Ray's Film & Game Reviews

Error...

2007-04-17T14:38:00.000+12:00

CHUTNEY.

Ray returns and has a WiiGasm!

2006-12-12T10:12:00.000+13:00

Phew I made it! Life has been hectic of late and I apologise to all my readers (read: nobody) for my absence. I have had a lot on my plate:

Doing the graphics for my 5th Season of Animal Planet's - The Most Extreme.

Starting up a video games company with a good friend of mine (which I will post about in more detail, possibly at a new blog site).

Planning my Wedding in 2007.

And most importantly: Playing my Wii!

In fact the Wii is the reason I'm here writing again, I simply feel compelled to share my experience with the Wii as I find the majority of reports and reviews fail to get across the true impact of the "Wii Experience".

The Nintendo Wii:

Holy f**king crap... This thing rocks! Anyone who is on the fence about getting one, pull that fence post out of your ass and run down to your local video games store and buy one now! I understand that may not be possible depending on where you are in the world as the Wii is selling out like crazy. So instead you might want to look for a small boy nearby who was lucky enough to get one and creep into his bedroom at night, bludgeon him to death with your Xbox and steal his Wii. It doesn't matter if you break the Xbox into 30 pieces and get bits of his brain in it; you are NEVER going to use it again anyway.

I haven't been excited about games or consoles in general for what feels like 10 years or so now. When I came home with my Xbox (the first one, not the coma-inducing 360) I could barely raise a smile. How can one get excited when what you are bringing home is essentially an old PC in a big ugly black box, or in the case of the 360; an almost-up-to-date-PC in a white-curvy box?

When my friend and I got our Wiis (and our WiiPlay pack also of course) we practically ran home! Once there we sparked up a large "herbal cigarette", cracked open the champagne (at 10:00am) and had a toast... the anticipation was palpable! When we opened the beautiful box we were meet with the most gorgeously laid out packaging we'd ever seen (trust the Japanese to deliver on this front, their aesthetic taste never fails to impress), once we pulled out the console and the WiiMote we just couldn't believe how bloody small they both are! What incredible engineering... Then when we fired it up it was almost completely silent (unlike my old Xbox which sounds like a Harrier Jet taking off). After struggling with the incredibly simple set-up instructions (because we were so smashed), we finally came to the -once again- aesthetically pleasing WiiChannels screen and set-up the sensor bar etc... Then it was time for what we'd been most anticipating, WiiSports.

WiiSports:

Eat my crap Gamespot! I don't know what's wrong with you guys, maybe you just play way too many games and have totally lost perspective on things, but giving WiiSports a 7.8/10 is totally-f**king-bonkers! WiiSports is hands-down the absolute most fun I have EVER had playing games, and easily the most magical gaming experience I've had since I brought home my Amiga500 when I was 12 and played The Secret of Monkey Island. It doesn't matter that every aspect isn't perfect, what matters is that it is completely innovative and unlike ANYTHING that has come before it. In my opinion, this simply must be taken into consideration when reviewing it. Anyway...

WiiSports has layers and layers of complexity. On first impression it may seem simple because the user-interface and the graphics are purposefully stripped back and the controls are so incredibly intuitive (except perhaps Boxing which I still struggle with). But under this deceptively uncomplicated facade are layers of complexity which only many, many hours of gaming have now revealed to me (and I'm still only seeing the tip of the iceberg.)

Suffice to say I am completely blown away and I am overjoyed that someone in the scarily-unimaginative-risk-adverse-gaming-world has had the balls to do something different and actually be innovative! Nintendo have always thought outside the square, but never before have they done it quite this impressively (though my friend would argue that the DS is as impressive and innovative, if not more so. I don't have one yet, so I can't comment).

We were deep into a Tennis match when a mate came over with his girlfriend. Now in general I think it isn't unfair to say that girls are crap at video games (outside of perhaps Tetris and The Sims), but this rule simply doesn't apply with the Wii. She picked the controller right up and asked "how do I play tennis" and we replied "just hit the ball". Ten seconds later she was beating us because she had played Tennis in real life and we hadn't. Now how many times has that happened in your life! Normally you pass the controller to the girl and explain that "A is accelerate, B is brake, X is Turbo, Y controls the camera, and that stick there turns the car"... Watch as her eyes glaze over and she passes the controller back to you in disdain and reads a magazine instead.

The Wii has opened up games to everyone, young and old, male and female, and most importantly to the elusive non-gamer. In doing so Nintendo have effectively quadrupled its appeal. Not to mention the fitness aspect... After my first gaming session (which admittedly was far too long and without breaks) my body felt like I'd run a marathon; getting fit by playing video games? Now there's another first!

P.S. To all you special people who are throwing your WiiMotes through TVs and windows: You are total-utter-dribbling-retards. In hours, upon hours of frantic gaming the controller has not slipped out of my hand or any of my friends' hands either. So are we just extraordinarily coordinated or are the people destroying their lounges just muppets? I'll let you decide.

TV Shows are better without the ads...

2006-08-17T11:22:00.000+12:00

I have never really followed any TV series closely other than MacGyver when I was a kid, but about a year ago I started noticing that a few programmes on TV seemed pretty good. When I glanced in the TV Box-Sets section in the video shop it dawned on me that I could check out a few of the popular shows without having to sit through tons of ads which I just can't manage; I detest the flow of a story being broken up with loud, crass ads and I don't have Tivo.

It all started with 'Deadwood'. That totally blew me away and made me realise the potential you have with a series in terms of the complex narrative and dense characterisation. Now I am about 16 episodes into '24' Season 1 and I am hooked! I like the fact that it's more like watching a book than a traditional film is. You can spend time on the little details because there isn't such a huge amount of information to cram into a 2-hour film length.

Next up I think I'll check out 'The Wire' (as everyone seems to heap praise upon it endlessly) and after that.... who knows. 'Prison Break' sounds sweet too. And I've never seen a single episode of 'Lost' either!

I always wrote off Television Series as annoying crap (and most of it still is), but now I realise that the bar has been raised for TV series lately and that there are easily 10 or so MUST SEE series that I can't wait to check out.

So for those of you, who like myself, have always been film watchers and have ignored Television, do yourself a favour and check out something from HBO or FOX.

A Few Trailers

2006-07-23T12:48:00.000+12:00

Now this looks very interesting: The Prestige

The hopefully thought provoking and not simply confusing: The Fountain

I can't believe they're back! - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

I didn't like his Ali G film but this looks hilarious: Borat

Underworld Evolution - Huh?

2006-07-17T11:04:00.000+12:00

"There has been a war raging between the [insert name] and the [insert name] for over [insert number] years and now the blah, blah, blah, bullcrap, bullcrap, bullcrap..."

F*ck off with these plots assh*les, it has been done to death. Just make it stop, make it stop... Make it stop!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is one of the most painfully bad films I've had the displeasure of watching in recent memory (and I just watched Seagal's latest so that's saying something!), the performances drift between utterly wooden to overtly camp; the script is bogged down by an overly complex history - which is not interesting anyway- and scene after scene of painful exposition is required just to try and explain all this crap that we don't care about anyway because the heroes are such dorks.

Some people might mistake all this complicated backstory as complex, therefore intelligent... wrong! This film is NOT intelligent, intelligent films make sense. The complex backstories of each character and the general history of the feud between Vampire and Werewolf is needlessly complicated, and seeing as I don't care about the charmless protagonists why am I going to bother listening to all this sort of dribble: "So you're a werewolf vampire mix, I'm a vampire and he's the father of both a vampire and a werewolf, so therefore if I drink his blood and have sex with you I will become... um, something else and then I can defeat that big bat guy... right?" I mean really, what the f*ck is all this crap and why am I meant to care?

Occasionally the sleep inducing talking scenes are interrupted by a burst of stylish action, but it's not enough to save this turkey.

God help us if this guy really ends up directing Die Hard 4.

3/10

Rocky Balboa Trailer!

2006-07-12T09:51:00.000+12:00

F*ck Yeah!

(Click pic to enlarge)

A trailer hasn't made me feel this good in years. Personally I can't wait to see Stallone back on the big screen after languishing in direct-to-video hell for the past decade. He deserves better, he's a great actor in my books, and a solid writer and director to boot. I have full confidence that this is the comeback that the fans want. Though I'm still not too sure about Rambo 4; that's a whole other kettle of fish (not that I know exactly what a kettle of fish is).

Do yourself a favour and check out this brilliant trailer in yummy quicktime or crusty windows media.

And remember: It ain't over till it's over.

Seagal: Fire Down Below (1997) - Film Review

2006-07-06T12:24:00.000+12:00

TAGLINE:

'Beneath a land of wealth and beauty hides a secret that could kill millions. Undercover has never run so deep.'

INTRO:

As some of you out there may know, there is a special sect of humans called Seagalogists... I am one of them. We follow the works of a remarkable man, the one and only Mr Steven Seagal. Allow me to list a few of his incredible achievements:

Battled the Yakuza over the rights to run an Aikido Dojo in Japan (though his ex-wife claims he just "shouted at some drunk guys").

Broke Sean Connery's wrist while helping with stunts on Never Say Never Again.

Has his own Energy Drink called Lightning Bolt!

Is a reincarnated Buddhist Lama... of course.

Wastes the stuntmen on his films for real.

Collects swords and telephones.

Can play a guitar almost as well as he can hurt people.

For further proof of Seagal's genius, check out this comprehensive overview at Wikipedia.

PLOT:

In the opening credits montage we learn that Jack Taggart (Seagal) has lost a friend because some asshole dropped nasty toxic waste barrels on his head, ingeniously we know this dude is Seagal's really good friend because Seagal says to him "I really value your friendship". So Seagal heads down to Hillbilly hell to figure out what happened to his mate, fix some porches, and beat up guys in bad shirts.

REVIEW:

*Contains some Spoilers*

Out For Justice is Seagal's best film, Undersiege is his most popular and Fire Down Below is... well, neither his best film nor his most popular, it's the one where he plays guitar and wears a large jacket with tassels... but he kicks a lot of arse too, so it's all good.

All kidding aside, I had a blast with this film. I'd seen it years ago and dismissed it as dull, but on repeat viewing it has really grown on me. Sure it's a bit slow, but the setting is unique, the plot is actually fairly good (for its type of film) and the action is brutal. In fact I'd go as far as to say I'd rate it as his second best film after Out For Justice and I think you should ignore its severely low rating at IMDB (4.1/10) and just watch it with an open mind (and a joint and 6-pack).

Seagal's friend was confused. The arm around the shoulder was nice, but the gun sent a conflicting message...

One thing that Fire Down Below really brought to my attention is that Seagal never -and I mean never- gets hurt by anyone. I can't confirm that he has never been hit a single time by any opponent in the history of his films, but as I scan through scenes in my head I can't specifically remember an instance of him ever being hurt. Seagal tends to focus on dishing out the pain and he excels at it. We have everything you could ever want here, including: Metal pipes smashed into faces and balls; broken wrists; broken faces and... well you get the idea. But of course, along with smashing metal pipes into balls we also get an 'Environmental Message' which is something like "don't pollute nature"... but even this positive message isn't sufficient, Seagal goes a further step and adds a message about molestation: "Hillbilly's shouldn't feel up their little sister or they might end up being shot in the chest and then being covered in toxic waste". As if that wasn't enough, there's another couple of messages, one about the effects of poor parenting and another about... oh, who cares? You just watch these for the action anyway, right?

Action wise things are pretty solid. There are several duels which boil down to Seagal vs four or five overconfident idiots, whom he promptly mops up. The fights are very short and brutal; not quite up there with Out For Justice, but in Seagal's defence he is a bit older in this and doesn't seem as fast as he used to be (in fact there are a few speed-up shots which I didn't like). The main problem action wise is that he doesn't face a single dude who poses any sort of challenge, which means there is zero suspense in the action scenes because you just know Seagal is going to triumph in mere seconds... but this is also what defines Seagal as an action hero and makes him unique, so I'm down with it. It's fun to look at where the dumbasses are standing and see if you can guess the order Seagal is going to take them out in, hey maybe you can turn it into a drinking game, I know I did!

Seagal enjoyed holding hands with cops and going for a nice walk, but then when they least expected it, he'd break their wrists and shoot them.

There is a love interest in the film which feels a little tacked on, but there was something quite bizarre about it also: Seagal shamelessly uses her as a tool for information, which doesn't seem like a very noble thing to do really. Sure, he makes it up to her slightly by fixing her steps and buying all her honey (don't ask), but it still raises some serious questions about his respect for her. However, he does kill her unpleasant brother so I guess it all works out in the end: "You killed my brother... God I love you".

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

Fire Down Below is a bit slow at times, but it's well made and quite different to the usual action fare of the 90's. Seagal may come across as a smug, egotistical wanker (which totally works for the character!), but you can't deny his commanding physical presence and this film really plays to those strengths. I always enjoyed seeing him trade amusing quips with the Hillbilly scum before smashing their faces in, and I think you will too.

7/10

Clerks II: Perky Nipples Strike Back

2006-07-05T14:37:00.000+12:00

Two great reasons to see Clerks II:

Wowza!

After repeated viewings you may even notice that Kevin Smith is standing next to the lovely Rosario Dawson.

Click here to check out the cool making-of video that these shots are 'borrowed' from at Apple.com

Superman Returns - Film Review

2006-06-30T11:21:00.000+12:00

OFFICIAL SYNOPSIS:

"Superman - born on a planet which has long since died - has been raised by adoptive parents on the Kent farm in Kansas. The young boy Kal-El is renamed Clark Kent, and though he has grown up among humans, he is not one of them. Under Earth's yellow sun, he can do things humans can only dream of, but to co-exist with them he must live a dual life as mild, unassuming Clark Kent, secretly transforming into the Man of Steel when the world cries out for him.

But now, the world's crises have gone unheeded for five long years since Superman's mysterious disappearance. Without him, crime has risen in the city of Metropolis and beyond; that's not even counting the future destructive acts of Lex Luthor, who has been sprung from prison with the specific intent of using Superman's technological secrets for his own personal gain and glory.

Lois Lane, star reporter for the Daily Planet and the love of Superman's life, has moved on since Superman left without a word. She has even won a Pulitzer Prize for her essay, "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman." Lois has other issues to contend with - she is now engaged to the editor's nephew and has a young son to look after.

But for Superman, the long search for his place in the universe ends back at the Kent farm, among the only family he has ever known. His destiny lies in Metropolis, where one look in Lois's eyes tells him that this place, among the flawed but ultimately good people of Earth, is his true home. And with Lex's plan coming to fruition mere hours after his return, the world will never need Superman more than it does now."

REVIEW:

When the lights went down in the cinema I was surprised by how excited I really was to see Superman Return to the big screen, and then, when the classic theme song came on I couldn't stop myself from grinning madly. I felt like I was in for something special... so how did I feel by the end?

I was satisfied overall, but I have to be honest and say that I definitely wasn't blown away like I'd hoped I'd be. It's really cool the way this film feels like the old ones yet has a new incredibly polished look. However the emphasis on melodrama, at times, is simply too much and detracts from the fun I should have been having. While there are many exciting action scenes and cool Superman moments, there's an over abundance of meaningful stares and longing glances; to the point that it bogs the film down under its own ponderous weight and ultimately feels a little pretentious. I couldn't help but remember how good the old Superman films made me feel and the lightness that Christopher Reeve' bought to the Man of Steel. Brandon Routh is a good Superman/Clark Kent, and at times it's uncanny how similar he looks, acts and sounds like the late Christopher Reeve (whether this is a good thing is up for debate), but this Superman is so emotionally conflicted that there isn't so much a twinkle in his eye, as there is a tear. Yes this is a modern Superman, and with that come the trappings of the modern man; he's overly sensitive and worries too much... come on Superman, surely you aren't meant to be quite this contemplative?

Superman lost in thought... again!

But have no fear, even if Superman Returns is a little too melancholy, it is still an awesome spectacle. The build-up to seeing him -as Superman- for the first time is brilliant and Bryan Singer absolutely milks this scene for everything he can. There are countless other classic Superman moments where he catches huge falling objects before they crush people and puts out fires with his ice cool breath, yet looking back, it is difficult to pin-point another scene that -outside of the plane scene from the trailers- left a big impression. There are several cool bits (like the amazing shot where a bullet crumples against Superman's eye) , but nothing that quite topped the plane scene; I thought they may have saved the best till last, but sadly this is not the case unless you count Superman lifting something very, very large as a worthy climactic feat... I didn't.

By now you may have read a few other reviews, and one thing that's clear is some people love that Superman Returns feels like the original films, while others see this as detrimental and lacking in originality. Personally I think it's cool the way it connects to the old films and this mimicry - or homage if you prefer - of the original is not its source of weakness, that source is Lex Luther. I am not a fan of diabolical schemes (I hated Magneto's stupid plan in the first X-Men) and Lex's plan in Superman Returns is utterly moronic. I know, I know, it's just a comic book movie and stupid diabolical plans come with the territory, but did it have to be this monumentally idiotic? If you've seen the film you will know that Lex's plan makes little logical sense and it strongly detracted from my ability to accept him as a ruthless mastermind; no mastermind would have such severe lapses in logic would he? I can only hope that Lex is not the main bad guy in the inevitable sequel, because it would be absolutely thrilling to see Superman battle a new and more physically challenging Nemesis.

Superman is Back! And in style.

The rest of the cast are fairly good. I missed the old Lois Lane's manic energy, but her more serious demeanor is in keeping with the new film's melancholy vibe. The kid was pretty annoying -what is with kids haircuts in American films?- and wasn't integrated into the story particularly well... but it will be interesting to see where his storyline goes in the sequels.

Much like Tim Burton's Batman films, when Superman Returns finished I was asking myself "Well who is this Superhero and what makes him tick?", unlike Batman Begins -where I felt really satisfied with my understanding of why Batman does what he does- Superman Returns kept me at arm's length, never quite letting me get close to the Man in Tights. It isn't helped by the fact that Superman and Clark Kent barely speak. I can understand why the filmmakers did this -sometimes less is more- particularly when it comes to a hero, but you can only take so many lingering shots of Superman deep in thought before you feel shut out by him.

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

Superman Returns has an old-fashioned quality about it, yet has the unmistakable glossy sheen that only modern-huge-budget films can have. Brandon Routh had big boots to fill and he pulled it off... He is Superman. The action is thrilling, the emotional aspects work overall but are a little too dominant, particularly as we approach the end. The over-reliance on a CG Superman was distracting and had me wondering why Brandon Routh was on wires for months on end if he was just going to be replaced by a CG Superman most of the time. Lex Luther's plan sucked - even if Lex himself was well acted by Kevin Spacey. Basically, less melodrama and more action would have improved Superman Returns in my eyes, yet then it wouldn't be the emotionally complex film that Bryan Singer wanted. I just hope that the twinkle is back in Supes' eyes when he Returns again and that he has a more impressive vilian to face next time, because the potential that Bryan Singer has re-opened is massive. Superman really is back!

8/10

Van Damme's 'The Quest' - DVD Review

2006-06-27T14:46:00.000+12:00

THE QUEST (1996)

*This review does contain a few plot spoilers, but I don't believe they will strongly detract from your enjoyment of the film (and let's face it, if you are willing to read this epic review you are probably a Van Damme fan already and have seen The Quest five times by now!)

PLOT SYNOPSIS (from Amazon.com):

"Christopher Dubois (Jean-Claude Van Damme) embarks on an odyssey of self-discovery that spans the globe. Kidnapped and enslaved by gun smugglers, sold by pirates and thrust into the murky underworld of gambling and kickboxing, Chris' journey takes him to forbidding Muay Thai Island where deadly martial arts are taught, the colonial splendor of British East Asia, the dank back alleys of Bangkok, desolate deserts once trod by the warriors of Genghis Khan and finally, the ancient Lost City. There he must face the ultimate test of his manhood in the fabled Ghang-gheng, the ancient winner-take-all competition in which the deadliest fighters from around the world employ the most spectacular feats of martial arts skills ever displayed in order to win the prized Golden Dragon. But fighting prowess alone will not be enough for Chris to triumph over such daunting foes. He must reach deep inside and access all of the determination, strength of character and sense of selfless honor within in order to triumph over this final obstacle on his long trek home."

Or a more succinct way to put it would be: Through a bizarre series of events Van Damme ends up at a fighting Tournament and beats up a bunch of people.

MY OPINION:

Van Damme returns to what made him a star: the classic "tournament" style action film and - as the fans out there already know - he takes on the duties of co-writer, star and director! This is the genre that we all know and love him for, and it makes total sense that this was his directing debut... unfortunately the result is decidedly mixed.

The first thing that's apparent is the amount of trouble Van Damme and his production design team have gone to to make 'The Quest' look unique. This isn't the usual gritty visual approach to the genre, it's far more majestic, however, this thin viel of classy looks can't hide what lies beneath - Bloodsport with a big budget. You could argue that it's unfair to criticise this, as all "tournament" style action films basically boil down to finding a reason for the hero to fight in a ring (the usual being "you killed my brother/sister/family/mentor" etc...), but seeing as they are clearly attempting to stretch beyond these conventions I can't help but point out where they failed - but I still respect Van Damme for attempting to take the genre in a new direction and turn it into more of an action-adventure-globetrotting, martial-arts-extravaganza!

Things start out pretty differently than you'd expect: After a short (and frankly amusing) introduction sequence, Van Damme (made up to look old) beats up some punks in a bar and says "It was long ago...", fade to the past and he is quite literally a clown! What follows is a series of painful scenes where they try to establish that Christopher Dubois (Van Damme) is just a gosh-darn-it-splendid-individual who wants to "help the kids" by -ironically- stealing money from a local gangster. Of-course things don't turn out too well for our thief (because stealing is bad) and after a short chase Van Damme ends up stowed away on a boat heading for who knows where.

What follows is a little more conventional. Van Damme is discovered on the boat and forced to work by the unpleasant looking sweaty pirates, and they don't make things any easier for him when they put him in hand-cuffs -which raises the question: where would he escape to exactly, the ocean? Thankfully for Van Damme, a bearded James Bond (Roger Moore) turns up and witnesses him kicking some butt and is duly impressed, so he shoots some pirates, saves Van Damme's life and then blasts off those pesky hand-cuffs and brings him aboard his own boat.

Van Damme of course owes Roger Moore, but then here's the strange part: Roger Moore just leaves Van Damme on some Island occupied by natives training in Muay-Thai Kick-Boxing and what follows isn't quite what you expect. I assumed I was about to witness a cool Van Damme training sequence (like in Kickboxer) but instead he merely scrubs floors and watches the locals train (I guess he only needs to watch a fighting style to learn it, or perhaps the training sequence is sitting on the cutting room floor somewhere?). Ultimately we cut back to civilisation and we are meant to assume that he did get some training in (after impressing the Muay-Thai folk with back-flip kicks or something) and now he is a popular fighter, worth your money in the ring.

Anyway... this is getting a bit plot heavy! What basically follows is Van Damme teams up with Roger Moore and his chubby friend (who are also thieves) and some reporter chick who adds absolutely nothing to the plot, and they concoct a plan to tag along with the World Heavyweight Boxing Champion so they can steal the famed Golden Dragon which is the prize for winning the Ghang-gheng (the worlds greatest tournament), held at the Lost City. Along the way they discover that the Boxer is really a big sissy and so Van Damme takes his place and FINALLY gets around to kicking lots of arse! As you can see it takes a while to get to the fighting, and the bummer is once you are there, things are a bit disappointing.

The fighting just doesn't manage to elicit much of an emotional response. It is somehow strangely unsatisfying and lacking in impact. While it is cool to place bets and shout "I bet the Soviet Union guy will kicks that Spanish guys' arse!", the actual fights lack the precision and style that made them so cool in Van Damme's previous tournament films. Though that's not to say that there aren't some cool action moments.

Things aren't helped by the dull sub-plot that we continue to cut back to during the climax (where Roger Moore and his chum are attempting to steal the Golden Dragon), it's meant to add dimension to the story, but all you really want to see is the fighting or at the very least have the sub-plot focus on Van Damme's character rather than the supporting characters. And herein lies one of The Quest's biggest problems, after the initial -and admittedly thin- character scenes for Van Damme, he is then relegated to either sitting around waiting to fight, or actually fighting. There isn't a palpable sense of tension as we draw closer to the final fight with the large, mute Mongolian (who likes to break tables). Once the fight begins I found myself not particularly caring for Van Damme's welfare and wasn't really rooting for him like I usually would in the final fight scenes. It simply doesn't compare to previous final fights in Bloodsport, Kickboxer and Wrong Bet.

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

On the one hand I think the Quest has an old-fashioned charm and I like its straight forward approach. I admire Van Damme's attempt to merge action-adventure with Martial-Arts (even if it's not entirely successful) and a few of the fights are pretty cool. On the downside, the fighting is predominantly a letdown (particularly the climax), the supporting characters are fairly pointless and Van Damme's character doesn't get enough of the focus, rendering him dull and difficult to empathise with. Still, The Quest does provide Van Damme with some really cool moments (if only they had added up to something) and ultimately it entertained me.

The Quest 6/10

Picture:
The anamorhpic widescreen image was fairly vivid, with no major compression issues, though considering it's not that old, I'm sure a nicer image could be sourced for a new Special Edition.

Sound:
I was disappointed to find that my version only sported Dolby Stereo and not the 5.1 surround mix that some other DVD versions apparently have. However dialogue was clear and every hit was accordingly bone-crunching.

___________________

Van Damme is rumoured to be returning to this genre with the long in development Bloodsport sequel, so here's hoping it turns out good because it would be awesome to see him in one last, big, kick-arse martial-arts extravaganza!

Read my review of Van Damme's most recent DVD - Second in Command

The Commodore C-64 8-bit 'microcomputer'

2006-06-22T21:28:00.000+12:00

Umm, no, it wasn't 64 bit

The Commodore 64 is, even in 2006, the most popular personal computer ever made. Using advanced probabilistic analysis ans tri-binary statistical modelling we can therefore conclude from this that it must have been, while not totally hopeless, at least not as good as the alternatives at the time.

Since when has the most popular machine been the best choice? (If you can think of an example, email me, please).

Well i'm here to share the experience of what a wonderful machine it was, and how the majority made the right choice (perhaps something to do with the fact that it was largely intelligent 'early adopters'???).

It was not the most powerful machine around, except perhaps for it's audio capabilities. It didn't have the best operating system - Microsoft may have had something to do with this (no, really!). The amount of RAM was pretty adequate given the length of letters I used to write at the time:

Dear mummy

Happy birthday

love from me

xo

- Much longer than this and you would need the RAM expansion pack.

The keyboard was a pleasure to type on, as long as each time you pressed a key Jason Donnovan received a voodoo keypress somewhere as painful as the loading time for a decent C-64 game.

The signal on the TV was almost always warped or skewed somehow with bad colour reproduction. The sound typically came out of a TV speaker and was actually not too bad. The only mouse for the machine was a hoax put out by commodore to take the piss out of those stupid enough to buy it (me).

So why was it so wonderful? Well before the days of Kazzaaaza and Limeywire or whatever p2p thinggy you like to run, we had BMXnet.

BMXnet was MUCH more reliable than p2p - a 3 hour session might net you up to 20 games, including fresh air, exersize and hanging with friends. Today 3 hours with p2p will get you 4 empty glasses of whiskey, lots of swearing and high blood pressure. The only problem we ever had was disk space, and instead of deleting existing games or emptying the 'windows temp directory' bollocks, one just BMX'ed to the nearest computer shop for another box of 10 Verbatims. And who remembers the smell of a fresh box of disks? Peeling off those new labels, mmmm. Punching the hole in the side of the disk to magically get twice the disk space (what the hell was the point in that? It was fun but.... I? who? heh mmm. Who knows. Where did I put my whiksey? oh...)

So the point is that what made the machine so wonderful was the shear pleasure of piracy. Each game was a single side of a disk, occasionally a whole disk. The disk could be labelled 'Marble Madness' and put into the 100 disk partitioned disk cabinet for later browsing in a comfortable dancing of the fingers flipping through the nicely organised sections (Utilities - 5 disks, Word Processors - 2 disks, Misc - 1 disk, Games - 176 disks. Simple!).

Are any of the games worth playing now? I have spent a bit of time really enjoying playing Airwolf, a side-on physics based helicopter game. 'Physics?' you say? The C64 needed programmers to create something interesting to play with to move a game, as there were never large art crews and level designers.

Some cool physics effect went along way. This is something that has been lost for years in modern PC games.

Anyway I really don't want to get distracted here. Along with the Amiga that came a few years later, and the PC in the early DOS days of 6 (crap) games per disk, there has never been a more golden era for software piracy. As a kid there was absolutely no chance of being able to afford games, so there was no real moral issue (at least for me!).

So the point of the story is piracy is enough to solidify a platform as a fantastic overall experience. And why DRM is going to make or break platforms in the future...

Full respect of course to those hard working programmers of the time, trying to support their families by squeesing an amazing amount of fun from a machine with less RAM than the cache on the hemorrhoid monitoring chip enplanted in my ass.

Rest in peace, C-64. We'll miss you. Thing on a spring we hope to see you again in the future. C-64 mouse burn in hell, fuck face.

Second in Command - Ray's Review

2006-06-15T10:29:00.000+12:00

OFFICIAL PLOT SYNOPSIS:

"Jean Claude plays an official who's just been appointed as Second In Command to the U.S.Ambassador at an American Embassy in a small, turbulent Eastern European nation.When local insurgents attempt a coup d'etat, the nation's President takes refuge inside the embassy.The embassy is then besieged by the well-armed insurgents.The U.S. Ambassador is killed in the ensuing action, an now it's up to Jean Claude and the embassy's small detachment of U.S. Marines to fend off the attackers."

INTRO:

I believe action films come in two main varieties:

1. The hero mold: Where the protagonist is front, right and centre stage. The whole film revolves around him and there are only the bare minimum of scenes regarding additional characters and story. The filmmakers have no fear when it comes to really making the hero larger than life and provide him with countless show-off scenes and money-shots. They are films which focus exclusively on the hero at the cost of story, but which enable you to really root for your hero (like Bloodsport for example).

2. The story mold: Where the protagonist is just a cog in a larger machine, swept along by the narrative, and often has less screen-time as a result (while the filmmakers connect all the dots of their story). He is often a little more realistic too, as the more complex stories (even the stupid ones) require him to advance the plot and don't provide the hero with enough moments to just be 'the man' (which is the case with Second in Command).

I think it is particularly painful to watch the "story mold" films when they are low budget, because the scripts are usually poor, yet for some reason they are unnecessarily complicated as if the screenwriters have gotten so wrapped up in their cliche ridden story that they have forgotten to create "hero scenes", which then just seem like an afterthought, randomly inserted into the overly convoluted plot to appease audiences. But they've got it around the wrong way! Their plot should be there to simply support the hero and to provide him with countless action scenes where he can shine (and I believe it doesn't have to result in a stupid story either). These days it's like filmmakers fear taking the over-the-top "80's" approach and don't want to glorify their hero, and as a result there will never be another Cobra, Commando or Bloodsport, just more limp, overly plotted films like Second In Command that don't satisfy our action-hero cravings.

REVIEW:

Even with my expectations low I came away very disappointed by Second In Command, this is simply not the kind of film I - as a huge and loyal Van Damme fan - want to see him in. The recent 'Wake of Death' and 'In Hell' were much closer to what works for Van Damme and were a step in the right direction - as reviews indicated - after the tepid 'The Order' and the shockingly inept 'Derailed', alas Second In Command is a step backwards. Like I stated in my intro: Second In Command is not the type of film which plays to his strengths or allows a true action-hero like Van Damme to 'do-his-thing', it merely leaves him standing around as the plot advances, providing him with only an occasional moment to shine (and even these moments are handled poorly, particularly the final fight scene).

If this was a larger budget film, with a more original plot and stronger actors to deliver it, we might have ended up with a solid war film, but the low-budget-direct-to-DVD market is simply not the place to make these types of films. Sure, Second In Command looks good in the basic shoot-out scenes, but once things escalate (and the terrible CG helicopters arrive) things look terribly fake and as a result it's impossible to suspend your disbelief. I didn't see real military men, I saw actors in uniforms trying desperately to seem authoritative and failing. Even in huge-budget war films it can prove difficult to convince audiences of its authenticity (such as in Windtalkers) let alone in a small budget production like this.

Yet sometimes a low budget film can rise above its limitations with the help of a talented director, but this is not the case here. Simon Fellows gets the job done - and the production looks good considering the budget - but he has little grasp on what makes action cool. Take one look at the best action directors and you see the flare, precision and skill they bring to even the most brief and seemingly unimportant action scene. Second In Command is the worst kind of action film-making, the director simply shoots a bunch of 'coverage' and then edits it together later on; you have no sense of geography as the shoot-outs occur, it simply edits from a shot of a 'good guy' firing a gun to a shot of a 'bad guy' firing his gun... and so on until one of them falls over dead. It's not dynamic or cool, it's just there. Trust me, I'm as sick to death as the next guy of poor imitations of John Woo's style, but if this is the alternative, I'd take a cheap imitation of Woo any day.

So what bits are good? Well Van Damme himself is looking good for his age, his face is getting more creases and as a result he looks more rugged which suits him, he's put on a bit more muscle which is a relief to see as he looked a bit emaciated in some recent films. Van Damme's acting comes off as pretty good, which is a feat in itself when you consider how dull his character is. One thing you can say is that he's still charming and has a strong screen presence (particularly evident when acting against such a bland supporting cast). The few fights and the countless shoot-outs are all unexciting and frankly tedious, but there is one highlight where - after saving some hostages - Van Damme crushes a guy's balls, then kicks them, then knees them and then - as if that's enough already - sticks his thumbs through the guy's eye sockets... now that's what I call Van Dammage! More violence like that would have gone along way.

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

If you want an heroic and exciting action film go rent something Van Damme made long ago. If you want a TV-movie-style-War-film where Van Damme stands around nodding and occasionally shoots a gun this is everything you could ever ask for. But seriously, the bottom line is this is one of his weakest films and only worth seeing if you are a huge fan who will take whatever they can get.

Second in Command - 4/10

If you want to know where I'm coming from, here's how I'd rate Van Damme's previous films:

Great:
Bloodsport
Lionheart
Kickboxer
Hard Target
Double Impact
Universal Soldier
Timecop

Good:
In Hell
Replicant
The Quest
Sudden Death
Cyborg
Nowhere to Run
Death Warrant

Poor:
Inferno
Legionnaire
Double Team
Maximum Risk
Knock Off
Black Eagle

Terrible:
Second In Command
Derailed
The Order
Universal Soldier: The Return
Street Fighter: The Movie

Pixar's CARS - Ray's Review

2006-06-13T09:27:00.000+12:00

(Cast/Crew list, Production details etc at IMDB)

PLOT SYNOPSIS:

On the way to the most important race in his life, an ego-centric racecar called Lightning McQueen gets lost in the night - because his lights are just 'stickers' - and ends up in a place he dubs 'Hillbilly Hell', a quaint little dilapidated town that's been totally bypassed by the new interstate. While stuck there McQueen discovers things about himself that he doesn't like and the small town inhabitants (all cars in case you were wondering) help him discover the true meaning of friendship and teamwork... queue cheesy ending where our hero is morally redeemed and all is well.

RAY'S OPINION:

Just so you know where I'm coming from here's where I stand regarding Pixar:

The Incredibles 10/10. Finding Nemo 10/10. Toy Story 1 and 2 10/10. Monsters Inc. 6/10. A Bug's Life 8/10.

As you can see I'm a pretty huge fan and there is no denying Pixar's incredible track record; they have pumped out amazing film after amazing film, all with great characters, well developed stories and... well, that are all just such amazing productions. With the exception of Monsters Inc. I own them all on DVD and re-watch them frequently.

So onto Cars. I feared that this would be the first time I'd be letdown by a Pixar film because the premise and trailers just did nothing for me... I mean talking cars! But outside of a few elements that were weak - and I'll get to them shortly - it was a good (not great) Pixar film which I would rate higher than Monsters Inc, but which frankly doesn't compare to the recent achievements of Finding Nemo and The Incredibles.

The really strange thing about Cars is the "reality" we are dealing with. The entire world is populated by Cars, there are no humans (which begs the question who built the first car, but that's getting into the 'chicken or the egg' territory), even the flies are little V-Dubs with wings! I never really accepted this reality; it's not like any of the previous Pixar films where you can imagine that the characters co-exist in a world somewhat like ours... no, this is an alternate reality where there are only cars and I never quite bought it. I know animated films are all about letting your imagination go wild, but it just never made sense on any level for me and at times I found my mind wandering because the reality presented raised so many questions. Trust me, I desperately wanted to just let go of stupid questions and get into it, but the questions would just keep popping into my head like "how can the metal bend when they are talking?". I know talking animals (or Toys for that matter) is just as ludicrous, but at least they have mouths.

Visually, Cars is a mixed bag. The opening and closing scenes at the raceways are particularly dull, I couldn't help thinking how much cooler it would all look if Lightning McQueen was a Rally Car rather than Nascar-like. There's only so much you can do to make a large circuit of cement look interesting and it doesn't exactly make for a visually appealing start and end to the film. However, once we are away from the circuit things look considerably better; the night scenes on the freeway; the rolling deserts and the forgotten town of Radiator Springs all look great. The attention to detail is pretty astounding really, but it's never as beautiful as Finding Nemo or as interesting as The Incredibles.

The story is typical Pixar fare and is sometimes agonizingly predictable, but it's made up for by the interesting characters. The characters may all be cliches, but the funny thing is they are Cars, not people, and this twist makes them all the more bizarre and amsuing. We have the Stoner VW from the 60's who sells organic fuel and rants about government conspiracy theories, an Hispanic Hotrod that re-sprays himself on a daily basis, a Hillbilly Tow-Truck, a Militaristic Jeep... and the list goes on. Suffice to say they are memorable and well designed, but they took longer than usual to grow on me and simply don't compare to strong personalities like Buzz Lightyear and Woody.

Cars hits its stride in what you could roughly call its second act, these scenes are set in Radiator Springs and by the time McQueen had to leave, I truly didn't want him to, which is testament to how charming it all was, but then the cheesy ending at the visually uninteresting race circuit comes along and the charm evaporates and I found myself bored again like I felt at the start (in fact the first 20 or so minutes of Cars is probably the least I've ever enjoyed a Pixar creation).

It also doesn't help that Owen Wilson's one-note act is pretty stale by now, even if he does have an interesting voice that lends itself well to animation I think I would have preferred an unknown voice to allow myself to believe in the character a little more. All the other voices are fine, though nothing stands out as particularly memorable.

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

On the negative side Cars has a slightly weak beginning and ending, bland visuals at times and a predictable story. On the bright side the middle section is involving, some scenes are hilarious (particularly the 'tractor tipping' scene), the characters are quite touching and some of the visuals are incredible. So overall it's a mixed bag, but certainly not a poor film by any means. If another Animation studio released it I'd be less harsh, but one expects such greatness from Pixar, especially from the main man himself (it also didn't help that the trailer for their next film: 'Ratatouille' looked far more appealing than Cars!).

CARS - 7/10

2006: Year of the pirate game

2006-06-11T10:58:00.000+12:00

A slew of pirate games were released in 2003 to capitalise on the Disney movie 'Pirates of the Carribean'. It seems the success has encouraged a new generation of games to be released around the time of the Disney sequel to PotC.

I was keen on finding out which, if any, of these games I should be looking forward to. I didn't bother reading previews which in my opinion are usually about as accurate as the game developers PR departments are honest (i.e. nil). Instead I have linked directly to screenshots for each game so you can get a feeling for what might be interesting. In some cases there are no public screenies yet so the link goes to the gamespot page for the game.

In breif, look forward to Age of Pirates and Swashbucklers. If you are looking for a good pirate game in release, look no further than the critically acclaimed 'Sid Meier's Pirates!'.

No release date:

Pirates of the Burning Sea (MMPOG)

Release in 2006:

Pirates of the Carribean online (Q3 2006) (MMPOG) - (WARNING: DISNEY)

Age of Pirates, Captains Blood (Q3 2006)

Age of Pirates, Carribean Tales (June 2006) (SEA DOGS II)

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Legend of Jack Sparrow (Jun 27, 2006)

Swashbucklers: Blue vs Grey

Swashbucklers: Legacy of Drake

In release:

World of Pirates (MMPOG)

Sid Meier's Pirates! (Gamespot score 9.2!)

Pirates of the Caribbean (2003) - (Gamespot score 7.6) (Not as often reported Sea Dogs II - this was put on hold while a watered down version was made for Disney)

Pirate Hunter (2003) - (Gamespot score 7.1)

Tropico 2: Pirate cove (2003) - (Gamespot score 7.4)

Depp taking acting lessons?

2006-05-25T01:07:00.000+12:00

Pirates of the Carribean star Johnny Depp has been taking the Disney trilogy very seriously.

"I knew this was the big one, so I had to be prepared", said Depp to our US current affairs correspondent. "In preperation I looked to my master and now spiritual leader, Orlando Bloom".

Orlando has been guiding Johnny Depp through a series of zen meditation exersizes aimed at enhancing the actor's ability to master the stare.

The stare is regarded by many to be the holy grail in acting. Few have managed to attain the hightened focused concentration required for at times up to three minutes or more. Usually a skill held almost exclusively by a tribe of ferral buddist monks* in eastern Timaru, Mr Bloom, now considering early retirement after perfecting the art of acting, wishes to pass the art on so that it may live on in Hollywood.

Readers may view the film at its UK premiere at the London Portrait gallery, where noted sculpter Vacanto Fleelegeelegeeeehge will be marking the occasion by casting the stare in plaster, safefuarding it for future generations.

* The Buddist Monks previously helped Steven Seagal in pefecting his own variation of the stare, known as the frowning stare.

Animation DVD Reviews: Brother Bear. Balto. Anastasia

2006-05-11T11:35:00.000+12:00

I'm going to make these reviews a little shorter than usual because I think it might do my head in if I have to review 3 more animated films in depth! Please note, while these are DVD reviews I am only reviewing the films themselves, not the extras.
__________________________

BROTHER BEAR (2003)
PLOT:

Boy in rush to be a man. Boy doesn't respect animals. Boy becomes bear. Boy learns to respect animals and realises that showing love doesn't make you a pansy.

REVIEW:

Oh dear... I think the opening song sums up most of what is wrong with this recent Disney effort. We sweep over mountain tops, eagles soar, animals seem to live in harmony and, um, haven't I seen this somewhere before, done better I might add; yes, a sense of déjà vu hangs strongly over Brother Bear as the opening seemingly imitates The Lion King's opening, yet somehow it evokes little emotion. I'm not a huge fan of "The Circle of Life" it's very cheesy, but I have to admit that it works well and creates a very powerful opening for The Lion King. Yet here in Brother Bear we have a song that grates on the nerves more than anything, and visuals that regardless of the obvious effort put into them are just "there". I found most of Brother Bear like this: It's just all too familiar to be effective and outside of the relationship between the two main bears there is little to connect with emotionally.

The "comic-relief" moose are funny in places, but don't feel as organic to the story as other comic characters have managed to be in other Disney films - such as Abu in Aladdin, or Pumbaa and Timon in The Lion King. However, the fighting rams are quite inspired and made me laugh.

The story is simply too predictable to be enjoyable. I know these films are essentially made for kids but somehow most other Disney efforts don't feel this generic. It's like a recipe has been used: Take one moral lesson (love is good), take a few funny animals, set up a couple of basic obstacles and add a large portion of cheesy music and mix - result: An uninspired, by-the-numbers film called Brother Bear.

The bottom line is that I have little desire to watch Brother Bear again, where as I'd happily chuck in The Lion King, Tarzan, Aladdin or even Treasure Planet anytime.

DVD:

Apparently on the 2-Disc special edition, when Kenai becomes a bear the aspect ratio goes wider. Not so on this single disc release I viewed, it stayed at what appeared to be 1.85:1 from start to finish, however I did notice a slightly higher level of detail once he became a bear. The compression left a lot to be desired. It was soft (particularly the pre-bear section) and the colours - while vivid - graduated together poorly, creating clearly visible vertical grading all up the screen, and this was viewed on a 23' LCD screen! I imagine the defects would become even more noticeable on something larger.

IMAGE: 6/10

The sound - while DTS - didn't impress me much either. It was clear and rich but never felt particularly immersive, with the rear channels not being utilised enough. Not a total let-down but certainly not as impressive as I'd hoped for.

SOUND: 7/10

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

More than any animated Disney film before it, Brother Bear feels like something made by people who like money - either that, or people with little desire for originality. The morals are heavy handed, the songs are mainly annoying and it's too predictable to be truly enjoyable. I don't need my animated films to be loaded with pop-culture references (like Shrek) and I really appreciate that Brother Bear didn't go down that route, but ultimately the parts that worked were outweighed by the parts that didn't.

OVERALL: 5/10
__________________________

BALTO (1995)
PLOT:

Half dog, half wolf Balto can't seem to find his place in life. But when the remote town's children become sick, their last hope lies in a sled full of medicine supplies. However, the lead dog's arrogance leaves them lost in the woods and it's up to Balto to find the lost medicine and return it in time to save the children.

REVIEW:

Well here's one I missed completely! In my search for hidden gems I came across this for under $15 and thought I'd give it a shot. I was pleasantly surprised, while it's not amazing, it is unique enough to standout a little from the pack.

Firstly this is not a Disney film and is not quite up to their standards of animation (it is an Amblimation, which Spielberg ran before he merged it with Dreamworks). It looks more like a Don Bluth (An American Tail) animation. I found the style to be a mixed bag. The backgrounds were nice, but some of the characters looked a little too sketched for my taste. There was none of that nice shading to give the characters depth, leaving them looking rather flat. Also the character design differed greatly; the humans looked fairly normal - as did the dogs and wolves - yet the "comic side-kicks" were so bizarre that I didn't know what they were until they referred to themselves as Polar Bears (strangely the other bear - a large grizzly - was easily the coolest character design by far, yet seemed like it was from another world in comparison to the odd looking Polar Bears).

The story was predictable but I didn't find that detracted from the excitement generated by some very well staged action sequences (the confrontation with the angry grizzly being the highlight).

DVD:

Unlike some versions of Balto, my copy was an Anamorphicly enhanced 1.77:1 image, unfortunately being a box-office flop Balto hasn't been given the special edition treatment, so the image has not been digitally remastered. Film grain is very apparent, yet I would happily take grain over the poor colour grading mentioned above in my review of Brother Bear. I would love to see Balto cleaned up (though that may never happen). Besides grain, the image is fairly sharp and I noticed no glaring compression issues. So considering its age and lack of digital restoration I'm pretty happy with the image.

IMAGE: 7/10

To my surprise Balto comes with a very decent DD5.1 soundtrack. I found it immersive, clear and rich. No real complaints here. Though of course I'd love to hear it in DTS.

SOUND: 8/10

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

Considering that Balto is based on a true story makes it all the more interesting and emotionally involving (though clearly huge liberties have been taken in regards to historical accuracy). The animation may not be up to Disney standards, but it still looks really good, and outside of the bizarre Polar Bear characters, it all comes together nicely. The morals aren't jammed down your throat (which is always a relief when it comes to "kids" films) and we aren't bombarded by a song every 5 minutes (unlike Anastasia which I will review next). Balto had its heart in the right place and I'd happily watch it again sometime in the future.

OVERALL: 7/10

NOTE: The opening and closing scenes are live-action (non-animated!) and are totally superfluous. In the future I would skip them completely.

__________________________

ANASTASIA (1997)
OFFICIAL PLOT:

"...When the shadow of revolution falls across Russia, the royal family's youngest daughter barely escape with her life. Years later, Anastasia and a band of heroic companions must battle the evil Rasputin, his sidekick Bartok the bat and a host of ghostly minions in a headlong race to reach Paris, reclaim her rightful destiny and solve the greatest mystery of the 20th century."

REVIEW:

Allow me to get straight to the point: I didn't enjoy Anastastia. I feel that when you are doing a musical (animation or not) it is vital that you strike the right balance between musical numbers and the plot/character scenes. Anastasia does not find this balance. It is particularly evident in the first half hour or so, as I was bombarded by song after song after song, with barely any plot advancement in between. As a result I found it very difficult to become involved or care much about the characters. And frankly I thought all the songs were uninspired, monotonous and constantly outlived their welcome. If there had been just a few less songs and each one had been a little shorter, I believe I would have quite a different opinion of Anastasia.

It's worth pointing out that this is easily the most attractive Don Bluth animation ever. The production values are clearly high and it looks pretty close in quality to the best that Disney has to offer. I wouldn't say that the production and character design is overly inventive or original, but it certainly is pretty.

DVD:

The image was very impressive. Sharp, clear and rich and no compression artifacts to be found anywhere. No problems here.

IMAGE: 10/10

The sound was of a high quality, but for the most part I had it turned down low because I found the songs so unbearable (and this is coming from someone who knows all the words to the songs in Aladdin). I turned up the sound for the exciting train crash sequence (probably the best scene in the entire film) and found it to be of fairly high quality. No real complaints here either.

SOUND: 8/10

CLOSING THOUGHTS.

Anastasia looks and sounds great... Unfortunately there are just way too many musical numbers for this chap to find it enjoyable. Less songs and more character scenes (or action scenes for that matter) would go a long way in making Anastasia a more well rounded film. Put simply: I found Anastasia very, very difficult to sit through (though I guess a late-twenties-male isn't exactly the target audience).

OVERALL: 3/10

__________________________

Agree? Disagree? Whatever the case I'd love to hear your comments and/or recommendations.
__________________________

Check out my other animated film reviews:

The Emperor's New Groove

The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Atlantis: The Lost Empire/Treasure Planet

Tarzan

The Prince of Egypt

The Road to El Dorado

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas

Animation Review: The Emperor's New Groove

2006-05-09T13:07:00.000+12:00

Plot Synopsis:

"In this animated comedy from the folks at Disney, the vain and cocky Emperor Kuzco is a very busy man. Besides maintaining his "groove", and firing his suspicious administrator, Yzma; he's also planning to build a new waterpark just for himself for his birthday. However, this means destroying one of the villages in his kingdom. Meanwhile, Yzma is hatching a plan to get revenge and usurp the throne. But, in a botched assassination courtesy of Yzma's right-hand man, Kronk, Kuzco is magically transformed into a llama. Now, Kuzco finds himself the property of Pacha, a lowly llama herder whose home is ground zero for the water park. Upon discovering the llama's true self, Pacha offers to help resolve the Emperor's problem and regain his throne, only if he promises to move his water park."

Ray's Review:

The Emperor's New Groove has an interesting history which I think is worth taking into account when watching the film.

I'll let this excerpt from IMDB explain:

"This film was originally planned to have been a dramatic, sweeping Disney musical named "Kingdom of the Sun", to be directed by The Lion King (1994) director Roger Allers and Mark Dindal, director of Turner's Cats Don't Dance (1997), with six original songs written by Sting, that was essentially an Incan re-telling of Mark Twain's "The Prince and the Pauper." David Spade was the voice of the young emperor Manco, Owen Wilson was Pacha, a young peasant with a striking resemblance to the emperor, and Eartha Kitt was Yzma, the aged royal sorceress. The film involved Manco and Pacha switching places, except that Yzma finds out, turns Manco into a (non-speaking) llama, and makes Pacha do her bidding. Pacha also eventually was to fall in love with Nina (voice of Carla Gugino), the emperor's betrothed. The resulting film tested very poorly, and the production was suspended, even though the film was 50% complete. Allers and Yzma supervising animator Andreas Deja both left the project and moved to Orlando, Florida to work on Lilo & Stitch (2002). During the production hiatus, Dindal, producer Randy Fullmer, story man Chris Williams, and screenwriter David Reynolds completely overhauled the film, eventually throwing out Wilson, the "Prince and the Pauper" angle, the completed footage, and all but one of Sting's songs. The story was rebuilt from the ground up, retaining Spade's and Kitt's characters and creating a new, wackier film that centered around Spade's (talking) llama, Yzma, and two new characters: Pacha, now a middle aged man played by John Goodman and Patrick Warburton's character Kronk."

Taking the troubled production into account it's a miracle how great Groove really is, it's easily the most irreverent and insane Disney film I've ever seen, and certainly the most I have ever laughed aloud at an animated film (outside of Southpark: The Movie). If you appreciate David Spade's sarcastic sense of humour you are in for a treat, if not, then there still might be enough other elements to make it enjoyable, though I think a lot of people out there have commented on his character being too cruel... Personally I think he's hilarious and it's all about the 'character arc' anyway; the story requires him to be an egocentric so that his transformation by the end is believable.

Compared to other Disney films this certainly is the first one to draw comparisons, not to other Disney films, but more to Wyle Coyote and Road Runner. It's simply packed with slapstick humour and physical gags, all of which are very funny. I really appreciated this approach and found it to be a breath of fresh air after all the recent grand (and sometimes pompous) Disney films that came before it. This is certainly not in the vein of Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King, this is totally going for laughs, with the smallest possible amount of their usual operatic grandeur.

The characters are all fantastic and even my little 3-year old nephew had their confusingly similar names memorised on first viewing. Kuzco is a never ending barrage of hilarious sarcasm. The idiotic Kronk is a delight (and now has his very own sequel which I hope is good), the scenes where he wrestles with his inner angel and demon are particularly funny. Yzma makes a suitable Nemesis, classic in the vein of other evil Disney woman, yet tons more fun. And John Goodman's Pacha plays the usually tedious role of the "morally sound do-gooder" in an admirably charming manner.

My only peeve with Groove would be the few moments where you sense that they are probably using scenes from the abandoned earlier version of the film ("Kingdom of the Sun") and trying to spice them up with a few inserts or humorous voice overs. I can't say for certain that this is the case, but it certainly feels that way in certain scenes, distracting slightly from the usually consistent tone.

Presentation wise, the DVD looked rich and sharp, with no noticeable compression issues (unlike Brother Bear which I will review later). Groove is packed full of fast motion but never suffers because of it (however I am watching it on a 23' LCD, so on a huge projector compression may become noticeable).

In regards to the sound I found nothing to complain about, it was not quite up to the level of quality set by The Lion king (which would be impossible anyway because that comes in DTS and Groove is only DD5.1 on my Region 4 copy) but it's a nice mix and the dialogue is crystal clear at all times - which in a non-stop talking film like this is essential.

DVD Presentation/Sound: 8/10 (Would give it perfect marks if it had DTS)

Film: 9/10

Closing Notes:

Groove is a different kind of Disney film. It has more of an emphasis on slapstick humour and I personally found it a nice change of pace to the usual Disney style. It's packed full of jokes that will fly over kids heads and make an adult chuckle, yet there is plenty of Road Runner type physical gags to keep the kids laughing too. The animation - while not quite as grand as some other Disney films - is exquisite, but most importantly the characters work and I always enjoy spending the 78mins with them... the time flies by when you are having this much of a good time. As Kuzco says "Bring it on".

Check out my other animated film reviews:

The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Atlantis: The Lost Empire/Treasure Planet

Tarzan

The Prince of Egypt

The Road to El Dorado

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas

Mission Impossible III - Ray's Review

2006-05-04T11:21:00.000+12:00

Allow me to get straight to the juicy part:

M:i:III gets a solid 9/10

It is easily better than the first two installments. Part I had some elements of team-work (and it had that really cool bit with the water crashing through the window and Cruise doing his awesome running - man can this guy run cool or what?), but the ending has always confused the hell outta me, I simply had no idea who did what to who by the end (and I didn't care much either), all I knew was that the very guy who gave them their missions was the bad guy (how stupid is that? It totally goes against the TV series and is one "bold move" I could do without).

Part II looked fantastic thanks to Woo, but it wasn't a good Mission Impossible film, in fact the teamwork element seemed to be a mere afterthought. The plot was secondary to the cool action scenes (which on repeat viewing I was surprised to find there aren't anywhere near enough of) and the film just felt hollow. I have a few friends who hate this film vehemently and I can understand why, but my love for Woo meant I still enjoyed it.

Part III finally gets the combination of elements right. The teamwork is brilliant, the copious action scenes are tense, well staged and exhilarating. Ethan Hunt's home life is brought into focus and he even has a bit of a "character arc" this time around. Cruise tackles the stunts and emotional scenes with an equal amount of skill and enthusiasm, and there is no denying his strong screen presence. The antagonist (played brilliantly by Philip Seymour Hoffman) is truly intimidating and ups the ante in a huge way. With a lesser actor in the role the whole film would have been diminished; it's the first decent bad guy in years and should hopefully remind people that they don't have to be tedious over-actors who lament about crap and prance around doing a whole lot of nothing.

I'm not going to go into the plot, suffice to say it is interesting and it moves like a rocket (I kept trying to find a moment to go to the toilet, but the film just never let up and I had to hold on to the end - but the agony was worth it). Most importantly the plot isn't too predictable and has a few surprises up its sleeve, which is more than you can say for most films these days. The supporting actors - while not having much in the way of character development - are all solid and play their parts with aplomb.

On the small downside, the director certainly handles everything well - particularly the story and characters - but I still think the film could have looked a little more polished and I got sick of all the dolly shots with blurry foreground elements flying past... it reminded me of what they do on TV shows to try and make things seem more chaotic and lived in, by the end I felt like pushing some of the crap out of the way so I could see what was going on behind it! Also the last scene was totally superfluous and pretty big on the cheese, but hey, after all the cool shit that came before it, it didn't bother me much.

Anyway, that's one small problem in a huge success of a film. Mission Impossible III is everything you want from a large scale Blockbuster film and will be a hard act to follow for the remaining big films this year.

9/10

5 mini film reviews

2006-04-07T10:36:00.000+12:00

V for Vendetta

Written by The Wachowski brothers and directed by the guy who was their first assistant director on the Matrix Trilogy; V for Vendetta is a class act and much like the Matrix films Hugo Weaving carves out another highly memorable character. You'd think being stuck behind a mask would make things hard for him, but he is simply fascinating. Natalie Portman was the best she's ever been, playing a character who goes through hell and believably transforms in the process. The film's presentation is refined and moody, and once the narrative got going I was absorbed to the bitter end. The sparse action sequences are brilliant, but this really is more of a "talking-heads" film than I expected, but it's so cool that it doesn't really matter. Nothing stood out as particularly bad, but it could have done with a slightly tighter pace. Overall V for Vendetta is a compelling, unique and memorable film experience.

9/10

_______________

A History of Violence

Thanks for making a film I can actually understand Mr Cronenberg, it was much appreciated (and there weren't even any slimy-insect-genital-thingies either)! This is what you get if you take an "Arthouse" director, a veteran cast and make an "action" film. It's understated, elegant in construction, and pulls you into its web in an incredibly precise and skilled manner. Simply one of the best films I've ever seen. I can't wait to own the DVD.

10/10

__________________

The Pink Panther (2006)

I went into this scared... very, very scared. Like many, I used to enjoy Steve Martin's comedies - Dirty Rotten Scoundrels being the highlight for me. His films lately look appalling and I simply would never rent them (much like all of Eddie Murphy's family crap and Robin Williams' soppy melodrama dribble). However I'd heard that The Pink Panther was a return to form for Steve Martin and there is some truth in that. The Pink Panther made me laugh occasionally and there were a couple of genuinely inspired gags (in one scene he plays Good Cop and Bad Cop... by himself, he is later informed by his partner that usually two cops are required), but I couldn't help thinking that his co-star Kevin Kline would have made a far better choice as star - his character Otto from A Fish Called Wanda proves his gift with physical comedy and he at least looks a little more like the original Clouseau played by Peter Sellers. I can think of far worse ways to spend 90 mins and frankly I didn't laugh much more at what is considered the best of the original series with Peter Sellers - A Shot in the Dark. I don't see why people were so hard on this film, it's idiotic, for sure, but wasn't that the point?

5/10

________

Saw 2

This is a dumb film that is full of plot holes, however, I still like the premise of "what would you really do in this situation?". I didn't find the violence as gratuitous as I expected, but I hated the quick cuts accompanied by screeching sounds - fast cuts and horrible noises do not heighten the horror, they are bloody annoying, so please stop. If you can't produce fear and tension with your script and actors, then don't try to make up for it with cheap editing tricks. That aside, Saw 2 has atmosphere and kept me fairly interested throughout. The real weakness lies in the Cop scenes, I have never before seen film detectives who are this stupid. Once they discover that there is a house somewhere with all the poor victims being killed off they proceed to sit around and watch surveillance cameras, while our "hero" cries alot. Only after an hour and a half does it occur to them to actually study the countless pictures on the walls all around them, detailing the killers plans... am I missing something here? Isn't that meant to be a detective's job - to detect stuff? The Detective's son's life is in jeopardy and he simply sits there watching, wouldn't you actually try to figure something out? (Screenwriting 101: Never have a passive protagonist.) At one point Jigsaw (the killer) tells them to inspect a desk drawer that holds a vital clue, this is a drawer right in front of them, don't you think if you had two hours to kill while your son fought for his life you might open those drawers up and see if you can find some clues? But anyway, this is just a dumb horror film and considering that, it's pretty good. More ingenious traps would have been nice though.

6/10

________

Flightplan

This is the stupidest thriller I have ever seen. It makes Saw 2 look like The Shining in comparison. If you actually stop and think for a moment about the plot you will A: Be very confused. And B: Laugh very, very hard.

[Spoilers ahead - assuming this makes any sense]:

O.K. So let me get this straight. This was the bad guys plan: Find a woman who works in the field of Airplane design who has a husband and a daughter. Then somehow get the husband to go to the top of a building so you can push him off and then make it look like an accident. Then you need access to his coffin so that you can put some explosives in it, before it is sealed shut with a large, metal keypad lock thingie. Then make sure that the Mother manages to get through the entire airport (past all the security cameras) without anyone ever seeing her daughter, and then gets on the huge plane with probably over 400 passengers and yet still, no one sees the daughter because Jodie Foster has her under her coat (don't ask). Then the baddie needs the Mother to fall asleep so that he can grab her daughter, walk down the entire length of the plane with the daughter and not be noticed by the hundreds of passengers (because the plot hinges around everone thinking the daughter never got on board and is actually dead). Then you hide the daughter in an incredibly vital engine room that appears to have no security and then come back to your seat and wait for the Mother to wake up and have a meltdown while she looks for her Daughter. Then you must also assume that she will act crazy and freak out the Captain and all the crew and passengers so that everyone thinks she's nuts, so that she will be forced to escape through a convenient trap-door in the toilet's ceiling which leads to a huge overhead area where she can have direct access to all of the planes controls, which are a bunch of coloured cables. Then of-course, the Mother is going to find her husbands coffin and enter her code into the metal code-lock thingie and then the baddie will be behind her at exactly the right moment and will tell her not to shut the coffin, which she seems to have no problem with even though her dead husband is in there while the plane shakes around. Then the baddie takes the bomb out of the coffin and then he lies to the Captain and says that the Mother has planted a bomb and is demanding money but that you should only talk to him and not to her, and yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah bullshit bullshit bullshit...

[Spoilers over.]

I mean I can't even figure it out and I've seen the film. There is suspension of disbelief and then there is Flightplan: The most retarded thriller of all time (and I haven't even mentioned the hilarious attempts by the inept director to make it seem classy like a David Fincher film or something). Utter bollocks.

0/10

PIRATES! - Ahoy me mateys...

2006-03-21T10:17:00.000+12:00

Sid Meier's Pirates! is a bloody brilliant game, and this is coming from a guy who has never, and I mean NEVER enjoyed a strategy game in over 15 years of avid gaming. Popular strategy games have come and gone: Sim-City, Civilization, Warcraft, C&C etc... I tried (or watched others play) them all and nothing ever clicked. For me, gaming has always been about visceral thrills - I want to feel like I am in the shoes of the protagonist, so as a result I've always been more inclined to play First-Person-Shooters and adventure games. The thing that always turned me off about strategy games was the whole "looking down upon the world at all the little iddy-biddy people doing stuff", it always looked like resource management and seemed about as thrilling as filling out a tax return.

"I'll skewer you like a shish-kebab."

All this to say, prior to Pirates! I was not a strategy fan, and while Pirates! may not be a strategy game in the truest sense (it is more like a series of mini-games strung together in a strategy facade), it is basically the first of its kind that I've ever enjoyed and as such my opinion of it may be quite different to that of an experienced strategy buff.

My affection for Pirates was formed by Monkey Island (a classic Amiga adventure game) and in a way Pirates! is the ultimate companion piece to the adventures of Guybrush Threepwood - hell, the main character looks almost identical! So for those missing the charm of Monkey Island, I belive you will find Pirates! a comforting substitute.

"How appropriate, you fight like a cow."

For the uninformed, the game consists of: Naming your Pirate. Choosing his skills (fencing or navigation for example) and his nationality (French, Spanish, Dutch or English) and setting out under the basic premise of finding your lost relatives. However it is totally open ended and up to you how you want to "live the life" of a Pirate. You could focus on treasure hunting, pirate hunting, trading, raiding towns, romance, discovering lost cities or finding your relatives, most likely, you will do a little of each. The point is it's up to you and it's all damn fun!

The big thing that makes me more interested in this than I ever was in older strategy games is that games look really pretty now, and Pirates! looks particularly gorgeous. The level of detail is commendable and everything has a very clean and assured look. This is a game made by people who knew exactly what they were aiming for and achieved it.

After eight bottles of rum the Captain forgot that his ship was absolutely tiny.

Gameplay wise this couldn't be more approachable. Pirates! really is a "pick up and play" game. Considering I have never spent more than an hour playing a strategy game, I was surprised to find myself comfortable within 30 mins of playing. You can practically play without ever lifting your fingers off the numeric keypad, it's that easy!

So if you've always been intimidated by the complexity of strategy games or simply thought they seem dull, give Pirates! a go. It's well worth it. Especially older gamers like myself who miss the company of Guybrush and LeChuck... you will not be disappointed. However, even the experienced strategy gamer couldn't deny the quality and charm of Pirates!

Warning: You will lose sleep.

Firewall - Ray's Review

2006-03-16T10:20:00.000+13:00

Click here for more details on cast/crew etc...

Official Plot Synopsis:

"Jack Stanfield (Harrison Ford) is an average family man in Seattle who heads up the hi-tech security team at his local bank. But following a seemingly trivial case of identity theft, Jack's life is turned upside-down when he discovers that his wife (Virginia Madsen) and two kids have been kidnapped. The ransom? A mere $100 million, which the kidnappers, led by Bill Cox (Paul Bettany), want Jack to obtain for them via his expert computer skills. Initially compliant, Jack is soon irked by Cox and his cronies to the point where he decides to get his family back and bring the bad guys to justice."

My Opinion:

I'm not going to spend too much time analyzing this film, because frankly, Firewall isn't very good. It's one of those movies where you have a strange sense of Déjà Vu for it's entire running time, in other words: You've seen it all before and you've seen it done better.

Harrison Ford can play these characters in his sleep and that was the case here. Using modern technology they actually painted CGI eyes onto Harrison's closed eyelids and used a special rig to move his sleeping body around and control his flailing limbs... the effect is quite impressive, though they should have remembered to fix up his "morning hair", as he looked a bit scruffy.

Maybe it's because I actually have a basic understanding of computers that I am put off by these "techno thillers". In its defense it wasn't as utterly ridiculous as other films concerning technology (such as Swordfish, where Hugh Jackman seems to require eight monitors as he "hacks" - which involves randomly bashing keys and flying down cyber tunnels as green cubes rotate and code flickers about... I mean really, what the f**k?). At least when Harrison's character stops a hacker he uses a realistic command prompt, however, I'm not sure that I've ever heard of using a "black hole" to circumvent a network attack.

When Firewall isn't about dumb computer stuff, it is about dumb family stuff... another dull and unrealistic topic in Hollywood films: Painfully cute young boy with easy to trigger allergy - Check. Rebellious daughter who ultimately connects again with her parents - Check. Family dog called Rusty introduced early in film so that he can later be used as a plot device - Check. Bland yet attractive and intelligent Wife with just enough screen time to make us care about her slightly - Check. I could go on but I think I've made my point.

This is not a film worth seeing. While it doesn't signpost every plot-twist, it simply feels predictable, which isn't helped by it's generic look and bland acting. Also, I haven't seen this many rain machines on Harrison since Bladerunner, however, it's all to no avail, as Firewall has about as much atmosphere as generic "thrillers" like Chain Reaction, The Net and The Client (I'm surprised I even remember those dull films).

Harrison and Bettany's acting skills are utterly wasted in this dribble, they are given very few strong character moments and are left with little to do except what the script requires of them: Harrison - Good guy. Bettany - Bad Guy.

If you are a huge Harrison Ford fan and need a fix of his average-Joe-in-jeopardy type character (like in The Fugitive) then this may be worth a rental, but DO NOT go out of your way to see this at you local cinema like I did. It was a mistake and also a reminder of why cinemas don't make as much money as they used to.

WARNING: Unrelated rant ahead:

I purchased my expensive movie ticket from an annoying worker who asked "would I like an ice-cream or sweets?" to which I felt like saying "If I wanted them wouldn't I have asked you you f***ing mongoloid?", but instead I said "No thanks", being the polite chap that I am. Then I proceeded into the theatre, which was pitch black, even though the film said it started at 10am and it was 10.10am. So I trundled back out and found the single attendant (who sold the tickets, ran the candy bar and seemingly managed the entire six-theatre complex) and she said "I'll see what I can do". So I go back into the theatre - which I can now at least see in - and find a seat (which isn't difficult seeing as I'm the only person there). Finally at 10.14 the screen lights up and I am relieved to discover it's a trailer and not ads. But then the trailer ends - a trailer I've seen three of four weeks ago online - and I am bombarded by loud ads for five minutes. Finally at about 10.22 the film starts and I watch in horror as the awful print is projected onto the vast screen, hairs and speckles are constantly flickering everywhere and the sound is too quiet... I sit there and dream about my home cinema and wish I was there, instead of in this smelly empty theatre, watching a limp and predictable bore-fest.

4/10

Rocky Teaser Hits!

2006-03-06T10:36:00.000+13:00

Yo Adrian...

The very cool and quite minimalist teaser for Rocky VI [aka Rocky Balboa] has arrived, and it is a thing of beauty. Go Sly!

Check it out now:

It may be an experimental teaser, so who knows how long it will stay online? Also the release date appears to have been pushed to December 2006... awesome!

SLY'S COMEBACK!

2006-02-14T11:10:00.000+13:00

As you may know, Stallone is in the midst of a career comeback - or perhaps it's a mid-life crisis. When some men reach his age they buy a sports car to make themselves feel better, but a car will not suffice when you are Sly. He is currently shooting Rocky VI aka Rocky Balboa and he has officially signed on to write and direct the next installment of Rambo - which he says he will move straight into when Rocky wraps.

I can't believe what I just wrote. Stallone is making new Rocky and Rambo films... that's some crazy shit!

Rambo III came out in 1988!

Rocky V came out in 1990!

So that's over a 15 year gap on each of these sequels. Stallone himself was born in 1946, meaning this July he will be turning 60!

A new still from Rocky VI.

I'm all for his comeback and unlike the majority of people on the net I have a lot of faith in his skill as a star/writer/director - he wrote all the Rocky films and directed three of them so clearly he is capable of constructing a decent action film; I guess the question is: Does anyone care anymore? Or perhaps, does anyone care outside of his dwindling fanbase? They have modest budgets (by Hollywood standards) so maybe they can make it back and then some? The thing is, Rocky and Rambo are something far bigger than Stallone himself, they are American icons. They are up there with James Bond and Indy. Maybe the famous characters are enough to bring in the audience regardless of Stallone's age and current lack of popularity?

I think it would help if the films acknowledge the fact that their protagonist is now old and incorporate that in as a story element. It worked in the later Star Trek films with the aging trio of Bones, Spock and Kirk poking fun at themselves a little.

Another fear I have is Stallone's face. I noticed that he looked like he was in a constant state of surprise in The Contender; it seems he has had a face lift. It'd be a shame if he has because he always had such a unique and expressive face.

I guess the other question is his ability physically. He's still in great shape - though nothing compared to his old days (and nothing compared to Arnie's impressive physique in the recent Terminator 3). Stallone has always been very convincing physically, not just in how he looks but in how he moves, so I hope he still has what it takes to make a proper action film.

Rambo 4 will see the addition of Rambo's son, played by Johnny Depp... not!

The only remaining question in my mind is: What the hell will these sequels be about? For one thing, the impression I get on Rocky is that it is almost an autobiographical story. Rocky - now old and washed up - gets coaxed back into doing a charity event and rises to the challenge, seeing if he still has what it takes, seeing if he can "go the distance" like he did in the first Rocky. The plot sounds serviceable and frankly, what other direction could it take anyway? It has to revolve around the same premise as the others, that's what Rocky is all about - a big build up to a dramatic fight scene.

Rambo... Now here I really have no idea what the plot could be. There have been many rumors but nothing has been totally confirmed. A while back, according to Stallone, the new plotline sees the character of Rambo as having "assimilated into the tapestry of America," living with his family in relative peace for the past fifteen years but still working for the military, when work pressures force him to move his family to the American outback. The Navajo-Indian former Green Beret and his family are then subject to an attack by white-supremacists, and Rambo has to risk life-and-limb in rescuing his 10-year old daughter from being held hostage... sounds OK, but not exactly the direction I would go in. I heard that James Cameron's original draft of Rambo 2 started with John Rambo in a mental institution, which I thought was quite appropriate given his total emotional breakdown at the end of First Blood - though I guess it's not very heroic!

Ultimately I am excited. It's strange that Arnie, Sly and Willis never did the sequels that everyone wanted back when it would have been appropriate and then, only after a series of mediocre action films did they return - or at least attempted - to the franchises that defined them. After lackluster films like End of Days and Collateral Damage Arnie returned as the Terminator. Willis has been trying to get Die Hard 4.0 off the ground for years now - even though he's previously been quoted as being completely disinterested in John McClane's story an longer. And now after a terrible run of films - Driven, D-Tox, Avenging Angelo - Stallone is finally making the sequels that he should have made 10 years ago. But is it too late?

"Between us we could buy your country!"

My fingers are crossed that he does the impossible and pulls it off. I'm rooting for the man. Go Sly!

Anything would beat selling pudding right?

UPDATE!

2006-02-13T13:39:00.000+13:00

Sorry to the ten fans (read: friends) who visit my blog. I have not updated in a very long time and I have no good excuse for it. I just stopped. Don't ask me why.

I've continued to watch countless DVDs and I have many to recommend. So when the feeling takes me I will write again. I do have one word for you: DEADWOOD... Ok, so it's two words put together but hell is it a great series. If you're a western fan, go out and buy it NOW! You will not regret it.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. GAMES. Yes I am still playing video games too, but I have a dilemma. Burnout Revenge is so damn fun that I find every other game pales in comparison. If I play Burnout before another game, the new game feels like it's running in slow-motion. Seriously, I find it hard to imagine another game capturing my attention as much as the Burnout series has. Perhaps it will take a whole new level of processing power (360/PS3) to get my attention?

As the famous Austrian says: "I'll be back."

Serenity - Ray's Review

2005-11-11T14:15:00.000+13:00

Serenity (2005)
119 min

Written and Directed by Joss Whedon

Starring:

Nathan Fillion .... Mal
Gina Torres .... Zoe
Alan Tudyk .... Wash
Morena Baccarin .... Inara
Adam Baldwin .... Jayne
Jewel Staite .... Kaylee
Sean Maher .... Simon
Summer Glau .... River
Chiwetel Ejiofor.... The Operative

Official Synopsis:

"Beloved television cult director Joss Whedon (BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, ANGEL) makes a spectacular first foray onto the big screen with SERENITY, the cinematic adaptation of his wildly popular but short-lived sci-fi series, FIREFLY. A mix of space western, comedy, and drama, SERENITY follows captain Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) and his ragtag crew as they trade their way around the edges of civilized society. Of particular interest are two passengers they take on, Simon and River Tam (Sean Maher, Summer Glau), a brother and his telepathic sister on the run from the corrupt governing Alliance. As notorious former members of the anti-Alliance opposition, Mal and his crew make it difficult for Simon and River to stay hidden. Everything goes completely awry when a government assassin is sent to retrieve River. As Mal is forced to choose between his close-knit crew and the brother and sister newcomers, it becomes apparent that River harbors both a dangerous secret and astounding fighting powers, and Mal decides that discovering the truth about what she knows might just be worth his time."

Ray's Opinion:

Having watched Star Wars EPIII the night before I saw Serenity, I have to agree with many critics thoughts: "George Lucas, eat your heart out"... Yeah, exactly! While Serenity lacks the massive scope - and massive budget - of Star Wars, it has something that Lucas's wooden script lacks: energy. Serenity is bursting with life and Whedon has a seemingly endless barrage of funny character observations that had me perpetually smiling (I'm not the type to laugh aloud often, but many in the theatre did). I had read several reviews that noted the lackluster or "budgety" nature of the graphics and I'd have to disagree. I work in the graphics industry and I found very little CG that wasn't polished and inventive. Whedon sure knows how to make a budget go a long way!

As a screenwriting enthusiast, the biggest pleasure for me was how fresh Whedon's script was, he had two things that almost all scripts lack these days: Genuine characters and genuine surprises. I was almost shocked by having these feelings again, and realised how long it had been since I felt surprised or truly involved in anything I've watched in a long time (the last time I can think of was in the amazing Korean film OLDBOY).

Whedon's other TV creations - Buffy and Angel - never appealed to me, but having recently read several interviews with Whedon and being impressed by his approach to storytelling I thought I had to give Serenity a shot, and I'm glad I did. I haven't seen a single episode of the series (Firefly) this film is based on, but having throughly enjoyed Serenity I look forward to renting the show's season and delving deeper into this unique world that Whedon has created. It is a Sci-fi world with obvious Western influences - my two favourite genres - and the mixture worked for me. One of my few issues with it was the fact that there are references to previous episodes which meant nothing to me and made me feel left out in the cold, but then, if he didn't pander to his fans (dubbed "Browncoats") they would be rightfully upset, so I can understand the inclusion of certain elements for the "in crowd".

O.K. so what about the story? Well, I guess it wasn't incredibly original and at times felt like Star Trek meets Star Wars, but once again, because the characters were interesting - particularly Captain Mal - I cared about their plight and consequently was absorbed from start to finish. I think the sysnopsis at the top does a better job than I ever could in summing up the story - and I detest explaining plots - but I will say this: The plot is solid, but it's not the point of the piece, at least it didn't seem that way to me, I just enjoyed being in the crew's company for two hours and once Whedon made me care about them, I would have gone wherever they took me. In fact, when the film finished I could have watched the (hopefully) inevitable sequel immediately.

The action scenes are fairly well staged. The hand to hand combat was fluid and well shot, but at times felt like a television show. The space combat on the other hand was extremely exciting and I relished every moment. I dislike comparing one persons art to anothers, but having just re-watched Star Wars epIII it occurred to me how much more involved I was in the aerial combat, the opening scene in epIII was technically impressive but never affected me on a visceral level, where as Serentiy's space battles had me clutching my seat's armrests and holding my breath. Was it because I cared about the characters more, or was it because the space fights were so raw in style? A bit of both I think.

I don't feel I'm in a position to really analyze the characters - I'll leave that to the hardcore fans who are far more familiar with the character's backgrounds - but the highlight for me was the Captain of the ship, Mal. I thought Nathan Fillion did a great job of balancing Mal's badass side with humanity and depth, and I was excited to see him go places that many gung-ho heroes never will, including mercilessly executing a few people - think Han Solo meets Eastwood. Out of the remaining crew I most liked "Wash" the pilot, followed closely by "Jayne" the gun crazy brute, I found the others were merely average. The antagonist was very cool - I don't know if he was ever in the series - and I liked the way he was self aware of his role as a heartless "Monster"; Whedon did the impossible and made a sword wielding nemesis unique and fairly interesting, a difficult task when we've endured so many action film baddies. The one character who grated on me was the Captain's old love interest Inara, she leant very little to the proceedings and I assume she was there because she played a more prominent role in the series and may have been missed by the fans had she been excluded. She let her cleavage do most the acting anyway, so it wasn't all bad.

Overall, even with the few shortcomings that are inevitable when basing a film on an established series, I enjoyed Serenity and recommend it highly. It is briskly paced, with involving characters and laced with witty one-liners and exciting action scenes. The music is unusual and cool too.

8.5/10

Footnote: Now that I've witnessed Whedon's aptitude for Sci-Fi and character development I can only dream of how good Alien Resurrection may have been, had they not butchered Whedon's screenplay.

Doom - Ray's Review

2005-10-27T16:01:00.000+13:00

Doom (2005)
100 min

Directed by Andrzej Bartkowiak (Exit Wounds, Romeo Must Die)

Written by Dave Callaham and Wesley Strick (The Saint, Wolf)

Starring:

Karl Urban - John Grimm
Rosamund Pike - Samantha Grimm
The Rock - Sarge

Official Plot Synopsis:

"...The action takes place at Olduvai Research Station, a remote scientific facility on Mars, where something has gone terribly wrong. All experiments have ceased, and communication has failed. The few messages that do get through are less than comforting. It's Level 5 Quarantine, and the only souls allowed in or out are the Rapid Response Tactical Squad (RRTS) - hardened Marines armed to the teeth with enough firepower to neutralize any enemy...or so they think.

The researchers at this Red Planet station have unwittingly opened a door, and all hell has broken loose. A legion of nightmarish creatures of unknown origin lurks in every corner and stalks the countless rooms and tunnels of the facility, killing what few people remain. A hellish zoo of demons, Imps, Barons and Hell Knights has taken over Olduvai. And they're not giving it back without a fight.

Sealing off the portal to Earth, Sarge (THE ROCK), Reaper (The Lord of the Rings' KARL URBAN) and their mercenary team must use every weapon at their disposal - and some they find along the way - to carry out their orders: nothing gets out alive. Unfortunately, these things never go as planned."

Ray's Opinion:

Doom the film turned out exactly as I expected. Having read that it was to be directed by the mediocre action director who's-name-is-impossible-to-pronounce: Andrzej Bartkowiak, my hopes were fairly low (but I'll admit to being surprised by Bartkowiak's Segal film Exit Wounds managing to make the pudgy Segal seem vaguely cool again after so many STD - straight to DVD - disasters). I'd heard that ID Software were very reluctant to go ahead with a film unless all the stars aligned to make it as good as it could possibly be, so I thought maybe - regardless of the horrible MTV type director on board - they might surprise me with a good script. This is not the case. However, the plot is serviceable.

Here's how it works. Take a set of cliche soldiers with names like Sarge, Destroyer, Reaper and The Kid, give them all big guns and put them in a bunch of grimy corridors and get them to spout crappy dialogue that we've all heard before in better films and occasionally let them actually shoot something, which - until about halfway through - you only see in glimpses. Throw in a stupid sub-plot about the almost-main-character Reaper (Karl Urban) and his sister in the hope to add dimension to your characters... and fail. Get people to unnecessarily say "Fuck" so that you get an R rating and hope people will mistake constant crude language for genuine toughness. I guess I should be thankful that they didn't pussy out and make Doom PG-13; it's full of extreme violence and gore which at least entertains on a visceral level.

"Umm, what's the plot about again?"
I'm being harsh on Doom, but all the elements are so weak, the characters so cliche and the action so poorly executed that it just feels like one big missed opportunity. Though I have to hand it to them for the overall construction of the plot, it was pretty good given the material, which essentially boils down to walking down corridors and shooting stuff; but an O.K. plot poorly executed does not make a good film. I guess I'd hoped for a decent Aliens clone, but feared another useless game adaptation like Resident Evil. Doom is far better than the embarrassingly awful Resident Evil but it's miles from being Aliens' brother in law - it's more like Aliens' mutant twin who suffers from ADD and likes to bang its head repeatedly against brick walls.

Speaking of head banging that brings me to another aspect which is appalling: a horrible "heavy" metal soundtrack. It never complements the on-screen action and if anything detracts from the already weak atmosphere. Another negative aspect is the miscasting of The Rock. I love the guy and usually enjoy his charming performances, but here he is essentially playing a heartless marine and it just doesn't come naturally to him. Every time he said "fuck" (which is almost every line) I cringed, it just didn't sound right coming out of his mouth. He tried his best to look menacing, but I never bought it. The few parts where he lightned up were a welcome breath of fresh air, particularly when he gets his hands on the BFG.

"Big Fucking Gun." - One of the few laughs you'll get during Doom.

Having read this far you'll be thinking this is a film to skip, right? Wrong! All is redeemed in the awesome first-person-shooter scene where we see out of Reaper's eyes as he goes on a killing rampage. If only the rest of the film had been this much fun! It's a truly cool scene and totally captures the game in a way that no other game-to-film adaptation has ever managed. This alone made it all worth it for me, this and another scene about mid-way through where Destroyer (who must have the worst name out of the team) goes one-on-one with a huge mutant beast. It's an incredibly brutal fight and it makes the final climatic battle pale in comparison - which outlines Bartkowiak's lack of skill in making action films, one of the golden rules is to spread out your action scenes and always save the best for last, he may have saved the FPS scene till near the end, but he follows that up with a totally lame fist-fight... a big mistake that undermines the ending and leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Overall - even with all these bad points - I still enjoyed Doom. It's loud, trashy, violent and dumb, but it knows it. If you set your brain on cruise control, you'll have a blast, however, engage your brain at any point and suffer the consequences! This is the kind of film that would probably be best after a beer... or ten.

6/10

Cinderella Man - Ray's Review

2005-10-12T10:15:00.000+13:00

Cinderella Man (2005)
144 min

Directed by Ron Howard

Written by Cliff Hollingsworth and Akiva Goldsman

Starring:
Russell Crowe .... Jim Braddock
Renée Zellweger .... Mae Braddock
Paul Giamatti .... Joe Gould
Craig Bierko .... Max Baer
Paddy Considine .... Mike Wilson
Bruce McGill .... Jimmy Johnston

Official Synopsis:

"Crowe stars in the story inspired by the life of legendary athlete Jim Braddock, a once-promising light heavyweight boxer forced into retirement after a string of losses in the ring. As the nation enters the darkest years of the Great Depression, Braddock accepts a string of dead-end jobs to support his wife, Mae (Renée Zellweger), and their children, while never totally abandoning his dream of boxing again.

Thanks to a last minute cancellation, Braddock finds himself back in the ring against the second-ranked world contender - and to everyone's amazement, Braddock wins in the third round. Despite being pounds lighter than his opponents and repeated injuries to his hands, Braddock continues to fight against challengers and win. Carrying on his shoulders the hopes and dreams of the disenfranchised masses, Braddock, dubbed the "Cinderella Man," faces his toughest challenger in Max Baer (Craig Bierko), the heavyweight champion of the world, renowned for having killed two men in the ring."

Ray's Opinion:

I went into Cinderella Man expecting a "hero" film similar in vein to Gladiator and Master and Commander... I couldn't have been more wrong. Cinderella Man shares nothing in common with them other than its period setting, and Russell Crowe turning in another highly controlled and fascinating performance. What makes Cinderella Man so different to his past heroic roles is that Jim Braddock doesn't see himself as a hero at all, he merely fights "for milk" as he puts it. So don't go into this expecting big, dramatic speeches from Crowe and you will be pleasantly surprised by his complex portrayal of a man who is essentially good. Like Roger Ebert said in his review; playing a man who is basically a really good guy is a hard thing to do without making him sentimental and uninteresting, but Crowe pulls it off and reminds one of past "nice guys" like James Stewart and Cary Grant.

This is a rich looking film, beautifully shot, with every object and room telling its own story. I'm not usually a huge fan of Ron Howard's style, but this time he finally managed to connect with me emotionally. This would easily be my favourite Ron Howard film because I didn't feel as manipulated as I did in A Beautiful Mind and Apollo 13. Cinderella Man feels honest, and was carried by Crowe's believable performance, ably supported by the always reliable character actor Paul Giamatti and the pursed lipped Renée Zellweger - whom I enjoyed in this, after having only recently warmed to her persona in Down With Love.

I can't stress enough how simple this film is. In fact, it almost felt too simple when the credits rolled and I felt a little underwhelmed with the whole thing. But a few days later a funny thing happened; the film lingered in my mind and the mood stayed with me. As I thought back through it I realised I could remember it all, every single scene was there in my mind, ready to be plucked out. I think this is testament to its strong atmosphere and striking imagery. Perhaps it's the straight forwardness of the story telling that enabled its images to be burned into my consciousness so clearly? Whatever the case, I like it when the scenes play out in my head.

The boxing is well done and somehow managed to not feel generic, which could easily be the case with so many Rocky films having played out almost all possible boxing scenarios. The 30's setting helped to make it unique, but primarily it was Ron Howard's approach to it all. It's hard for me to pin down exactly what he did differently to other boxing films and for once I am lost for descriptive reasons as to its success in this area. Maybe it was because I cared for Jim Braddock more than I ever did for Rocky? One thing that I think works against it is that it goes to so much trouble making us care for Jim and his wife and three children, that when the violence kicks in it may alienate some people - particularly females - who up until the brutal boxing scenes were more invested in the emotional aspects of the story. I like boxing so this wasn't an issue, but I did notice some women sitting near me became agitated when the fights went on too long. Also I felt the portrayal of the heavyweight champion - the main antagonist - was a little too comical and detracted from all the hard work they had put into making Jim Braddock a realistic character.

Overall, Cinderella Man is a highly atmospheric film that not only gave me a look into the life of a sports hero I'd never heard of, but also illustrated the tragedy of the depression era in vivid and moving detail. The family scenes are will done and fairly believable - this is Hollywood after all - and the relationship between Jim and his trainer (Paul Giamatti) is a joy to watch. The boxing scenes are incredibly involving and you will be rooting for Jim right up to the bitter end. I find it surprising that Cinderella Man wasn't successful commercially, when it was so well received critically.

8/10

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Disney) - Ray's Review

2005-10-04T16:30:00.000+13:00

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
91 min

Directed by:
Gary Trousdale & Kirk Wise (Beauty and the Beast)

Based on the book by:
Victor Hugo

Starring the Voices of:
Tom Hulce as Quasimodo
Demi Moore as Esmeralda
Tony Jay as Frollo
Kevin Kline as Phoebus

Plot Synopsis from Amazon.com:

"Quasimodo, the ward of repressive monk Frollo, falls for a gypsy girl named Esmerelda (Demi Moore)--though she loves one of the king's guards (Kevin Kline). But they are all put in jeopardy by the wicked Frollo, whose secret passion for Esmerelda leads him to seek her death."

Ray's Opinion:

Until now, I never bothered seeing The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It looked too similar to Beauty and the Beast (which is no surprise considering the same directing team are behind it), a film which is widely loved by the public, but not by me - I usually prefer my Disney films with less romance.

After re-watching and thoroughly enjoying many animated films in the past few weeks, I have been on a search to discover other animated films I may have missed. After checking out several positive reviews I decided to give Hunchback a shot - "Who knows?" I thought, "Maybe I'll like it?". I was surprised to find a deceptively dark and personal tale, about a troubled youth who feels like an outsider (sounds like someone I know), and finding the strength to see beyond simple preconceptions of others.

What I most liked about Hunchback - other than the gorgeous animation and sound - was how insular the story was. A lot of the film is set at the top of the Church, where Quasimodo lives in isolation, and I just loved spending time there (I guess I'm a sucker for lonely guy tales). It actually reminded me of the scenes in Blade Runner where Deckard is out on his balcony, sipping a whisky and watching the world roll by below him. Any film that reminds me of Blade Runner is doing well for itself!

I was impressed by how dark Disney went and was even vaguely disturbed in places, particularly by Frollo's awesome song "Hellfire" - a song, essentially about his repressed lust towards Esmeralda (hardly the usual theme of Disney songs). It's an incredibly well staged number and has to be one of the most intense - if not the most intense - Disney song of all time.

Regarding my worries that Hunchback would be too similar to Beauty and the Beast... I need not have worried, Hunchback is far less romanticised and has a much stronger female lead. Unlike Dreamwork's Sinbad - where they tried desperately to make their heroine sassy and strong willed - Esmeralda is genuinely strong and Demi's voicework is surprisingly good.

I'm not going to rant on about the melding of computer graphics and traditional animation (I've done that in every other animated film review here), but I will say that, once again, Disney have produced an amazing looking (and sounding) film that will show off your home cinema nicely.

Disney's Quasimodo is another character that could only ever be realised with animation. Much like Tarzan, he moves around with an acrobatic skill that no real human possesses and which would be extremely difficult to accomplish in a live action film, even with the aid of CG. I loved watching him get around and actually wished there were more scenes of his acrobatic prowess (another "bell ringing" scene would have been nice).

On the negative side, I did not like the stone gargoyles much and I think they were unnecessary. None of their jokes clicked. I can understand the necessity of them for the kiddies, but it's still no excuse for how weak the writing was for them. When sidekicks are an organic result of story development they work well - such as the monkey in Aladdin - but when they have been "inserted" you can tell. Also, I would have loved to have seen more room for Kevin Kline to have fun with his character Phoebus - Kevin Kline did hilarious voice work in The Road to El Dorado, but he had very little to do here in Hunchback (but I'll take what I can get). Often in animation the antagonist can seem uninspired and simplistically evil, but I found Frollo genuinely intimidating, and I think his repressed lust towards Esmeralda made him unique among Disney's fiendish characters.

I was surprised to find myself absorbed from start to finish. It's darker than most Disney films, has strong central characters and looks beautiful (does the camera ever stop moving?). Basically, The Hunchback of Notre Dame was better than I ever thought it would be and I'm glad I discovered it after all this time! I will definitely watch it again, sometime in the near future.

8/10

Check out my other animated film reviews:

Atlantis: The Lost Empire/Treasure Planet

Tarzan

The Prince of Egypt

The Road to El Dorado

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas

Interstate 60 - Ray's Review

2005-10-03T00:50:00.000+13:00

Interstate 60 (2002)
116 min

Written and Directed by:
Bob Gale

Starring:
James Marsden as Neal Oliver
Gary Oldman as O.W. Grant
Christopher Lloyd as Ray
Amy Smart as Lynn Linden
Chris Cooper as Bob Cody

Synopsis:

"James Marsden stars as Neal, a young man freshly graduated from high school and unsure of what to do with his life. Torn between his father's vision of himself and his own budding dreams, Neal gets a push in a strange direction when he suffers a blow to the head and begins hallucinating. Sent on a journey by a mysterious man named Ray, Neal drives down a nonexistent highway to deliver a package, only to have his ideas of reality turned inside out."

Ray's Opinion:

I love Back to the Future - it's probably my favourite film of all time. I have often wondered if another film would come along that would capture the magic that Back to the Future did. Interstate 60 doesn't measure up to Back to the Future - which would be impossible on an obviously small budget - but it is the closest thing in terms of tone, humour and style that I've seen and that's no surprise considering the co-writer (Bob Gale) of Back to the Future is behind it. Of course, comparing this to Back to the Future is unfair because Bob Gale is not trying to repeat his previous success. Interstate 60 is more fantasy than sci/fi adventure.

Michael J. Fox. Christopher Lloyd. Kurt Russell. Yes, you heard me! Three actors - all close to my heart - are in this film. For that alone I am glad to have seen this film. But guest stars are not enough to sustain a film, for that, you need a good story. Thankfully, Interstate 60 is an inventive fantasy story, where reality is challenged and things are not what they seem. At times it feels a little predictable, but overall there are enough interesting ideas - like the city where everyone is a Lawyer or a defendant - that I was consistently "thinking" while I watched... not an entirely common thing these days.

James Marsden (Cyclops from X-Men) is Neal Oliver. A young man who is struggling to find meaning and direction in his life. Neal's father wants him to follow in his footsteps and become a lawyer, which is in direct conflict with Neal's desire to make a living as an artist. At his birthday, Neal makes a wish to "find answers" which is overheard by O.W. Grant (played with glee by Gary Oldman). Neal gets his wish in the form of a road trip across the non-existent Interstate 60 and along the way meets all sorts of strange people who challenge his perception of reality - and of himself. There are lots of cool ideas in here and a surprising amount of laughs too.

Interstate 60 is a road-movie-meets-fantasy film, with a bit of the Back to the Future feel, rounded out by charming and intriguing characters and performed by some of the most endearing actors around (Chris Cooper can do no wrong). It's a film that isn't afraid to ask questions and probe the human condition with honesty and curiosity, yet it does this within a fun - and mostly light hearted - adventure film. If you enjoyed fantasy films like Back to the Future (and "what-if" films like Mr Destiny and The Family Man) you should find something that appeals to you here. Just keep in mind this is a low budget, plot driven film, with no action scenes!

7/10

Huge Electronic companies and their appalling customer support.

2005-09-29T11:30:00.000+12:00

This is not only a bashing of Customer "support" services, but also an illustration of how hacking a DVD player - using simple codes on your remote - can unlock its full potential. In this case I had problems getting a Hi-Def (upconverting) Samsung DVD player working properly through Component connections with a Philip's LCD TV.

I don't usually use my blog as a place to vent (reviewing films is a pretty good way to vent anyway), but today I will make an exception because I just have to get this off my chest.

I am a geek, no two ways around that. I've used computers since I was nine and my current job as a digital compositor means I've learnt quite a bit of technical stuff related to television (fields, aspect ratios etc...). I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in these departments, but I have my limits, and when you reach your limits what do you do? You call on the 'experts' right?

Wrong.

I am the happy owner of a Philips LCD TV and just yesterday, I decided it was time to buy a new DVD player (I'd been using my modded Xbox to play DVDs, but my fiancée can't remember what buttons do what, so I thought I'd make things easier on her and it was a good excuse to buy a new toy!). I'd read a bit about HD DVD players - not the real thing of course, the new HD-DVD/Blu-Ray players aren't out yet. Current HD DVD players upconvert an image (like PAL 720x576) to higher resolutions (like 720p, 1080i etc) and it seemed the best option to exploit as much out of my current generation DVD collection as possible.

After looking at a few positive reviews I went down to my local overly-air-conditioned Electronics store and bought their most recent (yet well priced) HD-DVD player available - the Samsung DVD-HD850. It came with the new HDMI cable, but my LCD TV doesn't have HDMI (or DVI, the other input compatible with HDMI). So I inspected the box and found that there was no info regarding whether the Hi-Def images can be carried through Component cables with this player (I already knew Component cables are capable of carrying higher res images because my Xbox has been connected at 1080i to my TV via the HD component inputs). I looked around for a shop assistant and was eventually served by a bored looking, balding middle-aged man, who looked at me blankly as I described my situation. After he faked his way through with half-arse uninformed answers I said that I'd like to look at the manual. He took it out, gave it to me and walked off (he must have had more important things to do other than serving his costumers). Unsurprisingly the manual was utter shit and if anything, made me even more confused.

I looked around and spotted a younger shop assistant who looked like he had potential to have a fully working brain. He saw me and strolled over. Low and behold he actually knew about the products he was selling! He could answer most my questions, but when it came to the Component issue he was honest and admitted he simply didn't know. So he got on the phone to Samsung and after just a few moments they informed him that the component cable could carry up to 720p Res with this model of DVD player. I was relieved to find that out and happy to make a purchase (so that salesman got the commission, not the balding git).

I excitedly took it home and after about four hours of untangling cords and making everything all neat and tidy (as I always do when I get a new toy) I finally turned it on... It was time for disappointment. I went to the menu and selected HDMI through Component option and discovered that only 576p was available and that the other resolutions were greyed out. I fiddled endlessly trying to find a way to change that and realised I couldn't so I thought I might as well check out the image quality. I chucked in The Incredibles (love that film!) and the screen flickered like crazy... great. Clearly this res was not agreeing with my TV.

After much more fiddling the only res that I could get the TV and DVD player to agree on was 480p, which is odd because that's an NTSC res and I live in New Zealand where we use PAL. Anyway, I was happy that I was at least getting a picture and it was a damn good one at that. But I don't give up easy and I was convinced that there had to be a true solution. I hopped on the Net and did a bit of research and discovered that something called HDCP (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection) may have been the cause of my flickering TV screen. The Samsung player transmitted this HDCP but perhaps my TV came out too early to have the ability to decode it?

So first I thought I'd look at Samsung and Philips' websites to see if I could find any help - unsurprisingly their websites were useless and inaccurate. So I gave Samsung a call and after explaining my entire situation to the operator she informed me that she'd have to put me on to their "Technical Expert" (which is who I asked to talk to in the first place!). I explained my situation again to the "Technical Expert" and this was his enlightening response "You have an incompatibility issue." No shit Sherlock! That's why I'm fucking ringing you, you imbecile! So I thought that maybe, just maybe, I'd have better luck with Philips. I called them and insisted I speak to a technical expert. The lady was helpful and gave me the email address of their "Technical Expert". I emailed him a detailed list of questions and eventually he phoned me (obviously emailing me back was too technical for him). This is an approximation of what transpired:

Firstly the "Technical Expert" called Barry read aloud the email I'd sent him. He read it very, very slowly. He sounded like he was probably in his 60's. After he'd finished reading it he went on and on to me about how S-Video is the best connection type, not Component. Which is A: Incorrect. B: Has nothing to do with my questions. After 5 minutes more of him ranting about S-Video I got in a few questions.

"Could DHCP be producing the 'hand shake' type effect on my TV?" I enquired.

"Mumble, mumble, bullshit, bullshit, mumble, mumble, bullshit." Was his response. I quickly ascertained that this "Technical Expert" also had no fucking idea about HDCP. So I moved on to another question.

"Could it be that my TV is having trouble with the progressive image, even though it claims to be a progressive capable TV?" (my question was better than that, but I'm just paraphrasing here).

He went on to tell me that PAL can't be progressive, only NTSC supports it and he knows this because he is a "Technical Expert". Righttttttt. So even though every single TV at the electronics store says it has progressive scan on the box, it's not really the case? He then went on to tell me about his TV from the 70's that was NTSC and that even that - way back then - could support progressive scan... do I fucking care? No I don't you idiot. What I want is to talk to a "Technical Expert" who actually knows something about these new fangled DVD players and LCD TVs and can actually answer my fucking questions!

As you may be able to tell I was at my wits end. It's like the old saying: "If you want something done right, do it yourself".

After about five minutes of searching on the "Interweb-net" - as Barry the "Technical Expert" would probably refer to it - I found a few hacks that promised to A: Remove the HDCP protection. And B: Remove the region coding (which I was eventually going to do anyway, once I got the image upscaling working first). After trying these codes I discovered that they were probably for the US model (the region 1 model) so I searched a little more and finally found one that referenced the exact model number on my DVD player's remote. After trying these codes the DVD player was region and HDCP free (if you have this DVD model and need help, I'd be happy to share these codes with you, just post a comment).

I was excited. I had made progress and could smell success around the corner. I went into the DVD's menu and turned it back into PAL mode. I left it in the default res of 576p and tried 'The Incredibles' again. No success, the image still flickered... Damn.

I stopped the DVD and pressed the HDMI button (which cycles through different resolutions). What's interesting here is that originally - before I hacked the machine - when I pressed the HDMI button it would tell me in white text that it was changing resolutions but, in fact, it wasn't. This time when I pressed the button, the screen would actually react - it would go black for a moment and then come back with the new resolution. I put it into 720p and tried 'The Incredibles' again. Success. It played and it looked incredible (no pun intended). I tried 1080i and got a black screen (not in the Samsung menu, but when watching a DVD). I'm very happy with the 720p res so it didn't bother me that 1080i wasn't working - but I will continue to fiddle around with it a bit more.

Now after all this crap I finally have a fully working machine, that is actually capable of doing what it promised on the box. Why it can't do this to begin with, is beyond me.

If you've made it this far, congratulations. This has to be officially the most boring post I have EVER made. But I just had to get this crap off my chest - and I thought it may be of some help to people in my position.

"Technical Experts" suck balls in a major way. You should be able to ring them and get detailed and helpful answers. Alas that is not the case. Why can't massive companies like Philips and Samsung get their act together? There is no excuse. Hire some young geek like me and train them up so that they understand every facet of the electronics they sell. Is that really asking too much?

Also Region coding and stupid protection mechanisms suck. Get rid of them companies, just give me a kickarse DVD player that does everything from the get-go. Why should I have to go through a process like this? You promised things on the box and didn't deliver. Shame on you.

If you are in my shoes, good luck and don't give up. If you want something done right, do it yourself (or comment on this post and maybe I can help!).

P.S. The Samsung DVD HD-850 is actually coming highly recommended by me, regardless of my hassles. Once you hack it, it's fantastic. It looks nice, it's very quiet and it has played everything I've thrown at it (DivX, Xvid, crusty old burnt DVDs, DVD+RW, SVCD, VCD etc...). And once you get it upscalling to higher resolutions it looks awesome. Of course if your TV has an HDMI input then none of this is relevant!

Adieu. Farewell and good luck.

DVD hacks here

Atlantis:The Lost Empire/Treasure Planet - Ray's Reviews

2005-09-26T15:30:00.000+12:00

Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)
95 min

Directed by:
Gary Trousdale
Kirk Wise

Written by:
Tab Murphy (story & screenplay)
Joss Whedon (Treatment)
and others.

Starring the voices of:
Michael J. Fox as Milo James Thatch
James Garner as Commander Lyle Tiberius Rourke
Leonard Nimoy as King Kashekim Nedakh

Plot synopsis from Amazon.com:

"...An eccentric zillionaire sends Milo (Michael J. Fox) out to test his hypothesis with an anachronistic crew that includes tough Puerto Rican mechanic Audrey (Jacqueline Obradors), demolition expert Vinnie (Don Novello), and butt-kicking blond adventurer Helga (Claudia Christian). When they find Atlantis, its culture is dying because the people can no longer read the runes that explain their mysterious power source--but Milo can. Nasty Commander Rourke (James Garner) attempts to steal that power source, leading to the requisite all-out battle."

Ray's Opinion:

Atlantis is an odd entry for Disney. The makers were brave in ditching musical numbers and avoided much of the juvenile humour found in most their films. There are no cute animal sidekicks present, yet there are attempts at humour with some 'funny' characters - particularly Mole, a strange, stinky little man who likes to dig holes. I appreciated the new direction for Disney, but unfortunately the elements do not come together to form a cohesive whole and we are left with a unique yet unsatisfying animated film.

I'm a fan of Michael J. Fox and hoped that his contribution would help raise my investment in the lead character, but somehow, like most the film, Milo just didn't gel. Overall I found the interactions between characters dull and predictable, only the physical action was able to engage me and there is some pretty cool stuff in that area: We get an intense underwater battle with a huge sea-monster, and the entire last 20 mins is all action and spectacle, with a particularly exciting volcano eruption to really finish with a bang. But despite all the effort in the action areas, if you don't care much about the characters, you're not going to care about what happens to them and that was the case here.

However, regardless of its uninvolving characters and dull tone, I was looking forward to the discovery of Atlantis - unfortunately, Atlantis didn't turn out to be very interesting and I didn't get a sense of the place as a whole either. Once there, you meet just a few key characters (yet apparently it is a populated city) and explore the barest of locations. I guess I expected a little more after such a long and dangerous journey.

In a first for an animated film, there was a entire plot element that I just couldn't wrap my brain around. Atlantis has a source of power, that seems to keep its inhabitants alive for eternity, but I was confused about how this power source worked. Was it a crystal? Was it a person? Why did it a need a person to work? Why didn't they understand how to use it if it's been the very centre of their existence for all time? Why had it seemingly stopped working, but still kept them alive for thousands of years? Why, why, why? Anyway...

Apparently the character design is based on Mike Mignola's chunky style (Hellboy). The characters are very angular, with big stubby hands. Personally I prefer the usual Disney style (like in Aladdin), but I guess it did add to the films unique look. There is an abundance of CG and it's well integrated with the 2d elements. I haven't watched the DVD's extras yet, but I'm guessing the ships backgrounds were fully 3D, with the barest of 2d details thrown in.

Sound wise, things are looking up. Underwater films have the potential for a truly immersive sound environment and Atlantis delivered. I pumped up the volume and gave my stereo a good workout (and managed to make my cat run away in terror when the subs kicked in).

Overall, I appreciate Atlantis for doing things differently, but after being spoiled by far more emotionally engaging films like The Lion King and Tarzan, Atlantis felt flat and lifeless. Maybe it's one of those films that grow on you with repeat viewings? Any big fans out there?

5/10 - Atlantis

Treasure Planet (2002)
95 min

Directed by:
Ron Clements
John Musker
(The little Mermaid, Aladdin, Hercules)

Based on the novel by:
Robert Louis Stevenson

Written by:
Ron Clements
John Musker
and others.

Starring the voices of:
Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Jim Hawkins
Brian Murray as John Silver
David Hyde Pierce as Doctor Doppler
Emma Thompson as Captain Amelia
Martin Short as B.E.N.

Official synopsis:

"In this adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's TREASURE ISLAND, Disney presents a fantastic space adventure. Jim Hawkins (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a teenage boy with a taste for adventure who seems to always be in trouble, much to the chagrin of his hardworking mother (Laurie Metcalf). But when he comes into possession of a high-tech map leading to Treasure Planet where an ancient cache of jewels and gold lies buried, it's like a dream come true. His mother's friend Doctor Doppler (David Hyde Pierce) arranges for a ship, and the two set sail, traversing the universe on course for the treasure. Captain Amelia (Emma Thompson), a domineering feline, is in charge of a rough-and-tumble crew of odd creatures, who may have their own designs on the treasure. Jim is placed under the supervision of John Silver (Brian Murray), the cook, who is both his father figure and his adversary. Slowly but surely the ship makes its way toward its destination, as Jim comes of age, learning to follow his heart, do what's right, and be a leader."

Ray's Opinion:

I prefer Treasure Planet to Disney's previous effort Atlantis. While it's not as classic as The Lion King, Aladdin or Tarzan, it's still an exciting adventure, presented beautifully and carried along by memorable characters.

Like Atlantis, Treasure Planet ditches the classic Disney musical numbers - it has one song, but it's not performed by the character himself - but unlike Atlantis, it does bring back the 'cute' sidekicks in the form of an enthusiastic shape-changing blob called Morph and a forgetful, blabbering robot called B.E.N. Thankfully they weren't as annoying as you might expect and they actually got a few laughs out of me.

I can see why the directors had their hearts set on making Treasure Planet (they've been attempting to make it since 1985 but kept getting assigned other projects), it's a cool idea and its potential for dramatic visuals is obvious. While some may quibble over the space setting, I thought it was a cool idea - completely implausible - but ripe with imaginative ideas. All the techniques in Disney's arsenal were put to use here and at times you have a blend of three animation styles at once: Firstly you have the obvious hand drawn 2D animation. Secondly you have the CG backgrounds using the 'deep canvas' technique (that was developed for Tarzan, enabling him to jungle 'surf') and lastly, there are 3D elements rendered to look flat and blend in with the 2D animation - such as John Silver's robotic arm (which blends in perfectly). It was exciting for a geek like me to see all these different elements come together so successfully.

Unlike Aladdin and The Lion King (and Tarzan to a lesser extent) Treasure Planet does not have broad appeal. It is definitely pitched at boys and this may explain its lackluster boxoffice numbers - it cost Disney $130 Million (including advertising) to make and returned around $90 million (worldwide grosses), their biggest failure ever. However video rentals/sales have made back more than its budget by now. I'm still a boy at heart and I enjoyed the young heroes' journey and could relate somewhat to his issues stemming from the lack of a father figure in his childhood. I find it hard to imagine most young girls enjoying it, even with the addition of the great feline Captain voiced by Emma Thompson.

The picture quality is high (it should be considering it's a digital film) and with a colour palette like this film has, you're in for a visual treat. The 5.1 mix gave my stereo a good workout thanks to space battles, supernova explosions and the like.

Treasure Planet is not an all out success, but it's a fun way to spend 95 minutes. As I've stated already, I don't believe it's in the same league as The Lion King or Aladdin, but it's certainly better than Atlantis and far more suited to my taste than Lilo and Stitch, Mulan or Pocahontas.

7/10 - Treasure Planet

I've been searching the stores for a copy of another Disney favourite of mine: The Emperor's New Groove. When I find it, I'll review it.

Any comments about your favourite animated films would be of much interest to me...

More animated film reviews by Ray:

Tarzan

The Prince of Egypt

The Road to El Dorado

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - Ray's Review

2005-09-24T13:30:00.000+12:00

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
109 min

Directed by:
Garth Jennings

Based on the book by:
Douglas Adams

Screenplay by:
Douglas Adams
Karey Kirkpatrick

Starring:
Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent
Zooey Deschanel as Trillian
Mos Def as Ford Prefect
Sam Rockwell as Zaphod Beeblebrox
Alan Rickman as Marvin (voice)
John Malkovich as Humma Kavula
Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast

Official Synopsis:

"...Seconds before Earth is destroyed to make way for a new hyperspace express route, mild-mannered Arthur Dent is whisked into space by his best friend (an alien posing as an out-of-work actor). And so the misadventures begin as he and fellow travelers, including the cool but dim-witted President of the Galaxy, the Earth girl Trillian, and Marvin the paranoid android, search for answers to the mystery of Life, the Universe, and Everything."

Ray's Opinion:

Do Panic.

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is not a total failure, but it is these things: Messy, dull, poorly paced and above all, dated. I think this really is a case where the film version should have been made when the radioplay/book/TV series was fresh, because the humour is often based around technology and my, how things have changed since the late 70's. It may have been funny before, but now, after great sci-fi comedy shows like Red Dwarf (which has obvious influences from Hitchhiker's Guide) and films like Galaxy Quest, Hitchhiker's Guide just seems incredibly out of touch with today's style of intergalactic humour

Take for example the scene where the Robot Marvin is told to freeze, he replies back "Freeze? I'm a robot. I'm not a refrigerator. "... oh the hilarity, I can hardly contain myself. But I'm being quite mean I guess, I did snigger a few times quietly to myself, such as when the ship's jolly computer Eddie anounces happily "I am pleased to inform you that two nuclear missiles are now headed this way... if you don't mind, I am going to take action". Zaphod replies "Computer, do something!". The computer answers back "Ok, switching to manual mode... good luck!".
I appreciated some of the more Monty Python'ish bizarro bits like the opening song where dolphins leave planet Earth and sing "Thanks for all the fish". And some of the advice from the Hitchhikers guide itself was pretty funny: "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy also talks about love. It says, Avoid if at all possible." But most the time I sat stony faced, staring at the screen with my finger hovering over the "next chapter" button (and this is coming from someone who adores British comedy and can endlessly quote Blackadder and Red Dwarf).

The lead actor Martin Freeman (from BBC's The Office) is banal as the pajamas wearing hero. The girl doesn't really have that much to do. Sam Rockwell was vaguely amusing as the two-headed "President of the Galaxy" Zaphod Beeblebrox, but his performace felt forced and was embarrassing at times (as it was with many of the actors).

I really don't have much else to say about this film. The sets, planets, creatures etcetera all felt uninspired. The humour was outdated and only occasionally got a rise out of me. Sorry filmmakers, Hitchhiker's Guide gets a big yawn from me. Perhaps fans of the source material appreciate it more?

4/10

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Ray's Review

2005-09-23T15:30:00.000+12:00

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
115 min

Directed by:
Tim Burton

Based on the book by:
Roald Dahl

Screenplay by:
John August (Big Fish)

Starring:
Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka
Freddie Highmore as Charlie Bucket
David Kelly as Grandpa Joe
Deep Roy as Oompa Loompa
Christopher Lee as Dr. Wonka

Official Plot Synopsis:

"Acclaimed director Tim Burton brings his vividly imaginative style to the beloved Roald Dahl classic Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, about eccentric chocolatier Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp) and Charlie (Freddie Highmore), a good-hearted boy from a poor family who lives in the shadow of Wonka’s extraordinary factory. Long isolated from his own family, Wonka launches a worldwide contest to select an heir to his candy empire. Five lucky children, including Charlie, draw golden tickets from Wonka chocolate bars and win a guided tour of the legendary candy-making facility that no outsider has seen in 15 years. Dazzled by one amazing sight after another, Charlie is drawn into Wonka’s fantastic world in this astonishing and enduring story."

Ray's Opinion:

This is one of those films that is nearly impossible for me to accurately review, I have such a love of the original film - as it was one of the most watched films of my childhood - that it was a bizarre experience watching the new version. Wonka is different, there's a few additional scenes and it's more faithful to the book, yet I couldn't shake the weird sense of deja vu I had throughout. I've seen this film already... about 30 times!

Firstly let's get Depp's Wonka out of the way. I am a huge Gene Wilder fan and had grave fears about what Depp's interpretation would be - Depp has the capacity to be completely over the top and ruin a film for me, which he did in Sleepy Hollow. Horrible descriptive words such as 'zany' and 'whacky' entered my mind, but thankfully Depp is great as Wonka and is different enough to Gene Wilder that comparisons are pointless - Gene Wilder's Wonka was undeniably strange, but you knew he had a good heart, where as Depp's Wonka is totally insane. I loved Depp's take on it and in retrospect, it's a good thing his Wonka was so different because everything else was so familiar. Apparently Depp based his interpretation of Wonka on gameshow hosts, mixed with a large helping of social ineptitude - not on Michael Jackson as many people would assume. Personally I liked the fact that he reminded me of Jackson, I thought it added a really bizarre streak to it.

If you've seen the original there will be very few surprises in store for you, it really is the same old scenes from a new director's perspective - a director with a unique and interesting perspective... but they're still essentially the same scenes. In a funny way, the new version felt like a companion piece to the 1971 version, expanding on things I'd wondered about (such as Wonka's past and where the Oompa Loompas came from). Some of the new scenes are from the book and had simply been altered or omitted from the 1971 version (such as the Nut Room now in place of the Golden Geese room), while other scenes are entirely new (like Wonka's flashbacks, detailing his relationship with his father, played by the enigmatic Christopher Lee). I loved the new scenes about Wonka's past, but found most the other new scenes made little difference overall.

The screenplay by John August (who wrote 'Big Fish', and the just released 'Tim Burton's The Corpse Bride') is better than the original. It's leaner and gets us into the factory faster, which is a good thing for kids as the lead-up in the 1971 version was protracted and full of strange adult bits that are sort of cool, but completely dull for the wee ones - my five year old sister was watching the Gene Wilder one recently and during the lead-up she turned and said "I'm bored", I skipped forward to the factory and she was absorbed from then on. Thankfully the new screenplay hasn't pandered to today's youth, and has avoided the pointless insertion of hip references to modern culture - which so often happens nowadays in children's films (such as Shrek 2).

The roles are all fairly well cast. I thought the 'child star' who played Charlie was merely average and his grandad lacked the warmth of the 1971 version (whoops, there I go comparing them again). Augustus Gloop looked the part. The girls (Violet Beauregarde and Veruca Salt) were perfect. Mike Teavee had nothing over his incredibly annoying 1971 counterpart. The parents failed to leave much of an impression on me, other than Violet Beauregarde's mother (in matching blue tracksuit).

"Oompa Loompa doompa dee-doo, I've got another puzzle for you" - what the hell is up with the new oompa loompa songs? They are bloody horrible and unquestionably the absolute worst part of the film. I hated the musical numbers and couldn't wait for them to end (I can just see myself pressing the "next chapter" button on my remote when I have the DVD). Unlike the 1971 film, these songs are A: Not catchy. B: Impossible to understand C: Totally pointless. I had no friggen idea what the Oompa Loompas were on about, which was a shame because overall the new Oompa Loopma (a single actor portrayed them all with the aid of CG) was pretty cool and way more developed than the old ones - with a little backstory thrown in too. In a nice touch, the kids observe that the Oompa Loompa songs seem rehearsed and Wonka tries to defend the Oompa Loompas, saying that they are just improvising.

The look of the film is, of course, in the typical gothic Burton style (Dr Seuss inspiration too perhaps?). Apparently the entire "edible room" set was huge and relatively CG free - it looked cool, but it's not really that different to the old version (there I go again).

Overall, regardless of it's astounding similarity to the 1971 version (which I concede is inevitable because they are both based on the same book) Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is an excellent family film, full of imaginative visuals, held together by a solid script and an interesting central performance by the much over-rated Johnny Depp (I love the guy, but he's not that great). If I hadn't seen the original film so many times I may have enjoyed the new one even more... or less... who knows?

8/10

Tarzan (Disney) - Ray's Review

2005-09-20T16:30:00.000+12:00

Tarzan (1999)
88 min

Directed by:
Chris Buck
Kevin Lima

Starring the voices of:
Tony Goldwyn .... Tarzan
Minnie Driver .... Jane Porter
Glenn Close .... Kala
Brian Blessed .... Clayton
Nigel Hawthorne .... Porter
Lance Henriksen .... Kerchak
Wayne Knight .... Tantor
Alex D. Linz .... Young Tarzan
Rosie O'Donnell .... Terk

Plot Summary from Amazon.com:

"...Disney's magnificent animated adaptation of Edgar Rice Burrough's story of the ape man begins deep within the jungle when baby Tarzan is adopted by a family of gorillas. Even though he is shunned as a "hairless wonder" by their leader, Tarzan is accepted by the gorillas and raised as one of their own. Together with his wisecracking ape buddy Terk and neurotic elephant pal Tantor, Tarzan learns how to "surf" and swing through the trees and survive in the animal kingdom. His "Two Worlds" collide with the arrival of humans, forcing Tarzan to choose between a "civilized" life with the beautiful Jane and the life he knows and loves with his gorilla family..."

Ray's Opinion:

I always feel divided about Disney films. On the one hand I love a good animated film and I admire the skill involved in their production. On the other hand I am an adult and usually there are many elements that my cynical self will struggle with in animated "kids" films, such as sappy songs, 'amusing' sidekicks and blatant moral lessons. Sometimes I have the capacity to just let things go and I really enjoy myself, other times I am cringing constantly and rolling my eyes. Tarzan had a mixed effect on me, but overall I kept my cynical self in check.

I've got to hand it to the folks behind the tight screenplay, this has got to be the most fast paced Tarzan ever devised. I've noticed some other reviewers felt it was rushed, but I just thought it was incredibly efficient. By the 25 minute mark Tarzan's human parents have been killed, he's been saved by his ape mum Kala, they've established all the animal characters - including the obligatory 'amusing' sidekicks - and Tarzan's gone from boy to man.

The highlight for me is the scene where Tarzan saves his ape father Kerchak and has a showdown with a leopard. It's an awesome scene and in comparison, the end fight is quite lame. I watched some deleted scenes and there was a early pre-viz type animation of an alternate fight scene between Tarzan and his nemesis Clayton. Clayton had captured several apes and is sailing down river in a small boat. Tarzan and him have a huge and brutal fight that ends with the ship exploding. It would have been a much more satisfying end fight and could have broken things up visually too. I guess it may have been deemed a little too brutal for children, or perhaps it was a running time issue (maybe I'll find out when I listen to the film's commentary track)?

Tarzan is a stunning looking production. The jungle comes to life with a system called 'Deep Canvas' that essentially enables you to move through what appears to be a painting, but is in fact a sophisticated blend of 3d elements and traditional 2d painting methods. It enables the virtual camera to go where it wants, creating a dynamic, fluid feeling - it is particularly stomach churning in the scenes where Tarzan 'surfs' through the tree tops; an improbable and bizarre method of getting around, but lots of fun to watch.

The songs are by Phil Collins and they play a huge part in Tarzan - he's crafted some catchy and rhythmic tunes here, but if you can't stand him, he may ruin the whole thing for you. There's heaps of his music and it is all in the sappy Disney style. I enjoyed most of it and actually caught myself humming the main tune "You'll be in my heart" long after Tarzan finished. I've got to hand it to Mr Collins, seeing him sing the songs in Italian, French, Spanish and German - for the international versions - was really impressive.

On the negative side I didn't jive to the 'amusing' sidekicks at all. Sometimes sidekicks are amusing and add something - such as Scrat the squirrel in Ice Age - but I found these ones obnoxious. Also I felt it was very strange having an elephant living with an ape family, Kerchak seemed to have enough of a problem with the 'hairless wonder' being with them, let alone a massive pink elephant. I most enjoyed the animals when they were actually acting animal-like, because sometimes they were just too human - such as the small monkey falling for Jane's "look bananas" distraction. I can appreciate that this is essentially made for children, but I think humanising the animals too much detracted from how spot-on most of the ape behaviour was (I don't have a problem with the ape's talking, because they identified that it sounded like ape-talk to the humans).

The voice work fits the characters well, particularly Tarzan (Tony Goldwyn - I best remember him as the obnoxious 'Colonel Bagley' from The Last Samurai). Minnie Driver (Matt Damon's girlfriend from Good Will Hunting) puts on the perfect snobby British accent (or does she?) that suits Jane, and Lance Henriksen's gravely voice is, of-course, perfect for the intimidating Kerchak.

The DVD image was excellent and I didn't spot any compression issues. The 5.1 sound (there was no DTS on this version) was deep and rich, and used the surrounds effectively. The instrumental soundtrack - with lots of cool 'jungle' type drumming - was powerful and really added to the excitement.

Tarzan is great entertainment for an hour and a half and is one of my favourite animated films overall. It's consistently exciting and has some incredible sequences like Tarzan's fight with the leopard and his jungle 'surfing'. Tarzan is an amazingly agile character that could only ever be fully realised in animation, which the animators did an excellent job of. Unfortunately - well maybe not for kids - it also has cringe inducing scenes like the scene where the 'amusing' sidekicks create a song out of everyday objects at the human's camp - The elephant plays the trumpet... Is that really necessary in the legend of Tarzan?

8/10

The Prince of Egypt - Ray's Review

2005-09-19T10:00:00.000+12:00

The Prince of Egypt (1998)
99 min

Directed by:
Brenda Chapman
Steve Hickner
Simon Wells

Written by:
Too many to mention!

Starring the voices of:
Val Kilmer as Moses/God
Ralph Fiennes as Rameses
Michelle Pfeiffer as Tzipporah
Sandra Bullock as Miriam
Jeff Goldblum as Aaron
Danny Glover as Jethro
Patrick Stewart as Pharaoh Seti I
Helen Mirren as The Queen
Steve Martin as Hotep
Martin Short as Huy

Plot Summary from Amazon.com:

"Born a slave and set adrift in the river, Moses (voiced by Val Kilmer) is raised as the son of Pharaoh Seti (Patrick Stewart) and is a fitting rival for his stepbrother Rameses (Ralph Fiennes). When he learns of his roots he flees to the desert, where he heeds God's calling to free the slaves from Egypt."

Intro:

For those who don't know, Jeffrey Katzenberg - who executive produced The Prince of Egypt - has an interesting background. In 1984 Katzenberg become the studio head of Disney's motion picture division and was responsible for turning the studio around by creating some of the most memorable box-office successes ever with films like: Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. He also signed the deal, forging the lucrative partnership between Pixar and Disney.

When Katzenberg didn't get the promotion he deserved for making Disney bucketloads of cash, he pushed the issue too far and was fired... big mistake for Disney (he later filed a lawsuit against Disney and got an out of court settlement for an estimated $100 - $250 million). If you look back Disney hasn't really recovered since he left. Sure, their Pixar films have gone extremely well, but all their traditionally animated films have gone poorly; think back to Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Lilo and Stitch and the more recent Home on the Range... these films are simply not in the same league as when Katzenberg was on board at Disney (in box office terms The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and The Lion King made close to 1.5 billion in combined worldwide grosses at the cinema. Atlantis, Treasure Planet, The Emperor's New Groove, Lilo and Stitch and Home on the Range combined made about half that much).

In 1994 Katzenberg co-founded Dreamworks SKG (with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen) and is CEO of the Dreamworks animation department. Katzenberg was ambitious and wanted to make something epic, he discussed this with Spielberg, and Spielberg said "Why not make The Ten Commandments?". After recovering from shock, Katzenberg dived into this massive project (which took 4 years to complete) and in 1998 The Prince of Egypt was released - a spectacular animated film with no cute sidekicks, that carries a serious biblical theme.

Ray's Opinion:

The first words that leap into one's mind regarding The Prince of Egypt are: Huge, Epic, Ambitious, Vast, Grand... you get the idea. TPOE is an incredibly attractive David Lean (Laurence of Arabia) type film that affected me on a completely different level to other animated films. I wasn't so much entertained, as enthralled.

TPOE starts with a bang with the song 'Deliver Us' setting the scene perfectly. Unfortunately no other song is as strong and often they felt too 'on the nose'. I can understand the importance of songs being in service of plot, however there is a limit to how far you take it. Yet the songs added to the dramatic quality of the film, so they didn't bother me too much (apart from the song that Moses sings "All I Ever Wanted", that was utterly pompous).

Visually speaking, I was blown away. The stand-out scene is when Moses parts the Red Sea - it looks incredible and is suitably impressive. There are smaller scenes that are inspired too, such as Moses's hieroglyphic dream sequence. Like most recent animated films there is massive amounts of CG elements - which at times doesn't mix entirely well with traditional animation- but it's all in service of making scenes as dynamic as possible, so the trade-off is worth it (I think I've made the same point in all my animated film reviews).

The characters reminded me a little of the style found in Roger Rabbit, with their shaded sides - making them look semi-3D. They also feature slightly embossed edges giving them a subtle hieroglyphic style. Unfortunately the DVD image is average and because large blocks of single colours are frequently used, you can clearly see compression issues, particularly in their skin. I had heard the DVD quality was exceptional, so this was somewhat of a unpleasant surprise (when things are moving fast, the compression looks fine). Thankfully the sound quality is top notch.

TPOE is a strange beast of an animated film. It's not really a kids film, yet people associate animation with children so of course many, many children saw this film. I would like to watch it with a kid to see how they find it, because there's little humour, no cute sidekicks and besides the chariot race, there is basically no action. Not to mention that we have some pretty bleak stuff here, such as: Dead children. A man falling to his death. Drowned guards. Human slaughter and a plague! It's all done as tastefully as possible, but it will definitely evoke a few more questions from children than most animated films.

Regarding the religious aspects of the film, I think Dreamworks did an excellent juggling act in telling a religious story accurately, while avoiding putting off non-religious folks like myself. Cleverly, the film ends with Moses simply carrying The Ten Commandments slab in his arms, we never actually hear them. Also God is seen as a general life-force - a sort of swirling energy, that surrounds a small tree- far preferable to the cliche 'bearded man in the clouds' image.

Overall I was very impressed. The animation style still seems fresh and inventive - and in places, jaw dropingly cool. The voice-work - while not perfect - suits most the characters and is never distracting. For pure entertainment I would be inclined to watch The Road to El Dorado, but for pure spectacle The Prince of Egypt wins hands down.

8/10

Read my review of The Road to El Dorado

Read my review of Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas - Ray's Review

2005-09-16T12:23:00.000+12:00

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (2003)

Directed by Patrick Gilmore and Tim Johnson

Written by John Logan (Gladiator, The Aviator)

Starring the voices of:
Brad Pitt as Sinbad
Catherine Zeta-Jones as Marina
Michelle Pfeiffer as Eris
Joseph Fiennes as Proteus

Plot Synopsis from Amazon.com:

"Sinbad gets commissioned by the wicked goddess Eris to steal a magical book called the Book of Peace from the city of Syracuse--but the prince of Syracuse turns out to be a childhood friend of Sinbad's. So Eris steals the book herself and frames Sinbad, making the hero sail to the edge of the world to get it back, accompanied by Marina, a woman he's secretly loved for years..."

Ray's Opinion:

Sinbad is not as good as Dreamworks previous animated effort The Legend of El Dorado. Firstly the basic structure is far more conventional and hero based, making it feel predictable. Secondly, the voice work is merely average, with Michelle Pfeiffer coming off best, simply because her character isn't as banal as the rest (but Eris is still dull). It's all very well to choose big stars to headline an animated film, but you can't just choose them because they are famous, choose them for their interesting voices and vocal comic skills... something Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta-Jones sorely lack (at least when you can't actually see their pretty faces).

The look of Sinbad is impressive. Much like El Dorado the palette is again highly saturated and leaps off the screen. Like previous animated Dreamwork's films, Sinbad is loaded with CG elements and overall they look cool. The huge monsters (like a giant squid and a massive white eagle) have a sense of weight to them, due to their 3D nature, yet they don't quite mix with the 2D animated characters. Take for example the bit where Sinbad's slobbering dog Spike bites onto the giant squid's tentacle, Spike and the squid look completely different, the squid is far more detailed. However I can overlook this, as the 3D elements add far more than they take away.

No matter how hard the filmmakers tried Sinbad has a generic feel and as a result I didn't really become involved. The witty banter between Sinbad (Pitt) and Marina (Zeta-Jones) didn't ring true, or perhaps I'm just bored of the antagonistic male-female interplay thing... it's so predictable: They rub each other the wrong way, yet secretly they are attracted to each other and ultimately they grow close through their shared adventures and then sail off into the sunset together... yawn. After the hilarious antics of Tulio (Kevin Kline) and Miguel (Kenneth Branagh) in The Legend of El Dorado, the character interactions in Sinbad just didn't measure up. Where's the originality? Where's a single moment between them that you couldn't see coming a mile off?

Another problem lies in the feeling of déjà vu you'll get watching it. For example, one of the big - if not the biggest - action set-pieces they build to is when Sinbad saves Marina from the giant white eagle's nest and they slide down the mountain using a shield as a sled. I have already seen this twice. First in Aladdin, when he barely escapes from the lava-filled underground lair on the magic carpet and again in Ice Age, when they all slide down the icy slopes to save the human baby. There in lies the problem with Sinbad, almost everything contained in this film you've seen before, detracting from any merit the scene may have, no matter how pretty they've made it look. Sometimes when a film is riddled with cliches and stale ideas they still manage to rise above it with some fresh, new elements - Sinbad is not one of those films.

Yet while it is predictable, there is still something charming about the whole affair. It is a fun adventure film, with dynamic action scenes and some cool supporting characters (the monkey man who swings around on ropes being a highlight). It's all wrapped up in a visually sumptuous package and it does its absolute best to entertain you while it lasts. It's just a shame that the voice work is bland and the plot so generic, when so much effort has gone into its design.

6/10

Trivia:

Initially, 'Russell Crowe' signed up for the title role, but in the autumn of 2001 he was replaced by Brad Pitt because Crowe was too busy working on another project.

Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta-Jones did not meet until the premiere - perhaps that explains the complete lack of chemistry between them?

Read my review of The Road to El Dorado

The Road to El Dorado - Ray's Review

2005-09-14T11:00:00.000+12:00

The Road To El Dorado (2000)
89 min
Colour - Widescreen

Directed by Bibo Bergeron, Will Finn, Don Paul, David Silverman, Jeffrey Katzenberg (Wow!)

Written by Ted Elliot (Shrek, Aladdin, Treasure Planet)

Starring the voices of:
Kevin Kline as Tulio
Kenneth Branagh as Miguel
Rosie Perez as Chel
Armand Assante as Tzekel-Kan

Plot Synopsis:

Two eccentric con artists, Tulio and Miguel, are shooting craps in the sun-squelched streets of 16th-century Spain when they win a map charting the way to El Dorado, the lost City of Gold, and see it as their ticket both to adventure and an enormous fortune. With the map in hand, they stow away on the ship of evil Spanish leader Cortez, bound for Cuba. By chance, the two men are thrown off course and find themselves in a lush and vibrant rainforest replete with exotic animals, hidden waterfalls, and traces of an Indian civilization. Stumbling upon the gate to El Dorado, Tulio and Miguel are thought to be gods by a group of Mayan natives, and they are led into the heart of the city for a special welcoming ceremony. There they meet the adorable Chel, a con artist herself, who practically bests them at their own tricks. In the end, the two friends must choose whether they will stay and enjoy life in the magical city of El Dorado or make off with the gold and return to Western culture as rich men.

Ray's Opinion:

I tend to go through phases of watching a particular genre of film. As some of you may have gathered I just went through a Western phase, before that I went through a show-off-my-home-cinema phase watching loud, glossy boy's films like The Rock and Independence Day. Now I feel an animated films phase coming on - I don't know exactly what it is that draws me back to animated features, the child within perhaps? Whatever the case, I love them (which isn't hard with titles like The Incredibles around) and am looking forward to delving into a few more in the near future and reviewing them here.

The Road to El Dorado is the second animated feature from Dreamworks after the successful and impressive The Prince of Egypt (which I will be reviewing shortly too). What I love about El Dorado is the fact that there is no main character, this is a film about supporting characters and freed from the restriction of having some earnest, do-gooding central character like most animated films, makes this feel refreshing and different. The major lack of Disney type moral lessons is a relief too (though of course there are some moral elements).

For me there is one huge draw card to El Dorado and that is Kevin Kline. I absolutely love Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda and his strongly recognisable voice is incredibly suited to animation. He constantly had me cracking up and on more than one occasion sounded very Otto like. Kenneth Branagh is excellent too and the witty banter between him and Kevin Kline is consistently funny. For example, after escaping some guards they leap in some barrels and are suddenly hoisted through the air to be placed on a ship, Tulio asks "What's happening here?", Miguel responds "We're both in barrels - that's the extent of my knowledge".

There are some elements that may put off overly sensitive parents such as bare bottoms (oh my) and mild cussing - "Holy Ship" Tulio exclaims as a ship almost crushes them at sea. Rosie Perez's character Chel is fairly curvy too and uses her womanly charms to her advantage. Considering what's on TV these days, I hardly imagine anything contained in this film has the capacity to shock or offend children (but parents on the other hand, well...).

The animation is gorgeous and fluid, mixing traditional cel animation with CG elements fairly well. The palette is rich and looked incredibly good on my LCD TV, with no compression artifacts to be found anywhere. In fact the DVD in general is of stellar quality, with a well mixed and aggressive 5.1 soundtrack to show off your stereo too.

The only real drawback for me is the music. Considering it's the same team that worked magic on The Lion King, it's quite a shock that the soundtrack here is bland and feels out of place. Whenever an Elton John song came on I was immediately pulled out of the experience. Personally, I would have preferred an instrumental soundtrack.

As the film progresses, Tulio and Miguel are swamped by story elements and as a result the amount of jokes dwindles. More focus on humour and less on the predictable story would have been nice. But overall, El Dorado is a great animated film, presented flawlessly on DVD and full of hilarious scenes thanks to the vocal talents of Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branagh (and thanks to the expressive animation). It's a surprise that such a light hearted and funny film like this was so bashed by critics and overlooked by audiences. I believe it deserves far more attention than it got.

8/10

Crossfire Trail and Monte Walsh Reviews

2005-09-12T12:50:00.000+12:00

Louis L'Amour's Crossfire Trail (2001)
Colour - Widescreen
92 min

Directed by Simon Wincer

Starring:
Tom Selleck as Rafe Covington
Virginia Madsen as Anne Rodney
Mark Harmon as Bruce Barkow

Description from DVD:

"Rafe Covington is as good as his word, and he's determined to keep his promise to a dying man that he'll look after the man's widow and Wyoming ranch. But the widow doubts the integrity of drifter Covington. And an unscrupulous land grabber and his gunmen are sizing up the ranch the way a spider eyes a fly..."

Ray's Opinion:

This is the second Film, in what could be considered the Tom Selleck/Simon Wincer Western trilogy: Quigly Down Under (1990), Crossfire Trail (2001) and Monte Walsh (2003). While I haven't enjoyed their collaborations as much as Selleck's other Western: Last Stand at Saber River (1997), they are still fine Westerns that I am happy to own and will definitely watch again in the future.

While Quigly Down Under was a proper film, Crossfire Trail and Monte Walsh are TNT TV Westerns and Crossfire Trail shows it's TV origin the most. The first fight scene, where Selleck beats up the ship's Captain had poor sound effects that shouted "TV movie" to me instantly, though thankfully the impending gun shots and other sound effects were much better. Selleck has mentioned in interviews that while they are TV films, they were shot like films and they did their best to make them look and feel cinematic.

The story was fine, but that's never why I watch a Western (though of course a good story helps). I watch Westerns to escape to another time and place, and I watch them for the hero. A Western is only a good as it's leading man and Tom Selleck is one of the few contemporary actors who has what it takes (Sam Elliot and Kevin Costner being the only others that leap to mind). Here he plays another memorable and charming man, and carries the film on his broad shoulders like a champ.

Crossfire Trail is yet another Western based on a Louis L'Amour novel, which is a good thing as L'Amour knows how to inject just the right amount of "cool" for his hero and fleshes out all the other characters admirably too (though I still prefer Elmore Leonard's dialogue - another fine Western writer). One thing that really stood out was how well defined all the supporting characters were, but that's hardly a surprise as their roles were filled by excellent actors, almost all of whom are experienced Western actors (though the hired-gun brought in to kill Selleck and his crew was a little over the top for my liking - perhaps Sergio could have made him work, but in the context of this film he was bizarre).

Overall Crossfire Trail is a solid Western that's worth checking out if you are a fan of the genre. It is beautifully shot and well acted, and builds nicely up to a well executed final shoot-out. I wouldn't call it an all out classic (it's too predictable for that), but it's still a success.

7/10

Monte Walsh - The Last Cowboy (2003)
Colour - Widescreen
119 min

Directed by Simon Wincer

Starring:
Tom Selleck as Monte Walsh
Isabella Rossellini as 'Countess' Martine
Keith Carradine as Chester 'Chet' Rollins
Robert Carradine as Sunfish Perkins
George Eads as Frank 'Shorty' Austin

Description from DVD:

"Times change, Monte Walsh doesn't. For him, being a cowboy isn't a job, it's a life. And that's something the fenced-in, corporate-bean-counting ways of the onrushing 20th century must never alter. Tom Selleck plays Monte, struggling to continue the life he knows while seeing the new era nudge the cowboy way toward history's dustbin. Lonesome Dove Emmy winner Simon Wincer directs this Western featuring a superb supporting cast and based on a novel by the author of Shane."

Ray's Opinion:

Monte (pronounced "Monty" for those like myself who didn't know) Walsh is a swan song to the West. Watching it I was reminded of Unforgiven, in the sense that it feels like a tribute to the Western genre and also a farewell (though I hope Simon Wincher and Tom Selleck continue making Westerns). It is not dark like Unforgiven (though it does contain some graphic violence), it is far more romanticised and Disney like, but not in a bad way.

Monte Walsh is an extremely assured and leisurely paced film. In some ways it doesn't feel like a traditional film at all, but more of a character study. It looks fantastic (the DVD transfer was superb), in fact the quality in all departments is very high (which is why I was a little disappointed in the quality of Crossfire Trail).

Unlike most Westerns, the focus here is actually on Cowboying (the real kind that is, breaking in horses and working your arse off, as opposed to endlessly standing around in saloons and killing five men a day), so don't come into this expecting an action film. The attention to small details is impressive and for real fans of the West this should be pleasing - the filmmakers understand the West and it is readily apparent that a huge amount of effort has gone into making it as believable as possible (while still being theatrical when it needs to be).

Selleck once again gives a charming performance - possibly his best ever - and commands your attention when on screen. As in his previous Westerns he has surrounded himself with seasoned Western actors in the supporting roles (such as the Carradines), who lend an immense amount of credibility.

Monte Walsh is the perfect Sunday afternoon film. If you can handle its sentimentality you should enjoy the ride... I did. Keep it up Selleck!

8/10

P.S. I may not review the Henry Fonda Westerns as promised in my previous post. I need a rest from Westerns so that I don't lose my perspective on them.

Western DVD Round-up 3 - By Ray

2005-09-06T16:00:00.000+12:00

Howdy partner. I've been watching a few Westerns lately, in fact, it's becoming somewhat of an obsession. I've seen about a dozen in the last two weeks, so forgive me if I am a little vague on some details in the upcoming reviews. The films are beginning to all blend into one: Mysterious Loner/Dishonoured Marshall hunts down the men who killed his family/or the pretty lady's family, along the way he learns the value of life again from a beautiful frontier woman (while killing everyone in sight) and settles down with her/or rides off into the mountains with a wound in his side.

Today I will be looking at 3:10 to Yuma, Shane, True Grit, Nevada Smith and The Quick and The Dead (HBO film starring Sam Elliot).

3:10 to Yuma (1957)
92 mins
Black and White - 16:9

Directed by Delmer Daves

Starring:
Glenn Ford as Ben Wade
Van Heflin as Dan Evans

Description from Amazon.com:

"Struggling rancher and family man Van Heflin sneaks captured outlaw Glenn Ford out from under the eyes of his gang and nervously awaits the prison train in this tight, taut Western in the High Noon tradition. Adapted from an Elmore Leonard story, this tense Western thriller is boiled down to its essential elements: a charming and cunning criminal, an initially reluctant hero whose courage and resolution hardens along the way, and a waiting game that pits them in a battle of wills and wits. Glenn Ford practically steals the film in one of his best performances ever: calm, cool, and confident, he's a ruthless killer with polite manners and an honorable streak. Director Delmer Daves (Broken Arrow) sets it all in a harsh, parched frontier of empty landscapes, deserted towns, and dust, creating a brittle quiet that threatens to snap into violence at any moment.--Sean Axmaker."

Ray's Opinion:

This was one of the few "classic" Westerns I've watched recently that I have truly enjoyed. As it states above, 3:10 to Yuma is a psychological Western (with very little action), similar to High Noon. Glenn Ford rules here as the manipulative and smarmy outlaw Ben Wade. Van Heflin's no-nonsense, I'm-doing-it-for-the-money "hero" is great too, I've never seen a hero quite like him (if you can even call him a hero). There is an air of unpredictability - I never knew where the film was heading and I was quite surprised by its direction in several places. 3:10 looks fantastic - the black and white widescreen image is crisp and vivid. This is a Western worth seeing, particularly if you like them a little different to the usual Western mould.

3:10 to Yuma - 9/10

Shane (1953)
118 mins
Colour - 4:3

Directed by George Stevens (Giant, A Place in the Sun)

Starring:
Alan Ladd as Shane
Jean Arthur as Marian Starrett
Van Heflin as Joe Starrett
Jack Palance as Jack Wilson

Description from Amazon.com:

"Consciously crafted by director George Stevens as a piece of American mythmaking, Shane is on nearly everyone's shortlist of great movie Westerns. A buckskin knight, Shane (Alan Ladd) rides into the middle of a range war between farmers and cattlemen, quickly siding with the "sod-busters." While helping a kindly farmer (Van Heflin), Shane falls platonically in love with the man's wife (Jean Arthur, in the last screen performance of a marvelous career). Though the showdowns are exciting, and the story simple but involving, what most people will remember about this movie is the friendship between the stoical Shane and the young son of the farmers. The kid is played by Brandon De Wilde, who gives one of the most amazing child performances in the movies; his parting scene with Shane is guaranteed to draw tears from even the most stonyhearted moviegoer. And speaking of stony hearts, Jack Palance made a sensational impression as the evil gunslinger sent to clean house--he has fewer lines of dialogue than he has lines in his magnificently craggy face, but he makes them count. The photography, highlighting the landscape near Jackson Hole, Wyoming, won an Oscar. --Robert Horton"

Ray's Opinion:

I couldn't agree less with critics and fans on this one. Shane is the most camp Western I have ever seen, with the gayest hero of all time. Perhaps this is the "archetypal" 50's Western... but who cares. Alan Ladd is a sissy who looks like he'd be more comfortable in tights doing an experimental dance production than carrying a six-shooter. The scene where Shane and Joe are removing a tree trunk together (Shane is topless and sweaty I might add) is fricken hilarious, the look they exchange at the end is priceless (they turn, look at each other and then break out the big grins... very, very funny). As for the kid who apparently "gives one of the most amazing child performances in the movies", I think my fiancee's reaction to first seeing him sums things up - he popped up from behind a bush and she laughed and said "He looks like a retard". Suffice to say Shane is not on the top of my favourite Westerns list. However, I will give it this, Jack Palance is cool as the quick-drawing hired gun and the final shoot-out redeems the film somewhat, but not nearly enough. Maybe if I had been a teenager in the 1950's I would have loved this film... but I'm not. I guess I like my Westerns with a dash more realism.

NOTE: I assume the film was actually shot widescreen, yet the DVD I saw was 4:3, which was a shame, as it's look was the best thing about it. I may have liked it more if I'd seen it as it was intended.

Shane - 5/10

True Grit (1969)
128 mins
Colour - 16:9

Directed by Henry Hathaway (5 Card Stud, Nevada Smith, North to Alaska)

Starring:
John Wayne as Rooster Cogburn
Glan Campbell as La Boeuf
Kim Darby as Mattie Ross
Robert Duvall as Ned Pepper

Description from DVD:

"The strangest trio ever to track a killer. A fearless, one-eyed U.S. marshal who never knew a dry day in his life... a Texas ranger thirsty for bounty money... and a girl still wet behind the ears who didn't care what they were or who they were as long as they had true grit."

Ray's Opinion:

I like John Wayne, though I'm no expert on the Duke (having only seen The Searchers, Rio Bravo, The Shootist, and bits of his other films). For me, a Western is only as good as it's hero and if he isn't interesting it will not hold my attention. The hero can be shrouded in mystery like the-man-with-no-name or made larger than life from tales of his past... or both. I knew I was in for a good ride as soon as John Wayne's character Rooster Cogburn was introduced, he commanded my attention immediately with his rough, yet charming ways. The film is primarily driven by the relationship he forms with a head-strong tom girl as he tracks her father's killer. I thought the girl was great and it was very funny seeing John Wayne attempting to assert authority over her and always being shot down. True Grit is an attractive film and the transfer on the DVD is of high quality. I can't put it into words - you just know when a Western has the right feel and True Grit is one of those Westerns.

NOTE: I watched the sequel Rooster Cogburn (made 6 years later) and was very disappointed. It looked dull and had a lagging pace. The "witty banter" between Wayne and Katharine Hepburn (who's Parkinson's disease I found quite distracting) felt forced. I only made it to the 30-min mark and it's not often I abandon a film. Thankfully Wayne's last film - The Shootist - is remarkably good.

True Grit - 8/10

Nevada Smith (1966)
128 mins
Colour - 16:9

Directed by Henry Hathaway (same director that did True Grit)

Starring:
Steve McQueen as Nevada Smith/Max Sand
Karl Madden as Tom Fitch
Brian Keith as Jonas Cord
Martin Landau as Jesse Coe

Plot Summary from Amazon.com:

"The Max Sand backstory in Harold Robbins's trashy The Carpetbaggers (an enjoyable wallow onscreen in 1964) made for a solid Western vehicle for Steve McQueen at his peak. Nevada Smith is a revenge movie, but closer in spirit to The Bravados than a Death Wish-style exercise in nihilism. Young Max, offspring of a white father and Indian mother, sets out to avenge their slaughter by three villains. His odyssey includes spiritual re-parenting at several stages, most notably by canny gun dealer Jonas Cord (a swell character part for Brian Keith). Since director Henry Hathaway and cameraman Lucien Ballard couldn't frame a bad shot if their lives depended on it, it's a relief that this movie is finally available in a widescreen format. --Richard T. Jameson"

Ray's Opinion:

I really wanted to like this film more. I enjoyed McQueen's transition from naive boy to tough cowboy and it is an attractively mounted film with a solid cast, but somehow, it never managed to involve me. For one, I found it bizarre hearing everyone refer to McQueen as son or boy, he was 35 years old when he made this and that's exactly how old he looks (hence the complete lack of close-ups on him). Also, it's difficult to buy McQueen acting naive, he simply has a world weary quality about him. Unlike some recent Westerns I've seen, the dialogue in Nevada Smith wasn't a highlight either. The best thing about this film is the physicality that McQueen brings to it, he was an incredibly agile man and it's clear that he performed all his own stunts. Nevada Smith is one of those films that you enjoy, yet it never fully holds your attention and you probably won't want to see it again.

NOTE: Steve McQueen returned to the Western genre with his second to last film Tom Horn. I reviewed it in my last Western Round-up.

Nevada Smith - 6/10

The Quick and the Dead (1987)
91 mins
Colour - 16:9

Directed by Robert Day

Starring:
Sam Elliot as Con Vallian
Tom Conti as Duncan McKaskel
Kate Capshaw as Susanna McKaskel

Description from Amazon.com:

"In 1876 Wyoming, the gun is the only law. And for Duncan and Susanna McKaskel (Tom Conti and Kate Capshaw), newly arrived settlers beset by outlaws, rugged frontiersman Con Vallian (Sam Elliott) is the only hope. From the book by famed Western author Louis L'Amour, THE QUICK AND THE DEAD is a rousing adventure. It shares tried-and-true ingredients of those sagebrush sagas: a tale of peaceable folk driven to action under the guidance of a mysterious stranger."

Ray's Opinion:

Firstly, no, this is not as good as Conagher - another TV Western based on a Louis L'Amour novel starring the ultra-cool Sam Elliot (which I reviewed in my last Western Round-up). I was surprised by how different Sam Elliot's hero character is to Conagher (though his first name is still Con - Louis L'Amour must have a real thing for that strange name). Con is not a reserved man and makes his feelings towards Kate Capshaw's character well known, regardless of her husbands discomfort. Con rides in and out of the McKaskel's life, giving them advice and helping keep them alive. However his help is not so welcomed by the Husband (played by the Ray Romano look-a-like Tom Conti). The father feels threatened by Con's advances towards his wife and he dislikes his son's admiration with this enigmatic stranger. Things progress as you'd expect, with the Father getting a chance to shine for his wife and son when Con is temporarily out of action - it's all very simple, but what makes it worth while is Sam Elliot. He crafts another cool hero here and if you're a fan then this is worth seeing, otherwise there is nothing particularly outstanding or original to see.

The Quick and the Dead - 8/10

In my next Round-up I will be taking a look at the recent Tom Selleck TV Westerns: Crossfire Trail and Monte Walsh. Also I will review two classic Henry Fonda Westerns: The Ox-Bow Incident and My Darling Clementine. By then I think I will well and truly need a rest from the west.

Western DVD Round-up 2 - By Ray

2005-08-29T12:45:00.000+12:00

Conagher (1991)

110 mins

Directed by Raynaldo Villalobos

Based on the novel by Louis L'amour

Starring:
Sam Elliot as Conn Conagher
Katharine Ross as Evie Teale

Plot Summary from Amazon:

"Conagher is both a hard-riding actioner and a character-driven look at Western life. Katharine Ross plays Evie Teale, widowed after coming West and forced to prove her mettle in many ways. Sam Elliott plays Conagher, a cowhand who, when not tracking rustlers, drifts in and out of Evie's life. Something about that frontier woman keeps drawing him back. But can Evie ever keep him from drifting out again?"

Ray's Opinion:

Finally, a great Sam Elliot Western! I've always loved this dude but struggled to find a definitive Western that he starred in, I guess I avoided his TV Westerns thinking they would be low budget crap, but after looking at the positive reviews of Conagher I bought a copy and I'm glad I did.

Conagher is a man of few words and of high moral fibre. He is a man who always does the right thing and much of the conflict stems from this. When asked by a co-worker to turn a blindeye to some foul play, Conagher says "Take a man's money and do the job he payed me for. I don't know no other way." His good morals get him in a lot of trouble and cause much frustration for his conniving 'friend'. I think a lot of what the film is about is: What makes a man turn against their morals? After an attack on their range - when Conagher has been forced to kill a man - his old friend asks "What do you reckon it is that makes a man go to hell like that?", the young man replies bluntly "It's the money, Mr Tay." Conagher ponders this for a while and then says to himself "The money... God help us if that's all it is."

I have always been attracted to Westerns because of the whole 'loner' aspect. I love the whole concept of a man, his gun, his horse and the freedom to just drift from town to town, drinking whisky and playing cards. So I was surprised to find myself - for the first time ever - more interested in the romance aspect, which is a testament to how damn good the romance is in Conagher. Like any great screenplay that has the ability to touch you deeply there has to be a truth to it. Louis L'amour clearly understood the heart and soul of both men and woman, and it's this that struck me the most while watching. I'll admit it, I cried like a big baby at the end (it has to be the first Western to have that effect on me), the connection between Conagher and Evie was just so touching (enhanced hugely by the fact that Sam Elliot and Katharine Ross are in reality husband and wife). If the romance doesn't do it for you, don't worry, there is plenty of solid action to satisfy you (there is literally every Cowboy cliche covered - bar room brawls, long distance sharp shooting, horse chases, etcetera).

Overall I loved Conagher and can imagine myself re-watching it every few years. Sam Elliot and Katharine Ross are simply fantastic actors and are completely convincing in their parts. The children are good actors too, especially the daughter; the scene where she mourns the loss of her Father is very moving. The baddies are not painted as entirely evil - they are more conflicted and lost then anything - as a result the film manages to balance it's more romanticised aspects with a sense of reality. My only major complaint is the image quality - the picture is quite soft and the dark scenes are difficult to make out - I would love to see this film digitally remastered, but it's unlikely as it's a TV Film.

8/10

Tom Horn (1980)

Directed by William Wiard

98 mins

Starring:
Steve McQueen as Tom Horn
Linda Evans as Glendolene Kimmel
Richard Farnsworth as John C. Coble
Slim Pickens as Sheriff Sam Creedmore

Plot Summary from DVD:

"The saga of Tom Horn - a real-life "enforcer" of Old West days - held a particular fascination for another legend. Hollywood icon Steve McQueen starred in and executive-produced what would be his next-to-last movie, a gritty, exciting recreation of Horn's latter-day career in a turn-of-the-century West where gentler ways supplanted the law of the gun - and Horn would be an unwitting victim of that change. Linda Evans, Richard Farnsworth, Billy Green Bush and Slim Pickens head a strong cast in a film capturing the essence of a time when a man's word was only as good as his guns or fists. Shot on serenely beautiful Arizona locations, Tom Horn indelibly brings to life one of the West's truly unsung heroes."

Ray's Opinion:

Having just watched Conagher it was with some difficulty that I adjusted to Tom Horn - its tone couldn't be more different. It has a strange empty atmosphere - an almost dream like quality. This was Steve McQueen's second to last film before he died (in the same year it was released) from lung cancer. He was not looking too good, so they shot him almost entirely from wide and mid-shots - you will see no close-ups of McQueen's drawn and haggard face. I think this contributes to the strange mood in the film, you feel distanced from the protagonist which makes it difficult to empathise with him. Having said that, Steve McQueen was a charismatic man and is still very watchable even in his sick state.

The first thing that struck me when Tom Horn begun is "How come I haven't heard of this guy before!". This is a Cowboy who negotiated the terms of surrender with the aging Apache Chief Geronimo, won the world Championship in steer wrestling in Arizona, worked as a roving gun for the Pinkerton Detective Agency (apparently killing 17 men) and rode under Teddy Roosevelt's rough riders! His background alone makes him fascinating and this contributed greatly to holding my interest though out the film.

There are some pretty funny lines and a lot of cool moments for McQueen to shine in, yet I found the general atmosphere quite dark and depressing - but not in a good way like Unforgiven - however this is a film about a man who's going to be hung, so that's hardly a cherry subject matter. In fact it is this dark tone that makes the love interest all the stranger. The film cuts back to memories Tom Horn is having of an old lost love and I didn't feel these scenes melded very well with the buildup to his hanging. My other main peeve lay in the films structure, the first two acts are full of action - basically Horn roams around killing a hell of a lot of men - and then the third act totally shifts gear as we go through his trial for murder; a more graceful transition may have been possible.

Lastly, this film takes Tom Horn's side and suggests he was basically set-up and did not accidently shoot the boy in question. A small search in google and I found this: "Horn had been hired to kill the father, but mistook the son for him and killed him with two shots from long range. Horn was arrested after bragging about the killing to the deputy U.S. Marshall during a state of intoxication." So clearly opinions differ on Tom Horn's "hero" status.

Despite the negative aspects, Tom Horn has actually left quite an impression on me. It's just one of those films that I will need to see again some time to really decide how I feel about it. I'd still recommend it to fans of Westerns.

6/10

Read my last Western Round-up where I look at The Bravados, High Noon and The Desperate Trail.

NOTE: I have just placed an order at Amazon for Tom Selleck's recent TNT Westerns Crossfire Trail and Monte Walsh, and Sam Elliot's The Quick and the Dead (no, not the film by Sam Raimi). So expect those reviews within the next few weeks.

Last Stand at Saber River - Ray's Review

2005-08-25T12:40:00.000+12:00

NOTE: This was going to be part of a review of three Western DVDs but I liked it so much that it deserves a full review.

Last Stand at Saber River (1997)

95 mins

Directed by Dick Lowry

Based on the novel by Elmore Leonard

Starring:
Tom Selleck as Paul Cable
Suzy Amis as Martha Cable
Haley Joel Osment as Davis Cable
Keith Carradine as Vern Kidston
David Carradine as Duane Kidston

Introduction:

We all know Tom Selleck as Magnum P.I. but do you know him as a cowboy? If you like Westerns then you are in for a treat. Any memories of Tom in Hawaii shirts vanish when you see him as a man of the old west. He is incredibly suited to the role and has made several Westerns, many of which are based on books by the famous Western writer Louis L'Amour. According to IMDb Sellecks co-starred with Sam Elliot in his first Westerns: The Sacketts (1979) and The Shadow Riders (1982) - both highly respected TV movies. He had a break from the saddle then returned in 1990 with the offbeat Western Quigly Down Under (set in Australia where he is hired to kill aborigines, but of course has a moral issue with that and ends up helping them). In 1997 he made the first of his TNT Western trilogy: Last Stand at Saber River, followed by Crossfire Trail (2001) and Monte Walsh (2003) - neither of which I've seen but they are both regarded as quality Westerns also. So it seems old Magnum P.I. has found a niche where his laid back personality and charm fit right in and based on how damn good Sabre River is I hope he stays in the saddle a while longer.

Plot Summary from IMDb:

"As America recovers from the Civil War, one man tries to put the pieces of his life back together but finds himself fighting a new battle on the frontier. Cable is an embittered Confederate soldier who returns from the war to reclaim his Arizona homestead from rebel pioneers who sympathize with the Union war effort. Desperate to rebuild the life he once knew, Cable ultimately joins forces with Vern Kidston, his Union adversary to make a last stand for the one thing worth fighting for -- his family."

The Optimist:

Having recently watched such classics as High Noon and The Bravados I was quite looking forward to a modern Western - I often find old westerns feel far too staged, the music too pompous and the costumes ridiculous (I appreciate there are many exceptions). So it came as some what of a relief to see the more realistic tone and less clean cut characters in Saber River.

From the moment they introduced Tom Selleck as Paul Cable I knew this film was going to be good. He looked and sounded the part and the mood was just right. He is not as brooding and mysterious as Clint or as puffed up and proud as John Wayne - he is his own blend of hero: laid back and charming, yet tough and intimidating all at once. He looks right at home on a horse and comes across as very efficient with guns - crucial factors if you want a believable Western hero.

Being a TV Western I thought it would be 4:3 and was pleasantly surprised that the DVD claimed to be Anamorphic, however only the menu appeared to be widescreen - the film itself is, in fact, 4:3, but thankfully it's a clear and crisp image. The sound (while not 5.1) was aggressive and well mixed. Apparently after the demise of Western films in the cinema many veteran Western directors started making TV Westerns, hence the high quality of many of them. Western films only come along occasionally now and have never again found the level of popularity they had up until the 60's (though there were still many great 70's Westerns, but they didn't attract wider audiences like in the past). My other concern was that the violence may be toned down for TV, but this was not the case either - several shotgun blasts to the chest and a man being run over by six horses attest to that.

Other than Tom's engaging performance and the classy cinematography, the next thing that stood out immediately was the action; it was incredibly well staged - I always had a sense of where the fighters were in relation to each other and was completely engrossed through out every shoot-out (unlike many westerns where it just feels like they are going through the motions, unable to elicit excitement at something we have seen so many times before). The final shoot-out has a particularly cool moment where Tom is wounded and totally outgunned. First he tries to talk his way out of it by saying "Here's the plan. You take the rifles and clear out, let's end this now". The enemie's leader shouts back "No, here's the plan. We shoot you and take the rifles." Tom sighs, looks down at his rifle and says "Fine". Then he opens a can of whoop-arse and nails most of the bunch. Sensing defeat the baddie shouts back to him again "OK, we take the rifles." It's funny, exciting and just plain classic.

A large amount of credit must go to Elmore Leonard, who's savvy dialogue adds an immense amount of coolness and humour to a fairly typical western tale. Take for example a scene where Paul Cable and his wife and children are in a bit of a pickle. They are confronted by a large group of men who have every right to kill Paul Cable for being a deserter from the civil war (though the war is practically over). When things get tense Paul Cable whips out his pistol and aims at the leader of the bunch (David Carradine - always great in a western). The leader quips "You think you can shoot us all?". Cable replies with something like "I'm gonna shoot you first and then I'm gonna shoot your friend, you care much what happens after that?". Classic!

Also worth commenting on is the great Carradine brothers. These guys always look at home in a Western (check out The Long Riders for proof of that) and their natural performances add immeasurably to the quality of Saber River. It was especially nice to see the "baddies" not being painted as black and white as they often are in Westerns and for Keith Carradine to get a chance to redeem himself and ultimately help Cable save his daughter from another - slightly unexpected - enemy.

I could go into the plot more, but the plot is not responsible for making this a good film. What makes Saber River is the strong performances, clever dialogue, great action scenes, beautiful scenery and the excellent pacing. If you like Westerns I have no doubt that you will enjoy this. I for one can't wait to check out the two westerns Tom did after this.

The Pessimist:

Suzy Amis's character Martha Cable (Tom's Wife) is a little off. She is meant to be angry at her husband for enlisting in the army and deserting his family for a little adventure, and that is understandable. When he returns - much to everyone's surprise, as he is thought dead - she is on his back right up until the end of the film. She just complains and complains and seems to have absolutety no sympathy for what he endured in the war (yet he does his best to understand what she endured in his absence). Perhaps this element worked better in the novel - I'll never know - but I found it hard to like her at all, which detracted a little from all the time he spent risking life and limb for her and his children. If I liked her more - or perhaps understood where she was coming from more - I may have cared for her survival as much as Cable did. Yet I can overlook this because ultimately things are resolved between them and it is a satisfying note to end on.

Another character which rubbed me the wrong way was David Dukes character Edward Janroe. He is the pro-War type guy and has moral issues with Paul Cable being a deserter. Inevitably they end up butting heads in a major way. After how layered the other "baddies" were, Edward Janroe just seemed a little over the top - whether it's the actor's fault or the script is debatable.

Other than the above two characters grating with me, my only other problem is it's too short! I was enjoying Paul Cable's company and didn't want to leave so soon.

Conclusion:

Last Stand at Saber River is well paced, well acted and well written. A damn fine western! Just don't go into it expecting Unforgiven or the Dollars Trilogy, Saber River's tone is nothing like those, it is much more laid back.

9/10

If you watch it and enjoy like I did, then look out for Tom's other recent Westerns Crossfire Trail and Monte Walsh. You go Tom!

Western DVD Round-up - By Ray

2005-08-24T11:15:00.000+12:00

The Bravados (1958)

Directed by Henry King

Starring Gregory Peck

PLOT SUMMARY FROM IMDb:
"Jim Douglas has been relentlessly pursuing the four outlaws who murdered his wife, but finds them in jail about to be hanged. While he waits to witness their execution, they escape; and the townspeople enlist Douglas' aid to recapture them."

RAY'S OPINION:
Having enjoyed Peck and King's previous collaboration The Gunfighter I had fairly high hopes for The Bravados. Its premise sounded promisingly dark and overall it delivered. Peck's character Jim Douglass doesn't say much, but he doesn't have to, his eyes do all the talking. I appreciated his intensity but must say he was a little too stoic for me. Peck doesn't engage me as much as say Clint, but Peck certainly looks the part and has a formidable build. On face value the plot seems simple but in fact it is quite unusual and you will probably be surprised by the ending - which helps to make it stand out from the crowd.

Good Points:

Some beautiful scenery.

Dark, brooding tone.

Moral ambiguity.

Twist ending.

Bad Points:

Religious aspect may annoy some viewers.

Some silly costumes (particularly for the lead lady Joan Collins).

Average action scenes.

7/10

Hign Noon (1952)

Directed by Fred Zinneman

Starring Gary Cooper

PLOT SUMMARY FROM IMDb:
"A retiring lawman about to leave town with his new bride seeks allies among the fearful townspeople when an outlaw he put in prison returns with his gang to take revenge in this classic western."

RAY'S OPINION:
I have been meaning to see this classic for a long, long time and I'm glad I did. While not blowing me away as I'd hoped, I was still fairly involved, all thanks to Gary Cooper. This is the first time I have seen a Gary Cooper film and he made me a fan quickly. He is an incredibly emotive actor who totally engaged me from his first moment on screen. After being dumped by the woman he married minutes earlier, our hero spends almost the entire film strolling around his little town trying to enlist help to deal with an outlaw from his past and basically gets laughed at and ignored by the very people he has protected for many years. It's all about "doing the right thing" and he seems to be the only guy around with any honour. You could easily swap the guns for swords and you'd have a classic Samurai film. Also of note is that the film plays out in real-time, constantly cutting to clocks as noon approaches increasing the tension as things just get worse and worse for our unsupported hero.

Good points:

Gary Cooper plays a great "sensitive hero".

Real-time pacing.

The film has a memorable look, very sparse.

Good shoot-out at the end.

Grace Kelly and Katy Jurado are babes!

Bad Points:

It's not widescreen (it was never shot in widescreen, so it's not the DVD's fault).

The pompous score detracts from the atmosphere.

I can't take Lloyd Bridges seriously after Hot Shots.

It could be considered a little lacking in action by some (nothing really happens until the very end).

8/10

The Desperate Trail (1995)

Directed by P.J. Pesce

Starring Sam Elliot

PLOT SUMMARY FROM IMDb:
"After years of suffering under her abusive husband, Sarah decides to no longer take any humiliation or battery - and kills him. For that, Marshal Speakes - her father in law - sentences her to the Gallows. During a failed hold-up on the coach she escapes - but Jack Cooper manages to snatch away the transported $2500 from her, which she would have needed to start a new life. So she follows him to get it back. Soon they have to team up against the Marshal, who wants her dead so badly, he doesn't mind breaking the law himself..."

RAY'S OPINION:
I really like Sam Elliot and he was the only reason I checked this TV Western out (don't worry it's in widescreen). Unlike his other westerns he plays the bad guy in this one and he's quite intimidating. I enjoyed The Desperate Trail overall and thought some of the action was well above average for a TV film, the only real weakness is the lead male actor Craig Sheffer - I have no idea who he is (a glance at his profile on IMDb shows he has been in a lot of crappy films), he looks like a strange mix of Christian Slater and Bill Paxton, but minus the talent and brandishing one of the ugliest moustaches in screen history! It was good to see a Western where a woman isn't just there to be saved by a man and actually gets to do some shooting (though she does have to be saved a few times too).

Good Points:

Sam Elliot rules as a baddie!

Well shot action scenes.

Looks very cinematic for a TV film.

Bad Points:

Average acting other than Sam Elliot.

Not enough Sam Elliot!

Forgettable plot.

6/10 - But it's still worth seeing if you're a big Western fan.

STAY TUNED FOR ANOTHER WESTERN ROUND-UP WHERE I WILL LOOK AT:

Last Stand at Sabre River (starring Tom Selleck).

Conagher (starring Sam Elliot).

Tom Horn (starring Steve McQueen).

The Machinist - Ray's Review

2005-08-17T11:30:00.000+12:00

The Machinist
2004
102 mins

Directed by Brad Anderson
Written by Scott Kosar

Starring:
Christian Bale as Trevor Reznik
Jennifer Jason Leigh as Stevie
Michael Ironside as Miller
Aitana Sanchez-Gijon as Marie
John Sharian as Ivan

Intro:

Before he made Batman Christian Bale went on a diet and made The Machinist. Directed by the fairly unknown Brad Anderson (Session 9) and written by Scott Kosar (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2003), this is a dark tale about an insomniac called Trevor Reznik, a man who hasn't slept in a year and is slowly going insane... or is he? The Machinist has been likened to Memento meets Fightclub and I guess that is a fairly accurate comparison. I did feel confused at times (much like in Fightclub and Memento) but this film isn't nearly as slick as Memento or as hip as Fightclub. It's not trying to be either which is why I like it so much.

The Optimist:

The Machinist could be considered a companion piece of sorts to American Psycho - perhaps Bale will make a third psycho themed film to complete a psycho trilogy? This film is nothing like American Psycho in any way except that it deals with a man who has major mental issues, but as a case study of someone losing the plot it is no less powerful (having said that, if I had to pick a favourite it would still easily be American Psycho, possibly because it is so funny and far less dreary).

The Machinist is not a particularly cinematic film, it is clearly low budget and appears to be filmed on video (at least that's how it looked in the theatre I went to). The look of the film is very washed out - in fact it almost appeared to be black and white at times. The cinematography creates a strong brooding atmosphere, yet is never particularly dynamic. The music complements the visuals well.

Don't go into this expecting a traditional thriller. This is more of a mindfuck in the vein of a David Lynch film. You will be confused and angry at times but that's the point - this film puts you firmly into the shoes of Trevor Reznic, a man falling apart at the seams. As a result you feel Trevor's emotions as if they are happening to you - creating a very intimate atmosphere.

The thing that most people seem to talk about in relation to this film is all the weight Bale lost for it. Yes it is disturbing seeing him look like this - he really does look like he is starving to death and at times he is truly quite disgusting to look at. It definitely adds a creep factor to the film, but it also makes you pity him more which helps one to empathise a little more with a character who is fairly unlikable.

One thing I was worried about as I watched this was that it may be like some dumb artsy films which have no clear cut resolution and just meander pointlessly to some vague - and apparently deep - conclusion. Thankfully this was not the case, as much as the film is ambiguous and scrambled it is actually heading somewhere and the resolution I found to be quite fascinating, if a little lackluster. But as I've said, this film is not trying to blow you away and that's what I admire about it.

Overall I liked The Machinist because of it's strong atmosphere, it's non-linear structure and the central, riveting performance by Bale - aptly supported by seasoned actors Jennifer Jason Leigh and Michael Ironside. This is a film that knows what it is and tells its tale confidently and thoroughly - though it may not ultimately go in the direction you expect.

The Pessimist:

The intimate, intensely personal style of the film could be considered quite claustrophobic by some. At times I found myself feeling like I needed a little breather as the gloomy atmosphere got to me, but can that really be considered a bad thing when it appears to be the filmmakers intention anyway? I think they wanted me to feel what Trevor feels - discomfort, confusion and sadness - and they succeeded.

This is a film full of symbolism and hints to the stories true nature. While it is cool seeing all these clues scattered around, at times I found it distracted me from the central plot. I could have done with perhaps a little less symbolism, but then the film may not have worked. I'd have to see it a second time (now that I know where it is heading) and see if it needs all the breadcrumbs.

Ivan the bald headed mystery man drove me crazy with his toothy grins and cackling laugh. Enough with the bloody laugh man! I get it, he is a creepy dude, enough already! Move on!

I am of two minds about the ending. In some ways I admire that it has a credible ending rather then some over the top shock ending, but it may seem quite anticlimactic to some. If you are a savvy viewer and you have some idea of where it is heading it shouldn't be a let down - it wasn't for me anyway.

Conclusion:

The Machinist is a lean film which knows what it is and knows how to manipulate the audience without being condescending or relying on cheap gimmicks. It is an intimate and dark tale about a sad, sad man on the edge of sanity, who is unable to reach out for the help he so desperately needs. If that sounds interesting to you then you will probably enjoy it, if that sounds depressing and awful to you then... well you know where I'm heading.

7/10

SIDE NOTE: I found The Machinist quite similar to Fear X starring John Turturro, but unlike that pretentious David Lynch wannabe The Machinist didn't cop out and give us the "what the fuck?" ending, it actually had something tangible to say. Though I guess you can always argue that in life things aren't always clear cut and perhaps that's what Fear X was getting at? Personally I like endings that I can actually grasp, call me simple if you will.

Sin City - Ray's Review

2005-08-12T00:45:00.000+12:00

Frank Miller's Sin City
2005
124 mins

Based on the graphic novels by Frank Miller
Shot and Cut by Robert Rodriguez
Directed by Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez
Special Guest Director - Quentin Tarantino

Starring:
Mickey Rourke - Marv
Bruce Willis - Hartigan
Clive Owen - Dwight
Benecio Del Toro - Jackie Boy
Jessica Alba - Nancy Callahan
Nick Stahl - Roark Jnr/Yellow Bastard
and many, many more!

Intro:

Up until now I felt Robert Rodriguez was an extremely overrated filmmaker. People seem to be fixated on his ability to shoot things fast and cheap. While he is a multi-talented and enthusiastic film maker I never felt this necessarily translated into very good films. Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is great and loved his book Rebel without a crew. I just think his films so far haven't delivered the goods.

El Mariachi (1992) was made on a tiny budget (he raised the money being a lab rat in Mexico!) and put Rodriguez on the Hollywood fast track. He has an impressive ability to stretch a tiny budget a long way, possibly helped by his extremely likable personality - hell, he talked the Mexican police into giving him their guns for use in El Mariachi!

In 1995 he made Desperado, essentially a big budget remake of El Mariachi. I recall being very excited by the advertising for this film. The posters and trailers made it look just too cool for school, but when I finally saw it I was disappointed. The first half hour or so was brilliant. The characters were strong and shoot-outs in the bar were very well staged, but then when the other Mariachis turned up to give Banderas a hand, the film fell apart. I don't believe Rodiguez possessed the skill to stage the larger scale actions scenes at that point in his career.

From Dusk till Dawn and The Faculty were OK, but still weren't as good as I thought Rodriguez was capable of. Don't even get me started on the Spy Kids franchise. I've watched all three and I just don't feel he captured the magic that good children's films have, not to mention they get more and more messy as he goes on. Spy Kids 3D was just plain awful, the 3D was painful to watch and the plot was utter crap. I understand I'm not the target audience in this case so I'll let it slip. However, he has no excuse for the absolute disaster of a film Once Upon a Time in Mexico (how dare he allude to Sergio Leone's classic films). I thought the action was a step back from what he did with Desperado and the plot was just a bloody mess. When it was over I turned to my friend in the theatre and we just went "huh?".

I always knew Rodriguez was a talented dude I just felt he never really knocked one out of the park... until now that is. Sin City is an absolute blast and is far and away the best thing he has ever done.

The Optimist:

Watching Sin City is a unique experience. It is like nothing else I have ever seen. That alone makes this a film worth seeing in these days of crap sequels, remakes of crap TV shows and crap American remakes of Japanese horror films.

The other thing that stood out to me the most, other than the incredible visual style was the level of sex and violence. It was so fricken awesome seeing a film with some damn balls for once! It reminded me of why I watch so many films from the 80's, when it was OK to show tits for no reason and to beat the living crap out of people for our amusement.

I felt refreshed and inspired after Sin City, something I haven't felt for quite some time. It also gave me that feeling that great action films give you - you walk out of the theatre feeling like you could just kick all kinds of arse, last time I felt like that was after the first Matrix.

As you know the film is based on a series of gritty graphic novels by Frank Miller. Rodriguez convinced Frank Miller to make these into films by showing him a small demo, proving that capturing the cartoon look is possible with todays technology. Frank was obviously happy with the demo and a partnership was formed (in fact Rodiguez had to leave the directors guild of America so that he could co-direct this film with Frank Miller). Sin City has been described by some as a "panel translation", as in they have literally translated each panel from the cartoon into a live action scene, retaining the same composition and design as the graphic novels. No other cartoon to film translation has ever been this accurate.

The film tells three different stories which overlap one another slightly. The first and best is the tale of Marv (Mickey Rourke). A massive hulk of a man who is framed for the murder of a beautiful hooker and who exacts his revenge in a series of incredibly violent encounters. Rourke - even under masses of make-up - manages to make Marv an incredibly likable guy, even when he's grinding someone's face on the road while driving. I found myself captivated by his commanding performance, helped no end by all the other great actors. Carla Gugino (Spy Kids) plays Marv's parole officer and all I can say is hot damn! Her nude scenes are something else, who knew this woman had such curves. I will never look at her in Spy Kids the same way ever again! I don't want to spoil anything but it's safe to say Elijah Woods ain't playing no cute little hobbit in this film, he is one sick mofo!

The second and weakest tale stars Clive Owen (from King Arthur), Benicio Del Toro and Rosario Dawson (Alexander). This is another story in the vein of a noir revenge and I found it too similar to the first tale (but I'll talk about that later). Basically he gets mixed up in a war between hookers, the Police and the mob. Needless to say things get very ugly fast. You will see a lot of gorgeous woman playing scantly clad hookers in this and believe me, it's the icing on the cake of something already so visually alluring.
The third story is about Bruce Willis's character Hartigan, an aging cop close to retirement who gets framed for the rape of a small child whom he tried to save from a sick pedophile killer. After eight years in prison he is released and you guessed it, excessive amounts of fantastically over-the-top violence ensues. Even more sexiness arrives in the form of the now grown up little girl played by Jessica Alba - how many babes can one film have?

This is a difficult film to discuss as I don't want to give away any of the great moments, but believe me this film is absolutely packed with memorable scenes and vivid characters - not to mention it's very funny in places too. You will be shocked, sickened, scared and excited all at once. Oh my, what a great feeling.

The Pessimist:

As I said above, the second chapter in this bloody opus failed to impress me as much as Marv's tale. For me, it didn't have enough to distinguish itself from the first story. As a result Clive Owen's character just seemed like a less exciting version of Marv. Britney Murphy has the uncanny ability to pull me out of the movie experience and remind me none of it is real - also I didn't think she was 'on the same page' as the other actors, effectively ruining the scenes she was in (which thankfully weren't too many).

As much as I love film violence, I did find myself becoming a little immune to it's effect by the end, but that's hardly a big problem. If you are the wimpy type you will definitely not appreciate the face mashing, dismemberment and penis ripping (yes, you heard me right). One's got to have a stomach for this level of depravity and it will certainly put off some people.

Sin City didn't really feel like a traditional film. It felt like three short films combined. As a result it's not quite as fulfilling as traditionally structured action films.

I'm searching for negatives here and coming up blank. For whatever failings this film has , they are so outweighed by the sheer amount of inspiration and love that's gone into it, that it's impossible not to come out impressed.

Conclusion:

If you miss the balls of 80's films (lots of nudity and violence) and are bored with generic Hollywood films, Sin City should feel like a breath of fresh air. It's inventive, daring and an absolute original (if you don't count it's noir influences). However, if you are easily offended this film is clearly going to upset you. It is full of unrelenting violence and makes absolutely no apologies for it. I say, good on them. Oh and if you liked it you have something to be happy about - they are currently working on the script for Sin City 2.

9/10

Previous reviews by Ray:

The Island

Land of the Dead

Batman Begins

War of the Worlds

Fantastic 4

The Island - Ray's Review

2005-08-10T00:50:00.000+12:00

The Island
2005
136 mins

Directed by Michael Bay
Written by Caspian Tredwell-Owen

Starring:
Ewan McGregor as Lincoln Six Echo/Tom Lincoln
Scarlett Johansson as Jordon Two Delta/Sarah Jordan
Sean Bean as Merrick
Steve Buscemi as McCord
Djimon Hounsou as Albert Laurent

Intro:

[If you don't know the plot of this film and intead on seeing it, do not read this review. The less you know going in the better. I can assure you, if you like big, fun (and semi-intelligent) blockbusters you will have a great time with this flick.]

I'd like to avoid spoiling the plot for you but then that would be difficult considering the studio has already managed to give away pretty much everything in the promotion of The Island. This is a shame as it detracted from several key plot points in what- on a pure entertainment level - is my favourite blockbuster film of the year so far.

The Optimist:

Many reviewers have spoken of this really being two films in one. The slow, thoughtful sci-fi first half followed by the blow-up-everything second half. While the second half is clearly running at a different tempo to the first half I in no way found this to be a bad thing. The two halves are not opposed to one another, they merely create contrast. It's called having a build up to the action and it works.

The first half (or thereabouts) is set in a sterile futuristic facility where the inhabitants all wear white and believe they have been saved from the 'contaminated' outside world. Lincoln Six Echo's (Ewan) day starts with the computer noting that he had a disturbed REM sleep and needs to go to some type of mental evaluation at 0800 hours. He then urinates and high levels of sodium (or something) are detected and his diet is adjusted accordingly. It's all very fascinating and I found myself captivated by the whole scenario even if I did already know it was some dodgy cloning facility thanks to the damn trailer! It would have been so much more effective going into this film with no knowledge of the plot.

The inhabitants of this facility are encouraged to play nice "A healthy person is a happy person" the disembodied voice tells them. We learn they are educated to the level of fifteen year olds. The one thing they all hope for is to win the lottery so they can go to the island - the last natural refuge on earth (apparently) that is free of contamination. Jordon Two Delta (Scarlett) wins the lottery on the same day that the curious Lincoln Six Echo (Ewan) discovers the facilities big dirty secret. Then it's action time as Lincoln and Jordon are hunted down in the real world by incompetent mercenaries, hired by the facilities head doctor Merrick (played by the reliably evil Sean Bean).

The Island was made for something like 120 million and has absolutely tanked at the box office - it's already been knocked back to 10th place after only 3 weeks and has made little over 30 million (a disaster by Hollywood standards). I feel bad for Michael Bay. No I really do. While I'm not a fan of Bad Boys, Armageddon or Pearl Harbour I enjoyed The Rock and can appreciate his skill at on screen destructive mayhem. This is his best film to date and the most fun I've had at the cinema this year. It is rated at 40% at Rotten Tomatoes (with 96 negative reviews and 63 positive) and that is just not fair! Even without the solid sci-fi build-up the action set-pieces alone elevate this film to a level way above other over-rated sci-fi films like Minority Report and War of the Worlds. I was literally ducking for cover and smiling like a crazy bastard during Bay's scenes of destruction. He totally blew me away! Just wait for the highway chase followed by the scene on the high rise - it is pure action bliss.

And then there is Scarlett Johansson. Oh my goodness. I am in love. She really doesn't have much to do in this film other then stand around looking hot, but damn does she do a good job! I'm not one to usually be excited by Hollywood starlets but Scarlett is the exception. I found myself so drawn to her that at times I realised I was neither listening to the characters or following the plot in any capacity. Can you blame me?

Ewan found his eyes kept drifting downwards uncontrollably.

Good points:

Two likable and attractive leads.

Great sci-fi build up to an outrageous series of action scenes that will blow you away!

Solid supporting characters by Steve Buscemi and Michael Clarke Duncan.

Very slick look with great cinematography.

Pumping soundtrack that compliments the on-screen action admirably.

A plausible and fairly well developed sci-fi plot.

Excellent blend of practical and CGI effects.

Ewan McGregor acting opposite himself is a hoot!

The Pessimist:

Even in a film that you have thoroughly enjoyed one always has the capacity to tear it to shreds. So with that in mind...

I can sympathize to a certain degree with many reviewers that it is somewhat of a letdown when the smarter side of the story is pushed aside in favour of the action. As much as I loved the action-pursuit, another side of me was missing the slow thoughtful build up. But I can live with it seeing as the action was so damn good. If the action had been weak (like Minority Report for example) this would have been far less forgivable.

Casting Sean Bean as the baddie is just a dumb move. It means you instantly know that he is not what he seems. Using a less type cast actor would have meant we'd have some element of surprise when he turns nasty. Also I felt like his performance was a little too by-the-numbers for my liking. A more complex baddie could have improved things considerably. Still, Sean Bean is always an amiable fellow, even when portraying an antagonist.

Steve Buscemi's character McCord- while very funny and well played - was an exposition tool. He was there to give plot information to the audience and to the lead characters. I felt some of his scenes could have been a bit less 'on the nose'. Subtle, is not how I would describe the screenwriter's skill at scattering exposition. But I have to hand it to the screenwriter, Buscemi did have some great lines. I particularly liked this exchange between the naive Lincoln and the world weary McCord:

Lincoln Six Echo: Who is "God"?
McCord: You know when you really want something, you close your eyes and wish for it really hard? God is the guy that ignores you.

Scarlett Johansson's character was great eye candy for sure, but you could have practically removed her from the film, tweaked the script a little and you would have never known there had once been a romantic side kick.

Even if you hadn't seen the trailers it would not have been hard for one to guess most the major plot points. It is a fairly predictable film, but I didn't feel that detracted much from my enjoyment and I fail to imagine how I would have injected more originality into what is a very well worn sci-fi story.

The military team hired to capture/kill Lincoln and Jordon are laughably incompetent. These guys can't drive, shoot or fight to save themselves! As for their leader played by the intense black dude Djimon Hounsou. What can I say? His character arc was contrived, sudden, predictable and unnecessary. But these baddie characters come with the territory.

The ending was unfulfilling. It felt sudden and unresolved. Helped in no way by how big and fun the middle action scenes were, the ending seemed a little pedestrian as a result.

Overall, The Island is a great example of a huge Hollywood film and I recommend it highly. If you can forgive the shift in emphasis from the sci-fi to the action then you should have a good time at the movies. But if you are the type to scrutinize the scientific aspects of a sci-fi film you better look elsewhere. Personally I'm looking forward to owning the DVD.

8/10

And for your viewing pleasure gentleman:

Land of the Dead - Ray's Review

2005-08-05T13:00:00.000+12:00

George A. Romero's Land of the Dead
2005
93 mins

Written and Directed by George A. Romero

Starring:
Simon Baker as Riley
John Leguizamo as Cholo
Dennis Hopper as Kaufman
Asia Argento as Slack

Intro:

As I kid I loved gore flicks. Peter Jackson's Bad Taste was where my love began and Land of the Dead marks the end of that love affair. Watching LOTD I realised no matter how good the plot, characters, effects or anything tried to be (emphasis on tried) I am just over zombies and gore films in general (but I can't make that an absolute rule, there is an outside chance an exceptional horror flick may still excite me sometime). I just needed to clarify this before I delve in. My attitude towards this genre that I once loved has shifted, I feel so utterly desensitised to the 'horror' on screen that I am unable to be effected by it any longer. So with that in mind let's get on with it.

The Optimist:

George A. Romero can basically be credited with creating the zombie genre, or perhaps that's over simplifying things. Of course other zombie films existed before his landmark black and white 1968 film Night of the Living Dead, but Romero made the genre incredibly popular and begun a trend in film that is obviously still going strong (as evidenced by the success of 28 Days, the Dawn of the Dead remake and Shaun of the Dead).

Land of the Dead is part 4 in his 'dead' series. As I mentioned it all started with Night of the Living Dead (1968) in which a few people utilise a house as their last defense against the undead. Then in 1978 (exactly a decade later) he made Dawn of the Dead in which people survive by holding out in a mall instead of a house. People talk about all the underlying themes like Romero's jab at consumerism (such as the image of the brain dead zombies walking repeatedly into glass, trying to get into the mall - obviously a jab at mindless shoppers buying crap they don't need). But Romero's 'social commentary' never felt very relevant to me. Maybe all the flesh eating and exploding heads distracted me from how deep it really was?

In 1985 Romero made Day of the Dead which was set in a military style bunker in which basically all the same stuff happens - a bunch of misfits band together to survive. They run around making stupid mistakes and kill a few zombies when they get their act together. I always thought these films were really dumb but that never distracted me from the sheer visceral thrill I got watching all these grotesque things taking place. I was totally fascinated and couldn't get enough of it. Which leads me to Land of the Dead. Romero meant to make this in the 90's (one zombie film for each decade you see) but only just got it together now (due to the resurgence in popularity of the genre), to be frank I really don't know why he bothered. I'm really struggling to come up with good points here now in 'The Optimist' section. For me the only good points in these films were the special make-up effects and now that I am totally desensitised to the gore there is nothing left except some low-budget, crappy Mad Max type film without a strong male lead (like Mel Gibson) and without any really good action.

Come on Ray, list some good points you rambling fool! Right, OK... good points. Ummmm.

Asia Argento (who plays the heroine called Slack) is hot. See:

One thing I did like and that I consider to be the only really new concept in Romero's screenplay is that the zombies are learning to be human again. Such as the main zombie character who used to pump gas and stands around at a gas station fiddling with the pump, unable to fully grasp what exactly he used to do. He ends up learning how to use a machine gun (through firing it accidentally) which leads to other zombies imitating him and using weapons too. This is a cool development that adds some depth to the film, but it's too little too late.

I can tell Romero is trying to make some comment on the state of the world (such as thousands of people dying needless deaths in pointless wars), but having a character say something like "This isn't war, this is slaughter!" after killing countless, defenceless zombies feels out of context with all the gratuitous gore. Is this genre really the place to comment on the state of the world?

The main story of rich folks living some luxury lifestyle in a high rise while all the scumbag humans live in a shitty wasteland is meant to resonate on some deeper level too I think, but didn't work for me either. It just didn't make much sense. How did they have all these luxury items when the world is overrun with the living dead? Where did they continue to get all this stuff from (and no, showing some characters raiding a supermarket and getting a truck full of cans does not convince that this luxury lifestyle would be sustainable). Also why wouldn't all the 'scumbag' humans attack and destroy this luxury high rise out of pure resentment? It's not like they have much to live for anyway, so why not make life suck for the privileged folks too? The luxury high rise building was protected by a big electric fence - am I meant to believe this and a few guards would keep thousands of people out?

OK Ray... settle down and try to list a few good points. Ready?

The zombies coming out of the water was very cool visually.

The bit where Dennis Hooper said "Zombies man, they creep me out!" was laugh-out-loud funny.

Did I mention Asia Argento is hot? For those of you who don't know, she is the daughter of Italian horror film director Dario Argento (Suspiria).

A few of the kills were pretty inventive (such as the flip-top head dangling from a flap of skin).

The Pessimist:

Simon Baker (the Australian actor from The Shield) is apparently the main hero in this film. Well at least that appears to be the role he is attempting to fill. I don't know if it's the script or him but he is neither commanding nor charismatic.

'Let's get Dennis Hopper to play another bad guy role'. Yay how inspired! Seriously why? There are so many newer, better actors that could have filled this role, but I guess he did lend some credibility to the cast even if he is mainly relegated to direct to video films these days.

Fancy special effects are not enough to get by on. This film needed characters that I cared about and these generic, quasi futuristic tough guys and gals sucked! I'm sorry, I'm usually more literate and constructive with character descriptions but these actors were all so crappy that I am overwhelmed with mediocre descriptions such as 'sucked' and 'crappy' (maybe I'm being a bit harsh, John Leguizamo was pretty entertaining - even if he was doing his usual schtick).

The 'Dead Reckoning' truck was meant to be cool. It was just like the armoured truck at the end of Clint Eastwood's The Gauntlet, except it could shoot fire works. The characters all looked embarrassed when they had to refer to it by it's full name, as opposed to saying 'the truck' as you probably would in real life.

The 'deep' commentary about the pointless deaths of humans and social hierarchy was contrived and simplistic.

There is no grand scale to the film. You have no sense that the zombie thing is happening on a world scale. Just a few shots of other countries filled with zombies could have helped (but obviously their budget was restrictive).

Let's put things in perspective. The remake of Dawn of the Dead was better than this as a sheer horror experience. Shaun of the Dead handled the social commentary aspect more skillfully. Peter Jackson's zombie masterpiece Braindead (aka Dead Alive) is both scarier and funnier, and it came out 13 years ago! Sorry Mr Romero but your disciples have learnt from your mistakes and have raced ahead leaving you in the dust!

LOTD is not a bad film, it is merely an adequate continuation of the series, nothing more, nothing less. If you grew up on horror films they probably have a special place in your heart and you should see LOTD as you will appreciate how far special effects have come and will enjoy some of the inventive kills. But if like me, you used to love horror films but are now desensitised to gore in general, avoid it, it has nothing substantial to add to the zombie genre and you will be under whelmed and bored like I was.

[But hey, I'm a minority on my poor rating. LOTD has a 73% 'fresh' rating at RottenTomatoes.com - where they take hundreds of reviews into consideration and come out with an overall rating.]

6/10

Ray's Top 50 Arcade Games - Part 2 of 2

2005-08-02T14:00:00.000+12:00

Now I will list my remaining 25 favourite Arcade Games:

Ninja Spirit (1988)
Action Platformer
What better game to start the second half of my Top 50 Arcade Games with than another Ninja game! This one is very good though. It could be considered as a sequel to Legend of Kage as it feels quite similar. You can swap between various weapons during play which is a nice touch.

Pacland (1984)
Platformer
This is Pacman's only Arcade platformer outing to the best of my knowledge and what a change of scene for him. Maybe I was just a sucker for the colourful graphics when I was a kid but I played this quite a bit. Basically you need to get across town which means avoiding all the ghosts and leaping over swimming pools (with the help of small diving boards). The weird thing in this game is that you continuously tap the joystick in the direction you want to go in, strange at first but you get used to it.

Pang (1989)
Puzzle
This was quite popular when it came out. Simply destroy all the bouncing balls but watch out because when they are hit they split up into many smaller balls. The trick is to handle things one ball at a time otherwise there will be so many balls on screen that you will be overwhelmed by balls. I like balls.

Puzzle Bobble 2 (1995)
Puzzle
Speaking of balls - here's some more! Another great puzzle game. Match the ball in your launcher with 2 or more of the same colour and they will explode. In 2-player mode, the more you destroy on your side the worse it gets for your opponent. This game is sort of a demented take on Tetris.

Pocket Gal (1987)
Pool
This is not the definitive pool game. You have minimal precision when taking a shot but it's not exactly a hardcore simulation of the sport. Get those balls down in sequence and then you get to see some cartoon boobies... yay! What more could you want from a game?

Rally Bike (1988)
Racing
Go fast and try to qualify, but watch that fuel or you'll never make it! This is a fun and deceivingly simple racer. Aim for the ramps and jump onto the back of the pig truck, then you can steer it and take out your opponents!

Rampage (1986)
Action
No Top Arcade Games list would be complete without this classic! Take control of a famous monster and destroy some buildings. It's simple, well designed, attractive and fun. But I'll admit, after playing through 20 or so levels it can become monotonous.

RoboCop (1987)
Action
This is one of the best (if not the best) movie tie-in arcade games. Robocop the game manages to capture the cold and brutal tone of the film perfectly. It puts samples from the film to good use - adding to its authenticity. Nice graphics and just enough level variation help you stick through to the end. Excellent music too.

Rolling Thunder (1986)
Action Platformer
It may not be from Sega but Rolling Thunder has always felt like Shinobi's gun totting half-brother to me. This game was very polished for it's time - with it's fluid animation and stylised characters. An interesting feature is the ability to select a chapter at the start effectively meaning you don't have to play through levels you have already beaten - a fairly unique feature for an arcade game. An absolutely classic soundtrack too.

Rygar (1986)
Action Platformer
Yet another great game from the 1984 - 1988 time period (I think this is the golden era for me). Rygar stood out for its strange look and even stranger baddies. The ability to shoot in several directions with your grappling hook thingie helped it stand out too, not to mention the amount of weapon upgrading available too. This is one of those games that just has a great feel to it. Watch out because it has a steep learning curve.

Shoot out (1985)
Action
Practice in the shooting range then take to the streets and open a can of whoop-arse! This game is unique in that you don't have an aiming reticle (like Cabal for example) but simply 'feel' the aiming more naturally and point in the general direction of the baddie and fire. Strange at first but quite addictive once you get the hang of it.

Smash T.V. (1990)
Shoot-em-up
Whoah... this is one crazy shoot-em-up. This stood out for 3 key reasons when it was released. Firstly the controls. Each player had two sticks, one for walking and one for shooting, which was great as it meant you could comfortably walk in one direction and fire in another. Two, its unique T.V. show scenario (with over the top presenter included - not unlike the guy from The Running Man). Lastly, the action is absolutely unrelenting and blood filled. You will have literally killed over 100 baddies within 30 seconds of play!

Snow Bros (1990)
Platformer
Apparently there is some connection between this and the much older classic Bubble Bobble (in which you capture baddies inside bubbles instead of snowballs), but this isn't a Taito game so I can't imagine there's any connection other then this essentially being a re-make. This is one of the best two-player games around and is highly addictive. Cover the baddies in snow then smash them into each other for bonuses and weapon upgrades. Fun times!

Strider (1989)
Action Platformer
From the first moment I saw Strider it was apparent that it was in a league of it's own. Everything from the graphics to the gameplay is extremely polished and inventive. If you like platformers with plenty of action you must play this!

Time Pilot (1982)
Shoot-em-up
Travel through different time periods and shoot everything down! Simple, well made and with a nice control feel - this is a classic 'must-play' from yesteryear.

Toki (1989)
Action Platformer
Let me guess. Your girlfriend has been captured and now you need to get her back? Um, yes that is the startlingly original plot of this rather average platformer. I'm not entirely sure why I played this one a lot when I was young, but I spent heaps on it so I must have had a good reason... right? Maybe I just liked being a monkey?

Truxton (1988)
Space Shooter
This was easily my favorite in the very full 'Vertical Scrolling Space Shoot-em-up' genre. For one simple reason - the weapons were the absolute coolest and biggest out of all the other contenders. A solid and fun 2-player space shooting experience. Get that blue laser gun and toast some space scum!

Neo Turf Masters (1996)
Golf
What's there to say? This is the best arcade style golf game I have ever played. Simple controls, great graphics and possibly the most annoying soundtrack of all time! If you like golf games get this now, you will not be disappointed.

Vigilante (1988)
Beat-em-up
Vigilante can be considered the sequel to one of my all time favourites Kung Fu Master. Except this is meaner, faster and harder. Madonna (WTF?) has been kidnapped and you need to get her back, so it's time to crack some skulls! Check it out if you like this genre, it's a fine specimen.

Violence Fight
One on One Beat-em-up
I would call this more of a brawler then a beat-em-up. I like how brutal the fighting is and how you are not restricted to simply walking left and right. In one of the bonus stages you have to beat up a Tiger! Funny stuff! This is sort of like a decent version of the very crappy Pit Fighter.

Wardner (1987)
Platformer
Wardner is a slow moving but attractive platformer that stood out at the time for it's atmospheric graphics and the ability to purchase upgrades and health between levels. Nothing really exceptional about it really, it's just a decent platformer.

Wonder Boy (1986)
Platformer
This game almost made it into my Top 10 as it is simply an absolute classic! I assume that your girlfriend has been kidnapped etc? Whiz along on a skateboard (if you can handle the speed) and chuck stone hammers at the natives (this game is not PC at all). An essential platformer, plain and simple.

WWF Superstars (1988)
Wrestling
What can I say? If you grew up in the 80's you watched WWF. So what could be better then actually controlling the likes of Hulk Hogan and The Ultimate Warrior? This is addictive, fun and highly amusing, nuff said.

WWF Wrestlefest (1991)
Wrestling
Just like it's predecessor except a little slower and with absolutely huge sprites! This is the bomb! Great 2-player tag-team fun!

Xain'd Sleena (1986)
Action Platformer
Possibly the strangest named game in history. Nevertheless this is a pretty cool space themed game with good level variation (you visit 5 very different planets and wipe out everything!). It also features some side scrolling action in your spaceship too. This game almost made my Top 10 until I re-played it and realised I used to have far more patience.

Well there you have it. These are the Top 50 arcade games from my youth. Some I just feel immense amounts of nostalgia for while others I still play to this very day. I hope somewhere in here you are reminded of one of your old favorites and you seek it out to re-live the glory days. One golden era of gaming has passed let's hope another one arrives soon!

Previous Top 25 Arcade Games

Free Games Guide - By Ray

2005-07-27T11:00:00.000+12:00

No this is not a way to download games illegally. This is my guide to finding some great freeware/abandonware games - which includes old dos/windows games that used to be for sale but are now free, and independent games created by people who just do it out of their love for games.

These games fall into many categories. For example, would you expect the original two Grand Theft Autos to be available for free? Well they are! As is Tribes - an online team based FPS that has a huge following. Did you like point and click adventure games? Then maybe you should download Beneath a Steel Sky with full voice support. Or perhaps you played Manic Mansion and would like to download it... well don't! Instead download the even better Manic Mansion Deluxe painstakingly re-created and updated with better graphics by fans of the original.

Perhaps you don't know any of these games I'm talking about and you just want to download a fun shoot-em-up or a Lode Runner clone or a Tetris type game or a Civilisation type game... The list is endless and it's all out there for free!

Before I get to the sites it is worth mentioning that some of these games will require a little effort on your behalf to get going. Many of the newer re-makes of games will run perfectly with no fiddling while others may require you to click on a few of those handy windows 95 compatibility options (run in 640x480, run in 256 colours etc...). While others will require you to run them in Dosbox (there is a mac version of Dosbox too by the way). Whatever the case there are plenty of guides out there to help you get games going and it's really not that hard. So don't let a little effort put you off. Old games rock!

Abandonia - dedicated to classic dos games

There are a heap of old dos and windows games here divided into several categories. Just glancing through I found myself being constantly surprised by the number of very flash looking games available for free download. There are of course plenty of older - EGA, adlib - type dos games available too if that's your thing.

MDK (Murder Death Kill)

Beneath a Steel Sky

GTA 1 + 2

NOTE: Not all the games at Abandonia are available to download. If it has a small 'ESA' sign next to it it is protected by copyright.

Abandonia also have a link to their newer site called Abandonia Reloaded - dedicated to retro remakes and community made freeware. Just glancing through I noticed they only have about 60 games, but what's there is pretty sweet.

GameHippo - over 1000 freeware PC games to download

Heaps of cool games here and the majority of them are very small downloads. Great if you only have dial-up.

Gene Rally

Spice Trade

Also what is interesting about Abandonia is that they list what 'dev' tool each game was created with. Of course some are programmed traditionally, but many are made using the popular game creation tool Game Maker (there's a free version with a few limitations, but the full version is cheap anyway). Gamemaker is perfect for creating platformers and shoot-em-ups, but in theory you can create a game in any genre (like a strategy game for example), with no programming skills required. Check out some Gamemaker games.

Seiklus - An original platformer. It's beauty lies in it's simplicity.

Legend of Shadow - A retro remake of the arcade classic Legend Of Kage.

Home of the Underdogs

In their own words these guys are "dedicated to the preservation and promotion of underrated PC games".

This was the first "abandonware" type games site I found where there was an abundance of great games that I thought I would never be able to find again. Some games which are not available for download at other sites are available here because as they put it "We believe that providing games that have been abandoned by their publishers, while technically illegal, is a valuable service to the gaming community because these games are in danger of disappearing into obscurity, and their copyright holders no longer derive any revenues from them".

One cool thing about the site is the ability to list games in handy ways (popularity, publisher, year etc), though I've found this feature no longer works for me under Firefox browser. Also these guys are popular so sometimes it is slow. Still well worth checking out though.

GarageGames - changing the way games are made and played

Here you will find some awesome games made using the Torque game engine (which sounds fantastic by the way). All the games have demos available for free download. Once again it is truly inspiring to see what fellow game enthusiasts out there have made themselves using the flexible and impressive Torque Game Engine.

Marble Blast Gold (I am addicted to this one. Pure bliss!)

DH: Lore Invasion

Retrospec - Retro Gaming at it's best!

These are games that have been re-made to run on current PC's. Some of them are up-dated with better graphics and sound, while others retain their old look.

There aren't many here, but what's here is the cream of the crop.

We have already reviewed Head Over Heels (you can find it in the previous posts). A great example of what retro gaming is all about!

Head Over Heels

Chuckie Egg: The Next Batch

Adventure Game Studio

Adventure Game Studio (AGS) is an awesome free development tool for creating Lucasarts and Sierra type adventure games. It is extremely easy to use, yet with some time and skill the results can be incredible. Some games are re-makes like Manic Mansion Deluxe and Kings Quest 1 + 2 where they have painstakingly updated the graphics and in some instances added more puzzles and depth if it was lacking. While others are total originals. Just look at the quality of the titles available here:

Manic Mansion Deluxe

King's Quest II - VGA

Apprentice II: The Knight's Move

For me these are the most inspiring to see as Monkey Island is still my top gaming experience. I just can't let go of these point and click adventure games and now I don't have too!

Soldat - 2D Multiplayer Shooter

This is possibly the greatest freeware game I have come across. It's a bit like Worms and Liero, but in my opinion it's even better. Basically you control a little army guy and jump around (with the help of jet powered boots) blowing people away with a wide range of guns. You can play against bots or go online (or networked too of course). No words can describe how fun it is so just download it!

Well that's it from me for now. Whether it's a game from your past that you want to re-live or something new in your favorite genre, I guarantee if you spend a little time browsing these sites you will find something you love.

Enduring Love - Jehovah's Review

2005-07-25T21:40:00.000+12:00

Enduring Love
2005
100 mins

Directed by Roger Michell
Based on the novel by Ian McEwan
Screenplay by Joe Penhall

Starring:
Daniel Craig as Joe
Samantha Morton as Claire
Rhys Ifans as Jed

More info available at IMDb - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375735/

I went to this movie on a first date. And I think I made a mistake. The opening scene is of Joe (Daniel Craig) and his girlfriend (Samantha Morton) in a field sharing a bottle of champagne. Sounds romantic, right? Before long a Hot-air balloon soars across the field and tries to land. To cut a long story short, a man eventually falls from the balloon to his death (the dead man’s body has some of the best bloods and guts I have ever seen). Through a series of bizarre events Joe begins to be stalked by Jed (Rhys Ifans), who he met during the incident. Jed turns out to be a homosexual psychopath who will stop at nothing to win the heart of his new-found love.

One would assume from the movie title and Roger Michell’s backlog (including directing Notting Hill) that this would be a safe bet. It may have stuffed my chances with the dame concerned, but that does not mean that the movie is a write-off. Quite the opposite. For those who like psychological thrillers and bit of an emotional rollercoaster ride: this one is for you. The slow and painful breakdown of Joe is quite a sight to behold.

The philosophical sub-plot of trying to understand love and its role in our lives is tossed from one extreme to the other. Joe, you see, is an academic who lectures on love. He knows all there is to know about love. But being in love is far more complex than knowing about it. If you are insecure about what love means then do not watch this movie. It will mess with your head

This movie is not your traditional English flair with gangsters or working class alcoholics. This is an intelligent and well crafted movie with the depth of story typical of the French. A combination of cinematographer and editor’s flair adds visual depth to the disturbing plot. This is particularly true when Joe returns to the scene of the accident to try to recall the events that lead to the man’s fatal fall.

Overall this is a well directed psychological thriller that has a pace to keep you interested. After deciding to not watch Notting Hill (the trailers put me off) I have to say that I am impressed with the director’s work. Word from the wiser: this is not a first date movie. Enjoy.

Next Generation Consoles - By Ray

2005-07-24T23:00:00.000+12:00

Next year will see the release of not one, not two, but three "Next Generation" consoles. The Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and the Nintendo Revolution.

I own a modded Xbox and am very happy with it as a media center (why it doesn't ship with these capabilities enabled is beyond me) and at the beginning I played a lot of games on it, but now I've stopped. I have been wondering why I lost interest and as I read about these new consoles it dawned on me: I desire much better games. I think the reason I just can't bring myself to touch my Xbox games is that the same old things that I hated about the first Playstation are still here now: jaggy edges, boxey looking characters, pop ups (or fog to cover the popping up scenery), bad lip-syncing, terrible AI and the list goes on. Basically a bunch of things that remind me I'm playing a game and distance me from the experience. I have waited long enough. I want better games and I want them now!

Judging by videos and pictures of forthcoming titles on the Xbox 360 and PS3 I think my wish may finally come true and about bloody time! Take a look for yourself:

This is an IN-GAME shot!

Now I know some of you will be saying "but the PC has games like this already, just look at Doom3 and Half Life 2!". I agree to a point. The home PC is pretty amazing but the thing is the lounge is where all my best equipment is. My Hi-Def LCD Television is in the lounge. My 5.1 Stereo is in the lounge. My couch is in the lounge. So I want to play games in the lounge, not at my desk!

Also, judging from the gear inside these next gen consoles they are going to blow away what current PC's are capable of by a huge margin. Let's look at some geeky stuff.

Xbox 360

Before I delve into the 360's numbers let me just say what a stupid name! If you do a 360 you go all the way around and end up where you begun, isn't that like going in circles and not getting anywhere? That's hardly a step forward is it? Anyway...

Here it is, ain't it pretty?

BRAINS: Three CPU's, each at 3.2 Ghz (current xbox: one CPU running at 733 Mhz).

GRAPHICS: ATi chip at 500 Mhz; 48-pixel pipelines (current xbox: nVidia chip at 233 Mhz; 4-pixel pipelines).

POLYGONS: 500 million per second (current xbox: 116 million per second).

MEMORY: 512MB of RAM (current xbox: 64 MB of RAM).

STORAGE: 20 GB removable hard drive (current xbox: 10 GB hard drive).

The controllers are wireless too (you only plug them in to recharge).

Imagine having all that power sitting snugly under your TV!

If you have broadband at home there will be a free "Silver Tier Plan" on Xbox Live (with limited abilities) and the "Gold Tier Plan" where you can do live video chat with other Xbox 360 users as well as playing games, sharing pictures and downloading game updates (finally console games will all be patchable just like on a PC). I've never made the move to online play with a console but I wouldn't be surprised if one day in the near future I will hear myself saying "Remember when we used to play games offline?".

Apparently the 3.2 Ghz CPU doesn't really matter, what matters is how many gigaflops it is capable of. Now I have no idea what a gigaflop is (in fact it makes me think of Doc when he realises he needs "1.21 giga-watts" of electricity to get Marty back to the future). But this is where the Xbox pales in comparison to the PS3. The Xbox 360 is capable of 115 gigaflops and the PS3 is capable of 218 (practically double the raw power). Sony say this will allow for bigger environments and better AI among other things.

What stands out to me about these next generation consoles is their Hi-Def support. Playing games in 1080p on a sexy HD-TV is going to have a huge impact on how good they look.

I could go on more about the Xbox 360 but there is plenty of info out there at gaming sites (such as Gamespot which is in the links on the right) so let's move on to the competition.

Playstation 3

Feast your eyes on this puppy:

Numbers wise the PS3 is very close to the Xbox 360 the only differences being they each use different manufacturers for their parts. I could name who made what and all that but who really cares? What matters is how good the games look and how well they play (but if you're dying to know, Sony claim the PS3 is over 30 times faster then the PS2).

For me what stands out about the PS3 is one simple thing. It will use Blu-ray and Xbox 360 will be DVD. If you are unaware of what Blu-ray is where have you been? Blu-ray is the next huge step forward for home cinema. Blu-ray discs can hold up to six times as much data as current-generation DVDs (with all that space films will be far less compressed and will therefore look much better. For games it simply means you can fit in way more content). This has got to be one huge advantage and selling point for the PS3. If Microsoft want the Xbox 360 to be the Media Center in peoples lounges wouldn't it be a good idea for it to play the upcoming media formats? Microsoft have hinted that it may be able to play Blu-ray disks in the future, but what does that mean? Some crappy expansion pack or what?

The only downside to the PS3 being so incredibly advanced is that it will be pretty expensive. Prices are unknown at this point but Sony's Japanese head honcho has been quoted as saying "it will be expensive". Microsoft have pointed out that the Xbox 360 will be affordable. Will there really be a large price difference and if so will Microsoft finally be number one in the console war? Time will tell.

Of note also is that Sony have stated that the PS3 will be totally backwards compatible with PS1 and PS2. Microsoft have not cleared up this particular issue with the Xbox 360 and it is becoming increasingly clear that it probably isn't backwards compatible.

Lastly, another cool feature of the PS3 is the ability to output to two TVs. Meaning you could play in ultra widescreen or have a game on one screen and a video chat in the other.
I've never owned a Playstation - I was just never that impressed by them. But now I find it hard to imagine choosing the Xbox 360 over the PS3. That Blu-ray issue is just to big to ignore.

Last and definitely least is:

Nintendo Revolution

Well at least it's small:

NOTE: No picture is available of the controller yet.

Bad points:

Nintendo have no plans to support Hi-Def TV.

It ships with a DVD drive but doesn't play DVD films without an additional purchase.

Their main games are once again Zelda, Mario, Pokemon etc... Will these guys ever do something new? Don't get me wrong, I admire several Gamecube titles but this is hardly a "Revolution" is it? Let's face it, are gamers going to be lining up to buy next-gen Grand Theft Auto or Pokemon 26: Collect lots of sparkling gems?

Good points:

It is really, really small.

The entire back-catalogue of NES, SNES and N64 games will be available for download online - which is an incredibly cool feature, but once again they are relying on their past glory and not moving forward like Microsoft and Sony.

There you have it. Here's hoping these next generation consoles finally deliver the caliber of games that we have been waiting for.

Check out videos/pics of upcoming Xbox 360 and PS3 games at Gamespot, it is seriously worth it!

P.S. As a side note I would like to ask these questions: How will all this technology effect the game makers? Will budgets rise and therefore games will become even more generic? Is there any hope we'll see inventive and fresh games on these next-gen consoles? Can someone out there shed light on this (I'm talking to you Qume)?

Moulin Rouge (1952): A debut review from Jehovah

2005-07-23T22:12:00.000+12:00

I feel obliged to introduce myself and some of my biases as this is my debut into the world of movie reviews. I generally watch thrillers and dramas, enjoying psychological thriller the most. Due to my current economic situation I typically watch DVDs rather than go to the movies. So, note for the future: reviews from Roderick will be for movies that you can watch with your girlfriend or boyfriend on the couch at home.

For my first attempt I am going to delve into the distant past. Moulin Rouge, the original, was released in 1952 starring Zsa Zsa Gabor. The film reanimates the life and times of Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec capturing his turbulent life. Toulouse is one of the greatest artists of the past two hundred years. As is the case with most tragic artist types, he was a raging alcoholic who regularly fell in love with prostitutes.

As for the movie, if you can grit your teeth through the poorly mixed songs you will find a classic plot built around an anti-hero you can’t help but feel sorry for. Toulouse’s life sucks. The dejection he feels in life is poured into his artwork which benefits from it. The theatrical characterisation and production design that is typical of movies from the 50s gives a stage feel. Occasionally the plot zips between subplots, but it does not get confusing as the central character has no friends.

If you are like me and enjoy comparing originals and remakes then you are in for a big surprise. This version is more focused and has a plot with some songs (as apposed to Luhrmann’s remake which is a musical with a sprinkling of plot). Where the remake was a feast for the eyes, the original is a feast of characterisation. If you want to impress your girlfriend or boyfriend with your cultural side or you are just interested in art and movies, then save this one for a rainy Sunday afternoon. Enjoy.

Ray's Top 50 Arcade Games - Part 1 of 2

2005-07-19T10:40:00.000+12:00

I grew up in the 80's and my favourite thing was going to the Arcades (or Spacies as we called it then). As I parked my BMX outside I always had this great sense of anticipation, I couldn't wait to get in there. There was an Arcade called Wizards that was my favourite and it was huge (it must have contained about 200 arcade machines). As you know home consoles were a different beast altogether then, they were simply light years behind the quality of the games in the arcades.

When I walked into Wizards my ears were bombarded with hundreds of sound effects, music tracks and children's laughter - the sound of fun! If you didn't already have a pocket weighed down with twenties you went to the change booth (operated by a bored old guy). A dollar was enough to play for hours if you stuck to the games you were good at. If you had $5 you could splash out and play a few of the games that you were crap at or had never quite figured out how to play. If you had $10 then you'd be there all day! Damn it was good and I can't wait until the day when I have a bigger house and can afford a dozen or so Arcade units. Until then I will just have to make do with Mame, which is still fantastic - it will be even better when I get a proper 2-player arcade stick.

Here I will list my 50 favourite arcade games, but first are the 10 games that I most frequently play. They are not what I consider the 10 best Arcade games of all time, they are simply the games that I keep returning to out of sheer addiction!

RAY'S TOP 10 ARCADE GAMES (in random order):

SHINOBI (1987)
ACTION PLATFORMER
Collect the kidnapped girls in pink and kill everyone in sight! I have spent a huge amount of time and money on Shinobi, though I never quite clocked it. It is simply one of the best Ninja games of all time. There are a good variety of locations and baddies. Big bosses turn up every 3 levels and are all huge and cool. The bonus ninja-star-throwing stage is a nice change of pace too. Followed by the crappy Shadow Dancer, where you have a pet dog!?

KUNG-FU MASTER (1984)
BEAT-EM-UP
Your girlfriend has been kidnapped (the most over used plot in video game history!) so you need to conquer the 5 floors of the temple and get her back. Time to kick people in the face!
This is an absolute classic that I poured twenties into like there was no tomorrow. Each of the 5 levels has their own unique challenges and different end of level Big Boss. I just find it so addictive that I've never stopped playing! Though I tend to quit after I've beaten the 5 levels as they just repeat themselves and become harder and faster (cheap!). There is something compelling about the sheer never-ending onslaught of morons to beat up. They just keep coming and coming and coming...

BOMBJACK (1984)
PLATFORMER/PUZZLE
Collect the red bombs and try not to touch any of the baddies. You can collect them in order for extra points - just look out for which one's wick is burning. A very simple concept but I find it totally addictive. When you get the 'P' powerup you can eat the baddies - but be quick they'll change back soon! Come to think of it it's sort of like a Platformer Pacman hybrid.

TRACK & FIELD (1983)
SPORTS
Mash the buttons and try to break some records in six different events! This game rocks! It's an excellent 2-Player game too. Not to be mistaken for it's mediocre sequel Hyper Sports.

STREETFIGHTER II - THE WORLD WARRIOR (1991)
ONE ON ONE BEAT-EM-UP
I know it's an obvious choice but this really is the game that started the one on one beat-em-up craze and inspired hundreds of inferior copies. Great graphics and sublime controls - Street Fighter II is quite simply the best fighter out there (and I prefer not having an overwhelming amount of characters to choose from).

BANK PANIC (1984)
SHOOT-EM-UP
Help people do their banking by shooting all the outlaws. You've got 12 doors to cover so keep your eyes peeled! As with the others in my Top 10 I keep returning to this game because it is addictive. Make sure you map out your controls well because you've got 3 fire buttons and you'll have to shoot fast!

ELEVATOR ACTION (1983)
ACTION PLATFORMER
Use elevators and escalators to get down the building and collect all the documents from behind the red doors. But you'll have to do some shooting too because the building is teaming with crooks! I think this was one of the most inventive platformers of its day and it's still just as fun now as it was then. Try to shoot down a light so it lands on a baddies head!

GALAGA (1981)
SPACE SHOOTER
Space Invaders was just a little before my time and the only old-school space shooter I ever got into was Galaga. It just has a really good weighty feel to it; I can't explain it any other way. The sound effects are classic too. One innovation was how the green baddies can suck up your ship and then if you blast them, your old ship and current ship join together for double the firepower! Just don't let them suck you up if you don't have any lives remaining.

MAT MANIA/THE MAIN EVENT (1985)
WRESTLING
Possibly one of the first wrestling games that was actually any good. It has a great feel to it and some hilarious (and badly spelt) wrestlers such as Insane Warrior, Coco Savege, The Parania and Blonde Stud! I love the WWF games that came later but they just aren't as damn funny as this one! Watch out for Coco Savege, he may only be the third person you fight but he is far harder then the two that follow him.

CIRCUS CHARLIE (1984)
VARIED
This is actually very similar in structure to Track & Field - in that it is clearly separated into various events. Leap through the flaming hoops, jump those pesky purple monkeys and don't let the knife throwers get you! This game can drive me nuts sometimes but I keep returning just the same.

15 MORE ARCADE FAVOURITES:

BAD DUDES vs DRAGONNINJA (1988)
SIDE SCROLLING BEAT-EM-UP
"Ronnie, the President of the United States has been kidnapped. Are you bad enough to save him?" Be an 80's type dork and beat up an endless supply of incompetent ninjas! OK I'll admit it, I have a thing for ninja games... ninjas are cool! A solid and attractive - albeit mindless - fighter. "I'm bad!".

BLACKTIGER/BLACK DRAGON (1987)
ACTION PLATFORMER
This game stood out with it's unique look and cool music. A fairly standard platformer I guess, but it is well made, has a strange collection of characters and a dark brooding atmosphere. Plenty of different weapons adds some variety. I love any game where you can go to a shop and buy powerups!

CHELNOV - ATOMIC RUNNER (1988)
ACTION PLATFORMER
This one almost made it into my Top 10. It is unusual in that your character is constantly running and you have to press a button to change between facing forward and back. It's this strange concept that makes the game stand out for me. Also there are many different gun powerups which all drastically alter how the game plays. Varied level design adds lastability too.

DOUBLE DRAGON (1987)
SIDE SCROLLING BEAT-EM-UP
Your girlfriend has been kidnapped (of course) and now you need to walk slowly down the gang infested streets and beat up everybody to get her back. For me, Double Dragon is the definitive side scrolling beat-em-up. Some might argue Final Fight is better but I never liked its huge sprites and repetitive level design. Double Dragon has good variety (for a game of its sort) and plenty of Big Boss fights. Some fairly mean moves are at your disposal - there's nothing better then grabbing someone's hair and kneeing them in the face five times! The first sequel still has the same look but is far too difficult. Part 3 looks totally different(worse in my opinion) and feels heavy and slow.

THE FINAL ROUND (1988)
BOXING
This is an excellent and hard hitting boxing game. I never liked boxing games that were side on, this one took a better approach and it payed off. The punches have great impact and the training sequences rock!

NINJA GAIDEN (1988)
SIDE SCROLLING BEAT-EM-UP
Like I said I love ninja games. Ninja Gaiden was well presented, had good sound effects and responsive controls. I liked the ability to run up walls and flip off them. One of the few ninja games to capture the gymnastic quality that ninjas have. It has one of the best continue screens of all time - your character is tied down and a huge spinning blade is coming closer and closer, put in a twentie quick before he gets it!

GHOSTS'N GOBLINS (1985)
ACTION PLATFORMER
What a classic! I love this game. Every fish and chip shop should have one! Surprisingly your girlfriend has been kidnapped... shock horror. So chuck on your suit of Armour and kick some ghosts'n goblins butt! A fairly difficult game (especially frustrating as when you die you are respawned further back), but it's worth playing through for the unique atmosphere and variety of locations and weapons. Look out for the daggers, they are the best weapon (avoid the sucky fireball weapon). Followed by an excellent sequel imaginatively called Ghouls'n Ghosts.

GUN SMOKE (1985)
VERTICAL SCROLLING SHOOTER
This is a little like a cowboy version of the extremely difficult Commando. Except I always liked this better because you had 3 fire buttons, enabling you to walk in one direction and fire in another. Gun Smoke is one fast, exciting and difficult game.

GYRUSS (1983)
SPACE SHOOTER
Gyruss almost made it into my Top 10. What makes this an unusual game is that your ship circles the screen and you fire inwards towards the enemies. Gyruss also has a really nifty 'classical' soundtrack. Not to mention you can visit Uranus!

JUNGLE KING/JUNGLE HUNT (1982)
VARIED
Your girlfriend has been kidnapped (yawn), now it's time for some Tarzan type action! Leap between the vines, murder some poor crocodiles, jump the rather unconvincing boulders and finally avoid the naughty natives! Games don't get much more amusing then this.

THE LEGEND OF KAGE (1985)
ACTION PLATFORMER
Your girlfriend blah, blah, blah... Once again a favourite of mine that is a ninja game, but this one is seriously worth checking out. It has particularly pretty graphics and sound, and the main character has possibly the largest jump in game history. Look out for the magic flute at the end of level one. Kage is pronounced "Kaa-gay".

MARBLE MADNESS (1984)
ROLLERBALL PUZZLE
Roll the marble through the maze to the finish before the timer runs out. While I never played this in the arcades I had it on my Amiga and now rediscovered it through mame. I love the simplicity of it, I just wish I had a rollerball!

MORTAL KOMBAT (1992)
ONE ON ONE BEAT-EM-UP
After the success of Street Fighter II it was inevitable that other companies would try to cash in on this Fighter craze. Midway's effort was one of the better ones in my opinion. The digitized graphics and sound really made it stand out, not to mention the incredible amount of gore and the nifty fatalities. Also what distinguished it was the controls, which were quite different to Street Fighter II. It is of-course followed by many sequels but the fundamentals of gameplay never changed. "Finish him!".

MOON PATROL (1982)
SHOOT-EM-UP
This side ways scrolling hybrid shooter always stood out to me because of it's innovative mixture of jumping and shooting elements. The look is just classic and it has one catchy tune! Watch out for the ships that blow holes in the ground!

NBA HANG TIME (1996)
SPORTS
Clearly another Midway game using their digitized style. It’s about as far from reality basketball as you could get, but who cares when it’s this much fun! Hold down turbo and slam some dunks… or something.

Next 25 Arcade Games

Bridge Construction Set - Game Review

2005-07-19T03:03:00.000+12:00

What games can you play today where you interact with the landscape on any large scale? Simcity? Please. Occasionally you get a large boss at the end of a level, or perhaps triggering a building to be demolished like in Duke3D. I feel that the industry is lacking games where this claustrophobia is lifted and we can work on large scales.

I would love to walk around a virtual city with a rocket launcher and demolish buildings, and I don't think I'm alone. Unfortunately this isn't possible with todays games, so the void will have to be filled with something else.

Introducing Bridge Construction Set. This is a puzzle game where you have to build bridges to support different loads in different situations, using different materials and techniques - all of which you have to work out for yourself from scratch.

Although this game lacks rocket launchers, it does let you interact with structures on a large scale, which is both refreshing and quite addictive. Let me talk you through a scenario:

You have $20,000 to spend on materials, and you have to build a bridge for a train to go across. In goes the steel supports, $10,000, lay on some tracks, put up some cable to support it, plus some towers to hold the cable, another $10,000. Now you have a lovely looking bridge ready for the train. Press the GO button and the train starts motoring towards your new creation. Only when the train is on the bridge, you realise that at one particular point, an essential cable is taking, all on it's own, all the weight of the train. Naturally it snaps, causing a ripple on effect and ultimately your shiny new train and all its unfortunate passengers are sailing through mid-air about to crash into Eastwood ravine.

Back to the drawing board. This cycle continues through frustration and ultimately joy when you manage to pull it off. Overall I would say this is one of the most satisfying and addictive games I have ever played. So, onwards:

The optimist:

This game represents hope that small independent game developers can pull off a game that is more fun than the big studios. While it's easy to slip into just playing the latest and greatest from EA with all the fancy graphics, you'll find these independent games much more thought out and addictive. Just like Ray's intro message talking about summer blockbuster lovers who should check out film festival flicks from time to time, I love big-budget games like Battlefield2, but we must take the time to search under the radar for these gems.

The physics are fantastic. There are many people out there who look for physics before graphics in a new game, and this game delivers

4 out of 5 - Perhaps 5 out of 5 with slicker graphics, but only if they don't impact the gameplay

The cynic:

It can get difficult, and slightly repetitive. The graphics are about as slick as Bill Gates at live8... they suck. Still this doesn't take away from the game too much.

4 out of 5.

This game is rock solid. Download the demo now, and please, if you like it, buy it. Support indy developers!

The URL: http://www.chroniclogic.com/index.htm?pontifex2/pfx2manual/index

GTA:SA Sex mod triggers debate between morons

2005-07-15T11:32:00.000+12:00

"We should all be deeply disturbed that a game which now permits the simulation of lewd sexual acts in an interactive format with highly realistic graphics has fallen into the hands of young people across the country," Hillary Clinton wrote in a letter to the head of the Federal Trade Commission.

Morons. Morons. Morons.
Well I don't know about you but I sure am "deeply disturbed"... not!
Let me get this straight. Hillary Clinton (and other complete morons) are making a big fuss over a PC mod available for GTA:San Andreas which enables "lewd sexual acts"... right?

This is in a game where - in the previous installment - you can hire a hooker, bump uglies with her in your car and then beat her to death with a baseball bat and take your money back. This is in a game where you can set fire to a crowd of civilians with a flame thrower and then blow them away with a shotgun while they run around on fire screaming in agony. And they are concerned about "lewd sex acts". I have no problem with them wanting the game's rating changed to Adults Only, but why is it that sex issues prompts this change and not the incredibly excessive violence?

This is coming from a country where the 18 year old Hip Hop star Bow Wow's current hit is titled "Grind with me". In which you see him "dancing" with barely clothed black babes and simulating lewd sex acts in an extremely blatant manner. This is one of hundreds of Hip Hop videos (which you can watch anytime of the day) containing close-ups of woman's assets in almost full view and they are concerned about a mod pack (and I think it goes without saying that these idiots don't even know what a mod pack is)!

Have they even seen Jessica Simpson's new song (and I use that term generously) titled "These boots are made for walking" in which she "sings" in a tiny bikini and washes a car? I would say that most her movements are clearly lewd and leave very little to the imagination. Sex sells everything. We live and breath sex whether we want to or not. Almost everyone does it and kids are well aware of this fact, hell half of them are doing it too. Turn on the TV, go to a music channel and there's your "lewd sexual acts"!

Perhaps Hillary Clinton and all the other imbeciles should pull their head out of their fat arses and get a fucking grip. Who really gives a toss if a few kids can download a naughty mod pack - do parents understand what young people have access to on the net? There may be things they are downloading that are just a little bit more of a concern, wouldn't you say?

Morons. Morons. Morons.

Head Over Heals - Game Review

2005-07-14T03:55:00.000+12:00

Hello Ray & all... time for a game review I think. This one comes all the way from the days where the suggestion of Arnie becoming a politician would have been taken... seriously! That's right, way back when actor Ronald Regan was the US president this game was making much more sense than politics on peoples Amstrad CPC tape-driven 'microcomputers'.

In a nutshell it is an isometric puzzle/strategy game where you control two players alternately to travel around the worlds of the Blacktooth empire. Don't be put off the name though, as if you have had the mind-twisting experience of navigating the 'Bluetooth' empire you will probably have quite wisely shutdown your computer by now. For those that are still here, lets look into why we are finding out about a game that is possibly older than you are...

I'm going to take it for granted that readers here are of the mind that new fancy graphics games aren't always better than old well thought out games. That said, this game is fun. And believe it or not, the graphics are fantastic. Which is why I think it is well worth looking at when DOOM3 and counterstrike are just a few clicks away.

The artwork is both cute and polished. It is immediately obvious that this is of the very first generation of developments to take advantage of true artists doing graphics rather than the unfortunate habit of the techies doing them (See Sopwith Camel). It is also obvious that they were highly skilled at working with very limited hardware well ahead of the rest of the industry.

The puzzles are interesting, but more importantly they strike a good balance between 'too easy' and 'too hard'. You are given ample 'lives' and chances to earn more through the game.

Enough of an intro, lets break it down Ray style:

Optimist

I have fond memories of this first time around, and now some hard working geeks with too much time on their hands have done a fantastic Windows/Mac/Linux/BeOS port.

Working through the game some decade and a half after it's original release provided me with as much entertainment as it did the first time.

I like to play games when 'under the influence' but this is often difficult as my brain is moving along slower than... a slow thing... Hello? where am I? Ah... yes this game is wonderful to play when stoned.

At best this game transports you to a strange cartoon world that is quite unlike any other game or cartoon experience.

Pessimist

Animation standards back in the day were very bad, but there were exceptions (Impossible Mission, Biker, Prince of Persia a few years later). Unfortunately this happens not to be one of them

The puzzles are annoying at times, but fortunately they are not too difficult, so one annoying puzzle may only tie you up for a few minutes.

The sounds are OK, but the modern music added to the game is... unnecessary.

Overall? I would give this game a 4 out of 5. If the two players could be used at the same time in a multiplayer setup, or if there were less annoying puzzles, it would get a 5. Still, it's close...

Download it for free from here: http://retrospec.sgn.net/game-links.php?link=hoh

Upcoming 'Big' Films

2005-07-12T00:42:00.000+12:00

It's been a great year so far with big films like Star Wars III, Batman Begins, War of the Worlds, Sin City and Cinderalla Man all delivering what audiences desire from blockbuster films - large scale, yet intelligent (well mostly) entertainment.

While some other 'big' films did not quite deliver the goods such as Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Kingdom of Heaven, Hostage and The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (based on their ratings at Rotten Tomatoes).

A friend asked me recently what other 'big' films we had to look forward to, so what better time then mid-year to do a round up.

Sin City (Out 11 Aug in NZ, but has been out since April in most other countries!)
The reviews are positive and it looks like a real original in the trailers. I'm excited by the prospect of a graphic novel being translated into a film almost frame for frame! I've always thought Rodriguez is totally overrated but it looks like he's made something that finally interests me now (Co-Directing with Frank Miller that is). Also looking forward to seeing Mickey Rourke kick some butt and Jessica Alba shaking some butt... nice!

The Island (July 22 worldwide)
I am really excited about this! Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson are a nice choice to headline a film together and the plot seems intriguing. All the trailers make it look great. Maybe Michael Bay (Armageddon) has done the impossible and blended his 'blow up everything' style with a decent plot? I hope so. The early buzz on it is good so far.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (July 15 worldwide but 8 Sept in NZ apparently!)
I love the original (I'm a huge Gene Wilder fan) and have not been looking forward to this much. I was a fan of Tim Burton in the old days (Pee Wee, Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Batman, Ed Wood) and have been totally let down by his recent work (Mars Attacks, Sleepy Hollow, Planet of the Apes, Big Fish). Apparently this one is far closer to Roald Dahl's original book then the 70's version (which was a disappointment to fans of the book, but loved by most others) and it's not a musical. Let's hope Tim Burton is back in form with this one, after all he is immensely talented. I just hope Depp makes Wonka his own and isn't too zany.

Cinderalla Man (Out since June 3 worldwide but out 29 Sept in NZ!)
I liked Russell Crowe before he started biffing phones into peoples faces and now I like him even more. What a champion! But seriously he is always utterly convincing as whoever he portrays and generally chooses strong material. Ron Howard is a bit of a softy if you ask me, but he's made a few OK films so I'll reserve judgement for now. It's a pity Renee 'sucking on a lemon' Zellweger is in it, I can't stand her and I hope she doesn't ruin it for me. I'm surprised it didn't make much $ at the boxoffice.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Nov 18 worldwide)
I didn't like the first two much (maybe I'm not the target audience) but I enjoyed The Prisoner of Azkaban quite a bit. If the 4th one has as good a story as the last it should be a pretty soild kid's film. Mike Newell seems like a strange choice to fill the directing chair (Pushing Tin, Donnie Brasco), I wonder if it will pay off?

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (Dec 09 worldwide)
Andrew Adamson is clearly a very talented dude (even if I don't think the Shrek films are as amazing as everyone else seems to think so, I can appreciate his skill), the source material is fantastic and Weta are at the top of their game. I find it hard to imagine that this won't be a wonderful, magical film. The trailer didn't blow me away, but it certainly had the right tone. I feel confident that it will be a success. A lot rests on the very small shoulders of it's young leads.

King Kong (Dec 14 worldwide)
Possibly the most anticipated film this year other then Star Wars III. Peter Jackson is a genius and this is his dream project... what could go wrong? Well a lot I guess, but I hope not. The trailer has certainly produced mixed reactions (including much criticism over the under whelming graphics). I really don't know what to think about this one. I want it to be good so badly but it's so hard to imagine what it will be like from what we have seen. It may just be a fun ride without leaving much of an impression or it may be far more complex then we ever imagined. One thing's for sure, I can't wait to find out!

What films are you looking forward to most?