TNMC

Films:

While Iron Man definitely exceeded my expectations when I saw it (which were fairly low), I’m struggling to understand why critics (and comic book adaptation lovers!) have placed this in the same arena as The Dark Knight. Yes, there is a moral dilemma that comes up when Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) discovers what his weapons of mass-destruction are really being utilized for, but on the whole Iron Man is a film that is almost solely driven by Robert Downey Jr.’s performance. While his performance is quite good, the problem with the film is we’re not given enough of it due to poor pacing (it takes nearly one-half of the film to establish the hero’s origin and the building of the suit, which is simply too much). I’d write more, but aside from Downey, I’ve forgotten a great deal of this movie already.

Those guys at Pixar just keep making better and better movies as their concerns shift from what computer animation technology can allow to what their imaginations (and a popular audience) will allow. The first half of the film is indeed almost a silent film on par with City Lights as the waste-disposal unit (Wall-E, voiced by sound engineer Ben Burtt) continues to clean up a trash laden Earth when a star craft lands and dispatches EVE, a robot seeking life on Earth. Of course, Wall-E quickly becomes transfixed by EVE and begins to fight for her affections. The second half of the film finds the two of them in a spaceship inhabited by the humans who traded Earth for consumer driven living (if you can even call it that). I will say that, like most, I felt the film lost some steam as it shifted from a simple love story to the save humanity plot, but for a major film studio to basically produce a kids movie with little to no dialogue in the first 45 minutes, I’m willing to forgive them.

Technologically speaking, Wall-E is also a huge evolutionary step forward in computer animation aesthetics. I think one scene particularly of note is the scene in which Wall-E and EVE explore an abandoned store and Wall-E is chased by shopping carts (the scene is visible in some of the trailers). If you watch closely, you’ll notice the camera falls out of focus and performs a slight zoom on Wall-E as he crashes into the wall. It’s quite breathtaking visually but also when you think about how far this animation has come in 15 years or so. I also think it’s telling that the Pixar boys brought in the Coens’ director of photography, Roger Deakins, to consult with them as this scene clearly shows an almost organic camera aesthetic.

I was fortunate enough to attend a screening of Hellboy 2 that featured a lengthy Q&A with director Guillermo Del Toro after. Del Toro, thought out his insanely funny interview (“I’m such a fat fuck. I probably look like a muffin in this chair!”), kept describing the film as “autobiographical” and while that adjective may be a stretch, the film definitely shares his wicked sense of humor which is what makes it one of more memorable superhero franchises around. If Christopher Nolan is concerned with giving us a gritty, moral, realism with The Dark Knight, then Del Toro just wants to make the audience laugh at his loveable loser (portrayed wonderfully by Ron Perlman). Case in point? A drunken sing-a-long where Hellboy and his partner describe their failures at love to a Barry Manilow tune or when an infant alien (showcasing Del Toro’s imagination for the grotesque) informs Hellboy that he is, in fact, a tumor.

I should note that I was not the largest fan of the first film due to the fact that I had almost no idea what the villain’s where up to and how Hellboy’s origins played into their plan. This time around, I didn’t need to know and while I will say some of the action sequences became a bit boring, the one with the “tooth fairies” (I won’t describe anything else about it) was pretty rewarding in a sick way.

The Dark Knight

Yes, I love Batman and yes, I love this movie. However, I will say that it is far from perfect and definitely does not deserve the #1 spot on the IMDB’s top 250 movies of all time (which it currently holds). My main problems with the film are those of structure. Towards the end of the second-act, the Joker (Heath Ledger) shows up at a fundraiser that Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is holding for the newly elected district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Shortly thereafter, the Joker (Heath Ledger) shows up and throws both Wayne and Dent’s love interest, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal), out the window. Batman, of course, jumps to her rescue and they end the scene in one another’s arms. But, and this is one of the structural problems, what happened to the Joker and all of the unsuspecting party patrons in the building above? The answer is, nothing as we never find out. Nolan establishes the Joker perfectly as a darkly funny and sadistic force (witness his “pencil trick” and his “let’s put a smile on that face” routine) and then entrusts us to believe that the Joker would ultimately abandon his plans when he is unable to find Dent or harm Rachel.

These leaps in logic are smoothed over by a frantic pace, which bothered me on the first viewing and made perfect sense on the second. If we are led to believe that the Joker is an agent of chaos, then shouldn’t the narrative reflect this? The characters are making sense of the madness along with us and acting, very often, impulsively. Take, for instance, the scene when Batman must choose the life of either Dent or Rachel, condemning the other to death. Batman growls that he will save Rachel while Commissioner Gordon will try his best to save Dent. The Joker, however, has switched their locations in another instance of his dark sense of humor. This scene is the essence of the film: the Joker introduces a moral dilemma for Batman to face and, despite Batman’s best intentions, the consequences of his choice will hurt. To see a comic book film place the emphasis on moral dilemma rather than action sequences (this film does have some wonderful action sequences, but it’s obvious where Nolan’s true interests lie) is groundbreaking…but that doesn’t make it a perfect movie.

It looks like the Apatow train is slowing down a bit and, logically, why shouldn't it? In the space of one year, Apatow has saturated the market with four of his comedies (Knocked Up, Superbad, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and Pineapple Express). How could they keep the momentum up? Well, they can't. With Pineapple Express, it seems that Seth Rogen and co-writer Evan Goldberg (the two guys behind Superbad as well) had a rough sketch of a plot before shooting and decided to flush it out through improv. Now, improv works for a scene or two, but in terms of the general construction of a film it's pretty fucked. What we get is an action/comedy along the lines of Midnight Run and 48 Hours but without the story. Moreover, the idea of ending a movie with a bunch of manly men revealing their true emotions has gone from feeling heartfelt to simply a way of tying a movie together. It's just a shame this mess had to involve David Gordon Green. Hopefully the film’s assured box office bounty will finally bring him to the helm of A Confederacy of Dunces. I will say I laughed and generally enjoyed the first half of the movie, particularly the banter between the two hitmen chasing Rogen and his drug dealer, played wonderfully by James Franco (who actually found his way into the UCLA Cinema and Media Studies TA office a couple times this past year). The main problem is they have nowhere to put this energy.Hamlet 2

Any movie with Steve Coogan singing songs entitled "Rock Me Sexy Jesus" and "Raped in the Face" deserves a viewing. But, I must say, the trailer makes the movie look like a gutbuster while the end product, while amusing and sure of cult status, is very uneven and the timing was hit and miss. I guess I would liken it to "Wet Hot American Summer" in its hit to miss ratio but the only problem is that "Hamlet 2" just can't figure out what jokes to play through on at times. Still, worth seeing and I look forward to watching it on a late Friday night with a room of unsuspecting friends...

Video Games:

Grand Theft Auto IV

Quite simply, this game was the reason I bought a PS3. I've been a fan of the GTA franchise since its debut on PC ten years ago. I spent many of my undergraduate hours working through Vice City and San Andreas as well, with the help of willing roommate and best friend. So how do I feel about GTA IV? While IGN and a handful of other slew of critics quickly bestowed the adjectives "masterpiece" and "perfect" upon the latest installment, I have a few reservations. As much as I love the game, the story, and the beautiful design work here, there are some flaws.

First off, the realism of the game is a mixed blessing. I love how the cars handle and how realistic the physics of the game are (with the exception of trees and other odd immobile objects), but concur with Zero Punctuation that sometimes the missions of taking characters back and forth on "real life" missions like to a restaurant or coffee shop can grow tedious. Now, these missions are not necessary to complete the game and they do have their own benefits. First, they break up the run and gun missions of the story. Second, the player unlocks special abilities (cheaper guns, the ability to shed wanted levels, etc.). However, where the escorting missions began to become obnoxious for me was when I would continually get text messages and phone calls from my girlfriend, demanding to be taken on a date, and when I inquired she would reject me…only to text me again immediately after the call! Secondly, I couldn't seem to sync up with Little Jacob's waking hours. The guy wakes up at noon and goes to bed at 1 am! The guy sleeps more than a fucking grizzly bear and, of course, when you call and wake him your rating with his begins to drop. This quickly became frustrating for me.

I also admit that once I finished the story and sandboxed the game for a good ten hours (blowing shit up, killing cops), that I became somewhat bored with the game. Unlike San Andreas, GTA IV has a smaller environment. Granted, it's much more complicated. However, the helicopter provided for crime sprees in the latest installment pales with comparison to the Harrier in San Andreas.

Secondly, the multiplayer leaves much to be desired. It's not that there is an absence of modes or players, it's just I never seem to find any people playing! I'll join a fairly elementary mode like "Deathmatch" and be lucky to track down 5 people. The cooler modes, like "Cops and Crooks," are even more hit and miss. So a more general lobby would be a wonderful addition to an upcoming patch. Also, I advise Rockstar to find a way in which the player isn't kicked back into single player play each time the multiplayer host goes south and for the player to find an easier way to switch game modes.

Single Player: A

Multiplayer: B

Overall Grade: A-

Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots

Subtitled "tactical espionage action," Metal Gear Solid 4 is heavy on the action and the cut-scenes. Now, to a fan of the series, this is not a surprise. In fact, since MGS2, I've kind of grown accustomed to it. However, this can be maddening to some players and I advise those unfamiliar to the games that this is essentially a playable movie. Now, the game is beautifully produced. Graphically and audibly, I'd be hard stretched to find a better demonstration of the PS3's abilities and this holds true for both the cut-scenes and the game play. The story is quite good, but told rather poorly. We are given the backgrounds of the villains in long monologues after defeating them in battle and are subjected to cut-scenes ranging close to an hour at times, simply to get caught up with the complicated universe.

As I said, this sort of construction really only bothered me in MGS2. However, that's not to say MGS4 is flawless. Two awesome battles, both involving Raiden, are left to cut-scenes whereas I kept crossing my fingers that I could do some battle with a samurai sword. To me, this is unforgivable. I'll stand hours of cut-scenes, as long as there is a great deal of game play payoff. These two set-pieces really disappointed me, insofar as they were removed from the game play realm. This said, I'm hard stretched to find much else wrong with the single player play but, if this had been my first outing with MGS, I'd probably be very confused and disappointed.

Where I am disappointed is with the multiplayer mode. First off, you need to register on Konami's own page to start an online account. Your PSN settings do not carry over and the Konami servers are a pain in the ass. Moreover, it's nearly impossible to track your friends down and play in the same game, as you much be of a high level or have played 20 hours of online play to start a clan. With such a fickle interface, I've logged maybe 4 hours of play. Plus, game play can be infuriating as Close Quarters Combat is not as easy to navigate as it is in regular game play. Also, unlike most online shooters, the quality of your MGS4 online experience is up to your teammates as some people play the game as a straight forward shooter rather an a tactical action game along the lines of SOCOM. Hopefully Konami will provide some much needed fixes to this rather disappointing mode.

Finally, I should note that the game takes up an incredible amount of HD space and each act requires a lengthy installation period. Thank Christ I got this game with the 80GB PS3 bundle!

Single Player: A-

Multiplayer: B-

Overall Grade: B+

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

I've probably spent more time on this game than any of the others, including the 40 hours I spent beating GTA IV, most of which was spent in online battles. I should note that the single player play is extremely hit or miss. I loved the fact that they kill off your main character half-way through the game in a playable nuclear fallout and enjoyed the game’s cynical take on the politics of the battle field, but really became infuriated with the friendly A.I., who seemingly made me do all the fighting. However, after the non-existent single player stories of Battlefield, CoD4 was a pretty good way to waste 4 or 5 hours.

Visually and audibly, CoD4 is up there with MGS4 and GTA IV. It's a wonderfully detailed production, with few hiccups and pop-ins that extends over both single player and multiplayer modes. The multiplayer interface works smoothly and games filled to capacity are quickly found. The leveling system, kind of maddening at first (as you only have access to elementary weapons and kits), rewards longtime players. My main critique is, being a longtime Battlefield player on the PC, is the lack of playable vehicles and the smaller player loads (nearly 33% the capacity of a Battlefield map). Of course, this simplicity no doubt allows for little lag but I hope they boost game play with the next installment.

Single Player: B

Multiplayer: A

Overall Grade: A-

Battlefield: Bad Company

What a disappointment this was. Compared to CoD4, the graphics take a huge dive from single player to multiplayer. The story is incredibly lame and is not helped by the lack of a multiplayer co-op mode, as the friendly A.I. is idiotic. Also, the multiplayer only offers….ONE MODE of game play. Headsets only work from time to time as well. I struggle to understand how reviews are handing this fairly good reviews. Yes, the vehicles are here and the multiplayer is able to support more players than CoD4. However, there is a severe cost in this as I said (graphics and lag). Moreover, the much hyped "FrostByte Engine" is pretty lackluster. Yes, you can blow a hole in a house and shoot through walls but I was able to do that back in Red Faction and Red Faction II. Show me a game where I can make a house collapse on a group of soldiers inside and you'll get me excited. I'm glad I got this one as a gift…

Single Player: C

Multiplayer: B-

Overall Grade: C+