Critibility - Episode 1: The 2011 Spike VGAs...among other things.

It's a bit long but it was a first attempt, things will improve.
Link to podomatic.

Dragon Age: Origins (Ultimate Edition) (PS3) - Review

After quickly getting tired of the initially exciting but progressively repetitive Marvel vs. Capcom 3, I took a trip to GameStop one day with a few other unwanted titles and traded them in. Thankfully, this was before Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 had been publicly known, and so the trade-in credit had not significantly dropped. The last time I was at GameStop, I noticed the Ultimate Edition of Dragon Age: Origins for the PlayStation 3, and had heard some good praise for it. I took Angry Joe of Blistered Thumbs word for it and expressed interest in purchasing since I’m an avid RPG fan; it has probably become my favorite genre at this point. However, during that visit, I didn’t have the money for it, hence the MvC3 trade-in. So I paid for it, and brought it home with me, though my fun would have to wait as the installation download coupled with every DLC made for quite the delay. After every last download had finished, I finally began my quest in the land of Ferelden.

Dragon Age: Origins is an RPG developed by the Western RPG giant known as BioWare, (famous for Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect) developed as a spiritual successor to Baldur’s Gate. Origins details the adventures of your protagonist, a Grey Warden, as he or she battles against the Darkspawn, among other things. Your character is custom when you start, physical appearance, class, race, and combat preference are up to the player. Such choices include a Human Noble, a Dwarf Commoner, and an Elf Mage, to just name examples. Each class and race pairing has its own unique backstory, hence a part of the subtitle. Players of BioWare titles will feel right at home to Dragon Age with trademark dialogue branches and combat. Being a personal fan of Knights of the Old Republic and its sequel, it didn’t take me long to get comfortable.

There was something that felt right the moment I began playing, mostly familiarity. My first save file included a Human Noble, and I loved the old-fashioned feel of role-playing that brought me both a feeling of nostalgia as well as a sense of tradition. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with RPGs that push the envelope in a different direction such as Bethesda’s Fallout or The Elder Scrolls series, and as blasphemous as it may sound, I have not had the chance to play any of the Mass Effect games. That being said, Dragon Age: Origins is a fix for a certain hole left unfilled, and that is the Knights of the Old Republic 3 I always wanted (The Old Republic does not count to me). Between a main protagonist without a voice outside of battle phrases, a memorable selection of characters, some unobtainable depending on your choices, and an influence mechanic, the game could very well have Lightsabers and The Force in place of swords and magic.

That’s not to say that the game is some sort of a diamond in the rough, because it has glaring issues. First off, the graphics are a little subpar, but the game has so much to offer in other categories that this fault can very easily be excused. Second, there is considerable slow-down in certain areas, which in my honest opinion, is much less dismissible on a console than a PC. Next, we have texture pop-in, a lack of an alignment mechanic, and dialogue branching could be a little more advanced, considering the technological advancements since KoTOR II in 2004, despite it being developed by Obsidian. These issues make the game feel dated, despite it a fairly recent product. Also, among DLCs, I felt all of them could have been longer; Awakening was particularly disappointing both length-wise and from a storytelling standpoint.

Despite my complaints I would recommend this to most consistent RPG players, as the various origins and different classes offer a solid amount of replay value, and your companions are quite memorable, each having their own personal missions, plus the integration of sex and blood helps this mature package come full circle even with the few bumps in the road. Ferelden is an intriguing setting, the game’s soundtrack is more than generic fantasy, and solid voice acting is greatly appreciated, particularly from Morrigan, played by Claudia Black, previously known for playing Chloe Frazier in Uncharted 2. There are some issues, but I think I probably would have paid a full $60 for it, knowing how good it is now. 9 out of 10.

Wes Craven's New Nightmare - Review

It’s no secret that an overabundance of sequels tends to ruin a franchise. It’s a curse that plagued Friday the 13^th, 007 (on and off), and every cringe-worthy Scary Movie spin-off. It is also no secret that A Nightmare on Elm Street is a staple of pop-culture and the character of Freddy Krueger is a widely known horror icon. I was around nine or ten years old when I stayed over at my aunt’s house, and had spent the day with my favorite cousin, and during the day I had noticed a box set collection of the Nightmare series from the original to Freddy’s Dead. I stood up the entire night watching every film in the series other than New Nightmare as it wasn’t a part of the collection. I thought it was great entertainment, though I was never scared, not even in the slightest. Being a child who was raised on more mature films at an early age, I was considerably desensitized throughout my childhood, at least in terms of movies. The only “scary movies” that were able to frighten me were Child’s Play and later the original Halloween. A Nightmare on Elm Street was entertainment for me, and has been to this day, back then I watched it for the special effects and the treat of seeing such a wicked and likeable antagonist, now that I’ve gotten older I truly appreciate its craft, though I will never say it frightened me, because it never has.

As with many franchises gone awry, there were just too many installments in the Nightmare series, each one becoming more comic and more cartoonish than the last, albeit gore and self-relishing profanity. Sure, Krueger became downright hilarious by the time of Freddy’s Dead, but he had still become a joke, a slasher comedian nine years prior to American Psycho. Wes Craven, the man who introduced the masses to the mythos in the first place, knew it too. I was young when I had first seen New Nightmare, possibly a year or two after I had seen the films before it, and I wasn’t impressed at all. The film-within-a-film premise [insert Inception joke here] did not appeal to me, the lack of screen time for Krueger felt stagnant, and when the redesigned Freddy did appear, I felt it was too little, too late.

Well, years have passed, and I have watched New Nightmare once again. Wes Craven’s New Nightmare follows Heather Langenkamp (Nancy from the first installment) playing herself and dealing with Freddy coming into our world, she’s been having dreams about it, so has Craven, and so has Robert Englund. This is the real world, the Nightmare films are known to the public and the fans hunger for yet another installment despite Freddy being killed off in the previous installment. Apparently Freddy Krueger is a demon who has been contained within the films, and now that they’re concluded, he wants to enter reality. I find this plot a lot more enthralling then I did when I was younger, and Craven’s writing is clever, played serious, and meta, years before the term was used far too often by drones on the Internet.

The film does what modern horror films lack; it takes its time, and instills a sense of dread and anticipation. Krueger’s presence is felt throughout the majority of the film, and the self-aware plotline makes the inevitable confrontation all the more foreboding. The film also includes subtext about the impact of the horror genre and the questionable romanticizing of characters like Freddy Krueger, who are loved and adored for being murderers. New Nightmare was that treat for horror fanatics before Craven had directed Scream two years later. You get the most out of a movie like this when you’re an avid fan of the genre and/or the franchise, especially with the homages to previous installments.

That being said, with credit where credit is due, the film is still flat in some areas, and it does get a little dull in certain areas despite the adjustment to steady pacing. In many ways New Nightmare is akin to Rocky Balboa in terms of its nostalgia-driven narrative and bookend finality, but I wouldn’t call it perfect. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 is still a superior follow-up which holds up as a film in its own right, whereas if New Nightmare was seen in that same light it doesn’t do very well. Not to mention, there are certain ideas I wished the film explored or displayed, like a meeting of Robert Englund and the new Freddy as Welshy of ThatGuyWithTheGlasses mentioned in his own review. However, this is as good a closure as you’re going to get, so give it a chance if you hated Freddy’s Dead. 7.5 out of 10.

Batman: Year One - Review

The latest Warner Premiere is an adaptation of the Frank Miller comic book run of the same name, and is one of the most acclaimed Batman comics out there. I’m a big fan of Frank Miller’s take on Batman in a time when he wasn’t pushing out schlock like his All-Star run. After Green Lantern: Emerald Knights, I knew that this was next and was looking forward to it. As soon as I started I felt right at home with the solid inner monologue of Lieutenant Jim Gordon (Bryan Cranston), which coupled with the similar artwork, makes for a satisfying transition to an animated film, at least in the aesthetic and tonal sense.

As the title of both the film and the graphic novel suggest, Batman: Year One chronicles Bruce Wayne’s first year as Batman and Jim Gordon’s first year as a Gotham City Lieutenant, respectively. Bruce Wayne (Benjamin McKenzie) is just starting out in his quest to purge Gotham of crime and corruption, and is inexperienced at this point, and so he fumbles. The first time we see Bruce out in the city at night; he is shot and arrested after taking down a pimp. At the time of this incident, he has not donned the cape and cowl yet, and is still searching for a symbol to run by, which he of course finds in a bat when he escapes the patrol car and manages to get back to Wayne Manor despite his injury.

The scene in which he finds his symbol in the form of said bat was my favorite scene in the film as it evokes the epitome of the Batman mythos. However, taking away my Batman fanaticism and focusing on the film itself, this may very well be the strongest Batman animated feature since Batman: Mask of the Phantasm and Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker.

The script is solid and the voice acting only helps, it’s dramatic and shady enough without being over-the-top. Since the story spans over a single year, and it’s not just a crime-fighting extravaganza, we get to see Gordon’s troubles with his personal life and his doubt, being that he’s our narrator. The point of Batman is that he is a human being without powers, he’s flawed, and so are his accomplices. Gordon is smart, calculating, and his heart is in the right place, but he cheats on his pregnant wife and is constantly under pressure of his racketeering commissioner. Wayne has not perfected his technique and is prone to mistakes, of which he makes many. In fact, he gets shot more than you may expect.

Like the graphic novel, the film includes a subplot about a prostitute named Selina Kyle (Eliza Dushku) and her eventual escapades as Catwoman, which is mildly gratifying but not handled with as much depth as the rest of the plot and so she’s left on the back burner. Then again, the narrative has more important things to attend to so settling on a tiny bit of fanservice is tolerable. Audiences of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight will probably recognize similar characters upon viewing this such as Gordon’s crooked partner Flass, a questionable Commissioner Loeb, mob boss Carmine Falcone, and a pre Two-Face Harvey Dent. The Year One comic run accounted for a large amount of source material in writing both films, particularly the former.

My point is, is that Batman: Year One has the merits, has the feel, and has the dystopia that comes with the territory, but also brings the writing, the acting, and the presentation to back it up without all the bells and whistles. Those factors alone merit its superiority over Red Hood, but then again that comes from Year One being a superior comic to A Death in the Family and Under the Hood. One note though, while I admire the artwork and its homage to David Mazzucchelli's design, I’m getting a little tired of the CG motor vehicles in these premieres, it's unnecessary no matter how much the technology pushes the envelope. 9 out of 10.

X-Men: First Class - Review

Ah… I remember a time when X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine were non-existent. How the times have changed. X-Men was a good film, not great, but pretty good. X2 was great, satisfying sequel and a definite game changer (until Spider-Man 2 the year after). The third film was mediocre, and Wolverine’s prequel left a very sour taste in my mouth. Let’s face it; passing the director’s chair to Brett Ratner was a terrible idea, but it boils down to Bryan Singer’s mistake, but let’s focus our attention on the present.

X-Men: First Class is a prequel film (like Origins) directed by Matthew Vaughn (Kick-Ass), and returning to the series is Bryan Singer (X-Men, X2: X-Men United), this time as Executive Producer. The film opens with a recreated opening to the first film, in which a young Erik Lensherr is separated from his mother in a concentration camp. In his emotional distress, he awakens his powers over magnetism and bends and distorts a metal gate obstructing him from his mother. However, this time around we actually get to see what happens afterward, Klaus Schmidt (Kevin Bacon), also known as Sebastian Shaw, kills Erik’s mother after he fails to use his powers to move a silver coin at his request. Meanwhile, a young Charles Xavier meets and takes in a young Raven Darkholme, who will later become Mystique.

And so begins X-Men: First Class, the origin of the X-Men in general, at least in sense of the film universe. I won’t bother beating around the bush with this one; this is the best X-Men film thus far. There are some great things in this latest installment that make it exactly that, despite minor issues I have with it.

Of course the biggest question is how James McAvoy portrays a younger Charles Xavier as he forms the X-Men with Erik (Michael Fassbender) at his side. Professor X and Magneto are iconic characters, the two elder titans of the X-Men franchise, and I am happy to say that both McAvoy and Fassbender were well-casted, flawless performances from the both of them. Out of the two performances I would have to favor Fassbender, the best prequel portrayal since Robert DeNiro’s young Vito Corleone, and I will defend that statement.

The plot centers on Xavier and Lensherr forming the X-Men (though they aren’t called that directly) and putting a stop to Sebastian Shaw’s activities, which if succeeded, would mean nuclear war. In the meantime, Erik is out for revenge, as Shaw killed his mother and put Erik through the horrors of The Holocaust. Among the main characters is Raven Darkholme (Jennifer Lawrence), who has stayed with Xavier after he took her in.

The plot is well-executed, and it feels like the Singer films again, though Vaughn brings his own clarity and sense of humor to the table. The characters are surprisingly likeable on the protagonists’ side, though on the antagonists’, villains like Azazel and Riptide are completely underdeveloped, the latter not even having a single line of dialogue. The film also has some continuity issues with the other films, some are welcome, and some irked me. I won’t give out spoilers but I am happy to say that First Class eliminates The Last Stand and Origins from canon, which was a very welcome change for me.

On the whole, this film has more thrills than the previous films, but unlike Origins, it keeps its integrity and doesn’t adhere to action schlock or cliché. Like the first two films, this is a character-driven story, not an acti0n-driven or effects-driven one, between the attention to detail, the solid chemistry between McAvoy and Fassbender, and the believable outcome of this possibly ongoing tale from this point in time. First Class has that passion and humanity that Ratner and Hood muddled in their films and this is as close a redemption as we could want. Apparently, it may be the start of a new trilogy, though the term “prequel trilogy” is synonymous with dread for obvious reasons. They have my support; I just hope they don’t make me regret it. 9 out of 10.

The Godfather: Part III - Review

The Godfather and The Godfather: Part II are two of the most critically acclaimed films in the history of cinema. When I watched The Godfather for the first time, I thought of it as being good but terribly overrated. About a half a year later, I decided to give it a second viewing, and upon this second viewing I enjoyed it much more, and recognize just how fantastic it really is. At the time of this review, I have seen The Godfather: Part II for the first time about a month prior to this. In my personal opinion, The Godfather: Part II is the superior film, an absolute masterpiece and a fantastic sequel at that. I was reluctant to give the third film a try since I’ve heard so much negative backlash toward it.

If you have never seen first two films in the trilogy, then you will scarcely understand the third installment, and therefore this review may not apply to you. Bluntly put, The Godfather: Part III falls into what I like to call “The Curse of the Trilogy”, in which a trilogy contains two solid first installments but the third film doesn’t measure up, and in many cases ends up being a poor film on its own. This curse has plagued sequels for years and it’s hard to find a solid trilogy anymore.

The Godfather: Part III, like the first two films, is directed by Francis Ford Coppola. The film takes place in 1979, twenty years after Part II, in which Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) is older, seasoned, and guilt-ridden about his past. The plot follows Michael’s attempt to finally legitimize the Corleone family, this time via stock exchange and bank percentages involving the Vatican. Joining Michael in his battle against those who obstruct his goal is Vincent Mancini (Andy García), Santino Corleone’s son born from Lucy Mancini, the woman he was having an affair with in the first film. Vincent begins to take matters into his own hands regarding the Corleone family’s actions when Michael is weary and unable to, and begins an incestuous relationship with Michael’s daughter Mary (Sofia Coppola).

This “threequel” is plagued with problems. Most notably is Sofia Coppola’s performance, which is dull, exasperating, and sticks out like a sore thumb when she’s performing next to the brilliant talents of Pacino and Garcia, among others. Another issue is the film’s plot, which makes me feel as if Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo ran out of ideas for this one. The original idea for Part III is another problem I have with it, being that I’m disappointed it wasn’t utilized.

Originally, Part III was to chronicle a split between Michael and Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) from the first two films, and the plot was going to revolve around that. However, Robert Duvall felt insulted by his and Pacino’s intended salaries (being that Pacino had three to four times more) and dropped out of the film, causing a re-write. To me, Part III feels empty without Tom, and I honestly think this original idea would have made for a better follow-up to Part II.

Granted, there are things I liked about it. I actually enjoyed the prerequisite of having to see Part I and II in order to understand most of the third film, I honestly see it as a sort of reward. Pacino’s performance is great as always, and I can sympathize with his torment at this point, but I say García stood out the most, as Coppola said himself, Vincent is very much an amalgamation of the Corleone family males, though with his own respective characteristics.

I wouldn't say that Part III was unnecessary, if the original Godfather was regarded as such a masterpiece, was a sequel to that necessary? I wouldn’t even say Part III is terrible, it’s just disappointing. Unfortunately, it’s something we’ve grown accustomed to when we talk about third movies, save for very few exceptions. 6.5 out of 10.

Daredevil (Director's Cut) - Review

Daredevil is a comic book film directed by Mark Steven Johnson about a lawyer named Matt Murdock, who was chemically blinded as a kid and developed superhuman senses. It was released in 2003 to mixed reception, and rightly so. I felt the original cut had a very weak narrative, pace, and tone. I had heard that the DX version of this film is a favorite among comic book movie fans, I never thought much about getting my hands on it until it was right in front of me. I thought “why not?”, and surprise came surely afterward.

First off, the film is about thirty minutes longer than the original cut. This is a welcome change as the theatrical version felt like scenes were missing. According to Mark Steven Johnson this injustice was done by his producer, much to Johnson’s disapproval. Honestly the producer must have been a complete moron and could be the sole blame to why this film wasn’t as well-received as it could have been. This version should have been theatrically released.

This version has an entire subplot that the theatrical version left out, involving a homicide case revealed to be tied with the Kingpin, a defendant named Coolio, differentiated and extended scenes,  giving the film the R rating it should have had to begin with, which helps it steer away from clichés of the past. Anyone who has seen the film at all will probably remember the scene where Matt and Elektra share their first kiss after his ultra-senses are able to pick up the details of her face in all its extravagance during a downpour. That scene is among many to be altered or extended in some way.

Honestly, it almost feels like an entirely different film. I felt like I was watching what Daredevil should have been right from the start. It’s darker, it’s edgier, it’s more mature, and it’s far more narratively structured. Unfortunately though, while the Director’s Cut does alter Daredevil and Elektra’s intimacy scene (being that it’s removed completely, with Murdock actually leaving when he said he would), it does not remove my least favorite scene in the movie. I’m referring to Matt and Elektra’s little scuffle in the park. This scene irritates me, since Matt Murdock seems to be trying to keep his alter-ego a secret and yet has no problem drawing so much attention to himself just to get a girl’s number. Still, this time Daredevil’s fight against the Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan) parallels him in and out of costume, as it should be. The guy is an attorney, after all.

Ben Urich (Joe Pantoliano) gets more screentime and his investigation is handled with greater detail, including his interactions with Murdock out of costume, and Foggy Nelson (Jon Favreau) becomes a more solidified character as he handles this new case in the re-included subplot and steps out from his cell as just being comic relief. The film is just so much grittier and fitting now, and it even leaves room for a sequel (that we’ll never have) with scenes showing Bullseye (Colin Farrell) in the hospital.

I honestly think that if this version of the film was released in theaters as Johnson originally planned, that it would have been a big hit, but poor decisions make for poor reception. This version should be called “Daredevil – The Complete Film”. 8 out of 10.

Let the Right One In - Review

Let the Right One In (Låt den rätte komma in) is a Swedish film I saw on The Distressed Watcher’s Top Ten Vampire Films list at number one. He said it was one of his favorite films, and the clips he presented in his video intrigued me, so I got my hands on the film and proceeded to sit down and watch. The end result bewildered me. He was absolutely correct.

The film involves a lonesome boy named Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) who is physically tormented and bullied by a group of other kids. In one instance, he gets sliced across the cheek and lies to his mother about it. Oskar spends his evenings imagining revenge to vent out his frustration and desire to get back at them. One night he meets a young girl his age, named Eli (Lina Leandersson, dubbed by Elif Ceylan), and the two quickly become friends, though Oskar points out some peculiar things about Eli. For example, during their first encounter she is outside in pajamas with bare feet in the middle of a very snowy winter. Over time Eli is able to give Oskar confidence to strike back at his tormentors, Oskar eventually comes to the realization that his new friend is a vampire.

Oskar is an abnormal boy for his age, quiet, collected, and morbidly intrigued by crime and forensics, even keeping a scrapbook with newspaper cuttings about murders. Hedebrant's performance conveys a sense of mystery and pity about Oskar's character, when he's feeling vengeful, you in turn feel his anger, and when he is satisfied, you don't doubt it. Eli is his other half, she's just as quiet as he is, but she displays a sense of dominance and intensity, despite her seeming so young on the surface. These two characters feel meant for each other, Oskar brings out Eli's humanity, and Eli brings out Oskar's animosity, and the way this is executed is subtle and crafty.

This is a very unconventional vampire film, one of the many reasons I enjoyed this film so much. The premise is original and executed with absolute finesse. The dialogue is solid and engaging, and it’s perfectly delivered by these young actors. The direction is wonderful; particularly the lighting, which really stood out to me, and I found out that the sets used in the film had no ceilings, so lighting was very well implemented. The setting of the film is like its own character, isolated, desolate. It's almost as if the story exists in its own little world. From the beautiful scenery of vast forest backdrop surrounded by ghost white plain, to the sheer atmosphere of winter's beauty and anonymity. This is a gorgeous movie. To top it off, the plot was simple yet engaging, and I loved the ambiguous qualities of its storytelling.The music did as it should, amplify the tone rather than setting it on its own, its an added level to this already poetic tale. To call this just a film would greatly understate it.

Let the Right One In is absolute poetry, its flawless, beautiful, and skillfully subtle. This is a new addition to my favorite films. At the time of this review I have not seen the American remake by Matt Reeves: Let Me In. While I won't dismiss it, I seriously doubt it will top this masterpiece. 10 out of 10.