Film Review: The Road (2009)

"We have to just...keep carrying the fire."

"What fire?"

"The fire inside you." - Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee

When the end of the world comes, it won't be a pretty or happy affair.  Most films generally harp on the violence and brutality of the apocalypse, but The Road should stand as one of the most delicate and disquieting apocalypse films to date.  There isn't much action to this; it's all about a man struggling to protect his son, while they trek across an ash-laden wasteland.  There are occasional moments of suspense and thrills, following a few bad run-ins with cannibalistic gangs, but most of the film is about the journey and the everyday hardships.

This film is a faithful adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's influential novel; the plot and characters are generally spot-on, but the film definitely excels with the novel's tone, for it is appropriately dark, grim, emotional, and delicate.  I felt the book was a grade more disquieting, especially with the chemistry between the characters (something that's probably better achieved in writing than in film).  The overall portrayal of the apocalypse is a uniquely depressing vision, showing a world completely drenched in ashes and grayness.  The plot can be rather random, as it goes from one random encounter to another, and with occasional flashbacks thrown in.  Conflict is never consistent, making some scenes more gripping or interesting than others.  Characters are full of life and easy to relate to.

This film uses good and steady photography, and decent editing.  Much of the film is captured with a drab, gray color scheme, making it appropriately dark and murky.  Acting is not bad:  Viggo Mortensen does his best to give his character heart and soul.  Writing is good.  All the film's sets, props, costumes, and special effects are good without being overblown.  Music is really elegant too.

Even though this film isn't as exciting as most other films of the genre, it is easily the most earnest and heartfelt of the post-apocalypse genre.  It is a decent adaptation of a decent novel.

Recommended.

4/5 (Entertainment:  Pretty Good | Story:  Very Good | Film:  Good)

Film Review: I Am Legend

"We are his legacy.  This is his legend.  Light up the darkness." - Alice Braga

I Am Legend is the third adaptation of Richard Matheson's novel of the same name, although this is the first film with that actual title.  The first adaptation was The Last Man on Earth, starring Vincent Price; a classic for many, but I found it rather dull.  I was always fond of The Omega Man, featuring a very cool and macho Charlton Heston, but that film has not aged well.  I've never read the book, but glancing over its synopsis, none of these adaptations appear to be fully accurate.

On its own merits, the I Am Legend film is a visually smooth and lush film; some of the most memorable imagery show New York City in ruins, overgrown with tall grass and vines, overrun with animals.  The film follows the main character as he cruises through the city, hunts deer, scavenges, plays golf off the wing of an abandoned airplane, and continues to find a cure for the pandemic.  Even though a lot of these scenes are fun (in the same respect as it was fun watching Charlton Heston roaming around in The Omega Man), this film does throw the main character into dangerous run-ins with hoards of fast and insane zombies.  There are a few gripping scenes throughout, leading up to an action-packed finale.

The story for I Am Legend is generally sound, and it tries its best to be elegant about things.  The plot structure is not particularly strong; outside of the occasional zombie scare and battle, conflict is kept to a minimum.  What really matters is the narrative structure, which is a little unique for its use of flashbacks.  Characters are delicately handled; it's hard not to feel for a man who's been alone for so long that he talks to mannequins and treats his dog like an actual person.  However, the pathos suffers a little when the character acts out unreasonably (especially toward the only other human characters he eventually meets).  There are moments where the film aspires to be more than it is:  the film attempts to use butterfly motifs, Bob Marley references, and profound dialogue to dig up deeper themes regarding legacy.  I'm personally not so sure if such themes really work, but they are nice touches.  The film overall carries a delicate and emotional tone, which does succeed in making it invoking.

This film looks really slick; photography can get a little hectic with the action scenes, but is smooth and solid in every other scene.  Editing is really interesting, given the way flashbacks are cut into the narrative so abruptly.  Will Smith offers a solid and emotional performance.  Writing is generally not bad.  This production uses some very imaginative and good-looking sets, props, and costumes.  Special effects were cool for their time, but show their age slightly (the computer-generated zombies are especially notorious, for they are not all that scary).  The music score is nice.

Of the three films made from the same novel, I believe this is the most respectable one to date, even if it isn't totally true to the source.  At the very least, it does make for a decent post-apocalyptic drama, and fans of the genre should check this film out.

Recommended.

4/5 (Entertainment:  Good | Story:  Pretty Good | Film:  Good)

Video Game Review: The Last of Us

"We're sh**ty people, Joel it's been that way for a long time."

"No, we are survivors." - Annie Wersching and Troy Baker

Of all the stories conceived for the potential outbreak of a zombie-pocalypse, I don't think any can be any more hard-hitting than this video game.  The game starts off with a strong punch, showing the initial outbreak of infected, and the main character's struggle to protect his daughter through the onslaught.  He fails.  Fast-forward twenty-something years later, and the struggle for survival continues in a radically different world.  Your goal is simple:  escort a girl to a group of rebels outside of the quarantined city.  The journey, however, is long and intense, as you're made to traverse across ruined cities (which bear an uncanny semblance to the cityscapes in I Am Legend), outrun hoards of the infected, confront overzealous military patrols, and fight against brutal bandits.  At the core of it all, however, this game is also an emotional experience unlike any other.  The main character's quest not so much about fighting zombies and bad guys, as it is fighting against the past, reconciling bitter feelings, and learning to move on.

First and foremost, the game is focused largely on stealth combat.  Just about every area is designed as a maze of obstacles, so you can take cover and systematically take out your opponents.  Different bad guys respond to different stimuli, making each area a different challenge.  Of course, you can also forgo the stealth and run around with all guns blazing (a much harder alternative, since ammunition is very limited in the game).  In between the major combat scenes, the game also has you solve some geographical puzzles, as you figure out ways to traverse across the ruined cities.  The overall gameplay, look, style, and interface is similar to the latest Tomb Raider game; both games give you some room to explore and run around freely, but they are also mostly-linear.  You can expect to find a few collectables here and there, many of which offer deeper insight in regards to the world and what's happening within it.

This is not an easy game by any means.  I actually found it rather frustrating at times, as the bad guys will work to flank or ambush you.  Melee combat can be tough; no matter how hard I pound the button, I still found myself being pummeled by a hunter or immediately chomped by an infected.  Ammunition is limited and resources are tight, making combat even more tricky.  Every zone seems to have a whole army of enemies; it may seem like you're making progress, but more pour in and impede progress.  These aspects offer a decent challenge, and it's probably more true to reality if such events ever occur.  It can be aggravating though.

One other complaint I have (same with Tomb Raider) is that just about every bad guy in the game is so bad, so hateful, so unreasonably violent, it just feels like Joel and Ellie never catch a break.  I know that in an actual apocalypse, everybody would probably turn evil, inhumane, and greedy; I still couldn't help but to yell at these characters, "why are you so evil! Come on!"

Regardless, the story is incredible.  Even though the game takes on a repetitive pattern (you go to a place, see your objective in the distance, and make your way toward it fighting enemies all the way), it's the characters that make it so compelling.  The game achieves the perfect level of pathos, making you feel for the characters on a deep level.  You want to see them succeed, so you keep playing to see what happens next.  The characters develop gradually and beautifully, starting off rather cold, but eventually warming up and developing deeper levels of trust and connection.  In spite of that, the game gets quite emotional at times, ultimately hitting some deeper themes regarding the human spirit.  At the same time, the game never shies away from the hard truths regarding the struggle for survival (I imagine gun law enthusiasts will be outraged to see Ellie taking a gun and protecting Joel; but if it isn't for that, Joel would have died early in the game).  It all makes for an exceptionally bittersweet experience.

This game is rendered with beautiful graphics; some of the cutscenes look incredibly life-like, and the rest of the game is well-detailed and sharp.  Designs for the locations, levels, characters, weapons, props, and everything else are decent, and they appear realistic.  Sound and music are good.  The gameplay is intuitive; the characters don't move particularly fast or smooth, but they move in a realistic fashion.  I did find it a little tricky when being attacked from behind, and when using melee combat; there were even a few times where I died and didn't even realize it until the screen went blank, due to animation mix-ups.

Despite my quibbles with the gameplay, always being shot and beat-up by hoards of relentlessly mean villains, the game offers an incredible storytelling experience with some of the richest character development to date.  It is ultimately successful in taking the characters' struggles and making the player experience it all for himself.  The experience hits the nerves and heart very strongly.

5/5 (Entertainment:  Good | Story:  Perfect | Game:  Perfect)

Video Game Review: Portal

"The cake is a lie!" - wall graffiti

The concept is simple:  you have a gun that can shoot portals on certain surfaces.  One portal is blue, one is orange, and if you go in one portal you'll come out the other.  And yet, such a simple concept has staggering applications.  If you make one portal on the floor and another in the ceiling directly above it, you could fall infinitely.  If you place a portal on the ground and one high up on a wall, you could fall through, and your momentum would propel you across the room.

With these basic mechanics, the game Portal offers a small wealth of cleverly-designed puzzles, in which you're a lab specimen trying to reach an exit.  You got to exercise some serious brain cells to figure out how to reach certain areas and manipulate the environment in order to get to the next level.  Some levels can even prove fatal if you're not careful.  The game gets tricky at times (especially since movements are a bit slow and sluggish), but completing each lab test offers an addicting and satisfying rush.

The really fun part about Portal is that it's actually a pretty funny game.  As you progress through the levels, you're consistently guided (and later taunted) by the passive-aggressive robot GLaDOS.  Some of the stuff she talks about (such a free cake, weighted companion cubes, and weak cover-ups for trying to murder you) are amusing.  There are various other nuances too; I love how, in the final boss fight, each of GLaDOS' components ramble on about random stuff.  The plot for this game is pretty short and simple, offering very little in character development; it's mostly the experience of playing that counts.

This game is going on six years old; graphics still hold up okay, but aren't quite as impressive as modern-generation games (such as Portal 2, which is far sharper and more detailed).  Gameplay is good, but as mentioned above, it feels a bit sluggish, especially compared to the game's sequel.  Level designs are ingenious and clever, as are the designs for each of the game's settings and objects.  Sound design is good, and the music is great (especially the end-credits song).

Recommended!

4/5 (Entertainment:  Perfect | Story:  Pretty Good | Game:  Good)

Film Review: World War Z

"Mother nature is a serial killer." - Elyes Gabel

There is a certain expectations with zombie-pocalypse movies. We expect to see social order breaking down, ripping itself apart, just as we expect to see the undead ripping out the guts of all their hapless victims. World War Z looks to be the end-all-be-all zombie flick, with zombie outbreaks exploding all over the world. Regardless, I wasn't expecting much, given the turbulent production history behind this movie (resulting in the entire last act being re-filmed at the last minute) and the watered-down PG-13 rating.

If nothing else, this movie gets the "World War" part of it right, while giving some good attention to the "Z" part. The action hits early and fast, and hardly lets up until the last act. For the first two-thirds of the film, the characters are constantly on the run, having to face danger on all sides, with hoards of zombies pouring out at them. These are zombies that run, sprawl, and hurl themselves at everybody in a frenzy, which could only be topped by the spazoid zombies in 28 Days Later. At key points, they become a vast sea of bodies rolling over everything. As bizarre and intense as these images are, they are slammed into the audience's faces to hard that it becomes exhausting and jarring....

...until those last forty minutes, which were completely reshot and inserted into the film for what the producers felt would be a better ending. Frankly, I'm glad they did; as thrilling as the rest of the film is, I was finding it tiresome, especially in regards to the narrative. In the last act, the action slows down, the camera stops shaking, and the scenes become gripping more out of suspense rather than heavy-handed action. These last scenes are actually my favorite part of the movie, and I probably would have liked it a lot better if the film was made this way all the way through.

As it is, however, the film feels like a long string of scenes loosely tied together with a flimsy plot structure. It's a pretty contrived series of events; the hero predictably hops around the world simultaneously protecting his family and trying to find a zombie cure. There is no particularly good flow from one scene to the next; the guy just gets told where to go next, and then he's on his way. The film tries very hard to make the characters compelling, thanks to putting the guy's family into danger, but none of them are that well developed or even interesting. Things are made even more iffy with the occasional stupid moment (chief among them, the department store looting scene, the landing in Korea, and every moment where characters make noise to attract the zombies). There are a few smart moments though: who would have thought that taping a magazine to your arm could be an effective zombie deterrent?

Having never read the original book, I'm not sure how close of an adaptation this film is (I read that it isn't close at all). From what I've seen, the book touches upon some interesting thematic territory regarding politics and isolationism. The movie ports over some similar themes, thanks largely to its international locations and situations. As the zombies roll over Jerusalem, anti-isolationist themes emerge, suggesting that no nation is safe from war, no matter how secure the borders are.

The film uses some very herky-jerky camera moves most of the time, and it can get tiring very quickly. There are occasional moments of good photography though. Editing is good. Acting is okay from the cast, but never felt exceptional to me; same goes for the writing. This production uses okay-looking sets, props, and costumes; special effects are not bad. The film has a pretty decent music score.

World War Z is a decent thrill ride of a film, but little more. I felt it could have been better in many ways, but it'll satisfy most movie-goers looking for a quick and fairly safe thrill.

3.5/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Average | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Hirokin: The Last Samurai

This film's cover caught my eye: I wasn't expecting anything great, but I was at least enthralled to see some samurai dude on another planet hacking and slashing away at some aliens or something.

Surprisingly, there's not much hacking or slashing involved; a few cheap and stupid fights, but nothing more. One of the more inventive scenes involved the fighters chained to a post, and whenever the chain slackened, a big spike would come down and murder a hostage. Aside from that, the film came off as being rather dull.

The story didn't really captivate me either; it's full of dull and lifeless characters, going through the motions of some drama and plot that I really couldn't care about. The movie overall tried to hard to resemble films like John Carter and Prince of Persia, but both are miles better.

This film must have been made on the cheap. It sports okay, but never exceptional, photography and editing. Acting and writing are serviceable at times, but they are often marred with certain levels of cheese, amateurism, or plainness. This production uses a limited amount of sets, props, and costumes. Music is very generic too.

1/5 (Entertainment: Poor | Story: Very Poor | Film: Very Poor)

Film Review: Iron Sky

In movies, Earth has been invaded by aliens, vampires, ghosts, monsters, supermen, gods, plants, zombies, and so much more! However, Iron Sky presents one more fantastic and deliciously ludicrous invasion story: this time Earth is invaded...by Nazis from the moon! That's right, the Third Reich is alive and well on the dark side of the moon, still harboring a ridiculously over-the-top fanaticism for a culture and ideology that is now over sixty years dead. As silly and cheesy as this concept is, the film plays things out with a firm tongue-in-cheek attitude, and with plenty of satire. At the film's last act, however, we are treated to a splendid space battle involving stellar zeppelins hauling moon rocks, and Nazis flying around in flying saucers!

As you can surmise, the story is as silly as they come, going so far as to toss in every German or WWII reference the filmmakers could think of to emphasize the scope and scale of the ridiculousness (with spaceships named Siegfried and Gotterdammerung, with Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries playing during every battle scene, Hitler himself would have been proud). Characters aren't terribly deep or moving, but there is definitely a strong political agenda that surfaces; with one character looking a little too much like Sarah Palin, and a spaceship blatantly called the George W Bush, the film really strikes a blow to the right wing, harping on resource depletion and senseless warfare.

The film looks rather cheap. Its photography and editing generally get the job done. Acting and writing are incredibly zany and over-the-top. This production uses okay-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects are pretty mixed; some of them look terrible, but they are still better than other films I've seen, and I really admire the detail and imagination that went into them. The music used in this film is really weird, but also really cool.

Iron Sky is one of the funniest, silliest, and more thrilling B-movies I've seen. For anybody with a good sense of humor, it comes recommended.

3/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Marginal | Film: Average)

Film: Why Man of Steel Totally Rocks

Man of Steel is the latest Superman film; it has garnered its fair share of critical bashing, but audiences have been soaking it up and loving it.  I am among those who have enjoyed the film; I feel that it's the current best adaptation of the character and the world he inhabits.  By comparison, the older Superman films show their age through their high levels of camp and cheesiness.  In this post, I'll try to express what it exactly is that makes Man of Steel one of the most definitive Superman films of all time (and I'll try to keep it spoiler-free).

Man of Steel vs Steel!

• Obviously, the spectacle is top-notch.  From the demise of Krypton to the battles on Earth, the film runs hard and fast.  It has to, because these are superpowered god-like characters we're dealing with here.  When Superman and General Zod clash, they will cause mass destruction in their wake.  Every little action causes an equal and opposite reaction.  It has never been this realistic before; the Metropolis battle in Superman II is pretty tame and static by comparison (and ultimately marred by too many campy gags).  Man of Steel gives us a grand, awe-inspiring (and possibly terrifying) glimpse of what it would be like if Kryptonians really did have a big smackdown on the Earth.  Best of all, this is the exact type of carnage that's expressed in certain Superman comics.
• Planet Krypton, and Kryptonians themselves, have a greater depth and style than before.  You see glimpses of them in the older films, but they inhabited a bland, seemingly barren crystalline world, and they all wore robes and weird flashy outfits.  In MoS, Krypton looks like a magnificent cross between Barsoom from John Carter and the houses of Dune.  Everything is otherworldly and exotic; there are machines everywhere that have a weird bio-mechanical look to them.  It's clearly a working world with its own population, ecology, social structures, and culture; there's more to it here than what was shown in the older films.
• Superman's powers are more realistically proportioned in MoS.  In the older films, Superman catches a helicopter with one hand at a weird angle, and still manages to fly it up to the building's rooftop without it toppling over or anything.  He supports the wing of Air Force One without causing undue stress to the aircraft.  He lifts up all of the San Andreas fault, by lifting the rock at exactly one spot.  In MoS, the physics of Superman's impossible actions are more realistically balanced; when he lifts or pushes things, the objects react realistically.  It's especially apparent during the oil rig scene, where he pushes one one support structure, but can't keep the entire thing from falling apart; it's enough to let people escape, but it's not like he's miraculously saving the entire structure either.
• Other scenes exhibit some really wild levels of physics.  The machines General Zod uses create gravitational anomalies that send jet fighters spiraling out of control (in addition to flattening land all around them and maintaining a ring of debris in the air).  The Phantom Zone is not just a mirror floating in space; it's a black hole device.  Not only is this all really cool sci-fi material, but it also reinforces the Kryptonians as being an advanced race.
• Superpowers are handled in more interesting ways in MoS.  In various flashbacks, it is a struggle for Superman to control his powers; it's part of his learning process.  Even after mastering such abilities as super-strength and flight, the film pits him against such impossible odds that it makes the fight more compelling.  Zod and his gang are equally superpowered, so their struggle is genuinely prolonged and challenging.  All the Kryptonian machines weaken Superman, making the struggle even more intense.  Other films never made it this tough on Superman.
• Superman's existence has always had the greater implication that there is life on other planets.  It's not a concept that's explored much in the older films; people were just happy to have Superman saving the day over and over again.  MoS addresses the issue differently; Superman is an alien, and people are scared and threatened by him.  He is an outcast and a "freak" to the school kids in Smallville.  The military treats him indiscriminately as a threat.  He spends the entire film earning the trust of mankind, and that's probably a far more valuable struggle than having the people automatically accept him.
• In spite of these issues, deeper themes emerge.  In his youth, Clark Kent is constantly scolded by Johnathan Kent to keep his identity a secret, and to keep his powers a secret, because of the greater implications.  Johnathan understood that Superman's existence would freak people out, maybe cause worldwide panic, and would challenge everything people knew or believed in concerning the universe and faith.  At the same time, Johnathan taught Clark the most important lessons about being human:  suffering and self-sacrifice, concepts that Kryptonians clearly didn't comprehend, but Superman is made to so that he can relate to fellow men and make the morally correct decisions.  Superman could have just as easily taken the same route as General Zod, subjugating or destroying humanity, but he doesn't, thanks to his experiences among humans, and the lessons from both Johnathan Kent and Jor-El.
• Morality plays into the story really well, and the clash between Superman and Zod is more like a clash between the ideals of morality and amorality.  Moral decision-making even plays into the film's climax, and I believe Superman's actions actually makes him a stronger character, because he took the Utilitarian approach and did things for the greater good of humanity.  He's still a champion of moral righteousness, but he doesn't get as cheesy or overly-good as the older films.
• There has always been a certain theological vibe to the Superman mythos.  Superman could be an analogy to Christ, in the sense that he was sent to Earth by his father to save the people, and in the sense that he never does any wrong.  In MoS, this is all further reinforced by the suffering that Superman endures; he spends most of the film being bullied or ostracized, but thanks to his moral standing, he never fights back or acts up, he just takes it.  MoS also explores a rich mythology that mirrors the theological struggles between God and Satan:  the conflict on Krypton seems to mirror the devil's rebellion in heaven, and Zod is always working to try and subvert Superman's morality.  Even the Kryptonians, depicted as genetically-engineered beings, could be seen as being analogous to angels, because in both cases, they do not have free will.  Of course, the fact that Superman gets his power from the sun also persists, reinforcing the theological parallels.
• As far as minor characters go, I was pleased to see that Lois Lane is actually smart for a change.  Her previous portrayals by Margot Kidder and Kate Bosworth were rather goofy and daft; she always put herself into danger, she could never spell worth a darn, she was always cold toward Clark but warm toward Superman, and she was always fooled by the glasses.  None of that happens in MoS.  In fact, I feel she actually looks and acts like a real reporter here.  Above all, since she tracks down Superman herself, she discovers his identity right away, so the film never has to play games about it, and their eventual attraction is all the more real.  I suspect that, if a sequel is due, she would probably spend her time protecting Superman's identity, rather than trying to figure it out, and I think that would be far more worthwhile.
• General Zod isn't just out to arbitrarily conquer Earth, like in Superman II.  In MoS, his actions are made to be more compelling, because he's working to rebuild his lost homeworld and people.  In his Kryptonian mind, his ideals justify the eradication of mankind.  The fact that he has no morality and no empathy toward humans also makes him more terrifying.
• Man of Steel has a lot of heart in regards to showing the main character's lessons, experiences, and origins.  Best of all, it manages to be warm, without getting overly sappy or drawn-out.
• I even like Superman's new outfit.

Critics have made certain statements regarding Man of Steel, and these are my counterpoints to them:

• The film lacks humor or joy.  This complaint doesn't make sense to me.  Who says Superman has to have humor or joy? There was enough of it in the older films.  Humor and joy are not what Superman needs right now; I find the serious adaptation refreshing.
• Superman's fighting caused too much damage.  Well, what was he supposed to do? If Superman zoomed around the whole city, saving everybody he could, then who would stop General Zod and his machines? The General even claimed that "for every person you save, I will kill a million more." Having Superman trying to save every single person is futile, especially with the grand scale of the invasion; his only hope was to tackle the problems head-on as they occurred.  Superman initially handed himself over, hoping to save Earth from such carnage; when that didn't work, he focused on the machines, before they could completely wipe out the world.  Then he took on General Zod, before more lives could be taken.  If it wasn't for that, Superman would have strung himself out, trying to save so many lives, while General Zod would have taken so many more and eventually won.  The fighting was necessary; the fact that it caused to so much damage was merely an unfortunate consequence.  Nit-picking about this seems additionally pointless to me, because you could make similar complaints about all the Transformers films or Marvel's Avengers.  Plus, in the original Superman movie, Superman is shown saving a bus, a train, and other random things, but what about everybody else affected by that earthquake? His actions there seemed a bit fruitier than in MoS.
• The film is cold and heartless.  A common Zack Snyder complaint, but as I said in my review, I think MoS is his warmest film yet.  I felt that the characters were warm, and their portrayal was appropriately intimate and nuanced.  I believe that the script, camera-work, and acting made it all work.  Most importantly, I understood the characters and could relate to them.  However, this will be a subjective viewpoint; it'll work for some people, but not for everybody.

Film Review: Man of Steel

"One day, you're going to have to make a choice. You have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be. Whoever that man is, good character or bad, it's going to change the world." - Kevin Costner

I've only ever read a few specific Superman comics, but from those issues, I always knew that a better film adaptation was long overdue. Sure, Richard Donner's film was fun and imaginative, and Bryan Singer did his best to make an earnest adaptation, but every Superman film has been so cheesy, silly, and shallow that they never really stood the test of time. They may always capture the hearts and imaginations of fans, but the Man of Steel deserves more. He needs a challenge. He needs a story worth telling.

Following in the success of the Dark Knight trilogy, Man of Steel finally delivers an earnest, powerful, hardcore rendition of Superman. There is no camp or cheese here; this film is a straight-faced, serious, and inspiring take on the classic hero. It starts off strong on planet Krypton; it's not the lavish, dialogue-heavy, crystalline world we saw in Superman: The Movie, this is an imaginative and working society under fire, and that in itself is a sight worth seeing. Things slow down a lot on Earth, but for the film's last half, the action hits hard and fast, and never lets up until the end. It's relentless as superpowered characters slam into each other at rocketing speeds, blasting entire city blocks in their wake. In some of the most frightening and intense scenes, alien machines pummel huge parts of Metropolis to a flattened ruin. It can be rather exhausting for audiences, but this was the spectacle I always wanted out of Superman: the epic and highly-destructive clash of menacing, otherworldly forces.

Fortunately, the story for this film is quite sound as well. Some viewers might not dig it though, because nothing about it is traditional or expected. Clark Kent's origins in Smallville are told in a series of flashbacks, mixing up the narrative substantially. He doesn't work at the Daily Planet in this film, so there are no games between him and Lois Lane regarding his secret identity.  Frankly, I like these directions better, because it forces the film to focus on the most important aspect: the Man of Steel himself. This film explores the main character on a more intimate level, showing the lessons he learns from living among humans, showing the importance of moral strength and moderation, and showing the emotional vulnerabilities of the character as he matures. Through it all, the traditional themes surrounding Superman emerge; he is still something of a Christ-like figure, and he still does everything for the greater good.

Many viewers will make the same complaints for Man of Steel that were already made for Sucker Punch, Watchmen, and 300: heartless, cold, and lacking in depth. Although I can understand the complaints for those films, I felt Man of Steel was the warmest film Zack Snyder has made to date. Even though the film doesn't offer a terribly complex story or any depth in minor characters, it does succeed in achieving the right level of pathos to make the audience care for the main character (something that other Snyder films always struggled with).

This film looks visually impressive, with strong photography and editing. Many shots appear shakey and jarring, but I rarely found it problematic. I really enjoyed how tight and intimate certain shots are. Acting is not bad: I felt that Henry Cavill was very good as the title character, Amy Adams played Lois Lane in a sensible manner, while Michael Shannon and Russell Crowe stole the show repeatedly. I didn't mind every other performance either. Writing is good. This production has fine-looking sets, props, and costumes; special effects tend to be a bit on the glossy, fake-looking side, but are still astounding. Even though Hans Zimmer's score doesn't offer any memorable themes the way John Williams did, I felt it was beautiful at times and appropriately bombastic other times.

More critical audiences may not see much beneath the film's nonstop action scenes, and others might be asking "why so serious?!" Honestly, this is the Superman film I always yearned for. Man of Steel delivers the gargantuan spectacle I always craved, but with just the right amount of attention to the central character.

5/5 (Entertainment: Perfect | Story: Very Good | Film: Very Good)

Film Review: Superman Returns

"I hear everything. You wrote that the world doesn't need a savior, but every day I hear people crying for one." - Brandon Routh

Approximately nineteen years since the last Superman films, Superman returns with loads of flash and style! Mirroring the original Richard Donner film, Superman Returns starts off with a magnificent opening credits scene, featuring those same 3D blue letters flying at you across imaginative stellar backdrops. With modern effects, Superman's feats became truly epic and awe-inspiring. Among the film's highlights, the Man of Steel saves a crashing airplane, deals with dozens of problems when Metropolis suffers an earthquake, and in one defining scene, he lifts a huge chunk of planet Krypton out of the sea and heaves it into space.

In between the fun action scenes, the film suffers some slight drag. There is still a fair amount of comedy involved, but it's never as campy as the last four films. For the most part, this was probably the most earnest Superman movie at the time of its release. It's largely admirable, but it also feels a little stilted in a way.

Most fans have been outraged over certain creative decisions regarding the story. I can't deny that I've always been put off by the film's portrayal of Lois Lane, who continues to be rather daft, but not with the silly charm that she had before; this Lois makes dumb decisions, and drags her kid along with her. That's right, she has a kid now too. And there is a certain something about this kid that never sat right with audiences either. Superman himself remains quiet, almost creepily so, especially when he uses his X-ray vision to spy on Lois. Lex Luthor returns with yet another outlandish real estate scheme.

Despite these complaints, the story had a few great strengths of it own. The film boldly explores Superman as an outsider, and the film bears many fantastic scenes that emphasize who he really is. That scene where he floats in space and listens to the sounds of the city, or that shot where he holds up the Daily Planet globe, and that part where he flies above the clouds and soaks in the power of the sun, are all big, epic, character-defining moments. A few good flashbacks regarding Superman's past, and some really fun throwbacks to the first pair of films, give the film a little more depth as well. I also feel that the last act, with Superman literally struggling against a piece of his own homeworld, is thematically interesting.

This film has some excellent photography, with lots of interesting angles and movements. Editing is solid. Acting is not bad for what it is: I didn't mind Brandon Routh as Superman, and Kevin Spacey has a lot of fun as Lex Luthor. I never liked Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane though. Writing is generally not bad. This production uses some good, slick-looking sets, props, costumes, and special effects; it's especially cool to see that they all match up with the original films too. Even though John Ottman's music score uses the same themes as John Williams, he also provides a lot of good original compositions as well.

4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Good)

Film Review: Superman IV: The Quest for Peace

"Is the world gonna be vaporized?"

"No. It's the same as it's always been, Luthor. On the brink. With good fighting evil."

-Gene Hackman and Christopher Reeve

Superman: The Movie and Superman II were decent (if not a little dated and cheesy) adaptations of the classic comic-book hero. Then, Superman III came along, with so much absurdity and camp; I didn't think it could get any sillier or dumber than that. Then I saw Superman IV.

Suffering from massive budget cuts, this film was cut down to a short, cheap, silly affair. Given the story, I doubt this movie would have been that much better with a bigger budget anyway. The film starts off with a few pointless character-building points and bits of Daily Planet drama (a subplot that ultimately could have been cut out completely without sacrificing much). For the last half or so, however, the film's real meat is in a long, epic, and rather silly clash between Superman and Nuclear Man. Oh, it's pretty cool to see a guy with claws shooting red lightning bolts everywhere, but all the encounters between this villain and the hero are made pretty short and stupidly. Among the absurdities in the film, one of the most defining testaments to this film's weaknesses has to be the scene where Superman rebuilds the Great Wall of China simply by staring at it.

The best that can be said is that the film skirts along the "so bad it's good" threshold. It's not terribly boring or dull, just poorly executed. It is to Superman what Batman and Robin is to Batman (although I always found B&R a little more endearing).

The plot for Superman IV gets a little pushy (and rather one-sided) with its themes of nuclear disarmament. It is ultimately a weak plot, with barely any characterization involved. As daft as most scenes are, it all comes off as shallow and forgettable.

This film has its share of okay photography and editing. Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman, and Jackie Cooper all reprise their roles admirably; Mark Pillow is deliciously over-the-top as the villain. Writing is not terribly great. This production has a rather weak array of sets, props, and costumes. Special effects vary from scene to scene; some look cool, others look terrible. The music score continues to repeat the themes already established by John Williams.

Fun, maybe, but definitely the weakest and silliest film in the Superman franchise. Unless you're looking for something to make fun of, you best avoid.

2/5 (Entertainment: Average | Story: Awful | Film: Poor)

Film Review: Superman III

"Computers rule the world today. And the fellow that can fool the computers, can rule the world himself." - Robert Vaughn

The first two Superman films with Christopher Reeve were enjoyable and imaginative romps. Without Richard Donner behind the wheel, however, the task fell upon Richard Lester to continue the series. The man previously touched up Superman II for its release, so why not?

The problem is, Superman III cranks up the camp and cheese so much that all sincerity is stripped away. Even the film's opening credit scenes are a long-running joke...literally, it's one comedic slapstick gag after another, strung together in an almost Vaudeville fashion. The rest of the film is littered with similar gags, and they often aren't that funny. At the center of it all is Richard Pryor, for some odd reason; the man seems totally out-of-place in this picture, with all his bumbling, mumbling, and unfunny antics. Oh, there is action as well, but it is of an absurd nature. The climax is a series of cheesy and unlikely events that pushes this film into bad B-movie sci-fi territory.

To be fair, the story has its merits. It does touch upon some interesting ground, first by taking Superman back to Smallville for a while, and secondly be having him literally battle himself. The film also touches upon a few clever ideas, regarding oil dependency, the advent of computers, and the notion that a computer could become self-aware (I think having Superman battling a powerful AI is an inherently cool idea, but the film plays it out so cheesily that it falls way short). Otherwise, the film's story is strangely unremarkable; most of the side characters are shoved to the side, in favor of a new cast of rather uninteresting people, and most of the story is displaced by the comedy and camp.

The film has its share of decent photography and editing. Christopher Reeve offers the most earnest performance here, while the rest of the cast really hams it up. Writing is pretty bad. This production seems to use a lot of ambitious sets, props, and costumes, but a lot of it hasn't aged well, and parts of it look cheap and gaudy. Music is not all that great either, despite the usual reprise of John Williams' original theme.

Good for a laugh or two, but ultimately weak in so many ways, Superman III earns a marginal score from me, and represents a steep decline in quality from its predecessors.

2.5/5 (Entertainment: Average | Story: Poor | Film: Poor)

Film Review: Superman II

"Come to me, son of Jor-El! Kneel before Zod!!" - Terrence Stamp

Originally, the 1978 film Superman was designed to be shot and released back-to-back with its immediate sequel. With the rivalry between the producer and director, things didn't work out that way, but Superman II still saw the light of day. The vast majority of it is still Richard Donner's work, but since the man was fired before he could finish it, Richard Lester stepped in to fill in the gaps.

As a result, Superman II continues in the same general tone and quality as the first film, but with more of everything. With General Zod and his henchmen as superpowered villains wreaking havoc across the US, the spectacle is pretty darn cool; some of the most thrilling scenes include an epic battle across Metropolis, in which all the superpowered characters duel and cause mass destruction. Plenty of other interesting scenes, including fun sequences in Paris and Niagara Falls, keep the film evenly-entertaining.

However, the film also has a lot of campy comedy, which can come off as being really silly (I blame a lot of it on Richard Lester's additions to the film). Once again, the film hasn't aged all that gracefully, so the special effects and production looks rather cheap and gaudy. Compared to the first film, this sequel doesn't quite have the same emotional punch or epic-scale ambition either.

The story, however, covers some interesting ground. Characters remain charming as ever, but it gets really interesting when Superman faces the challenge of maintaining his secret identity, and makes the drastic decision to abandon his powers to experience human mortality and pain. The story is even more solid with Richard Donner's cut, which connects more thematically with the first film.

This film has solid photography and editing. Christopher Reeve is still great as Superman, while Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman, and other major players return to provide more of the same as before. Terrence Stamp, Sarah Douglas, and Jack O'Halloran are wickedly fun as the villains. Writing is okay. This production uses okay-looking sets, props, costumes, and special effects. The film uses a few exotic locales to give the film a slightly bigger scope. The music score employs most of the same themes that were composed in the first film.

The film's theatrical cut is generally enjoyable as it is, but Richard Donner's cut has been assembled for DVD and Blu-Ray, and it is a totally different experience. Using a combination of existing footage, screen tests, and original special effects, this version of the film cuts out a lot of the silly comedy, re-arranges the plot, and adds in so much more to the story and characters. I personally prefer and recommend that version of the movie, for it is a stronger storytelling experience (even if it is slapped together with raw materials).

Either version comes recommended for anybody wanting more of Superman.

4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Good | Film: Good)

Film Review: Superman: The Movie (1978)

"You will travel far, my little Kal-El. But we will never leave you... even in the face of our death. The richness of our lives shall be yours. All that I have, all that I've learned, everything I feel... all this, and more, I... I bequeath you, my son. You will carry me inside you, all the days of your life. You will make my strength your own, and see my life through your eyes, as your life will be seen through mine. The son becomes the father, and the father the son. This is all I... all I can send you, Kal-El." - Marlon Brando

Of all the superhero films ever made, Superman:  The Movie was, and still is, one of the most epic experiences made.  Even its opening credits sequence, with big blue 3D letters streaking at the audience across deep space, is an epic and awesome sight.  From then on, as the film chronicles the origins of Superman and his first confrontation with Lex Luthor, the film sets out to deliver as much as it can; among the film's smorgasbord of spectacle, there are the otherworldly scenes on planet Krypton, Superman discovering his powers for the first time, numerous feats in which Superman saves lives and fights crime, and a thrilling climax where the Man of Steel's abilities are put to the test as he struggles to thwart mass destruction on a global scale.  With so many action scenes and visually-inspiring sequences, the film covers a lot of ground, and it does decent justice to the classic comic-book hero.

This experience is marred only by the age of the film.  Despite its sheer ambition and scale, the film's special effects have not aged well, the styles appear outdated and gaudy, acting has its cheesy parts, and campy comedy clashes frequently with the sentimental drama.  There is also a lot of absurdity involved.  It's still a fun and enchanting experience, even if it is the product of its time.

The story for this film is a long affair; half of it is devoted to Superman's origins, showcasing the fate of planet Krypton and Kal-El's upbringing in Smallville.  In the last half, the film switches to Superman's life in Metropolis, and the subsequent struggles that ensue.  A lot of the funner scenes occur in the last half, but the film overall builds up the title character really well, and explores some strong themes regarding fate and destiny.  My only real complaint about this story is that it's rather uneven, and the climax feels somewhat weak.

Regardless, this film is made competently, with quality photography and editing.  Acting from Christopher Reeve is effectively perfect; Margot Kidder is endearing (even if her character is rather daft), Gene Hackman plays a seriously hammy villain, and Marlon Brando chews the scenery in his brief scenes (in a role that cost a whopping $3.7 million).  Writing is not particularly deep, but it strikes the right tone and it is pretty good in general.  Despite my complaints about the film's age and styles, it does use some very expensive sets, props, costumes, and special effects.  The filmmakers and producers didn't exactly get along during this film's shooting, so the end product is especially admirable.  John Williams' score for this film is classic!

The theatrical cut of this film is decent, but on DVD and Blu-Ray, there is an extended cut available with something like 20 minutes of new footage.  The film doesn't really need these scenes, but they are pretty cool, and a few of them do add a little more to the story and characters.

Recommended!

4/5 (Entertainment:  Good | Story:  Good | Film:  Very Good)

The Purge: How I Would Have Written It

A few days ago, I watched The Purge on the big screen; despite the interesting premise, the sociological implications, and a cast of wicked villains, the film proved to be rather disappointing with its idiotic characters, limited scope and scale, and an overall lack of refinement.  It makes for a serviceable, but never exceptional, slasher movie, and little more.

At times like this, I often stop and wonder, if I had this story idea for myself, what would I have done with it? If I were to write this out as a novel or something, I think it would be different in the following ways, to best match up with what I believe would have been a more worthwhile storytelling experience.

Spoilers are ahead.

The main idea behind this movie is that, in the year 2022, the United States becomes "reborn," and an annual "Purge" is allowed every year, during which all emergency services are shut down for a 12-hour period, and every citizen is allowed to commit any crime they so wish.  The film asserts that, because people are allowed to "release the beast" in this way, crime has been drastically reduced, poverty has been eliminated, and people overall are happier and wealthier.  Or, so it seems:  the characters speculate that this only happens because the purge is really a way for society to eliminate the poor and the homeless.

The film focuses solely on one family struggling to survive the night; one stupid kid opens the doors to a stranger who's hurt, bad guys come knocking wanting to kill the stranger, and then everybody's in trouble.  Oh yeah, there's also a stupid subplot in which the daughter's seeing some dude what the father doesn't like, so this dude sneaks into the house wanting to kill the father, thinking that would be the perfect way to win over the love of his life.  The film ultimately ends with a massive series of fights; the father winds up dying, but everybody else is saved by their neighbors.  Then, the neighbors want to purge this family, but the stranger they saved before holds everybody at gunpoint.  They all sit down and wait out the last so-many hours in peace and quiet.  One stupid neighbor acts up; Lena Heady whacks her in the face, and it was awesome.  That's pretty much it for the plot.

As you can surmise, I found it to be a wasted opportunity.  So if I had this concept in mind, and wrote it out as a novel, it would have probably been like this:

• First and foremost, I probably would have handled this story in a totally different context.  The home-invasion angle is very limiting, offering no view of what's going on everywhere else in the country during the purge.  Alternate ways in which I would have found this story more exciting would be:
• Having it all take place from the perspective of the people doing the purging.  Imagine having this story following around a group of restless, raging psychotics; it could be something as wicked and disturbing as A Clockwork Orange.  This would have also been an ample opportunity to show the purge on the street level, which I assume would be constantly perilous and dangerous, substantially ramping up the conflict.  It may also be perfect for characterization, for if the characters are all violent criminals to start with, it would make sense for me to have the protagonist obtain some higher moral understanding, thanks perhaps to the consequences of his/her actions.  Overall, this story could have had much bigger potential by focusing on the actual purge, rather than an average family behind secure walls.
• Even if I were to write this story the same way as the movie, with a family trapped in their own home, I think I would have taken some imaginative excesses here.  In this angle, I probably would have had a bunch of bad guys running up to the home, trying to besiege it (either because they all hate this family, or just because they're crazy).  That could be when the father whips out the best home defensive system ever:  landmines, automated turrets with ridiculously powerful ammo (or laser beams), rocket launchers, deflector shields, and lord knows what else.  Then the house itself could have a well-stocked panic room with titanium walls, and maybe an escape tunnel.  As it is, the film only has a security system "for show," but hell, why not go all the way? If there are crazies out on the streets every year, these characters should have invested more in defenses.  It would have been awesome.
• If nothing else, they could have bobby-trapped their home just like in Skyfall...or Home Alone.
• Chances are that, in any case, I would have taken the characters out onto the street level, to see the carnage of the purge firsthand.  By doing so, it would offer stronger possibilities for exploring the social implications of the purge firsthand, in addition to making it a more intense and exciting experience.
• Of course, the kills would have to be more impressive.  Sure, some people in the audience really carried on with the axe and knife murders shown on-screen, but for an event that's so brutal and uncompromising, it's all relatively tame.  In the purge, there are bound to be serial killers out there, wanting to kill in more creative and painful ways.  In the fight for survival, the characters may have to pull out some brutal moves of their own.
• In the background, I feel it would also help a lot to explore more about the history of the purge, how things came to be this way, how society works, and whatnot.  The movie skims over some things, but never offers much depth.  I always feel that a greater depth of society and politics will make the story more immsersive and believable.
• As I've seen mentioned on other message boards, why not have the characters go on vacation out of the country during the purge? Then there's nothing to worry about! Such a notion could be mentioned in the narrative, to avoid further plot holes (maybe other countries deny entrance during the purge, or maybe US airports close too, or maybe some people go on vacation but others can't...).
• The characters definitely deserve more diligent attention.  In the movie, they make dumb decisions.  That kid should have never opened the door for the stranger in the street (how did he know the code in the first place?).  Surely, he should have realized that the stranger could have pulled a gun or something, how could he know? The whole subplot with the daughter and the boyfriend was a drag more than anything (how could this idiot think that she'd go for him after murdering her father?), and I probably wouldn't have even messed with it.  The two parents are the only truly sensible characters in the film.  For the best characterization, however, I'd probably write them out in totally different ways:
• I try my best to make my characters sensible.  I don't think I'd ever have the kid open the doors for the stranger in the first place.  I wouldn't have the boyfriend drop by with a gun either.
• How would I depict these characters? If this was still a family set-up, I'd probably have the kids take an interest in the purge, and the parents try to shelter or guide them.  Maybe one of the kids could sneak out and try to participate in the purge; that in itself could be the entire story.  After all, the whole "release the beast" thing would appeal the most to teens, and it could all tie into a coming-of-age theme.
• If I went with the plot idea I mentioned before, focusing on criminals rather than a family, then this could be a golden opportunity to develop fresh new characters.  Maybe they're just a bunch of punks, lacking in direction or motivation, wanting to just wreak as much havoc as they can.  Or, maybe they have a goal, to try and make a big score or something.  Or, better yet, just like in the movie, maybe they're just prominent students from an upscale school, wanting to break free from their stringent rules and norms for a night and let their primal passions guide them.  In any case, there are endless ways to make good characters stand out and have them be relevant (without being stupid, too).
•  The themes would also be an interesting thing to explore.  The movie digs up some interesting sociological issues, but never explores them head-on.  In fact, it gets incredulous, considering that the characters are willing to put their own lives on the line for a higher moral ideal (namely, saving the stranger, rather than handing him over to the bad guys.  But for the longest time, the father wanted to hand him over and save his family; that would have made sense.  Having everybody changing their minds didn't make sense to me, even though it's the morally right thing).

By my hand, The Purge would have probably been a more futuristic and more hardcore form of dystopian sci-fi, because that's the direction that would have interested and thrilled me the most.  I can't say for sure if such a direction would have really been any better or worse than the movie itself, but it is interesting to consider.  The Purge might stand as another one of those story ideas I wish I could have gotten to first.

Film Review: The Purge (2013)

"Release the beast, boys! Let the killing commence!" - Rhys Wakefield

This film has a wicked and interesting premise that initially lured me in: in the near-future, the government allows a single night for everybody to go nuts and commit any crime they desire...including murder. All emergency services are shut down, and the US becomes a massive free-for-all of mayhem, destruction, and bloodshed.

Alas, the film never really shows that much mayhem, destruction, and bloodshed. With its focus solely on a single family trying to survive the night, the film limits itself, and it takes its sweet time getting to the climax, where all the real terror and action takes place. For the most part, the film purposefully moves at a turtle's pace, relying solely on the threat of intruders to maintain any interest. For this movie, however, I would have probably been more interested and more moved if it had greater intensity and relentlessness; as it is, the film came off as being rather dull.

It's the story that disappointed me the most, however. The premise is the stuff that dystopian sci-fi dreams are made of, but The Purge is no A Clockwork Orange, no matter how hard it tries. The movie digs up some interesting sociological and psychological reasoning for its premise, and the implications can be staggering. They can be, that is, but in the film, such themes never materialize into any tangible form.

Nope, at best, the film is a pure home-invasion thriller. It's populated with average characters, some of whom make really stupid decisions for the sake of driving the plot forward. The film tries to boldly assert that the human spirit and moral goodness are things worth fighting and dying for, but thanks to this direction, the characters wind up making even more dumb decisions. By the film's end, I don't think I really cared who lived or who died. The plot is dulled further with far too frequent use of Deus Ex Machina: that is, too many instances where characters are randomly saved by other characters or events. That ultimately brings me to a myriad of lesser nitpicks: the house is apparently so huge that people get lost and pop in and out of the scenes whenever they feel like it; these people should have invested in more firepower; the whole situation seems incredulous; and so on...

As a film, it's pretty standard thriller fare, with jittery camera work throughout the more exciting scenes, along with dark and bland lighting and color schemes. Acting is not bad: Ethan Hawke and Lena Heady provide the most sensible performances, while the kid actors do their best to be plausibly dumb. I think the biggest standouts will be the villains, with Rhys Wakefield as the head bad guy, for they are genuinely creepy. Writing is okay, but more detail, exposition, and better plotting would have worked wonders. This production uses very spartan sets, props, and costumes, and they get the job done. Whatever music the film uses is utterly forgettable.

This film is promising, and the main idea could have been hammered out into something ingenious. As a dystopian sci-fi story, however, the film fails to resonate; it's more at home among other slashers and thrillers, but it's still somewhat mundane. There are far better movies out there in either field.

2.5/5 (Entertainment: Average | Story: Poor | Film: Marginal)

Video Game Review: Bejeweled 3

Sometimes, the simplest of games are the best.  Bejeweled is a very basic series of games, running along similar lines to such games as Tetris or Columns; in this case, you get a large grid of gems, and you're allowed to swap two adjacent ones around.  If you match up three or more, you clear them out, and score points.  It's very basic, but it's also strangely addicting and very relaxing at times.  This game has become a perfect de-stressing tool for me, for it is so short and simple that I can start it up and play a few rounds whenever I want, and it's consistently satisfying.

The game can get really thrilling when you line up four or five or more gems in a row, causing them to explode brilliantly.  If you line up gems in an L-shape, you'll create a special gem that will zap everything vertically and horizontally.  The combination of special gems will make the whole board explode in color and flying points, and that's when the game gets really fun.  It's not all just one game though; you can unlock and play through several different minigames for more interesting challenges.  The Zen mode is especially valuable, for it is basically a never-ending game that you can just casually play through and relax with.  There's also a poker mode, a quest mode, a butterfly mode, diamond mining, and some kind of ice mode, all of which offer challenges and satisfying variants.

As the third game in the series, this one retains the same basic gameplay of its predecessors, but with good-looking graphics and smooth interfaces.  Controls are easy; playing this game on a console (such as a PS3) can be challenging with the paddles, but using a mouse on the PC version is most ideal.  Sound and music is great.

Overall, the game is a great, easy, and fun puzzle game for all ages and all occasions.  Recommended!

5/5 (Entertainment:  Perfect | Content:  Good | Game:  Perfect)

Film Review: Now You See Me (2013)

Any show you go to see, whether it be magic shows or the movies, rely on dazzling and guiding the audience to a surprising and enjoyable outcome, ultimately making the audience believe that what they see is real. In Now You See Me, the principles of magic are used in this interesting premise: magicians who use their skills in deception and illusion to stage daring bank heists in front of the eyes of their audiences and the police.

This film is not as deep or thoughtful as other magician-themed films, like The Prestige or The Illusionist. As a heist film, however, it's phenomenally entertaining. The film sets up the cop and robbers characters with playful energy and chemistry, before breaking out the visually-impressive theatrics and action scenes. It's not big on action, but the film does move fluidly, and above all, the characters are fun to watch. I'd say it's every bit as enjoyable as a film like Ocean's 11, The Italian Job, or The Thieves.

Critics will likely find fault in the plot, which requires some huge suspension of disbelief to accept. Given the twists and the liberal use of magic tricks, plot holes are bound to be present. It might be especially frustrating to watch the more fantastic moments and wonder how these characters could pull off such trickery; the film does reveal the particulars of what's going on with the overall heists, but there are other moments where the film seems to assert that magic is actually happening.

However, there is a certain theme to the picture, stipulating that "the closer you look, the less you see." Indeed, if you scrutinize this plot too closely, you'll miss out on the larger experience. The film practically implores you to just sit back, take it as it is, and enjoy things as they are. If you can suspend disbelief and go with the flow, you'll find that the plot is structured in wild and unpredictable ways. There are certain things to the story that could have been explored more, but perhaps a sequel is in order.  Critics would say that the characters are all unlikable, and it's hard to know who to root for:  I was personally enthralled by the whole cast, and was actually rooting for the magicians, for I found them all to be lively, rounded, and surprising at times.  They aren't terribly deep, but they have surprises of their own.

Some of the film's action scenes get a little jittery, but most of it has solid photography and editing. Acting is superb all around: everybody puts on a playful and energetic performance. Writing is not bad. This production has good-looking sets, props, costumes, and okay special effects. Music is really hip.

The film asserts that magic is not about understanding how tricks work, but in making audiences believe in it, and making them smile. If you're the type who wants to look closely and find something deep, artistic, or even logical about Now You See Me, then the less you'll see. I was able to accept the film's illusion, and it made me smile at times, for it is an enjoyable show.  If you can accept the film's illusion, then you might find it enjoyable as well.

4/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: After Earth

This film is destined to be hated. Director M. Night Shyamalan, once revered for his work on The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs, hasn't had a good reception with his last few films (especially The Last Airbender). Chances are that people will watch this film with the expectation that there will be something to hate, because of all the weaknesses the man exhibited before.

After Earth is not a return to form. In fact, it's not Shyamalan's form at all: it's the Smith clan at work, not only as the stars, but also sharing the writing and production credits. The big appeal to this film will be in seeing a literal father and son team on a big-screen sci-fi adventure. Even though Shyamalan's hands are in the script and direction, I believe the film's qualities as a sci-fi adventure outshine its weaknesses.

To be fair, the film has a few weaknesses, which I'm sure regular Shyamalan haters will harp on. Acting and writing may be suspect, given the actors' weird accents and the script's penchant for exposition and monologues (and yet, certain things are left vague). Some of the sets look cheap (the crashed spaceship and its payload look like they're made of packing material). CGI is in abundance here. The biggest complaint I've seen, however, is that the film is a bore, totally ineffective in engrossing the audience and making them care for the characters or the dangers they face.

I think that's the chief factor here: if you're not pulled in by this film's concepts and worlds, and if you have a bias against this director, then you will hate this film.

As for myself, I've never hated Shyamalan's work as fervently as other viewers, and I am a sucker for all things sci-fi. So this film was right up my alley. I really enjoyed the film's high-concept premise, and I grew to appreciate the story and characters as they unfolded. I really enjoyed the visual spectacle at times. There is a bit of drag in the film's opening act, but once the ship crashes and the struggle for survival begins, I was pretty well-engrossed. I felt the film established plenty of peril and suspense as it pitted the main characters against a whole world of wicked animals in a hostile environment.

As you can surmise, the movie is primarily a man-vs-nature struggle. On top of that, it's also a pretty apt coming-of-age story, using raw survivalism as a catalyst for showing the protagonist's progression from a frightened and scarred boy into an actual "ranger." Overcoming fear becomes a thematic motivation for all the characters involved, contributing to the survivalist struggle and the character growth.  With its use of flashbacks and emotional tension between the characters, the film establishes a lot to the characters. If there's anything I would complain about, it's that certain scenes could have used more explanation (especially in understanding how and why the Earth became hostile toward humans, a point that many will find stupid anyway), and the pathos of the characters is somewhat marred by their stiffness. It also occurred to me that this story is pretty much the same as Red Planet, swapping out Mars with Earth, and swapping the robot AMEE with a predatory monster.

As a film, After Earth looks slick, with good and stylish photography. A few scenes are a bit jerky, and there are a few parts where it's hard to tell what's going on, but most of it boasts excellent imagery. Editing is even and good, save for one scene that's rapid-fire. Will Smith plays his role really stiff throughout the film, in keeping with his character, but it's his son Jaden that steals the spotlight throughout, and shows apt emotion and range throughout. Other characters are pretty cheesy. Writing for this picture is generally not bad, but a few lines are silly, and some dialogue is bloated. Production design is generally interesting, but some of the sets for the spaceship are weird and flaky. Otherwise, the props, costumes, and special effects are solid. Music is not bad either.

I didn't see much wrong with After Earth, and I'm getting the impression that people are hating on this film just because it's got Shyamalan's name plastered all over it. I give the film the high points because I was engrossed by it, I felt it's not bad sci-fi, and a lot of the things that bother other people don't bother me that much. Regardless, I can only recommend this as a rental for anybody who's interested.

4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Pretty Good)