Reviews

The Art of Video Games: An Introduction

Smithsonian American Art Museum 2012

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:939:]]The Art of Video Games exhibit is the brain child of Chris Melissinos a veteran producer in the gaming industry who currently serves as Sun Microsystems’ Chief Evangelist and Chief gaming officer.  This exhibit showcases the AV art of gaming from its birth to current manifestation mostly through a multitude of TV and projection booth installations that not only displays the software, but the hardware as well.  This opening weekend is being supplemented by GameFest!, a three day festival featuring open game playing, live music inspired by gaming, movie screenings and panel discussions with current industry professionals.  The lineup of industry notables is quite impressive: Don Daglow, RJ Mical, Mike Mika, Rand Miller, Keith Robinson, Paul Barnett, Mark DeLoura, Ken Levine, Kelly Santiago, Nolan Bushnell, Hideo Kojima and Robin Hunicke. 

Recognition by the Smithsonian is clear evidence of gaming and gaming culture as a significant presence within American culture beyond some taboo cult.  Art is clearly in the eyes of the beholder and while today’s AAA games rival major Hollywood films in terms of production value, the fundamentals of combining malleable imagery with sound, music and text has been a part of the video game at every stage of its evolution.  When the status of “the observer” gets elevated to “the player” the impact of the art within a video game on the individual becomes much more tangible due to the level of interactivity with said art through mechanical control devices such as joysticks, gamepads, motion control and wireless motion tracking. 

The art of the video game represents a collision of creative activities, in and of themselves, considered to be art forms such as programming, drawing, orchestrating, acting, cinematography and writing.  As media entertainment is in constant flux due to the rapid development of technological capability, the video game is merely an additional link in the chain of communication that binds humanity together; linking the creator(s) with the rest of the world.  The potential for influential social commentary remains relatively untapped as video games have not become regularly referenced in the discourse of human behavior such as literature and the cinema.  However, the gaming industry seems to be heading in that direction as games become more cinematic in its pursuit of narrative synergy with the player.

The First Blockbuster of 2012?

A Film Review of John Carter

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:868:]]There’s something to be said about prior knowledge on the viewer’s part, Hollywood film adaptations of that prior knowledge and the resulting experience the viewer has at the theater.  There are very few film adaptations of popular licenses that I know absolutely nothing about before buying my ticket.  I knew nothing about the story of John Carter, its significance or the fact it was created by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the man who invented Tarzan.  All I had was movie-trailer speculation and the assumption this film was some kind of science-fiction featuring a super-man (of sorts) being the main character who saves the day in some way.  Although these story elements have been done ad nauseam by Hollywood, it was enough to lure me to the theater.  Upon leaving the cinema, I could not help but think that if I was a member of the John Carter cult-club, I probably would have been much more impressed with what I saw.  I would have appreciated all the references, understood the character relations, accepted the dialogue and above all, forgiven the plot gaps.  It led me to conclude that my fan-boy tendencies for certain licensed adaptations actually led to fluffier interpretations rather than meticulous scrutiny.  This fact is the reason why I didn’t absolutely loathe some film adaptations that are often berated for being, generally speaking, terrible: (the first) Resident Evil and Green Lantern.  My esteemed colleague at CBN, Mr. Chris Bushley, often jokes with me that my film criticism is too tough and causes me to “hate” every movie.  To that I say thee “NAY!” but my weakness as a fan-boy will be expunged with better efficiency to leave the fluff at the door in future reviews of films I’m personally anticipating.  As of now, The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises are officially put on notice.   

As for John Carter (the film) there’s a very specific reason why it is being promoted as “the first blockbuster of 2012.”  It happens to be the same reason why it is being released in March, a full two months prior to the beginning of the actual blockbuster season in May.  The reason is because John Carter cannot compete with the actual blockbusters of the summer.  It doesn’t have the star power, it doesn’t have the spectacle and it doesn’t have the compelling story.  Sure, John Carter looks good on paper: pretty boy with abs as lead?  Check.  Sexy babe?  Check.  Action and explosions?  Check.  Aliens and plenty of CG?  Check.  Mickey Mouse’s bottomless pockets to bankroll.  Double check!   John Carter proves that there is no such thing as a “sure thing,” and despite having no significant competition at the box office, it was no match for the previous week’s incumbent champion: The Lorax (a Dr. Seuss animated film well before the beginning of Easter season when these films tend to dominate).  This movie had a production budget estimated at around $250 million and yielded a paltry $30 million on its opening weekend with guaranteed diminishing returns every additional day it spends in theaters.  This is not the kind of money that gets spent on a film that barely approaches a cult following, and the mouse is frowning atop his gigantic golf ball in Orlando.  The two main culprits are 1) Bad marketing (films like Super 8 can clearly relate) and 2) Bad filmmaking (ahem, Green Lantern). 

Word of mouth can play a role in sales for any film, but its only real affect tends to put well made, well reviewed films that much more over the top (see Harry Potter films and Avatar).  The fact that nobody’s talking about John Carter is as damning as negative commentary, both of which you can blame squarely on Disney and Buena Vista for barely making half the promotional effort it consistently makes for all its animated features.  The most impressive thing about this entire project was the teaser trailer that was released last year because it built up the whole mystery of some prophesized messiah on an unknown world theme; none of which was actually part of the story in John Carter.  Disney has some kind of major malfunction with selling live action/adventure/sci-fi because the brand of the mouse can, IN NO WAY, be blemished by the stain of excessive violence, graphic content and adult situations.  For all the cool things that came with the Tron franchise — from experimental filmmaking, to “digital” effects, to thought provoking story and philosophy, those films did not blow the box office away, and the fact that the mouse has no interest in getting down in the mud to wrestle with the elephants (not commit to harder PG-13 types of stories) must be a factor and is worth discussing.  John Carter is so eerily reminiscent of Tron in just about every way save for one: Everything you see in JC has been done before, EVERYTHING. 

Writer-director Andrew Stanton teamed up with Mark Andrews to create the screenplay adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ A Princess of Mars.  My special note to the reader: “Get to know your writers!” because understanding why a film flies or fails begins with the authors/adapters.  Stanton’s writing credits include Toy Story, A Bug’s Life, Monster’s Inc., and Finding Nemo, while Andrews is coming from Samurai Jack and Star Wars: Clone Wars.  Knowing this is particularly interesting seeing how the story of John Carter is laid out and executed in a manner befitting most cartoons: rapidly, without explanation and requiring a healthy amount of faith and acceptance to get through it.  One of Syd Field’s rules to screenwriting suggests that the writer ought to begin the story of the script as close to or interrupting the action as possible.  This creates a hook, without which an audience can be lost to disinterest.  The problem with John Carter’s story is that the only thing that exists in the beginning of the film is the hook with zero foundation in establishing the character, why he exists where he exists, why he behaves a certain way and just what the heck is driving him.  Before the audience learns anything relevant or sympathetic about John, BOOM, he’s on Mars and the rest of the time the audience is just playing catch up. 

John is constantly (and literally) bounding about from one group of characters to the next because he’s caught up in a storm of confusion, which would be interesting if the “fish out of water” angle wasn’t so conveniently and effortlessly dealt with by the biggest BS plot device this side of “midichlorians.”  In the mean time, all these other people John interacts with are very casually introduced because their visual stereotypes are meant to tell their whole stories: green people with tusks and loincloths are “savage,” less cultured, tribes-people while humanoids dressed like the cast of 300 who use technology are the ruling class.   There are no camp-fire, getting-to-know-you scenes that clearly identify and engage the main characters into each other’s conflicts.  The constant need for walking, riding, shooting, flying, etc. from one place to the other simply does not permit this film’s own story to connect to the audience.  The entire plot’s structure plays out like four, half-hour episodes of a cartoon series strung together.  Stanton and Andrews did not even write this live action/sci-fi adaptation like their successful cartoons as they were clearly going for Star Wars, but in their haste to project a plot arc for an entire trilogy they managed to misplace all sense of character, adding to the overall irrelevance of the story and the absurd manner in which it was presented. 

The action, digital graphics and effects are all but carbon-copied from the Star Wars prequel trilogy.  Even John’s ability to jump like MJ on space-aged cocaine-steroids starts off as moderately annoying and ends up being blandly overused.  There is nothing visceral, or even “super” about it.  ‘Nuff said.

When the core of your cast is transplanted from a film of the past noteworthy for its inability to meet expectations (X-Men Origins: Wolverine), this doesn’t traditionally bode well for most films.  Thankfully Lynn Collins (previously Kayla Silverfox, now Princess Dejah Thoris) holds up her end of lead acting responsibility.  Picture Megan Fox with less plastic on her body and face with a brain and talent and this only begins to describe Lynn Collins as an actress.  Although she is called upon to engage in some swordplay and fisticuffs, the most impressive aspect of her performance was her dialogue.  Who knew authentic Martians spoke with an English accent?  Regardless, Collins is quite flawless, featuring a level of speaking proficiency that can only be harnessed at institutions like Julliard and being cast in numerous Shakespearean stage plays.  It goes without saying that she is simply breathtaking to look at on the screen, but as seductive as she is both visually and vocally, Dejah Thoris (as a character) doesn’t do much beyond prototypical warrior-princess activity.  The past 10 years have seen women that play “the babe” in action films have a more action-oriented role to place them on par with their male leads.  However, it’s starting to get a little dull if all these women do is throw a few punches only to be waiting to be saved in the end.  Collins’ performance produced undeniable girl-power infused with a regal respectability, but unfortunately it ends there as her inability to generate sparks with John Carter highlights every romantic scene with the high-beams of awkwardness.

The male leads stand in stark contrast to Lynn Collins’ quality performance as captured by the camera.  Mark Strong (previously Sinestro, now Matai Shang) is John Carter’s big bad, and the man seems to be all too comfortable with playing the villain in just about every film he has been cast.  Far too little is revealed about his character to the audience to effectively break down his performance because I couldn’t tell you if acting like a monotone devil showing little (if any) emotion of any sort was the appropriate choice for that character.  That is exactly what Strong delivered and although he did a fine job doing so, I prefer my villains to be a lot more dynamic than that. 

This leads us to Taylor Kitsch (previously Gambit, now John Carter) who plays JC himself: a former soldier in the Confederate army, turn gold prospector, who has a way with Native Americans, a knack for combat and a penchant for getting into trouble.  Oh, and he seems to have a permanent case of male PMS.   As I mentioned before, the details of the plot are few and far between in explaining the “what’s”, “where’s” and “why’s,” but are even less when filtering the plot through John Carter’s eyes.  In fact, without dialogue in the script specifically telling the audience about Carter’s past, there’s nothing in Kitsch’s performance that shows he’s a southerner, a soldier, or a man of ANY former level of respectability.  Kitsch doesn’t speak with a southern accent, displays no form of period specific sword play technique when combating and shows no evidence of being former military by his demeanor or dialogue.  Kitsch’s John Carter comes off like some vagabond cowboy who is consistently pissed off, doesn’t care at all for authority and only has one thing on his mind: gold.  Of course, these are all explained away by the story about 20 minutes before the final credits roll, but better choices in performance could have reconciled such a lackluster rationale.  Kitsch does fine with his character’s physicality, but struggles with even simple dialogue.  I feel like I catch Kitsch thinking when he says his lines rather than simply being in character and speaking organically. 

Push comes to shove, people who know the John Carter mythos will appreciate this movie because they will understand everything they see and everything they hear.  I got about 50% of it while completely losing interest in the other half.  This is not an adaptation that seeks a solid, fictional foundation that any viewer can find relatable or intriguing, which is a shame because the world of John Carter is much more exotic than what this film portrays and it shows at the box office.

An Act of Valor is the Call of Duty

A Film Review of Act of Valor

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:786:]]If for some reason the title of this film review is somewhat confusing, let me be quite clear.  Act of Valor is the unofficial Call of Duty (Modern Warfare) film adaptation.  It takes all but five minutes into this film to realize this, but then I kind of got that impression by identifying the major demographic that populated the theater as I searched for my seat: males 13-18.  Which is exactly the kind of people the US military covets among all else because war films are just about as old as filmmaking, and to this day they serve agendas beyond shear entertainment; namely glorification and recruitment.  It’s not just the fact that this film has to do with contemporary warfare that has young men marching to the theaters.  I believe it’s because of this film’s strong visual connection with Call of Duty style videogames and the “game-ification” of the violence in war from said games that accounts for the attraction.  I seriously doubt that anyone in the audience not named Lawrence Napoli would have any interest in sitting through a war film like Patton (1970 – and one of the greatest films [war or otherwise] of all time).  In that regard, I almost disqualify Act of Valor as a “war film” because it does not contain a traditional narrative, doesn’t feature any unique characters and is quite disciplined in its action sequences not going “over the top.”  Act of Valor is a war simulation film in that it delivers a dramatic (yet fictional) slice of life of the exceptional American operators who are proficient at more than just doing calisthenics and chilling out on American bases.  These men exist to kill the enemy (accent on KILL), and American security and the rule of global law and order are better served because of their efforts.

I was quite satisfied with the action throughout this film, but the viewer better be okay with a healthy dose of the first person perspective.  If not, you may find this film a bit off-putting.  Every action sequence cuts to this camera angle on multiple occasions, but the editors mix in enough traditional dolly, crane and steady-cam shots to dissuade motion sickness.  No, this isn’t a modern warfare version of Paranormal Activity, but be prepared when the bullets start flying.  And speaking of those bullets, everything about the gunplay from the setup to the engagement and execution of the enemy on screen is the very definition of professionalism.  Of course, one would expect that of active duty Navy SEALs, but doing it in real life is different than doing it for entertainment.  Authenticity is this film’s number one strength and it really shines through not just in the action, but in the subtle yet effective performances of the SEALs themselves.  There’s no “Mother Goose” this (from Top Gun) or “saving Private Ryan” that in how the men address each other on and off mission.  Their dialogue comes off as casual and matter of fact despite the downtime between explosions and body counts.  Perhaps what is most amazing about these soldiers is despite their destructive force, they have an ability to “flip the switch off” for each other and their families.  Although this dichotomy is not explored fully (only hinted at towards the beginning of the film) it exists to show that these types of people are as real as the sacrifices some make on the ever changing and unforgiving battlefield.

An interesting fact about this film is that it is surprisingly removed from the typical big dollars of Hollywood studios which seem to go hand in hand with films that feature huge effects, big explosions, cool looking vehicles and well choreographed action.  The distributors for Act of Valor are an amalgam of companies from Canada, Turkey, Singapore, India, Thailand, Switzerland and yes, also the USA (thank you Relativity Media).  This is quite interesting seeing how this film is very American-centric as being identified as “the good guys,” and I wonder if every country of origin for those distributors maintains that sentiment within its respective populations.  Countries like the UK may be partners in the global anti-terrorist initiative, but seeing this film will not inspire the British to pump their chests and get fired up about contributing to the cause.  This film has that exact effect on Americans so I would challenge any up and coming investigative journalist to track the money that funded Act of Valor beyond the distributors because it is an effective piece of propaganda.  Let’s just say that I would not be surprised to find a Pentagon bank account at the end of that chain.  At the very least, the military brass must have given the SEALs permission to be movie stars for however long the production took.  It’s not like they could fit in a few hours of film shooting at their leisure after working their day jobs.   

Do you want to know another area where this film channels Call of Duty directly?  The general plot seems to have been a direct composite of every game’s story.  The bad guys in Call of Duty are one of or a combination of Nazis, Russians or terrorists.  Act of Valor doesn’t exactly throw me a curve by featuring a Makirov wanna-be who converts to extremist Islam and uses his Russian connections to proliferate his own personal brand of terror.  My boy Ben “Yahtzee” Croshaw over at The Escapist and Zero Punctuation could easily copy/paste his comedic criticism of Modern Warfare 3 and have it apply to Act of Valor’s cookie-cutter story.  The rest of this non-linear tale fills out with standard issue “this is the plan to kill the bad guys,” “the killing of the bad guys,” rinsing and repeating save for one area of intrigue that does not get explained in the script.  The Russian/Muslim bad guy uses neither Russians nor Arabs as recruits for his agents of death and it raises a very significant point about the current state of the “war on terror.”  The entire Third World is a hotbed for terrorist recruitment, and that message hasn’t exactly been front page material in the American media as evidenced by most of its video coverage concerning terrorist activity being siphoned off of Al Jazeera’s network.  Had this film delved more into this issue, it certainly would have been much more intelligent in exposing the truth that the face of terror knows no ethnicity, creed or country of origin. 

As for the acting . . . well like I said earlier, it’s mostly authentic soldier type back and forth along with the prescribed level of military terminology, acronyms and jargon.  However, don’t expect any moving performances outside of “fragging out!” because you won’t find it.  Even the Hollywood performers that fill in the non-SEAL roles like Roselyn Sanchez (what the heck is she doing in this film?) can’t deliver much due to limitations of the story.  The SEALs are the true stars and their acting ability, though filled with effort, lacks.  The best scene in the entire movie is between the SEAL interrogator and Christo; equal parts amusing, frightening and dramatic.

Act of Valor is “the number one movie in America” the same way every action film manages to attain that title so don’t go see this movie because it happens to be trending right now.  I would, however, recommend this film to anyone that wants a glimpse of more authentic military activity, how the responsibilities of the US armed forces are distinctly global in nature and the numerous differences between “operators” and “grunts.”  The action is solid, the story is basic and a message of duty, sacrifice, brotherhood and determination holds it all together.  Hawks will love Act of Valor.  Doves will not.

The State of Hollywood

2012 Oscar Fallout

(Editor’s Note: CBN’s movie reviewer, Lawrence Napoli, offers his views and opinions on the movie biz in his column, “The State Of Hollywood.”)

The obligatory video intro that pokes fun of last year’s films with Billy Crystal had a pretty standard array of jokes, but Billy just seemed to make them work better than previous hosts of the past.  Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that he’s done this 8 times before this year?

Billy’s opening monologue/sing and dance number wasn’t as good as his video intro to the program.  My favorite of all time remains Hugh Jackman’s number.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:758:]]

Best Cinematography – Hugo and Robert Richardson.

Best Art Direction – Hugo and Dante Ferreti   

Best Costume Design – The Artist and Mark Bridges (from Niagara Falls!  Go Western New York!)

Best Makeup – The Iron Lady and Mark Coulier

Best Foreign Language Film – A Separation (Iran)

Best Supporting Actress – The Help and Octavia Spencer w/ Christian Bale (The Dark Knight Rises) as Presenter

The first test screen audience spoof starring the cast of Best in Show was kind of funny, but only if you’re into that dry American humor. 

Best Film Editing – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall

Best Sound Editing – Hugo and Philip Stockton  

Best Sound Mixing – Hugo and Tom Flieschman

Cirque Du Soleil’s performance – It was pretty neat how they began swinging out into the audience, not so cool how one of them fell down pretty early on in the number, but certainly showcased the awesome art of acrobatics and gymnastics better than most professionals.  I didn’t exactly get how their “dance” was meant to be a homage to “going to the movies,” but whatever.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:759:]]

Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow’s presentation of best documentary was hilarious in that it was 100% Tony Stark ego meeting Pepper Potts’ need to maintain control which made a relatively dull category, a tad more interesting.

Best documentary feature – Undefeated and TJ Martin and co.  A little frat boy nonsensical cursing that was muted out, and the specter of Damon and Afleck still cannot escape the Oscars.

Chris Rock loves animation?  He has a nice way of showing it by mocking the fact he gets paid “a million dollars” for doing voice-overs when the fact of the matter that is that most VO actors struggle to make a living (just not Nolan North).  Just because some no-name casting director thought Chris Rock’s geeky, squeaky voice would be perfect for a cartoon doesn’t necessarily meant he had any genuine artistic contribution to any film he simply read lines for.  I get he was trying to make a joke, but he came off like an ignorant knucklehead. 

Best animated feature – Rango and Gore Verbinski

Ben Stiller and Emma Stone = great, comedic co-presentation.  Ben still tries to evoke comedy out of playing the straight man and allows his partner to generate all the laughs.  Emma Stone continues to solidify herself as one of my favorite women in all of Hollywood.

Best visual effects – Hugo and Rob Legato

Best supporting actor – Beginners, and Christopher Plummer wins his FIRST OSCAR!!!  Way to go Chris!  What a great thank you speech and it’s about time you got recognition for a hall of fame acting career while avoiding the undesirable “lifetime achievement” Oscar. 

Billy Crystal’s “I know what everyone is thinking” was pretty funny:

1) Brad Pitt – “This show better not go too late, I’ve got 6 parent-teacher conferences in the morning.”

2) Morgan Freeman – Random quotes from March of the Penguins mixed with The Shawshank Redemption

3) The dog from The Artist – “If I had ‘em, I’d like ‘em.”

4) Nick Nolte – “Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh.”

They paired Penelope Cruz with the one person in the world who has an uglier nose than her: Owen Wilson!  Naturally, they present a best music Oscar.

Best original score – The Artist and Ludvic Bourge

Will Ferrell and Zach Galafianakis come marching up from the orchestra pit smashing cymbals and wearing all white tuxedos.  The funniest part was Galafianakis mispronouncing his own last name as they both introduced themselves to the audience.

Best original song – Man or Muppet and Brett Mckenzie

Angelina Jolie gives a sexy pose, sticks her leg out from that hot black dress, says “good evening” and the audience responds, but upon closer inspection of Jolie herself, her arms look severely anorexic and I can’t imagine the lack of meat she is hiding beneath the dress.  They say the camera adds 20 pounds?  In her case it subtracted 20 off a frame that had no more than 110 originally.

Best adapted screenplay – The Descendants, and Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon trying to do their best Angelina Jolie impersonation.

Best original screenplay – Midnight in Paris, and Woody Allen was a no show to pick up his Oscar, but he probably gives two sh*ts about the Academy.

The cast of Bridesmaids presents the next 3 awards in character.  It was funnier than Ferrell and Galafianakis, but not by much.

Best live action short – The Shore and Terry George

Best documentary feature – Saving Face and Daniel Junge

Best animated short film – The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore and William Joyce and Branden Oldenburg

Michael Douglas presents:

Best Director – The Artist’s Michel Hazanavicius

Meryl Streep presents the board of governor Oscars to:

Dick Smith (makeup), James Earl Jones, Oprah Winfrey

In memoriam sequence to What a Wonderful World – Clearly, the most difficult part of the evening, and the Academy did the right thing by giving the nod to Whitney Houston.  BUT, what I don’t understand is acknowledging Steve Jobs.  What Hollywood production was he ever associated with?  Aside from making filthy amounts of money on computing and bringing Final Cut Pro to regular consumers (which is significant) I don’t see how he belongs on the Academy’s radar.  Brilliant human being?  No question there, but it’s like the Academy honoring the passing of some amazing scientist, humanitarian, politician, or (insert profession outside of Hollywood here) and I think this move was purely political.

Natalie Portman presents:

Best Actor – The Artist’s Jean Dujardin.  Side note: this reminded me of Roberto Benigni winning for Life Is Beautiful (1997), and it took a film that was so unconventional that it literally came out of nowhere to take the Oscars by storm.  Only time will tell Jean, like Roberto before him, never returns to the Oscar stage again.

Colin Firth presents:

Best Actress – The Iron Lady’s Meryl Streep.  17 Nominations and this being only her 3^rd victory seems a little strange.  She really is the best film actress of America for the past 40 years and no one else comes close to the quality and diversity of her body of work. 

Tom Cruise presents:

Best Picture: The Artist is perhaps the most anti-climactic end to an Academy Awards because everyone and their mother knew this was going to happen.  And why not?  It’s all we’ve been hearing about for the past month or so, and although I have no issue with this picture winning over the rest, there is something worth mentioning.  The Academy has shown a propensity for giving props to retro productions.  The most recent was a return to musicals that began with Moulin Rouge! (2001), and although that film did not win best picture that year (because it was especially strange) it certainly opened the door wide open for Chicago to do so the very next year.  The brilliance of a silent film is not the same stuff of a brilliant “talkie,” so in a way, it isn’t exactly fair to be judging all nine of these films in the same category.  Sound in the filmmaking process has become almost as important as producing the images that make the moving picture, and for a film like this to win tosses theoretical mud in the faces of those who won for best sound editing and mixing.  Regardless, I am certain this film was deserving of victory and I intend to see The Artist at my earliest convenience.  You’ll only hear again from me on this matter if what I encounter is a film that was severely hyped and what it actually delivered was a cornucopia of over indulgence.

Final thoughts:

All in all, the 84^th Academy Awards went off without a hitch, and you can attribute this to the veteran leadership of one Billy Crystal.  He may not have much left in the tank to sell films by himself, but the man knows how to host the Oscars.  In this man’s humble opinion there is Bob Hope, Billy Crystal and no one else that have done this job with class, comedy and calm.  Crystal was quick with the one-liners and in tandem with some fairly entertaining presenters, the overall pace of the show never lagged.  The only other highlight of the evening was how Sash Sacha Baron Cohen (as The Dictator) dumped fake Kim Jong Il ashes all over Ryan Seacrest, and I’m sure that ruined his tux enough to force him into an unexpected costume change.  Anything that knocks out that prissy punk Seacrest gets a thumbs up in my book.  Well done Borat, well done.  Hugo took home the largest number of Oscars, but The Artist was the best. 

The State of Hollywood

2012 Oscar Fallout

(Editor’s Note: CBN’s movie reviewer, Lawrence Napoli, offers his views and opinions on the movie biz in his column, “The State Of Hollywood.”)

The obligatory video intro that pokes fun of last year’s films with Billy Crystal had a pretty standard array of jokes, but Billy just seemed to make them work better than previous hosts of the past.  Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that he’s done this 8 times before this year?

Billy’s opening monologue/sing and dance number wasn’t as good as his video intro to the program.  My favorite of all time remains Hugh Jackman’s number.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:758:]]

Best Cinematography – Hugo and Robert Richardson.

Best Art Direction – Hugo and Dante Ferreti   

Best Costume Design – The Artist and Mark Bridges (from Niagara Falls!  Go Western New York!)

Best Makeup – The Iron Lady and Mark Coulier

Best Foreign Language Film – A Separation (Iran)

Best Supporting Actress – The Help and Octavia Spencer w/ Christian Bale (The Dark Knight Rises) as Presenter

The first test screen audience spoof starring the cast of Best in Show was kind of funny, but only if you’re into that dry American humor. 

Best Film Editing – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall

Best Sound Editing – Hugo and Philip Stockton  

Best Sound Mixing – Hugo and Tom Flieschman

Cirque Du Soleil’s performance – It was pretty neat how they began swinging out into the audience, not so cool how one of them fell down pretty early on in the number, but certainly showcased the awesome art of acrobatics and gymnastics better than most professionals.  I didn’t exactly get how their “dance” was meant to be a homage to “going to the movies,” but whatever.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:759:]]

Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow’s presentation of best documentary was hilarious in that it was 100% Tony Stark ego meeting Pepper Potts’ need to maintain control which made a relatively dull category, a tad more interesting.

Best documentary feature – Undefeated and TJ Martin and co.  A little frat boy nonsensical cursing that was muted out, and the specter of Damon and Afleck still cannot escape the Oscars.

Chris Rock loves animation?  He has a nice way of showing it by mocking the fact he gets paid “a million dollars” for doing voice-overs when the fact of the matter that is that most VO actors struggle to make a living (just not Nolan North).  Just because some no-name casting director thought Chris Rock’s geeky, squeaky voice would be perfect for a cartoon doesn’t necessarily meant he had any genuine artistic contribution to any film he simply read lines for.  I get he was trying to make a joke, but he came off like an ignorant knucklehead. 

Best animated feature – Rango and Gore Verbinski

Ben Stiller and Emma Stone = great, comedic co-presentation.  Ben still tries to evoke comedy out of playing the straight man and allows his partner to generate all the laughs.  Emma Stone continues to solidify herself as one of my favorite women in all of Hollywood.

Best visual effects – Hugo and Rob Legato

Best supporting actor – Beginners, and Christopher Plummer wins his FIRST OSCAR!!!  Way to go Chris!  What a great thank you speech and it’s about time you got recognition for a hall of fame acting career while avoiding the undesirable “lifetime achievement” Oscar. 

Billy Crystal’s “I know what everyone is thinking” was pretty funny:

1) Brad Pitt – “This show better not go too late, I’ve got 6 parent-teacher conferences in the morning.”

2) Morgan Freeman – Random quotes from March of the Penguins mixed with The Shawshank Redemption

3) The dog from The Artist – “If I had ‘em, I’d like ‘em.”

4) Nick Nolte – “Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh.”

They paired Penelope Cruz with the one person in the world who has an uglier nose than her: Owen Wilson!  Naturally, they present a best music Oscar.

Best original score – The Artist and Ludvic Bourge

Will Ferrell and Zach Galafianakis come marching up from the orchestra pit smashing cymbals and wearing all white tuxedos.  The funniest part was Galafianakis mispronouncing his own last name as they both introduced themselves to the audience.

Best original song – Man or Muppet and Brett Mckenzie

Angelina Jolie gives a sexy pose, sticks her leg out from that hot black dress, says “good evening” and the audience responds, but upon closer inspection of Jolie herself, her arms look severely anorexic and I can’t imagine the lack of meat she is hiding beneath the dress.  They say the camera adds 20 pounds?  In her case it subtracted 20 off a frame that had no more than 110 originally.

Best adapted screenplay – The Descendants, and Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon trying to do their best Angelina Jolie impersonation.

Best original screenplay – Midnight in Paris, and Woody Allen was a no show to pick up his Oscar, but he probably gives two sh*ts about the Academy.

The cast of Bridesmaids presents the next 3 awards in character.  It was funnier than Ferrell and Galafianakis, but not by much.

Best live action short – The Shore and Terry George

Best documentary feature – Saving Face and Daniel Junge

Best animated short film – The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore and William Joyce and Branden Oldenburg

Michael Douglas presents:

Best Director – The Artist’s Michel Hazanavicius

Meryl Streep presents the board of governor Oscars to:

Dick Smith (makeup), James Earl Jones, Oprah Winfrey

In memoriam sequence to What a Wonderful World – Clearly, the most difficult part of the evening, and the Academy did the right thing by giving the nod to Whitney Houston.  BUT, what I don’t understand is acknowledging Steve Jobs.  What Hollywood production was he ever associated with?  Aside from making filthy amounts of money on computing and bringing Final Cut Pro to regular consumers (which is significant) I don’t see how he belongs on the Academy’s radar.  Brilliant human being?  No question there, but it’s like the Academy honoring the passing of some amazing scientist, humanitarian, politician, or (insert profession outside of Hollywood here) and I think this move was purely political.

Natalie Portman presents:

Best Actor – The Artist’s Jean Dujardin.  Side note: this reminded me of Roberto Benigni winning for Life Is Beautiful (1997), and it took a film that was so unconventional that it literally came out of nowhere to take the Oscars by storm.  Only time will tell Jean, like Roberto before him, never returns to the Oscar stage again.

Colin Firth presents:

Best Actress – The Iron Lady’s Meryl Streep.  17 Nominations and this being only her 3^rd victory seems a little strange.  She really is the best film actress of America for the past 40 years and no one else comes close to the quality and diversity of her body of work. 

Tom Cruise presents:

Best Picture: The Artist is perhaps the most anti-climactic end to an Academy Awards because everyone and their mother knew this was going to happen.  And why not?  It’s all we’ve been hearing about for the past month or so, and although I have no issue with this picture winning over the rest, there is something worth mentioning.  The Academy has shown a propensity for giving props to retro productions.  The most recent was a return to musicals that began with Moulin Rouge! (2001), and although that film did not win best picture that year (because it was especially strange) it certainly opened the door wide open for Chicago to do so the very next year.  The brilliance of a silent film is not the same stuff of a brilliant “talkie,” so in a way, it isn’t exactly fair to be judging all nine of these films in the same category.  Sound in the filmmaking process has become almost as important as producing the images that make the moving picture, and for a film like this to win tosses theoretical mud in the faces of those who won for best sound editing and mixing.  Regardless, I am certain this film was deserving of victory and I intend to see The Artist at my earliest convenience.  You’ll only hear again from me on this matter if what I encounter is a film that was severely hyped and what it actually delivered was a cornucopia of over indulgence.

Final thoughts:

All in all, the 84^th Academy Awards went off without a hitch, and you can attribute this to the veteran leadership of one Billy Crystal.  He may not have much left in the tank to sell films by himself, but the man knows how to host the Oscars.  In this man’s humble opinion there is Bob Hope, Billy Crystal and no one else that have done this job with class, comedy and calm.  Crystal was quick with the one-liners and in tandem with some fairly entertaining presenters, the overall pace of the show never lagged.  The only other highlight of the evening was how Sash Sacha Baron Cohen (as The Dictator) dumped fake Kim Jong Il ashes all over Ryan Seacrest, and I’m sure that ruined his tux enough to force him into an unexpected costume change.  Anything that knocks out that prissy punk Seacrest gets a thumbs up in my book.  Well done Borat, well done.  Hugo took home the largest number of Oscars, but The Artist was the best. 

Shepard Commander: Alert!

These Are My Impressions of the Mass Effect 3 Demo

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:750:]]I’ve had just about a week with BioWare’s first taste of the overall goodness that is the Mass Effect 3 demo and after even this short period of time, I must say that I am hooked.  I was modestly amused with the single player demo in that I was able to detect the noticeable difference in the combat flow, an improved AI and the new character animations Shepard engages in beyond running to waist high cover and throwing single elbows for melee strikes.  Then came the multiplayer component that released on February 17^th and the fun factor went up a hundred fold.  When this concept was first presented by BioWare it was met with a wide array of skepticism, disinterest and in some instances, outright rage for what was perceived by fans and critics as the company cow-towing to formulaic game development.  Mass Effect is and always shall be an enveloping, dramatic, and action-driven role playing adventure that feels like you are controlling the characters of a cinematic, sci-fi saga.  “It doesn’t need multiplayer!” said the antagonists.  “Why must every game try to be like CoD just to make crazy profit?” queried the doubters.  “How much will this take away from the single player campaign?” asked the fans.  Although we don’t know how well the final product will ultimately play, this demo delivers a good amount of answers to the naysayers while simultaneously raising new concerns in even the most devoted fan boys such as myself. 

“The Good” about single player:

1) I played through the two chapters with every class using both male and female Shepards and they each played differently enough to necessitate different strategies in surviving and advancing.

2) The dialogue/discussion sequences look better than ever so long as BioWare keeps the “I should go’s” and excessive “Shepard” references to a minimum.  I expect a much greater degree of drama during these sections as the entire universe is under siege, but I wonder how well the tension can be eased when I presume moments of levity will be very scarce.

3) The combat plays like Mass Effect 2, but it is much faster, or rather, it can be much faster.  The amount of damage your Shepard-build can absorb will determine how direct you can be in firefights.  Rushing into and out of cover is a vast improvement and the addition of combat rolling in all four directions adds a welcome and dynamic means of averting disaster on the battlefield.

4) The game just looks so beautiful.  Every area of detail from environments to enemies to weapon effects and cut scenes has been upgraded.  The lighting effects from both “natural” and “unnatural” sources are particularly satisfying.

5) The AI has sharper teeth!  I’m not just talking about the inclusion of heavier ordinance such as the Atlas mechs.  It’s the support units that will give you headaches.  Enemy troopers will drop smoke bombs obscuring vision and disallowing biotic “lock-on” attacks, while others setup portable turrets at key choke points – while still others try to flank you and your party.  The fact that the AI is no longer stupid has me concerned for my “insane” difficulty play through.

“The Bad” about single player:

1) Shepard still rotates on his x-axis with the proficiency of a tank.  With the increased emphasis on close-quarter-combat, the ability to turn slightly (but swiftly) to face up the opposition has never been more necessary.  Too bad the player still can’t do this.  It gives me nightmarish flashbacks to the frustrating lateral movement of Resident Evil 5.

2) I’m not sold on grenades.  For the classes that have “grenade” abilities, they require skill points to unlock and upgrade just like any other biotic/tech/combat skills.  The problem is you need to find ammo dumps or enemy drops to replenish your supply.  Explosives can be very useful for crowd control situations, but I can’t help but think that maxing out self-renewing skills would be more reliable.

3) Shepard’s squad is still dumb.  One would think if the enemy AI got an infusion of grey matter that the player’s squad mates would at least get a taste, right?  Wrong.  I still had to direct Garrus and Liara to focus on the biggest threats on the field AND force them to use their very useful abilities to do so effectively.  I understand there’s a reason they call him/her “Commander” Shepard, but his team ought to be experienced enough to use proximity mines on groups of enemies without being ordered to do so.

4) Sticking to cover sometimes leads to sticky situations.  Going into cover all but triggers the enemy AI to advance and flank quickly, but getting out of cover to counter a flanking move is not nearly as responsive.  If perhaps movement was dictated strictly by the left analog stick independently from the camera angle (like Uncharted’s 1, 2 and 3) this wouldn’t be a problem at all.

5) Choice of combat class is a player-controlled handicap system.  When you account for a more dangerous AI and unreliable teammates, how the player dominates the field as Shepard is the name of the game.  Although some new skills have been added to every class they aren’t enough to make every class as viable as they were in ME2.  The three most important combat abilities in Mass Effect 3 are distraction, evasion and protection; thus the ranking of each class from weakest to strongest is as follows: Vanguard, Adept, Soldier, Engineer, Infiltrator, and Sentinel. 

“The Good” about multiplayer:

1) The ability to play as non-humans is an absolute thrill!  Having Drell, Asari, Turians, Quarians, Krogans, and Salarians in your party for past Mass Effect games does not compare to actually being a Drell, Asari, Turian, Quarian, Krogan or Salarian.  Each species have different pools of skills to dump points into as well as having unique movement/melee animations that will more than likely have veteran players avoiding human characters like the plague.

2) The co-op “survival” mode is challenging and unpredictable.  Players that are used to ME2 controls will have no problems picking up on all the subtle differences of every species, but regardless of individual skill, teamwork is the only thing that will see a safe extraction even on the lowest difficulty and the reward for clearing stages is a massive experience and credit bonus.  With experience bonuses given to every action like revivals, headshots, biotic kills, etc., this game rewards the player for contributing to the team.  Although kills can still be “stolen” by teammates, a point system is in place to give a proportional reward to each player depending on how much damage was dealt before the final blow.  It is quite refreshing to finally encounter a multiplayer mode that encourages non-douche-bag game play.

3) The baseball card pack unlocking system is surprisingly satisfying.  I mentioned that the player earns credits in addition to experience for clearing stages.  Experience allows the character’s abilities to grow in strength and versatility, but items must be purchased, but not in the manner in which gamers have become accustomed.  The player purchases starter, recruit and veteran “packs” with their credits which contain a random selection of items like new weapons, weapon modifications, ammo/armor boosts, health/revival packs and new characters to play as.  Some players may dislike the fact that luck plays a large role in them getting what they want, but they can take solace in two facts: 1- useless duplicates are fairly rare and 2- you have as good a chance at getting something awesome on your first pack as your 20^th provided you always purchase veteran packs at 20K a piece.

4)  Experience that is earned within each combat class does not need to be re-earned to build new character unlocks within the same category.  On our preview podcast for Mass Effect 3, our associate Kevin brought up a valid concern for multiplayer being that the level cap is only 20 and therefore putting a glaring limitation on the player’s motivation to keep on playing.  My counter to that statement was that there were 6 classes, times 20 levels of advancement, times 4 species per class to build which yields 480 levels to be gained.  That is a very daunting number to achieve and thankfully not necessary.  When you get to level 20 in the soldier class as a human (only humans are available at the start) and you unlock the much coveted Krogan soldier, you do not begin from scratch if you want to use that character.  You do get all the experience points a level 20 would have to distribute as you see fit which is an excellent benefit seeing how max level non-humans are vital in completing the higher difficulties of multiplayer.

5) Modification and specialization is a huge strength.  Character uniforms will be able to alter colors, highlights and patterns to make every player’s team of specialists look unique.  Every gun has 2 modification slots to give the player enhanced stability, damage output, increased rate of fire and larger clip sizes.  Regardless of class, any character can bring any 2 guns into combat they have unlocked thus far (although I recommend picking 1 as your favorite in order to enjoy an increased power recharge bonus). 

“The Bad” about multiplayer:

1) Match making is broken and needs to be fixed ASAP!  If the player has three other friends to make a full squad with, you’ll have no problems making private matches and knocking out multiple rounds of play quickly.  Selecting “quick match” as a solo player is laughable in terms of “quickness.”  The majority of the time had me jumping into a lobby with only one other player and it would take forever to fill in the other 2 public slots – if at all.  Players can jump in and out of matches at will, but host migration is a wretched collection of load screens which can result in outright disconnection.  The amount of real time wasted in waiting for proper matches to be formed can become very frustrating.

2)   Connectivity of every player to multiplayer matches seems temperamental at best.  Another common sight in the matchmaking lobby is every player selecting the “ready” button with the exception of one.  At first I thought this was simply the result of some tool that is AFK or fooling around with his or her load-out for an unreasonable amount of time.  As this became a common theme I began to believe that it was the result of shoddy connections.  The game will randomly kick the player out of active games at a rate that is not problematic save for this fact: any progress the player has made is instantly nullified as the only way to save progress is by going all the way or having your whole party get wiped out within proper game menus. 

3) The X button is far too glitchy.  On the PS3, the X button is the all encompassing environment interaction key that is necessary to depress in order to go into and out of cover, revive teammates, execute combat rolls and engage/disarm devices that need to be hacked within the match.  Getting the X button to do what you actually want in crowds of enemies is terrible.  Reviving a teammate that is right next to waist-high cover is almost impossible.  Hacking devices that are next to walls requires spamming X because the game didn’t register the first 10 times you pressed it.  This shouldn’t be a problem for PC gamers by remapping actions to different keys, but counsel controllers have severe button limitations.

4) End game multiplayer motivation seems lacking.  It’s true that earning a combined 120 levels divided by 6 combat classes will take a healthy amount of time to accomplish.  Skilled players will have no problems doing this in casual plays sessions in less than 2 weeks.  The reward for multiplayer is advancement.  The reward for advancement is building a strong squad of specialists for Shepard to deploy in some manner during the single player campaign.  Where does that leave the player after that?  The answer lies in clearing stages at higher difficulty levels.  Silver challenges require 4 squad mates at level 10 at least to have a reasonable chance to win and gold challenges require everyone at max level, complimentary classes and players on top of their individual games to have a snowball’s chance in hell.  As of now, there doesn’t appear to be a point to subjecting yourself to that brutality other than pride and without a trophy or achievement to showcase the accomplishment, I don’t see many players being interested in participating at those higher difficulties.

5) Nobody seems interested in using headsets for this multiplayer mode.  Especially on higher difficulties, communication is vital in clearing these maps as there is no “radar” to exploit and unless the squad battles like a tight-knit Spartan phalanx, knowing precisely where downed teammates are located is pretty important info.  The two maps available for this demo are not particularly large so keeping tabs on your squad mates is less of an issue, but if maps get larger, players need to take advantage of this free communication option.  Also, if someone on your team is annoying, an option for muting them NEEDS to be included.  It exists in virtually every other multiplayer game.

So that’s the bottom line on the Mass Effect 3 demo.  Unfortunately, none of the progress that is achieved in the multiplayer portion will carry over to the full game, but that’s no reason to ignore this very fun demo.  It gives the player a risk free opportunity to experiment with class development within a virtual environment that is far less forgiving than previous installments.  The potential for EA and BioWare to reap massive profit on this piece of fictional entertainment has all been laid in the groundwork of ever intriguing replay options.  Although no demo is flawless, hopefully BioWare can make some patch alterations to iron out the minor yet noticeable wrinkles in an otherwise silky smooth video game experience.

Not a Masterpiece

A Film Review of The Grey

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:651:]]I’ve never been a fan of the pure, plain survival film.  Some man or woman out in the middle of anywhere with precious little else besides their own personal creativity to help them get by was never particularly interesting unless it had some kind of fantastic angle to it.  This is why I love films that involve zombies; the post-apocalypse and space/sea travel because the extra bells and whistles dress up the core theme of survival into something more interesting than some guy trying to make a tool out of a stick.  The Grey is a film that borderlines on the outright deceitful due to its marketing campaign promoting this film as the sort of fantastic survival that is on par with those I previously mentioned.  The Grey is not as exciting as every trailer makes it out to be.  The Grey is about as unassuming as a survival film can be and what’s worse, the inconsistent devotion to realism only has some plot points resolving the way they probably would while the rest require a healthy dose of blind faith to simply accept and move on.  The Grey is a film that will disappoint if the viewer requires more than an exceptional performance by Liam Neeson to entertain.

Writer/director Joe Carnahan and his co-writer Ian Mackenzie Jeffers had a very curious philosophy in regards to the story they presented onscreen: everything must bow to convenience.  Naturally, the simulated drama that is generated in movies is built upon the foundation of convenient plot twists, but the best fictions are capable of masking this fact if what happens on film is in line with the rules of reality established within the fiction.  Neo is a superman within The Matrix because he has some undefined “chosen” insight/enlightenment in manipulating that system – in the “real world” you can punch him in the face, he’ll bleed and you don’t have to worry about being jump-kicked into space because that’s physically impossible.  In The Grey, the survivors of a plane crash in Nowheres-ville, Alaska seem to be capable of doing things beyond their exceptionally low skill set in order to survive their series of unfortunate events.  Even the main protagonist, Ottway (Liam Neeson) displays the sort of wilderness survival skills one would associate with Bear Grylls, although the film clearly establishes him as an ex-merc of some sort and nothing more.  The biggest weakness of this script is the lack of detail both in plot and character development.  It is in detailed presentation and explanation that an audience can understand why a character can do what he or she does and how they get to where they’re going.  Glazing over the details is evidence of convenient filmmaking that isn’t concerned with making the tough decisions that may alter the plot’s culmination.  If you want to do a realistic survival film, then go all the way because half-measures can be sniffed out by audiences better than even we would admit, and sour word of mouth can debilitate even the biggest budget films.  As a result, this film hovers exactly in the middle of the nether realm between absolute plausibility and impossibility, and that’s a place that no film ought to aspire to.  This leaves a film’s plot twists to develop whimsically as opposed to a gradual building of credibility that establishes the rules of the fictional world one presents to an audience, thus making it easier to accept and stacks the deck in the filmmaker’s favor.  The rest of the story plays out the way it more than likely would in the real world with a friendly kick in the groin to the audience at the very end: thanks for watching.

I normally don’t care for discussing money issues in film production, but The Grey presents an interesting opportunity to think about the management of funds and how it directly impacts the story.  The third installment of the “Liam Neeson versus the world” trilogy boasts the largest budget among Unknown (2011) and Taken (2008) at $34 million dollars.  Common logic suggests that more money presents more freedom to the filmmakers in terms of what can and cannot be done with effects, stunts and performance to yield a better story.  Incorrect.  Upon The Grey’s conclusion, I instantly made note of how this film was far inferior to Neeson’s previous two singular adventures.  So where did this film go wrong?  None were considered major studio productions, the stories in each were nothing to write home about and they all heavily depended on the aura of “Liam Neeson kicking ass” to make the whole production work.  The one thing that sets The Grey apart is the incredibly hostile environment of the frigid wilderness that is heavily animated by CG.  The snow, the wolves and the very terrifying plane crash that puts the cast into their predicament represents the lion’s share of the budget.  They all look great and they’re all very intimidating, but they somehow don’t present a very intriguing opposition to Liam Neeson, and you know why?  You can’t punch snow, you can’t punch wolves (1 wolf yes, pack of wolves, no) and you can’t punch a plane crash.  Nature does not present an effective antagonist in film, and it never will because it is impersonal and cannot be defeated, merely circumvented.  Still, an awful lot of money was spent to produce this vision of nature’s fury and therefore a large amount of screen time must be devoted to it.  When that happens, screen time gets subtracted from the human characters that exist to generate sympathy and intrigue for the main character and subsequently, the focal point for the audience’s identification with the story is marred.  The audience loses out on a lot of potential character development which is replaced by a form of opposition that cannot be affected in any way despite the best efforts of the main character; not the best rationale for the distribution of funds and it shows on the screen.

The one aspect of this film that is an absolute triumph is Liam Neeson, who produces one of his most powerful performances since Schindler’s List (1993).  Anyone who has followed his career knows about the terrible tragedy that befell his wife Natasha Richardson in 2009 (skiing accident) and the incredible anguish Liam felt for the loss of his wife of 15 years.  The reason I mention this is because The Grey is a film that appears to have been custom built for Mr. Neeson as the character he plays, Ottway, also loses his wife to tragedy and it is the primary source of his profound sorrow.  I am uncertain if this was truly coincidence, the filmmakers approached Liam or this was a project he approached himself, but the end result is a fine exploration of the emotional spectrum of a human being that is pushed beyond his physical limit and light years past spiritual sanity.  The key to a survival film is portraying the strength of will despite overwhelming odds and ever declining excuses to go on.  The film gives Neeson plenty of opportunities to portray the conflicting emotions behind the reality of despair and the instinct to survive.  Neeson is one of the best leading men Hollywood has ever seen and despite the shortcomings of The Grey as a film, seeing what a real actor can do for the camera is quite a treat.  There is one moment towards the end of the film where Ottway curses out God and in that one instant in time Neeson was transported back to that fateful day in 2009 and every ounce of guttural rage, anger, sorrow and defiance gets released into the snowy void.  Simply put, it was an amazing scene to experience and should forever be linked to Neeson’s entire body of work as a specific example that defines him as a truly great actor.

The Grey is not a film for everyone and I would only recommend it to people that enjoy movies that are driven by a single actor who produces an exceptional performance.  The action is sparse, the pacing is a struggle and the ever presence of white that constantly fills the frame could be annoying to the less disciplined member of the audience.  This film doesn’t devote any real amount of time to answering the questions of “why” and “how,” and one would think that those would be fundamentals in making a survival film interesting at all.  Liam Neeson is a force of nature unto himself, but despite his best efforts, this film washes out and the ending does not help at all.  It is one of the worst I’ve seen since The Mist (2007).

FPS’s Suck and These are the Reasons Why

A Video Game Review of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:602:]]

How do I hate thee, FPS (First Person Shooter)?  Let me count the ways:  One, for the ignorant masses you attract like moths to the flame.  Two, for your lack of innovation.  Three, for the shameless way you “reward” twitch reflexes.  Four, for your inability to inspire team tactics.  Five, for the curious ways you make online matches.  Six, for the fact your single player campaign is merely a dressed up tutorial.  Seven, because everyone wants to be just like you.  And eight, because no other genre reaffirms negative stereotypes in regards to video games and gamers in particular.

Now before I start getting angry e-mails from clans and pro leagues, let me say that Modern Warfare 3 is an excellent video game, capable of inspiring a great deal of fun.  This isn’t political flip-flopping on my part (despite this article being about “curb-stomping the FPS genre”).  It is a statement of fact because I have found the Modern Warfare series to be uniquely satisfying; so much so, that a non-FPS aficionado like myself has gotten around to platinum-ing Modern Warfare 2 and am VERY CLOSE to doing the same with MW3.  Unfortunately, the thrill is already wearing thin, despite only owning this game for a month.  In this regard, MW3 definitely feels like a one night stand rather than a more fulfilling and hour consuming relationship.  Let’s face facts folks, gaming is not a cheap hobby to get into and it doesn’t look like we’ll ever see things getting better for the consumer, what with SOPA and the potential death of the used games market on the horizon (thank you Xbox 720).  Most games that I purchase are due to an interest in the title that is independent of its overall popularity.  I must admit that I bought MW3 (and MW2 before it) because EVERYONE was playing it, it was on sale for $40 and I am a shameless trophy whor. . . er. . . hunter.  Having played through what will likely be the best selling game of all time in MW3, I can see why it wasn’t on anyone’s short list for game of the year in 2011. 

MW3 appeals to the ignorant masses the same way Nintendo Wii appeals to non-gamers.  It’s a numbers game and the video game industry is interested in one thing and one thing only: MONEY!  Unlike the Wii, the FPS genre doesn’t attempt to shake down grandma and grandpa to buy into something for themselves that they’ll lose interest in a matter of weeks.  In fact, all FPS’s have a history of appealing to hard core, serious gamers that have had enough of an interest in counter-culture to reap countless hours of pleasure by engaging in virtual, ballistic homicide.  For a time, the FPS defined the very notion of counter-culture, but today, with this country’s ever growing comfort with violent imagery and the frequent video footage of US troops doing their duty in whatever foreign country happens to be the flavor of the week, everything about MW3 is as conventional as video games can deliver.  I don’t have a particular problem with this kind of shift to the mainstream so long as it doesn’t affect the quality of the product and unfortunately it has – cue MW3’s multiplayer mode and the knuckleheads that populate it.  Online competitive and cooperative modes to MW3 represent the majority of time that any player will spend on MW3, and if it’s one thing that can be assured about playing online, you will have to deal with people who don’t know how to play, show no willingness to learn, will cry like little girls every time they die and may get so frustrated that they’ll sabotage their own team just for kicks.  This is what happens when an overabundance of 10 year old boys con their relatives into buying them M-rated games like MW3 and that ruins a gaming experience.  It’s not like Activision can plead ignorance in reference to this point because this game’s major commercial partnership to promote its release was with Mountain Dew.  How many pre-teens drink that legalized crack cocaine like water? 

The lack of innovation in the FPS has been one of this genre’s calling cards recently, but it is especially true with MW3.  My day job is in retail. and I cannot tell you how many complaints I’ve heard from customers about this game specifically being “an expansion pack to MW2.”  It is a valid argument to make: interfaces are the same, game play is the same, game modes are the same.  The game is just newer with some more diverse environments and tries to trick you into believing they are interactive environments when they are merely fancy commencements to the beginnings of stages.  There are some improvements to make note of like the inclusion of survival mode (which is really a remix of zombie mode from Black Ops) and new kill streak bonuses like “becoming a juggernaut,” one of the iconic staples for this franchise.  Unfortunately, there have been a couple of issues regarding the level of “invincibility” the player is afforded once he or she dons the tactical armor suit.  First it’s too weak, then it’s too strong and each time there were patches to “fix” it.  I do not understand why such a minor alteration to game play wasn’t planned, programmed and play tested prior to release, but then Call of Duty desires to become the Madden of FPS’s: a new title every year that requires minimal effort while yielding maximum profit. 

MW3 “rewards” twitch reflexes more so than any other FPS in history to my recollection.  “Well no duh!” says the FPS fan, “that’s what shooters do.”  I fully understand that the player’s ability to identify a threat on the screen, aim at said target and dispatch with extreme prejudice is what separates the bad from the good from the great from the pros.  This is what is considered to have excellent twitch reflexes.  My major criticism of this fact is that MW3 does not require prolonged marksmanship in order to take down targets (unlike the higher difficulties of campaign mode), making the initial “twitch” of snapping to a target much more than half the battle.  It may be less realistic, but games incorporate a shield/armor/protection system to impose a prolonged marksmanship standard in order to counter common exploits in multiplayer competitive formats like: camping out respawn points, differences in individual ping rates and server/user lag.  Challenging the player with not just making your first shot count, but the ten that follow it allows those targeted to at least have a fighting chance to counter.  MW3 clearly values the realism of the preemptive strike over anything else which is great for the virtual training of real world soldiers, but not a very effective form of entertainment.  

Despite this dedication to “realism,” MW3 doesn’t reward the individual that employs team tactics and actually inspires players to run around like loose cannons to advance in level more quickly so as to unlock a more powerful arsenal.  It’s all about accumulating that kill count and no one likes their kills to be “stolen” by one’s teammates firing on the same target as you.  What better way to assure an individual’s performance by running off on your own?  The only problem with that is that those considered to be “great” players and 100% of pro’s ALWAYS use team tactics, thus making the rogue trooper a glutton for 2, 3 (or more) on one’s – which always results in death.  How about bonuses for combo kills when the whole squad empties rounds into a single target?  This frustration is only amplified in survival mode when the name of the game is SURVIVAL, which means that being in close proximity to your 1 squad-mate if he or she gets downed is necessary to revive them quickly.  Squatting at opposite ends of the map is a strategy for imbeciles yet is a common occurrence in this game mode.

Match making in MW3’s multiplayer modes is somewhat of a mystery to me.  It may be a little old school of me to say this, but I miss the old days of lobbies that waited to be filled.  These lobbies would be a little more descriptive of the type of match you were going to join as well as the other players that were going to play, and if you didn’t like the layout, you weren’t committed to that match.  MW3 (and just about every other FPS out there) has evolved past this archaic method in favor of blind server match ups which really speeds up the process of going from match to match with minimal down time (server permitting, of course).  Unfortunately, the player has no control over the matches he or she is getting into which means there is a chance (more like a certainty) that you could wind up in a game with nothing but pre-pubescence or a high level clan that takes pride in noob hunting – neither of which is very enjoyable which could be corrected with a more comprehensive and structured match making system that takes player choice into consideration.  Match making in Survival or Spec Ops is outright broken.  One in ten player match ups results in a pairing that is productive for me.  The rest of the time, the other player is AFK, a stupid child or a knucklehead that begins the match by knifing me in the back only to revive me and then knife me once again.

There once was a time (not so long ago) when FPS’s were singular experiences.  Where you turned something on and a challenge was beset before an individual and it was only the virtual environment itself that stood between the player and the goal.  The dawn of the multiplayer experience has brought the ever adapting challenge of human competition, and many regard this type of game as the true mark of accomplishment and advancement because software behaves in defined patterns, and all the player has to do is “learn the trick” to beat the computer.  Unfortunately for the FPS, this has led to an unbalanced shift in attention to online formats which has sacrificed the quality of single player modes with the exception of the BioShock franchise (an FPS still dedicated to story, character and drama above all else – none of which you get by running around trying to shoot people in the head, akin to death match).   MW3 is no exception despite the fact that its single player campaign produces an infinitely practical and somewhat plausible series of fictional events.  It is important to note how the FPS format leaves character identification, relation and development at a severe disadvantage to the player because the player never sees what his or her character looks like.  MW3 is so shameless about the player assuming the role of “some guy” that the player jumps to and from multiple faceless names on various fronts during the global conflict it depicts.  This kind of disconnection between character and player takes the concept of story and relegates it to second class citizenship.  Thus, the single player campaign degenerates into little more than a prolonged tutorial that gets the player acclimated with the basics of control and nothing more.

As the Modern Warfare franchise happens to be the gold standard of the FPS genre, every other game out there so desperately attempts to emulate (if not outright copy) elements of its game play and graphics so as to duplicate equally impressive sales numbers.  The one benefit to this has become somewhat of a standardization of button layouts: left shoulder buttons aim, right shoulder buttons fire, analog sticks navigate and so on and so forth.  Even if one is unfamiliar to FPS controls, learning it once will give you the skills and comfort to slide into any future FPS game.  The bad part about being the coolest kid on campus is that copycats like you so much that stark deviations from the formula are looked upon as undesirable, thus feeding back into the whole “lack of innovation” problem I mentioned earlier.  Other FPS’s distinguish themselves in subtle differences such as the inclusion of vehicles, larger maps, different terrain, but the lynch pins of these games don’t really change.  The player is a member of some kind of army, the standard array of realistic shotguns, side arms, assault and sniper rifles are available, the bad guys are Russians, Nazis or terrorists, movement is rarely more dynamic than running, health regenerates if you can find cover and head shots are inconsistently reliable against AI and human opposition.  Does all of this sound familiar to you?  It should, you’ve only been there and done that a hundred times. 

Finally, I must make note of the negative connotation that is attracted to the gaming community as a result of the shear presence of FPS’s and Modern Warfare in general.  True gamers know there is a difference between themselves and the knuckleheads that pop in a disk every once in a while.  The true gamer is interested in playing many if not all game types, thus exposing the individual to more than the concept of “shoot the bad guy in the face to win.”  Coincidentally, these individuals tend to have been exposed to better education and life experiences to develop the intelligence and intrigue to be interested in gaming variety in the first place.  These factors also trend against this kind of individual being a racist, bigot, sexist or general malcontent, i.e. the “knuckleheads” I specifically refer to that make all gamers look bad.  You know them as the jerks that cross the line of simple trash talk into the realm of verbal abuse in online gaming.  Guess what kind of game the knuckleheads all but exclusively play?  FPS’s and every iteration of Call of Duty. 

Obviously, these cretins do not compose the majority of gamers, but the rest of society has specific phenomena to create their own generalizations about the connection between human behavior and video games.  How many trucks carrying copies of MW3 were hijacked in France last year?  What FPS game was credited with inspiring Columbine?  What kind of war game does the military use in training?  These kinds of stories hit the main stream media like an uppercut from Ali and the opinionated fallout is impossible to curtail.  To suggest that FPS’s (or video games in general) were the direct cause of these events would be irresponsible, but to suggest they have absolutely nothing to do with the equation would be dumb.  MW3 and FPS’s in and of themselves are not the problem and I do applaud their efforts in addressing the toxic online environment by being more vigilant in the banning of abusive users, but until problematic players become better people, the stigma will remain.  This last point I make about FPS’s is less of a criticism and more of an observation, but it doesn’t make the situation “suck” any less and ought to be discussed because awareness can hopefully inspire enlightenment.

When the Blair Witch Meets Akira

A Film Review of Chronicle

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:594:]]Chronicle is the most realistic depiction of every nerd’s, comic book fan’s, sci-fi aficionado’s and disenfranchised youth’s unadulterated wet dream come true.  Kudos to this film’s trailers for doing exactly what they should: get the idea of the film across without spoiling the story and without deceiving a potential member of the audience into expecting more than what the film actually delivers (the calling card of the majority of film trailers).  A very small part of me is disappointed that this film comes up short in the “surprise” department, but what it lacks in twists makes up for in impressively effective visual effects reminiscent of Paranormal Activity as opposed to the over the top plasticity of Star Wars.  The estimated budget of $12 million dollars seems far too low for what the overall visual style of Chronicle delivers.  It goes to show you what even off the shelf software is capable of in the hands of a talented CG artist, but without some dedication to story, even the prettiest movies fail in the eyes of the audience (thank you Skyline).  I will not sit here and tell you that this is the best “superpower” fiction ever written, because the story has some glaring deficiencies, but the plot is simplified and layered with some very relatable human drama that is generated from the desire for acceptance in high school (and really, for the rest of our human lives).  I found this film to be entertaining and thought provoking in that it asks the age old question as to why human beings treat one another like garbage.  When you really think about it, answering this question seems like it could unlock the true potential of our species because when we aren’t murdering each other, we happen to accomplish some incredible feats of good when we work together.  Food for thought.

Chronicle, although being a story primarily concerned with what could happen if teenage Americans got superpowers, is really a story about how young people are products of their environments and how not everyone comes from a happy, nuclear household in the ‘burbs.  Without guidance and education, the ignorant are left to their own devices and more often than not, they make some very bad choices.  Yeah, yeah, we’ve all heard, seen and felt this before through countless movies and TV shows as well as real life tragedies such as Columbine and the Blacksburg massacre.  Chronicle is most interested in addressing the negativity that results from broken homes and bullying, two things I personally despise and identify as culprits for manufacturing some of the worst human beings in history.  The story is written in a very personal way by co-writers Max Landis (son of director John Landis) and director Josh Trank.  If one is still cognizant of the heaven or hell that high school was for you, instant relatability shouldn’t be a problem.  The one big problem, however, is the fact that the only real character development that the audience is privy to is of the main protagonist/antagonist Andrew because it is his video camera that is “chronicling” the amazing things that happen to him and his friends when they encounter something clearly not of this Earth.  Other perspectives simply do not flesh out any other character in this film, which is a real tragedy because Andrew’s hard luck tale is vintage villainy to be contrasted with.  Magneto never decided to be “evil” on a whim.  There were very real and personal reasons to explain his behavior, and it is only by contrasting an origin like this with another perspective (say, Charles Xavier) that one can find any appreciation for the difference between “good” and “evil.”  Budget limitations aside, this kind of movie needs better character development and unfortunately, the “found footage” or documentary style narratives have been (for the most part) completely unsuccessful at communicating this to an audience.

And speaking of that filmmaking style, I wonder if director Josh Trank made the right choice in using it in the first place.  The benefits are quite obvious: the documentary style enhances the realism of every visual effect, it’s much easier to set up shots and light scenes and (most importantly) it’s very economical.   The drawbacks are that it limits the perspectives of the story, imagery only progresses in a series of jump cuts that may or may not lose an audience and not everybody likes watching the jarring motion of hand held camera work all the time (although Chronicle features much smoother camera motion as a result of a very clever plot device).  Perhaps if this style of filmmaking weren’t so overexposed with a more impressive pedigree to reference, I would say that it’s a major part of what makes this film unique, but I really don’t feel Chronicle gains much from it.  Yes, the sky sequences are quite fun and the final confrontation is epic in scale, but a traditional narrative style could have vaulted these moments into the upper stratosphere (pun intended).  Much of the actual action during these sequences is masked by Andrew’s single camera or by several fixed cameras of varying sources throughout the city.  Instead of selecting one style over another, perhaps a blend would have served this film better in order to maximize the most exciting action sequences.  Still, when the boys get to using their powers, enough gets showcased to please the eyes and wow the mind.

There were a lot of actors used for this film (especially extras), but there’s only one performance worth analyzing, and that is by Dane DeHaan who plays the hero/villain Andrew.  Dane is still breaking into the Hollywood scene, but he’s already showing the makings of a very intense actor.  Any fans of the HBO series In Treatment season three know Dane by his impressive performance as Jesse and all of that pent up hostility, insecurity and rage carries over to his performance in Chronicle.  Having a relatively skinny and unimposing physical presence makes him a perfect choice for the prototypical high school dweeb, but when his character is called upon to elevate his status, all of that strength is conveyed through the young man’s rather intimidating face.  However, the power of his unbridled anger is bested only by his ability to express profound sadness for being a social outcast at school, not having any real friends, having an abusive father and having a mother that is deathly ill.  It is this aspect of Dane’s performance that is most impressive, and is perhaps the only reason why anyone in the audience would have sympathy for this kind of character and any emotional investment in the movie at all.  Towards the end of the film the Andrew character practically disappeared to me, and I started seeing Tetsuo wreaking havoc like he once did in down town Neo Tokyo in Akira.  Dane DeHaan is definitely a young actor to keep your eyes on in the coming years of Hollywood filmmaking.

Chronicle is a great deal of fun if you have ever been the target of being bullied because an awful lot of knuckleheads get what’s coming to them and I can’t lie, it’s quite satisfying to see.  DeHaan’s performance is soon to be the universal image of nerd rage around the world, but I wonder if a PG-13 rating is a little too light considering the point I’m about to make.  Bullying is still a significant problem in raising America’s youth, but our culture’s continued acceptance of all things graphically violent combined with a little internet research does not provide our kids with the proper tools in handling the situation.  As tragic as Columbine was, the young haven’t quite gotten the message that it wasn’t something to aspire to considering all of the “near Columbine” events that have been thwarted by the combined efforts of teachers, concerned students and law enforcement across this country.  We’re still not addressing the problem at the source, namely, why young people get so negatively charged that they would think about vigilante vengeance so seriously that they rationalize it as an appropriate response.  Even the best school facilities, caring teachers and mentor programs pale in comparison to some good old fashioned love and guidance from a parent.  Chronicle is not afraid to present this scenario for as plainly as it is and as easily as a younger person would come to such a ludicrous response.  Therein lies the most thought provoking aspect of this film, and that alone makes this a more than worthwhile experience.  Oh, and their super powers are totally cool!

The Year of the Dragon

A Film Review of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:383:]]

As we enter the new year of the Dragon, this film will still be running strong in theatres in 2012, and I cannot forward a more immediate recommendation to my readers than to check out The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo at your earliest convenience.  This film, despite being an adaptation of an adaptation from an original novel by Stieg Larsson, has imprints of David Fincher all over the place.  This is a particularly good thing seeing how Fincher (for those of you who may not know) happens to make kick-ass films: Se7en (1995), The Game (1997), Fight Club (1999), Zodiac (2007) and The Social Network (2010) to name a few.  In a year that was fairly void of gritty dramas featuring shocking imagery and a thought provoking plot, Dragon Tattoo offers up a nice, adult, change of pace.  I’m not entirely sure that this film lives up to “THE feel-bad movie of the Holidays” moniker, but it sure isn’t filled with lollypops and Wonka bars.  This film is a crime drama that makes several references to graphic violence against women, so I’d recommend leaving the kids at home with the sitter for this one.  Still, this film has some sense of modesty as it tends to cut away at the most intense moments, so I wouldn’t qualify this as amongst my top ten graphically violent or shocking films. 

Although I will never use the word “tasteful” to describe the visual reproduction of rape, this film doesn’t apologize for the harsh truth of the real world and evil people that abuse the varying degrees of power they hold over others.  The manner in which the director, David Fincher, depicts violence is to hammer home a theme that Americans in particular ought to be quite familiar with by now, namely: people with money and power can do whatever they want and are simply not subject to the same set of rules as the “have-nots.”  The privileged and their abuse of power victimize both of the main characters in this film prior to them engaging in the main plot arc, and this fact is central to the brutal mystery that needs to be solved.  People that worry about paying for food, rent and school for either themselves or their families can’t appreciate this stark departure from normal society if they are shown images of CEO’s engaging in industrial espionage, but nobody can deny the literal imagery of violence.  It is unfortunate that we do not have more effective ways to make meaningful social commentary without violence, but nothing sends a message like an axe through the skull, at least not on film anyway. 

That brings us back to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo which is a story that isn’t exactly something you haven’t seen before.  As a matter of fact, it’s quite a standard mix of suspense and investigation that just happens to be shot very, very well.  The marketing for this film would have you buy into some added element of taboo that is just too curious to pass up.  The fact of the matter is that this is not entirely the case.  Nazis, rape, over privileged rich people and media agendas all have strong footholds in the American film library, and these conventions all happen to play a role in Dragon Tattoo.  The structure of the story is also something that may bewilder the average movie-goer as it is neither prototypically linear nor non-linear.  Despite all that, screenwriter Steven Zaillian crafts an alternative take on the crime drama that is easy enough to follow with a little attentiveness (and the caffeinated beverage of your choice).  That’s not to say that Zaillian’s adaptation is a snoozer, but suffers from two significant drawbacks: 1) details of the investigation via dialogue or close-ups are not spelled out for the audience and 2) action scenes are extremely sparse.  Such is the nature with dialogue-driven-dramas, but these pacing debilitations are tempered by scenes that feature the one interesting character in this fiction: Lisbeth Salander, the girl with the dragon tattoo. 

This character is clearly identified as the unpredictable type, and half of her intrigue is generated by the anticipation of what she will do next.  As much as I like this character and absolutely loved the performance of said character, there’s too much of a drop off when the story shifts back to the perspective of the male lead: Mikael Blomkvist – the blandest investigative journalist ever conceived by the imagination of human beings.  Perhaps this contrast can be attributed to the significant degree of role reversal in traditional sexual stereotypes as depicted historically in film.  This film wins as many points with feminists as a film like G.I. Jane did.  Seeing women schlep around like they have 12 inch Johnsons is about as interesting as it sounds – which is to say – not.  Lisbeth is not exactly “butch,” but there are a few moments in this film where she behaves in a shamelessly male fashion, which caused me to wince somewhat because subscribing to a stereotype conflicts with her unpredictability.  Regardless, I found enough of this character and her interaction with the story to be compelling, but those who don’t love Lisbeth as a character may find the rest of the film a complete wash.

When the action is minimal and the effects are few and far between, even well written dialogue is nothing without inspired performances.  Let’s just say that then, men not named Christopher Plummer don’t exactly pull their weight in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.  Stellan Skarsgard is solid in his role as Martin Vanger, but if one is familiar with his filmography, one notices a simple remix of his past performances.  Who’s the more foolish: the fool or the fool who casts the same actor in the same roles?  I am convinced that Daniel Craig doesn’t like me personally because I honestly have nothing against the man, yet I continue to be frustrated by the utter irrelevance of his performances in all his recent film work.  He must have something personal against me.  He produced such a respectable performance in Defiance (2008) that I cannot compare anything else he’s done since as more than “going through the motions.”  His performance as Mikael continues that unfortunate trend as his featured scenes are mere stop gaps for the audience while waiting for Lisbeth to come back.  Thankfully, Mr. Christopher Plummer lends some much needed intelligence, sophistication and charm in his small role as Henrik Vanger, the patriarch of the Vanger family dead set on righting a family scandal that lies at the center of the plot.  As his character plays a sort of victim, the role he plays disallows him from being more proactive in the story, but what’s worse is how his character disappears for the entire second act.  Thus, the audience is not privy to the full Plummer experience, but the mysterious manner in which he portrays his character is very compelling, albeit brief.

Let’s not deny the fact that The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is all about Rooney Mara and how she will be a force to be reckoned with for the foreseeable future in Hollywood as top tier talent in hopes that her future projects will bring even more substance to the sexy.  Obviously, she is a beautiful woman, but her physical attraction is anti-typically silicon free and that is a welcome sight to see, but still not entirely “normal body type” as there doesn’t seem to be an ounce of fat on her – I guess nobody’s perfect.  That being said, Rooney is called upon to discard her clothing a few times, which has less to do with Hollywood’s shameless obsession with female nudity (believe it or not) and more to do with developing Lisbeth as a tormented individual who’s had a rough upbringing requiring less than admirable life choices to survive.  Getting by in the urban wasteland in Europe is no more glamorous than anywhere else, so Lisbeth must be tough as nails, a little liberal with “the law” and be callous to the rest of the world.  Therein lays the most powerful aspect of Ms. Mara’s performance: the deadpan stoicism, especially when her character shows hints of change.  More often than not, Lisbeth as a character only fluctuates between rage and what appears to be indifference, but as her relationship with Mikael evolves, so too does her demeanor in very subtle, but noticeable ways.  You won’t see Rooney Mara crack a genuine smile during this film, but her dedication to maintaining the hard-edge image of disenfranchised youth is layered with sincerity and makes this film worth watching.  Rooney Mara is a powder keg of “Don’t F*ck With Me!” and I am pleased to see an example of girl power on the screen that is committed to strength and individuality.    

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a very imperfect crime drama that suffers from stagnant pacing and some less than adequate performances.  For a film franchise that was meant to be billed as the definition of raw aggression and blunt sexuality, David Fincher seems to have preemptively neutered this potential beast of entertainment.  As intense as some moments in this film are, the dial certainly needs to be “set to 11” for the subsequent sequels, and doing so would certainly add some much needed action.  Whether or not the audience ultimately likes this film hinges squarely on how much they love Rooney Mara’s performance.  As a result, this will not be a film for everyone because this is “America baby,” and when it comes to brains getting splattered or explosions ripping people apart, we’re ok with it, but when it comes to sex and sexuality, people write nasty letters to their local congressman or woman.  This is a movie that’s going to require an open and attentive mind to appreciate so be prepared.  If for any other reason, this film is worth seeing because it’s a Hollywood attempt to do something different and different is always good.

For more with Lawrence On “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” head on over and check out his Podcast, with a very special guest, his sister Kristin. 

The Game’s a Foot!

A Film Review of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:267:]]

Who doesn’t love a good mystery?  It is a question that reveals mankind’s innate curiosity with the unknown or unfamiliar in order to identify the variables and explain the inexplicable so as to allow ourselves to be comfortable in our own environment.  Sherlock Holmes, the definitive, master, gentleman detective is a character that is plagued by a hypersensitivity to that which is and naturally drawn to any scenario that is simply put, undefined.  Ever the avenging agent of order, Holmes’ fiction involves the solving of many a mystery which leads to the incarceration of several citizens of ill repute, yet no individual ever seemed to stand a proper challenge.  The mystery itself was always Holmes’ true foil as it seemed no less than a cabal of criminals was required to stump old Shirley for more than an hour.  This was the Sherlock Holmes that graced the silver screen in Guy Ritchie’s first adaptation in 2009.  The sequel: A Game of Shadows, presents a much more personal confrontation for Holmes as the audience is introduced to Professor James Moriarty who is every bit an intellectual equal, yet far less of a gentleman who isn’t concerned with collateral damage and harming the innocent in order to get whatever he wants.  As such, Holmes must approach this new investigation in a different manner which, of course, translates into a slightly different movie-going experience which happens to place a heavy emphasis on action.

One of the major strengths to these Guy Ritchie adaptations has been the writing: both dialogue and the overall plot.  This continues to be the case for the most part in A Game of Shadows, but I was extremely surprised to find out that no member of the original (and rather large) writing team returned to pen the sequel.  Relative writing novices Michele and Kieran Mulroney are responsible for this script which is usually a tell tale sign of a film franchise taking a turn for the worse.  Thankfully, the writers were up to the task of measuring up to the success of the original.  Any scenario involving Holmes’ arch nemesis must be compelling and complicated without being totally convulsive.  GoS certainly has several interesting plot elements in place such as more dynamic settings and the introduction of several new characters, but when the film ends the viewer finds him or herself with a somewhat predictable story.  Anyone who has seen The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) will notice some carbon copying at work.  The story attempts to compensate by adding more action sequences than the first film.  Although these scenes were well shot and certainly added to the pacing, it seemed to snowball at times and despite the fact that Sherlock Holmes is known to be an apt combatant, I never got the impression he was Neo from The Matrix.  The witty banter between Holmes and Watson is a perfect evolution of the relationship established in the first film.  This hilarious dialogue keeps the over-indulgent action grounded by dialing back on the intensity without losing the audience’s attention.  I was particularly satisfied with the genuine, plutonic love demonstrated between Holmes and Watson which could not have been more perfectly depicted than the very last scene in the film.

As for the action in A Game of Shadows, wow, I could use a LOT less slow motion effects please.  Those of you who may believe I exaggerate with my Matrix reference, rest assured that this comment is right on the mark.  I cannot fault Guy Ritchie entirely for this because I understand the need to keep the visual style to his films memorable, but sometimes too much when it comes to visual effects sacrifices the effectiveness of the action in the first place.  Please see the Star Wars prequels in reference to that comment.  It remains to be seen if the global audience will fully accept Sherlock Holmes as an action franchise, but to fully sell out the story in this regard would be a mistake.  Holmes’ story revolves around the investigation of a mystery and when half of a feature length film is devoted to explosions, fisticuffs and gunplay, that mystery doesn’t have as much screen time to shine.  Too many dialogue driven scenes in sequence do have the potential of overburdening an audience with too much exposition and breaking those up with action is an effective way to avoid that result.  Good old fashioned choreography and framing can still produce effective balance to the pacing without running the risk of diluting the impact of repeated digital effects.  Please take note, Mr. Ritchie.  

Top marks to all of the acting performances in A Game of Shadows.  The individual efforts of the supporting cast are the kind one would expect from actors promised much more screen time and/or prominent roles.  Noomi Rapace as Madam Heron, Stephen Fry as Mycroft Holmes, Rachael McAdams as Irene Adler, Geraldine James as Mrs. Hudson and Eddie Marsan as Inspector Lestrade all show that even an actor that embraces a small role can have a significant impact on the overall quality of a film.  Stephen Fry stood out in particular because no one in their right mind would ever accept the possibility that he and Robert Downey Jr. could be related in any way if they were to simply stand next to each other.  Fry’s snobbish line delivery and nuances in dialect play off perfectly from Downey’s and the repartee between them makes for an undeniable connection that pays off every time the two share screen time. 

A good villain is invaluable to any film and Jared Harris’ portrayal of Moriarty may not be one for the ages, but is very respectable and doesn’t back down to Robert Downey Jr. in any way.  Harris has a keen ability to counter every verbal jab Downey throws which is essential for his character.  Although he also demonstarates the proper demeanor of calm, control and supreme confidence, I didn’t feel he was as menacing as the faceless entity this character was portrayed as in the first film.  Perhaps this is the way Moriarty is written in the Sherlock Holmes novels, but as a fan of film, I would like to see a little bit more pure evil. 

In the end, this film is all about Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes and Jude Law as Dr. Watson and although these two characters are featured less as a duo and promotes the interplay between Holmes and Moriarty as a higher priority, these two actors once again deliver performances that should not be missed by anyone.  The key relationship between their characters is far more than the prototypical funny man vs. straight man routine as both have individual moments of hilarity and poignancy.  Their friendship is far beyond a simple “bro-mance” as the audience is able to feel the sense of true family between them.  Law and Downey remain the essential components to these Sherlock Holmes films and despite the arching narrative’s tendency to move these characters apart, it is essential for these films to see them stay together. 

Not to take anything away from Jude Law (because he is a fine actor and clearly does a fine job in this film), but Robert Downey Jr. ought to be recognized as a great actor for the vast array of fine performances he continues to add to with his efforts in A Game of Shadows.  The argument could be made that the difference between Tony Stark and Sherlock Holmes is merely an English accent, but the fact is that these are two very different types of “train wreck characters” that exude similar charisma in very different ways and it takes more than a great performance to communicate this; it takes a great actor.  All Downey needs is a custom built drama with nothing but Oscar gold in mind to definitively place him alongside the all time greats. 

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is not a perfect film, but is easily the best action/adventure feature during this holiday season.  Families that have teenage children will have a very fun time, but be forewarned, the English dialect throughout is very thick so those who are befuddled by the likes of Harry Potter may find themselves asking “What did he just say?” once too often.  This film is an action-buddy-comedy mixed with a period piece with brains and if that doesn’t appeal to you, I’d recommend Justin Bieber’s self congratulatory Never Say Never or a new classic like American Idol’s notorious flop From Justin to Kelly.  In this season of giving, even bad films need to have paying viewers.  Otherwise, bad films would never be made . . . wait a minute!

The Baby That Goes Bump in the Night

A Film Review of Paranormal Activity 3

By: Lawrence Napoli

Boxing Gold With a Jackman Twist

A Film Review of Real Steel

By: Lawrence Napoli

When the Fate of America is in the Hands of FEMA and Bingo Balls

A Film Review of Contagion

By: Lawrence Napoli

The State of Hollywood 4

Remakes and Reboots: The Reason for Hollywood Sucking?

By: Lawrence Napoli

(Editor’s Note: CBN’s movie reviewer, Lawrence Napoli, offers his views and opinions on the movie biz in his column, “The State Of Hollywood.”)