So 2012, the disaster flick from Roland Emmerich who now carries the torch of disaster movie Tsar. Having produced and directed Independence day and 10,000 BC it should be no shock to anyone who has seen any of these movies that this latest release is extremely disappointing.
The movie starts with an intro that is scarely similar to that of Sunshine, Danny Boyles fantastic film about a mission to re-ignite the sun. Even though this film bases all consequent disasters on the sun it is no excuse to copy brilliance in the hope of making the film look good from the beginning. While i'm on this point I would like to say that this film is full of ripped of scenes from other productions. The scene of L.A. upturning and sinking into the sea is surprisingly similar to the scene of the naval fleet being hit by asteroids in Transformers 2, which seems strange as Transformers 2 wasn't the greates movie ever, better than this, even the plot in that seemed to make more sense and even stranger was more realistic. In all seriousness I found it easier to believe that giant transforming robots would come to earth to destroy the sun, ironically, than the earth falling apart, and I do literally mean the earth falling apart.
In fact thats my next problem, for a film which is hoping to attract all it's customers through the impressive special effects they really aren't that special or impressive. Everything that 2012 does with the CGI has been done before and done better, for being called the king of disaster movies you would think that Emmerich would know which are the best CGI companies to use. The effects look like something from 2 or 3 years ago not the new age shiny we have been exposed to from previous features this year such as Transformers 2, G.I. Joe or Terminator: Salvation. This was probably the biggest disappointment as I went in to see the U.S get fucked over by global warming or whatever the fuck was the cause of this disaster and all I got was second rate, there was nothing wrong with it but then there was nothing truely right about them.
On the plus side there is the wonderful casting. The cast in this really do save this picture from being utterly abismal. Firstly there is Jon Cusack as the main character who delivers a brilliant performance for such a poorly written script, then there is Chiwetel Ejiofor who if anyone has seen him in past performances will know that he is a very good up and coming actor, films such as serenity, Red Belt and Kinky Boots have shown his versatility and commitment. These two really deliver the most powerful performances but they are backed up by the likes of Danny Glover who plays the President, Thandie Newton as the Presidents Daughter. There is also an appearance by Woody Harrelson as the doomsday conspiracy theorist who points Cusack in the right direction. However despite the brilliant cast there is not a decent script to compliment all their talents and styles, again it isn't bad it is just normal, everything that is written has been written before and been better worded. Although the words have necessarily performed better.
Overall 2012 is highly irritating and I found it to be be so utterly unbelievable, with so many plot holes and contradictions. On top of all that there are about 5 or 6 occasions in which all the characters should have died but do not. But I have to give the movie credit it did make me laugh and allow me to flex both my american and catholic hatred muscles as both get fucked over. Furthermore why is the whole of India ignored? It was funny to watch because of all the inconcistancies, it is probably worth to watch for that and Woody Harrelson. But even then don't pay to watch it like I did download it or persuade some idiot friend to buy it and then watch it with him. One final question, why the hell didn't Emmerich make this 3-D?
Ta ta
Saturday, 5 December 2009
Saturday, 28 November 2009
Paying Your Debt to Society
Well I think I owe all you lot a butt load of fucking reviews don't I. Well here goes im going for some kind of a record here so here comes a fuck load of films and shit with a few thoughts about them.
Quantum of Solace = For a bond film there is a distinct lack of Bond, he doesn't even make sweet love down by the fire to the proper bond girl, played by Olga Kurylenko who is very sexy i'l admit but really really can't act. Also there are plot holes the size of a whore's vagina and nothing really happens, in one word - Boring
Burn After Reading = One of the funniest films I've seen in a while genuinely made me chuckle and I would recommend it to anyone, it is very clever and creates a good mix of Anchorman sillyness with napoleon dynamite random nothingness, also look out for that killer last line. But with an all star cast it isn't surprising that such a good movie came from it, but mixed with great directing and a fantastic script burn after reading is a must for all.
The fourth kind = Hilariously rubbish and so far up its own arse with "actual footage" that is forgets it's trying to scare you. So then it shoves some flashing lights and creepy voice speaking in a random language which they then put subtitle next to saying weird things like "I am god". The film then goes on to steal the stargate storyline of aliens shaped the ancient civilisations, this time using the sumerians as the scapegoats. Over all the film is pretentious with poor acting and worse directing, Olatunde Osunsanmi makes his debut with this and I hope he doesn't come back. Also can Milla Jovovich just fuck off and either make a sex tape or a porn film because unless Resident Evil four is coming out soon I have no time for her unless I can wank.
The Saw series = This is something i've wanted to talk on for a while, I do really like the series for two reasons. First I am fool who thinks the glory of the first film will one day be recreated in the inevitable amount of sequels. And second becuase I am a sucker for Tobin Bells voice. Now this series started really really well, the first Saw film was brilliant its gore was minimal and all of its horror was psychological. Furthermore the film was well written with almost all the twists explained and developed enough to both surprise and scare the viewer. Another great thing about this film was that Tobin Bell was used to great effect as Jigsaw, with the film being less about him and more about the hunt for him and the predicament of the two chaps in the bathroom trap. Overall the series started very very well. Then the sequels started to roll out, it didn't go so bad the first time round saw 2 seemed to go pretty well the gore was ramped up a bit but the psychological side was still there along with a very "Kevin Spacey in Seven" style Tobin Bell talking with the copper who coppered him. The traps were inventive but not implausible, the victims well chosen for Jigsaws M.O. and the ending was sufficiently twisty to keep me interested. Then there was saw 3-5, all of which can be summed up the words Utterly-Rubbish-Useless-GoreFest-GorePorn-Fucking-Annoying-And-Possibly-Neo-Nazi. This phrase must only be applied to this sequence of films. Then came along Saw 6, this newest recent installment wasn't to bad the traps had gone back to being more plausible and the story had less holes in it then the previous shitheaps, although there were still holes, big holes, with piercings and tatoos of their own. But then again the psychology was back and gore had been toned down, I enjoyed but I still laughed at the utter sillyness of it. Its worth seeing if you have seen the others and now like myself want to see how the story ends which could happen in about inevitabillion films time but I will eventually know. If you are new to series be happy with the first one and forget about the rest. Also fans of the series ask yourself why every large building in america's unnamed city where all atrocities happen has suddenly become abondoned?
The end I hope you enjoyed the experience as much as I did
Quantum of Solace = For a bond film there is a distinct lack of Bond, he doesn't even make sweet love down by the fire to the proper bond girl, played by Olga Kurylenko who is very sexy i'l admit but really really can't act. Also there are plot holes the size of a whore's vagina and nothing really happens, in one word - Boring
Burn After Reading = One of the funniest films I've seen in a while genuinely made me chuckle and I would recommend it to anyone, it is very clever and creates a good mix of Anchorman sillyness with napoleon dynamite random nothingness, also look out for that killer last line. But with an all star cast it isn't surprising that such a good movie came from it, but mixed with great directing and a fantastic script burn after reading is a must for all.
The fourth kind = Hilariously rubbish and so far up its own arse with "actual footage" that is forgets it's trying to scare you. So then it shoves some flashing lights and creepy voice speaking in a random language which they then put subtitle next to saying weird things like "I am god". The film then goes on to steal the stargate storyline of aliens shaped the ancient civilisations, this time using the sumerians as the scapegoats. Over all the film is pretentious with poor acting and worse directing, Olatunde Osunsanmi makes his debut with this and I hope he doesn't come back. Also can Milla Jovovich just fuck off and either make a sex tape or a porn film because unless Resident Evil four is coming out soon I have no time for her unless I can wank.
The Saw series = This is something i've wanted to talk on for a while, I do really like the series for two reasons. First I am fool who thinks the glory of the first film will one day be recreated in the inevitable amount of sequels. And second becuase I am a sucker for Tobin Bells voice. Now this series started really really well, the first Saw film was brilliant its gore was minimal and all of its horror was psychological. Furthermore the film was well written with almost all the twists explained and developed enough to both surprise and scare the viewer. Another great thing about this film was that Tobin Bell was used to great effect as Jigsaw, with the film being less about him and more about the hunt for him and the predicament of the two chaps in the bathroom trap. Overall the series started very very well. Then the sequels started to roll out, it didn't go so bad the first time round saw 2 seemed to go pretty well the gore was ramped up a bit but the psychological side was still there along with a very "Kevin Spacey in Seven" style Tobin Bell talking with the copper who coppered him. The traps were inventive but not implausible, the victims well chosen for Jigsaws M.O. and the ending was sufficiently twisty to keep me interested. Then there was saw 3-5, all of which can be summed up the words Utterly-Rubbish-Useless-GoreFest-GorePorn-Fucking-Annoying-And-Possibly-Neo-Nazi. This phrase must only be applied to this sequence of films. Then came along Saw 6, this newest recent installment wasn't to bad the traps had gone back to being more plausible and the story had less holes in it then the previous shitheaps, although there were still holes, big holes, with piercings and tatoos of their own. But then again the psychology was back and gore had been toned down, I enjoyed but I still laughed at the utter sillyness of it. Its worth seeing if you have seen the others and now like myself want to see how the story ends which could happen in about inevitabillion films time but I will eventually know. If you are new to series be happy with the first one and forget about the rest. Also fans of the series ask yourself why every large building in america's unnamed city where all atrocities happen has suddenly become abondoned?
The end I hope you enjoyed the experience as much as I did
Monday, 3 August 2009
Grand theft row 4 vs Saints Auto 2
Behold beloved reader and Adrian. Today I am going to compare and review 2 games those being Saints Row 2 and Grand theft Auto 4, why you ask? Becuase they are two very similar games almost identical in fact and because its my blog and there is no democracy in my world. The two games shall be compared on a few key points which I believe are key to the success of games such as these. The points that follow will be Story/Plot, Aesthetics, Game World, Driving, Shooting/Action/Combat, the free-roaming involing side-jobbies, and most importantly how fun it is.
So let us dive head first into the pool of criticism and start with the plot. Both games have stories on different worlds but both share the same underlying theme, that being to take over the crime underworlds of liberty city and stillwater. However both go about it in a different way, GTA4 begins with the protaganist, Niko Bellic getting off gthe boat in liberty city and meeting his cousin, then by a cruel twist of events ends up killing, maiming and pillaging his way to the top, all the while trying to find the guy who betrayed make in the balkans getting his military unit wiped out, it is very complicated but is told in quite a compelling way keeping you enthralled and wanting to know more, kind of, there are bad points such as it does not really explain why Niko even came to liberty city just some vague reference to getting into some trouble back in bosnia which considering the detail rockstar try to give to the story is a pretty major loophole. But in all it is very well told and does a good job of moving the game along.
Saints row on the other goes for the mad gangster on a mission plotline which although trite and cliched is delivered in quite a good way. The story involved an unnamed gangster waking up in hospital after a number of years and after blasting his way out of prison finds out his gang has dissolved and the city belongs to some new gangs and so begins a bloody filled mission to get to the top. Although there is a definate sense of Dejavu in the plot its is delivered in a highly comic and surreal manner giving it an edge which GTA simply doesn't have since it went down the gritty and realistic route. Overall though GTA wins this point as its story actually has some depth and originality to it allowing for a much deeper gaming experience.
GTA 1 - 0 Saints row
Second then is the aesthitics of the two games not much can be said on this point. GTA4 goes for the gritty reralisitc look to the game, which makes it look very real and very cool but unfortuanetly it means the scenery is very dark and quite bland making it difficult know what is what and which car is which. Saints Row on the other hand goes for the less realistic and more graphic approach. Making the city very bright and colourful allowing for a much more varied and colourful gameplay experience. Next is the overall grpahic quality and simply GTA has better graphics than saints row, they are smoother denser and in all a better look to it. Saints row looks like something off of the PS2, a top end PS2 game but still a PS2 game. So again GTA takes the point.
GTA 2 - 0 Saints Row
Now one of the more important parts of the game, the map or game world. Again there ia not much to be said here. Excpet that saints row is going to take its first point. While GTA uses the standard islands scheme to make you play the game through to the end, but that system is kind of old and haggard now, also the map itself whilst a fictional city is almost a street for street copy of new york city with new jersey and brooklyn chucked the sides oh and coney island, which although cool is not very original seeing as noth true crime and prototype have done it. Saints row on the other hand designed a random city with great skill allowing for an interesting and varied gameworld. The world is then used to great affect as it is open from the beginning without having to unlock more of it meaning true imagination and creativity had to be used to use the map to its greatest affect and it most certainly is.
GTA 2 - 1 Saints Row
Next is the driving. both games present driving competently and interestingly, Saints row goes for the classic driving physics in games meaning handbraking round everyone corner jumping over random stuff and sliding everywhere possible. GTA on the other hand has done major u-turn on the physics attempting to make it more realistic, but in fact it makes it more difficult and less realistic, resulting in any mission involving a car chase for example most of them extremely difficult, and even when you have mastered the driving the physics will randomly flip out causing random flips or crashes. a great example of this is while writing this my brother is playing on it in the same room and while attempting to reverse around a corner his car flipped and exploded causing him to fail a mission and the fact that there are no checkpoints made this extremely irritating another point that can go to saints row is the checkpoints allowing for a death during mission and not having to start it from the very beginning. But im losing sight of the point. Overall the driving is better in GTA although is annoying and really poorly done it brings more enjoyment than the saints row driving physics and the changing is refreshing and brings and air of unpredictability to the game.
GTA 3 - 2 Saints Row
Finally Shooting/Combat, Again this is a close call. GTA has a good targeting system and a fantastic cover system allowing for combat to be easier more real and more fun. Saints row lacks both of these instead going for a cross hair moved with the right joystick which is great for psraying with dual SMGs but annoying for extended and reliable combat. Ultimately resulting in a much more difficult game as well as causing controller snapping rage when the camera decides to go AWOL. But overall both combat systems work well on a basic level, the targeting system in GTA really needs to be tightened up as currently it believes a civilian running away is more dangerous than a mobster armed with a shotgun, saints row needs a targeting system or at least should sort out the camera to not want to kill you, finally it should be said that despite their flaws they both work well enough to allow completion of the game but neither works well enough to deem one better than the other so the score stays the same.
GTA 3 - 2 Saints Row
Now to conclude, although I have only gone over a few small points of these vast games and there are those who would disagree with my opinion. But objectively speaking GTA 4 isw better than Saints Row, but allow to completely write off everything I have previously said, there are other features allowing for an increase in score on both sides, Saints Row has better side jobbie, GTA has nicer and more varied cars and weapons, Saints Row is funny and that character cutomisation is fantastic allowing me to create the joker, While GTA has lost its comic edge and the great character customisation from san andreas, GTA is more challenging as a game which I see as a good thing, also as it always happens cheating is easier and more accesible on Saints Row with some genuinely original and hilarious options while GTA goes for the standard weapons, money, health and weather. (GTA 5 - 6 Saints Row). In the end though it doesn't matter which you go for they are both extremely enjoyable to play and both appeal to different people, I have both and in a thousand words I came to a draw and hell I'm a professional of sorts.
So let us dive head first into the pool of criticism and start with the plot. Both games have stories on different worlds but both share the same underlying theme, that being to take over the crime underworlds of liberty city and stillwater. However both go about it in a different way, GTA4 begins with the protaganist, Niko Bellic getting off gthe boat in liberty city and meeting his cousin, then by a cruel twist of events ends up killing, maiming and pillaging his way to the top, all the while trying to find the guy who betrayed make in the balkans getting his military unit wiped out, it is very complicated but is told in quite a compelling way keeping you enthralled and wanting to know more, kind of, there are bad points such as it does not really explain why Niko even came to liberty city just some vague reference to getting into some trouble back in bosnia which considering the detail rockstar try to give to the story is a pretty major loophole. But in all it is very well told and does a good job of moving the game along.
Saints row on the other goes for the mad gangster on a mission plotline which although trite and cliched is delivered in quite a good way. The story involved an unnamed gangster waking up in hospital after a number of years and after blasting his way out of prison finds out his gang has dissolved and the city belongs to some new gangs and so begins a bloody filled mission to get to the top. Although there is a definate sense of Dejavu in the plot its is delivered in a highly comic and surreal manner giving it an edge which GTA simply doesn't have since it went down the gritty and realistic route. Overall though GTA wins this point as its story actually has some depth and originality to it allowing for a much deeper gaming experience.
GTA 1 - 0 Saints row
Second then is the aesthitics of the two games not much can be said on this point. GTA4 goes for the gritty reralisitc look to the game, which makes it look very real and very cool but unfortuanetly it means the scenery is very dark and quite bland making it difficult know what is what and which car is which. Saints Row on the other hand goes for the less realistic and more graphic approach. Making the city very bright and colourful allowing for a much more varied and colourful gameplay experience. Next is the overall grpahic quality and simply GTA has better graphics than saints row, they are smoother denser and in all a better look to it. Saints row looks like something off of the PS2, a top end PS2 game but still a PS2 game. So again GTA takes the point.
GTA 2 - 0 Saints Row
Now one of the more important parts of the game, the map or game world. Again there ia not much to be said here. Excpet that saints row is going to take its first point. While GTA uses the standard islands scheme to make you play the game through to the end, but that system is kind of old and haggard now, also the map itself whilst a fictional city is almost a street for street copy of new york city with new jersey and brooklyn chucked the sides oh and coney island, which although cool is not very original seeing as noth true crime and prototype have done it. Saints row on the other hand designed a random city with great skill allowing for an interesting and varied gameworld. The world is then used to great affect as it is open from the beginning without having to unlock more of it meaning true imagination and creativity had to be used to use the map to its greatest affect and it most certainly is.
GTA 2 - 1 Saints Row
Next is the driving. both games present driving competently and interestingly, Saints row goes for the classic driving physics in games meaning handbraking round everyone corner jumping over random stuff and sliding everywhere possible. GTA on the other hand has done major u-turn on the physics attempting to make it more realistic, but in fact it makes it more difficult and less realistic, resulting in any mission involving a car chase for example most of them extremely difficult, and even when you have mastered the driving the physics will randomly flip out causing random flips or crashes. a great example of this is while writing this my brother is playing on it in the same room and while attempting to reverse around a corner his car flipped and exploded causing him to fail a mission and the fact that there are no checkpoints made this extremely irritating another point that can go to saints row is the checkpoints allowing for a death during mission and not having to start it from the very beginning. But im losing sight of the point. Overall the driving is better in GTA although is annoying and really poorly done it brings more enjoyment than the saints row driving physics and the changing is refreshing and brings and air of unpredictability to the game.
GTA 3 - 2 Saints Row
Finally Shooting/Combat, Again this is a close call. GTA has a good targeting system and a fantastic cover system allowing for combat to be easier more real and more fun. Saints row lacks both of these instead going for a cross hair moved with the right joystick which is great for psraying with dual SMGs but annoying for extended and reliable combat. Ultimately resulting in a much more difficult game as well as causing controller snapping rage when the camera decides to go AWOL. But overall both combat systems work well on a basic level, the targeting system in GTA really needs to be tightened up as currently it believes a civilian running away is more dangerous than a mobster armed with a shotgun, saints row needs a targeting system or at least should sort out the camera to not want to kill you, finally it should be said that despite their flaws they both work well enough to allow completion of the game but neither works well enough to deem one better than the other so the score stays the same.
GTA 3 - 2 Saints Row
Now to conclude, although I have only gone over a few small points of these vast games and there are those who would disagree with my opinion. But objectively speaking GTA 4 isw better than Saints Row, but allow to completely write off everything I have previously said, there are other features allowing for an increase in score on both sides, Saints Row has better side jobbie, GTA has nicer and more varied cars and weapons, Saints Row is funny and that character cutomisation is fantastic allowing me to create the joker, While GTA has lost its comic edge and the great character customisation from san andreas, GTA is more challenging as a game which I see as a good thing, also as it always happens cheating is easier and more accesible on Saints Row with some genuinely original and hilarious options while GTA goes for the standard weapons, money, health and weather. (GTA 5 - 6 Saints Row). In the end though it doesn't matter which you go for they are both extremely enjoyable to play and both appeal to different people, I have both and in a thousand words I came to a draw and hell I'm a professional of sorts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)