I'm just a guy who loves stories, whether they be past, present, future, movies, TV Shows, video games, whatever. If you came to get an average guys thoughts on film, you've come to the right place.
I've never really been a huge fan of Max Payne. I played the first game and I couldn't finish it. Something about a burnt out cop fighting bad guys sounds interesting. Something about that burnt out cop doing a dramatic narration the entire time just sounds depressing. Something about that cop going through bullet time without any explanation... well that just sounds dumb. The game was suppose to be a noir game... but wanted to be a hardcore shooter. One or the other game. One or the other.
And then there was the movie...
The more I think about this movie, the more I want to watch it and just review it and remember how horrible it is. Mark Wahlberg... a shitty plot... just so many things about this movie that is so stupidly bad... I might have to download that soon and watch it because its a movie I'm sure Mark Wahlberg wants to forget, and fast.
But I don't forget bad movies. I just have rediscover them...
Definitely in December I will be revisiting Max Payne and giving you my take on it.
But back to the point.
I'm not a huge fan of Max Payne. I'm not wild about the style, I'm not wild about the character, I'm not wild about the game.
But for some reason, possibly the price, I thought it would be a good idea to buy Max Payne 3.
I knew the background, mainly from the movie unfortunately. Max Payne was an NYPD detective who's wife and kid are murdered. He's just a depressing guy to say the least. And by god, is that not prevalent in Max Payne 3.
My god, how many times in this game am I just watching Max drink. He just sits in this shitty apartment and drinks for a good five minutes at a time. Nothing comes of it, there's not much development except for some depressing inner dialogue.
This was kind of the inbetween cutscenes that I think were only used as like loading screens before the next level loaded. These scenes were boring and long.
But all that said, Max Payne 3 is a fun game.
What a difference between the first game and the third game.
Somehow they managed to make an entire game that just seems to be the same exact location over and over of this dank and dark interpretation of New York... or New Jersey, something like that.
It was boring and just gave me a headache when I played it a couple years ago.
Suddenly, the locations are given a facelift in the 3rd game.
But they don't really forget where the game came from. The game has levels where they flash back to Max's time in New York. If someone was nostalgic about the old Max Payne, Max Payne 3 has that element to it.
But its a small element and I'm glad. I like the New Jersey levels in 3, but many times I was just waiting to get back to the levels in Brazil.
But what is the story?
The game takes place 9 years after the last game (as if that mattered to me) and Max is working private security for a rich family in Brazil known as The Brancos. There are flashbacks to show that he was recruited for the private security job from a man names Raul Passos after he needed to get out of New Jersey from threat of the mafia.
The game begins at a party Max is running security for when a group of armed men come in and try to abduct his boss and his wife. While they fail the first time, a level later they kidnap Rodrigo Branco's wife, Fabiana at a night club. After multiple attempts to get her back, and multiple gun battles later, Rodrigo Branco is murdered. Max must then go on his own to find Fabiana and Rodrigo's killer. All the while, he uncovers a plot on a larger scale including police corruption and conspiracy that leaves Max as a one man army in the middle of South America.
Consider that my spoiler free review. If you haven't played the game and want to know what happens in the story without me telling, I suggest you leave now and play the game as soon as you can. It really is a fun time.
But as far as the spoiler review goes.
Everyone dies in this game!
Seriously, Max Payne cannot win in this game. I know the game is suppose to be a noir style game and noir never ends in a necessarily happy ending. But damn, everything Max tries to do in this game just blows up in his face, and it happens very quickly. You think Max Payne's life was shitty at the beginning of the game, you just watch this guy go farther and farther down the drain and its just depressing.
And that's something that might turn you off of the game. Throughout, the game, Max is doing a monologue that is just down right depressing. If that's not your thing and you want some kind of happiness in a game, this one is not for you. It is however, a little bit brighter (literally) than the previous Max Payne games and that's a relieve on this end.
While the story is depressing, it is good.
Like any good mystery, its multilayered. The game starts out with you fighting gangs and very local enemies. It then just layers on each other as the actors of the story come out. Paramilitary, police, etc. It just builds on itself until the final show down.
Now is it pretty obvious who the bad guys are from the beginning? Yes. Are their motivations clear? No they're not. You could maybe guess that Victor Branco is a bad guy but you don't know why he would want his brother killed. It also doesn't help that Max's narration has a lot of foreshadowing in it. Its not very hard to guess that Max is going to get screwed.
However, the noir narration part of the story isn't as distracting as I thought it was going to be.
While we're talking about things that I thought were going to bother me, I should probably talk about the bullet time element of the gameplay.
I've never understood why Max Payne seems to be The One or live in his own little world of being able to manipulate the Matrix or something like that but for some reason, this guy can slow down time, giving him more time to shoot his enemies with complete percision.
Now Max Payne isn't the only game that has had an unexplained bullet time. Red Dead Redemption has its Red Dead vision or whatever that is that allows the player to tag targets and shoot them all. Now I'm not saying the bullet time of Max Payne isn't a fun element, I just don't think it makes much sense.
Its not too distracting in the game, at least not after multiple hours of playing, its just still strange to me. However, I've recently started to realize the style of game Max Payne really is.
Its not a realistic shooter. The same way its not a realistic story or takes a normal style of story telling. Its over exaggerated and sensationalized. and that's something you have to be clear about before you play this game.
Though it is sensationalized and ridiculous in some parts about it, it does play that line of being realistic and ridiculous very well.
There is a great theme throughout of class divide throughout the game. There's a great part of the game where Max is walking through the Favela and he points out the fact that he's been behind the glass until then. Its time to get into the actual Sao Paulo and actual Favela.
Now of course its a ridiculous and almost offensive representation of the Favela, but there's an element of truth in the things that are said in the game and its a good combination of over exaggeration and truth.
That ridiculousness is masked well enough with the well done environment and storyline that you just kind of forget that Max is unexplicably The One.
One thing that I must suggest with this game is that you should play the game all the way through in a very short time. My first run through with the game was fragmented over the span of a month between playing. Now there are a lot of characters in this game, characters that show up in the beginning and then don't show up until half way through the game.
An example of this is Wilson De Silva. APPARENTLY, he showed up at the beginning of the game
along with a lot of other guys who showed up later.
Playing the game fragmented made me forget that I had ever seen this guy, among others before. Suddenly when they show up again, I had no idea who they were. And suddenly Max is really angry at them, acting as though he had seen them before.
While I had totally forgot about them and didn't have the foggiest of ideas of who they were.
That doesn't make these characters bad. They're just a little forgettable unless you play the game very consistently.
It was kind of fun playing through the game again and seeing these characters who I saw near the end of the game and suddenly realized that they were in the beginning of the game again. Maybe I wasn't paying attention but I had alot of connecting moments and suddenly the game was making more and more sense.
Even when the game wasn't totally clear, the gameplay and collectables made the game a lot of fun to play. While Max Payne, in my opinion isn't the most dynamic character. I thought this portrayal was very good and a lot of fun.
Overall, the game was fun. The story was interesting and again, multilayered, and multilayered well. That with the action and the gameplay, the game is a very good installation of Rockstar's collection. Its not surprising that Rockstar brings it again and Max Payne was just down right fun.
But what do you think? Do you prefer the dark and dank original Max Payne or the updated 3rd installment? Comment and Discuss Below.
I'll leave you with this. In case you weren't interested in the storyline of the second Max Payne, here is the plot in 60 seconds. Its a fun video. Enjoy!
I did a post on DC's lineup and while I did a post on some speculation about Captain America 3: Civil War, I thought it would only be right to do a post on the most recent news about Marvel's plans for the next few years.
Again, a lot of this post will be speculation, and not very good speculation at that. I don't know the comics that well and all the speculation on where the Marvel Cinematic Universe will head will be based on what I think they could do, and what might make sense to me.
Ant-Man
July 2015 - Now this was not on the lineup of movies that were coming out soon, mainly because we knew all about Ant-Man. Also, I guess Ant-Man is considered Phase 2... Kind of strange.
However, I don't think I'm alone in kind of worrying about Ant-Man. Put aside the whole drama with Edgar Wright leaving the project, nobody really seems excited for Ant-Man, including Marvel. Yeah its not as big a property as the other films in the Marvel Universe but I really haven't heard anything about it lately.
Maybe the film will get a trailer in the next few months and people will become more excited about it but since the cast was announced for the film, it just seems as though the news for this film has been less and less. I'm really hoping for a good comedy like Ant-Man, and seeing what they did with Guardians of the Galaxy, I think its possible.
I also like Adam McKay's work. Now that's usually in works like Anchorman or Step Brothers but I'm hoping the guy can work his magic and make it a fun film as well as a viable part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
If not, its probably not the worst thing to ever happen in the world. I would just like to hear more about it.
Civil War - May 6 2016
Its confirmed that Captain America 3 is going to be the Civil War storyline.
Like I said before, I've talked about speculation towards Civil War. Before last night, this was all speculation, Robert Downey Jr was in talks but nothing was confirmed. We didn't know it was the Civil War storyline for sure... but we do now!
If you want to read my thoughts on The Civil War Storyline and how I think it could possibly affect the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, take a look here.
Needless to say, I am excited for this.
A part of me wonders if the decision to head in this direction was done in response to Batman v Superman. I have to wonder if Civil War was a plan they had a long time ago but I don't think it was their plan to make it the third Captain America until A) Captain America became the coolest member of the Avengers and B) DC announced Batman v Superman.
It makes me wonder if Marvel is feeling a little bit threatened by DC at all. It doesn't quite make sense quite yet because nothing has come out of the DC universe since Man of Steel and not enough people thought Man of Steel was ground breaking on its own. I thought it was... damn I wanna watch Man of Steel now.
The point is, I'm wondering if this is a pre-emptive attack to maintain its dominance. But we'll see.
Doctor Strange - November 4 2016
Benedict Motherfucking Cumberbatch!
That is all...
Really... there's nothing I know about Doctor Strange that would be beneficial to this post. I wish I could speculate what this movie is about but I have no idea.
I'm so excited for Benedict Cumbebatch to finally be a large superhero role like this. I loved him as Khan, I loved him as Sherlock. What more can you ask for. I'm excited for this movie.
Guardians of the Galaxy 2 - May 5 2017
Honestly something has to be changing in the next Avengers movie because they are changing up the line up big time.
Think about this.
Phase one and two were the main members of the Avengers and their sequels. Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, the Hulk. Phase two the only deviation was Guardians of the Galaxy. Now the line up finds the main cast in the minority. And the Guardians are actually going to be a veteran of the group, I would say leading the new group of Phase 3.
I still don't know the complete place Guardians have in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Yes, they showed one of the Infinity Stones that will obviously show up later in Phase 3 but we'll get to that. But int he grand scheme of things, what did Guardians contribute? Howard the Duck?
While i still don't know their place in the universe. I love Guardians. I'm going to love seeing their story unfold more. Now I need to rewatch Guardians because while I enjoyed it when I first saw it, I find myself wondering if Guardians was really that good. Its not that I think it was bad, I just need to watch it again to reaffirm my thoughts that it was good. Soon hopefully.
Thor: Ragnarok - July 28 2017
Now this is the movie that makes me wonder and speculate.
The little I know about Ragnarok is that it means the End of All Things. In the comics, its a story arc where Asgard and Thor just seem to die... and that's all.
This is the one bad part about Marvel revealing all these movies because I know now that Thor is safe in the next Avengers. I think everyone has been waiting for one of the Avengers to die. We know its not going to be Captain America, we know its not going to be Iron Man, and now with this film, we know Thor isn't going to die... at least not until the end of this film we know for sure. In fact I think that might be a speculation post coming up soon.
What I can say with 90% certainty, without any confirmation because there haven't been any, is that Loki is going to come back.
At the end of Thor: The Dark World, Loki has pretty much taken over Asgard under the guise of Odin.
I can only guess, but I would guess that that will have a huge part in Ragnarok. Either Loki will be the cause of it, or he will help Thor fight this threat... And I think Loki is going to die.
I don't like thinking about it that way but think about this. If Marvel is going to do a movie about the end of Asgard, a large destruction of a great proportion, someone is going to have to die. My guess is, its either Thor or Loki. Its easier for them to kill of Loki because it will have the same effect, if not a greater one on the fans than if Thor died and it allows for the God of Thunder to keep being in movies whereas Loki has already had an expiration dates on how long they could keep drawing him him out.
That is the best speculation I can do about Ragnarok. I also want to move on.
Black Panther - November 3 2017
Now I've already mentioned a slight feeling that Marvel feels DC coming up from behind, and a part of me thinks they're nervous. Thus they're trying to shut DC down before they get the chance to take the lead.
Now DC also announced their first superhero of color with Cyborg. The difference is, that movie is coming out in 2020, Black Panther is coming out in 2017. While DC announced it first, Marvel will come out with that film first. Its an interesting game these two are playing. And I'll talk about that again with a later movie.
Again, the thing I like about this lineup is that I don't know a lot of the properties coming up. I don't know about Doctor Strange, I don't know that much about Ragnarok, or Guardians of the Galaxy, and I sure as hell don't know anything about Black Panther.
What I've read about Black Panther is that it is a title passed down through an African tribe.
I hate to put it like this, but if there was going to be a competition between Marvel and DC and decide who was going to do the more risky black superhero, I'm pretty sure Marvel takes the cake.
This is something we've never seen done before... at least not well.
Cyborg is an interesting character but there's a difference between the character being black, and the character being black and from Africa.
Please do not think that I think its a bad thing that they're doing this. I think its awesome. I am just pointing out that this is a huge risk for Marvel. While Guardians of the Galaxy was a comic nobody had heard of, Black Panther is a comic that nobody has heard of and furthermore, its not the norm.
But I think Marvel is doing the right thing. Not only in making a film like this, but also how they're going to approach it.
Chadwick Boseman is playing Black Panther. I have not seen this actor in anything so I can't say anything to his acting ability but I can say its a good choice because of his reputation with movies like 42.
But he's also a little bit of an unknown. It would be silly of them to put him straight into his own movie right?
Well they're not going to. They're going to put him in Civil War.
Which again, makes me wonder if Marvel is getting freaked out by DC because they're taking some of DC's ideas. DC wants to show their future products in their earlier films, so they want to show Wonder Woman before her own standalone film. This will (hopefully) get people excited about that film and make the standalone film more successful.
Well let's hope that's what takes place with Chadwick Boseman. I'm personally very excited for this choice. I think that Marvel is taking the helm of doing something different... well... not totally. Again, I will talk about this in a little bit. Just give me a second.
The last thing I want to talk about is something that was speculated about during the Avengers 2: Age of Ultron trailer.
Remember when Andy Serkis was in the Age of Ultron trailer?
Yeah, when it first came out, people were like, OMG Andy Serkis is going to be this character form the Black Panther comics!
I had to take a step back and say, that doesn't mean anything. He could be anyone. Just because he kind of looks like this guy in the comics or tv show, it doesn't mean he's going to play a character from the Black Panther storyline...
Oh wait... Yeah he might be.
I'm still waiting to see who he plays, but there's a very good chance that that is the case. I don't know anything about that character, whoever he is. I only hope that Age of Ultron gives him a great introduction and actually develops him as a great villain. While people have kind of forgotten about the problems Marvel has, I still know that Marvel still has problems with developing villains that have actually made a splash. The last one that did that was Loki. The Winter Soldier... eh, not really, he was more of an anti-hero. Maybe Andy Serkis can change things up and actually be a great villain.
But again, its all speculation.
Captain Marvel - July 6 2018
And this is the announcement that I've been wanting to talk about since the beginning of this post. Because I'm sure this was in the works, I'm sure this was in the plans for a while. But basically, Marvel missed the boat on this one.
DC comes out with their line up and says, We're making a Cyborg movie (a movie featuring a black superhero) AND Wonder Woman, the first female Superhero movie.
Now again, Marvel probably had this in the plans for a while and are just now announcing it. But honestly, they lost here. DC announced they were going to do a female superhero first, Marvel looks like they're doing this just to compete with DC now. It has a little bit to do with the fact that Wonder Woman is a better known female superhero than Captain Marvel. But its also the fact that DC is coming out with their Wonder Woman movie a full year ahead of Captain Marvel.
And its this movie that really makes me feel as though Marvel feels threatened by DC. I have a guess that Marvel had no intentions of laying out their entire line up until DC came out with theirs. DC shows they're doing a Wonder Woman movie, they're doing a Justice League movie, they're doing a Cyborg movie and suddenly, everyone is talking about DC and not Marvel anymore. I think Marvel is suddenly feeling the competition they have never felt before.
Now, I have no delusions that I think Marvel feels threatened. I would guess they're not confident about Wonder Woman.
And they're not the only ones. I don't know if anybody is really confident about Wonder Woman quite yet and I think Marvel is ready to capitalize on that.
If Wonder Woman bombs, suddenly Marvel has a great alternative to it. If Wonder Woman does well, a year later Marvel can appeal to those people who loved that movie and say, here's another movie that you may like.
From a marketing stand point, Marvel is fucking brilliant.
Now, again, I think Marvel dropped the ball, but not by much. They still are having their black superhero WELL before DCs. While DC announced it first, the first superhero film featuring a black superhero will be done by Marvel.
Its an interesting game these two are playing and I'm interested to see if Marvel can hold their strong lead. However, its a lead I can see DC closing in on.
In Humans - November 2 2018
I know absolutely nothing about Inhumans...
That is all...
Seriously... I know absolutely nothing about InHumans. Apparently its a group of people with superhero abilities. I'm kind of imagining that they'll have a part in Guardians of the Galaxy because they're more in that realm... but again... I know nothing about InHumans.
Lets move on.
Avengers Infinity War - Part 1 - May 2018 Part 2 - May 2019
Now right after Black Panther, but before Captain Marvel and before Inhumans, there will be the first part of Avengers Infinity War.
Again, what the hell Marvel?
I know you probably had this in mind because DC is not the first group to split up a big name movie like this but to split up a team up movie with other properties in between? This is the exact same thing DC just announced! Why do the exact same god damn thing?
And what do I know? Maybe DC stole it from you. But as far as it goes, it kind of looks like you ripped that off of the Justice League films coming out.
Don't get me wrong, I'm excited as hell. That is two Avengers movies, two Justice League movies, two of them are going to be in the same year!
And this brings me to my own speculation.
This original group of 6 Avengers. I'm guessing at least two of them are going to die in Age of Ultron
Unfortunately, it can be Iron Man, it can't be Captain America, and it can't be Thor. They all have movies they need to get to.
That being said, I think at least one of those three might die in either Civil War, or Ragnarok.
I think its going to be Captain America. Looking at the Civil War storyline, and looking at what might make sense for later films, it just seems like its going to be Captain America. That's my guess.
But hey, it could also be Iron Man. I know Disney has been bleeding money by continuing to hire Robert Downey Jr, maybe they'll switch up the Civil War storyline and kill Tony Stark... but I doubt it. And again, its more likely that Loki is going to die in Ragnarok rather than Thor.
But as for Age of Ultron... I think Bruce Banner is going to die.
Its sad, I love Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk, but if they were going to kill of a main property without losing a lot of future capital, the Hulk might be a good choice. That or he's going into space and Planet Hulk becomes a thing.
I just think that The Hulk dying or being sent away might be a bittersweet ending to a movie that already has the tone of being a darker film that already looks like it can't end happily for everyone. I have no doubt that Ultron is going to be defeated, but its going to cost the Avengers something.
Beyond that, I almost know for a fact that its a flip of a coin between Hawk Eye and Black Widow as to which one of them are going to die in Avenger: Age of Ultron. However, I don't think that's big enough of a sacrifice to the monster that I'm hoping Ultron is going to become.
Secondly, Civil War
I'm hoping it expands past the third Captain America.
This seems like a big enough story that it could span multiple movies.
I do know that its going to have a large impact, or if it doesn't I'm going to be pissed. Having a versus between Iron Man and Captain America is no doubt going to cause divides. Divides that, I think will break up the Avengers.
Here's my guess, Ultron, creates so much destruction and someone dies, probably Bruce Banner. Iron Man is so distraught, remember, they were friends. He sides with the government in this controversial policy, Not necessarily a registration act, but a controversial policy. Captain America disagrees. They fight. However, I'm going to guess that they both survive. Maybe Pepper Potts dies, or someone important has to die. C'mon Marvel, you gotta start raising the stakes there.
From there the Avengers are scattered. Phase 3, to me, just seems like its going to be dark and utter chaos. Especially since most of them are on the hight of their career, in the real world and in the Cinematic Universe.
Look at this extended clip that was shown on Agents of Shield last night.
These guys are friends, they are having freaking contests and drinking with each other. I'm just getting a feeling that after Ultron, nothing will be the same. It will drive them to Civil War. Drive them to the end of Asgard, cause them to deal with Soccerers Supreme, and things not within the norm that has been created in the last two phases.
Needless to say, its going to be freaking magical!
But what do you think? Do you think Marvel is back on top? Do you think there's a chink in their armor from DC? Comment and Discuss below.
I'll leave you with this. On totally other news from Marvel/More Disney, here's the trailer for Big Hero 6, which looks awesome! Just a lot of fun, I think I need that to balance out the darkness that is definitely coming with this new phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Enjoy!
I have heard different things about this film from veterans and people in the military that say that this movie is incredibly exaggerated and not realistic at all. While I would say that's probably true, I don't think it down plays the fact that this movie is intense and has some great acting in it.
The movie follows an EOD team in Iraq in their last 30ish days of their deployment. In case people don't know what EOD is, they are the guys that defuse the bombs.
In the beginning, the team made up of Sergeant Sanborn (played by Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (played by Brian Geraghty) lose their team leader (played by Guy Pearce oddly enough) to a roadside bomb. They are assigned a new team leader and that team leader is Sergeant First Class William James (Played by Jeremy Renner)
From their first call, the team realizes that James is a different kind of soldier and plays by his own rules. He immediately butts heads with his team with his devil may care attitude and risk taking ways.
Its soon realized in the film that James has an addiction to the adrenaline that comes with defusing bombs. An addiction that his teammates do not have.
The one problem I have with the film, or at least the marketing of this film is that this is perceived as the main point of the film. Its almost saying that there are a lot of soldiers who have this addiction. I know there are soldiers who get caught up in this stuff and keep on going on deployments. That's interesting and it makes for a great character, but that shouldn't be the perception of the people in the military or in EOD. And I would hope that's not the point the movie is trying to make.
For me, the real great parts come in the inner turmoil of all the characters.
Sandborn and Eldridge saw their team leader die in front of their eyes. Eldridge has immense guilt because he believes he could have saved him. Sanborn has fears of dying in this dangerous environment. Its the conversation that he has with James at the end that really delves into the humanity of these characters. I think that's the profound part of this movie and the thing that, I imagine got the movie its Best Picture Award in 2010.
But if your just focusing on the rash decisions of Jeremy Renner, then you're missing the point of the movie, or at least the points you should be focusing on.
Jeremy Renner's character is really a complex character. There's a weird balance between Renner being an adrenaline junkie or if he's doing this because he wants to help people. Chances are its both. But he is a complex character, don't get me wrong.
But there are so many other themes within the movie that his character really helps. This movie, I would hope, isn't about soldiers who need an adrenaline fix, I would hope its about the fear of death in American soldiers in Iraq. It doesn't have to be a political statement, its just a story of humanity and bravery despite being scared out of your wits that one wrong move could mean your death.
As far as individual performances go, its a great cast.
Jeremy Renner kills it. The scary part about this movie is that all the characters, while their actions can be ridiculous and exaggerated, he really makes you feel and contemplate the psyche of this obviously disturbed soldier.
I don't think it was till the end that Anthony Mackie starts killing it. There's a lot parts where Sandborn is just kind of the whiny realist. I mean he's got some valid points and he's probably the most rational out of all the team, but because the movie is focused on James, Sandborn just becomes a little bit of a bummer. But again, its not until the last 45 minutes of the movie that he really picks it up and makes me happy for any movie coming out with Anthony Mackie in it. Seriously, the guy is great.
But the performance that, I think, got the most reaction from me and seemed to be the most interesting, was that of Brian Geraghty as Eldridge.
Geraghty nails it!
This is a guy who feels immense guilt. There are several points where his character is just sent into shock and holy shit, when he goes into shock, he goes into shock.
There's just a heartwrenching part where his psychologist goes out with them on a job, like Eldridge requested and the psychologist is killed in an IED blast.
Eldridge just goes into shock. Calling out the name of the guy, saying, he was just here! We have to find him! And all James can say is, He's dead. We have to go!
That scene just blew my mind and was just heart wrenching. Unfortunately, my disk drive went haywire and paused right at that scene. But by god it was good.
As far as the other cast goes, there's a lot of random high profile cameos in this movie.
Guy Pierce, Evangeline Lily.
For some reason Ralph Fiennes plays a private contractor going out to look for high value targets in Iraq. He meets the team in the middle of the desert and it leads to a really fascinating scene with a sniper and Brian Geraghty dealing with some of his demons. Needless to say, that is also a great scene. But its just strange that Ralph Fiennes had this kind of random cameo. It wasn't a big part, it could have been given to anybody, why Ralph Fiennes?
Now this movie did win best picture in 2010. It ran up against movies like District 9, The Blind Side, Inglorious Bastards, and Up in the Air. Not only that but it cleaned up in a lot of other awards.
Now I can't really say that I totally agree with it being Best Picture worthy. I haven't been good at predicting things since... well ever.
All I can say is that the movie is intense, its gritty, and while its unrealistic at times, its one of the best movies about Iraq that I have ever seen.
Its just damn good, that's all I can say. It has its problems. I mean why would three EOD guys go and hunt down a bomb maker when, as they say, there were a lot of infantry guys who have that as their job. But whatever, I can overlook all that just because the acting and feeling I got from this movie was just too damn good.
But those are my thoughts on The Hurt Locker. What about you? Do you think it earned its best Picture Award? Comment and Discuss Below.
I'll leave you with this. This is a news bit on the Military's (or at least one bomb disposal teams) thoughts on the movie. I think this will give you a good idea of the Military's thoughts on it... sorta. Enjoy!
The Matrix continues to be one of the best Sci-Fi films I've ever watched. Not only because the action is really great, but its also a form of Science Fiction and a world that was just created out of originality and brilliance.
I applaud the Wachowskis for this film. Its great.
And then there were the sequels.
Suddenly the film that was just a great science fiction film turned into a trilogy about... something.
Don't get me wrong, the action from the second film is great and the third film is... well the third film.
But the second and third film were so convoluted with bullshit and the Wachowskis spouting off, "ASK ME WHAT IT MEANS! ASK ME WHAT IT MEANS!"
I don't want to get too much into a review of the Matrix films, I imagine thats coming sooner rather than later.
I'm more interested in their BS and their diversion with Cloud Atlas.
As I've said before, I like the movie Cloud Atlas. After reading the book, I think I've come to like it even more.
But with watching the movie, I've realized the arrogance of the Wachowskis to spew off their... whatever they try and spew off and in doing so, totally miss the point, especially in the source material they're working with.
Now I have to get these guys credit, they have done a lot with their work, they're successful. And when they want to make a movie adaptation, they have the right to take it maybe in a different direction to better suit a movie adaptation. Furthermore, there are a lot of themes in Cloud Atlas. Its a book with 6 different stories. As much as people want to believe their interconnected in one way or another, they're very different and have their own morals and themes. It would be impossible for the Wachowskis to get all the themes in the book.
But the theme they go for really baffles me... and its reincarnation...
Now its not saying that the book doesn't have reincarnation in it. Mitchell has even stated that every character in the book is a reincarnated version of the previous one with the "comet" birthmark.
But that's not the point of the book. It seems as though the suggestion of reincarnation being involved is more of a tool to further connect the stories. Mitchell states that the theme comes more into the idea of predacity and way people exploit others. Individuals exploit individuals, groups exploit other groups, nations on nations, tribes on tribes, etc.
But that's the great things about books, even the author can have different meaning than his readers and what I got out of it was the interconnectivity of people. The best example of this comes with the Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish.
More importantly, the effect it has on Sonmi.
There's a slight reference to the movie that Sonmi watches. Its a funny reference because so much time has passed that a movie that, in our time, was probably considered a comedy or a melodrama, to Sonmi, being the only movie she's ever seen, has an incredible effect on her.
Its seen as an inspiration. Not the root of the revolution, but a catalyst for it. It kind of starts the flame in Sonmi in the book, whereas in the film, its just a connecting element of it.
And I think this is an example of the Wachowskis missing the point. Or if they had the point which they kind of did in making a big deal out of Ewing joining the abolition movement to end this cycle of predacity, but the point is, they're so caught up in this reincarnation bullshit that they miss an important aspect of the story.
Maybe its because of reincarnation, maybe not, but there's an interconnectivity of people. The actions we do in one way may effect those in the future. Even if they're small things like making a comedy, that Cavendish didn't intend to be a revolutionary film, and it was.
And that's the part of Luisa Rey that made me so angry and what I want to talk about.
The Wachowskis needed to streamline the story of Luisa Rey, which I get, its a complex story, one that cannot be done in a movie that has 6 other story lines to deal with. But in doing so, they stuff it with their reincarnation bullshit and totally miss the point of one of the greatest parts of that story.
There's a point where Issac Sachs is on a plane and he just starts writing. In the book, he writes about the future and pasts we create and the reality. Its a great little piece on our views of history and how our perspective of the past effect our perspective of the future, its hard to explain on this but its just great!
What does he do instead? Some BS about past lives and reincarnation and how he feels he knows Luisa Rey from a different life and... its Bullshit!
Again, I don't mean to say that there is no theme of reincarnation in the book. But for the Wachowskis to just gloss over all the other themes of interconnectivity and predacity and all the other things you could get from this book and just say, "Its Reincarnation, that's it!"
FUCK YOU GUYS!
Stop trying to be more thought provoking than you actually are. Its just like the Matrix. You have something that works. Keep it the way it is. Don't overthink it, don't overdo it. Just do it!
And I've seen you just do it before! I've seen you guys just do your thing and not try too hard.
You know how to write. I have no doubt of that. I enjoy your work! I love the Matrix, I love V For Vendetta. When you don't try too hard, your shit is good!
Its when you try and get too lofty, its when you bring in whatever spiritual or deeper meaning shit that things just get convoluted.
Cloud Atlas just barely stays below what you did in Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions where you were just screaming, ASK ME WHAT IT MEANS! ASK ME WHAT IT MEANS!
David Mitchell wrote a book that has reincarnation in it. But for pete's sake the man was at least subtle about it. Its an element but its not the entire book.
There's so much you can get out of Cloud Atlas and when its just a dead line of reincarnation, I feel like people miss out on so much that can be pulled out of the story.
The Wachowskis are coming back with a new film in 2015 called Jupiter Ascending.
For some reason, I'm already heating this movie because I'm feeling like its going to be the Wachowskis trying to be more than they actually have. It does not mean I will not see this movie, despite the fact that Channing Tatum looks like a Keebler Elf.
Give me the Wachowskis. Not the artists formerly known as The Wachowskis.
Jupiter Ascending has a couple red flags about it, mainly Channing Tatum looking like a Keebler Elf, and Mila Kunis... its not that I don't like her, I just feel like its a strange mix. Its one thing to take one actor whos better in comedies, like Tatum, and have them try something else, but its another thing when you have two actors like that doing the same thing. I don't know. That will be an interesting film no doubt.
But back to the point.
Listen, I'm fine with a slight overtone of maybe saying there's an element of reincarnation. David Mitchell did a really good job alluding to it but never really saying it was a thing in the book. Luisa Rey has a moment where she feels she has heard the Cloud Atlas Sextet before, Timothy Cavendish laughs at it a little bit, but beyond that, its more something a reader must interpret, not be told.
The Wachowskis were not subtle about their interpretation of reincarnation that, if I didn't like other elements and had an appreciation for the movie now, it would have really pissed me off.
I just feel there is so many themes that immediately going to reincarnation, and not even that, just bringing forth a theme so blatantly, it just kind of insults my intelligence. It makes me go back and forth with Cloud Atlas the movie. Because on one hand I love the stories and the idea but then you have the Wachowskis and their bullshit and... I just don't know.
That's my rant. I'm hoping I got everything. I want to hear your thoughts. Am I totally off? Comment and Discuss below.
I'll leave you with this. I already gave you the Jupiter Ascending trailer, so I thought I'd give you a parody of the Wachowskis work. Enjoy!
So in case you didn't know, I have already reviewed this movie. In fact for some reason, my Cloud Atlas review is one of my highest viewed review on this blog for some reason. I'm not complaining, I just noticed that. Well, as I have a lot of time here in South Africa, and Netflix has not come to this part of the world, I have begun reading a lot of books lately. By total coincidence, a friend of mine had Cloud Atlas on her Kindle and I had a 16 hour bus ride.
Now the book is structured a little bit different than the movie (a little bit obviously) but I raced through that book. And of course, I wanted to watch the movie again. Upon reading and rewatching, I thought there's a review here. Maybe I'm just lazy but I feel like there's more I can add to this review than my last one. Now, this review is going to be a little bit more in depth and taking the assumption that ya'll have seen the movie or read the book. If you have done neither, I would suggest reading my original Cloud Atlas review. Here is that review.
Like I said before, the book is structured a little bit differently than the movie. It starts with half of one story starting with the Pacific Journey of Adam Ewing and going in chronological order going all the way up to Sloosha's Crossin and Everything After.
So, in keeping with the theme of the book, I will go and talk about each story starting with the Pacific Journey, as a whole, and then I will compare the movie and the book and let you know which things were adapted well and which wasn't.
The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing
Now if you've read the book, you'll know that David Mitchell must have had a laspe in judgement, because starting with Adam Ewing was a bad idea.
The writing of the chapter is so proper and dry that its not exactly the most interesting of chapters to begin a book on. But for the movie of course, teenage girls who were fans of Across the Universe flocked to this movie because of this image because... you know... whats sexier than Jim Sturgess... Jim Strugess in Victorian clothing.
Honestly, looking at the story from both angles, they're both not exactly the most interesting of stories. A lawyer is taking a Pacific Journey back to the states to return the property of one of his clients (A concept I don't think I understood very well when I first saw the movie). He takes ill and is under the care of Dr. Henry Goose (played by Tom Hanks). Meanwhile, a slave he seems to have some sort of connection with stows away on in his cabin and in the end, this slave saves his life, changing the route of Adam Ewing's life. He believes that since he is indebted with his life to a slave, he must join the abolition movement.
The second half of the Pacific Journal is much more interesting because that's when you start to see the true nature of Henry Goose. Not only is he racist, as was very prevalent in the first half, but he's sneaky and eventually tries to murder Ewing to get ahold of the gold he has in his possession.
Now while Jim Sturgess does his dreamy lover boy routine that he does in every movie he's in. Tom Hanks is actually the best part about this in the movie. He plays the infamous Doctor the slimiest I've ever seen Tom Hanks play a role, and he rocks it out of the park.
I don't know if I've ever seen Tom Hanks as a bad guy but I can't say I hate it. In fact, I think its really good.
The unfortunate part that, while it probably couldn't be helped. There was no elaboration on the character of Auta, the runaway slave. His character in the book is just so much more flushed out. In the movie, he's just a runaway slave.
I'm reading over this and my Long Walk to Freedom review and I have to be a little less critical when a movie does not get all the details. However, I do feel there are details that flush out characters more and make them better, and make the product better.
Overall, The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing is still one of the more boring parts of the book/movie, but if I had to choose which version was better, I would say that the movie was better. While I just said it missed out on some details, there were a lot of details it left out that were okay to be left out. There's a lot of discussion on race and slavery in the book, and unless they were going to take the message of the movie in a different direction, they didn't need those scenes. Overall, the message in the book is better, but the story is more fun in the movie. I'll talk about the overall message of both the movie and book at the end, but for now, I suppose if I'm keeping score, the movie takes this round.
Letters From Zedelghem
Now the largest change between the book and the movie is that instead of taking place in Belgium, Letters From Zedelghem takes place in Edinburgh... why? I don't know.
Now in case you don't know, the connection between Robert Frobisher and Adam Ewing is that Frobisher finds Ewing's Journal and Frobisher finds the journal fascinating. For some reason though, Frobisher never finds the second half of the Journal. Which kind of makes the words, "An unfinished book is an unfinished love affair", which would have made more sense in the book version if he hadn't finished it but that's not important.
Frobisher's story starts as he makes his way to Edinburgh/ Belgium to be the musical assistant (there's a fancier word for it in the book/movie but I don't have the patience or care to figure it out) of a famous composer, Vivian Ayers (played by Jim Broadbent).
In both stories, Frobisher has a hard time working with Vivian Ayers but eventually gets in a pattern and begins working on the Cloud Atlas Sextet.
He also begins an affairs with Ayer's wife. This affairs plays a larger role in the book rather than the movie and its also where things start to divert.
In the book, Frobisher falls in love with Ayer's daughter and leaves Ayers in shame. There's more of a cause that Ayers is stealing his ideas that brings him to leave, as opposed to Ayers trying to steal the Sextet. In the book, Frobisher is betrayed by everyone, Ayer's wife, his daughter, and eventually has nothing left that leads him to suicide.
In the movie, Ayers tries to steal the Sextet. Again, streamlined. I'm going to stop saying that movie streamline things because its too common of a "complaint".
But, the movie makes it a little more "Hollywood" and has Ayers try to steal the Sextet, and has Frobisher actually shoot Ayers, and has Sixsmith find Frobisher right after he kills himself... and it works.
The movie is actually a really great streamlined adaptation of the book.
There's a little bit of the story that is glanced over in the movie, like Frobisher's discussion of war and the foreshadow of World War 2.But for the most part the movie does a very good job at adapting this story.
Now I was a little confused upon watching the movie after reading the book on why Frobisher tries to hit on Ayers... but this of course goes onto the Wachowski's obsession with changing the message of the story... but I'll get to that in a little bit.
Overall, the movie's version is very good, its a great adaptation. I've decided I'm not going to try and make a score of which was better, the movie or the book because I'm pretty sure the book wins. However, I will state if the movie adapted it well and in the case of Letters to Zedelghem, the movie delivers.
Half-Lives: The First Luisa Rey Mystery
The thing about Luisa Rey's story that was so interesting in the book was that you weren't quite sure if it was a true story or not. In the Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish, her story is a novel being reviewed by Cavendish. Now there's a chance that the book was written by Luisa Rey under a pseudonym, but that's a part of the mystery of this book/movie because there are so many questions about it that aren't totally answered. And that's the point.
Now I've already talked about how all the stories have been streamlined and cut out a lot of parts. Luisa Rey's story seems to be the one that cut out a lot of complexities. Maybe it was a good thing because there are a lot of names in this story and a lot of corporate warfare that would have been interesting to see on screen but was a little too complex, especially since its one of 6 stories in one movie. And that's what makes this movie such a complex movie for me. I want to like it, I want to love it in fact, but reading the book I just see all the things missing, all the things they add, and the messages the Wachowskis are trying to force feed me and its hard to absolutely love this movie. But again, I'll have my long rant on that in the end.
In fact, I'll talk more about this story later because it ties in with my long rant I'm expecting at the end.
I think the thing that was missing most of this story was the look into Bill Smoke but Hugo Weaving rocks my world anyway.
In short, its not a bad adaptation, I just think its got the Wachowski stink on it and I need to talk about it more near the end.
I feel like the Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish will be similar.
Before I go on, the connection between this and Letters from Zedelghem is that Luisa finds the letters Frobisher sent to Sixsmith. But I'll have my thoughts on this story again, in a little bit.
The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish
After reading this story, its slowly becoming one of my favorite of the 6 stories. Its just so British and witty and just so funny.
Jim Broadbent rocks it in the movie. And this is the main story that I feel the movie streamlined too much. There's a lot of funny circumstances and planning that goes into Cavendish in this old folks home and I feel its just set aside.
Honestly, because I saw the movie first, I wasn't looking forward to reading this story. But its just so much fun that I was looking forward to it so much during the viewing that when it was cut down because its not as "interesting" or something than the other stories, I got really bummed out.
The two things that bothered me about the adaptation was, first, they didn't kill off his brother.
Maybe they wanted to give Hugh Grant some more screen time but what the hell was the whole getting revenge for Cavendish sleeping with his wife? It was more funny when it wife was just losing her mind and when his brother dies she's just crazy and aloof. That was hilarious... and they didn't do that in the movie.
Also, they missed out on the planning. There's a sort of British Prison Break in this story and it gets really glanced over.
Finally, WHY THE HELL DID THEY HAVE MEEKS TALK BEFORE THE BAR SCENE!
Maybe its not that big of a deal. But I think theres so much more power in him saying his first words at the bar, getting the Scottish people to fight Nurse Noakes and all of them. That was great! That was hilarious!
It was good that they made him a bigger part in the movie because its hilarious and adorable and just an uplifting part of the movie.
On a second watch, I felt like that was kind of a loss of a climactic point. It wasn't that great.
There was a lot more development and friendship the movie glanced over in The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish. For some reason they instead decided to make a bigger deal of his relationship with Ursula. Now I'm not saying him ending up with Ursula was a bad thing, I just thought it sacrificed a lot of good things that were most important in the book.
Oh Well... I guess this was cute?
An Orison of Sonmi~451
By god. If there was ever a story that was so glossed over and so under developed, its the Orison of Sonmi. There is an entire world of Neo Seoul that was just missed out on in the movie. And they did what they could, but it was just so great in the book, it had so much commentary on capitalism and corporatism, and by god they just glossed over the God damn Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish and made it just more of a cute thing her boyfriend did for her, and freaking A!
If you can't tell, I really really really liked Sonmi's story in the book. This is probably the most diverted from story because there's so much more in the story in the book and they had to streamline it, I get it, because there's so much in that story and they can't put it all in the movie, but instead of at least trying to show this amazing world, they do this stale broad swipe of the story where honestly, not much happens.
Honestly besides Sonmi on a bridge, and Asian Jim Sturgess showing her the treatment of the Sonmi's and other clones (which it wasn't even clear that they were clones), nothing happens in the Sonmi story!
In the book, Sonmi becomes the figurehead of a revolution. Her explanation of this revolution is just brilliant and its a conversation between the Archivist and Sonmi and she just speaks so brilliantly... and its just not the same in the movie.
I could go on a rant about Jim Sturgess as Korean... but I think I already did that.
In short, I just don't think the Wachowskis got the point of Sonmi's story. They missed so much... but again, I'll get to that in a second.
Sloosha's Crossin an' Ev'rythin After
This story was also one that diverted from the original. Not as much as Sonmi so I'm not angry about it, but Sloosha's Crossin, is just a strange diversion from the original.
In the book, Zachary was suppose to be much younger. He's not suppose to fall in love with Halle Berry's character.
And it didn't necessarily divert, there was mention of the prophecy, the three things Zachary believes Sonmi is telling him. However, this is glanced over so quickly in the movie that I didn't realize there was a prophecy in the movie until I read the book and was looking for it in my second viewing.
I don't know if I can say whether or not the movie was a good adaptation of the book and of course its going to fall into the Wachowski's... bullshit.
You know what, I'm going to do a separate post about the Wachowskis because they kind of piss me off now that I think about it with this movie. I know I've been referring to my thoughts on the Wachowskis and that I'll get to that, but that will be in a part two. So I'm going to finish this up quick.
In short, I liked this adaptation for the most part. I think, with a second viewing, that the representation of Ol Georgie was a little strange. But its kind of fun seeing Hugo Weaving in that outfit. Its a cool interpretation of the text and I'm not complaining about it, I actually like it.
In the book, Ol Georgie came to tempt Zachary as a rabbit, or in different forms. I think he maybe shows up as "Ol Georgie" in the beginning when his father is killed by the Kona and his brother is captured into slavery...
Then again, this story takes the book full circle and talks about the Kona and how they are barbaric and the difference between barbarism and rationality... and its another thing the Wachowskis totally glanced over...
Freaking A!
I'm done. In short, I love the movie, I think its a good adaptation, except for the Wachowski bullshit in it which I will get to in the next post. What do you think? Do you think it was a good adaptation? Do you like the book more than the movie... you should...
Since I want to get to the next post as soon as I can, I'm not going to look for a video. So maybe I'll give you two in the next post... maybe not. Stay Tuned!
