On To the Moon

This man is capable of complete
emotional devastation.

I'm constantly reminded by my new college buddies that I should be a gamer. I bear all resemblance to a gamer, talk about games comfortably, understand the basic ins-and-outs of the idea; I just never get around to actually playing any games which confuses them.

Y'see, I stopped getting invited out to movies for being a 'jaded bitter movie cynic'. Some day, I'll admit, I'd like to be able to consider myself a professional writer, which has no relation to quality, it has to do with a regular paycheck. That said, I have an obsession with ideas of quality. Every piece of fiction, of whatever medium is worth turning over and scrutinizing and ultimately judging 'can I do better, and how?' With this mentality, most everything I uncover is ... shit. (I'm looking at you EA and Blizzard).

But I have a friend who is almost as nuts as I am and he recommended To the Moon, the indie game released a little over a year ago by Canadian designer/composer Kan 'Reives' Gao. 

Wow.

Okay, I feel an explanation is owed. I do not hate games like Halo and Modern Warfare (aka FPS) because of the style. Yes, I do suck at them, but over the years some of the games that really revved my gamer engine were Heavy Rain and Alan Wake. Neither of these games had a strong 'game' aspect. It was more like interactive storytelling. God forbid the writer prefers games with strong emphasis on story. And I blame gamer-asshats for steering the gamer ship in this direction because I was told about a week ago that story isn't what games are about, rutting Super-Smash Bro. fans ....

So four-five hours after receiving To the Moon, I had run the gambit of possible emotions (giggling laughter, bereft tears, and raging anger (yep, all three of the feelers) because of SPRITES. That was a new one. I mean, in a day and age where the focus is on the never-ending arms race for better graphics, the sprites are the ones that really got me.

SPRITES

You might notice that I'm either really easily distracted or I'm dancing around the subject of what the game is actually about. I'd be much happier to just say 'go play the damn thing', but that won't really do.

You progress this interactive story (even I have to admit, this isn't so much a game as a pop-up book with a mouse), with two characters (Dr. Eva Rosalene and Dr. Neil Watts) who work for Sigmund Corp. where people on their death beds can have their memories rewritten so that a single wish can be fulfilled and they can die regret free.

Right off the bat we have a existentialist tragedy, and as the two characters progress backwards from their client John's most recent memories toward his childhood, mysteries regarding his mysterious wish to 'Go to the Moon', his wife, and his whole life pretty much are unveiled. I mean, I spent the opening of the game just rolling with the punches, seeing where it would take me and I was pleasantly surprised and delighted over and over again. I didn't know where the game was taking me, (I hate spoilers so I was literally flying blind) and ... hell, I don't really know what else to say. It's easier to rant about things I dislike.

Also, I have to shout out to the Soundtrack, which I thought was stellar. And the fact that Kan Gao, so far as I can tell designed the game almost single-handedly is really inspiring. He is a masterful storyteller with a quick wit necessary to offset the deep emotional impact. Never before has a game managed to make me cry and laugh in the same scene and I'm not ashamed to admit that. Ah, hell, what can I say? I'm a sucker. Definitely one worth checking out.

~ Godzello

On Godzilla (2014)

When the line was uttered, "The arrogance of man is thinking nature is in our control, and not the other way around," was uttered I could only think of one thing.

If they were going to homage Blue Oyster Cult's iconic song, go all the way and actually say, "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man." I mean, seriously.

Most Idiotic Review

"The right way to balance seriousness and silliness in a Godzilla film, it seems, is to have a thoughtful script about nuclear dread offset by some spectacular scenes of behemoth-vs-humanity devastation. Mr. Edwards' method is to switch things around, so that the screenplay is laughable but the mood and visuals are as drab as possible. His main achievement is to make Mr. Emmerich's version seem halfway decent after all." 

Okay ... I don't know how to respond to this honestly. I could start with a simple, "Did he see the same movie as me?" Whereas I spent the movie noting lessons well learned from other such classics as Jurassic Park, Jaws, and King Kong, the Economist saw "unremitting dullness," and " a long, glum slog with a murky colour scheme best described as "50 shades of grey." I guess I was leaning forward in my seat for reasons beyond excitement, tension, investment, and anticipation. And to compare to the 1998 film in such a way, which honestly never got under my skin the way other people felt it did is just plain laughable.

Most Accurate Review

"As in the classic, they hold the titular monster back for quite some time, and while the slow burn may not agree with a modern audiences’ desire for rapid-fire storytelling, once the monster action really gets going it is glorious to behold, with the finale a thing of utter, spectacular beauty. I’ll confess, I would have liked to see more of that action, and Godzilla earlier in the film, but am equally struck by what is in many ways a bold and well-thought-out pacing choice."

I personally couldn't agree more. Without delving into spoilers too deeply, every glimpse of the monsters pulled me further forward in my seat, and by the climactic battle I was rearing to go full force, and for all of the beautifully crafted hero shots of our titular monster, I felt chills... that might have been a side-effect of the theater shaking though. Dat roar, mang.

I agree with some reviewers that the characters were ultimately dull. That said, they're not the star of the film (who admittedly wasn't on-screen all that often, but still). My main retort was that they were, in my opinion, believable characters with some pretty basic driving motivation. They were not Whedon characters, nor do I think they should have been. Every human on screen represented the blank-slate character we see often in Video Games like Bioshock: Infinite and Deus Ex: Human Revolution. These characters aren't meant to be driving forces of Oscar-worthy drama at the end of the day. They're supposed to be in the right place at the right time so that the filmmakers have an excuse to showcase the 350 primordial alpha hunter decimate entire cities. That said, I still found myself rooting for Aaron Taylor-Johnson's character 'Whatshisname' (a quick Google-search tells me it was Lieutenant Ford Brody), and also, did anyone else find his voice hilarious? He still has a young teenager voice, like in Kickass, but he's bulked up enough to look like Bane Jr, so that every time he spoke I had to resist the urge to giggle. 

And just as a teaser, like the movie's advertising this whole time, the King? When he finally appears, he delivers in all his glory. I whole-heartedly believe that if you're a fan of the big guy (and you can tell I am, look at my screen-name), you'll enjoy this movie. I found that the filmmakers came to the table with a love of classic monster movies and the skill to pull it off.

On BioShock Infinite: Burial at Sea

For me, this has been a journey seven years in the making. I love BioShock. I've loved it since the first time I watched a friend play it in his basement back when we were both pimply High Schoolers with bad fashion sense and overblown egos. Age has at least improved the fashion sense.

So here we are, the end of a journey, a real saga. Give me a second, this is a real moment for me. Before I wrote this, I went back and replayed BioShock, and feel like I might have overloaded my brain on Ken Levine games. If I survive writing this blog, I might crank up my copy of System Shock 2 and frazzle what's left of my brainpan. Here we go.

Set December 31, 1958 (roughly two years before the evens of BioShock) Booker DeWitt, the protagonist of BioShock: Infinite, is a private investigator working in Rapture, Andrew Ryan's underwater Objectivist Utopia before it's fall. He is hired by the mysterious Elizabeth, another character fans of Infinite will recognize, although she is far more somber than the wide-eyed girl we saw asking Mr. Dewitt what could be better than dancing on the shores of Battleship Bay. 

In keeping with the mystery of Burial at Sea, I won't spoil what our beloved Booker and Elizabeth are doing in our beloved Rapture, but I will say that, yes, their presence plays merry-hob with the canon, the timelines, quantum travel, and a logical plot structure, but maintains the same kick in the family jewels that preceded the end credits of BioShock Infinite. Personally I was delighted seeing a deeper connection between the worlds of Columbia and Rapture, and how cleverly the writers slipped the gameplay of Burial at Sea in between the existing framework of the previous games, allowing for character crossover and fleshing out I'd never anticipated.

On an interesting note, there is a welcome change in gameplay, even between Episode 1, where you play as Booker, and Episode 2, where you play as Elizabeth. To me it was one part BioShock, one part Infinite, and one part Thief. There is a combination of BioShock's inventory (in Infinite, you could only carry two weapons at a time), but the plasmid/vigors from Infinite (but, it must be said, all aspects carried over from previous games have been thankfully streamlines). The skyhook also makes a reappearance, and although the sudden inclusion of tram-lines in Rapture seemed mildly ham-handed, I was having too much fun Sky-Line Striking Splicers to care. Also, best moment ever was when I had Elizabeth open a tear to bring in a Motorized Patriot to fight a Big Daddy. Alas, I don't know where else to say this, but the usage of plasmids/vigors felt more schizophrenic in Burial at Sea than in Infinite, but that might have just been me.

Also, speaking of Big Daddies in Episode 2, when playing as a de-powered Elizabeth (having collapsed from her quantum-superposition) Big Daddies are terrifying, and the whole game takes on a far more threatening air. Elizabeth is not a melee power-house after all. 

As one of my last points, I just want to comment on possibly my favorite aspect of the game. I loved seeing Rapture at the height of its glory. Seeing how far the technology has come to allow for such an immersive exploration of the city was as exciting as anything else in the game. I keenly enjoyed having face-to-face interaction with Atlas, who finally has his own character model, and not just a modified Splicer model. Like it's counterpart Columbia, both cities are so lovingly crafted by the designers they are among the most actualized fantasy/sci-fi realms I can name.  

In an interview, Ken Levine, Lead Writer & Creative Director stated, "I think you'll get a deep level of closure that you don't expect ... Fans of both the original game and Infinite are going to walk away pretty satisfied with feeling a sense of completeness in the end of [Burial at Sea] that they really haven't had in a BioShock game before."

On the Amazing Spider-Man 2

I'll start off by saying that the Amazing Spider-Man 2 is far from a perfect film, but. Notice I added a 'but'-- not a major but, or a well rationalized but. But it's my butt.

I really enjoyed it.

I enjoyed it in a way that a lot of superhero movies failed to deliver or simply flat-lined on arrival. It was fun. But it's not without sin, although I have more of a fault with the advertising. Let's blame merchandising for that.

*Spoilers Ahead*

Couldn't sell all those Rhino action-figures if you kept it secret that he wasn't even going to be onscreen for four minutes of the finished film. That's the main reason I didn't get up in arms about having so many villains. Including Rhino was ... like taking the beginning of any Bond movie and putting it at the end instead. It was a teaser.

More butts. But... I think the Electro/Goblin aspect was still unbalanced. Then again, I've never been a fan of the Goblin (personal problems, don't read into them), but I still feel like the Electro confrontation played out abruptly. I'm willing to hold off judgment for how they lead this into the next film, but incorporating a full-on Spidey/Goblin battle in this film just struck me as wanting to kill off Gwen Stacy before the third film. Oh well. It's not what I would have done, but studio executives' brains work in mysterious ways, like god. Or don't exist ... like god. Anywho.

Andrew Garfield still brings it in my opinion. He captures a fantastic outsider sensibility without becoming the dweeb incarnation brought to us by Toby Maguire. I mean no slight against that portrayal, but it didn't resonate with me the same way. Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker clicks with me, and he has far more onscreen chemistry than most romantic interests in film/television.


I've read reviews claiming the film had too many storylines, although I don't feel like I found all that many (not in comparison to other Superhero movies). Aunt May still provided necessary wisdom for the young Peter, Max (fantastically portrayed by Jaime Fox) had a legitimately frightening obsession with the teen webslinger. Gwen was faced with the age-appropriate rite of passage of what college she can go to. The only one I found ... offbeat was Harry's motivation. I've thought about it quite a bit before sitting down to get snarky, but it still feels ... off. I might also be jaded toward Dane DeHaan's skill as an actor. I'm very back and forth, which is something I'm not used to.


Lastly, I just wanted to say, part of why I liked the movie was that it wasn't gritty. Silly as that is, it's the reason. It felt like Spider-Man (and during certain action sequences a video game, although I don't see how that refutes what I said). They've made enough of these damn superhero movies that they're finally getting a grip on just what they're doing. Batman is different from Spider-man, who is different from the Avengers, which is different from X-Men. I think the franchises are starting to reflect that.

Now if only someone could stop Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder from repeating the debacle that was Man of Steel in 2016 when they make Batman vs. Superman.

On Captain America: The Winter Soldier

I'm always leery about formulating any opinion of a movie within twenty-four hours of watching the film. I am one of the most brutally neurotic critics among my friends, but thankfully, I can still get swept up in a movie and leave all that at the door ... usually. The Hobbit: Unexpected Journey and The Dark Knight Rises both had me groaning in my seat, rolling my eyes, and occasionally slamming my head in the back of seat in front of me. The other patrons were not thrilled.

So, here I am and here is Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I ... really liked it. I mean, Jeebuz. It really caught my attention in a way that Marvel has failed to do in a while. Going backwards, I thought Thor: The Dark World was ... serviceable. I honestly thought it was a two hour masturbation-fest for Loki-fans. Iron Man 3 was ... a mess.

So here we are. I'll stick to my main pillars, plot, characters, and theme. I liked the plot, not because it was revolutionary, or new, or even surprising (it really did hearken back to 70s era political thrillers). What it was, though, was directly related to the main character. The titular antagonist of the story had an ideology that conflicted with Steve Rogers, and that made the plot more engaging than say, Malekith fighting Thor, or Guy Pearce (I refuse to call him the Mandarin) fighting Iron Man. I liked that the Winter Soldier was ultimately just a hired gun; it gave him the same feeling as Darth Vader back in Star Wars: A New Hope. He was just a guy with a job to do, and the personal relationship was just an addition that added depth.

As always Chris Evans brings a wonderful sincerity to his performance that retains a cheeky sense of humor (unlike Henry Cavill's straight-faced Clark Kent in Man of Steel). The other characters who appeared, had a fun repore with Cap. Black Widow and he formed an intimate (not sexual or romantic) relationship based on their shared experiences and how they've been effected.

I found that Anthony Mackie's Falcon resonated particularly well with me. My father and brother were both marines in Vietnam and Afghanistan respectively, and seeing their struggles highlighted through the PTSD meetings in the movie a welcome connection.

I will admit the movie completely lost my interest the more it delved into Hydra and Arnim Zola's return as purely an exposition fountain. I felt that they were ... unnecessary inclusions that were handled more-or-less lazily and shoehorned. It also struck me as a waste of Robert Redford's villainous Alexander Pierce.

In the spirit of keeping this brief, the movie, I thought, was the first case of the Marvel films standing separately of the franchise brand-name since The Incredible Hulk in 2008. It worked as both, unlike it's predecessor, which just came across as a 2 hour preview for the Avengers. Hopefully it bodes well for the future of Marvel's films.

Getting Back Into the Swing

I ... am completely out of it. I have ... nothing to report on. The hell happened? Are there no movies out? Books? Albums? Games?

BS.

That said ... it's been a while since I ... cared about something enough to log on here and write about it. The Wolverine? It was okay. Kinda 'tarded at points. Better than the first one. Hugh Jackman is still hot. But nothing splendiferous. Man of Steel was ... something. Star Trek Into Darkness. 

Or in games, GTAV and Saints Row 4 ... but really ... meh. 

Pop culture just hasn't been catching my eye. I don't rightly know what it is. I'm hella burned out on superhero movies for one thing, just bar-none done. They've so overhyped I've lost all interest. It's just a monopoly on the film franchise at this point and games? Other than the Kickstarter projects ... I couldn't care less about Triple A developers. They gave us Dead Space 3. I rest my case.

Thank Cthulhu for books. Since this semester has been particularly hammering my sanity (this does not admittedly explain my absence over the summer which was spent in my basement rewatching Battlestar Galactica on Netflix), I have resorted to using alarms to denote when I do certain things with ... moderate success. Reading and writing (Blog/Fiction) are going well. Waking up in time for Production Lab on Monday at 8? Not going so well.

But, being inspired to learn more about the Cyberpunk movement as it was in the 80s, I picked up that old chestnut, Neuromancer by William Gibson and holy shit. I love it. It's fast paced, and being of a more fantasy genre background, fast paced in always refreshing to me. There's no time for a hundred page birthday party when you're jacked in (I am a total Tolkien fanboy, so I don't mean that in a bad way, but ... well, it's true). 

Reading Neuromancer reminds me of when I was sixteen and picked up Neal Stephenson for the first time. Snow Crash blew me away. Until then I had only ever read Tolkien and Donaldson's fantasy writings (as well as other unknown fantasy authors), and I hardly knew what I was reading.

This isn't much of an article or a review, I know, but I'm working myself back into my old snarky groove. Leave me a comment and some loving so I know I'm not alone out here in the wonderful world of Cyberspace. 

~ Godzello

BBC SHERLOCK

I'm a bit late in the game to be throwing in an opinion about Sherlock. However, I can say that its fandom is alive and cancerous on my college campus to the point where they and the Whovians have become nearly insufferable. 

Strangely, in Vegas, us nerds had learned how to pass unseen among the normies. Out here the nerds have taken over and frankly, I don't much like it. Mostly because, now allowed to run rampant, all I ever hear about is bow ties. 

Anywho, back to the BBCs other hit show, the modernization of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's consulting detective Sherlock Holmes and his assistant, Dr. John Watson.

For the most part the show succeeds quite well, and you don't need me to salivate all over the show like the rest of the internet (damn you Tumblr-girls). The show's cast is fantastic, certainly a step up from the god-awful Guy Ritchie films. I liked Snatch as much as the next man, but seriously, something went very wrong in the making of those films: everything.

Benedict Cumberbatch, despite looking like some kind of mutant badger, wears the dear-stalker well, and his interaction with Martin Freeman's Watson is the highlight of the show, coupled with his dealings with various characters.

The show has several recurring characters from the original stories, ranging from Lestrade to Irene Adler and Moriarty. Each of these characters is finely portrayed, and the show thrives when it is drawing from the source material as much as possible.

This leads me to my biggest gripe with the show, which has also become one of my bigger gripes with Doctor Who since Steven Moffat took over. I'm a clever guy, and fairly proud of my abilities as a writer, part of which is knowing where my strengths lie. Moffat can dish out some damn fun dialogue, but the man is nowhere near the genius that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was, and Sherlock suffers the same fate as any piece of fiction starring a genius character who is being written by people who are not geniuses. 

Moffat sets up elaborate and clever plotlines that only serve to entangle themselves, and the resolution never strikes me as satisfactory. This happens most visually in Doctor Who (each bloody series finale) but it is still readily apparent that he's trying to build on what occurred in the original stories, and embellish them, practically screaming, "Look how clever I am!"

(Also, Benedict Cumberbatch totally can't play violin and it drove me out of my mind).

~ Godzello