Blonde Bond

If you haven't already heard, there's a new 007 film in the works, designated Skyfall, and concerns one James Bond in his mission to babysit M from her dark and mysterious past. There is also a certain technological genius and laser-watch enthusiast returning to the franchise, I speak of Q, who has been a sorely missed element from the Craig films. The simple mention of a new Bond film crawling out of the development hell it has been in for four years has me giddy for some super-spy action. On a whim I re-watched Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, Daniel Craig's first two forays into spy-dom, and have decided to share my thoughts on the two.

I DO NOT claim to be a Bond aficionado, though I do own a majority of his pictures. I am missing the final volume of the "ultimate collection" of the first twenty Bond films which contains Dr. No, the first. Starting a marathon run of the films with going in order just doesn't seem like I'm giving the old boy a fair go, so I'm waiting on a more complete collection before attempting it. Until then I've only seen a handful of the movies in question and that was a while ago so the memory of the viewings has faded quite a bit. I understand examining the Craig films without having a more complete knowledge of the previous twenty at my disposal is a ludicrous idea. My counter-argument: tough.

Casino Royale
 I don't think continuity has ever been a major part of the Bond mythos. He changes appearance every so often, as do his contemporaries, and past events to previous adventures aren't all that important to what ever one he goes on. At least that what it seems like to me, a person with great but incomplete knowledge of his exploits. I suppose one could circumvent these continuity hiccups with stories of "James Bond" being a fabricated name of its own and is passed down from agent to agent, as we all know "M" is. I say all this because the idea of "rebooting" James Bond has always come off as unnecessary. Certainly he's needed freshening up, Die Another Day didn't impress ANYONE that I can think of. But did they have to call it a "reboot"? The audience sees how he attained double-oh status (the second is always considerably easier) and Daniel Craig is younger than the other Bonds, but he's not that noticeably younger.

Other than this, I can't really find anything bad to say about it. The movie does what it needs to, telling the first exploit of Bond and how his emotional armor formed, setting the stage for his suave and unattached demeanor with women. I'm trying to think of something I didn't like about Casino, other than the hard to watch torture scene, but disliking that scene has nothing to do with quality (more for the OUCH factor). Daniel Craig is brilliant in the role, as they always are. I've yet to see an actor that has never invoked feelings of "This guy is motherfucking James Bond" and I've only not seen George Lazenby's butt in the saddle, so we'll see how that works out.

Arbitrary Score: All-in A+


Quantum of Solace
Daniel Craig's sophomore Bond exploit is something else entirely. Up until my most recent viewing, Solace has invoked boredom and confusion from me. Now, with age and wisdom, I have returned to it under better light. Not much better, but still better. The big problem with Solace is that it's not its own story. Every Bond film up until this one has been essentially self-contained and concerned with only itself. Quantum of Solace only exists to wrap-up some loose thread in Casino Royale. It is the first Bond sequel to actually be a sequel to another Bond movie. And because of that, it suffers. One must first watch the former to understand what is going on and then the plot zooms and meanders around some oil conspiracy nonsense until everyone not paying close attention is lost and without hope. And those that are paying attention are just as easily by the how uninteresting the story is.

While it is nice to see 007 do something that doesn't involve (deep breathe) SAVING THE WORLD the basic idea of rooting out Quantum, a SPECTRE for an new age, could have been more interesting. The competing plot of oil conspiracy and control in Bolivia takes away from this, unfortunately and the film comes off as confused about what the hell Bond is suppose to do anyway. He hasn't fought a multiple film spanning shadowy organization since Connery, if I remember right, and doing so again would be a pleasant callback to the career of the first Bond.

Quantum does have its strong points, even a not-at-all worth it plot can stop Daniel Craig and Judi Dench from their naturally lively and excellent performances and the action, while often jittery, works competently enough to not ruin the experience. All in all, it's not perfect, but if you want to see what follows Casino Royale it won't exactly ruin you day.

Arbitrary Score: Wraped-up C

Now let's have some Skyfall. Hopefully October won't take too long to get here.

Spike VGAs 2011 Wrap-Up

They were surprisingly not terrible this year. The "show" part wasn't completely terrible, but the real low point was the teabagging thing they decided to do. Ugh. It also hogged up A LOT of the show itself, leaving the actual awards to be pushed in at the last minutes and book-ending the "comedy".

The "awards" part was actually acceptable. Skyrim brought home GOTY, not my first choice, but it is a respectable one. The only gripe I had with the winners was Arkham City winning Best Xbox Game. Obviously the category doesn't refer to exclusive Xbox games, so I guess they meant Best Game Released on the Xbox Overall? But then why did Skyrim bring home GOTY, since it was also released on the Xbox? That's the only really bothersome thing about the winners I have though. Which is a huge surprise. I was expecting to come off more disappointed than I did, so that's something.

It looks like they have a good system for choosing winners, but they need to cut the crap with overfilling the show with skits and whatever. This is an award show, not Saturday Night Live.

P.S. I'm sure they forgot to mention Best Team Sports Game, but no one seems to care.

Shakespeare in Love

Now THIS is a Shakespeare movie.

Unlike Anonymous, which should have focused on Shakespeare and the author of his works, Shakespeare in Love remains entirely focused on the relationship between Shakespeare and his "dark lady". It remains coherent and engaging, even for a romantic movie. And the actors all do a fantastic job, especially Paltrow who completely deserved that Oscar. If there's anyone out there reading this, I recommend watching this movie over Anonymous. Already seen it? Watch it again.

Score: A

Anonymous

The movie being sold in trailers and posters is not the movie in theaters. Do not be fooled.

The latest work from Roland Emmerich suffers from being all over the place. It's trying WAY too hard to be something it didn't have to be. Including massive conspiracy silliness and political intrigue in a movie about William Shakespeare seems unnecessary to me. Speaking of which; if you are making a movie ABOUT SHAKESPEARE IT SHOULD BE ABOUT SHAKESPEARE. Or at least sell it differently. Like: "Anonymous: Actually More About Ben Jonson than William Shakespeare".

Seriously, I get how its more or less following the story of Edward de Vere and how he supposedly wrote all of Shakespeare's work, but good lord does the movie have a hard-on for the ridiculously confusing political plot and Ben Jonson. He's a good writer and all I just think the movie should have focused more on de Vere and Shakespeare's lives. Like how Shakespeare's son died, drastically altering his life and work from that point on. Maybe could have worked that in. Or how Queen Elizabeth regularly attended the plays in question at the Globe itself, adding a bit more depth to the plot. Nope, instead we have 130 minutes of boring political crap that no one wanted to see in the first place.

And how they deal with Chris Marlowe's death is the most ridiculous piece of crap I have seen this month. Bean in mind I just saw a movie about puppets raising money to save their sketch comedy show from an oil baron with help of Hollywood celebrities.

Arbitrary Score: Fraudulent D

South Park: The Game

Well now there's this...... oh where do I begin.

1. I hope to Almighty Odin they get a better title.

2. This kind of thing is WAY out of Obsidian's range. They're a company who's been known for picking up the sloppy seconds of other, better companies or have had massive amounts of unluckiness when making their own game.

3. A "Self-insert" character is the least engaging idea in the whole of the videogame industry. They tried and failed in Ghostbusters, X-Men Destiny, the Penny Arcade Adventures, and countless others. And by "failure" I mean trying to make the self-insert character engaging. In all accounts, I'd much rather be playing as any of the established characters over some guy.

I adore South Park. I thinks its the best adult cartoon ever created and I really, really, hope this game turns out well. I'm just cautious about it is all. The only good thing about this is Trey Parker and Matt Stone are overseeing every aspect of the game personally, but games are a totally different medium from cartoons, movies, and even theatre. At this point it could go either way.

Love that cover, however. There's something pleasing about seeing South Park on the cover of GameInformer. And it looks like Token is a blacksmith. Tee hee hee.

I will also mention that this was written before any real information was given out about the game other than "its coming" with a brief description. I plan on making a follow-up when more information is available.

The Muppets & J. Edgar

I've never been too crazy about The Muppets. I really, really, really liked Muppet Treasure Island and that had been the only Muppet anything I have ever seen, barring some forgettable snipets of the Muppet Babies cartoon. Despite this, I was very excited to see this one, being glad of any major Hollywood production that involves puppets over CGI in any live action film.

And it doesn't disappoint. I went to go see it with seven other individuals of varying ages, mostly kids and teens, and we came out liking it. And what's not to like? There's hilarious jokes and an engaging story with some emotional depth. You don't really need anything else for a pretty good kid movie. Granted it doesn't rise to a Pixar level of goodness, but frankly nobody, other than Disney itself or the fantastically ignored Secret of Kells, has ever gotten close to that good. So its good to see a film being made with puppets that should become a well-beloved classic alongside the other great Muppet films.

Score: A-

J. Edgar, on the other hand, is a mess. Oh the acting and story are pretty neat. DiCaprio doing predictably well as usual in the titular with the other actors and actresses being good enough to not ruin the immersion. And the story is also interesting to anyone wanting to see a dramatized version of the birth of the FBI (like me).

The rest, like I said before, is a complete mess. The narrative is all over the place and can be confusing for the layman to follow with random references to shady government stuff that is going to confuse anyone without a History degree. While the "not quite" black & white visuals are neat, all they do is blanket the movie in overly-dramatic shadows. Also when you really have to go pee and you know the movie is close to ending, a person can really pick up on just how many goddamn stopping points a movie could have had. The film also delves into Hoover's supposed homosexual & chaste relationship with his protege.

I can say that director Clint Eastwood  portrays this aspect of Hoover's life in a respectable and not at all hypocritical or stereotypical way, so some props to him for that. But I was expecting more coming from Eastwood who has proved himself to be a much more competent director than what he dishes out with J. Edgar. Not terrible, just disappointing. And he is Clint Fucking Eastwood after all, so he's kinda allowed to make just however many mediocre films as he sees fit.

Score: C-

The Tommyverse

You know how TV shows will have those cutesy little nods to other tv shows? Like, "hey, that character was from that one show!" or "they smoked that kind of fictional cigarette on that other show!"

Well now, those have gotten so out of control to the point where Law & Order, Friends, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Doctor Who, I Love Lucy, Star Trek and about 270 other tv shows can all be connected to one another AND MAKE SENSE by way of St. Elsewhere, where all the events of the show (including all their little nods to other shows, and so on and so forth) all took place in the imagination of Tommy Westphall, a kid with autism.

So any seeming plot or universe inconsistencies between these shows can be chalked up to Tommy Westphall's autism and vividly inconsistent imagination

This. Is. Amazing.

Batman: Arkham Asylum

This is, without a doubt, the very best superhero videogame I have played. While pretty much the entire game is one Last Supper away from being the messiah of videogames, I would like to take the time out to highlight some of the better parts, and even the very, very, niggling faults.

I'm applauding the atmosphere and setting before anything because that's what bring the whole thing together. Nothing is better than losing yourself in a creepy, horrific insane asylum then seeing nods to lesser known Batman rouges (like everyone's favorite Calendar Man!). Combat is excellent, as well as the stealth mechanics, both complement each other without breaking each other; a godsend. And the characters (especially the villains) are all very well characterized and made totally unique with their own unique sections of the game, especially Scarecrow.

Now for those faults. Fist and foremost: where the hell is Robin? He's not present in any shape, form, or mention and that really bugs. He's a big part of the Batman mythos, and I think if Batman has fuckin two character profiles and his goddamn parents have one, then Robin deserves one. The only theory I could think as to why Robin isn't even mentioned is if Batman were currently between Robins. Like say, after Dick Grayson threw his hissy fit and quit being Robin to go become Nightwing, or after the death of Jason Todd. That's understandable as to why Robin doesn't even constitute a mention in the game, but not why he doesn't deserve a character bio. Ugh.
Boy... that was a rant, eh? Let me wrap this up: too many of the boss fights are brick shithouse fights, or have WAAAAY too many grunts getting in the way.

And that's it. Go home.

Score: 9/10

You know what?

The more I watch of South Park, the more I come to think of it as a sarcastic intellectual that acts out as a perverted xenophobe. Why? 'Cause.

The Drawn Together Movie

You know, I can admire a movie like the Drawn Together Movie. Its raunchy, trashy, and just plain horrid, but that's the point. Calling it anything else would be missing the point of the whole damn movie. It knows what it wants to be and accomplishes it in a truly stunning way.

Score: F+

Kung Fu Panda 2

I was never really a fan of the first Kung Fu Panda. It was clever, had a unique visual style to call its own, and was entertainingly goofy, but it lacked the chops to be anything more than just an alright film. And that's pretty much where the sequel lines up as well. Its a clever little film that manages to save itself from mediocrity by embracing its goofy, colorful side while still being able to somewhat be serious at times. That being said, there are some issues.

First and foremost, I am sick and tired of the "last of my kind/race/brand/clan/phylum/family" plot line. Its a pretty worn out cliche that needs a break from all the extensive overuse. KFP2's use of it was mildly tolerable, but at some point I'm just going to bash a movie senseless for including it. On another note, many of the characters aren't that well flushed out. The primary supporting cast is filled with one-dimensional characters that just don't get any time to characterize. An unrelated thought occurs: if the pandas were wiped out in some massive genocidal rampage, wouldn't the people in Po's village have heard about it? Or even just the kung fu masters? They clearly aren't out of the loop since messages are seen coming in. Shouldn't the destruction of an entire race of creatures be even worth a post-script?

Despite these gripes, the movie's alright, like I said. It isn't amazing or anything, but it manages to keep itself far away from mediocrity and that's pretty impressive for a kid's movie.

Arbitrary Score: Solid B

Evil Dead II

So I finally got around to watching Evil Dead II. I've seen Army of Darkness around four or five times now, so this has been a long time coming. The verdict? Pretty good. I love the dark comedy and the moments of goofiness, and the story's alright by me. Its hard to judge things like special effects since this comes from the time of goofy CG and even goofier splicing shots, but I've never really cared much for effects, only when they become something of a distraction or break the immerse effect of the movie, which it doesn't in EV2.
In conclusion: I like it, but Army of Darkness is the best of the bunch, happily breaking the unspoken rule that the third movie in a trilogy is the weakest.

Introductions Are in Order

So since every other hack and their cat has twelve blogs between them I figure, why not have my own? There's no real structure to this blog, just a way fro me to rant and stretch my writing muscles. I don't even think anyone will ever read this, so no skin off my nose.

So welcome, and wipe your feet if you've been outside.