Quantum of Solace (2008), a.k.a. Daniel Craig's second outing as 007, is a prime object lesson in conspicuous consumption. I say this not because the film is overstuffed with multi-million-dollar action sequences, but because director Marc Forster took some of the best writers, actors, and, particularly, stunt teams in the world today, and then apparently did his darndest to make their work dull, lacklustre, and underwhelming. There's a perverse sort of impressiveness here.
Written by the Casino Royale team and starring the magnificent Daniel Craig, Judy Dench, and Mathieu Amalric (Munich), Quantum of Solace picks up where Casino Royale left off, in this case with Bond's trunk full of the man he kneecapped at the end of that last film. A car chase, interrogation, and attempt on M's life result in the discovery of a rogue intelligence faction that calls themselves Quantum, and if they aren't evil, they're at the very least in conflict with the goals of MI-6. This film also sees Bond in full, soul-dead vengeance mode, and a combination of circumstances and design connect him with a South American intelligence agent named Camille, whose own quest for vengeance neatly overlaps Bond's. Seeing an opportunity to serve Britain and take revenge in one fell swoop, Bond offers to help Camille murder the general who murdered her family, which takes Bond one step closer to Quantum in the guise of French private natural resources magnate Dominic Greene (Amalric).
Sound complicated? If in a negative fashion, that's only because I'm a poor summarizer. In truth, the complexity of this story was a thing of beauty, marred and truncated by a bizarre, unwieldy, and boring action-to-drama ration. The story of Quantum of Solace is a more interesting story than that of Casino Royale, with interesting and mature commentaries on loyalty and vengeance. I hate revenge films as a general rule, not because they're angry but because of all the genre's built-in lies. Quantum of Solace sees Bond admitting/asserting that the idea that he "did it for Vesper" is a load of bull that you'd have to be an idiot to believe - or, as he puts it in the film, "the dead don't care about vengeance." On the topic of loyalty, the film is full of subtle complexities, forging in particular an odd love triangle between Bond, M, and Britain. Casino Royale players Felix and Mathis are also on-screen here, which muddies things further. Long story short, the story and script are fantastic, and I'd love to see the properly developed version.
But, as I implied above, that's unlikely. How Marc Forster (Finding Neverland, Stranger than Fiction) got handed the reigns to this picture is a mystery - the man has no experience with action, and it shows. Case in point, the opening car chase. The Bond stunt team is perhaps the best in the world today, yet instead of showcasing their work and filming, you know, the car chase they staged, the scene consists of alternating shots of the gear shift, the cool dashboard panel, and Daniel Craig's face, and feels for all the world like a car ad. Did I mention it's as dull as it is insulting to the stunt team? All the action is like that, and it kills the film. This is on top of the fact that Forster not only misused these guys, but put in too much action, at least in ratio to dialogue and exposition. And too much action is what? Yes! Boring! Especially when it's so poorly filmed and edited! Managing to make this team's work boring suggests a level of incompetence akin to Joel Schumacher somehow making Kiefer Sutherland - as a the leader of a teenage vampire biker gang, to boot, and fresh off one very badass turn in Stand By Me - completely non-threatening in The Lost Boys.
On the plus side, I've been defending the title of this film ever since it was revealed and the entertainment media and blogosphere became clogged with inane articles to the effect of "I don't get the title, so it's stupid!" Not having seen the film, my response was, "I'm pretty sure this is a brilliant name for a revenge film, and if you don't know what a quantum is, google it, you lazy such-and-such." Having seen the film, I stand by that response, revising "pretty sure" to "100%" sure. The quantum of solace is indeed what one finds in acts of vengeance. It's even highlighted in the opening titles, which stand out from those of every other Bond film by being notably devoid of sex. A girl is formed out of sand about halfway through, and then cloned so that Bond appears to be surrounded by women, but what with there being only one actual woman, and her being a sand sculpture, i.e. passing and easily destroyed, it's a genius way to emphasize what a lonely man 007 is. The only downside to the title is that it appears to be a contractual obligation to work a literal reference into the name of each Bond film (Dr. No! Licence to Kill! Goldeneye!). There doesn't appear to be any necessary reason for the villainous counter-agency to be named Quantum, and this adds a corny element to an otherwise beautiful turn of phrase.
Quantum of Solace had everything it needed to surpass Casino Royale - except, that is, a competent director. Better luck next time, folks.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Maurice Jarre: 1924-2009
Though you may never have heard of him, I sincerely hope you've been exposed to his work. Maurice Jarre was the dictionary definition of a maestro - and, by both anecdotal evidence and his enthusiasm for electronic music (see: The Year of Living Dangerously), not even a snobby artist. Though if any contemporary musician ever earned the right to be snobby, it was him.
Click to watch the maestro conducting the Royal Philharmonic through the overture from Lawrence of Arabia, intercut with clips from the film and culminating with that fascinating, magical panning shot of Lawrence's feet as he strides across the top of a train. The concert VHS this is from is somewhere between fifteen and twenty years old, so the quality isn't amazing but the sound is just fine. The clip posted below features the main titles, and continues on to the opening scene. If that doesn't make you want to go watch the picture - or at least sit back for a minute and ponder Jarre's genius - I don't know what will.
Click to watch the maestro conducting the Royal Philharmonic through the overture from Lawrence of Arabia, intercut with clips from the film and culminating with that fascinating, magical panning shot of Lawrence's feet as he strides across the top of a train. The concert VHS this is from is somewhere between fifteen and twenty years old, so the quality isn't amazing but the sound is just fine. The clip posted below features the main titles, and continues on to the opening scene. If that doesn't make you want to go watch the picture - or at least sit back for a minute and ponder Jarre's genius - I don't know what will.
Monday, March 30, 2009
No Need to Be Hasty: Fable II (Full Review)
I will, perhaps, in the future be revising my conceit of posting "first impressions" of video games. In the case of Fable II, what started out as an occasionally distasteful but largely entertaining experience (see related post below) turned out to just be, well, distasteful. So distasteful that I have no desire for a second play.
The discovery of how brainlessly cynical the completed main quest is did me in. It's obvious from the beginning of the "The Hero of Strength" quest that Theresa has transformed over the centuries into someone corrupt and more than a little unhinged - her anger at the discovery that the Hero of Strength is a monk (and therefore cannot possibly be motivated to do what Heroes need to do?), and determination to corrupt Hammer into a creature of violence and vengeance in order to get the job done, is pretty disturbing and scary. Who wants to guess that Theresa's the one who orchestrated the sudden murder of Hammer's dad? Either way, Theresa is in full Kreia-from-Knights of the Old Republic II mode here; that is to say, perverted evil hag mode. The key difference, however, in KotoR II, is that you are not ultimately beholden to Kreia's will for things if you don't choose to be. Fable II talks a lot about choices, but when it comes down to the ones that really matter, you are for the most part denied the power to choose.
And then there's the cynicism taken to an extend that's just plain stupid. The game talks about how the original Hero's Guild was destroyed because of self-absorbed, corrupt Heroes who took no action and were subesquently lynched by the people. The final Hero you must recover before endgame is Reaver, a pirate king legendary for his near-supernatural pistol skills. Lionhead Studios at least gets points here for pirates not being cool: Reaver is a thoroughly corrupt, perverse, narcissistic, childish, evil individual. Amongst other things, if you wait around during his dialogue you will see him murder three innocents for the most petty reasons imaginable. He rules the port town of Bloodstone, where Oakvale used to be, on a foundation of despotism and terror. And you must take him with you to defeat the Main Evil, and after that's done you cannot even challenge him to a duel - in other words, you can't actually pursue evil with the intent of eliminating it, only the evil the game insists is untenable (the main villain, Lucien). With Reaver, the game developers are running with a cynicism that defies all logic: the idea that a "hero" who's evil but talented is better than no "hero" at all. They're also badly misusing the Neiztchean concept of the rules not applying to the special people. Has no one at Lionhead ever seen Rope? To muddle the waters further, the end of the game sees the Heros saying, "well, glad I don't have to help people any more, time to piss off!" as Theresa happily disbands them instead of rebuilding the guild...so that she can take over Lucien's old residence in the Tattered Spire. Well, now we know what Fable III will be about!
And Fable II's version of you not having a boss fight? A nonsensical, boring, failed shadow of Oblivion's, and a very poor and lazy argument for why the world needs someone like Reaver.
There's no replay value here; the game offers me nothing to work towards as a goal (or enjoy working towards), and I can't stomach it anyway. I'm sorry I gave it an initial thumbs-up, and may very well delete that post soon.
The discovery of how brainlessly cynical the completed main quest is did me in. It's obvious from the beginning of the "The Hero of Strength" quest that Theresa has transformed over the centuries into someone corrupt and more than a little unhinged - her anger at the discovery that the Hero of Strength is a monk (and therefore cannot possibly be motivated to do what Heroes need to do?), and determination to corrupt Hammer into a creature of violence and vengeance in order to get the job done, is pretty disturbing and scary. Who wants to guess that Theresa's the one who orchestrated the sudden murder of Hammer's dad? Either way, Theresa is in full Kreia-from-Knights of the Old Republic II mode here; that is to say, perverted evil hag mode. The key difference, however, in KotoR II, is that you are not ultimately beholden to Kreia's will for things if you don't choose to be. Fable II talks a lot about choices, but when it comes down to the ones that really matter, you are for the most part denied the power to choose.
And then there's the cynicism taken to an extend that's just plain stupid. The game talks about how the original Hero's Guild was destroyed because of self-absorbed, corrupt Heroes who took no action and were subesquently lynched by the people. The final Hero you must recover before endgame is Reaver, a pirate king legendary for his near-supernatural pistol skills. Lionhead Studios at least gets points here for pirates not being cool: Reaver is a thoroughly corrupt, perverse, narcissistic, childish, evil individual. Amongst other things, if you wait around during his dialogue you will see him murder three innocents for the most petty reasons imaginable. He rules the port town of Bloodstone, where Oakvale used to be, on a foundation of despotism and terror. And you must take him with you to defeat the Main Evil, and after that's done you cannot even challenge him to a duel - in other words, you can't actually pursue evil with the intent of eliminating it, only the evil the game insists is untenable (the main villain, Lucien). With Reaver, the game developers are running with a cynicism that defies all logic: the idea that a "hero" who's evil but talented is better than no "hero" at all. They're also badly misusing the Neiztchean concept of the rules not applying to the special people. Has no one at Lionhead ever seen Rope? To muddle the waters further, the end of the game sees the Heros saying, "well, glad I don't have to help people any more, time to piss off!" as Theresa happily disbands them instead of rebuilding the guild...so that she can take over Lucien's old residence in the Tattered Spire. Well, now we know what Fable III will be about!
And Fable II's version of you not having a boss fight? A nonsensical, boring, failed shadow of Oblivion's, and a very poor and lazy argument for why the world needs someone like Reaver.
There's no replay value here; the game offers me nothing to work towards as a goal (or enjoy working towards), and I can't stomach it anyway. I'm sorry I gave it an initial thumbs-up, and may very well delete that post soon.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
First Impressions: BioShock
Okay, I like a good first-person shooter (FPS). And no, I'm not some ultra-violent creep who carries concealed weapons and leaves disturbing anonymous message board posts about how I'm going to kill you all in your sleep. I personally prefer the "human versus things that aren't" shooters; I can't bring myself to play things like Call of Duty or even FarCry, and even though Half-Life 2 featured zombies etc., it was too gross for my liking. I'm a Halo kind of girl. We can debate the ridiculousness of giving FPS games all the credit for violent teenage actions another time; today, I want to talk about BioShock!
I've been looking forward to this game ever since Corey told me about System Shock II, the old PC game BioShock spawns from - or, as I like to call it based on Corey's stories, the Crazy Monkey Game. When the trailers, artwork, and screen shots first became available online, I really started looking forward to it. For one thing, I'm obsessed with the ocean, and BioShock takes place in an underwater dystopia; for another, it was also the most beautiful game I'd ever seen. On top of that, I appreciate the thrill of a high-quality scare, and BioShock sure looked creepy as all else. Been wanting to buy it, been waiting for the price to go down, got loaned it by Tim and Scott, and here we are!
Well, I've played about fourty minutes - the introduction plus - and BioShock is meeting all my expectations and then some. Set in 1960, the game opens in a first-person view (and stays that way) as your commercial passenger flight goes down over the ocean. First Bit of Great: when you get dumped in the ocean, it's no cut scene between water and finding land - start swimming! 'Land' in this case is the underwater city of Rapture, created in the '50s by a man named Andrew Ryan as a place where artists, scientists, and inventors could work unrestricted by such constraints as government regulation, bioethics, morality, all those pesky constructs of The Man. Sounds like a great place, what could possibly go wrong?
Ha...Ha...Ha!
If I ever encounter a better-looking game than BioShock, I'll eat my hat (so long as my hat is made of nachos, with salsa in the middle). The art-deco city and the view out its windows are...well...just Google Image Search "Bioshock Rapture City", you'll see what I mean. It's the kind of game that makes you tempted to splurge on a better TV. Even poorly lit and half-ruined, it's incredible, and the period jazz soundtrack does a world of good. This, unfortunately, can be a downside, as I want time to mosey around soaking in the sights...yeah, there's not a lot of that happening in a horror FPS, unless you want to clear all the areas and then spend a while backtracking to you can sightsee. And I do. :D A small price to pay for beauty. From a playing perspective, the controls are pretty intuitive, the world interaction is swell, and giving your bioengineered capabilities finite usage makes for an interesting strategic touch. Your radio-only (so far) helper, Atlas, is a good actor, too, and if you miss any of his messages due to fighting or other distraction, you can replay them at any time. You may find it tough to find the right difficulty, though - I'm playing on medium, described as for "veteran gamers", and so far it's not quite a challenge, though this will hopefully increase as the game progresses. I should mention here than the equivalent Halo difficulty ("heroic"), though doable, is a challenge for me. Corey tried the highest difficulty, and said it was verging on too hard to be enjoyable - and this is someone who typically doesn't have issues with whatever the hardest setting of a shooter is. But there's the rub - for someone like that, 'medium' is far too easy, and though one could play easier the first time through and then step up after they're familiar with the game, BioShock may turn out to be too disturbing to have replay value. A dilemma, indeed!
And did I mention: this game is creepy as all else? BioShock is a horror on the scale of films like Alien or The Thing. In other words, other emotional and adrenaline-related issues apply, on top of the ones associated with a more relaxing shooter like Halo. The first time I played that game, my body responded to all the adrenaline being released while not engaged in physical activity by creating a week's worth of nightmares, mainly involving being out of ammo, that eventually morphed into happy dreams to cruising around with a Warthog full of Marines, eliminating Covenant troops with ease. Fourty minutes of BioShock tempered by a hasty retreat to Fable II as I realised I needed something I could sleep on didn't spawn any nighttime visits, but I'm not looking forward to whatever will accompany more intensive gameplay. That doesn't mean I won't continue playing. Does that make me a masochist?
In a nutshell: Gorgeous. Scary. Fun. If you have the stomach for a high-quality video game scare, I don't see it getting much better than this. More to come when I actually pass the game.
I've been looking forward to this game ever since Corey told me about System Shock II, the old PC game BioShock spawns from - or, as I like to call it based on Corey's stories, the Crazy Monkey Game. When the trailers, artwork, and screen shots first became available online, I really started looking forward to it. For one thing, I'm obsessed with the ocean, and BioShock takes place in an underwater dystopia; for another, it was also the most beautiful game I'd ever seen. On top of that, I appreciate the thrill of a high-quality scare, and BioShock sure looked creepy as all else. Been wanting to buy it, been waiting for the price to go down, got loaned it by Tim and Scott, and here we are!
Well, I've played about fourty minutes - the introduction plus - and BioShock is meeting all my expectations and then some. Set in 1960, the game opens in a first-person view (and stays that way) as your commercial passenger flight goes down over the ocean. First Bit of Great: when you get dumped in the ocean, it's no cut scene between water and finding land - start swimming! 'Land' in this case is the underwater city of Rapture, created in the '50s by a man named Andrew Ryan as a place where artists, scientists, and inventors could work unrestricted by such constraints as government regulation, bioethics, morality, all those pesky constructs of The Man. Sounds like a great place, what could possibly go wrong?
Ha...Ha...Ha!
If I ever encounter a better-looking game than BioShock, I'll eat my hat (so long as my hat is made of nachos, with salsa in the middle). The art-deco city and the view out its windows are...well...just Google Image Search "Bioshock Rapture City", you'll see what I mean. It's the kind of game that makes you tempted to splurge on a better TV. Even poorly lit and half-ruined, it's incredible, and the period jazz soundtrack does a world of good. This, unfortunately, can be a downside, as I want time to mosey around soaking in the sights...yeah, there's not a lot of that happening in a horror FPS, unless you want to clear all the areas and then spend a while backtracking to you can sightsee. And I do. :D A small price to pay for beauty. From a playing perspective, the controls are pretty intuitive, the world interaction is swell, and giving your bioengineered capabilities finite usage makes for an interesting strategic touch. Your radio-only (so far) helper, Atlas, is a good actor, too, and if you miss any of his messages due to fighting or other distraction, you can replay them at any time. You may find it tough to find the right difficulty, though - I'm playing on medium, described as for "veteran gamers", and so far it's not quite a challenge, though this will hopefully increase as the game progresses. I should mention here than the equivalent Halo difficulty ("heroic"), though doable, is a challenge for me. Corey tried the highest difficulty, and said it was verging on too hard to be enjoyable - and this is someone who typically doesn't have issues with whatever the hardest setting of a shooter is. But there's the rub - for someone like that, 'medium' is far too easy, and though one could play easier the first time through and then step up after they're familiar with the game, BioShock may turn out to be too disturbing to have replay value. A dilemma, indeed!
And did I mention: this game is creepy as all else? BioShock is a horror on the scale of films like Alien or The Thing. In other words, other emotional and adrenaline-related issues apply, on top of the ones associated with a more relaxing shooter like Halo. The first time I played that game, my body responded to all the adrenaline being released while not engaged in physical activity by creating a week's worth of nightmares, mainly involving being out of ammo, that eventually morphed into happy dreams to cruising around with a Warthog full of Marines, eliminating Covenant troops with ease. Fourty minutes of BioShock tempered by a hasty retreat to Fable II as I realised I needed something I could sleep on didn't spawn any nighttime visits, but I'm not looking forward to whatever will accompany more intensive gameplay. That doesn't mean I won't continue playing. Does that make me a masochist?
In a nutshell: Gorgeous. Scary. Fun. If you have the stomach for a high-quality video game scare, I don't see it getting much better than this. More to come when I actually pass the game.
My Other Boat Is A Car: Small Favor
Out of all the things to enjoy about it, the single most enjoyable aspect of Jim Butcher's supernatural P.I. noir series The Dresden Files has to be the author's consistency. I don't just mean consistency of character, or tone, or things like that; what I mean is, I've just concluded the ninth and most recent book, and it was excellent. So was the eighth, and the seventh, and... His writing in and of itself hasn't necessarily improved, but my point is that every book in this series is good. No mediocre missteps, no "what the **** were you thinking, Butcher?", no "the last book was waaaaay better!". You pick up a Dresden Files book, and you know you're going to get something just as quality and well-written and entertaining and thoughtful as the last time you picked up such a tome. After nine volumes, that's impressive.
In other words, Small Favor is a worthy addition to the story of Harry Dresden, this one featuring Queen Mab of the Winter Fae calling in the second of three favors Harry has been bound to grant her. Throw our lovable resident legitimate businessman Gentleman Johnnie Marcone into the mix, along with the funniest freaky fairy-tale villains yet - yes, even better than the flaming-poop flying monkeys - and you've got one good tale. In other news, Harry finally finds someone to give the Holy Sword whose care he's been charged with since Death Masks - let's just say, he didn't offer it to who you thought he would. Small Favor also features the return of Sanya, as well as Kincaid and Ivy seen together again, and a fantastic appearance by Toot-Toot. Thomas is fighting at Harry's side once more, Molly's apprenticeship is continuing nicely, and Harry's respective friendships with Michael and Charity continue to evolve. The author's comedic skills haven't flagged either - Harry's sit-down with Bob the Skull early in the book had me making a scene of myself on the bus in ways I haven't since I used to listen to tapes of the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy radio play whilst in transit. Yep, nothing to dislike here. As well, the fights which could be more accurately called battles ...did I mention the Denariians are back, and travelling in even larger packs than they did in Death Masks? The fights are quality, hair-raising, and the standoff at the Shadd Aquarium is particularly notable.
I look forward to having a hundred bucks or so to drop on the whole series one day, I do!
In other words, Small Favor is a worthy addition to the story of Harry Dresden, this one featuring Queen Mab of the Winter Fae calling in the second of three favors Harry has been bound to grant her. Throw our lovable resident legitimate businessman Gentleman Johnnie Marcone into the mix, along with the funniest freaky fairy-tale villains yet - yes, even better than the flaming-poop flying monkeys - and you've got one good tale. In other news, Harry finally finds someone to give the Holy Sword whose care he's been charged with since Death Masks - let's just say, he didn't offer it to who you thought he would. Small Favor also features the return of Sanya, as well as Kincaid and Ivy seen together again, and a fantastic appearance by Toot-Toot. Thomas is fighting at Harry's side once more, Molly's apprenticeship is continuing nicely, and Harry's respective friendships with Michael and Charity continue to evolve. The author's comedic skills haven't flagged either - Harry's sit-down with Bob the Skull early in the book had me making a scene of myself on the bus in ways I haven't since I used to listen to tapes of the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy radio play whilst in transit. Yep, nothing to dislike here. As well, the fights which could be more accurately called battles ...did I mention the Denariians are back, and travelling in even larger packs than they did in Death Masks? The fights are quality, hair-raising, and the standoff at the Shadd Aquarium is particularly notable.
I look forward to having a hundred bucks or so to drop on the whole series one day, I do!
If You Give A Mouse A Cookie, The Alien Will Get Jealous
There's nothing wrong with an unnecessary sequel. Think of Back to the Future Part III, Die Hard 3, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - For a Few Dollars More may even fall into this category. All good films, all highly entertaining.
Ah, there's the rub: all those unnecessary sequels are also good films. Sequels are held to higher standards than other films - if the predecessor was good, the sequel had better be superior! And, when that sequel has nothing pressing to add to the series narrative, well...you'd really best put on a good show.
Alien 3 is an early directorial effort from David Fincher (Se7en, Zodiac) that picks up immediately where James Cameron's Aliens left off (which itself picks up immediately where Ridley Scott's Alien left off...it's a good pattern here). Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) wakes up on a barren, nasty, all-male penal colony to discover that Newt and Coropal Hicks have died or been killed in hypsersleep, and that their ship has, obviously, crashed. Suspecting that their deaths were not accidental, she insists on an autopsy that seems to deny her fears, but refuses to share the cause of her paranoia until an alien shows itself. Trapped on-planet with no means of defending themselves - no weapons in a prison, after all - Ripley and the inmates must survive until the Company ship sent to pick her up arrives.
There are certainly strong points to Alien 3, for example, Sigourney Weaver. A fantastic actress, and so gorgeous she's still gorgeous with a shaved head, Ripley was the last female action hero to simply be both a female, and an action hero. She was so special she could kick ass and take names without the whore-tacular clothing, smug bitchiness, and cheap sassy dialogue that current female "action heros" draw their power from. She was a woman in a bad situation who made do, and made do really, really well, and nothing about her shaved head and shapeless prison clothes in Alien 3 made her less womanly while doing it. It's truly sad what an anomaly Ripley and the original Sarah Connor were - seems not enough filmmakers were interested in that kind of thing.
Hey, what a tangent! In other strong points, the concept of no weapons is nicely terrifying, there is acting support from a small army of familiar British faces (and Irishman Pete Posthlewaite), and director Fincher does a nice job of making blatantly obvious lead-ins to certain doom scary, relying on skillful set-up rather than sudden shock to do the trick. There's also some interesting theological and Christological elements akin to Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Actually, there are a lot of elements akin to Terminator 2, and most of them only hurt this film by raising comparisons to that superior one.
Overall, though...well, I'd never watch it again the way I've happily watched and re-watched the first two contributions to the Alien franchise. Between unimpressive dialogue, uneven pacing, too much hit-and-miss in its theological commentary, and far too many similarities to another sequel that was released the year before and happened to be fantastic (T2), Alien 3 just doesn't have the quality required to justify its unnecessary addition to the series. Killing off the only engaging secondary character twenty minutes in probably wasn't the best idea. I understand the idea of leaving Ripley alone for the film, but leaving Hicks alive or re-building Bishop would have been nice, for interest's sake. The film drags quite a bit, seems too long most of the time, and feels like it wants to have both unrelenting and tension tension-and-release, and so succeeds at neither. The climax doesn't help things any by featuring a main character's self-sacrifice in a metal foundry...hey, wasn't that the ending of Judgment Day? And didn't that film do it way better? Wasn't Judgment Day directed by Aliens man James Cameron? Is this a coincidence? Should only James Cameron be permitted to direct sci-fi sequels, having proven his track record so nicely? Discuss.
Really, all Alien 3 made me want to do was sit down with something salty and the director's cut of Aliens. Hey, I'm going to the library tomorrow! I have just reserved a copy on-line. I am winner.
Ah, there's the rub: all those unnecessary sequels are also good films. Sequels are held to higher standards than other films - if the predecessor was good, the sequel had better be superior! And, when that sequel has nothing pressing to add to the series narrative, well...you'd really best put on a good show.
Alien 3 is an early directorial effort from David Fincher (Se7en, Zodiac) that picks up immediately where James Cameron's Aliens left off (which itself picks up immediately where Ridley Scott's Alien left off...it's a good pattern here). Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) wakes up on a barren, nasty, all-male penal colony to discover that Newt and Coropal Hicks have died or been killed in hypsersleep, and that their ship has, obviously, crashed. Suspecting that their deaths were not accidental, she insists on an autopsy that seems to deny her fears, but refuses to share the cause of her paranoia until an alien shows itself. Trapped on-planet with no means of defending themselves - no weapons in a prison, after all - Ripley and the inmates must survive until the Company ship sent to pick her up arrives.
There are certainly strong points to Alien 3, for example, Sigourney Weaver. A fantastic actress, and so gorgeous she's still gorgeous with a shaved head, Ripley was the last female action hero to simply be both a female, and an action hero. She was so special she could kick ass and take names without the whore-tacular clothing, smug bitchiness, and cheap sassy dialogue that current female "action heros" draw their power from. She was a woman in a bad situation who made do, and made do really, really well, and nothing about her shaved head and shapeless prison clothes in Alien 3 made her less womanly while doing it. It's truly sad what an anomaly Ripley and the original Sarah Connor were - seems not enough filmmakers were interested in that kind of thing.
Hey, what a tangent! In other strong points, the concept of no weapons is nicely terrifying, there is acting support from a small army of familiar British faces (and Irishman Pete Posthlewaite), and director Fincher does a nice job of making blatantly obvious lead-ins to certain doom scary, relying on skillful set-up rather than sudden shock to do the trick. There's also some interesting theological and Christological elements akin to Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Actually, there are a lot of elements akin to Terminator 2, and most of them only hurt this film by raising comparisons to that superior one.
Overall, though...well, I'd never watch it again the way I've happily watched and re-watched the first two contributions to the Alien franchise. Between unimpressive dialogue, uneven pacing, too much hit-and-miss in its theological commentary, and far too many similarities to another sequel that was released the year before and happened to be fantastic (T2), Alien 3 just doesn't have the quality required to justify its unnecessary addition to the series. Killing off the only engaging secondary character twenty minutes in probably wasn't the best idea. I understand the idea of leaving Ripley alone for the film, but leaving Hicks alive or re-building Bishop would have been nice, for interest's sake. The film drags quite a bit, seems too long most of the time, and feels like it wants to have both unrelenting and tension tension-and-release, and so succeeds at neither. The climax doesn't help things any by featuring a main character's self-sacrifice in a metal foundry...hey, wasn't that the ending of Judgment Day? And didn't that film do it way better? Wasn't Judgment Day directed by Aliens man James Cameron? Is this a coincidence? Should only James Cameron be permitted to direct sci-fi sequels, having proven his track record so nicely? Discuss.
Really, all Alien 3 made me want to do was sit down with something salty and the director's cut of Aliens. Hey, I'm going to the library tomorrow! I have just reserved a copy on-line. I am winner.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
First Impressions: Fable II
By the time I played the original Fable, it was old enough that the platinum Lost Chapters edition was in the cheap bin. I make note of this because what it means is that, prior to this event, I'd never heard of Fable, and so had no pre-play taint from the controversy/general disappointment surrounding how it fell very short of what creator/lead designer Peter Molyneux had trumpeted it to be. Granted, it didn't take very long to discover on my own that was an excercise in unfulfilled potential of epic proportions; however, it also didn't take very long to discover that it was lots and lots of fun. Come to think of it, it may have been the first game I played on Xbox, and what set me on the path of the serious gamer. Fluffy, very simple to play, and having a gorgeous soundtrack, we certainly own games better than Fable, but I don't believe we own one that's more entertaining.
So, the big question was, would Fable II deliver on the promises its predecessor welched on? The answer is...not too much. The big deal (both intended and actual) with Fable was the "your choices affect the world" idea taken to heights that surpassed mere main quest save-the-world stuff - ie., villagers would flock to you or run in fear, shop prices would reflect your renown and good/evilness, your appearance would alter depending on your morality, etc. Fable II increases this, with clothing and hairstyles affecting your attractiveness, scariness, and purity, and by allowing you to do things like purchase any home or shop in the game and either jack up or reduce prices. They've also added things like the options for casual in-game sex, which can earn you an STD if you're not careful (I know this from the manual, not personal experience), and you can also produce children. The most entertaining new "slice of life" aspect are the jobs - you can get work as a smith, woodcutter, or bartender, and the minigames get pretty tough as your level of work increases, but it's still a great way to make easy money during the nights, and oddly addictive in a pleasant way.
As far as the gameplay... Well, I've always seen the Fable series as a bridge between casual and serious gamers. The combat is incredibly easy, as are the puzzles, and of course there's the whole The Sims thing going on, but it's still an RPG, and hey, maybe if you liked Fable, you'll like, I don't know, Knights of the Old Republic, and see that serious games are fun after all? Unfortunately, Fable II seems a bit too tailored to casual gamers, because that's the only rationale I can think of for the unusual, illogical, and downright bizarre button assignments. Things like, you press different buttons to take out and put away your weapons, and - most awful and irritating - 'B' is not your menu. 'B' activates your magic, and if you happen to have an aggressive spell selected and are in the middle of town and don't want a reputation for scaring and killing villagers, well, let's just say there's lots of reloading involved. This is, for Corey and I, the single difficult thing about Fable II: training ourselves that 'B' is Not. The. Menu. Speaking of reloading, another bizarre and irritating decision is that you cannot load a game from the Save Menu - you need to quit the game to the main menu in order to load or reload. It almost seems like the game was developed by, instead of hiring gamers as testers and sounding board, Lionhead Studios went looking for people whose game experience consists of WiiFit and Brain Academy and asked them, which buttons make the most sense to you? And this is what they said. As well, you don't appear to be able to choose your hotkeys - at least, we haven't figured it out yet, and the manual is silent on the matter. Then there are the baffling story-related decisions, like revealing the identity of your mysterious mentor from the very beginning of the game - your first quest objective post-childhood is "Follow Theresa". Okay, if you haven't played Fable, this won't mean very much, but if you have, it's a bit disappointing.
Still, Fable II is even more entertaining than its predecessor. A word of warning, though: although it's quite humorous, it's not always lighthearted. The Fable series is a British production - I know, how often do you play an RPG that isn't American, Canadian, or Japanese? - and as such is infused with a very British sense of humour. This means that the jokes are ridiculous, dry, morbid, rude, cruel, raunchy, depressing, or any combination of the above. That's raunchy in the original sense, not in the weird habit that's popped up in suburbia these last few years of kids saying "raunchy" in place of "gross". If your only British media experience is Monty Python's Flying Circus, this is a pretty good gauge of Fable's style of humour. And if you don't care for that show, this game will probably be little more than childish, nonsensical, and irritating.
All this is also not to say that Fable II isn't worth playing. It's certainly not worth the current new copy rate of $59.99 (Can.), but it's a good borrow or cheap bin purchase. It's great fun having an invincible doggie companion who sniffs out treasure and dig spots (and goes for the throat of any enemies you knock down without killing), the addition of rifles and pistols is highly entertaining, and there's nothing wrong with spending an hour dyeing and trying on your outfits (nothing). I also get a lot of private enjoyment over the fact that your character is raised by gypsies, and any time I go home to visit I hear the Italian Wolfram & Hart lady from Angel Season 5 shouting, "Feelthy gypsies! (Spit) We shall speak of them nomore!!!" Set several centuries after the events of Fable, you also get some interesting tidbits during the load screens, like the fate of Lady Grey. It's fluff, it's fun, it's easy, it's a great way to relax. It's also not for the faint of heart, or game snobs. Me, I'm having a good time, and plan to continue doing so. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go dye my shirt and play fetch with my dog.
So, the big question was, would Fable II deliver on the promises its predecessor welched on? The answer is...not too much. The big deal (both intended and actual) with Fable was the "your choices affect the world" idea taken to heights that surpassed mere main quest save-the-world stuff - ie., villagers would flock to you or run in fear, shop prices would reflect your renown and good/evilness, your appearance would alter depending on your morality, etc. Fable II increases this, with clothing and hairstyles affecting your attractiveness, scariness, and purity, and by allowing you to do things like purchase any home or shop in the game and either jack up or reduce prices. They've also added things like the options for casual in-game sex, which can earn you an STD if you're not careful (I know this from the manual, not personal experience), and you can also produce children. The most entertaining new "slice of life" aspect are the jobs - you can get work as a smith, woodcutter, or bartender, and the minigames get pretty tough as your level of work increases, but it's still a great way to make easy money during the nights, and oddly addictive in a pleasant way.
As far as the gameplay... Well, I've always seen the Fable series as a bridge between casual and serious gamers. The combat is incredibly easy, as are the puzzles, and of course there's the whole The Sims thing going on, but it's still an RPG, and hey, maybe if you liked Fable, you'll like, I don't know, Knights of the Old Republic, and see that serious games are fun after all? Unfortunately, Fable II seems a bit too tailored to casual gamers, because that's the only rationale I can think of for the unusual, illogical, and downright bizarre button assignments. Things like, you press different buttons to take out and put away your weapons, and - most awful and irritating - 'B' is not your menu. 'B' activates your magic, and if you happen to have an aggressive spell selected and are in the middle of town and don't want a reputation for scaring and killing villagers, well, let's just say there's lots of reloading involved. This is, for Corey and I, the single difficult thing about Fable II: training ourselves that 'B' is Not. The. Menu. Speaking of reloading, another bizarre and irritating decision is that you cannot load a game from the Save Menu - you need to quit the game to the main menu in order to load or reload. It almost seems like the game was developed by, instead of hiring gamers as testers and sounding board, Lionhead Studios went looking for people whose game experience consists of WiiFit and Brain Academy and asked them, which buttons make the most sense to you? And this is what they said. As well, you don't appear to be able to choose your hotkeys - at least, we haven't figured it out yet, and the manual is silent on the matter. Then there are the baffling story-related decisions, like revealing the identity of your mysterious mentor from the very beginning of the game - your first quest objective post-childhood is "Follow Theresa". Okay, if you haven't played Fable, this won't mean very much, but if you have, it's a bit disappointing.
Still, Fable II is even more entertaining than its predecessor. A word of warning, though: although it's quite humorous, it's not always lighthearted. The Fable series is a British production - I know, how often do you play an RPG that isn't American, Canadian, or Japanese? - and as such is infused with a very British sense of humour. This means that the jokes are ridiculous, dry, morbid, rude, cruel, raunchy, depressing, or any combination of the above. That's raunchy in the original sense, not in the weird habit that's popped up in suburbia these last few years of kids saying "raunchy" in place of "gross". If your only British media experience is Monty Python's Flying Circus, this is a pretty good gauge of Fable's style of humour. And if you don't care for that show, this game will probably be little more than childish, nonsensical, and irritating.
All this is also not to say that Fable II isn't worth playing. It's certainly not worth the current new copy rate of $59.99 (Can.), but it's a good borrow or cheap bin purchase. It's great fun having an invincible doggie companion who sniffs out treasure and dig spots (and goes for the throat of any enemies you knock down without killing), the addition of rifles and pistols is highly entertaining, and there's nothing wrong with spending an hour dyeing and trying on your outfits (nothing). I also get a lot of private enjoyment over the fact that your character is raised by gypsies, and any time I go home to visit I hear the Italian Wolfram & Hart lady from Angel Season 5 shouting, "Feelthy gypsies! (Spit) We shall speak of them nomore!!!" Set several centuries after the events of Fable, you also get some interesting tidbits during the load screens, like the fate of Lady Grey. It's fluff, it's fun, it's easy, it's a great way to relax. It's also not for the faint of heart, or game snobs. Me, I'm having a good time, and plan to continue doing so. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go dye my shirt and play fetch with my dog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)