoaster, and, just when you think it's over, it goes off the rails in the best way possible. It somehow manages to both be extremely satisfying and leave you wanting more.
Action, plot, characters, mystery, intrigue, excitement, humor, suspense: 10 Cloverfield Lane has it all.
1) John Goodman's performance is SO GOOD! His lends his character an amazing amount of complexity and subtlety that keeps you guessing his intensions and good/bad/innocent/scary alignment all the way through to the end.
2) If you saw the trailer, you've only seen clips from the first 20-30 minutes. After that, everything is a surprise, and it is absolutely glorious how little the trailer gives away. All the trailer did was show you the three characters and the setting. That's it.
3) The plot kept me guessing. Part of that was the awesome, nuanced performances from the actors, but a lot of it was from the clever writing and edge-of-your-seat suspense directing. Just when you think you've got some plot or character motivations figured out, BAM! The script throws a completely justified and curveball at you.
4) Set up and payoff. A lot of those curveballs work because the movie shows you all the major elements throughout the film and then utilizes them later. Set up and payoff.
5) The main character is a woman in a survival/horror situation, and she's actually smart and makes a lot of smart decisions. She actually asks a lot of the right questions and actively tries to get herself out of bad situations. She's a strong, independent woman who don't need no man.
6) And sometimes she fails! She tries something and kind of succeeds only to have her plan foiled. And her plan doesn't fail because antagonists are actually screenwriters. She fails because some of her schemes are short-sighted; good ideas in the moment but ones that just didn't pan out.
7) The whole movie has this kind of give and take. Tensions, relief, tension. Scary, intense, funny, rest. The audience reactions were really interesting to watch. After particularly intense sequences, the audience seemed to let out a collective sigh of relief. You could tell we were all engrossed in the story; we cared about these characters and were all trying to figure out what was going to happen next. And at one of the curves, the man a couple rows in front of me actually jumped out of his seat (like into a standing position) and shouted "OH DAMN!" And none of us was angry or bothered by this, because we were all thinking it. It was an astounding collective viewing experience. When the credits rolled, you could tell everyone walked away impressed.
8) Scale: It's three people in a bunker. There are things happening outside that make for a certain level of suspense and intrigue, but, for the most part, it's a very intimate, character-driven film. It's very contained (literally). You don't need to see Cloverfield to understand or appreciate anything going on in this film. It stands alone in the best way possible. . .
9) And yet, it leaves itself open for a sequel I would actually kind of like to see! I don't know if it would happen, but I would love to see a follow-up where [a certain character] has grown into this kick-ass Mad Max kind of hero, traveling the wastes, fighting monsters and baddies. I genuinely cared about the characters by the end and was kind of cheering for them (which I don't often get drawn in enough to do).
10) I love how much [this character] grows as a person by the end of the film. You're on this rollercoaster, and, just when you think it's over, it goes off the rails in the best way possible. It somehow manages to both be extremely satisfying and leave you wanting more.
Action, plot, characters, mystery, intrigue, excitement, humor, suspense: 10 Cloverfield Lane has it all.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
2015 Year in Review for VIDEO GAMES!!!!!
After writing my year in review for movies, I realized I've never reviewed any video games in my blog. I'm not called "The Highlander Movie Reviews," so video games (ooh, and I'm just realizing TV) are things I should be including in my posts. That said, here are highlights of what I played in 2015 (though some are not 2015 releases):
Mass Effect 3: Skyrim Edition
-er, ahem, I mean-
Dragon Age Inquisition
I love long, open-world, RPGs. Inquisition is certainly the most open-world of the Dragon Age games. I didn't care for the leveling system, but I haven't cared for any of the leveling systems in the series, probably because I don't particularly care for the combat. Despite my love undying love for Knights of the Old Republic, the "realtime turn-based(?") combat is rather off-putting for me in the Dragon Age franchise. I get none of the satisfaction of realtime combat and none of whatever I feel when I do turn-based combat in games like Pokémon or XCOM. But perhaps that's because I never feel like I'm accomplishing anything in combat. The enemies all scale with the player in such a way where I rarely, if ever, get a one-hit kill with my archer, despite her doing the most damage per hit of any party member. In fact, combat is mostly tedious and boring, especially if you're fighting a dragon. It all just a bunch of particle generators buzzing around while you watch numbers fly everywhere on the screen.
I liked the open world aspect. It was cool exploring such large environments, and there were some fun hidden Easter eggs in proper Bioware fashion. However, if I'm going to pour days or even weeks (months) into exploring every corner of the globe, completing every side quest, and collecting every collectable, I'd like it to mean a damn. The story was decent, but I felt like nothing I did affected any of the story's outcome. So, despite being a massive open world, I felt incredibly railroaded. I even completed all the operations where you send your NPC helpers out to do missions for you; I completed everyone of them, hoping (fool that I am) that it would somehow benefit me when I went to fight the final boss. I thought, Surely it's not like Mass Effect 3. Surely my actions mean something and will prevent soldiers from dying in the final assault or side characters will survive, or the final boss will be weaker. Ah, but no. And here's where things get even more disappointing.
The final boss fight, the thing we've built up to this whole game, the thing you spent weeks or months preparing for, is exactly that. Just a boss fight. There is no final assault on Corypheus' stronghold. No series of gates to get through, no puzzles to figure out, no waves of enemies. In fact, you don't have to go anywhere; when you trigger the end game, Corypheus literally comes to you. You and your current party fight him, and that's it. It's incredibly easy to; far easier than any of the dragons. I beat him on my second try; might have done it on my first try, but he used a knock-back attack that hit me so hard I was thrown all the way back to the Xbox home screen, because it crashed my game.
Adding to the pile of things that made me feel like I didn't mean anything was the dialogue wheel. Maybe it's my own fault for making my character have arched eyebrows so her face was in a humorously constant state of surprise, maybe it was the voice acting, but I really missed the "sarcastic" options from Dragon Age II. But, then again, even if you "import" a Dragon Age II game into your profile when playing Inquisition, the game still pretends Hawke is this bearded man who made all the decisions you didn't in DA2, so maybe Bioware wants to pretend none of DA2 ever happened.
It was really a strange experience, because, throughout the game, I found myself saying, "This is awesome. I'm really enjoying this," but, when it was all over, I walked away with a sense of disappointment and that I might have wasted my time. But I do have some good memories, right? Am I still talking about Dragon Age or my past relationships now?
In the end, like all the other entries in the franchise Dragon Age Inquisition is fun, but ultimately I feel I could have a better time just replaying some Mass Effect.
Halo 5 Guardians
Now, for all its faults and the disappointment I felt with Dragon Age Inquisition, at least it was long, fun, and I felt like I got my $60 worth. Then there's Halo 5 Guardians. Long story short, Halo 5 follows the Halo 2 game design approach of putting a lot of effort into creating a fun (I assume) multi-player experience and half-asssing the campaign mode saying, "Er. . . We'll finish it in the next one." Now, I'd be fine with this, if they only charged me half the price. Especially since a lot of what would be the most fun moments of gameplay are reserved for the characters to do outside of your control during cutscenes.
One sentence review: I suppose it's still a little better than Halo: Reach.
Is it fun? Kind of? Sometimes? I guess?
Would I play it again? Eh, probably. In co-op? If friends do.
Is it worth $60? NO!
Fallout 4
If I had to give a Game of the Year award, it would probably go to Fallout 4. However, it should be noted I don't play a ton of "new" games each year, so those accolades carry little meaning coming from me. However, I really like Fallout 4. However, I also like just about any Bethesda title, so grains of salt, people.
Screw people who complained about it's graphics, I think it's pretty. The first few hours (let's be honest, days) spent wandering the wasteland, discovering new places and people, and tinkering with your guns and settlements is incredibly fun in that sense of exploration and discovery sort of way. However, as I got further into the plot and discovered more and more places on the map, I began to get the sinking feeling that the game is actually really lacking in a Bethesda staple: side quests! Oh there are a bunch (but all those infinitely looping defend settlement, acquire artifact, etc faction quests don't count). My favorite moment in the game came from a side quest. I just don't feel like the wastes were filled with as many weird stories and side missions as they were in Fallout 3 or New Vegas. Maybe the DLC will help; of course I bought the season pass already, because Bethesda DLC is always awesome (except Horse Armor).
Disclaimer though: I still haven't finished. I'm a completionist gamer, so I've been putting off any quests that feel like the could lead to end game or result in me pissing off a faction. I'm especially paranoid after Fallout New Vegas turned out not to be infinite. But now, I'm in a rut where I've run out of real side quests. So hopefully today I'll force myself to do the dreaded main quest.
Is it fun? YES, definitely!
Would I play it again? Probably. I usually at least start a 2nd play-through on Bethesda games.
Is it worth $60? YES!
Mass Effect 3: Skyrim Edition
-er, ahem, I mean-
Dragon Age Inquisition
I love long, open-world, RPGs. Inquisition is certainly the most open-world of the Dragon Age games. I didn't care for the leveling system, but I haven't cared for any of the leveling systems in the series, probably because I don't particularly care for the combat. Despite my love undying love for Knights of the Old Republic, the "realtime turn-based(?") combat is rather off-putting for me in the Dragon Age franchise. I get none of the satisfaction of realtime combat and none of whatever I feel when I do turn-based combat in games like Pokémon or XCOM. But perhaps that's because I never feel like I'm accomplishing anything in combat. The enemies all scale with the player in such a way where I rarely, if ever, get a one-hit kill with my archer, despite her doing the most damage per hit of any party member. In fact, combat is mostly tedious and boring, especially if you're fighting a dragon. It all just a bunch of particle generators buzzing around while you watch numbers fly everywhere on the screen.
I liked the open world aspect. It was cool exploring such large environments, and there were some fun hidden Easter eggs in proper Bioware fashion. However, if I'm going to pour days or even weeks (months) into exploring every corner of the globe, completing every side quest, and collecting every collectable, I'd like it to mean a damn. The story was decent, but I felt like nothing I did affected any of the story's outcome. So, despite being a massive open world, I felt incredibly railroaded. I even completed all the operations where you send your NPC helpers out to do missions for you; I completed everyone of them, hoping (fool that I am) that it would somehow benefit me when I went to fight the final boss. I thought, Surely it's not like Mass Effect 3. Surely my actions mean something and will prevent soldiers from dying in the final assault or side characters will survive, or the final boss will be weaker. Ah, but no. And here's where things get even more disappointing.
The final boss fight, the thing we've built up to this whole game, the thing you spent weeks or months preparing for, is exactly that. Just a boss fight. There is no final assault on Corypheus' stronghold. No series of gates to get through, no puzzles to figure out, no waves of enemies. In fact, you don't have to go anywhere; when you trigger the end game, Corypheus literally comes to you. You and your current party fight him, and that's it. It's incredibly easy to; far easier than any of the dragons. I beat him on my second try; might have done it on my first try, but he used a knock-back attack that hit me so hard I was thrown all the way back to the Xbox home screen, because it crashed my game.
Adding to the pile of things that made me feel like I didn't mean anything was the dialogue wheel. Maybe it's my own fault for making my character have arched eyebrows so her face was in a humorously constant state of surprise, maybe it was the voice acting, but I really missed the "sarcastic" options from Dragon Age II. But, then again, even if you "import" a Dragon Age II game into your profile when playing Inquisition, the game still pretends Hawke is this bearded man who made all the decisions you didn't in DA2, so maybe Bioware wants to pretend none of DA2 ever happened.
It was really a strange experience, because, throughout the game, I found myself saying, "This is awesome. I'm really enjoying this," but, when it was all over, I walked away with a sense of disappointment and that I might have wasted my time. But I do have some good memories, right? Am I still talking about Dragon Age or my past relationships now?
In the end, like all the other entries in the franchise Dragon Age Inquisition is fun, but ultimately I feel I could have a better time just replaying some Mass Effect.
- Is it fun? Yes
- Would I play it again? Probably not
- Is it worth $60? Yes
Halo 5 Guardians
Now, for all its faults and the disappointment I felt with Dragon Age Inquisition, at least it was long, fun, and I felt like I got my $60 worth. Then there's Halo 5 Guardians. Long story short, Halo 5 follows the Halo 2 game design approach of putting a lot of effort into creating a fun (I assume) multi-player experience and half-asssing the campaign mode saying, "Er. . . We'll finish it in the next one." Now, I'd be fine with this, if they only charged me half the price. Especially since a lot of what would be the most fun moments of gameplay are reserved for the characters to do outside of your control during cutscenes.
One sentence review: I suppose it's still a little better than Halo: Reach.
Fallout 4
If I had to give a Game of the Year award, it would probably go to Fallout 4. However, it should be noted I don't play a ton of "new" games each year, so those accolades carry little meaning coming from me. However, I really like Fallout 4. However, I also like just about any Bethesda title, so grains of salt, people.
Screw people who complained about it's graphics, I think it's pretty. The first few hours (let's be honest, days) spent wandering the wasteland, discovering new places and people, and tinkering with your guns and settlements is incredibly fun in that sense of exploration and discovery sort of way. However, as I got further into the plot and discovered more and more places on the map, I began to get the sinking feeling that the game is actually really lacking in a Bethesda staple: side quests! Oh there are a bunch (but all those infinitely looping defend settlement, acquire artifact, etc faction quests don't count). My favorite moment in the game came from a side quest. I just don't feel like the wastes were filled with as many weird stories and side missions as they were in Fallout 3 or New Vegas. Maybe the DLC will help; of course I bought the season pass already, because Bethesda DLC is always awesome (except Horse Armor).
Disclaimer though: I still haven't finished. I'm a completionist gamer, so I've been putting off any quests that feel like the could lead to end game or result in me pissing off a faction. I'm especially paranoid after Fallout New Vegas turned out not to be infinite. But now, I'm in a rut where I've run out of real side quests. So hopefully today I'll force myself to do the dreaded main quest.
Monday, January 25, 2016
2015 Year in Review
I'm still catching up on a lot of the Oscar noms this year. For instance, I still have to see The Hateful 8 and The Martian. But here are my thoughts on the movies of 2015:
Overview
What a competitive Oscar season! And so many Sci-fi/special effects/action-heavy movies competing for the same awards against the traditional "Oscar bait" pictures. I love that Mad Max Fury Road, The Revenant, and Star Wars The Force Awakens are all competing for a lot if the same categories. And they're actually competitive! Who's going to win Editing, Cinematography, Production Design, Sound? They're all anyone's game. Even Best Picture and Director could easily go to Mad Max, The Revenant, or The Big Short, and I would not be angry about any of them winning.
Another thing I find amazing about this year is that we have three films that are so unanimously reviewed. Everybody I talk to in real life and every review I read or hear gives the same likes and dislikes for Mad Max, The Revenant, and The Force Awakens. I've never seen films so universally enjoyed by critics and audiences. That's not to say these films are without problems, but, rather, everyone recognizes the problems and likes the films anyway for what they did well.
So, that said, let's make some lists, because the internet loves lists.
Top 5 Personal Favorites of 2015
1) Mad Max Fury Road
2) Jurassic World (don't hate!)
3) Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
4) Bridge of Spies
5) The Peanuts Movie
Top 5 Disappointments of 2015
1) Spectre
2) Inside Out
3) Avengers: Age of Ultron
4) Black Mass
5) Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
Top 5 I Missed and Want to See
1) Ex Machina
2) The Martian
3) The Hateful 8
4) Ant Man
5) The Heart of the Sea (I think? Based on what my dad said about it?)
Top 5 I'm Looking Forward to in 2016
1) Rogue One
2) Captain America: Civil War
3) 10 Cloverfield Lane
4) The Jungle Book
5) Star Trek Beyond
Honorable Mention: Swing State (because it's the feature is just finished working on)
Thank you for reading, and here's to 2016.
The Big Short Revenant
I've wrapped the feature film that took up all of my January, and I finally have time to see movies and write about them again.
I saw The Big Short last night and The Revenant the week before and noticed a few interesting similarities between the two, so I've decided to combine my reviews. I'll also likely mention Mad Max: Fury Road and Star Wars: The Force Awakens quite a bit in this post as all four of these movies are competing for a lot if the same categories at the Oscars this year.
The Revenant
What a gorgeous film. The camera work in the opening battle and subsequent battles/fight scenes is mind-blowing. The steadicam follows a character; he gets shot with an arrow and dies; a new character runs past the action and we pick him up, moving with his frantic escape attempt, and an arrow hits him and he dies; and the camera keeps moving, showing us more and more action in a single, amazing take.
And there are so many 360 degree shots that almost brag about the filmmakers' use of all-natural light.
And the landscapes! It's no wonder Revenant is up for Best Production Design. Though, much like Mad Max, the "production design" is mostly just good use of beautiful locations.
Story-wise, I think Revenant is actually rather plain. It's a simple revenge story mixed with some woodland survival, all of which we've seen before. Now, the film's technical prowess more than makes up for it's straight-forward story and character arcs. The directing and camera work keep you on the edge of you seat. While the long-story is predictable, individual moments are full of suspense, and I actually gasped at one surprise that involved a horse (if you've seen it, you'll know).
Speaking of characters, I thought Tom Hardy gave a stellar performance, even though I couldn't quite understand all of his dialogue. His squirrel monologue was quite entertaining and engaging, and such a good character study moment.
Leo, however. I like Leo. I think he deserves an Oscar. But not for this film. Here's why: Does he give a great performance? Yes, absolutely. Can you tell how much passion and dedication he poured into the role? Yes. And I give him kudos for each. However, I don't think he gave a performance that demanded his talents. That is to say, I think just about any solid actor could have been put into that role, given a good performance, and the movie wouldn't have been any worse. To me, there was nothing particularly special about Leo's performance that made that rather cliché, under-written character come to life.
I haven't seen a lot of the other Oscar nominated performances this year, so I can't say if any of them deserve it more than Leo does; but I want Leo to win his statue for a truly spectacular role, and I don't think it's this one.
Now, on to...
The Big Short
Who'd have thought the director of my favorite Will Farrell movie (yes, Talladega Nights) would be nominated for an Academy Award? Let's give Adam McKay some major kudos, because The Big Short is one of the most unique movies I've seen in a long time. It has a voice that is all its own, and damn do I respect that.
Good performances all around. And the writing! They way it boils down the Wall Street lingo and process to be understood by financial idiots (like me) is absolutely brilliant. Engaging from beginning to end.
Now, here's where I start to talk about a lot of movies. Big Short, Mad Max, Revenant, and Star Wars are all up for Best editing this year. And I have no idea who deserves it. Probably Mad Max, and I say that for three reasons. 1) Mad Max's editing is about as perfect as editing can be. They maintain continuity and screen space during insane action sequences, and you the viewer always know what's happening. 2) I had some nitpicky problems with The Revenant and The Big Short's editing. Both movies spend a little too much time on their transitions. Yes, Revenant, you can have too many pretty shots of clouds and too much pretentious dead wife dream sequence. 3) And, while Force Awakens does have very solid editing, it's doesn't stand out nearly like the other three films I've mentioned. Now, you could say that that's its virtue: good editing is editing you never notice, so maybe this category really is anyone's game.
I'll have more Oscar talk in my next post, my 2015 year in review.
Long story short...
Go see The Revenant, because it's very pretty.
Go see The Big Short, so you can understand how evil and stupid big business is. Rise up, Comrades!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)