kt3234-1 Reviews

The Shining (1997)

Worthless.

[2/10 · 23 August 2009]

I wasn't much a fan of the original Shining novel. It's really more of a memoir of Stephen King and his dependencies on drugs, coupled with his emotional shortcomings when dealing with his children. Fine, sure, whatever. The problem with this miniseries is it takes the established concepts of the novel and throws them completely away, substituting them with a picture of idealistic, one-dimensional characters and predictable horror clichés.

The biggest problem I have with this film is Jack Torrance. First, I feel he was badly miscast. I've always felt Jack should immediately seem strange; like someone you get a bad feeling over and want to stay away from. This fits in line with the character because of his history of alcohol abuse and his feelings towards his son, Danny. I never get that feeling. Half the movie you have nice guy Jack and suddenly he becomes a homicidal maniac. There's no fleshing out of his descent into madness. There's no context. He's nice and then evil. And furthermore, why is Jack this picture of an idealistic father? The scene with the entire family rolling in the snow and laughing is a complete bastardization of the character that it makes the film nearly unbearable to finish.

Wendy is another big problem. While she fits more in line with what King originally intended in his novel, she also falls flat. None of the actors fit right in their respective rolls. They just seem to be characters King threw in because he thought they looked the part. Again, Kubrick's vision of Wendy fell more in line with my original vision of Wendy--helpless, scared, weak, and needy. Shelly Duvall perfectly captured that.

The one bright spot in this miniseries is the depth of detail one gets about the Overlook Hotel and the background. But for all the other faults and tired predictability of conventional horror, the miniseries pales in comparison to Kubrick's vision.

2/10

Diary of the Dead (2007)

A Monumental Disappointment

[1/10 · 29 June 2009]

Diary of the Dead is the fifth, and hopefully last, installment in Romero's "Dead" series. This installment is such a disappointment, as it fails to live up or revive the forty year old series.

The biggest disappointment is the fact that this series does not follow the original continuity of the series. While that is not necessarily bad, it leaves a faithful viewer feeling cheated, as the classic B-movie feel is completely removed. The notion of a Venus satellite crashing on earth, releasing a gas that reanimates the dead, is entirely ludicrous, but it was somehow more acceptable than the ridiculous plot line in this film.

So, okay, this doesn't follow the storyline, alright. So what? Does it still keep it's satirical nature expected from the series? Night of the Living Dead took a deep look at racism, Dawn of the Dead was about consumerism, Day of the Dead was about how human beings can be more harmful and volatile than the savages they claim to be better than, and Land of the Dead featured humanity profiting off others and Randian social Darwinism. Diary of the Dead tries very hard to feature an ironic look at the media's treatment of disaster, but it ends up failing. The main character is completely masked from the audience, leading one to believe this was meant to somehow be ironic, but it seems like a cop-out, like the audience is just supposed to accept it.

The acting is universally terrible, and while that is expected from a Romero film, this one is just...bad. Really bad. Absolutely no emotion in any dialogue; everything falls flat in delivery.

An aesthetic thing about Romero's movies is the inclusion of elaborate killing sequences. In this film, however, nothing is particularly interesting, save for the one kill with the defibrillators. This is particularly disappointing, as one expects a Romero film to be particularly interesting. Nothing. Absolutely nothing interesting. It might actually have gotten a better score.

All in all, the biggest mark against this film is the ending. It fails to revive the series or end it on a high note. If you want a premium zombie film that actually means something, watch Romero's earlier films. You'll be glad you did.

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (1980)

It's still incomplete

[7/10 · 25 December 2008]

Superman II was a film I watched when I was a child, directed by the then-credited director Richard Lester. In a way, this version is superior, though it is a glaring exercise in slapstick humor and overall camp-ness.

Truthfully, does Richard Donner's cut add anything to Superman II? Half of me says yes while the other half says no. Superman II, no matter what version you see, is a great comic book movie, and deserves to be enjoyed to the viewer's fullest potential. No, it really doesn't add anything to Superman II--it enhances it in a way that allows you to look at it from a different perspective.

The film is still incomplete, and that is through no one's fault. I had a problem with the slight inconsistencies of the characters between Donner's and Lester's versions. Glaring continuity errors are something which generally annoy me, and in S2TRDC, they are present in a profound way. Though, as I've previously stated, this is through no fault of anyone. The film is incomplete because the version is not wholly Richard Donner's or wholly Richard Lester's.

Though, fans of the film will find the enhancements enjoyable. Marlon Brando's lost dialogue really fleshes out his relationship to Superman, even if he is cruelly treated with the sacrifice he gives in order for Superman to retrieve his powers. The new opening really ties Superman I and two together, which leads one to wonder why they weren't thrown together for a three hour epic Superman film.

The glaring thing that is wrong with Donner's version is the ending. The cheap and repetitive way in which Superman turns back the earth to stop all these events from happening (which he did in Superman I) give the film that "simulation" feel, and is a let down in the end. In my personal opinion, as a Superman fan, I feel that the ending cheapens the character. Lois is supposed to know who Clark Kent really is.

All in all, this is a well made "remix," with enough footage to keep you entertained. Terrance Stamp, Christopher Reeves, and Gene Hackman all give terrific performances, and, in a way, they are enhanced thanks to Donner's new cuts. It's not a bad movie, but I would prefer to wait until we get the full treatment of Superman II.

Halloween (2007)

Carpenter's was better

[2/10 · 24 December 2008]

Rob Zombie, I believe, is an untalented filmmaker who re-imagines things to their utmost extreme in order to give the audience a cheap scare, and I mean REALLY cheap scares.

First off, Michael should not be presented with a back story. Carpenter presented Michael as an absolute--we know almost nothing about him, save that he was incarcerated in a mental institution and escaped to kill Laurie Strode in Haddonfield. No more explanation was needed. Michale was creepier without a back-story, and it presented him as a more evil character with even stranger motives. The audience is unsure exactly why Michale is trying to kill Laurie Strode, but we were only told to watch, and we enjoyed Carpenter's version.

Zombie, on the other hand, likes to think too much. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but a thought keeps coming up in my head that says Zombie got the inspiration for Michael's back-story just sitting around and trying to think of the most gruesome ways to turn the boy into a murderer. In a way, Zombie is sympathetic to Michael, and it makes the audience feel for the boy, something they should never do with Michale Myers.

The back-story, though I wouldn't call it much of one, has Michael living with an abusive step-father and a slutty sister, who gets killed after sleeping with her boyfriend. After House of 1,000 Corpses and its sequel, I feel Zombie is only good at thinking up THESE scenarios, and it makes his movies very painful to watch.

The horrid casting of Malcolm McDowell (might be an error on spelling) cheapens the character of Sam Loomis, a role fully expressed by the late Donald Pleasance. It seems this piece of casting was just so fan boy Zombie could get a look at the aging actor who frightened us so deeply in Kubrick's Clockwork Orange. The same can be said of Ken Foree (the man in the truck stop stall whom Michale kills), who worked in George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead. I felt Loomis should be presented as an American character, not British. I have no qualms with McDowell as an actor, but his performance does not fit here.

All in all, the cheap set up of one of America's most beloved serial killers is wasted by it's cheapness of character casting, dialogue, and overall plot arch. It is not for the faint of heart in terms of Michael Myers' fans, but rather for the idiotic buffoon who would rather watch style over substance.

2/10

Fallout 3 (2008 Video Game)

Oblivion with guns? Hardly.

[8/10 · 24 December 2008]

Fallout 3 represents a new realm of imagination in terms of scope and playability with open world role playing games. Granted, the first two Fallout games were excellent in their respective rights, but Fallout 3 seems fresh, new, rebooted, call it whatever you want. There is no adjective to describe how great the game fleshes out the Capital Wasteland.

Purists, join me for a minute in a critical idea that seems to have flown from your heads. This game was primarily made to interest new people in the Fallout series. That's it, that's all. It was meant for a more mainstream audience of console gamers in order for them to experience the glory that is Fallout. If, for instance, Bethesda was as close-minded as you would like it to be, we would just have Fallout 2 tacked on with some better graphics and more of the isometric display. It would have been boring...very boring.

It is unfair to criticize this game as Oblivion with guns. Many of the complaints levied by you purists are completely unfounded. Because there may seem like aspects of Oblivion were implemented into Fallout, you immediately complain; but in actuality, the underground tunnels of the metro stations and the seemingly random way-points on your map are there for a reason--to entice the player to explore them. That is, in actuality, what Fallout is about. Exploration. Oblivion's dungeons were nice, true, but they were lacking in the visual detail presented in Fallout. A lot of the dungeons and caverns in Oblivion felt the same, and the player was forced to explore many of them for a reason. Fallout 3 does not do this, instead presenting the exploration as an absolute--you either explore them or you don't.

It would be unfair, though, not to explore them, because Fallout 3 is a rare game. It deserves to be fully fleshed out by the player. The environments are all individually speckled with a multitude of hidden items and easter eggs, and it makes the time spent playing rather enjoyable.

The Wasteland is another great aspect to this game. The space is weighted with the superbly executed retro 50s look, and gives the player a sense of a universe that has been "lived-in." Couple that with awesome graphics and characters and you have the formula for an established setting.

Characters are another great aspect to Fallout 3. Each of them have their own story, and you could spend up to the same amount of time exploring as you could follow the characters of different settlements around for their life story. And the marvelous VATS combat is a mechanic unanimously welcomed, giving players who are lacking in FPS prowess a chance to make some damage. Purists will be able to take delight in the fact that an inkling of turn based combat was present to keep them from burning Bethesda to the ground.

However, a small handful of complaints could be levied against Bethesda. VATS, though marvelous, can sometimes feel like the only option in most firefights, as the FPS structure of the game is sometimes poorly implemented. The enemies are somewhat lacking, as basically you are fighting either a Raider, an irradiated animal, or a Super Mutant. Here and there you'll find others, but that is your big three, and it can sometimes be repetitive when you stumble upon your tenth Raider encampment. Also,the buggy nature of the stiff character models is something that was blatantly present in Oblivion, and is an issue which should be corrected. I felt that the main quest is somewhat anti-climactic, as it is impossible to go back afterward, as you could do in Oblivion. Also, the side-quests, which ranged from petty instances to epic battles in Oblivion, were too few. One could say that these quests are some of the longest found in any game (an example being the Wasteland Survival Guide Quest), but they can become repetitive and annoying. Although, I strongly digress, as I have stated before: THIS IS NOT OBLIVION.

One more complaint that I feel is very marginal. I think the Karma aspect of this game hampers the quality. I realize this is a staple of the Fallout series, but something tells me Bethesda was better off without it, or, at least, to touch up on it better. I feel it annoying that I have to raise or lower my karma to get followers or talk to evil characters, respectively. This is a small complaint, and should not hamper anyone's game-play.

All in all, Fallout 3 is a new step, and a great one at that. The whole of the game is filled with an inspiring story line and a great play experience. Fallout Fans, rejoice! It's back, and better than ever.

A View to a Kill (1985)

We need a film with an older James Bond

[4/10 · 3 November 2008]

While this James Bond adventure is lackluster, it shouldn't detract from the overall quality of the performances found within it.

Take Zorin, for example, played by Christopher Walken. Zorin is calculating, cruel, and sadistic, and in my opinion, one of the best Bond villains in years. Grace Jones is surprisingly effective at her deliverance of lines and her acting ability. But let's be fair, she didn't have to do much.

Moore is a different story. Again, in my opinion, this is his best portrayal of Bond. First and foremost, because he is older. I felt the series started slipping long ago, because the character never got older, or slower, or weaker. Moore is. His tired expressions give new life to the character. The series needs an older Bond. How else can they hope to re-invent themselves? Yes, we're treated to the tired clichés of EVERYBODY, including Moore. I would think because Moore had been older filming, he would have been more cynical, or colder. Connery was in his last outing as Bond.

Yes, the story is bad. Laughably bad. We've seen it time and time again. Same old, same old. And yes, we're treated to the strange Harold and Maude like scenes of Moore with his much younger costars.

If nothing else, watch the film for the older Roger Moore, and think, does the series need an older Bond? The answer is an emphatic YES.

Street Fighter II: V (1995)

Cheesy? Yes. Inconsistent? Yes. Good? Very Good

[8/10 · 21 October 2008]

I grew up with the Super Nintendo. As such, one of the most beloved games I remember playing was Street Fighter II. I love Street Fighter. i have been a fan for a long time. When this show came out, I was pretty young at the time. Now, thanks to the modern technology of the DVD, I can enjoy them all over again.

It's funny that when you look at something from your childhood, it has a profound difference now than it did then. This comes into play with Street Fighter II V. First, this show is pretty violent. I mean, really violent for a kids television show. it is also very mature, and that may put off some viewers. Some examples would be when Ryu is falsely convicted for drug smuggling. he is beaten by the prison warden who repeatedly screams for Ryu to scream. Viewers 14 and up will realize that he gets some kind of sex thrill out of this, but younger viewers will not. Also, there are some mild swearing issues, but this shouldn't put off parents.

The story is a major diversion from the actual video game. Ryu gets a letter from Ken to come to America, and he does. During his first night, they both get thrashed by Guile, and so they decide to travel the world in search of new fighting techniques. They first stop in Hong Kong, where they meet Chun Li, who will be their tour guide. After some fights and some escaping and more fighting, Ryu, Ken, and Chun Li discover the evil Shadowlaw organization and it's leader, M. Bison.

Okay. Not exactly the video game, but a pretty straight-forward concept.

All the characters you know and love, with a few alterations to their character profiles, and with the exception of a small few, are present. Ryu and Ken battle and defeat them all.

It should be pointed out that while the concept is incredibly simple, the story lines are uniformly well done. Each episode packs enough interest and action to keep you entertained well into the 29th episode. I found myself so enthralled with the Vega vs. Ken episode that I was unable to believe a whole half hour had passed by. But that's where we come to a major complaint.

The opening credits. While the opening cinematic is nice, and you get a great feel of the show and the kick-ass soundtrack in place, it is overly long. As well as the closing credits. Together, I would estimate that they take up around 5 to 6 minutes. Not to gripe, but that is pretty long. Plus, you also have to count in the lengthy "in our last show" and "in our next show" segments.

Another small complaint are the characters. Not to poke fun at Japanese anime, but some of these characters are of different nationalities than just Japanese, so they shouldn't look Japanese. Also, some may have a small complaint about the way each character was handled. this is a small complaint (Such as the lack of an eye patch on a certain fighter. You all know who I'm talking about), and shouldn't detract from the overall quality of the show.

Finally, my last major concern. But it's not with the show. It's with the viewers. Yes, Ryu and Ken can come off as being somewhat homosexual. Before you go and spread your wild accusations that they were intentionally created this way, listen.

In Japanese anime or manga, it is NOT unusual to find stories about male homosexuality. In fact, some Japanese women find these kinds of stories entertaining. I believe this was intentionally created to appeal to both male and female viewers. Women can take delight in the fact that Ryu and Ken appear homosexual. Men can take delight in the fact that the show filled with both action and violence.

All in all. Yes, the show is for children, and naturally filled with clichéd antics and cheesy dialogue. But most can take pride in the fact that the franchise is handled so well in this anime show, and not torn through the ground like so many other tie-ins (I'm looking at you Super Mario Bros: the Movie).

Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (2004 Video Game)

Take everything you know about Metal Gear and throw it away.

[10/10 · 24 September 2008]

Metal Gear is a series primarily known for its characters - the generation of the snakes. Metal Gear Solid had Liquid and Solid Snake. Metal Gear Solid 2 had Solidus Snake. But now, in Metal Gear Solid 3, we play as a new snake: Naked Snake a.k.a BIG BOSS This is a huge achievement of a video game. Not only has the Metal Gear franchise been given a complete rehaul, but it does it in such a sentimental and beautiful way.

You play as Naked Snake, a.k.a Big Boss, in 1960s Russia. First of all, you are given completely new characters and environments to tinker with, and you also are given the privilege to see how the Metal Gear saga unfolds.

Snake is sent in by Major Zero (Snake's commanding officer) into Russia to rescue Nikolai Stokolov, a Russian scientist responsible for building the deadly Shagohod (this game's "Metal Gear" I put Metal Gear in quotes because this isn't actually a Metal Gear. The Metal Gear idea was thought up by a guy named Granin, and it was rejected, so he sent it over to a friend of his in the United States). Snake encounters the beautiful EVA, Sokolov, and the deadly Ocelot unit, led by then commander Revolver Ocelot. Snake is about to succeed when he is betrayed by his mentor The Boss, who defects to the Soviet Union with Colonel Volgin (the main villain).

Whew. Anyway, the game takes yo uout of your comfort zone. No Soliton Radar. No starting right next to the main location. Snake has to travel over the dense jungle regions while also avoiding enemies, the wildlife, and fatigue. You're given a stamina bar, which decreases over time from fatigue and injury. If you don't treat those injuries (through the remarkable menu in your start menu titled "CURE"), you will begin to fault on even the most simplest of tasks.

The game takes a very different approach towards stealth. You're given a cameo meter which tracks your overall cameo effectiveness. It is an absolute treat to lie waiting on the ground, only a few feet from the enemy, and then go up and slit their throats with CQC.

CQC is the greatest new feature. When you get close to an enemy, you have a variety of functions to perform. Grab them and interrogate them, Use them as a human shield, kill them, whatever.

This is some of the finest voice acting I've ever heard in any game. David Hayter really deserves a huge round of applause, and Hideo Kojima deserves a standing ovation for his genius script. This is the most sentimental and touching of the Metal Gears, all thanks to the love interest, EVA. Let me just say, the final parts of the game are some of the best you'll play. Everyone seems tailor made to fit these roles. This was really wise choosing Konami's part.

The story does a great job of setting the scene for the "future" Metal Gears. You'll be so surprised to learn about all the things that led up to the current continuity as you know it. The Boss is really the backbone for the entire story. The game follows the themes of loyalty and betrayal, and by the end, you'll realize that The Boss isn't all she was portrayed. You'll fight in a breathtaking and beautiful white flower field, and you'll learn everything.

The theme song deserves its own paragraph. It's just like listening to and watching a James Bond opening. This is also the most humorous of the series, with so many fourth-wall breakers put in.

Complaints are those that have been made in every single Metal Gear. Awkward camera (which is fixed in Metal Gear Subsistence) awkward controls. But who cares. Dialogue is a little forced on Colonel Volgin's part, but this doesn't hurt the game. This game is truly a breathtaking work of art. Congratulations to Mr. Kojima.

Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (2001 Video Game)

Kojima's Finest. Stands up to and Surpasses in every way.

[10/10 · 24 September 2008]

First, let's make this clear: THIS GAME IS NOT FOR ANYONE WHO CANNOT SIT STILL IN A CHAIR AND LISTEN TO CONVERSATION OR FOR ANYONE WHO HASN'T PLAYED AT LEAST METAL GEAR SOLID. You'll be too confused and you will whine about it.

From the start, it looks like you'll be playing a typical Metal Gear. Go in, rescue hostages, destroy Metal Gear, and get out. While that is all followed, you do it in the most clever and exciting of ways.

You play as Snake, legendary hero of Operation Intrude F313 and Shadow Moses...for about 10 seconds. You'll then be thrust into the role of rookie FOXHOUND member Raiden, who will be your primary character for the bulk of the game.

First, the Tanker Chapter The graphics are gorgeous. Absolutely incredible camera work and tremendously well-done voice acting. It could be said that this game has more going for it than most Hollywood films. Snake's arsenal gets a complete overhaul, and a variety of new moves. WE CAN FINALLY SHOOT IN FIRST PERSON! Enemies are smarter and deadlier, and the great new feature of getting through the game without killing a single boss character is very welcome to stupid naysayers.

But, in the Plant Chapter You take on Raiden, the aforementioned rookie FOXHOUND agent. In many ways, the game fits so perfectly with Raiden than with Solid Snake. People who pay attention will realize that we find a lot more out about Snake through the perspective of another, and it really helps to move the story along. And what a story it is. This game deals with the 1984-esque world we've all been thinking about. Censorship, memes, social engineering, AI, and conspiracy theories. The story can be convoluted, and many will say "huh?" but it doesn't detract from the overall game-play or enjoyability of it.

But let's address that right now. Gameplay can be fickle. For some reason, we're still left with the crouch-then-crawl routine of Snake introduced way back in 1990 with Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. We get the funny way of movement and the sometimes frustrating camera angles, and the awkward way of firing a weapon based on pressure pushing. But these are only very minor things, in the larger view. These do not hamper the quality. think of it this way: You shouldn't even be using guns. It's a sneaking game. Many of you will say "Yeah, but still" and I understand that. But don't discard this wonderful piece of art just for the sake of accurate gun control.

To all you with ADD, DON'T BASH THE GAME UNLESS YOU MAKE A FAIR ATTEMPT TO WATCH AND LISTEN TO THE CUTSCENES. The cut scenes are the meat of Metal Gears. Play with it, eat with it, live with it. Shut up about it.

But really, the cut scenes are more like a movie than just your standard cut scenes. They are beautifully rendered, and perfectly acted and voiced. The reason I think everyone hates this particular entry in the series is the fact that they do not watch the cut scenes, so they can't figure out the story. The cut scenes are key to it. They are long, but so are movies. Treat it like that.

Codec conversations are a slight problem. it would be so much better if they were to be cut scenes as well, but alas, we're stuck with talking green heads. Codec conversations are still excellent, mind you, but they do hamper the game-play.

In short, the Metal Gear series is known for it's intricate plot, it's drama, and it's characters. While it may seem like all of these have been so overdone that they are virtually unrecognizable, it's all for the sake of telling a great story. You could not ask for a funnier or more clever sequel. It deserves so much more than a 10.

Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (2008 Video Game)

Beautiful, Breathtaking, Brilliant

[10/10 · 18 September 2008]

"Big Boss here. Solid Snake! Fall back! The mission is a failure! Return immediately. This is a direct order. Turn the power off on your MSX console at once!" Metal Gear Solid 4 represents everything a good video game should be. Edgy, funny, clever, smart, and brilliant. It would be possible to grant this game an 11 if need be. It's just that good.

Let's clarify this right now. THIS GAME IS NOT FOR ANYONE WHO HAS NOT PLAYED A METAL GEAR GAME BEFORE. IT IS ALSO NOT FOR ANYONE WHO CAN'T SIT STILL FOR A FEW MINUTES TO WATCH A CUTSCENE! I can not stress that enough. People are willing to give the game a 0 just because they can't be quiet and listen to a great story being shown to them and appreciate it. For Metal Gear fans who have not played the previous titles, it is highly recommended that you do so. You can get a used copy of Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence with the very first two Metal Gears on the second disk.

But now, let's get on with the review.

After playing Metal Gear Solid and the latter sequel and prequel, the story seemed to be relatively the same to their previous encounters. The overhead camera, the strange crouch-then-crawl mechanic, and the hostage rescues of EVERY Metal Gear. I was surprised to see in metal Gear Solid 4 that there was not a single objective that had to deal with hostages, or even Metal Gear. Mr. Hideo Kojima has crafted a Metal Gear for a new age. The game plays like you always knew a Metal Gear game could play. Also stripped away are the somewhat awkward gun controls, and the "talking-head" moments of the Codec. The Codec is the greatest part. Metal Gear's story is told entirely throughout beautifully rendered cut scenes instead of the monochromatic green heads of the Codec.

Snake's Mission? Find Liquid. No Metal Gear, rather the Patriots. You don't even have to play the entire game using stealth. The user friendly interface of the game creates a wide range of possible choices in how the player reaches their overall goal; and that's the mark of an expert video game. Go ahead, try it in different ways. It opens up a whole string of replay value. Play through without being seen, or without killing anyone.

Overall story is absolutely amazing. For anyone who has played a Metal Gear, it does a tremendous job of answering the big questions. People like Raiden (MGS2), EVA (MGS3), and Naomi Hunter (MGS1) are all given their fair treatment, as well as an innumerable amount of others.- The Patriots most of all. After playing the second game, I, like many of you, were left with more questions than answers, but Kojima does a fabulous job of answering all of them. You'll even find out what La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo means.

Voicework is top notch. After ten years of Snake, Mr. David Hayter can still bring surprises to the table. Hayter brings the right mix of emotion to the table during the latter half of the game. Voice work of the secondary characters is also incredibly well done, even better than some current Hollywood offerings.

Metal Gear does suffer some issues. The constant loading during some intense parts of the story can detract from the overall experience. Loading is not a problem after every act though (For people who don't understand that, the game erases the last act and installs the new one, and so forth, so the game doesn't take up a lot of space). Some may criticize Metal Gear Online, but it is really more of a complement to the game. Metal Gear Solids 1 and 2 did not have them, and they were still great games.

Overall, Metal Gear Solid 4 is a heart lifting odyssey of discovery. All the questions are answered, in the most sentimental and gorgeous of ways. This is on of the rare forms of video game art. It is not comparable to any other game I've experienced in my lifetime. I ask you to turn yourself over to the experience.

We salute you, Solid Snake. You've finally earned your rest.

Epic Movie (2007)

Deserves worse than a 1/10

[1/10 · 9 June 2007]

I can't possibly understand how anyone could even think of laughing at the film. Except for possibly teenagers, and right away that told me I wouldn't like the movie.

I also don't know why anyone would try to make another knockoff of a genre after Date Movie was even attempted. The stupidest jokes are inside Epic Movie. The writers have maxed out everything from the gay faun and beaver to kicking people out of a window and even to that guy from the DaVinci Code spoof who spoke Latin but didn't really "speak" Latin. That was attempted in Scary Movie 4 (with Cindy and the Japanese boy). The writers have to think of fresher ideas.

Another thing that bothered me was the amount of recycled actors that had previously appeared in Date Movie. Could we get someone new? The shortness of the movie was also a problem. It's a little more than an hour long, and most of the scenes are filler material. The filler material also got me really upset. The film maker has to justify putting in a bunch of half clothed women just to make the audience pay attention. That shows the mark of an amateur film maker, who thinks he can get a movie to be watched by filling the movie with nudity.

In conclusion, don't waste your money on this. It's garbage.

The Departed (2006)

Not Scorsese's Best

[3/10 · 5 March 2007]

The Departed did not deserve Best Picture, I'm sorry to say. In my opinion, it was Little Miss Sunshine. Anyway, The Departed is just Scorsese being forced into a movie that he was required to make. While the movie did have Scorsese's direction, it didn't have the Scorsese feel.

First, the casting. Leonardo DiCaprio doesn't give his best. His over the top hysterical kid-at-Toy's-R-Us attitude didn't help me get sucked into the movie. I was very aware that I was watching some actor read his lines. I had no idea what Matt Damon was doing in there either. Matt Damon is just like his character; he's been slipped in. Jack Nicholson is perfect in anything you give him. I really enjoyed his energy. Mark Wahlberg also. His years of strong work give him the perfect attitude when it came to being a cop.

Second, the way it was put together. Scorsese doesn't use all of his God-given traits. There is violence, but not realistic violence. The fight that occurred in the market seemed stylized, and didn't even flow. There isn't any of the classic Scorsese music. None of the soundtrack in the film even compares to the mood or setting. Scorsese had it in Goodfellas and in Casino and among many others, but he doesn't use it in The Departed.

Last, the hype. The Departed didn't deserve any of the awards except for Best Adapted Screenplay. I felt the Best Director Oscar was just a gimme, because Scorsese hadn't received one. It was as if they were saying 'Well, there's nobody good in the competition, so let's just give it to Scorsese.' The Departed didn't deserve Best Picture because it wasn't a Best Picture. In my opinion, it was Scorsese's worst. He didn't have his usual edge, and that's what we expect from a Scorsese picture.

Thir13en Ghosts (2001)

A big disappointment

[2/10 · 20 February 2007]

I wanted to like the movie. I saw the trailer when it was first released and thought it would be an enjoyable movie. But when I saw it, I just couldn't conceive of how this was allowed to be made.

First, let me just say that I was disappointed with there being only thirteen ghosts. I saw the DVD packaging and the number of different ghost pictures on the front. Now that I look at it, I see that they are all only among the thirteen ghosts. See, when I first picked the movie up, I thought there were dozens of ghosts, and only 'Thirteen Ghosts' was a clever title.

Second, acting. Tony Shaloub isn't convincing at all when it came to playing Arthur. And that annoying Bobby kid. F. Murray Abraham is alright, but isn't as good as he could be. And the number of cliché moments in the film really bothered me, especially the credit sequence with the SAME happy family and the SAME happy brother-sister relationship and the SAME loving, warm, fuzzy family, and finally, the SAME disaster that tears them all apart.

Third, the make-up. While the ghosts are very interesting to look at, I could tell it was really sloppy make-up. The hammer guy and the juggernaut were awful. I would say the only interesting make-up would be the lawyer getting sliced in half by the glass.

And last, the ending. Another cliché. The SAME "oh, we're all together now kids, everything's gonna be alright. The ghosts are freed and we can live a happy life." Wrong. Did Arthur happen to mention that they have no house and that they have to go back and live at that crappy apartment? I didn't think so.

Casino (1995)

Excellent. A brilliant force of words, music and feelings

[9/10 · 13 February 2007]

Scorsese knows how to make an interesting movie. What's great about Casino is how real the violence and emotions of the characters are. First is the acting. Sharon Stone gives a terrific performance and Ginger, the out of control don't-you-know-she'll-be-trouble-girl. Robert DeNiro as Ace is also a very wise choice, because DeNiro can play the complete opposite of his character in Goodfellas. Jimmy in Goodfellas was a strong and intimidating man, while Ace is always hiding behind Nicky. Speaking of Nicky, Joe Pesci gives, I think, an even better performance than in Goodfellas. His character doesn't look like much, but his acting makes him so much bigger. Also, the chemistry between the three is outstanding. For example, when Ace confronts Ginger after they leave the restaurant. You see Ace's absolute disgust of Ginger. And, when Nicky and Ace meet. Joe Pesci doesn't give 'forced anger' like so many other actors. The viewer feels like they are watching their conversation.

Next, the story. Pileggi and Scorsese really tap into life in the Mafia. We see what really happened during those times, and how corrupt the whole system was. We also see how the mob dealt with its problems. Through violence.

Next, the violence. Scorsese shows us the twisted way the mob dealt with its problems. The torture scene is incredible. I found myself disgusted with it, but at the same time, I couldn't look away. Scorsese knows how to draw the viewer in. We may not like what we see, but we are attracted to it anyway.

And finally, the music. The music really fits with the mood of the scene. The 'I can't get no satisfaction' song goes perfect with the confrontation between Ace and Ginger after they leave the restaurant. The music is basically telling the story for us. Ace 'can't get no satisfaction.'

Truly a wonderful film. Scorsese creates another visual masterpiece for the ages. 9/10

Super Mario Bros. (1985 Video Game)

Who doesn't love this game?

[10/10 · 10 February 2007]

Super Mario brothers is a triumph beyond triumphs. Nintendo brought back the downfall of videogames due to the lack of originality in video games of that time. Mario and Luigi were so different. That's what made them spectacular. Most games of that time were focused on shooting and war and whatever else those companies came up with. Nintendo said No. They stuck with a basic idea about a damsel in distress and a brave knight (or plumber) who had to rescue her. Mario Bros. was also challenging. It had better graphics. it had many different villains. it had power ups. And, it had the most unlikely super hero out there, and that hero was Mario. Nintendo had a hit, and it will always be a hit.

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

George's best...

[8/10 · 10 February 2007]

Night of the Living Dead is perhaps Romero's best film. Everything is so carefully planned out, so you feel you're actually witnessing what these people are going through. What makes it great is the internal struggles of the house. Romero made me feel like the zombies outside weren't the only monsters, but also the ongoing power struggle between Ben and Cooper. Romero expresses his distaste of black oppression through this film by making Ben the leader of the house, and showing that Cooper was wrong about Ben just like America was wrong about the African Americans. Night of the Living Dead may look like just a scary movie, but it also has a deep message, which allows us to see the movie in a whole different way.