Thor
Okay, the first movie that I saw from the previous post was Thor, Marvels newest superhero movie. While this can be seen as nothing more than a hype generator for the upcoming Avengers movie (spot the cameo for evidence of this) it does also bring some much needed credibility to the torrent of superhero movies that have been released. Firstly it tells a good story, I went into this movie as a Thor layman, I knew nothing of the universe or the characters in it, and coming out of it I felt like I knew the basis for the comic book series and Thor he will fit into the avengers. Secondly I would like to state that Chris Hemsworth was very convincing as both the arrogant prince and the humble protector. The third good part of the film is some of the excellent cinematography, especially in the opening sequences, and a particularly excellent shot of Asgard upside down, the cinematography leads on to the praise that Kenneth Brannagh deserves with his directorial style. The film is well shot and most of the action is easy to watch and you can see whats happening, mostly.
So far all I've done is praise this film, and I would like it noted that there is more good points about this movie, but I am doing this from memory (having seen it over a month ago at time of writing, but due to uni responsibilities have been unable to write), for example Natalie portman is good in it, as is stellan starsgard but the finer details of their performances have been lost to memory so you will have to bare with me. Now to what your reading for, and what is much more prominent in my mind, the bad, the ugly, the crappy of this film. The list isn't huge but the issues are very large.
Now the main problem people have mentioned and I will give only a token appearance in my review, is the love sub-plot, the budding romance between Thor and Natalie portmans Jane foster, it is supposed to show Thors development and how he comes to realise how much of a douche he was, but what actually happens on screen is nothing more than a few car accidents (after which not a single lawyer appeared trying to claim compensation and I'm sorry but my disbelief does not stretch that far) a nice cup of coffee, and some star gazing. All of which happens over two or three days. After which Thor is a new man, who loves an earth girl who loves him back. Now the problem here is obvious, they shouldn't love each other, and their actions together shouldn't have caused such a drastic change in Thor's character.
Onto the more pressing issues, for one Loki's character is truly impenetrable, he has both no motivation and too much, there is a sub-plot of how he is a frost giant which goes nowhere, and if you can't call him as the villain within two seconds of him being on screen then you weren't paying enough attention so go back and watch the film again. The problem with his motivation is that he seems to want his dad, Odin, played wonderfully by Anthony Hopkins, to respect and love him like he loves Thor. To do this he acts just like Thor acted, which resulted in Thors banishment to earth and the loss of his power, this utterly retarded thinking would only lead to Loki being punished as Thor was. If he truly wanted to gain his fathers respect and love all he would have to do is to be a person worth respecting, by acting with patience and prudence, considering all possible solutions to a problem before choosing how to proceed. Instead of theses simple steps we get presented with convoluted plot twists and character reveals which don't add anything new to the plot and simply stagnate it with unnecessary elements.
Furthering the films descent into mediocrity is the sheer levels of camp. Any scene with "the warriors three", Thor's groupies, is just annoying and as with Loki do not add anything, I guess it was supposed to show how Thor has helped people become stronger and created a more accepting society, as was hinted at with a conversation with the female groupie, but it comes across as cheap comic relief and way to shoe horn some more action in. The three are so predictable in what they do, say, eat, breath, wear, fight and pass wind that by the third time you see them all you hope for is that the next scene will show their brutal bloody destruction. Any scene with them in simply slows down the film as they all question Odin's decision to banish Thor, which highlights a severe problem with the three of them as characters, when watching the film you will strongly dislike Thor in the first act, that's the point of it. When Odin makes his decision you will agree with him, we all know that if Thor wants to be king he has to learn some humility. With Thors groupies questioning this decision we learn that Thor has pretty much created a terrorist cell, a small group of people who wish to break royal decree, and are just as arrogant as Thor was for thinking so. In essence all they do is extend the reach of Thors poorer qualities, while interesting philosophically and socially they do not make great cinema, and are just peripheral fan service.
Thors change, and had nailed down what exactly it was Loki wanted and why. It is also important to remember that when this film does something well it does it very well, the acting is solid, and the special effects are amazing, I can't comment on the 3D as I saw it in 2D, but from what I've heard it is terrible. I would recommend this film, but wold content its glittering reviews, it is entertaining and it didn't suck, but that does not mean it was incredible, and from other reviews I have read they are all calling it one of the best ever superhero movies ever made, which it just isn't, the Iron man series are better and more entertaining. A final point, is that Thor seems infinitely powerful, so powerful in fact that he makes the rest of the Avengers look like ants, which makes me question why S.H.I.E.L.D. need anyone else when Thor signs up.
Thursday, 26 May 2011
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Crystal ball, Crystal ball, what do I see....
This is a first for me, as rather than review a film, I am going to give my expectations of upcoming films either due for release or already released but I haven't got round to seeing yet. Now I do hope to answer my expectations in further reviews but if I don't, it means I forgot. So here we go.....
Firstly, Battle : Los Angeles.
Okay after the disaster which was Skyline and the beauty of Monsters I am unsure what to think of this movie. On the one hand it does look like it could have some decent action, and maybe even some good acting from Aaron Eckhart, but on the other it looks to be just another alien invasion movie which will fail to deliver anything that hasn't been seen before. Partly due to the fact that independence day, as good an example of poor film making as any, still is the be all and end all of alien invasion flicks, which despite its short-comings does deliver a brilliant and fun experience. I would be surprised is Battle : Los Angeles can do this, so I am keeping my hype about this too a low, especially since seeing the trailer.
Second, Sucker-Punch
Now I am a fan of Zack Snyders previous works, 300 was a tremendous fun, Watchmen was an excellent film, and about as good an adaptation of that book as we were going to get and his Dawn of the Dead remake was surprisingly well done, despite a mediocre cast. With such a good track record it is hard to find potential problems with his upcoming, no doubt slow-mo fest Sucker-Punch. While I doubt it will be truly good film, and that it will present interesting themes, characters and story, I fully expect to see some awesome action scenes, wonderful looking ladies, and if the rumours are true at least one dragon, and dragons immediately make something awesome.
Third, X-men : First Class
This one presents a real problem for me. I enjoyed the X-men trilogy, while not as deep as the original cartoon they were entertaining and handled the theme of prejudice/discrimination well. Along with some great casting in Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian Mckellen, as well as Hugh Jackman playing a convincing Wolverine, they served up three films of wonderful action, and some good writing in parts, except perhaps the third one, but even when the writing and plots fell apart the action made up for it, and they remained enjoyable to watch. X-men: Wolverine is another story however, a story full of holes, u-turns and franchise rape, horrible, horrible franchise rape, in short it was appalling, and while the action was OK, sometimes even entertaining, it didn't make up for the films problems. Which is why the upcoming first class movie, showing the origins of the other X-men worries me, especially as James Mcavoy is playing the young Prof. X, not that he is a bad actor, I simply don't believe he can portray a character like Prof. X, but then on the other hand Michael Fassbender is playing Magneto, and I expect a good job from him, as his recent work in films such as Inglorious Basterds has shown his acting talent. Also on the plus side is Michael Platt, who is simply awesome in everything, despite the probability that his role will be quite small in this film. Overall I am approaching first class cautiously, not getting my hopes up and hoping that even if it stumbles and trips, the ride might still be enjoyable.
Fourth, Thor
Honestly this movie means absolutely nothing to me, I never read the comic, and I hadn't really heard of Thor the superhero until the film was announced, while I doubt it will be terrible, I don't think it will live up to the Iron-Man series, and it will most likely be overshadowed by the upcoming Captain America, as more people know who Capt. America is. I expect Thor to fade in memory pretty fast, even if it is the best super-hero movie they make to date.
Fifth, and Finally, Captain America
Now considering this is the fourth attempt at a live action Captain America movie, it should hopefully have learned from it's predecessors mistakes. Which we can be fairly certain of as Reb Brown is nowhere to be seen. Now I will admit that this is probably the only movie on the list I am truly looking forward to, mainly because Chris Evans is playing the captain, and I bloody love MR Evans, In sunshine he was truly sympathetic and believable character, in Scott Pilgrim he was genuinely fun to watch and in The Losers (a very much underrated film if you ask me) he was one of the rare occurrences of an entertaining comic relief character. And while it is definitely un-wise, stupid or just plain retarded that I pin my expectations of a film on one actor, but hell we all have our flaws, and he is one of my few.
Firstly, Battle : Los Angeles.
Okay after the disaster which was Skyline and the beauty of Monsters I am unsure what to think of this movie. On the one hand it does look like it could have some decent action, and maybe even some good acting from Aaron Eckhart, but on the other it looks to be just another alien invasion movie which will fail to deliver anything that hasn't been seen before. Partly due to the fact that independence day, as good an example of poor film making as any, still is the be all and end all of alien invasion flicks, which despite its short-comings does deliver a brilliant and fun experience. I would be surprised is Battle : Los Angeles can do this, so I am keeping my hype about this too a low, especially since seeing the trailer.
Second, Sucker-Punch
Now I am a fan of Zack Snyders previous works, 300 was a tremendous fun, Watchmen was an excellent film, and about as good an adaptation of that book as we were going to get and his Dawn of the Dead remake was surprisingly well done, despite a mediocre cast. With such a good track record it is hard to find potential problems with his upcoming, no doubt slow-mo fest Sucker-Punch. While I doubt it will be truly good film, and that it will present interesting themes, characters and story, I fully expect to see some awesome action scenes, wonderful looking ladies, and if the rumours are true at least one dragon, and dragons immediately make something awesome.
Third, X-men : First Class
This one presents a real problem for me. I enjoyed the X-men trilogy, while not as deep as the original cartoon they were entertaining and handled the theme of prejudice/discrimination well. Along with some great casting in Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian Mckellen, as well as Hugh Jackman playing a convincing Wolverine, they served up three films of wonderful action, and some good writing in parts, except perhaps the third one, but even when the writing and plots fell apart the action made up for it, and they remained enjoyable to watch. X-men: Wolverine is another story however, a story full of holes, u-turns and franchise rape, horrible, horrible franchise rape, in short it was appalling, and while the action was OK, sometimes even entertaining, it didn't make up for the films problems. Which is why the upcoming first class movie, showing the origins of the other X-men worries me, especially as James Mcavoy is playing the young Prof. X, not that he is a bad actor, I simply don't believe he can portray a character like Prof. X, but then on the other hand Michael Fassbender is playing Magneto, and I expect a good job from him, as his recent work in films such as Inglorious Basterds has shown his acting talent. Also on the plus side is Michael Platt, who is simply awesome in everything, despite the probability that his role will be quite small in this film. Overall I am approaching first class cautiously, not getting my hopes up and hoping that even if it stumbles and trips, the ride might still be enjoyable.
Fourth, Thor
Honestly this movie means absolutely nothing to me, I never read the comic, and I hadn't really heard of Thor the superhero until the film was announced, while I doubt it will be terrible, I don't think it will live up to the Iron-Man series, and it will most likely be overshadowed by the upcoming Captain America, as more people know who Capt. America is. I expect Thor to fade in memory pretty fast, even if it is the best super-hero movie they make to date.
Fifth, and Finally, Captain America
Now considering this is the fourth attempt at a live action Captain America movie, it should hopefully have learned from it's predecessors mistakes. Which we can be fairly certain of as Reb Brown is nowhere to be seen. Now I will admit that this is probably the only movie on the list I am truly looking forward to, mainly because Chris Evans is playing the captain, and I bloody love MR Evans, In sunshine he was truly sympathetic and believable character, in Scott Pilgrim he was genuinely fun to watch and in The Losers (a very much underrated film if you ask me) he was one of the rare occurrences of an entertaining comic relief character. And while it is definitely un-wise, stupid or just plain retarded that I pin my expectations of a film on one actor, but hell we all have our flaws, and he is one of my few.
Monday, 1 November 2010
I was working in the lab, late on night, when my eyes beheld a dissapointing sight
Paranormal Activity 2
November, 2009, out of nowhere one of the most terrifying films of all time is released. Within a few weeks the world and it’s dog had seen the movie, and most of them were scared to sleep at night. Now Hollywood being what it is, a bunch of idiots with a lot of money and a fetish for ruining good things, decided that something as successful as Paranormal Activity (An estimated $15000 movie, which grossed over $100 million) should be cashed in on. And the general public, who are nothing more than lobotomised walking wallets in the eyes of bug producers, should be milked for all their worth. A point which is completely pointless to make as the sequel has already made over $40 million, but shut up I am trying to make a point here, not sure what that point is but it is somewhere in there. With this in mind along came Halloween 2010 and there was Paranormal Activity 2, with the terrified piss still stained into our trousers the public loosened there wallets and sphincters in anticipation to be scared so senseless they wouldn’t be able to walk, let alone tell people how good it was. Then people started to see the movie a few things happened which shouldn’t have, for one sphincters stayed uncomfortably tight, wallets were uncomfortably loose, and no one was overly terrified.
Now don’t assume the film is terrible because of the opening statements of this review, the film is not awful, nor horrible, in fact it is quite inoffensive as a movie. The first is really held up on three factors – immersion, suspense and what I call dread, in fact the way the original made you dread the sequences at night is what made it so terrifying. When a film makes you truly terrified of what will happen next it has effectively proven that it is immersive and suspenseful and really pretty awesome. The sequel does make a decent attempt at creating suspense, and the slow beginning eventually leading the installation of the CCTV creates a good amount of tension and is a good way to start the build up to the scarier moments of the movie. However the build up can be too slow, for example the when the first night is shown nothing happens, not even something small, which acts as a simple waste of time, as something small (like the sound of footsteps on the first night in the original) works to show the audience that something is happening. Which will grow into what was shown in the trailers. As well as generating a sense of terror in the audience.
Further good points of the film, are that the inclusion of a dog is a good addition to the formula, as seeing a non-human affected by the presence adds an extra dimension as generally people don’t enjoy seeing the quite little pooch get brutalised by an unknown invisible force of evil (oh yeah the pooch gets brutalised by the unknown invisible force of evil). The sequel does also slot nicely with the first, it is set before the events of Paranormal activity and being set around Katey’s sister and her family, and seeing Katey and Micah visit occasionally gives a good sense of foreboding over the entirety of the film, also creating the sense of a connection (initially) between both events allowing the audience to infer that the happenings of the original are more than coincidence. These small good points do carry a certain amount of weight and definitely push the film away from terrible, and actually give the sense that film may be as good as the original however the bad points haven’t begun to build up yet so there is still time for “sequel syndrome” to set in.
To begin with the characters of the film are only mildly likeable, it’s not that no development is attempted, but that there are too many characters and with the style of the film being what it is there is only limited time for any type of development arc to occur. With poorly developed characters comes the inevitable apathy towards them from the audience ultimately detracting from the experience and making the tension and horror less effective.
Another problem with the film is the attempt to develop the debate between rationality and spiritual belief. In the original Micah the argument is shown through the two characters, Katey who wholly believes in the supernatural, and Micah who represents rationality and attempting to find a logical reason for what is going on, this debate is what gave the characters meat on their bones and made them more likeable, Micah being one of this writers most beloved characters of all time. The sequel tries to bring the debate into it through the father and the daughter, however the dialogue around the issue seemed uneasy and forced creating an atmosphere in which you’re never sure if either side truly believes in what they’re saying, and doesn’t believe what the other is saying. While in the original the debate helped create tension as it showed how the nights events affected the break down of the relationship, however with the sequel the debate contributes very little, and simply slows down the pace to a tedious crawl while it is going on, other than that the debate spurs on the biggest problem with this movie.
The biggest problem being that shit gets explained, a why and how is given to the seemingly inexplicable goings on, but the worst thing about this is that by explaining the events of the second movie an explanation is made of the first movie, those paying attention will have just noticed this. YES! Watching Paranormal activity 2 actually manages to make the first film worse, yes worse, by watching this you will never be able to watch the first film in the same way. Now the idea of explaining shit has ruined sequels before, especially horror films, look at The Exorcist 2: Heretic for a perfect example of this. The problem with this is that the explanation (without trying to give too much away) gives the evil a reason to be doing what it is doing, and a human cause. Not only that, the explaining carries on, and proceeds to fuck up the original, which almost made this writer leave cinema out of disgust and sheer hatred for Hollywood.
Now it is about time to conclude and I haven’t even got through half the bad of this film, quickly they consist of ineffective murder scenes, which kind of ruin the ending of the first film, and deduct from the experience of the movie, sparse and inane scripting, a live baby and a pointless Spaniard. Overall I would say that the movie is an unnecessary attempt to cash in of the greatness of the first outing. If you truly loved the original and haven’t seen the sequel yet, just go and watch the first one again, and occasionally throw a dog around, it will probably be better than this film. Those who have already seen it, I apologise on behalf of Hollywood, for being generally evil and hating all of us and everyone involved in independent film making especially. Let us all hope that there is not a third attempt, and pray that 3Ditus hasn’t infected it, and for any big movie/small move/movie producers who happen to be reading this, I request you do a few things for me, grab a hammer or similar large heavy object, then hit yourself in the head until you have a concussion, therefore forgetting that last bit. Then go away and eat the babies you need to survive on.
November, 2009, out of nowhere one of the most terrifying films of all time is released. Within a few weeks the world and it’s dog had seen the movie, and most of them were scared to sleep at night. Now Hollywood being what it is, a bunch of idiots with a lot of money and a fetish for ruining good things, decided that something as successful as Paranormal Activity (An estimated $15000 movie, which grossed over $100 million) should be cashed in on. And the general public, who are nothing more than lobotomised walking wallets in the eyes of bug producers, should be milked for all their worth. A point which is completely pointless to make as the sequel has already made over $40 million, but shut up I am trying to make a point here, not sure what that point is but it is somewhere in there. With this in mind along came Halloween 2010 and there was Paranormal Activity 2, with the terrified piss still stained into our trousers the public loosened there wallets and sphincters in anticipation to be scared so senseless they wouldn’t be able to walk, let alone tell people how good it was. Then people started to see the movie a few things happened which shouldn’t have, for one sphincters stayed uncomfortably tight, wallets were uncomfortably loose, and no one was overly terrified.
Now don’t assume the film is terrible because of the opening statements of this review, the film is not awful, nor horrible, in fact it is quite inoffensive as a movie. The first is really held up on three factors – immersion, suspense and what I call dread, in fact the way the original made you dread the sequences at night is what made it so terrifying. When a film makes you truly terrified of what will happen next it has effectively proven that it is immersive and suspenseful and really pretty awesome. The sequel does make a decent attempt at creating suspense, and the slow beginning eventually leading the installation of the CCTV creates a good amount of tension and is a good way to start the build up to the scarier moments of the movie. However the build up can be too slow, for example the when the first night is shown nothing happens, not even something small, which acts as a simple waste of time, as something small (like the sound of footsteps on the first night in the original) works to show the audience that something is happening. Which will grow into what was shown in the trailers. As well as generating a sense of terror in the audience.
Further good points of the film, are that the inclusion of a dog is a good addition to the formula, as seeing a non-human affected by the presence adds an extra dimension as generally people don’t enjoy seeing the quite little pooch get brutalised by an unknown invisible force of evil (oh yeah the pooch gets brutalised by the unknown invisible force of evil). The sequel does also slot nicely with the first, it is set before the events of Paranormal activity and being set around Katey’s sister and her family, and seeing Katey and Micah visit occasionally gives a good sense of foreboding over the entirety of the film, also creating the sense of a connection (initially) between both events allowing the audience to infer that the happenings of the original are more than coincidence. These small good points do carry a certain amount of weight and definitely push the film away from terrible, and actually give the sense that film may be as good as the original however the bad points haven’t begun to build up yet so there is still time for “sequel syndrome” to set in.
To begin with the characters of the film are only mildly likeable, it’s not that no development is attempted, but that there are too many characters and with the style of the film being what it is there is only limited time for any type of development arc to occur. With poorly developed characters comes the inevitable apathy towards them from the audience ultimately detracting from the experience and making the tension and horror less effective.
Another problem with the film is the attempt to develop the debate between rationality and spiritual belief. In the original Micah the argument is shown through the two characters, Katey who wholly believes in the supernatural, and Micah who represents rationality and attempting to find a logical reason for what is going on, this debate is what gave the characters meat on their bones and made them more likeable, Micah being one of this writers most beloved characters of all time. The sequel tries to bring the debate into it through the father and the daughter, however the dialogue around the issue seemed uneasy and forced creating an atmosphere in which you’re never sure if either side truly believes in what they’re saying, and doesn’t believe what the other is saying. While in the original the debate helped create tension as it showed how the nights events affected the break down of the relationship, however with the sequel the debate contributes very little, and simply slows down the pace to a tedious crawl while it is going on, other than that the debate spurs on the biggest problem with this movie.
The biggest problem being that shit gets explained, a why and how is given to the seemingly inexplicable goings on, but the worst thing about this is that by explaining the events of the second movie an explanation is made of the first movie, those paying attention will have just noticed this. YES! Watching Paranormal activity 2 actually manages to make the first film worse, yes worse, by watching this you will never be able to watch the first film in the same way. Now the idea of explaining shit has ruined sequels before, especially horror films, look at The Exorcist 2: Heretic for a perfect example of this. The problem with this is that the explanation (without trying to give too much away) gives the evil a reason to be doing what it is doing, and a human cause. Not only that, the explaining carries on, and proceeds to fuck up the original, which almost made this writer leave cinema out of disgust and sheer hatred for Hollywood.
Now it is about time to conclude and I haven’t even got through half the bad of this film, quickly they consist of ineffective murder scenes, which kind of ruin the ending of the first film, and deduct from the experience of the movie, sparse and inane scripting, a live baby and a pointless Spaniard. Overall I would say that the movie is an unnecessary attempt to cash in of the greatness of the first outing. If you truly loved the original and haven’t seen the sequel yet, just go and watch the first one again, and occasionally throw a dog around, it will probably be better than this film. Those who have already seen it, I apologise on behalf of Hollywood, for being generally evil and hating all of us and everyone involved in independent film making especially. Let us all hope that there is not a third attempt, and pray that 3Ditus hasn’t infected it, and for any big movie/small move/movie producers who happen to be reading this, I request you do a few things for me, grab a hammer or similar large heavy object, then hit yourself in the head until you have a concussion, therefore forgetting that last bit. Then go away and eat the babies you need to survive on.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Further proof that god is a douche
The 2007 Australian film “Gabriel” is based around the idea of the forces of the “light” and the “dark” battling for control of the realm of purgatory. The movie tells of how 7 “arcs” and 7 “fallen” have been sent every so often to attempt to gain control. We are then also told that the titular character of Gabriel is the final arc to be sent from “the light” and that the fallen are pretty much in complete control of purgatory. The important thing to note here is that we are told this, breaking all “show don’t tell” rules and makes for quite a tedious opening, reminiscent of the horrible and lengthy opening of Alone in the dark, a film so bad most critics go into coma’s after watching it.
Gabriel goes on to show the Schwarzenegger style one man army killing all of the fallen, revealing the plot important twist (which is painfully obvious, but due to my creed as a critic to not reveal spoilers so I won’t tell you). The movies itself is very stylish in look, with purgatory being a city in an eternal night, very effectively creating an oppressive atmosphere and a feeling of fear as the world unfolds around the characters. Although one, cannot help but notice that the writers had often learned some set design from the future of the blade runner variety. However the characters themselves are thoroughly undeveloped and Gabriel himself is quite dislikeable, but that is more down to poor direction and writing than bad acting as Andy Whitfield does deliver a fine performance and does emote the character as well as he can.
On top of Andy Whitfield, the casting is pretty hit and misses, Jack Campbell plays a convincing Raphael, who fills the role of old and wise arc very well, but his first line might as well be “My death is an inevitable plot device”. Asmodeus the fallen, who embodies vanity, is played excellently by Michael Piccirilli. He delivers a truly creepy performance and is probably the only character in the film that the audience can empathize with. Not that a demonic pervert is someone to empathize with. However other than those three the casting is astonishingly poor. Sammael is played by Dwaine Stevenson is often hilariously bad delivering some of his lines with random pauses and nonsensical bouts of shouting, it may just be personal preference but when there is a character who is an arch demon or a fallen I personally enjoy a more subtle approach creating a sense that the character is diabolical in nature and that they could actually become incredibly powerful. However, this does not happen Sammaels general appearance immediately shouts “im evil” and every scene involves him getting angry and threatening one of his own, this approach makes him more silly than scary.
Beyond the characters and scenery, the film makes some odd decisions; the musical score is just weird with a lot of the music not really suiting the scene it is being used in. The action scenes are good, creatively filmed and well choreographed, although they are suspiciously similar to scenes from earlier action movies such as the matrix and equilibrium, with the final fight scene being extremely similar to the fight between Iron man and Warmonger at the end of the first Iron Man. Finally the entire film is pretty well shot, with some good cinematography nothing outstanding but nothing really bad either.
Overall, the movie was surprising, the premise was interesting but never really gets to anything more than that, and it acts as nothing more than a backdrop to the fighting and poor attempt at a love story. The problem was that this film had true potential to be great, it can see the gateway to greatness without a telescope but it tries a bit too hard and ends up crashing into the tree of averageness. Gabriel is worth a watch but not worth paying for, if you can rent it or borrow it from that mate, you do not really like but is stupid enough to buy it then borrow it. If you cannot borrow it though do not worry yourself, this movie will not enlighten you, but it will not put you in a coma either.
Gabriel goes on to show the Schwarzenegger style one man army killing all of the fallen, revealing the plot important twist (which is painfully obvious, but due to my creed as a critic to not reveal spoilers so I won’t tell you). The movies itself is very stylish in look, with purgatory being a city in an eternal night, very effectively creating an oppressive atmosphere and a feeling of fear as the world unfolds around the characters. Although one, cannot help but notice that the writers had often learned some set design from the future of the blade runner variety. However the characters themselves are thoroughly undeveloped and Gabriel himself is quite dislikeable, but that is more down to poor direction and writing than bad acting as Andy Whitfield does deliver a fine performance and does emote the character as well as he can.
On top of Andy Whitfield, the casting is pretty hit and misses, Jack Campbell plays a convincing Raphael, who fills the role of old and wise arc very well, but his first line might as well be “My death is an inevitable plot device”. Asmodeus the fallen, who embodies vanity, is played excellently by Michael Piccirilli. He delivers a truly creepy performance and is probably the only character in the film that the audience can empathize with. Not that a demonic pervert is someone to empathize with. However other than those three the casting is astonishingly poor. Sammael is played by Dwaine Stevenson is often hilariously bad delivering some of his lines with random pauses and nonsensical bouts of shouting, it may just be personal preference but when there is a character who is an arch demon or a fallen I personally enjoy a more subtle approach creating a sense that the character is diabolical in nature and that they could actually become incredibly powerful. However, this does not happen Sammaels general appearance immediately shouts “im evil” and every scene involves him getting angry and threatening one of his own, this approach makes him more silly than scary.
Beyond the characters and scenery, the film makes some odd decisions; the musical score is just weird with a lot of the music not really suiting the scene it is being used in. The action scenes are good, creatively filmed and well choreographed, although they are suspiciously similar to scenes from earlier action movies such as the matrix and equilibrium, with the final fight scene being extremely similar to the fight between Iron man and Warmonger at the end of the first Iron Man. Finally the entire film is pretty well shot, with some good cinematography nothing outstanding but nothing really bad either.
Overall, the movie was surprising, the premise was interesting but never really gets to anything more than that, and it acts as nothing more than a backdrop to the fighting and poor attempt at a love story. The problem was that this film had true potential to be great, it can see the gateway to greatness without a telescope but it tries a bit too hard and ends up crashing into the tree of averageness. Gabriel is worth a watch but not worth paying for, if you can rent it or borrow it from that mate, you do not really like but is stupid enough to buy it then borrow it. If you cannot borrow it though do not worry yourself, this movie will not enlighten you, but it will not put you in a coma either.
Saturday, 5 December 2009
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel disappointed
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
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, 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)