January 17, 2010

Transporter 2


Yeesh. Talk about a generic PG-13 action movie. While this was way more entertaining than The Transporter, it was also much less tolerable. Ridiculously predictable fight scenes and corny lines abounded, and in typical PG-13 fashion there was maybe a collective fluid ounce of blood spilled in the entire movie. Action movies are allowed to be unrealistic, but only when realism is sacrificed for awesomeness or badassery. That's not the case here, as Jason Statham plays a run-of-the-mill hero who, despite being targeted by gunmen consistently, never fires a shot himself. The bad guys were absolute cliches, speaking in Russian-accented English all film, even to one another. There was even a stereotypical "don't fuck with me" chick who wore way too much makeup and next to no clothing. She was turned on by gunfire and kept trying to make out with both her baddie boss and Jason Statham. (But no sex - it's PG-13, kids.) What can I say? I wanted this movie to be more enjoyable than the first Transporter, and it was. It just wasn't any good. Here's hoping (but doubting) that the third one manages to impress me.

The Hunger Games



I know its been a little while since I have posted so I am glad that I can contribute not one but two entries today. This book I actually had no intention on reading and only ended up reading by accident. I have spent much of the past couple months substitute teaching in the Westford middle schools (Blanchard and Stony Brook) and as a result I have noticed that in both schools many students are reading this book. It caught my interest several weeks ago but I didn't pick it up until I was assigned to a reading class that was almost done with it. Several students asked me if I had read it and I was forced to respond in the negative but now if asked I can answer in the affirmative. I intended on only reading a few pages to get a feel for the book but by the end of a 6 hour school day I was more than halfway through the book. I downloaded and finished it when I got home. The book is written at a middle school level but the substance of the book is, in my opinion, much more adult. The book reminds me of the movie the Condemned mixed with the short story the lottery with some semblance of Harry Potter 4. I loved this book so much that without hesitation I immediately started in on the sequel which, so far, has not had the same charm as the first but I feel that I will finish it anyway.

Frost Nixon



Another Netflix addition from me. I saw this and hadn't heard anything about it so I decided to give it a shot. I have no idea of the history behind the events of the Watergate scandal other than the fact that now any political wrong doing is immediately given the suffix gate as a result. Historical accuracy was not what impressed me with this movie, mostly because I can't be sure that any part of it is actually accurate. What did impress me with this movie was the way in which Nixon, the only man in history to surrender the presidency, was portrayed. Unlike the movie "W" that portrayed Bush as an alcoholic idiot of a president, this movie portrayed Nixon as a person. Emotions were given to the historical events and at the end the viewer got the impression that Nixon was a flawed person but not an evil genius. In this movie Nixon's trial appeared instead of a witch hunt to be a fair trial. Overall I really enjoyed this movie and I would recommend it to anyone.

Parks and Recreation: Season 1


When I first heard that the guys behind the U.S. version of The Office were planning on making a spin-off, I was worried. Spin-offs are almost never a good idea when the original show is still on TV. For proof, look no further than Seth MacFarlane's Sunday night shitfest on FOX. Showrunners should focus on the quality of one show and not try to expand a franchise and spend less time on each show. Fortunately, Parks and Recreation ended up not being a spin-off at all, but more of a companion piece to The Office - similar in style but entirely separate. Unfortunately, my fears did somewhat come true as its first season was not quite up to par with The Office while The Office itself peaked long ago. The good news? The Office had a pretty bad first season before it became one of the defining comedies of the decade. And I have no reason to believe Parks can't pull a similar turnaround. Why? Because I've been watching Season 2 this year and so far not a single episode has been a dud. Having spent the morning watching all six episodes of Season 1, I can attest that they aren't even close to bad. I think the problem was that everyone, myself included, judged this show the same way they'd have judged The Office. Amy Poehler was unfairly compared to Steve Carrel's Michael Scott by the masses and no one really wanted to give the show a chance. But where Carrel gets his laughs from being comically childish and charmingly stupid, Poehler plays an undying optimist who works hard at her meaningless city government position and never complains about how shitty it is. She's not really dumb or flakey; instead, her charismatic flaw is that she's an enormous dork. That's really the only word I can think of to use. And while Carrel is undoubtedly the best part of his show, Poehler is outshined by several of her castmates. Among them are Chris Pratt (you may vaguely remember him as Che from Season 4 of The OC), Aubrey Plaza (an intern who couldn't give less of a shit), Nick Offerman (the boss with an overly hardened exterior but no bark or bite at all), and, best of all, Aziz Ansari (the Indian guy from Human Giant whose minor recurring role in Scrubs was the greatest part of Season 8). Rounding out the cast are the not-so-funny Paul Schneider (he plays the straight man amid all the nonsense) and Rashida Jones (Karen from Season 3 of The Office - she once again plays Karen from Season 3 of The Office). There are a few minor roles too, but those characters don't really get fleshed out until Season 2. The main thing with Season 1, I think, was that it served to set up the characters and familiarize the audience with each of them on a personal level - this isn't unlike what The Office did, and it definitely pays dividends as soon as Season 2, which hits the ground running thanks to the legwork put in in Season 1. I guess ultimately Season 1 could be described as decent. If you try not to compare to The Office immediately, you'll probably even enjoy it. And don't be turned off by Amy Poehler. I hated her in SNL too but she's really much less annoying in this role. This isn't exactly a show that you need to watch from the beginning, but then, there have only been like twenty episodes total so far, so it can't be that hard to catch up. I wouldn't have recommended this show based on Season 1 alone, but honestly, it's winning me over week after week here in the midst of Season 2. In fact, I would even dare to say that it's currently the most enjoyable show in that NBC Thursday night block that features the Emmy-juggernaut 30 Rock, the critically acclaimed upstart Community, and even the much-beloved Office. Of course, all of this is just my opinion. But seriously, give this show a shot if you haven't, and know that like any show it might not find its feet for the first several episodes. Once you clear those, you're golden.

January 15, 2010

The Godfather Part II

So much for that debate. In my humble opinion, The Godfather Part II doesn't even compare to its predecessor. It wasn't terrible. It wasn't even bad. In fact, it was really good. But for a film that is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, it disappointed me a bit. And it's not like I was expecting too much, or the wrong kind of movie; I just saw the first one last night. The first movie depicted a crime family and their inner circle. It was interesting to see different people step up and shy away as time went by and changes occurred. This time around, the film is split into two stories. One is that of a young Vito immigrating to America and making a reputation for himself. The other was of Michael continuing to run the Corleone family in the late 1950s. It seemed to me that the two stories - which had nothing to do with each other at all - could have easily been split into two separate movies. This move also would have knocked back the running time from its three hours and twenty minutes. Robert De Niro won an Oscar for best supporting actor for his role as young Vito, but I don't really see why, to be honest. He's on the screen for less than an hour and though he speaks in Italian for the majority of his time, I didn't really see any great emotional range from the guy. Al Pacino was slightly better, but even he didn't blow me away. And that's strange because many people have called his performance here one of the greatest of all time. I knew going into this pair of movies that I wouldn't come away regarding them as new found favorites, but at least after the first one I nodded and said, "yeah, I can definitely see what all the fuss is about." This time? Hardly. For whatever reason, I just didn't love this movie. On the bright side, I still have the much-maligned third one to watch, and I'm bound to go in with low expectations. Could I come away from that one nodding with approval? We'll see.

January 14, 2010

The Two Towers


I was in eighth grade when the first Lord of the Rings movie came out. Having just completed The Hobbit and being eager to prepare myself for the much-hyped trilogy, I began to read the books for the first time. I didn't even get through the first book until after I had already seen the movie. I was so slow getting to the next one (this one) that I had already seen The Two Towers before I began to read it. And I didn't get very far (four chapters, to be precise) before putting the book down and saying, "fuck it; the movies have been so much better than the books." And that much was true. As tried and tested as the "the book is always better" rule is, it doesn't hold true with The Lord of the Rings. If you think the movie trilogy was long and boring, please do yourself a favor and stay away from the books. If you've seen the film version of The Two Towers, for example, you'll recall that the climactic part of the movie is the defense of Helm's Deep, the last stronghold for the people of Rohan. There's a slow and steady build-up and then the battle itself takes place over thirty minutes or so of screen time. In the book, on the other hand, the following things are confined to one fifteen-page chapter: the journey to Helm's Deep, the preparations for a siege, the siege itself, and the victory. And that chapter is Chapter 7. Of 21. Compare this to the whole chapter Tolkien devotes to the journey from Helm's Deep to Isengard (not even shown on screen) or the entire one Frodo, Sam, and Gollum spend cooking rabbits. Tolkien may have written some classics, but he sure didn't punctuate or pace them nearly as well as Peter Jackson. Remarkably, the book I just finished (after a six or seven year hiatus) was very close to Jackson's film version. The main difference was the one I've already mentioned; pacing and chronological order are mixed up a bit on screen, and it's for the better. But the second-biggest change Jackson made was a watering down of many of the principal characters. In the films, Gimli the dwarf is heroic, sure, but he serves primarily as comic relief, especially when jokes are made at the expense of his pride and small stature. In the books, however, he's a very mutli-dimensional character with a quick wit and much more outward respect for his friends and allies. A similar case applies for Legolas; Orlando Bloom's version is a valiant bad-ass, but Tolkien's actually has a personality. He's jovial and sarcastic, and he too is much more openly concerned with the safety of his friends. One memorable comedic moment in the films occurs when Gimli and Legolas get into a kill count contest during the Helm's Deep siege. I was surprised when the same contest unfolded in this book, but I was even more surprised when it ended with Legolas conceding victory (by one kill) to Gimli, but professing that his happiness for Gimli's survival outweighs any resentment he feels from coming in second. In general, it seems like Jackson's characters take themselves far too seriously whereas Tolkien's are unabashedly human. In the movies, Faramir is nearly consumed by greed and almost takes the ring from Frodo when he holds him captive. In the books, he's a much nobler and stronger character, promising that even if he found the ring on the ground he'd never even think of picking it up. What the movie had depicted as Frodo's main second movie conflict turned out to be nothing more than a friendly conversation in the book. So really, even though they're very similar, the books and the movies each have their share of advantages and disadvantages. For now, I'll take the less dimensional characters the movies offer in exchange for the much more poorly structured and paced books. I still haven't read The Return of the King, though; I'll see if the same trends continue with that one.

The Godfather


I just saw what is probably the most widely regarded "best movie of all time" for the first time. How can I even react to it? It seems weird to even consider judging, ranking, or rating it, because once again, it's the consensus best movie of all time. When something is supposed to be the best of its kind - of all time - it can only meet or fail to meet expectations. It's literally impossible for it to be any better than it's supposed to be. And chances are good that it'll come up a little bit short. So, I need to reiterate my dilemma here - how can I recap or review the perfect movie? I can't. It's that simple. It wasn't necessarily my favorite movie (I've seen it once, and that was less than an hour ago) and it certainly felt a bit dated (which is to be expected from a 1972 movie set in the 1940s) but neither of these things mean it was not, in fact, the best movie of all time. But I'm not ready to give it that ultimate title. Again, I just saw it. Furthermore, it's such an iconic film that I was already more or less aware of much of its plot and famous moments. The horse head scene was something I was anticipating from the very beginning and the oft-quoted "I'll give him an offer he can't refuse" line seemed commonplace. And that's because it is commonplace today, but only thanks to this movie in the first place. Nearly forty years later, The Godfather remains the quintessential mob movie, and furthermore, it's somewhere in almost every movie aficionado's top ten list. It may be slow-paced and drawn out, but that just makes it a thinking man's movie. Not just something to watch, but something to behold. I'm not going to laud it as an intellectual masterpiece, but it unfolded with such a calm and subtle pace - much like Brando's quiet but powerful voice itself. Factor in a hint of action and a beautiful score, and sure enough, the movie's got a case for the title of "greatest ever." But I can't award it that distinction. Certainly not now, and probably not ever. Once a film is as timeless and iconic as this one, it becomes hard to compare it to other flawless and defining films from other genres and eras. Apples to oranges, you know? Besides, I still have yet to see this movie's greatest competitor: its own sequel. Stay tuned.

January 13, 2010

Shoot 'Em Up


Now this was an over-the-top action movie. The title says it all. Like gun violence? See this. I went into this flick expecting the humor, choreographed shoot outs, and gruesome deaths that I was treated to, but was pleasantly surprised by the somewhat passable plot and the spot-on acting. Clive Owen is perfect for his role, a mysterious but noble man who is more skilled with a handgun than anyone else alive. Even more delightful was Paul Giamatti as an intelligent, suave, very charismatic antagonist. He was unabashedly - nay, gleefully - hypocritical and self-serving and was a treat to watch for the entirety of the film's short and sweet 86-minute runtime. The whole thing was just executed remarkably. Check it out, and I promise, you will enjoy it. There's really not much else I can say about this gun beauty.

The Transporter


I know what you must be thinking. Something like, "Damn does this guy love Jason Statham lately." I couldn't blame you for making such an assumption, as this is the third film I've logged this week starring him, and Snatch was pretty recent as well. But actually, the Crank duo and Transporter trilogy were Christmas gifts; I have inherited, rather than directly sought out, this abundance of Jason Statham. Now, I know this movie was neither a smash hit with critics or with audiences, but several friends of mine swear by the trilogy. So far, I have to say - guys, I'm not impressed. Maybe I've been spoiled by the Crank movies, but Jason Statham just didn't kick nearly as much ass in this as I was hoping he would. Granted, there was still plenty of action and ass-kicking. There just wasn't much that blew me away. A few of the action sequences were pretty cool and Statham was dry and witty as always, but ultimately the whole presentation felt run-of-the-mill and ordinary. In fact, it may have been the most typical PG-13 action movie I've seen. That's not a bad thing, but it sure isn't a good one. Perhaps it's the latter two films in the trilogy that my friends rave about - I'll find out soon enough if those are any good - but as a standalone piece, this movie was an utter disappointment that fell far short of my admittedly high expectations.

January 12, 2010

New Super Mario Bros. Wii


I beat this game yesterday, vanquishing the final boss (no spoilers here - it's Bowser) just after midnight. But, in a Back-Blogged rarity, I opted not only to finish this game, but furthermore, to complete it, collecting every star coin in the game (there are three in each level). Collecting all the star coins in a world unlocks a bonus level. Only today did I finish these eight bonus levels (collecting all three star coins in each one). Why did I do this? Well, truth be told, I actually beat this game a couple months ago back at my apartment on campus. It just wasn't my copy. Upon receiving my own game disc for Christmas, I decided I would one up myself, not only beating the game but completing every level along the way. The game itself is a pretty standard 2D platformer. It's very similar to the similarly named New Super Mario Bros. for the DS that came out a few years ago, but all content is entirely new. The games are most assuredly separate and unrelated. And that's a good thing, because I didn't care too much for the DS game when I played it a little over a year ago. This one, however, was a very enjoyable experience. The big difference? Teamwork. Well, that's being generous. "Passive aggressive cooperative multiplayer" rings more true. Yes, New SMB Wii can be played with up to four players at once. But as the saying goes, three's a crowd. (And four is just plain chaotic.) I've played with eight other people total and can assure you that every multiplayer session goes the same way. When two people are playing together, they're really working together. "You cross that chasm, and I'll stay behind in case you die and need to respawn." "We can reach that star coin if you jump on my head." Teamwork is the name of the game, and even though one player typically assumes a leadership role, there's always at least somewhat of a sense of camaraderie in play. Even when I found myself with an absolute novice for a teammate - and trust me, I often did - I was always happy to have a partner. It may be easy to get frustrated with a less-skilled teammate, but it's even easier to work with said teammate to reach star coins that require the utmost skill and patience when going at it alone. There's no question: two heads (and virtual bodies) are better than one. But "the more, the merrier?" Hell no. Perhaps a well-oiled team where everyone knows their role would be a force to be reckoned with, but I played plenty of four-player New SMB Wii and rarely if ever did an abundance of players make for an easier time. There are just too many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak. Two people will jump for a star coin or power-up, collide in midair, and die. A platform will become overcrowded and fall without anyone having enough control to jump away. In general, yelling happens. Typically it's comical or light-hearted at first, but before long, true blame games will emerge and at least one person will get at least a little pissed off. That's not to say it isn't fun. It is! The game itself is, as a classmate of mine said, "What Mario Party should have been." Allow me to go over a few of the typical player types you'll find in any four-man New SMB Wii crew. First, you've got the professor. The professor lectures people. "See, what you should have done there..." is a typical way for him to start off a sentence. He's typically decent enough at the game to know what he's talking about, but he can be a real pain in the ass to play with because he's always telling you how to play. Whenever he screws up - and he's only human, so he will - the rest of the group lunges at him verbally with biting sarcasm. Usually a professor learns very quickly that no one will want to play with him if he doesn't cut the shit. Next, we've got Usain Bolt. This guy will take it upon himself to sprint forward, full speed ahead, more or less daring the rest of his squad to slow down. He's a nightmare to play with as he'll inadvertently (but unapologetically) kill his teammates by getting them caught between the edge of the screen and a hard place. Sometimes it gets to the point where he's almost intentionally doing what he does just for the sake of killing people. But that role belongs to the saboteur. The saboteur is someone who has become bored enough with the game that he finds pleasure in intentionally causing his teammates harm. A saboteur specialty is to pick up a teammate and throw him off a cliff or into an enemy. Obviously, saboteurs are few and far between, as no one wants to play with one, and being one gets old pretty fast too. We've also got the pack rat. He's the guy who hoards power-ups and extra lives even though his teammates need them more than he does. Sure, it's gamer nature to chase a mushroom down and grab it, but when you're already capable of shooting fireballs, why not let your near-death ally take a power-up? And then there's Captain Hero. Captain Hero is the de facto leader of operations. He's all about the glory. "You guys wait here; I'll kill these eleven enemies," he'll say. To his credit, Captain Hero is usually the best player in a foursome, and it only makes sense for him to take on the biggest challenges. But by telling his teammates to stay behind while he does everything exciting, he's only hogging all the fun. Now, I will admit to having been guilty at one time or another of playing the part of every role I've just gone over. But there's one thing I've never been: the worst teammate type there is. I'm talking, of course, about the panic bubbler. "Bubbling" can be done by pressing the A button. When a player does this, he voluntarily opts out of the action for the time being, surrounding his character with a bubble and floating aimlessly around the screen. He can take no damage in this state, but he's also of no use to the team whatsoever. (Also, whenever a player dies, he'll come back in a bubble.) In order to escape from a bubble, another player needs to pop it by making physical contact. Of course, if everyone is either dead or in a bubble, it's game over. (Well, "level over," at least.) Bubbling has its uses. If, for instance, a star coin hovers precariously out of reach over a ledge, a player might make a running leap for it, and after collecting it, press A to bubble up and save himself from dying. Likewise, if someone finds himself way behind the pack and about to die, he might use the bubble to catch up to the group while avoiding damage. But when the going gets tough, you want your teammates to have your back. Even if two or three people get killed by a troublesome part of the level, the team will be fine as long as just one person remains. Unless, of course, that person is a panic bubbler. The panic bubbler will press A to cower away inside his bubble at the first signs of danger. He'll let his teammates dispatch of the danger and make the difficult leaps, and then he'll say "wait up" as his bubble saunters over once he's out of trouble. He's a coward. Often, his cowardice goes unnoticed, as bubbles are a fairly common sight in many four player games when the chaos is high and the deaths are many. But nothing sinks a team's spirits worse than losing a level because one person was too afraid to fight. Every time I saw someone panic and press A despite being the last living character, part of me died. Never was I more disappointed in a peer than I was in a panic bubbler. Even a saboteur is more tolerable than a dirty, good-for-nothing panic bubbler. If there's one person you don't want to go to war with - one person who doesn't have your back and will abandon you at the first sign of danger - it's him. Whew. Sorry. I really needed to get that off my chest. Anyway, this game is a great one and I give it four out of four stars. It's a "should own" (if not a must own) for anyone with a Wii. Just know that it's best enjoyed with friends (even though it can be easier at times to go at it alone than at maximum capacity) and it's really short and simple if you're not trying for star coin count completion. One final thing I need to bitch about - why the red case? Every other Nintendo Wii game out there comes in a white case. Why break that tradition now? Why make it so that New SMB Wii sticks out like a sore thumb when lined up in a gamers' collection with all his other Wii games? Nintendo has pulled this shit before with cartridges (think of the golden Zeldas, the cool black SNES Killer Instinct cartridge, and all the different Pokemon hues), but that was fine because, well, they did it often enough not to make it a rarity. But this game? Why? I just don't get it, and the perfectionist in me hates that I now have a patch of crimson in the middle of my otherwise pristine Wii game shelf. Oh well. I guess it doesn't matter. New Super Mario Bros. Wii was a great game, red case and all.