Well for my final blog post, I'm going to provide a link to my newest website. It's a video game script.
Read and enjoy!
The Calculus Curse
Monday, December 5, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Immortals
This week's film was Immortals, one of the biggest let downs of the year. The effects and combat scenes were great, but there was no story. The best I can rate this film is 2/5, and that's being generous.
The best part of the film was the combat scenes and special effects. They were spectacular, provided you enjoy the sight of heads rolling and blood spraying. The combat was short and brutal. Heads rolled and people died. Short, simple, and pleasurable. However, the combat is relatively short compared to the rest of the film, and, though it is wonderful, there is too little to have any hope of producing something worth watching.
However, the enjoyment of the combat was not enough to redeem this sad film. Whoever the writers were should have been fired long before the film went into production. There was no semblance of story in the film whatsoever. I can only think that the story Immortals was supposed to tell was Theseus and the Minotaur. The other characters made no sense if this was the case though. King Hyperion, the Epirus bow, and Titans never played a part in this myth. Whatever, I can tolerate a different interpretation of a 2000 year old myth. What I can't stand is an interpretation that has no depth! The characters were all stagnant, the character dialogue was monotonous, and the plot was horrid. I understand revenge is a great motivator, but come on, another one? Boring.
What's worse, the movie is about two hours long. Nothing happens for the first half hour, then some people die quickly, then nothing happens for another half hour, then Poseidon causes a tidal wave, then nothing happens for half an hour, then Apollo kills some people (coolest part of the film, might I add), then nothing happens for 20 minutes, then Theseus kills Hyperion and becomes a god. Confused? So am I.
As usual, here's the link to the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Once again I'm forced to agree with the dissenters. There is no action, and no life in the movie; just blindly moving from one scene to the next connected by characters only, since the story doesn't have the strength to bind the scenes. Since this movie is just that wonderful, I have two favorite quotes this week: Boston Globe's Ty Bur's review, which, I am sad to say, is dead on to this movie; and MSN Movie's Kathleen Murphy's review, for this movie can be viewed as nothing but dead, and felt as nothing more than a funeral to what had the potential to be the best movie of the year.
The best part of the film was the combat scenes and special effects. They were spectacular, provided you enjoy the sight of heads rolling and blood spraying. The combat was short and brutal. Heads rolled and people died. Short, simple, and pleasurable. However, the combat is relatively short compared to the rest of the film, and, though it is wonderful, there is too little to have any hope of producing something worth watching.
However, the enjoyment of the combat was not enough to redeem this sad film. Whoever the writers were should have been fired long before the film went into production. There was no semblance of story in the film whatsoever. I can only think that the story Immortals was supposed to tell was Theseus and the Minotaur. The other characters made no sense if this was the case though. King Hyperion, the Epirus bow, and Titans never played a part in this myth. Whatever, I can tolerate a different interpretation of a 2000 year old myth. What I can't stand is an interpretation that has no depth! The characters were all stagnant, the character dialogue was monotonous, and the plot was horrid. I understand revenge is a great motivator, but come on, another one? Boring.
What's worse, the movie is about two hours long. Nothing happens for the first half hour, then some people die quickly, then nothing happens for another half hour, then Poseidon causes a tidal wave, then nothing happens for half an hour, then Apollo kills some people (coolest part of the film, might I add), then nothing happens for 20 minutes, then Theseus kills Hyperion and becomes a god. Confused? So am I.
As usual, here's the link to the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Once again I'm forced to agree with the dissenters. There is no action, and no life in the movie; just blindly moving from one scene to the next connected by characters only, since the story doesn't have the strength to bind the scenes. Since this movie is just that wonderful, I have two favorite quotes this week: Boston Globe's Ty Bur's review, which, I am sad to say, is dead on to this movie; and MSN Movie's Kathleen Murphy's review, for this movie can be viewed as nothing but dead, and felt as nothing more than a funeral to what had the potential to be the best movie of the year.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Tower Heist
I know you were all hoping for Immortals, but I've got to leave something to be desired don't I?
This week's movie is Tower Heist starring Eddie Murphy, Alan Alda and Ben Stiller. Sadly this movie fell short of my expectations; it was even a towering let down. Overall, I'll rate this movie at 2/5. While the story was interesting, but the movie forced the actors into roles that don't fit.
The story is, well, Robin Hood. Alda plays a crooked investor that stole all his clients money, including the pensions of the employees at the Tower in downtown NYC. Stiller is the Manager of the Tower who invested all the employee's pensions with Alda because he promised he could double their investment. After finding out that the pensions are gone, Stiller decides to steal the safety net that all crooked businessmen keep in order to save the Tower Employees' retirement. Stiller hires Murphy who, along with the new Elevator Mechanic, the maid and a down and out stock broker, plan and execute a burglary of Alda's penthouse sweet and steal back the money he took.
Simple, pure and relatively straightforward. There are only two major twists: the items they steal back are all components of a racecar made of pure gold; and Stiller ends up in prison at the end.
Now to the cast. Individually and in other shows I enjoy every other actor. Eddie Murphy is a movie Icon from his star performance in the Beverly Hills Cop trilogy to his more well known role as the Donkey from the Shrek series. He is a comedy idol, who, sadly didn't pull off a very impressive performance. Somewhere along the line, swearing stops being a comical effect and becomes an annoyance. Frankly, Murphy crossed that line. While he did do some funny things and drops some funny lines, he ultimately failed in bringing his usual effect to the table. Stiller, to me, performed as expected. I did like him in Night at the Museum but I feel that was the exception rather than the rule. Stiller was dry, I couldn't make out when he was joking or when he was being serious, and his reactions were completely staged. Alan Alda used to be one of the funniest TV actors. The TV show Mash is one of my all time favorites. Yet, again Alda falls short. He doesn't seem to like his role, almost as if he's having to force himself to not break character.
As usual, here is the link to the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I agree with most of the rotten reviews, sadly. While there were some laughs in this film, there were definitely not enough to make up for the clashing personalities. Top review of the week: Jack K Kooper's comment that Eddie Murphy is back in fine form. It hurts to say this, but I could live without seeing another movie starring Murphy if this his his 'fine form.' Thanks but I'll stick to Beverly Hills Cop when he truely was in fine form.
One final thought, if your a fan of shows like The Office you may enjoy this movie, but since I don't, anyone like me will likely not enjoy this film.
This week's movie is Tower Heist starring Eddie Murphy, Alan Alda and Ben Stiller. Sadly this movie fell short of my expectations; it was even a towering let down. Overall, I'll rate this movie at 2/5. While the story was interesting, but the movie forced the actors into roles that don't fit.
The story is, well, Robin Hood. Alda plays a crooked investor that stole all his clients money, including the pensions of the employees at the Tower in downtown NYC. Stiller is the Manager of the Tower who invested all the employee's pensions with Alda because he promised he could double their investment. After finding out that the pensions are gone, Stiller decides to steal the safety net that all crooked businessmen keep in order to save the Tower Employees' retirement. Stiller hires Murphy who, along with the new Elevator Mechanic, the maid and a down and out stock broker, plan and execute a burglary of Alda's penthouse sweet and steal back the money he took.
Simple, pure and relatively straightforward. There are only two major twists: the items they steal back are all components of a racecar made of pure gold; and Stiller ends up in prison at the end.
Now to the cast. Individually and in other shows I enjoy every other actor. Eddie Murphy is a movie Icon from his star performance in the Beverly Hills Cop trilogy to his more well known role as the Donkey from the Shrek series. He is a comedy idol, who, sadly didn't pull off a very impressive performance. Somewhere along the line, swearing stops being a comical effect and becomes an annoyance. Frankly, Murphy crossed that line. While he did do some funny things and drops some funny lines, he ultimately failed in bringing his usual effect to the table. Stiller, to me, performed as expected. I did like him in Night at the Museum but I feel that was the exception rather than the rule. Stiller was dry, I couldn't make out when he was joking or when he was being serious, and his reactions were completely staged. Alan Alda used to be one of the funniest TV actors. The TV show Mash is one of my all time favorites. Yet, again Alda falls short. He doesn't seem to like his role, almost as if he's having to force himself to not break character.
As usual, here is the link to the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I agree with most of the rotten reviews, sadly. While there were some laughs in this film, there were definitely not enough to make up for the clashing personalities. Top review of the week: Jack K Kooper's comment that Eddie Murphy is back in fine form. It hurts to say this, but I could live without seeing another movie starring Murphy if this his his 'fine form.' Thanks but I'll stick to Beverly Hills Cop when he truely was in fine form.
One final thought, if your a fan of shows like The Office you may enjoy this movie, but since I don't, anyone like me will likely not enjoy this film.
Monday, November 7, 2011
My New Website
For anyone who's nerdy, like me, Video Games are a wonderful pass time. Maybe you grow tired of playing those games and start noticing things that go wrong or things you'd improve on. Maybe you've even written those ideas down somewhere, or started to write up a game.
Maybe you've done none of these things and are just looking for an interesting college major. Well, check this site out. It's all about becoming a Game Programmer, with information about the job, salary, and tips for getting started on the path to becoming a Game Programmer!
Just follow this hyperlink to find out more!
So You Want To Be A Game Pogrammer?
Maybe you've done none of these things and are just looking for an interesting college major. Well, check this site out. It's all about becoming a Game Programmer, with information about the job, salary, and tips for getting started on the path to becoming a Game Programmer!
Just follow this hyperlink to find out more!
So You Want To Be A Game Pogrammer?
Monday, October 31, 2011
In Time
This week's film was In Time starring Justin Timberlake, a suspensful scifi flick where every person has to earn the right to live another day. In this future, every person stops aging at 25, but they only have one year to live. People can earn more time, but as soon as the clock reaches zero, they die. Jobs pay in time: minutes, hours, months to live. The rich live for millenia while the poor struggle to scrape up enough seconds to survive another day.
Concept alone makes this film worth seeing. The acting, dialogue, and scripting, while not wonderful, gives the film a plausibility that most sci-fi films lack. While I didn't love this film, it was definitely worth seeing. Overall, I'll give this a 3.5/5. While a novel idea, the material started to drag towards the middle of the film, after all, there are only so many different ways you can refer to time.
The plot is loosely based on Robin Hood, minus all the characters but Robin, Maid Marian, King John, and the Sheriff of Nottingham. The story follows a young man from the slums Will Salas (Timberlake) who receives a gift of a century from a wealthy man who wants to die. After Will's mother dies in his arms, he vows to bring down the system that is causing millions of people to die every day so that the richest people can be immortal. Will travels with his new found Time into the wealthiest area of the futuristic America. There he meets the daughter of the richest man in America, gets arrested for stealing time, kidnaps the daughter, and starts to rob time banks to help the poor.
As I said above, the concept is wonderful. That humanity has reached a point where we can stop aging and literally trade our lives away...wow. That all currency is based off how much time left on the clock gives the cost of living a new meaning, which the director employs continuously.
Despite the brilliance of the concept, the dialogue was shoddy. There are only so many different references that can be implemented to time. The gang bangers are called minutemen, mugging someone is called cleaning the clock, the cost of living literally refers to the minutes required to buy items, the police are called timekeepers, and there are a host of other ill conceived, overused references to time. It fits with the plot of the film sure, but come on there are only so many times the references can be used and still be a novelty.
I can't say much for or against the cast of the film. The cast only has two really recognizable names: Justin Timberlake and Olivia Wilde. The other main characters are supporting characters in other movies, or main characters in little known movies. Overall, they did a decent job with the scripting they had, but the performance left me wanting to see a few more main stream actors than the younger generation. My biggest complaint about the cast, though, was that Olivia Wilde and Maid Marian (Amanda Seyfried) should have switched roles, considering Olivia Wilde is much more...appealing.
As always, here's the link to the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Being a fence rider on this film, I can't really say definitively who's correct. Like Peter Rainer I thought the movie went on for a little too long, and like Christian Toto I feel that the movie, while an interesting concept, could have used more polished dialogue. However I do not agree at all with Dana Steven's idea that the pauses in dialogue were too long. To me, they didn't feel any longer than normal, in fact I found it rather nice to see two characters have a decent conversation without trying to interrupt each other, or have to wait for cue cards to speak their lines (like in the critic's favorite film of the year Drive). My favorite review of the week: Laramy Legel's idea that In Time was a "clumsy preach-a-thon." Preachy about what exactly? How is it any different from any other sci-fi film having anything to do with human evolution or with some major corporation that runs the planet? Sorry but I don't see where he's coming from exactly.
Overall this was a good film to see and a better one to buy at bargain price. the interesting concept doesn't make up for a script that felt like a second draft.
Concept alone makes this film worth seeing. The acting, dialogue, and scripting, while not wonderful, gives the film a plausibility that most sci-fi films lack. While I didn't love this film, it was definitely worth seeing. Overall, I'll give this a 3.5/5. While a novel idea, the material started to drag towards the middle of the film, after all, there are only so many different ways you can refer to time.
The plot is loosely based on Robin Hood, minus all the characters but Robin, Maid Marian, King John, and the Sheriff of Nottingham. The story follows a young man from the slums Will Salas (Timberlake) who receives a gift of a century from a wealthy man who wants to die. After Will's mother dies in his arms, he vows to bring down the system that is causing millions of people to die every day so that the richest people can be immortal. Will travels with his new found Time into the wealthiest area of the futuristic America. There he meets the daughter of the richest man in America, gets arrested for stealing time, kidnaps the daughter, and starts to rob time banks to help the poor.
As I said above, the concept is wonderful. That humanity has reached a point where we can stop aging and literally trade our lives away...wow. That all currency is based off how much time left on the clock gives the cost of living a new meaning, which the director employs continuously.
Despite the brilliance of the concept, the dialogue was shoddy. There are only so many different references that can be implemented to time. The gang bangers are called minutemen, mugging someone is called cleaning the clock, the cost of living literally refers to the minutes required to buy items, the police are called timekeepers, and there are a host of other ill conceived, overused references to time. It fits with the plot of the film sure, but come on there are only so many times the references can be used and still be a novelty.
I can't say much for or against the cast of the film. The cast only has two really recognizable names: Justin Timberlake and Olivia Wilde. The other main characters are supporting characters in other movies, or main characters in little known movies. Overall, they did a decent job with the scripting they had, but the performance left me wanting to see a few more main stream actors than the younger generation. My biggest complaint about the cast, though, was that Olivia Wilde and Maid Marian (Amanda Seyfried) should have switched roles, considering Olivia Wilde is much more...appealing.
As always, here's the link to the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Being a fence rider on this film, I can't really say definitively who's correct. Like Peter Rainer I thought the movie went on for a little too long, and like Christian Toto I feel that the movie, while an interesting concept, could have used more polished dialogue. However I do not agree at all with Dana Steven's idea that the pauses in dialogue were too long. To me, they didn't feel any longer than normal, in fact I found it rather nice to see two characters have a decent conversation without trying to interrupt each other, or have to wait for cue cards to speak their lines (like in the critic's favorite film of the year Drive). My favorite review of the week: Laramy Legel's idea that In Time was a "clumsy preach-a-thon." Preachy about what exactly? How is it any different from any other sci-fi film having anything to do with human evolution or with some major corporation that runs the planet? Sorry but I don't see where he's coming from exactly.
Overall this was a good film to see and a better one to buy at bargain price. the interesting concept doesn't make up for a script that felt like a second draft.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Three...well...Four Musketeers
I don't know what's going on, but decent movies are starting to show up in theaters...Films worth buying when they're released to the public no less!
This week's film is Three Musketeers. I'll rate this at a solid 4.5 out of 5.
Put simply, anyone who loves the Assassin's Creed games is going to love this film, or anyone looking for a fun film will love this; anyone who wants to see anything historically accurate, sorry, you're out of luck. Filled with cool sword fights, cheezy one liners, and historical fantasy, this is one of the best movies I've seen.
The plot of the film centers on a young man from a rural village of France meeting and reestablishing the three musketeers, who no longer serve due to a failed mission. The three (now four) musketeers are then sent to retrieve the French queen's stolen diamond necklace so that the French King doesn't start a war with the British over the queen's supposed relations with a British nobleman.
Unlike many movies, the predictability of this film doesn't detract from the entertainment. Sure, you know what's going to happen, but the variety of cheesy one liners and strange gadgets (like the flying battleships, or Aramis' diving suit) keep the predictable plot delightful.
The absolute best part of this film is its cheesiness. There are more cheesy one liners in this film than there have been in any movie since Star Wars. The actors while doing a wonderful job, act in such a way that most everything that happens is funny to one person or another. Furthermore, there are some scenes in the film that are added in purely for cheese. At the very end of the film, there is one servant who gets hit by a falling flag pole, why, most movies wouldn't have done it, and it was funny.
The historical fantasy is the second best part of the film. Like I said, you're not going to this movie for the historical accuracy. Rather, the film employs a variety of strange contraptions that shouldn't have existed at this time in history. In the beginning, one of the musketeers enters through the water in a diving suit. He's fully able of breathing underwater and, remaining dry while doing so. A few scenes later, the same musketeer uses fully automatic crossbows. After the opening credits (after the preamble where the musketeers fail their mission) Orlando Bloom arrives at Versailles in a flying battleship. The ship is equipped with standard cannons, along with a flame thrower, and an interpretation of a cannon Gatling gun.
The point: who cares about the accuracy. These machines add to the enjoyment of the film because they look possible. There were no really modern items, only creative renditions of preexisting technology, or (in the case of the battleship) creation of one of DaVinci's inventions. The other part of this, is the items are so unrealistic they add to the overall cheesiness of the film.
The cast has one truly recognizable face: Orlando Bloom (who sadly doesn't do much except look and act like Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean). The other members of the cast are all celebrity look-a-likes. TV stars, or bit actors from many other films, some who've only had one starring role (Milady starred in the 1998 film The Fifth Element and Dartagnin starred in The Lightning Thief) are placed as stand-ins for more well known faces; if you'll see the movie you'll likely 'recognize' those faces.
The only thing I didn't like about this film was that Orlando Bloom was just there. After Pirates of the Caribbean Orlando Bloom became the most recognized movie sword fighter. Sadly, Bloom never fought in this, he was just there attempting to be Jack Sparrow. His cheesy French beard, the deep eye shadow, his swagger, and the attempted drawl of his voice can only be interpreted as an attempt at imitating Johnny Depp and his famous role as Jack Sparrow. Again, this isn't a bad as it adds to the cheesiness, but if you're going to pay Orlando Bloom to act like Johnny Depp, might as well spend the same amount and just get Johnny Depp.
As always, here's the link to the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I can't even begin to start with this. Everyone took this film too seriously. It's supposed to be stupid, cheesy and all over fun. How well it follows the novel is beyond me, I haven't read it, but to me this is a fun film. I'm not even going to try with these reviews. Epic fail: no, cheeky: definitely, cheesy: abundantly, but it's supposed to be.
I will say though, my favorite review of the week comes from the poor fool who posted his Paranormal Activity 3 review on the wrong film. That is Epic Fail, The Three Musketeers is definitely not.
This week's film is Three Musketeers. I'll rate this at a solid 4.5 out of 5.
Put simply, anyone who loves the Assassin's Creed games is going to love this film, or anyone looking for a fun film will love this; anyone who wants to see anything historically accurate, sorry, you're out of luck. Filled with cool sword fights, cheezy one liners, and historical fantasy, this is one of the best movies I've seen.
The plot of the film centers on a young man from a rural village of France meeting and reestablishing the three musketeers, who no longer serve due to a failed mission. The three (now four) musketeers are then sent to retrieve the French queen's stolen diamond necklace so that the French King doesn't start a war with the British over the queen's supposed relations with a British nobleman.
Unlike many movies, the predictability of this film doesn't detract from the entertainment. Sure, you know what's going to happen, but the variety of cheesy one liners and strange gadgets (like the flying battleships, or Aramis' diving suit) keep the predictable plot delightful.
The absolute best part of this film is its cheesiness. There are more cheesy one liners in this film than there have been in any movie since Star Wars. The actors while doing a wonderful job, act in such a way that most everything that happens is funny to one person or another. Furthermore, there are some scenes in the film that are added in purely for cheese. At the very end of the film, there is one servant who gets hit by a falling flag pole, why, most movies wouldn't have done it, and it was funny.
The historical fantasy is the second best part of the film. Like I said, you're not going to this movie for the historical accuracy. Rather, the film employs a variety of strange contraptions that shouldn't have existed at this time in history. In the beginning, one of the musketeers enters through the water in a diving suit. He's fully able of breathing underwater and, remaining dry while doing so. A few scenes later, the same musketeer uses fully automatic crossbows. After the opening credits (after the preamble where the musketeers fail their mission) Orlando Bloom arrives at Versailles in a flying battleship. The ship is equipped with standard cannons, along with a flame thrower, and an interpretation of a cannon Gatling gun.
The point: who cares about the accuracy. These machines add to the enjoyment of the film because they look possible. There were no really modern items, only creative renditions of preexisting technology, or (in the case of the battleship) creation of one of DaVinci's inventions. The other part of this, is the items are so unrealistic they add to the overall cheesiness of the film.
The cast has one truly recognizable face: Orlando Bloom (who sadly doesn't do much except look and act like Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean). The other members of the cast are all celebrity look-a-likes. TV stars, or bit actors from many other films, some who've only had one starring role (Milady starred in the 1998 film The Fifth Element and Dartagnin starred in The Lightning Thief) are placed as stand-ins for more well known faces; if you'll see the movie you'll likely 'recognize' those faces.
The only thing I didn't like about this film was that Orlando Bloom was just there. After Pirates of the Caribbean Orlando Bloom became the most recognized movie sword fighter. Sadly, Bloom never fought in this, he was just there attempting to be Jack Sparrow. His cheesy French beard, the deep eye shadow, his swagger, and the attempted drawl of his voice can only be interpreted as an attempt at imitating Johnny Depp and his famous role as Jack Sparrow. Again, this isn't a bad as it adds to the cheesiness, but if you're going to pay Orlando Bloom to act like Johnny Depp, might as well spend the same amount and just get Johnny Depp.
As always, here's the link to the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I can't even begin to start with this. Everyone took this film too seriously. It's supposed to be stupid, cheesy and all over fun. How well it follows the novel is beyond me, I haven't read it, but to me this is a fun film. I'm not even going to try with these reviews. Epic fail: no, cheeky: definitely, cheesy: abundantly, but it's supposed to be.
I will say though, my favorite review of the week comes from the poor fool who posted his Paranormal Activity 3 review on the wrong film. That is Epic Fail, The Three Musketeers is definitely not.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Real Steel
Back and Hitting Hard after a week off.
This week's film is Real Steel starring Hugh Jackman and Dakota Goyo. Hands down this is the best film I've seen so far, I'd rank it at 4.75/5. I loved the acting, the robots themselves were beautifully created, and most importantly, there was twisted metal and carnage!
The plot is fairly simple: In a near future earth, a down and out boxer reunites with his estranged son and ends up building a boxing robot that goes 5 rounds with the world champ. Standard plot, typical sci-fi feel with the bots and the little gadgets, and a standard relationship development between estranged father and son.
Standard and overused theme, but it adds to the movie. The actors pull off the relationship perfectly, and you can almost feel it evolve from the two headstrong boys who want little to do with each other, to a true father-son relationship.
Enough about the sentimental stuff, the movie is really attractive for the same reason as Monster Truck Rallies: there are big things smashing, twisting, and destroying each other. Its true, the film is mainly a big screen Rock'em Sock'em Robots, it is so much more. The rendering of the machines rivals the CGI used in Avatar, I had a very hard time believing those robots were not actually constructed and moving around. Moreover, the fights between the robots were very realistic. The bots would tear each other apart, to the sound of twisting steel and short circuits. Everything one wants when two big steel monstrosities collide.
For this film, my only complaint is the strange plot suggestions it introduces. Twice during the film it was suggested that Jackman's newest robot was self aware: Goyo is talking to it as it watches him, and asks if it can understand him, he then tells the bot 'Your secret is safe with me.' The second time the bot is left alone in a work room while Jackman and Goyo head out. The bot is staring into a mirror and the camera zooms like there is something going on inside the bot's mind.
While this is all interesting, the film ends without having elaborated on these instances, whether or not the bot is actually self-aware. I mean questions and expectations are all well and good, especially since there is a planned sequel to Real Steel, yet this question doesn't play any major part in the film, almost like it was an afterthought and not something that was actually supposed to be in the film.
As always, here's the links to the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I don't understand the movie critic mind, this was far and away the best movie I've seen so far, yet they barely rank it above average. The runtime, for the contested critic, I felt that the runtime was nearly perfect. Yes it was a little long in the beginning and the introduction of Jackman's son, but after Goyo's arrival, the story gets really good, to the point where I was upset when it ended.
My favorite review of this week is Peter Rainer. I would agree that the movie should be called Real Steal, I know for a fact that I would have spent $15 - $20 to go see this film, and I would happily do so again!
This week's film is Real Steel starring Hugh Jackman and Dakota Goyo. Hands down this is the best film I've seen so far, I'd rank it at 4.75/5. I loved the acting, the robots themselves were beautifully created, and most importantly, there was twisted metal and carnage!
The plot is fairly simple: In a near future earth, a down and out boxer reunites with his estranged son and ends up building a boxing robot that goes 5 rounds with the world champ. Standard plot, typical sci-fi feel with the bots and the little gadgets, and a standard relationship development between estranged father and son.
Standard and overused theme, but it adds to the movie. The actors pull off the relationship perfectly, and you can almost feel it evolve from the two headstrong boys who want little to do with each other, to a true father-son relationship.
Enough about the sentimental stuff, the movie is really attractive for the same reason as Monster Truck Rallies: there are big things smashing, twisting, and destroying each other. Its true, the film is mainly a big screen Rock'em Sock'em Robots, it is so much more. The rendering of the machines rivals the CGI used in Avatar, I had a very hard time believing those robots were not actually constructed and moving around. Moreover, the fights between the robots were very realistic. The bots would tear each other apart, to the sound of twisting steel and short circuits. Everything one wants when two big steel monstrosities collide.
For this film, my only complaint is the strange plot suggestions it introduces. Twice during the film it was suggested that Jackman's newest robot was self aware: Goyo is talking to it as it watches him, and asks if it can understand him, he then tells the bot 'Your secret is safe with me.' The second time the bot is left alone in a work room while Jackman and Goyo head out. The bot is staring into a mirror and the camera zooms like there is something going on inside the bot's mind.
While this is all interesting, the film ends without having elaborated on these instances, whether or not the bot is actually self-aware. I mean questions and expectations are all well and good, especially since there is a planned sequel to Real Steel, yet this question doesn't play any major part in the film, almost like it was an afterthought and not something that was actually supposed to be in the film.
As always, here's the links to the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I don't understand the movie critic mind, this was far and away the best movie I've seen so far, yet they barely rank it above average. The runtime, for the contested critic, I felt that the runtime was nearly perfect. Yes it was a little long in the beginning and the introduction of Jackman's son, but after Goyo's arrival, the story gets really good, to the point where I was upset when it ended.
My favorite review of this week is Peter Rainer. I would agree that the movie should be called Real Steal, I know for a fact that I would have spent $15 - $20 to go see this film, and I would happily do so again!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)