Posts filed under 'Movies'
I have no words. ME2 voice acting stars are just phenomenal as you can very well see in this video.
Fans of SciFi should recognize everyone here and I’m (finally) really excited about playing this game. Just like Mass Effect was a great adventure and a brilliant experience, I’m now expecting great things from Mass Effect 2.
I’ve said before that voice acting makes a game, and with the stars on display here, the script can really come alive. And the folks over at BioWare have PROVED that they can produce an amazing storyline.
P.S. Soooo looking forward to hearing “Worf” again…
December 11th, 2009
Let me start by saying that the movie is good.
Having said that, I am reminded of a piece of popular wisdom; knowing too much about the future might ruin it for you.
I have not read the books, so I do not know all the little info that people that have read it know about. However, I knew enough so that the plot was very predictable. I find that New Moon is based on surprise. I knew too much – from either trailers or my sister – and suspected a good deal more with enough certainty, so when they happened I was not surprised. The movie became a simple “Ah, this is how they did it” in a purely technical or artistic fashion.
There were some real gems though. Dakota Fanning’s performance, although so small, really surprised me. The confidence of a powerful vampire oozing out of the first scenes, the cruelty and sadism of her power as she unleashes it on Edward, and the utter surprise and sense of failure when confounded by Bella. I honestly feel excited at the prospect of her future films.
Also the werewolves were much much better than I ever thought possible from the trailers. A big bravo to the guys at special effects. Jacob facing off Victoria in that one stand still scene was really iconic.
On a side note, when I went to see the movie, there were some fans of the saga that were taking a poll. One of the questions was something along the lines of: “Do you think that The Twilight with its mainly romantic theme is inappropriate given that the Vampire theme is mainly a horror genre?”. The answers were a simple yes or no, however I disagree with the question. People seem to forget that the original Vampire story was that of Dracula, which at its core is a love story.
P.S. Love the irony that the head of the Vampires is played by Michael Sheen who played the head of the Lycans in the Underworld movies.
November 22nd, 2009
So many people have problems with this new movie. The fora are in flames with posts of people supporting and flaming the new movie, so much so that in a day a simple thread starting with “I like the new movie” becomes a 10 page rampage of all the problems it has.
I do not agree with most of it, but I also note that many people do not even pay attention to the arguments, they simply don’t like the plot and dismiss arguments with simple remarks of laziness or practicality (That would never happen, or, this is just lazy writing to explain that and this – no matter it explained it, it was lazy so I don’t like it).
Some of the easiest to explain “plot holes” include:
1. Enterprise, the flagship of the Federation, is so poorly staffed that almost the entire bridge is replaced within minutes of the film.
2. Sulu cannot even get to warp.
3. Spok relieves himself from captain because he is emotional, when he is struggling so much with being a good Vulcan and rejects his human side.
4. Kirk becomes captain (directly linked from 3).
5. Old Spok does not warn people although he is so close to a Federation outpost.
6. Chekov can beam two people falling at terminal velocity but is unable to beam a single person falling from a ledge.
7. On the flip side however, Scotty can beam people across vast distances on a ship moving at warp speeds.
8. Uhura told no one about the intercepted Klingon message which could have saved the ships going in the trap.
Those are just the ones that keep coming up and are easy to explain.
1. Enterprise is NOT the flagship of the Federation, it is only intended to become the flagship. As such the crew that it should have is not available on a short notice and is staffed with whatever is available on short notice from whoever was nearby. It is only natural to select crew that has some rank and/or experience for the role. However it is a crisis and the captain makes changes as he sees fit. And who really is changed? One comm officer! That’s all that is changed and we have been told time and time again of Uhura’s special abilities that make her more than capable for the job. As for Kirk becoming 1st officer, that is for later.
2. Sulu is a last minute replacement on a newly build ship of a new class of ship. As such, and although some briefing will have happened, it is all too easy to assume the Enterprise is just a little bit different from the other ships and Sulu just forgets the external inertia dampener. The fact that Spok even gets it right on the first try what the problem is might enforce that he knows what is different with Enterprise compared to other vessels and thus understands where Sulu might have gotten it wrong.
3. Vulcan’s ability to control emotion is not in their genes. Their genetic makeup is one of extreme emotion, so much so that they were very violent in the past. It is this past that lead them to control their emotions and conceal it with logic. Furthermore, no Vulcan is complete in this endeavor until he has completed the Kolinar ritual, something that Spok has never done. All that information is spread in the series and movies and is fact. However none of the people arguing that Spok should not be that emotional accept these as valid reasons. They must truly be Vulcans amongst us.
4. That is a bit flaky, but keep in mind that there are points that make this possible, possible being the key issue here. Most of the big moments in movies are about what is possible, not probable. In that sense, one reason can be Pike admiring Kirk’s father and recognizing in him a greatness waiting to be revealed which is why he makes him 1st officer. Pike did not make Kirk captain, that was a totally different matter, one that Pike could not even foresee (who expected that day to witness the destruction of Vulcan and the death of Spok’s mother?). Kirk’s rise to captain was part “fatherly” admiration/nurture and part emergency action. Finally, this is Star Trek, this is the Enterprise, this is Kirk and this is a movie. We all know Kirk will be captain and this way was pretty dramatic. A meteoric rise of a legend, things that happen just once in a thousand years.
5. Exactly what was he supposed to say? We don’t know how long Spok was on that planet, we don’t know how concerned he was with trying to preserve the time line. Did Nero tell him what was going to happen? Did he leave it as a surprise? I could go on. Just put yourself in his shoes. How do you explain what you know, where you come from? How will the outpost treat you? Could some eager security officer blame you of being a spy for Nero? There are too many unknowns to make any kind of guess. All that makes is a bit of bad storytelling and not much more. Again, it is simply possible that there were reasons for Old Spok to not have gone to the outpost and I would like to know what they were, but that’s all.
6. Terminal velocity is being thrown out too much as so important in the process because it provides a contrast to Spok’s mother falling but not having reached that speed. People watching closely can see that the beaming has started when Spok’s mother falls, that Chekov tries to re-establish a lock but he only had 2 seconds MAYBE before falling to her death. Kirk and Sulu were falling for about 15-20 seconds before Chekov managed to beam them up. I really don’t understand what the problem is here.
7. No, Scotty cannot beam people on ships traveling at warp speeds, Old Spok gave him the equations for that. End of story.
8. That statement suggests that Uhura knew the relation between the Klingons being attacked and the SOS from Vulcan. She did not. She most definitely reported that to whoever was in charge at that time but no connection was ever made, not even by Kirk when he first heard it, unless people are suggesting that whenever Klingon ships (or whatever ships) are destroyed, the Federation must immediately assume a trap.
Just my two pence.
May 13th, 2009
Having seen both new “blockbuster” movies, the new Star Trek and Wolverine, I must say that I was not impressed.
However, the reasons are very different. Wolverine is a movie that deserved to be much longer while Star Trek was just rather pointless to a fan. It showed us something that does not add anything to, or play a role in, all the previous events we have seen in any movie or series.
——–Spoilers———–
For Star Trek, the creation of an alternate time line makes all knowledge of who Kirk and his crew were in reality (by reality I am referring to the actual time line of the universe). The change of events does not even limit the differences to Kirk because Nero is active in this movie and he affects events that would not have happened otherwise. Even Old Spok says so, in his question “Are you not the captain?” when New Kirk tell him that New Spok marooned him for mutiny.
So we have some info about the actual timeline from Old Spok (Kirk was captain at that stardate, he and Spok were friends) which are sufficient for us to say that we don’t really know what happened to the original characters in their original timeline.
————-End Spoiler—————
Having said that, the movie is fun and engaging, but it fails to provide people that love the universe with more relevant info about the characters and that is a major flaw in my humble opinion.
As for Wolverine, the flaw in that movie is that it only has one viewpoint, that of Wolverine. So many characters and events are discussed in the movie but not given any background or substance. Hence we are left with a feeling of lost info, wondering what happened there or there, who that is, why did he did that etc. This is a movie that deserved many more hours of storytelling but we did not get that. Also, what is wrong with naming the characters with the aliases that Marvel gave them? So many of them are not called by their better known aliases.
May 12th, 2009
OMG! There are so many things wrong with this post that I don’t know where to begin.
For one, no one even considers the effect of Palpatine on the boy. Palpatine was always behind the scenes whispering in his ear and pushing him over the edge. We are talking about years of manipulation.
No one says anything about the rules the Jedi council “bent” to have Anakin train as an apprentice. For one, Qui-Gon was stubborn in training Anakin, over the objections of the council. Then, with his dying breath he makes Obi-Wan promise to train Anakin. And who would refuse their beloved father’s last wish? (yes, they are not actually father-son, but that is the nature of their relationship). Yoda did not want to Anakin trained, even after all the other council members agreed, and only did so reluctantly in an effort to spare Obi-Wan the bullheaded nature of his mentor.
No one says anything about the relationship of Amidala and Anakin, a big No No in the Jedi rules. This was the single most important contribution in Anakin’s fall to the Dark Side. After years of Palpatine manipulation the ego of a boy, he finally prayed upon the passion of a teenager and the arrogance of youth in promising him a way to save his loved one from ever dying. All he did, he did in a twisted effort to save the one person that he loved.
No one says anything about the free pass Anakin got after slaughtering every Tusken Raider, including children. He was never penalized for it and in fact they just considered it a “failure” on his part and spoke of it no more.
In fact, the only thing that was good about Anakin was Obi-Wan, putting him down when neccessary and praising him when he deserved it. He equally acknowledged every action Anakin made, as a parent should, while he never lost his temper, as a parent should. However, Obi-Wan is critisized for it by making it appear as if he was putting Anakin on an emotional merry-go-round.
And of course, we have the omnipresent “phallic” comparison. Give me a break…
May 24th, 2007
I just saw Vanishing Point, a movie that was released at 1971. It’s about a former racer that has a job of transporting cars across America by driving them himself. He gets a 1970 Dodge Challenger and makes a bet that he can make delivery in a very short time. Of course this is kinda hard without breaking a few laws and the police are on his back.
No matter what you think about the protagonist, and you have to see the movie before making up your mind about him, one thing is for certain. He can DRIVE!
There is one point in the movie that an obnoxious driver (let’s call him idiot) challenges him to a race, something our hero has no interest of doing, but then the idiot bumps our hero’s car off the road and laughs hysterically. We already know by now that our hero had a similar tragic experience when he was racing so that vexes him a bit. He does not get aggressive though, instead he just passes the idiot in a show of racing skill.
He double clutches his Challenger…
Now, most of people will know the term because they heard it in another movie, “The Fast And The Furious” but that term doesn’t apply in drag racing in another show of modern Hollywood trying to sound all technical and cool but being totally wrong and stupid in the process. Double clutching is all about downshifting, drag races are all about upshifting…
Point of interest: the “Vanishing Point” doesn’t tell you that a double clutching is happening, it just shows you, around the 25th minute of the movie. Those who know what that is understand and appreciate, the rest don’t understand. Modern Hollywood is telling you more to try to bring more people in, but they also tell you a lot of bull along the way…
To understand what double clutching is all about, read this wonderful post here.
May 7th, 2007
Well, here is one more MMO being announced. I know I do not sound all that enthusiastic, even though I really did like the Firefly universe. As one fan said in the documentary Done The Impossible:
“…I love that there are no aliens in it, I’m SICK of aliens…”
It is a future setting, one side is the Alliance, think of it as the established government of all populated planets, another side is the pure evil humans that we see in the film as the result of the Alliance’s experiments on pacifying a colony gone wrong, and then there are the people in between, covering everything from the simple accounting clerk to the pirate captain running a smuggling route.
I did like the series, I enjoyed the movie, but I cannot get excited about yet one more MMO. Gaming companies have turned their attention to MMOs and so many have produced one, but most of them are just unplayable crap. I’ve only enjoyed a handful of MMOs I’ve played, and even from those, only one stood out as a truly complete experience with only superficial bugs or omissions that didn’t destroy the game as some point.
So I say, good news, here’s to hoping the best, but also, here’s to not getting excited. I’ll just wait and see…
December 10th, 2006
I saw X-Men 3. I was excited. I was saddened. I was disappointed. I was enthralled. I was amused. I was entertained.
More mutants on screen. A true escalation of power play. Beast and Archangel onscreen.
Xavier died trying to reach out to Grey. Cyclops died for nothing. Grey died “for her sins”. Mystique became human. So did Magneto. So did Rogue.
Main characters died, and they expect us to believe there will be a forth. Humans portrayed as basically racists with half a brain. The movie tried to create ethical dilemmas where none exist. Previous X-Men movies did that so much better.
Magneto goes all out and truly proves what one can do with intelligence. His power is “simple” yet his intellect is such that makes him a demigod. The final battle is much larger and complex than before, better suited to an X-Men 10 if we follow linear escalation.
Simple things, like clever banter, intelligent use of powers and others, prove that to have comic relief in a movie you don’t need a Jar-Jar!
This movie was a tough balance between love and hate. You can hate the fact that three standard characters die (or you can see it as a unique feature that made the movie unique). You can hate that the stealth mode is invisibility mode (or you can laugh and attribute it to the X-Men mythos). You can hate the “humans” for their shortsightedness (or you can love them for their kindness). You can cheer for the X-Men (or hate them for changing their own ethical compass when it serves them). And you can love the tormented persona that is Gean Grey (or you can hate Phoenix for her ruthlessness).
This is not a typical comic book movie. This is not easily classified. But it will entertain, it will last, even if it is only because it is different.
May 25th, 2006
I saw the new trailer for the new James Bond movie. I was very much surprised with the choice of actor to embody this legendary character. Daniel Craig is not what James Bond is to me.
Let me give you an evaluation of the previous actors to understand how I rate the casting.
• Sean Connery: The leader, the very first James Bond and that first time is always powerful. He is an amazing actor and he did the part justice, but in some ways he was not the best Bond. His attitude for the part was a bit too American. That in itself is not bad, but Bond is a British spy, not an American CIA agent. Read more on that later on.
• George Lazenby: well… he tried…
• Roger Moore: Now there is a Bond. Do you need someone handsome? He was that. Do you need someone British? He is the only one to truly give a British overtone to the Bond character, from the sense of humor to the expressions of his acting. In that he is the master. Do you need someone to convince you that he is dangerous and capable? Roger Moore was a very good actor that managed to do that. Forget for a moment the need we have to laugh at impossible scenes and outrageous stunts and concentrate on the acting! He does make you believe that he JUST spotted that out he was looking for, that he did fight for his life, and his looks were at times really speaking volumes about the ethos of the character.
• Timothy Dalton: there is one very specific reason I don’t like this casting; Timothy Dalton is portraying a far too emotional character. Bond is a rascal, a rogue, yet highly effective spy. He is not the kind of man to go on a murdering rampage with his face all twisted by his feelings. There is method to his madness and a slight psychosis that is needed to cope with all he has done (and will do). For instance, this line addressed to Bond from Goldeneye: “I might as well ask you if all the vodka martinis ever silence the screams of all the men you’ve killed…”. Bond doesn’t care about that, he is not insulted and the man saying this quote KNOWS that Bond is not really bothered by all the men he’s killed.
• Pierce Brosnan: this is my favorite. I know that his acting is not British, but his humorisms are, and that is largely to be attributed to the writers, so this is not something I credit Brosnan with. However, Brosnan had one vital thing in common with Moore; comparatively to the time and ethos of the viewing audience those actors played James Bond, they both gave their best to show a character that is dismissively funny, unbothered by the finer ethical nuances of their actions if it serves their purpose, dangerous when the situation calls for it and convincing in their role as a trained capable spy and practical thinker. Moore played differently because the times were different when his movies were made. Brosnan brought Bond to this century.
Enter Daniel Craig. I recognized him as Lara Croft’s past flame turned mercenary and eventually traitor. I acknowledge that he has some rugged edge to him that women might find attractive. But Bond is more than that. Bond is not only handsome to women, he is captivating to the males around him. He is the absolute Alpha Male and his presence is always noted. Craig’s presence (and that is only my personal view of course) in a room could be interpreted as the muscle of the establishment, the local trouble maker, etc. He does not command the attention of others, he commands their apprehensions. And that is something a spy can do without…
May 23rd, 2006
When I saw Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire I didnt realy know what it was that bothered me. And then it hit me…
The tittle of this post spawned from an admision on the part of the producers about the thought process behind the development of the script: “The book is so long that we could never develop all stories, so we only concentrate on Harry“. Yes, it is a standard practice by movie script writers to compress a book, but in this case I feel they dropped the ball, and like a boy in puberty all things seem to not matter but the main character, a totaly egocentric universe. There were too many stories untold, too many holes in the script. It felt unfinished. Imagine if they did the same to the Lod of the Rings and followed only one story line! Oh, the horor!
Also, this is the film where Harry is first shown to be attracted to a girl and we all remember how that felt when we hit puberty. It was done in a funny but not crude way, but yet again, the book had so much more depth to this aspect of the three leading characters’ lives.
That said, it wasn’t a bad movie. The special effects were amazing, better than ever before. I especialy enjoyed the dragon sequence (although it brought back too many memories from Reign of Fire – not that this is a bad thing, I actualy enjoyed this movie, I jsut feel that Goblet of Fire was… borrowing too many stuff from those dragons) and the introduction of other schools of magic (the entrance of the two schools in the main hall of Hogwarts was a very nice sequence – even if the french were a bit too… overt).
All in all I would say that I rank this on the same level as Chamber of Secrets with my all time favorite still being The Prisoner of Azkaban.
November 29th, 2005