Throwback Thursday: On Superman Returns

I haven't seen this movie for years. Honestly I don't know if I ever actually saw this movie all the way through. I decided, in honor of ripping the sh*t out of Man of Steel I'd take a backward glance at the last time the red and blue boyscout hit the big screen in Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. 

I have a real soft spot for this movie. Maybe it's because I was raised on the Donner Superman films and the Burton Batman films, but these takes on these characters are strikingly iconic. Superman Returns attempts to hearken back to that era, and personally I think it did it really well. I feel like, in comparing this and Man of Steel that they are two ends of the pendulum swing. One is new and gritty and the other is classic and nostalgic. One has a lot of heart and soul, the other has a lot of grand motifs and epic battles. Maybe one day we'll get a film that balances the two. 

Most Idiotic Review

"... glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating." -- Roger Ebert

Okay, I don't mean Ebert's an idiot so much as I disagree. I feel like the film offers a lot of heart and the few big actions scenes had me personally on the edge of my seat. 

Most Accurate Review

"Superman Returns was f*cking boring, man. It was a really boring movie. Bryan Singer is a very talented man, but he made a very f*cking boring movie, and I can salute him to the degree that he obviously got to make the exact f*cking version of a Superman movie he wanted to do .... and he's like, 'f*ck it, I'm going to make the arthouse version of Superman, the whiny emo Superman movie, where Superman won't throw a single fucking punch.' The first movie's [tagline] was, 'You will believe a man can fly,' this one is 'You won't believe how fucking boring this man is.'" -- Kevin Smith (Q&A)

There were a lot of issues with this film, but honestly, a lot of the flaws Kevin Smith named ... I really liked, or at least wasn't turned off by. I felt like this was the honest Superman film that constitutes 90% of what the character actually goes through in his day-to-day struggles, as opposed to Man of Steel, where 90% of Metropolis gets massacred and people still cheer that Superman ... saved ... them? 

What I Say

Still both films suffer from an overabundance of storylines and subplots, most of which no one was expecting or even wanted. In this film, the main wart on the nose is the existence of the kid. Superman's kid to be specific. He's got the charm and natural talent on par with Jake Loyd, and only a smattering of dialogue through the whole affair. We're never given any real reason as to why we should invest in this kid's story. He was ultimately extraneous. 

Beyond that, we have Superman returning (if you couldn't have guessed that, you're beyond my help). Where's he been? Searching for the remnants of Krypton, of which he finds only a graveyard. It's been five years since Richard Donner's time, even though all the leads seemed to have aged backwards by a substantial couple of decades, and once Superman's back in town, Lex Luthor coincidentally springs his latest real-estate plot, drowning America by growing a new continent using crystals. 

The plot loses a lot of grounding as it progresses through the story. Its not bad by any means, but seriously a little out there. I think the combination of the outlandish story mixed with the lack of action makes for an ultimately boring film. The only highlights of the film are some very sincere and honest character moments. Clark and Lois have an entertaining set of interactions throughout the film, and again, there is a lot of sincerity in the way these incarnations of the characters are written and portrayed. Where Man of Steel had messianic preaching, Superman Returns has honest vulnerability. I definitely know which one I prefer. 

For all Man of Steel's efforts to impart its message about the godliness of Kal-el (via long-winded speeches about the weight of his destiny), it is Superman Returns that encapsulates what it means to be Superman in the exchange between the titular character and Lois Lane, "I hear everything." Right there, that is the true tragedy of Superman's character. He will never be fast enough, or strong enough to prevent all the suffer that he is witness to. Even for him, it's impossible, but he will never stop trying. 

Although he'll take a break to woo a reporter. 

In the movie I never honestly had a problem with any of the characters (although, again, the actors may have all been cast a little too young). Their sincerity supports their behavior pretty consistently, no matter how silly the situations became. It was like the entire cast was taking the approach that Mark Hamill did toward Luke Skywalker in the original Star Wars, wide-eyed naivety. 

Brandon Routh plays the continuation of Christopher Reeves Superman from the previous feature films (although we try to only remember the first two) and he does a fantastic job. It might not be a replication performance like Zachary Quinto's Spock or Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Bruce Willis, but he hits a lot of the same beats, especially Clark Kent's nebish charm.

Lex Luthor was beautifully played by Kevin Spacey. He is one of my favorite actors and this film doesn't do much to tarnish my opinion of him. I wasn't sold that the writing ultimately served the character, failing to really portray him as one of the world's leading minds, who we all know (especially post House of Cards) that he can totally play that role with deft skill and ... a kind of whimsy. 

While it's still not my favorite, I far prefer twenty-two year old Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane to Amy Adams'. This character feels more real to me, despite the nostalgic approach to the character, as opposed to the gritty modern feisty woman that Adams was saddled with. 

The rest of the cast isn't really much to write home about, although I did really enjoy Sam Huntington's excitable Jimmy Olson. The bow tie was wonderfully out-of-place, but a welcome addition and James Marsden does well ... even if skipping out on X-Men: The Last Stand to make this film ... /sigh. Just /sigh

As opposed to Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Man of Steel, the music in this film is the classic John William's scores mixed in with John Ottman's, although they're still very much in the original's style. It beats Hans Zimmer out of the water every day of the week. It really encapsulates the hope and old fashioned values ... reflective of a simpler time

The spectacle of this film is a bit unbalanced. We have some of the quintessential Superman imagery in this film, including the bullet striking the eye, catching the airplane, rushing about the city actually saving citizens and saying cheesy things like, "I hope this doesn't turn you off to flying. Statistically it's still the safest form of travel." But a lot of the movie is dedicated to ... just talking. There is an undeniable soap opera element to the film, and it's not a small aspect. Oh, and Superman Returns has Jesus imagery too. Just ... not as bad as Man of Steel.

At the end of the day, I will always prefer Superman Returns, for as weird as the plot holes are, they're padded by a lot of charm generated by a good cast, and there's a real reverence for the previous incarnations. Man of Steel I have to respect for ... trying to go in a new direction, create a contemporary Superman, and failing almost across the board. 

And Brandon Routh's suit was better. Not realistically or functionally, like Cavill's ... but truly the classic. Routh had red undies, and that's the American Way. 

~ Godzello

On Man of Steel

My oldest friend referred to this film as a religious experience. 

... which just goes to show that a mutual love of Digimon in the 4th grade may not be the basis for a longstanding friendship. I mean, Jesus, this movie was ... bad. Just bad. So bad. Holy Sh*t was it bad. 

I might be a minority opinion on this one, but while Superman Returns was a complete snooze and had its share of in-universe stupidity ... Man of Steel was a poorly made ass-fest piece of pretentious pompous poo. IT WAS COMPLETE SH*T.

Why? Glad you asked. Let's take a look at Zack Snyder's visual ejaculation by way of Nolan's masturbatory grandstanding, Man of Steel.

Most Idiotic Review

"Man of Steel is more than just Avengers-sized escapism; it's an artistic introduction to a movie superhero we only thought we knew." Steve Persall (Tampa Bay Times)

I wonder what counts as art anymore. I can only imagine in the next century people looking back will list the classical greats, like Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Casablanca, and obviously, Man of Steel. I don't get it. Just because Nolan's mind is incomprehensible and Zimmer's scores are overblown does not make these films art. Also, we do know Superman. We know Clark Kent. But honestly? After watching the movie, I started wondering if the filmmakers knew the character, and I also wondered, after the viewing, how we were supposed to know the character.

Most Accurate Review

"I just think it's terrible! There are some things I like. All the actors to play these roles are good choices, the action scenes are awesome, and though I like the more upbeat Superman, I'm open to the idea of a darker version. But these characters have no identity. Outside of their job and how they look, you wouldn't even know that this was Clark Kent or Lois Lane if they didn't call them Clark Kent or Lois Lane. The millions of sub-plots are not needed and get in the way of any emotional connection we want to make. The incoherent storytelling is pointless and annoying, and as a superhero, he lets way too many people die in this! Even if you took Superman's name off of this, I still wouldn't like this stupid, illogical mess!" -- Doug Walker (Nostalgia Critic) 

What more can I say? The characters are despondent even when they're yelling, have little to no connection to the audience, and there are too many subplots considering the lack of investment the audience should have toward the primary plotline. 

What I Say

Every time I go back to this film, I like it less. Honestly. 

So we get about twenty minutes on Krypton and, while it is flashy and stylish, and the script does succeed (for the most part) establishing the three main conflicts of the film, Clark sent to Earth, Zod imprisoned, and the Codex being stolen, there's really nothing that original here. We have Avatar birds and Matrix babies on top of a story we already pretty much know.

Part of the problem is the approach to the story. Unlike with Batman Begins, Man of Steel's flashbacks don't feel like they're truly informing the decisions to come, so they're oddly hollow. And since we don't know this version of Clark Kent, throwing a bunch of flashbacks at us without context doesn't really help us show who he is. It's like when a person whips out their family album or high school yearbook and you get to spend half an hour nodding that little jimmy is indeed adorable, and half those girls they claim to have banged are in fact not hideous.

So we see him save people on an oil rig, then a flashback to him struggling with his powers as a kid. Then we see him steal some clothes (what a dick), then a flashback of him struggling with his powers as a kid. We get the controversial scene where Kevin Costner says to have 'maybe' let the little bastards drown, which honestly doesn't bother me. What bothers me is at no point does Pa Kent act like a father. He's so busy damaging this kids psyche with messianic speeches that the kid will never have anything as simple as an, "Dad ... wanna have a catch?" moment.

Then we get the overly contrived death-by-tornado which is in fact as bad as it sounds. Again, we're never shown him having a normal life before or in spite of the manifestation of his powers. At least with Bruce we saw him before he plummeted into a hole with a bunch of flying mammals. 

With Clark, all we see is that his life is ... well, dramatic. It gives us very little to relate to, as is one of my main complaints about any film Nolan's name is attached too. His characters are all very dry and they're attempts at humor are ... well, stilted. And I'm not looking for comedy, but ... the amount of times Superman cracks a wry smile are few and far between. He spends more time with his forehead furrowed looking gloomy and serious about the weight of his destiny.

Beyond the schizophrenic nature of Clark's own developing story, we get, once again the destruction of Krypton as seen through the eyes of every sci-fi director who's come before, and most of the story still makes little sense to me. Mostly the whole, "We're already dead," implication. Why? I have no idea. F*ck you movie. 

So we have Zod, a genetically engineered war-criminal who's not bad, he's just drawn that way. His motivation? The good of Krypton. How's he go about it? A complete disregard for everything and anything not Krypton ... or his view of Krypton, seeing as he's a homicidal screaming jackass even before the planet is destroyed. 

When they collide on earth ... uh ... fights ... for reasons (we all know the reason for at least one of the fights. PRODUCT PLACEMENT. It's like the movie got overtaken by Yogurt from Space-Balls. MERCHANDISING). We also have the subplot of the Codex ... which I'm just going to ignore. We also have Lois Lane ... who is there, being a touch, feisty modern women who is still as dull as cardboard. 

The characters are were I really have a bone to pick (if you couldn't tell). I'll tolerate all manner of weirdo plotlines if the characters are well done, and here they just aren't. If you subtract the talented cast and just look at some of the dialogue, it's really bland. It's right up there with some of Khan's dialogue in Star Trek Into Darkness. There's a quote from novelist Dennis Lehane (Shutter Island), “Character is plot; character is dialogue; character is scene. A story with a few strong characters can occasionally survive a weak plot, but a story with a strong plot cannot— ever— survive weak characters.”

So what it with the characters? They don't feel like they exist outside their reaction to the weight of Superman's destiny. Perry White, Lois Lane, Pa Kent, Jor-el all have, at one point or another (or multiple) variations of this damned speech. He's special, we get it. He's also Jesus, we get that too, and don't need a damn scene where he goes to a church. That poor priest was so unbelievably in over his head to deal with that scene.

It's actually amazing that a cast as diverse as this is so uselessly bland.

Honestly, the first draft of this review, I completely forgot to saw anything about Henry Cavill, but, seriously, he didn't leave much of an impact. Truth be told, for all of the angst he goes through in this film, I thought Superman Returns made the character a lot more relatable, and in one scene no less, where we see him listening to all the people of earth from outer space. That 30 seconds encapsulated all of what it means to be Superman better than all the hamhanded symbolism that Nolan and Snyder could cram into this film. That said, I think Cavill does the best he can with what he has ... which isn't much.

There is one other thing that I've hated for years now. I am really sick of Hanz Zimmer. He's the perfect foil for Nolan bland, bombastic, and repetitive. There is this single pattern to nearly every single song Zimmer writes that has none of the heart of a John Williams or Howard Shore score. Hell, say what you will about his movies, James Newton Howard's scores to M. Night's films are really damn evocative. Probably the best part of his films. 

I will give the movie some credit. It had some damn visually pleasing (heartless) action scenes. The CGI usage was fantastic. The wanton destruction hearkened back to the worst of post 9/11 right wing conservative fears. This in and of itself is not what bothers me. It's that the movie tries to make a point about Clark being put in a position where he has to make a choice between killing Zod or not saving a group of people. 

Nowhere in the previous fifteen minutes of the film, though, did this seem like an issue. They never illustrated it as an internal battle that Clark was going through during the course of the fight. In the Avengers, 1) they still caused less damage, and 2) they verbalize that they're trying to contain the Chitauri, save civilians, and control the situation until a solution can be found. Clark ... just punches, which is fine, but don't try to tell us that it's part of some deeper meaning or symbolic struggle. 

Also, was anyone else bothered that the story of Superman went from a retelling of Moses being shoved down the rive to Jesus ... even if he doesn't die at the end? The symbolism in this movie is really heavy handed and ... again, WEIGHED DOWN BY CLARK'S DESTINY. It's overtaken every aspect of the movie, except the fight scenes, making them even more laughably out-of-place (than the product placement already did). 

Lastly, to wrap up, I want to comment of Zack Snyder. I really hate this guy. He's as pretentious as Nolan in his own ways. Did anyone else catch that spat between him and Terry Gilliam where he said he made Watchmen to save it from the "Terry Gilliams of the world." This is one of the most laughable statements I've ever encountered. Terry Gilliam is a damned fine director and actually has artistic merit, and as far as utilizing the artistic medium of film, go watch Fear & Loathing and then watch 300, and tell me which one was made by an artist. 

But, get this, Snyder goes on in this same interview to unleash this gem, "I always believe the movies I've made are smarter than the way they are perceived by sort of mass culture and by the critics. We set out to make smarter movies than what they're perceived to be ..." 

So there you have it folks. The man who brought us the intellectual and thought provoking magnus opus 300 everybody. And on that note. Good friggin night!

~ Godzello

On The Last of Us

So, I'll be honest with you, this is one of those games that I never actually played. My roommate sold his PS3 shortly after and I never had the opportunity. That said, I watched both my roommates play this game. I watched walkthroughs. I downloaded the soundtrack. I even watched my roommates play the multiplayer. For me, that's unheard of, especially considering the basis for the game, zombies (more-or-less). This game blindsided me like no other modern game has. I saw the E3 footage like everyone else, but the promise of intuitive AI didn't thrill me the way it did my peers, which isn't to say there's anything wrong with that, but I already suck at games, so making the baddies more likely to outsmart me isn't my idea of a good time. 

So what was it about this game that captured me so? Let's take a look. This is The Last of Us.

Most Idiotic Review

" ... perhaps [Naughty Dog] feel they have to make whatever the video game equivalent of Oscar bait is. So it wants to be this big serious exercise in character development, but it’s also very very safe." — Yahtzee Croshaw (Zero Punctuation)

This one hurt me. I love Zero Punctuation and have tuned in weekly for years now. Hell, when I first started out blogging, I really did look up to him (and Nostalgia Critic) for inspiration in how to be a douche-spewing ass-monkey... but in a lovable way. 

It's rare though that I feel so alienated by Yahtzee's opinion. He goes on later in his review to refer to The Last of Us, "I guess the story is the selling point," which I want to point out, in Triple A gaming is not a safe choice. In this day and age it's practically unheard of to even attempt 'this big serious exercise in character development.' He goes on about the story, saying, "while it is well-presented, it’s also fairly predictable, and, depending on how your mind works, the ending may completely lose you ‘coz it did me. Naughty Dog games have a bad habit of dehumanizing every character except the leads for no particular reasons besides 'fuck you, got mine.'"

This too bothered me. To work backwards, I never felt like the every character except the leads were dehumanized. I found the cast to be varied and quite interesting, and the ultimate 'antagonists' of the story, pretty sympathetic. The predictable part, I can kind of see, although I don't see that as a bad thing. Tom Stoppard once reportedly said, (and I'm paraphrasing) "I'm not interested in good vs evil, I'm interested in differing definitions of what's good." I feel like that's what Naughty Dog pulled off with their ending. It's not clear who we're supposed to root for in the scenario present, but we see how each character came to the conclusion they did. That, in my opinion, makes it a damn good character study. 

A necessary aspect of any character study

Most Accurate Review

" ... because the game spent so much time convincing me to care about these characters, its emotional high notes were even more effective, and its many sad scenes even more devastating." — Kollar (Polygon)

This really is what nabbed me. I'll talk more indepth later on, but this specifically nailed me to the wall like a low-rent jesus. Holy crap did I fall in love with these characters. I was even moved by the raw footage of the actors on the motion capture stage that I was obsessed enough to go find. The closest I've seen in modern (and even most classics I tout so highly) games is possibly BioShock: Infinite, but we don't really know Booker's backstory (for most of it), and we only see them over the course of, what ... a few days? We see Joel and Ellie over a long gradual timespan, so we see their relationship solidify. So when it's threatened, it means all the more to us, them, and the story. 

What I Say

Story — The story to this game ... is possibly the weakest part. Honestly, it's something we've seen many times before, in all different shapes and sizes, but that doesn't keep it from being original. Bare with me. Another example of a story we'd all seen before was the original Star Wars. It was based primarily on myths and legends, followed Shakespeare's Five Act structure and Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey, and was populated by classical archetypes.

So to say the story isn't new, doesn't mean much here. It's all about how the writers can put a spin on a classic tale, and boy does Naughty Dog deliver. I personally fell in love with the characters and thusly, their investment in the story became my investment in the story. The backstory to the infected was pretty cool too, showing (like 28 Days Later) one possible origin of a zombie-like plague. 

Character — This is really where the game shines. Joel and Ellie are beautifully crafted characters, lifelike, relatable, and easy to empathize with. The game does well that, even as it delves deeper into dark storylines that the characters still relate to the player. Part of this is accomplished by damned clever writing, honest performances by voice actors Troy Baker (god I love him. He's perfect) and Ashley Johnson, and lastly the usage of in-game interactions. 

Without spoiling too much, there is a scene later on that isn't particularly commented upon, involving an activity that has (at this point in the game) become rather rote to the player. In the scene, though, the detached character reacts with detachment. It sounds overly simple and I am trying to be purposefully vague, but having the emotional interaction develop from a player controlled action really helped cement the connection to the player. 

Besides the two main characters, we have a colorful cast of misfit survivors of the zombie apocalypse (how could we not) and each of them was ... as I said colorful. They were quirky and interesting enough that they spring easily to mind when I consider the game. A lot of stories I can't say the same about, which is a shame really. I'd like to think that Naughty Dog approached each side character as if they could star in their own spinoff game. 

Music — I want to take a moment here and point out the fantastic (if minimalist) score for this game by Gustavo Santaolalla. I don't know a lot about music since I quit playing violin nearly a decade ago, but man if this soundtrack wasn't evocative. For me, it ranks up there with other contemporary game soundtracks like Red Dead Redemption and the BioShock series. Seriously, if you haven't, check it out.

The End of Days has never seemed more tranquil.

Spectacle — The last thing I'll talk about is the spectacle of the game, which is hard for me, since I want to stop at, "iz good," but that won't fly. The world is oddly beautiful considering how gone-to-sh*t everything is. The designers really took time and effort to show off the natural dilapidation of the environments. The monsters in the game are grisly to say the least, with an uncomfortably, almost dare I say, pretty design. It's like how the Splicers in BioShock all look disconcertingly classy considering how f***ed up they are. The gameplay did seem to suffer judging from watching my friends play, but considering how long my friends played, they didn't seem to mind. No 'game-breakers' like what my roommate described in Elder Scrolls Online.

So what else can I say about The Last of Us? Check it out. Unless Zero Punctuation scared you away entirely, it's still, in my opinion, one of the best told stories using the video game medium on the market. And Troy Baker may in fact be jesus (Joss Whedon is undeniably god and Stephen Moffat is definitely Lucifer ... smug bastard).

~ Godzello

On World War Z

To start, I did not read the book before seeing this film. There's a lot of books out there, there's a lot of movies out there. I can't always do the book justice by seeing it before I see the adaptation. Maybe when I get back from my vacation I'll finally pick it up off my shelf, along with the Strain, Good Omens, Anathem, and countless other books that I promised people I'd get to. 

This sums up how my friends are about books I should read

So I walked into this movie blind. I knew little about the source material. I knew it was an oral history without a main character that took stories of a zombie apocalypse from around the world. The movie had Brad Pitt as a guy working for the UN. Seemed like the closest to clever writing to take the spirit from one and manufacture a character to work as the face for the story to me. Otherwise, I only had an instinct garnered over many drunken viewings of Romero  films to guide me. 

This image sums up the importance of the supporting cast.

Most Accurate Review

"World War Z plays a bit like a series of separate films and the juncture where the new final act was grafted onto the proceedings is unmistakable, but unless you knew about the film's troubled past, you'd never guess it existed." 

-- Kenneth Turan (Los Angeles Times)

You get the feeling very quickly that the movie is getting snapped around one way and then another at various points. I'll be honest, rewatching the film on Netflix gave me the undeniable sensation that you can pick out the different writers between scenes. If not for a highly talented cast and the unity of the direction/editing, I feel like the movie would shamble into an early grave (see bigshot critics, I can make stupid taglines too).

Most Idiotic Review

"... this lousy, ugly-looking, intensely illogical movie ..."

-- Wesley Morris, (Grantland)

Finding a truly idiotic review off the bat was actually rather hard. Most critics, and me it seems, gave this film the benefit of the doubt. It had a hell of a production, and despite it's three credited writers, Pitt and his ensemble manage to keep WWZ's head just above water. So ... no, I don't think the film is lousy, or ugly looking. It does suffer from shaky-cam-itis, but seeing how prevalent that is these days, I've trained myself to look for it. As far as offenders go, this is not one. I always knew what was happening, at the very least, which is more than I can say for Abrams last outing in the Star Trek franchise. As far as being illogical, it certainly has its moments, no doubt ... but it is a movie about reanimated corpses after all, so call me overly forgiving in my old age of 22, but I think some leniency is allowed. The logic of the movie is more-or-less sound within the confines of its own world, if not ours (the way pathogens and viruses work), and the characters (usually) avoid horror movie cliches. The few times the movie decides to trot out these cliches, I'll just blame one of the other three writers who just couldn't bare to kill his darlings. 

What I Say

This is still a damned enjoyable film, but damn if it isn't riding of the fumes of potential. It's like Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. You can just feel it oozing awesomeness that it never quite gets too. As a creative person, I can at least respect the attempt to hit a mark and failing, as opposed to something produced from the GeneriTRON 9000 ... which constitutes 90% of whatever Michael Bay touches. The movie tries for a epic scope, it tries for relatable characters with an emotional center, it tries for tension, suspense, and action. Hell it even tries for a more sciencey approach. So instead of angrily lambasting it, I feel like World War Z is like that friend you knew in High School who had all the makings of being awesome, and a few years later you run into that friend and they're sad, overweight, and trapped in a dead-end job. For a moment you might think, "WHY U NO LIVE UP TO POTENTIAL," and then you just feel sad.

World War Z is like this zombie's hairline, f***ed up.

That's World War Z.

It's overweight, past-its-prime potential.

The main culprit of this is the script. It's herky-jerky, and a bit unfocused about what it wants to be, which is understandable, because when Lord Lindelof, Dark Lord of Hollywood Hack-Work ... breath ... breath ... the ending feels like it belongs to a different film. The first two thirds are building up this wild globetrotting epic and the last third feels more traditional Romero. Both have merits, but without Pitt to keep it cohesive, this would have fallen to pieces entirely. If anything, it feels like two movies. The ending is actually the sequel with its own story to tell. It's a rather surreal experience. 

I personally preferred the globe-trotting of the first half, if only because I felt, personally, that I hadn't seen that before in a zombie-film. Even if it wasn't fantastic, it was new, like Mtn Dew's LiveWire. I couldn't tell you if it was better than Code Red, but it's new and I'm drinking the crap out of it.

Symbolism of Mtn Dew and geo-political tension

The characters also suffer. They aren't entirely consistent, at least not the side characters. Pitt is a dominant enough personality that he can anchor almost any role, and no I'm not salivating over Pitt. He's just a dreamy hunk of man-meat. Moving on.

It's the rest of the cast that suffers. The wife starts off pretty cool in the face of all that's happening. Then she's sidelined to playing middle-man over the phone. Segen is introduced just before the third half, and she's a really interesting character. I wanted more of her too. She was a real badass for the time she was on screen and left a real impact considering I remember her having next-to-no-lines. I seriously thought at first she was a mute. Then there was that bit with her screaming. And that was a cool part too. Honestly, the scene where she's ... spoilers, is really intense and cool, especially in the middle of the bedlam that's happening all around them. Capaldi and ... the other actor who's name I don't know but he did well too, brought weight, but ... eh, there were two casts to the film, both good, and both rather shortchanged. 

It was one of the complaints I've heard about Days of Future Past, and I can see it at work here as well. Two casts, and neither gets quite the spotlight they deserve. Again, this is a result of the Frankenstein-work of the script.

The spectacle though is still pretty fantastic. The imagery combined with the soundtrack was pretty powerful. The swarming zombies reminded me of the Squiddies from the Matrix films, especially Revolutions (which my brother and I just rewatched last week), and the overwhelming mass of 'You're F***ed' that they create as they flood whatever area they're in. I particularly loved the way they'd jump and lunge and throw themselves all over. The usage of CGI to create zombies who legitimately gave no shits about hurting themselves added a new level of danger to the creatures that we didn't even get in 28 Days Later.

So overall? It's a fine movie. It will ultimately rust a bit, be a bit forgotten. I doubt it will be hated or loved, or become a cult hit. People will probably look back and go, "Oh yeah, I liked it fine." Personally, I'll stick with Edgar Writer's Shawn of the Dead or Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later though. Them Brit's seem to really know what they're doing.

~ Godzello

Terrible Tuesday: Terry Goodkind, a betrayal

As I've gotten older I've noticed I experience less shitty movies, games, books, and music. This is not because art has improved drastically in the past half-a-decade, but because I've learned more about what I like, the types of intellectual properties that appeal to me, the recurring artists who I love, and when a trailer and advertising campaign is overselling a product. It also stands to reason that in High School I had a vast social circle, much larger than I do now. Back then I was all over the place trying to figure out where I fit in, and I was funny and unassuming enough that I fit into most social circles long enough to be exposed to some real utter garbage. I mean, I was subjugated to horrors untold over those four years. And we're not just talking about getting a group of people and having a drinking game to movies like The Room, either. I'm talking about die-hard fans who refer to movies like the Dark Knight Rises or Inception being, respectively, 'a religious experience' and 'changing their lives.'

So buckle-up, because every Tuesday, I'm going to throw-down with a gnarly monster from my past and see if its corpse still stinks. 

Since I haven't talked about a book in quite a while, I thought I'd take a moment to return to my roots. I am a wannabe fantasy author, and I work really hard to avoid cliches, create engaging characters, and still have fun with it. I started reading Tolkien in the 4th Grade and moved on to Donaldson in the 5th, with Pratchet and Brooks sprinkled here and there for levity and humor's sake. This spoiled me pretty badly, but I didn't know it yet.

No, that lesson was learned the hard way. When I was in 8th Grade my father's girlfriend invited me over to a Wine Tasting at the local golf-course where a local author was socializing. His name was Terry Goodkind, and he was very polite, friendly, and gracious to spend some time chatting with me about the craft, and I will always respect him as being personable and friendly, as well as giving me a signed copy of Naked Empire, which had just come out.

At a rapid-fire pace I blew through his series which, to anyone who knows, is freakin' long. I mean, holy crap is it long. As far as fantasy sagas are concerned, it does rank up there with Wheel of Time and Song of Fire and Ice. And honestly? It was the first time I felt betrayed by a series. It was too long. It fell apart in the middle (and the middle of this series was something like three to five books, depending on how forgiving you are of either Temple of the Wind (rapey) or Naked Empire (forced Randian Bullshit). The characters became caricatures of themselves after book three and ceased and progression, development, or growth. 

The reason I say betrayed and not insulted or offended, is ... Wizard's First Rule and Stone of Tears were damned fun. I had a great time and the characters did feel realistic, well defined, etc. All those things we associate with a good story. They might not have been game changing or revolutionary, but they were like ... Indiana Jones. A fun ride from start to finish, which, considering they were both just under a 1000 pages apiece was no small feat, and for a previously unknown author, I'd say I'm still pretty damned impressed.

NOW WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED? 

Seriously, Richard and Kahlan became speechifying psuedo-philosophical mouthpieces, the plot took a left-turn to crazytown, and the violence, sexual assault, and mass-rape became so prevalent that the further into the books I read I started to feel legitimately ill. We're not just talking about Stephen King's penchant for showing his villains kill dogs or something, either, or Game of Throne's more honest depiction of the time period most fantasy series are set in, or even Donaldson's instance of his protagonist raping a sixteen year old girl within the first hundred pages of his first novel. All those cases usually feel justified in establishing the world or character (in Donaldson's case, the aforementioned rape is still a pivotal aspect of the series and the character 9 books later. The protagonist suffers the ramifications and responsibilities associated with his action for books and books and books where you honestly start to feel sorry for him. You kind of want the world to forgive him, or at least I did, which is not my stance on rapists, so kudos to the author for turning my own sense of ethics and morality on myself). 

Goodkind though? Somewhere around Temple of the Wind I started getting this voyeuristic feeling, much like the way Robert Patterson described reading the Twilight books in relation to Stephanie Myers. I started thinking Goodkind might have been embellishing less in order to drive some point across, like Donaldson or Martin ... and just kind of living out some really freaky fantasies. I'm probably wrong. I seriously hope I'm wrong, but that's a vibe that, eight years later, I still can't quite shake.

Then there's the damned philosophizing. Terry Goodkind is a fan of Ayn Rand, and I'm just going to make my stance perfectly clear. I think there's a reason her beliefs didn't take hold. I think there's a reason that Ken Levine modeled BioShock's Rapture after her beliefs in Objectivism, and it painted a horrifying portrait of what would likely become of such an economic model.

I feel like there's a danger to authors who try to paint why something works as opposed to why it doesn't. It's very hard to create something that's unassailable, and the harder you try, or at least the longer you try (as in a ten books series thousands upon thousands of pages long) the more holes you'll inevitably have and the more absurd lengths you'll have to go to sustain your position. So while I applaud him for being passionate about something ... he picked a hellova thing to be passionate about .

Interview: Terry Goodkind

In short, I'd never accuse Mr. Goodkind being a philosopher. After some of the interviews I've read of him in my studies of fantasy (I particularly love Donaldson talking about the Modern Epic, but hey, I'm a fanboy).He's more of a dogmatic moralist at this point.. much like the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Party and most kindergartners with an absolute good/evil right/wrong duality. He's more of a dogmatic moralist at this point.. much like the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Party and most kindergartners with an absolute good/evil right/wrong duality. 

In other words, "Pot the kettle called, and said pitch wants his black back."

My belief is that Goodkind has a very limited understanding of Philosophy and even the one he claims to ascribe to he doesn't seem to reflect on using that lofty conciseness of his beyond constructing false premise moral absolutes by ignoring or over-emphasizing the available evidence to suit his interpretation of Rand.

TL;DR: He lives in his own little world.

And lastly, if only Inchoatus was still active. They had a perfect summation of Goodkind, but I'll do my best to reiterate some of their points here. 

Goodkind's Rant: a rebuttal of the more preposterous utterances of this prolific author

"To define me as a fantasy writer is to misunderstand the context of my books by misidentifying their fundamentals." -- Terry Goodkind

You write a series set in a pre-industrial world with magic, wizards, dragons, an actualized underworld, and prophecies, and you think we're the ones misunderstanding the context of your books? It's named after a magic sword for Christ's sake! It's not great literature you miserable, pretentious bastard.

You know what? I don't regret reading all ten of those damn books, because they taught me more than I'd have ever thought possible. I can only hope that paranoia of turning out so schizophrenically will help me avoid the same pitfalls that destroyed someone who was, once upon a time, one of my top three favorite writers.

~ Godzello

On The Edge of Tomorrow

I will readily admit it, I'm not a Tom Cruise fan. I'm neither a majority or a minority on the issue either. He seems to be a lukewarm star to me. No one is maddeningly in love with him (at least in my social circles) or desperately ready to cave in his skull with a Toyota Prius launched from a trebuchet. And his personal life is no end of amusement.

That said, after the disappointing rancid predictable tripe that was Oblivion, I was leery of Edge of Tomorrow at best. I love Sci-Fi, but after growing up on Hienlien, Asimov, Clarke, Verne, Wells, and Phillip K. Dick ... it's hard to be impressed by the stuff Hollywood usually turns out. It doesn't mean it can't be good or enjoyable but ... well, Back to the Future is one of the best time travel movies out there, beloved by mass audiences. Now go read the plot synopsis for Heinline's All You Zombies. I'll wait.

See? When you spent High School uncovering these gems, you'd have a bit of a higher bar when it comes to what gets you really excited. 

And let's face it,
Tom Cruise's chin cannot compete with Casper Van Dien's

So what did I think of Edge of Tomorrow? It was okay for a weird lovechild between Groundhog Day and Starship Troopers (doncha miss the days when my reviews were me frothing at the mouth about what a bunghole Dark Knight Rises was?).

But seriously, let's look at the pieces. Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt are both talented and skilled actors, capable of carrying their weight separately and their characters are given some pretty solid depth and growth. The action was fast paced, visually interesting and enjoyable (the exoskeletons are undeniably badass). The side characters were colorful and some were memorable. The script used repetition to good use without being overbearing. The third act fell apart and turned generic on such a dime it nearly folded space/time doing so. I won't say it fell apart, but the buildup could have payed off so much more. It's more of a shame than an insult, since the first 2/3rd of the film were actually pretty damned enjoyable.

I also have to take a moment to really compliment Emily Blunt's character. Not only is Sergeant Rita Rose Vrataski a strong women in a man's world but ... well that's pretty much it. The film doesn't add much more to that. She's there, she's badass, and no one really comments on the fact that she's a woman. Props.

There's no other possible reason I found her performance engaging. None at all. 

If I were to lobby one complaint it was the (barely) techno-babble behind the time travel. It's internally consistent with the rest of the film and it follows its own rules without breaking them or copping out too much .... they just weren't very interesting rules. But if I wanted to watch a time travel movie that I knew'd blow my brains out, I'd make time to finally watch Primer.

Wait that's a good idea. Lates!

~ Godzello

On Kickstarter and Old-School RPGS

Well, here we are folks, I braved the <checks> 106 degree Vegas weather to get myself to a Starbucks to update this blog. THAT'S DEDICATION, so share the love, cause I'm not above measuring my self-worth against a digital readout of total strangers who read these ramblings. ONWARD

The first video-game I really fell in love with was KotOR. Before then I had garnered hours of enjoyment from Warcraft 2 & 3 and all of the Roller Coaster Tycoon titles, but Knights really cemented itself in my heart. I had discovered RPGs, and nothing would ever be the same.

But while my friends (I HAD FRIENDS) were doing backflips and headstands for games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and Elder Scrolls ... I had no interest. The stories never impressed me, they were full of halfhearted characters and lackluster overall stories. I appreciated the art design, and oftentimes the direction the games were trying to take their stories, but beyond that? I just wasn't their target demagraphic (which is the diplomatic way of saying they suck the major doodoo).

... and I have to interrupt, an absolutely beautiful girl just smiled at me at Starbucks like six times, my computer crashed in the middle of this, she sat right next to me, and while I tried to extricate the "Hi" stuck in my throat, she got her order, smiled at me again, got to the door, smiled again, and left. I am an impressive specimen of male charisma. 

Anyways, back to video-games while I try and scrub the bitterness out of my brain.

I had one friend back in the day who turned me onto three magical titles: Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, Fallout, and Planescape: Torment. My world was blown away. These games were magical. 

So when Wasteland 2, Shadowrun: Returns, Pillars of Eternity, and Tormet: Tides of Numenara were announced, my ears perked up so hard I nearly achieved flight I was so f***ing excited. This was it, the return to the golden age of classic isomentric topdown RPGs, and I was there to see it. No longer was I playing games from the previous generation of gamers.

It was a nice reminder to the market that there is still an audience for these games, that were not all interested, or only interested in the Triple A games' graphics and porridge-brain inducing storylines. I'm sorry, but those games can sit and rotate as far as I'm concerned. They've dominated long enough.

Not that I think this will change the playing field, but I'd like to see it ... encourage the playing field to introduce games like BioShock: Infinite or The Last of Us. I want to see balance brought back to the force.

~ Godzello