So, I'm a big fan of Disney movies. Always have been, probably always will be. Seriously, pretty art and music? Sign me up. It's right up my alley.
I'm also a big fan of Idina Menzel because she has one hell of a set of pipes. I love hearing her do big show-stopping numbers and I love hearing her do duets with sweet sounding sopranos (because, yes, of course I love Wicked).
Obviously, then, I've been really looking forward to Frozen. It's a Disney movie that has Idina Menzel voicing a main character (who is being billed as a sort-of villain---even better!). Add to that the fact that Kristen Bell is voicing the sweet sounding soprano protagonist and, well, yeah, it was pretty much inevitable that I was going to see this movie in theaters. Multiple times.
Frozen did not disappoint---unlike Tangled, which as the most recent movie produced under the Disney-as-Disney (rather than Pixar---although Brave is a also a notably comparable movie) we-must-have-a-princess-and-her-love-interest formula (AKA the most recent addition to the Disney Animated Canon), is the movie I found myself constantly comparing this one to.
For me, Frozen beats Tangled in pretty much every way. Tangled felt very conscious of its Disney background and how it had to buck the criticisms that get leveled against Disney and the way it portrays girls and love. Frozen too, felt conscious of those things in a way that Mulan, for instance, a movie that was very Disney but also defied a lot of what is traditionally Disney, did not, but unlike Tangled it didn't feel weighed down by all that. It didn't feel like it was fighting being cliched Disney so hard that it forgot to make a workable (or truly interesting) story.
Fair warning, there are some slight spoilers in the upcoming paragraphs. I honestly don't think an of them are things that will really ruin the movie for people---nothing I hadn't already guessed before it happened, even if I hadn't guessed the details, but I'm sure some people would consider them spoilers.
Take for instance the love stories in each story. I didn't buy the love story in Tangled and in the end I felt that as hard as it tried to go against that whole Disney means love-at-first-sight-and-marriage-five-minutes-later thing, in the end it basically just went with that anyway: Rapunzel and Flynn snark at each other in a way that's suppose to be belligerent sexual tension (which I normally love) but just really had no spark and then get over it when they sit in a boat and watch a lantern festival together (and start being nice to each other). So, basically, they fell in love because the scenery was nice and it was a relatively instant thing---they go from not liking each other (for no really good reason) to suddenly being very into each other (just because of some pretty lights). No, it wasn't love at first sight but it wasn't exactly really falling for someone because you've spent time with them and gotten to know them (you know, what real, non-Disney love actually is). Frozen, on the other hand, while still trying to buck that Disney love-at-first sight tradition and point out how silly it is, doesn't resort to it when they need their love story to work. Instead of a moment where a romantic scene makes them fall in love, Anna (Kristen Bell's character and the protagonist of the film) and her love interest simply come to realize they have strong feelings for one another after spending time together on this adventure. It feels much better (and less like the love is there simply because the plot has decided it needs to be there) and beyond that the movie doesn't hinge on it so strongly as Tangled does.
Villains are handled much better as well. For one, Elsa (Idina Menzel's snow queen character), isn't really a villain. She has some of the plot role of a villain at times (and is, in fact, a queen---which is usually bad news in the Disney universe) but she's not an out-and-out villain. She's handled much more dynamically than that and she's not a one dimensional character. Instead, she's more like a more secondary protagonist---the story follows her less than Anna, but it's definitely her story and her messy emotions are very important. Tangled, on the other hand, had a villain who felt like a lost opportunity---in the end Mother Gothel really was just evil. I found that disappointing, because I thought that it would have been much more interesting, in the end, to have had Mother Gothel turn out to be a real person, with real emotions instead of just her own vanity and therefore have turned out to actually care about Rapunzel (much like how Regina on Once Upon a Time has been treated like a real character because of her son Henry). It could have been very poignant (because the story still would have needed to get rid of her) and was instead very disappointing. Frozen had no such lost opportunities. While it's true that the villains of the film really are just villains, that's fine. They feel like they should be more out and out villains and they manage to be fun that way (indeed, there is some wonderful outright deviousness). There's no hint that there could be something to deepen their characters that is then abandoned or ignored in favor of keeping them as a conventional villain. Besides that we do get Elsa, who is treated very dynamically. Where Tangled missed an opportunity, Frozen decided it wanted to create one by having what would normally have been the big villain be a sympathetic character (making it a bit like Wreck-It Ralph).
Frozen also had better music than Tangled. I have more than one of Frozen's songs on my current iPod playlist and liked basically all of them. The only song from Tangled that I really cared for was Mother Knows Best. In many ways this is a shock, because Tangled had music by Alan Menken, who is basically the Disney music god/guru, having done the music for Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, etc. That said, it's true, the music in Frozen is better. It's a bit predictable, sure---before I even saw the movie, I knew Idina Menzel was going to have an awesome, big, heartfelt, show-stopping number---but it was good. In fact, the only really disappointing thing about Frozen's music is that we don't get enough Kirsten Bell/Idina Menzel duets---which is damn shame because what they do have very powerfully evokes Wicked. Still, the point here is that the movie, which is definitely a musical (because, yes, Disney movies should be musicals), feels very much like a musical with very Broadway-esque song placement and scoring---which is no surprise, given that the score writers also wrote the music for Avenue Q and The Book of Mormon.
Moving away from the comparison a bit, I will also say that Frozen obviously benefits from animators who watched the actors who voices their characters and really tried to put those actors into the characters. Anna definitely reminds me of Kristen Bell. The brightness of her expressions are very reminiscent (although meant to be less funny) of Kristen Bell's portrayal of Mary Lane in Reefer Madness: the Movie Musical. Elsa also sometimes definitely seems to wear some of Idina Menzel's expressions, particularly during Let It Go. Beyond that, the animation is just overall gorgeous. The snow looks great, the architecture is beautiful and, damn, the clothes!! The movie has wonderful, wonderful clothes (which, along with its strong female "villain," reminds me in a nice way of Once Upon a Time, which also benefits from some super awesome clothes). This movie is very different from the old, classically animated Disney movies, but I definitely feel like it fits with even the best of them (a title which, in my opinion, goes to Sleeping Beauty).
Even the snow man, who, based on the previews, really could have turned out to be the Jar Jar Binks of this movie, was fine. Sure, I didn't love him by the end, but he worked in context, had a few funny moments, and best of all was actually a rather minor presence in the movie. The trailers focus so much on him that you think he's going to be dragging his "funny" antics throughout the whole file but a good third of the movie has passed before he even truly makes an appearance and once he does, he stays minor, with the focus strongly on Anna, Elsa and Kristoff (the young man that you know throughout the movie that Anna will end up falling for, even though the movie tries to tease that maybe she won't).
The movie, of course, was not perfect. The big story twist was a mite predictable (although perhaps not in its scale) but at the same time oddly sudden, feeling like it came a bit out of nowhere even if it does have enough fridge logic to it to not ruin the movie. Maybe upon multiple viewings you'll see a hint (or hints) of what's to come, but honestly it's a case where you know that making the story they've been devoting time to telling work will require it, but it's really not hinted at in the movie itself (at least not strongly enough to make it make complete sense) until it just suddenly happens. It's not Tangled's falling in love because of pretty lanterns scene or anything as hamfisted as that---hell, it even has some panache (kind of an "oh, snap" moment, if you will)---but I think it could be fairly called a lazy piece of storytelling.
Also, what the hell was up with them not using Idina Menzel for the single version of Let It Go? Who is this Demi Lovato person and who thought she was a better idea that a legit Broadway star with the ability to belt like an all star? No, the single version isn't bad (it has a nice poppy composition), but it would have been ten times better with Idina Menzel (because most things are---can you tell I'm a fan?).
Overall, though, I think this is a great movie. Not the best, perhaps, but right up there with some of the better ones and definitely a sign that even in a world where traditional Disney has been (rightly, in some cases) criticized, their movies can still be truly wonderfully magical. I highly suggest seeing it if you haven't already. Hell, I've already pre-ordered the Blu-Ray (and no, there's not a release date yet).
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Monday, December 2, 2013
Ryse: Son of Rome
So, this is a game that has kind of been reamed by game reviewers, criticized as being pretty but ultimately short, simplistic and boring. Well, even despite those reviews, I bought this game on Day One and have now, after having owned my console for a little less than a week and a half, have finished it.
And you know what? I like it. It may not be the most innovative or even engrossing game out there but it's a very good one and it has some really nice detailing which I think other games can learn from.
First, there's the story. It's been criticized as being overly simplistic and, yes, it is just a revenge story line, but even so, it was a solid story with good acting (I really think this game is one to something with its heavy use of motion capture for the cut scenes---it felts like watching a movie in a very good way). Honestly, in some ways playing the game felt a little bit like reading Suetonius, which I thought was about the best thing since sliced bread. Yes, it had a couple of the gods playing active roles in the story in a way that we don't see in Suetonius, but the way criticism was leveled at Nero and his two sons felt very Roman. It was a brand of historical accuracy that the games carries with it throughout and that I absolutely salivated over. My favorite statue of Augustus was all over the place in Rome, Rome is covered with some pretty awesome graffiti (a la the HBO series Rome), they motion captured an expert in Roman combat for the fights and the armor (at least the way it was put together) was period accurate. Even where they modernized, they kept history in mind. For instance, the armor of the main character, Marius Titus, feels very much like Assassin's Creed style historical accuracy. The armor is the right shape as he's wearing a real type of Roman armor, but has way too complex and modern of designs to be actual Roman armor. The hypogeum (the underground area below the colosseum from which cages of lions, etc, were raised) in their colosseum is another example. In the game, complex areas can rise up and turn into the floor of the colosseum. The real hypogeum couldn't do what the one in the game can (in fact, when the game was set, the colosseum hadn't been quite finished yet) but then they drew on a real thing in having there be a hypogeum at all and having it change the terrain (like when they would flood the colosseum for naval battles) and that's pretty cool. Honestly, the storyline shows a good understanding of Rome without being slavishly accurate (hence, for instance, the colosseum being in the game at all) and it definitely made the little history nerd in me squeal.
The game's story line also has some nice strengths in the way it told its story as well. The character of Boudica, for instance, was handled well and her relationship with Marius reminds me very much of the relationship between the Romulan Commander and Kirk in Star Trek: The Original Series' episode Balance of Terror (which is made all the more interesting, I think, because of course the Romulans were inspired by the Romans). And the way they end Nero was rather lovely and had some very nice usage of prophecy that I felt suited the game well, with its classical setting and its usage of gods (thus lending this reference to mythology very satisfying).
The gameplay was pretty good too. Now, the game has been criticized for its executions mechanic (what I call the "kill bloodier button") because once you start them, you can't fail them. You simply get more or less stuff (such as recovered health or XP) from completing them well. Personally, though, I liked them. I hate quicktime events (and these do play like quicktime events) that I have to do over and over again because I suck and because the executions don't care if I fail, I won't have to. Moreover, to me it seems that if you don't like the fact that they can't fail (making the game too easy, I suppose), then I say don't use them. All you'll miss is some bonuses (making the game harder, if that's what you want) and some very gory (almost certainly nauseatingly so for some people) kill animations. Besides, I'm not sure I buy that it makes the game way too easy or is a cheap mechanic. You have to knock your enemies down to low health before you can execute them and some of them only have short windows where they can be executed before you need to beat them up again. It's not like you can just spam the execution button (actually the right trigger) and let the game play itself.
That said, this game is really short. I pretty much blew straight through it, sitting down and finishing it in about 3 gaming sessions. For me, this was pretty awesome because I tend not to finish games (I may not need all of my finger to list the video games I've finished, even though I've played a lot of them) but I can see why people would be unhappy. $60 is a lot of money to pay for a short gaming experience. For me, though, that and the fact that it has a simple storyline are probably the only criticisms of the game that I found truly valid. It's not a perfect game by any means, or anywhere near the best one I've ever played, but it's worthwhile and I'm not at all upset that I spent the money on it.
And you know what? I like it. It may not be the most innovative or even engrossing game out there but it's a very good one and it has some really nice detailing which I think other games can learn from.
First, there's the story. It's been criticized as being overly simplistic and, yes, it is just a revenge story line, but even so, it was a solid story with good acting (I really think this game is one to something with its heavy use of motion capture for the cut scenes---it felts like watching a movie in a very good way). Honestly, in some ways playing the game felt a little bit like reading Suetonius, which I thought was about the best thing since sliced bread. Yes, it had a couple of the gods playing active roles in the story in a way that we don't see in Suetonius, but the way criticism was leveled at Nero and his two sons felt very Roman. It was a brand of historical accuracy that the games carries with it throughout and that I absolutely salivated over. My favorite statue of Augustus was all over the place in Rome, Rome is covered with some pretty awesome graffiti (a la the HBO series Rome), they motion captured an expert in Roman combat for the fights and the armor (at least the way it was put together) was period accurate. Even where they modernized, they kept history in mind. For instance, the armor of the main character, Marius Titus, feels very much like Assassin's Creed style historical accuracy. The armor is the right shape as he's wearing a real type of Roman armor, but has way too complex and modern of designs to be actual Roman armor. The hypogeum (the underground area below the colosseum from which cages of lions, etc, were raised) in their colosseum is another example. In the game, complex areas can rise up and turn into the floor of the colosseum. The real hypogeum couldn't do what the one in the game can (in fact, when the game was set, the colosseum hadn't been quite finished yet) but then they drew on a real thing in having there be a hypogeum at all and having it change the terrain (like when they would flood the colosseum for naval battles) and that's pretty cool. Honestly, the storyline shows a good understanding of Rome without being slavishly accurate (hence, for instance, the colosseum being in the game at all) and it definitely made the little history nerd in me squeal.
The game's story line also has some nice strengths in the way it told its story as well. The character of Boudica, for instance, was handled well and her relationship with Marius reminds me very much of the relationship between the Romulan Commander and Kirk in Star Trek: The Original Series' episode Balance of Terror (which is made all the more interesting, I think, because of course the Romulans were inspired by the Romans). And the way they end Nero was rather lovely and had some very nice usage of prophecy that I felt suited the game well, with its classical setting and its usage of gods (thus lending this reference to mythology very satisfying).
The gameplay was pretty good too. Now, the game has been criticized for its executions mechanic (what I call the "kill bloodier button") because once you start them, you can't fail them. You simply get more or less stuff (such as recovered health or XP) from completing them well. Personally, though, I liked them. I hate quicktime events (and these do play like quicktime events) that I have to do over and over again because I suck and because the executions don't care if I fail, I won't have to. Moreover, to me it seems that if you don't like the fact that they can't fail (making the game too easy, I suppose), then I say don't use them. All you'll miss is some bonuses (making the game harder, if that's what you want) and some very gory (almost certainly nauseatingly so for some people) kill animations. Besides, I'm not sure I buy that it makes the game way too easy or is a cheap mechanic. You have to knock your enemies down to low health before you can execute them and some of them only have short windows where they can be executed before you need to beat them up again. It's not like you can just spam the execution button (actually the right trigger) and let the game play itself.
That said, this game is really short. I pretty much blew straight through it, sitting down and finishing it in about 3 gaming sessions. For me, this was pretty awesome because I tend not to finish games (I may not need all of my finger to list the video games I've finished, even though I've played a lot of them) but I can see why people would be unhappy. $60 is a lot of money to pay for a short gaming experience. For me, though, that and the fact that it has a simple storyline are probably the only criticisms of the game that I found truly valid. It's not a perfect game by any means, or anywhere near the best one I've ever played, but it's worthwhile and I'm not at all upset that I spent the money on it.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Xbox One
So, last Friday we got that new Xbox One we pre-ordered.
Guys, it's amazing. Like, seriously, I'm really quite taken with it. It's not perfect by any means but it's pretty sweet.
First off, there's the voice control. No, it's not perfect---I have had to tell my Xbox to do some things more than once, but I really like it and I really like it a lot better than being forced to only use a controller. Telling my Xbox to go to Netflix instead of having to look for the app is awesome even if I do tend to use my controller to navigate the app because voice navigation within apps is pretty poor, frankly, even since my discovery of the "select" command. Still, I like it and I do use it enough that I have found that I have no idea where I put my controller because I just haven't been using the thing, and that's pretty cool. Besides, voice command lets me be the world's laziest person, because I no longer have to lift a finger to turn my TV, Xbox and soundbox on and I can adjust the volume with the same amount of effort. I like being the world's laziest person.
The integration of the Kinect into normal games? Well, admittedly so far I haven't cared or thought much of it. The reaction of the machine to voice commands can be a little delayed, so on the game I own which does use voice command, Ryse: Son of Rome, I haven't really been impressed. Telling my archers to fire by voice is kind of badass (which is why I do it!) but I think it would almost certainly be more efficient to just use the left shoulder button. The response would almost certainly be faster. So, yeah, the Kinect in games is gimmicky, but I don't care because see above comments about being the world's laziest person. I want my Kinect so I can live in the future and not get up off my couch, not for games.
The controller is, as everybody is saying, pretty much no different from the 360 controller, but I personally consider this to be a good thing. The Xbox controller was awesome and so is this new one. In fact it is, indeed, even slightly better. They've made the joystick more sensitive and I can actually tell the difference. The big place where it shows is in playing Forza 5, which, if you read my last post on the new generation of consoles, you'll know was basically the reason we got the console. We always get Forza on release day. Anyway, I play Forza with the controller, which is not the best way to play a racing sim---you'll be able to give much more subtle inputs if you use a racing wheel. When you watch a replay of someone playing a racing game using a controller, you can see that a series of small adjustments, instead of the the smooth continuous ones you get from a wheel, is how the car is being turned. Well let me tell you, I have watched a lot of replays of races I've run in Forza (and had the Xbox's game DVR record some of the best moments too) and my game play just looks way smoother. The newer, more sensitive, joysticks really shine in playing Forza. It's not perfect---sometimes you can see the car twitching around as I make a series of small adjustments---but it really is worlds better.
On a side note here, since we're talking controllers, I have to admit I'm really excited to have some stores get in some demo PS4s so I can compare the two controllers. I'm not a diehard fan of either the 360 or PS3 controller, both worked fine for me, but I did generally find the 360 controller to be better and my impression from the internet is that most people seem to think the 360 controller is better. They're also saying the PS4 controller is a vast improvement and some are even saying it's better than the One's controller. I'll admit I'm skeptical about it being better, because frankly I'm not sure how to improve on the One's controller (maybe give the shoulder buttons slightly less resistance?) and I have noticed that the PS4 is still sticking with the same joystick configuration but I'm willing to entertain the idea. Definitely looking forward to getting to try one out. I still think the touchpad is probably pretty stupid though.
There is some bad with the new Xbox, though. For one, my surround sound doesn't work right with it (even though it works fine with both my PS3 and my Xbox 360) and Microsoft didn't even offer an explanation when I went through the tedium of troubleshooting with them. Basically all I got was "play your games in stereo then," which was not what I was looking for. A real explanation would have been great, especially since a quick browse of the Xbox support forums shows I'm not the only one having my particular problem---where sometimes the main audio doesn't play. We're thinking this is because Xbox only puts out in uncompressed 5.1 and we need Dolby---a specific type of compression for surround sound. Basically, without the compression, our boxes are having to filter out some stuff and sometimes it happens to be the main audio. We're hoping this should be fixed when the promised Dolby patch comes sometime in the near future (or so Microsoft has promised us) but it would have been nice if Microsoft had offered that explanation instead of just telling me to suck it, basically. Customer service fail there, if you ask me.
The other bad thing is that, because it's a new console generation, there are only so many games I want. Right now I've got Ryse: Son of Rome (which is a lot more fun than most reviewers have given it credit for, if you ask me) and Forza 5. I'm vaguely interested in Crimson Dragon but the reviews for that haven't been so hot and I don't want to spend even the paltry $20 on a game I'm so unsure about. I've also got the free Killer Instinct but I don't think I'll be spending more money on it. I just don't like the control scheme on it enough. It really feels too arcade, even for a side-scrolling fighting game (which I do have something of a weakness for---hence my love of the Soul Calibur series). The next time a game I want for the new console will definitely be out (there's no official date for when the awesome Project Spark is coming) is next March, when Titanfall comes out and that's really more of a game I'll enjoy watching Fathead play than play myself. Next is Destiny, which will be out next summer. Sure, Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag is now out for Xbox One, but while I like the Assassin's Creed games, I only like them so much. I'm definitely not willing to pay $60 on the game. Honestly, if they were going to put a title out on both the old and the new systems, I would have much rather it had been Arkham Origins, which I still need to get to playing. I just like the Arkham series better.
Finally, the One is doing a pretty poor job of being my primary media center when not only can it not handle my surround sound but it can't interact with my external hard drive either. I keep movies and music on there so they can be played through my Xbox 360. I would have happily moved them to my One, but much like the Dolby patch, external hard drive support is coming but not here yet. Instead, if you want to play external media, you must put it on Skydrive and it must stay there. My digital video collection is way, way too big for my free Skydrive space, I can't download stuff from Skydrive onto my Xbox One's copious amounts of free disk space and I'm sure not paying for my Skydrive space when I have an external hard drive for this purpose. Even worse, Skydrive doesn't support music. The only way to play music on your Xbox right now as far as I can tell (which may just mean they're hiding a better option) is through Xbox music, which as near as I can tell is just a version of Pandora you have to pay for. Frankly, that sounds awful to me. That said, I am considering using my free month of the service, because then maybe I can have Two Steps from Hell playing as I race in Forza or brutally (and I mean very brutally) kill the crap out of British barbarians in Ryse. Still, it's pretty stupid and you won't catch me paying for a service when I should be able to play my ridiculous number of MP3s for free.
So that's it. My new Xbox One. The future. It's pretty awesome and I have no doubt it will get more and more awesome as more updates come. I doubt it will win the console wars, but then I also doubt the PS4 will too---not because I doubt either is a good console but mostly because I don't really see a clear winner from last generation and because I think both consoles are probably pretty good. That said, if you're lazy like me, want an awesome media box that also plays awesome games and somehow have the money to drop on an Xbox One, I highly recommend one. Honestly, once they roll out external hard drive support, Dolby and (hopefully) TV DVR, I would recommend it to someone just as a media box---an expensive one, certainly, but voice control!
Guys, it's amazing. Like, seriously, I'm really quite taken with it. It's not perfect by any means but it's pretty sweet.
First off, there's the voice control. No, it's not perfect---I have had to tell my Xbox to do some things more than once, but I really like it and I really like it a lot better than being forced to only use a controller. Telling my Xbox to go to Netflix instead of having to look for the app is awesome even if I do tend to use my controller to navigate the app because voice navigation within apps is pretty poor, frankly, even since my discovery of the "select" command. Still, I like it and I do use it enough that I have found that I have no idea where I put my controller because I just haven't been using the thing, and that's pretty cool. Besides, voice command lets me be the world's laziest person, because I no longer have to lift a finger to turn my TV, Xbox and soundbox on and I can adjust the volume with the same amount of effort. I like being the world's laziest person.
The integration of the Kinect into normal games? Well, admittedly so far I haven't cared or thought much of it. The reaction of the machine to voice commands can be a little delayed, so on the game I own which does use voice command, Ryse: Son of Rome, I haven't really been impressed. Telling my archers to fire by voice is kind of badass (which is why I do it!) but I think it would almost certainly be more efficient to just use the left shoulder button. The response would almost certainly be faster. So, yeah, the Kinect in games is gimmicky, but I don't care because see above comments about being the world's laziest person. I want my Kinect so I can live in the future and not get up off my couch, not for games.
The controller is, as everybody is saying, pretty much no different from the 360 controller, but I personally consider this to be a good thing. The Xbox controller was awesome and so is this new one. In fact it is, indeed, even slightly better. They've made the joystick more sensitive and I can actually tell the difference. The big place where it shows is in playing Forza 5, which, if you read my last post on the new generation of consoles, you'll know was basically the reason we got the console. We always get Forza on release day. Anyway, I play Forza with the controller, which is not the best way to play a racing sim---you'll be able to give much more subtle inputs if you use a racing wheel. When you watch a replay of someone playing a racing game using a controller, you can see that a series of small adjustments, instead of the the smooth continuous ones you get from a wheel, is how the car is being turned. Well let me tell you, I have watched a lot of replays of races I've run in Forza (and had the Xbox's game DVR record some of the best moments too) and my game play just looks way smoother. The newer, more sensitive, joysticks really shine in playing Forza. It's not perfect---sometimes you can see the car twitching around as I make a series of small adjustments---but it really is worlds better.
On a side note here, since we're talking controllers, I have to admit I'm really excited to have some stores get in some demo PS4s so I can compare the two controllers. I'm not a diehard fan of either the 360 or PS3 controller, both worked fine for me, but I did generally find the 360 controller to be better and my impression from the internet is that most people seem to think the 360 controller is better. They're also saying the PS4 controller is a vast improvement and some are even saying it's better than the One's controller. I'll admit I'm skeptical about it being better, because frankly I'm not sure how to improve on the One's controller (maybe give the shoulder buttons slightly less resistance?) and I have noticed that the PS4 is still sticking with the same joystick configuration but I'm willing to entertain the idea. Definitely looking forward to getting to try one out. I still think the touchpad is probably pretty stupid though.
There is some bad with the new Xbox, though. For one, my surround sound doesn't work right with it (even though it works fine with both my PS3 and my Xbox 360) and Microsoft didn't even offer an explanation when I went through the tedium of troubleshooting with them. Basically all I got was "play your games in stereo then," which was not what I was looking for. A real explanation would have been great, especially since a quick browse of the Xbox support forums shows I'm not the only one having my particular problem---where sometimes the main audio doesn't play. We're thinking this is because Xbox only puts out in uncompressed 5.1 and we need Dolby---a specific type of compression for surround sound. Basically, without the compression, our boxes are having to filter out some stuff and sometimes it happens to be the main audio. We're hoping this should be fixed when the promised Dolby patch comes sometime in the near future (or so Microsoft has promised us) but it would have been nice if Microsoft had offered that explanation instead of just telling me to suck it, basically. Customer service fail there, if you ask me.
The other bad thing is that, because it's a new console generation, there are only so many games I want. Right now I've got Ryse: Son of Rome (which is a lot more fun than most reviewers have given it credit for, if you ask me) and Forza 5. I'm vaguely interested in Crimson Dragon but the reviews for that haven't been so hot and I don't want to spend even the paltry $20 on a game I'm so unsure about. I've also got the free Killer Instinct but I don't think I'll be spending more money on it. I just don't like the control scheme on it enough. It really feels too arcade, even for a side-scrolling fighting game (which I do have something of a weakness for---hence my love of the Soul Calibur series). The next time a game I want for the new console will definitely be out (there's no official date for when the awesome Project Spark is coming) is next March, when Titanfall comes out and that's really more of a game I'll enjoy watching Fathead play than play myself. Next is Destiny, which will be out next summer. Sure, Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag is now out for Xbox One, but while I like the Assassin's Creed games, I only like them so much. I'm definitely not willing to pay $60 on the game. Honestly, if they were going to put a title out on both the old and the new systems, I would have much rather it had been Arkham Origins, which I still need to get to playing. I just like the Arkham series better.
Finally, the One is doing a pretty poor job of being my primary media center when not only can it not handle my surround sound but it can't interact with my external hard drive either. I keep movies and music on there so they can be played through my Xbox 360. I would have happily moved them to my One, but much like the Dolby patch, external hard drive support is coming but not here yet. Instead, if you want to play external media, you must put it on Skydrive and it must stay there. My digital video collection is way, way too big for my free Skydrive space, I can't download stuff from Skydrive onto my Xbox One's copious amounts of free disk space and I'm sure not paying for my Skydrive space when I have an external hard drive for this purpose. Even worse, Skydrive doesn't support music. The only way to play music on your Xbox right now as far as I can tell (which may just mean they're hiding a better option) is through Xbox music, which as near as I can tell is just a version of Pandora you have to pay for. Frankly, that sounds awful to me. That said, I am considering using my free month of the service, because then maybe I can have Two Steps from Hell playing as I race in Forza or brutally (and I mean very brutally) kill the crap out of British barbarians in Ryse. Still, it's pretty stupid and you won't catch me paying for a service when I should be able to play my ridiculous number of MP3s for free.
So that's it. My new Xbox One. The future. It's pretty awesome and I have no doubt it will get more and more awesome as more updates come. I doubt it will win the console wars, but then I also doubt the PS4 will too---not because I doubt either is a good console but mostly because I don't really see a clear winner from last generation and because I think both consoles are probably pretty good. That said, if you're lazy like me, want an awesome media box that also plays awesome games and somehow have the money to drop on an Xbox One, I highly recommend one. Honestly, once they roll out external hard drive support, Dolby and (hopefully) TV DVR, I would recommend it to someone just as a media box---an expensive one, certainly, but voice control!
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Console Wars
And today, for once, we will be talking about something other than TV---which is amazing, because really, TV was my first true love and is still, to this day, the driving force behind much of my creative spark.
But today, however, we will move on from television and talk about another thing: video games. Or, more specifically, console wars---which is really more about something I hate, because I have kind of thought the whole thing was stupid from the beginning.
Now, first off, this whole discussion is going to mostly ignore the Wii U. This has nothing to do with whether I think the Wii is a current generation console (it is, dammit, because it came out this generation) or how much I like the thing (which is not much, both because I think that it's main innovation is a complete farce next to the awesomeness that was the Wiimote and because its failure as a console has kept the price of the Wii from falling and me from getting a Wii so I can play the 2 or 3 Wii games that I really enjoy). Instead, it has to do with the fact that the Wii U really isn't competing with its next generation console companions, the Playstation 4 and the Xbox One (or the Xbone, if you prefer---which, I believe, is supposed to be a derogatory nickname but is one I actually still find kind of fun and charming). The big question has been, ever since the new consoles were officially announced, Xbox or Playstation?
Secondly, I will openly admit that my husband and I pre-ordered an Xbox One. In fact, we did it even before Microsoft reversed course on the whole always online, kinect required thing. Why? Because while it was poorly advertised (Microsoft marketing FAIL) and could have been implemented better than it was, their whole digital-only games thing was actually pretty cool and would have worked better for me (and, yes, we cough up for very high speed internet and both our Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 are always online anyway) than the current disk swapping regime. I was sorry to see it go and I do hope they bring it (or at least the family sharing plan) back at some point in the future.
Anyway, moving to the real point here, the console war itself, the thing that really drives me crazy about the whole thing is how the dynamic of the whole thing is working---I've been on Kotaku a certain amount lately, and all the console war seems to be is people accusing one another of being fanboys (ug) and talk about gaming policy/who's trying to screw over the gaming community harder. It seems that very few people are talking about games, which has been driving me crazy from the beginning, in part because Playstation trolls (not people who happen to plan to get the Playstation 4, but those who have to openly declare to the world that anyone getting the Xbox One must be an idiot---which is to say no one that I've actually talked about this with on either Facebook or in real life) have been claiming from the beginning of this madness that real gamers will get the Playstation 4.
Let's get one thing straight here, "real" gamers care about playing the games they like. Real gamers will get the console that will have the games they really want the most---you know, so they can actually play them. It's really that simple. For me, that's the Xbox One because of Halo (I get to play Spartan dress-up! Yay! Powered armor is so cool and I can make it my favorite color and I can make my character a girl . . .) and Forza (I have owned every game in this series and love all of them---and yes, I love it more than Gran Turismo, which I have played). For you, that may be the Playstation 4. People's tastes are different and when you're spending your money (and let's face it, both consoles have a pretty hefty price tag, even if the Xbox is definitely the pricier of the two), what matters is that you get what you want out of it. Figure out what consoles have the exclusives you want (which, I will note, is actually a pretty anti-consumer move in and of itself and both Sony and Microsoft do it) and then buy that one. Or, if you're into new, innovative indie games, then buy the console you feel supports that best (which apparently, according to the internet at large, is the Playstation, although I'll admit to being a bit skeptical based on all the misinformation about how the original Xbox One game sharing policy was going to work still seems to be believed by so many people). For me, I'm not, because I can't really think of the last "indie" game I liked. Maybe my definition is odd, but it always seemed like they were just a bunch of cheap, crappy looking games available through Xbox Live, for the most part. Again, not for me, but if it's for you (and I will also admit to being somewhat skeptical of those who are so in love with the Playstation's indie game policy but never seem to talk about their love of indie games, but this may be colored by my own preference for more mainstream games), then buy for that!
The point here is, do what works best for you and remember what really doesn't matter here even if it does seem to be at the heart of the debate right now:
Which company has the true interests of gamers at heart. Newsflash here, folks, neither of them do. They're both big evil corporations and they both only care about making money for their shareholders (in fact, they're pretty much legally obliged to). Much like Microsoft's varying reversals about the Xbox One, Sony's moves are less about making us happy and more about getting us to spend money. Are the two connected? Yes, because we spend money on what makes us happy, but if the two ever diverge I can promise Sony will go for the money. So will Microsoft. Like I said, they both suck. Really, the difference between the two of them has more to do with Sony being better at figuring out what will get people to spend money (better marketing, which, again, Microsoft completely failed at) than anything.
Hardware. Yes, the Playstation 4 has better hardware. No, it won't matter. Why? Because most games will be cross-console anyway. Developers won't be making two different games just so they can take advantage of the slightly better graphics offered by the Playstation 4. It's too expensive. That's why no one did that for the current generation either and games pretty much look the same on both consoles. There's no reason that will change for this generation. Honestly, the only way in which hardware will really matter for the person actually playing the consoles is in terms of controllers. Which controller works better for you is important, because, again, most games will be cross-platform and your control scheme is your window into the game experience. Getting the controller that works better for you (or doesn't have features you hate, like my own dislike of the PS4's touchpad), is definitely important.
So, what's the takeaway here? No console, even ones as similar as the Xbox One and Playstation 4, is one size fits all. They are different and they do both have different things going for them---with many of the things that are bonuses to one customer being detriments to the other. We're all different and if you're going to bother to get a next gen console, you should get the one that will really work best for you, from day to day, rather than worrying about all this crap knocking around the internet about how either console is stupid. They'll both do well. They'll both be great. They will both play games well and they will both have good games. Pick the one that works best for you and then game on.
But today, however, we will move on from television and talk about another thing: video games. Or, more specifically, console wars---which is really more about something I hate, because I have kind of thought the whole thing was stupid from the beginning.
Now, first off, this whole discussion is going to mostly ignore the Wii U. This has nothing to do with whether I think the Wii is a current generation console (it is, dammit, because it came out this generation) or how much I like the thing (which is not much, both because I think that it's main innovation is a complete farce next to the awesomeness that was the Wiimote and because its failure as a console has kept the price of the Wii from falling and me from getting a Wii so I can play the 2 or 3 Wii games that I really enjoy). Instead, it has to do with the fact that the Wii U really isn't competing with its next generation console companions, the Playstation 4 and the Xbox One (or the Xbone, if you prefer---which, I believe, is supposed to be a derogatory nickname but is one I actually still find kind of fun and charming). The big question has been, ever since the new consoles were officially announced, Xbox or Playstation?
Secondly, I will openly admit that my husband and I pre-ordered an Xbox One. In fact, we did it even before Microsoft reversed course on the whole always online, kinect required thing. Why? Because while it was poorly advertised (Microsoft marketing FAIL) and could have been implemented better than it was, their whole digital-only games thing was actually pretty cool and would have worked better for me (and, yes, we cough up for very high speed internet and both our Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 are always online anyway) than the current disk swapping regime. I was sorry to see it go and I do hope they bring it (or at least the family sharing plan) back at some point in the future.
Anyway, moving to the real point here, the console war itself, the thing that really drives me crazy about the whole thing is how the dynamic of the whole thing is working---I've been on Kotaku a certain amount lately, and all the console war seems to be is people accusing one another of being fanboys (ug) and talk about gaming policy/who's trying to screw over the gaming community harder. It seems that very few people are talking about games, which has been driving me crazy from the beginning, in part because Playstation trolls (not people who happen to plan to get the Playstation 4, but those who have to openly declare to the world that anyone getting the Xbox One must be an idiot---which is to say no one that I've actually talked about this with on either Facebook or in real life) have been claiming from the beginning of this madness that real gamers will get the Playstation 4.
Let's get one thing straight here, "real" gamers care about playing the games they like. Real gamers will get the console that will have the games they really want the most---you know, so they can actually play them. It's really that simple. For me, that's the Xbox One because of Halo (I get to play Spartan dress-up! Yay! Powered armor is so cool and I can make it my favorite color and I can make my character a girl . . .) and Forza (I have owned every game in this series and love all of them---and yes, I love it more than Gran Turismo, which I have played). For you, that may be the Playstation 4. People's tastes are different and when you're spending your money (and let's face it, both consoles have a pretty hefty price tag, even if the Xbox is definitely the pricier of the two), what matters is that you get what you want out of it. Figure out what consoles have the exclusives you want (which, I will note, is actually a pretty anti-consumer move in and of itself and both Sony and Microsoft do it) and then buy that one. Or, if you're into new, innovative indie games, then buy the console you feel supports that best (which apparently, according to the internet at large, is the Playstation, although I'll admit to being a bit skeptical based on all the misinformation about how the original Xbox One game sharing policy was going to work still seems to be believed by so many people). For me, I'm not, because I can't really think of the last "indie" game I liked. Maybe my definition is odd, but it always seemed like they were just a bunch of cheap, crappy looking games available through Xbox Live, for the most part. Again, not for me, but if it's for you (and I will also admit to being somewhat skeptical of those who are so in love with the Playstation's indie game policy but never seem to talk about their love of indie games, but this may be colored by my own preference for more mainstream games), then buy for that!
The point here is, do what works best for you and remember what really doesn't matter here even if it does seem to be at the heart of the debate right now:
Which company has the true interests of gamers at heart. Newsflash here, folks, neither of them do. They're both big evil corporations and they both only care about making money for their shareholders (in fact, they're pretty much legally obliged to). Much like Microsoft's varying reversals about the Xbox One, Sony's moves are less about making us happy and more about getting us to spend money. Are the two connected? Yes, because we spend money on what makes us happy, but if the two ever diverge I can promise Sony will go for the money. So will Microsoft. Like I said, they both suck. Really, the difference between the two of them has more to do with Sony being better at figuring out what will get people to spend money (better marketing, which, again, Microsoft completely failed at) than anything.
Hardware. Yes, the Playstation 4 has better hardware. No, it won't matter. Why? Because most games will be cross-console anyway. Developers won't be making two different games just so they can take advantage of the slightly better graphics offered by the Playstation 4. It's too expensive. That's why no one did that for the current generation either and games pretty much look the same on both consoles. There's no reason that will change for this generation. Honestly, the only way in which hardware will really matter for the person actually playing the consoles is in terms of controllers. Which controller works better for you is important, because, again, most games will be cross-platform and your control scheme is your window into the game experience. Getting the controller that works better for you (or doesn't have features you hate, like my own dislike of the PS4's touchpad), is definitely important.
So, what's the takeaway here? No console, even ones as similar as the Xbox One and Playstation 4, is one size fits all. They are different and they do both have different things going for them---with many of the things that are bonuses to one customer being detriments to the other. We're all different and if you're going to bother to get a next gen console, you should get the one that will really work best for you, from day to day, rather than worrying about all this crap knocking around the internet about how either console is stupid. They'll both do well. They'll both be great. They will both play games well and they will both have good games. Pick the one that works best for you and then game on.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Once Upon a Time in Wonderland
So, as people may or may not know, I'm a huge fan of Once Upon a Time. Huge. It just hits all the right buttons for me: it's a fantasy TV show, it leans heavily on its characters to be what's good about the show and it evokes my Disney-laden childhood (not unintentionally, of course, and not unsurprisingly given that it's a fairy tale show aired on Disney-owned ABC). Also, the villains are awesome. Rumpelstiltskin is a delightfully magnificent bastard with a wonderful sense of dramatic flair. Regina Mills (the Evil Queen)---well, she's just so evil (and she revels in it!). And yet still sympathetic. And kind of great looking (I have serious girl-crush on the Evil Queen. And a normal one too).
In any event, the point of all this is that I was really looking forward to the premiere of Once Upon a Time in Wonderland. It was based on a series I love (but which, admittedly, did wander a bit in its second series while it looked for a major plot arc to fill the hole left by the amazing first season finale) and the ads for it looked epic and amazing and seemed to suggest a theme of awesome-girl-doggedly-tries-to-find-tragically-lost-love that I found very appealing (mind you, when you use Two Steps from Hell as the soundtrack for your commercials, it's hard for them not to look epic and awesome).
Did the premiere of the new show disappoint? Well, actually, yes, but that's not going to stop me from watching the new show. Basically, it just wasn't completely awesome. It was passable with some elements that suggest it could mature into a really enjoyable show, and I'm willing to give it that chance. I still think this show could be really good, it showed some spark, but it's just not the immediately engaging, suck-you-in-immediately series premiere that the original Once Upon a Time had.
The best parts of the show were Jafar and Alice. Jafar was a complete badass with an awesome wardrobe and I definitely think it will be fun watching whatever the hell his evil plan is come to fruition. He seems clever and calculating and expect good things from him. Basically, he definitely seems like the sort of villain I've come to expect from Once Upon a Time, which is a show I watch mostly for the villains.
Alice, on the other hand, was something of a nice surprise. I liked her and thought she was kind of a fun protagonist. This is in stark contrast to Emma from Once Upon a Time, who was never really a dislikable character (unlike another character portrayed by Jennifer Morrison, Allison Cameron) but was just never that interesting. She just sort of sat there being disbelieving. Alice, on the other hand, is the person who is disbelieved and she's pretty much just an action hero, coming off as quite the badass. Despite the fact that Emma does seem to have some decent fighting chops, she just never came off as a badass---which is really kind of too bad.
The worst part of the show, though, was the other villain, the Red Queen, who much like Alice evokes comparisons to her Once Upon a Time counterpart, Regina. Unfortunately, where Alice fared well via the comparison, the Red Queen suffered. Badly.
Part of the problem is just that the acting for the Red Queen kind of suck. Seriously, she just sort of struts around going "I have cheekbones!" and is incredibly, incredibly wooden. The real kicker, though, really is just that the obvious comparison for the Red Queen is against Regina and where Regina is a raging badass of badassness, the Red Queen is really just kind of weak tea. For instance, when Jafar is threatening her and she replies by giving a "But this is my town! We play by my rules!" speech, it just comes off as stupid, because she doesn't back it up or even seem at all affronted that Jafar just tried to strangle her to death. Really? Really? Regina would have responded to that by plucking his heart out of his chest and making him dance around like a marionette on a string. Regina gets played sometimes (pretty much every character on Once Upon a Time does, because it is something of a show of gamesmanship) but she sure as hell doesn't take threats lying down. Like I said, the Red Queen is just kind of weak tea. At this point, I'm kind of hoping that Jafar kills her like a bitch.
Other than that, though, the pilot suffered from a bit of mediocrity. The Knave of Hearts, for instance, was a bit predictable and doesn't really come off so much as a character at this point as much as a cardboard cutout. He'll probably get developed later into an interesting character---even in the pilot, there are plenty of hints of his potential to be a really interesting character--but in the pilot, he's really just not there yet.
Unfortunately, though, the romance also suffers from mediocrity at this point, probably because they presented us with the major highlights of the relationship without any of the build-up that would really make those moments meaningful to us and they also just filmed them too early in the production of the series. The actors haven't really had the time to get their chemistry totally worked out and the scenes suffer from a bit of weak scripting too---it seems like the writers hadn't really figured out the relationship in any way more than "it's tragic love" and they just started writing the scenes from that point without really having worked out who these characters were and how they related to each other on a deeper level than just "love." Again, this isn't something that can't be saved but I have to admit that having this romantic relationship come off as being so without depth really did hurt the show in its premiere. Much of the premise revolves around Alice trying to get Cyrus back, so they really need to sell us on that relationship in order to give the plot some umph. They probably should have waited to film those scenes until the show was less new and, if I may be so bold, they probably could have dealt with keeping the Two Steps from Hell soundtrack for some of those scenes too. Nothing says love like Heart of Courage.
So, yes, I was disappointed by Once Upon a Time in Wonderland. It didn't blow me away the way I had hoped it would. But, I'll keep watching and I have a great hope that it can get better. It definitely seems like a show that at least has a shot at being really good once it finds its groove.
In any event, the point of all this is that I was really looking forward to the premiere of Once Upon a Time in Wonderland. It was based on a series I love (but which, admittedly, did wander a bit in its second series while it looked for a major plot arc to fill the hole left by the amazing first season finale) and the ads for it looked epic and amazing and seemed to suggest a theme of awesome-girl-doggedly-tries-to-find-tragically-lost-love that I found very appealing (mind you, when you use Two Steps from Hell as the soundtrack for your commercials, it's hard for them not to look epic and awesome).
Did the premiere of the new show disappoint? Well, actually, yes, but that's not going to stop me from watching the new show. Basically, it just wasn't completely awesome. It was passable with some elements that suggest it could mature into a really enjoyable show, and I'm willing to give it that chance. I still think this show could be really good, it showed some spark, but it's just not the immediately engaging, suck-you-in-immediately series premiere that the original Once Upon a Time had.
The best parts of the show were Jafar and Alice. Jafar was a complete badass with an awesome wardrobe and I definitely think it will be fun watching whatever the hell his evil plan is come to fruition. He seems clever and calculating and expect good things from him. Basically, he definitely seems like the sort of villain I've come to expect from Once Upon a Time, which is a show I watch mostly for the villains.
Alice, on the other hand, was something of a nice surprise. I liked her and thought she was kind of a fun protagonist. This is in stark contrast to Emma from Once Upon a Time, who was never really a dislikable character (unlike another character portrayed by Jennifer Morrison, Allison Cameron) but was just never that interesting. She just sort of sat there being disbelieving. Alice, on the other hand, is the person who is disbelieved and she's pretty much just an action hero, coming off as quite the badass. Despite the fact that Emma does seem to have some decent fighting chops, she just never came off as a badass---which is really kind of too bad.
The worst part of the show, though, was the other villain, the Red Queen, who much like Alice evokes comparisons to her Once Upon a Time counterpart, Regina. Unfortunately, where Alice fared well via the comparison, the Red Queen suffered. Badly.
Part of the problem is just that the acting for the Red Queen kind of suck. Seriously, she just sort of struts around going "I have cheekbones!" and is incredibly, incredibly wooden. The real kicker, though, really is just that the obvious comparison for the Red Queen is against Regina and where Regina is a raging badass of badassness, the Red Queen is really just kind of weak tea. For instance, when Jafar is threatening her and she replies by giving a "But this is my town! We play by my rules!" speech, it just comes off as stupid, because she doesn't back it up or even seem at all affronted that Jafar just tried to strangle her to death. Really? Really? Regina would have responded to that by plucking his heart out of his chest and making him dance around like a marionette on a string. Regina gets played sometimes (pretty much every character on Once Upon a Time does, because it is something of a show of gamesmanship) but she sure as hell doesn't take threats lying down. Like I said, the Red Queen is just kind of weak tea. At this point, I'm kind of hoping that Jafar kills her like a bitch.
Other than that, though, the pilot suffered from a bit of mediocrity. The Knave of Hearts, for instance, was a bit predictable and doesn't really come off so much as a character at this point as much as a cardboard cutout. He'll probably get developed later into an interesting character---even in the pilot, there are plenty of hints of his potential to be a really interesting character--but in the pilot, he's really just not there yet.
Unfortunately, though, the romance also suffers from mediocrity at this point, probably because they presented us with the major highlights of the relationship without any of the build-up that would really make those moments meaningful to us and they also just filmed them too early in the production of the series. The actors haven't really had the time to get their chemistry totally worked out and the scenes suffer from a bit of weak scripting too---it seems like the writers hadn't really figured out the relationship in any way more than "it's tragic love" and they just started writing the scenes from that point without really having worked out who these characters were and how they related to each other on a deeper level than just "love." Again, this isn't something that can't be saved but I have to admit that having this romantic relationship come off as being so without depth really did hurt the show in its premiere. Much of the premise revolves around Alice trying to get Cyrus back, so they really need to sell us on that relationship in order to give the plot some umph. They probably should have waited to film those scenes until the show was less new and, if I may be so bold, they probably could have dealt with keeping the Two Steps from Hell soundtrack for some of those scenes too. Nothing says love like Heart of Courage.
So, yes, I was disappointed by Once Upon a Time in Wonderland. It didn't blow me away the way I had hoped it would. But, I'll keep watching and I have a great hope that it can get better. It definitely seems like a show that at least has a shot at being really good once it finds its groove.
Monday, September 2, 2013
Cabin in the Woods
Today's feature is Cabin in the Woods, which, despite the fact that I'm a huge Joss Whedon fan (even Dollhouse, which even many Whedon fans didn't care for, although admittedly it's not my favorite of his work) and the movie came out in 2011, I only just watched last night. The movie has basically been billed as horror, and while I can enjoy films in that genre, I'm not really a huge fan of it. Basically, I'll enjoy horror movies if there's something more to it than being horror that draws me in.
That said, I actually feel like it's pretty disingenuous to call this movie a horror flick. Honestly, it's about as much of a horror film as Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a horror TV series---which is to say that it's basically not one at all. It's very aware of horror and its various tropes, but the goal of the movie isn't really the same as those in a horror movie. Much like Buffy, it's more of a fantasy setting where really scary creatures exist than a horror movie.
So, basically what I'm saying is that I really liked it.
Fair warning, major spoilers ahead; this is a movie where it would be pretty hard for me to actually talk about how I enjoyed it without revealing substantial portions of the plot. If you want to avoid spoilers (which I never do---I'm one of those people), watch the movie then come back and read this. It's a movie that's definitely worth watching. Seriously. Go watch it. Now. I'll wait.
Done that? Good. Let's begin.
Cabin in the Woods, as those of you who've watched it well know (hint, hint to anyone who's gotten this far but hasn't seen it), is a movie that takes a traditional horror setup, five college kids who fit horror movie stereotypes (the virgin, the jock, the whore, the stoner, etc), and then both explains the setup and turns it on its ear at the same time. Turns out, these kids aren't the only ones being subjected to this kind of scenario, it's happening to other young people all over the world and it's being done to appease the Old Ones and keep them sleeping for another year so they don't wipe out the entire earth. The secret organization using both science and mysticism to try and organize the proper ritual to appease the Old Ones is thus set up as being oddly heroic even as they sit around being complete fucks to these kids (I mean, honestly, they're taking bets on what horrific creature the kids will unleash to kill them off). The two main faces of the organization sit there perving on one of the couples out at the cabin. They're not particularly great people. Even so, however, as I began to figure out what it was they seemed to be doing, I started rooting for them. Yeah, they were kind of sick, but they were what was standing between humanity and Cthulhu---I mean the Old Ones. They may not have been traditional heroes or even super great people, but it is sort of hard to argue against preventing the destruction of the world.
At the same time as this somewhat distasteful organization is being placed into an oddly heroic position, we're also getting to know the kids, whom you don't exactly want to see die. None of them are particularly dislikable and they even show some delightful moments of genre savvyness before the organization manipulating them uses their wacky science to shut it down. The movie nicely sets up a situation where you want to see the kids survive, see them win, but become more and more aware that there is something bigger at stake here than just them---that the organization needs them to die to avert a catastrophe. It's a nice conflict.
That said, I would say the weak point of the film is the kids themselves. The only one that I really actually liked was the one played by Fran Kranz, the stoner whose weed makes him immune to the chemicals the organization is trying to pump into him and therefore the most delightfully genre savvy of the bunch. While I normally find such characters annoying, he was really engaging even in the beginning of the movie when he was simply being incredibly stoned. The rest of them, though? I could really take them or leave them. They were kind of just (very) vaguely sympathetic lambs to the slaughter.
The other weak part was the part where the last two remaining kids make their way into the organization's headquarters and unleashed all of the monster that didn't get to try and slaughter them on the people who were trying ritually sacrifice them. On the one hand, it was pretty awesome and it had some really great moments (including a unicorn goring a man with its horn, which was a personal favorite), but overall it went on too long and I got bored with it. I think cutting down the slaughter would have been a good move.
Overall, though, weaknesses aside, I did really like this movie even though I was very worried that I wouldn't. It was a fun little romp and it had a premise I'd never really seen before---one which still nicely fit within the horror genre given its strong callback to Lovecraft. Honestly, watching the movie, once I was pretty sure I knew this was about preventing the rise of an eldritch horror, felt very much like playing a game of Arkham Horror or Elder Sign. It was very cool and I didn't really want to see the world destroyed by something horrible and squamous (even though it was), but at the same time I was enjoying myself instead of being scared or having my mind be overly twisted. Those emotions were for my character, or, in this case, the characters in the movie. Great movie. Not the best thing with Joss Whedon's name attached to it in existence, but it was solid and enjoyable and I'll certainly watch it again.
That said, I actually feel like it's pretty disingenuous to call this movie a horror flick. Honestly, it's about as much of a horror film as Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a horror TV series---which is to say that it's basically not one at all. It's very aware of horror and its various tropes, but the goal of the movie isn't really the same as those in a horror movie. Much like Buffy, it's more of a fantasy setting where really scary creatures exist than a horror movie.
So, basically what I'm saying is that I really liked it.
Fair warning, major spoilers ahead; this is a movie where it would be pretty hard for me to actually talk about how I enjoyed it without revealing substantial portions of the plot. If you want to avoid spoilers (which I never do---I'm one of those people), watch the movie then come back and read this. It's a movie that's definitely worth watching. Seriously. Go watch it. Now. I'll wait.
Done that? Good. Let's begin.
Cabin in the Woods, as those of you who've watched it well know (hint, hint to anyone who's gotten this far but hasn't seen it), is a movie that takes a traditional horror setup, five college kids who fit horror movie stereotypes (the virgin, the jock, the whore, the stoner, etc), and then both explains the setup and turns it on its ear at the same time. Turns out, these kids aren't the only ones being subjected to this kind of scenario, it's happening to other young people all over the world and it's being done to appease the Old Ones and keep them sleeping for another year so they don't wipe out the entire earth. The secret organization using both science and mysticism to try and organize the proper ritual to appease the Old Ones is thus set up as being oddly heroic even as they sit around being complete fucks to these kids (I mean, honestly, they're taking bets on what horrific creature the kids will unleash to kill them off). The two main faces of the organization sit there perving on one of the couples out at the cabin. They're not particularly great people. Even so, however, as I began to figure out what it was they seemed to be doing, I started rooting for them. Yeah, they were kind of sick, but they were what was standing between humanity and Cthulhu---I mean the Old Ones. They may not have been traditional heroes or even super great people, but it is sort of hard to argue against preventing the destruction of the world.
At the same time as this somewhat distasteful organization is being placed into an oddly heroic position, we're also getting to know the kids, whom you don't exactly want to see die. None of them are particularly dislikable and they even show some delightful moments of genre savvyness before the organization manipulating them uses their wacky science to shut it down. The movie nicely sets up a situation where you want to see the kids survive, see them win, but become more and more aware that there is something bigger at stake here than just them---that the organization needs them to die to avert a catastrophe. It's a nice conflict.
That said, I would say the weak point of the film is the kids themselves. The only one that I really actually liked was the one played by Fran Kranz, the stoner whose weed makes him immune to the chemicals the organization is trying to pump into him and therefore the most delightfully genre savvy of the bunch. While I normally find such characters annoying, he was really engaging even in the beginning of the movie when he was simply being incredibly stoned. The rest of them, though? I could really take them or leave them. They were kind of just (very) vaguely sympathetic lambs to the slaughter.
The other weak part was the part where the last two remaining kids make their way into the organization's headquarters and unleashed all of the monster that didn't get to try and slaughter them on the people who were trying ritually sacrifice them. On the one hand, it was pretty awesome and it had some really great moments (including a unicorn goring a man with its horn, which was a personal favorite), but overall it went on too long and I got bored with it. I think cutting down the slaughter would have been a good move.
Overall, though, weaknesses aside, I did really like this movie even though I was very worried that I wouldn't. It was a fun little romp and it had a premise I'd never really seen before---one which still nicely fit within the horror genre given its strong callback to Lovecraft. Honestly, watching the movie, once I was pretty sure I knew this was about preventing the rise of an eldritch horror, felt very much like playing a game of Arkham Horror or Elder Sign. It was very cool and I didn't really want to see the world destroyed by something horrible and squamous (even though it was), but at the same time I was enjoying myself instead of being scared or having my mind be overly twisted. Those emotions were for my character, or, in this case, the characters in the movie. Great movie. Not the best thing with Joss Whedon's name attached to it in existence, but it was solid and enjoyable and I'll certainly watch it again.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Dragons: Riders of Berk
So, having just watched Joss Whedon's Angel for the first time not that long ago (it was up second in my post bar exam viewing schedule), I was looking for another show that had a badass bookworm. I completely loved Wesley Wyndam-Pryce in Angel (Okay, more like was in love with. I have no idea what people see in Angel when you've got tall, dark and adorkable sitting around being ten times more sexy), who was a badass bookworm much like Rupert Giles before him. Dragons: Riders of Berk, which is a cartoon network show that is a spin off of/takes place right after How to Train Your Dragon, one of my all time favorite movies (indeed, it's supposed to bridge the gap between How to Train Your Dragon and the movie sequel coming out in 2014, which has an awesome trailer that you should check out). Like How to Train Your Dragon, Dragons: Riders of Berk stars Hiccup, a beanpole viking who is just as much an adorkable badass bookworm as Wesley was. Perfect.
Be aware that that this review will have some minor spoilers for Dragons: Riders of Berk and will simply assume that you've seen How to Train Your Dragon, so if you haven't and don't want to know how it turns out, I'm going to suggest coming back to this post later (please?).
So, my overall verdict on Dragons: Riders of Berk? It was good, but nowhere near as good as How to Train Your Dragon. While the series had some very good high points, it suffered a little bit from some unintentional squickiness, inconsistency, some repetitiveness and being aimed at children. That last one is, I think, the cause of the occasional repetitiveness and the true downfall of the show, partially because while the original movie was very much aimed at children, it didn't suffer from it the way that Dragons: Riders of Berk occasionally does. Somewhat delightfully, it does have a very Pokemon feel without the idiot protagonist or the uncomfortable contradiction between the whole you-should-love-your-pokemon message and the fact that while preaching this they're essentially cockfighting with them.
Dragons: Riders of Berk starts out with a premise I like a lot: yes, things have worked out for the better now that the dragons and the vikings are friends, but the fact of the matter is that dragons are wild animals (and more specifically, large, if friendly, predators) and that can make them tough to live with. It is, perhaps, an obvious place to go if one is going to be making a TV show set right after a movie wherein the protagonist shows his fellows that dragons are really not their enemies and can, in fact, be the most awesome pets known to man, but I do think it's a problem that most shows, especially ones where the dragons are as nice as cute as they are in this, would just hand wave or ignore entirely. The problem with this early plotline is, however, the formulaic and repetitive way in which it's handled. Until (spoiler!) Hiccup's dad gets his own dragon (awesomely named Thornado) in the sixth episode, we get the same exact story (basically) back to back to back to back: the dragons cause some sort of problem (usually involving destruction), people complain and the resident curmudgeon, Mildew, starts to stir up the residents of Berk against the dragons---because apparently they've all forgotten exactly how often they had to rebuild their entire houses before the dragons were their friends---Hiccup is tasked with controlling the dragons, but fails in his first attempt because, dammit, he's new at this. Ire at the problem caused by the dragons then rises, and Stoic then says, for the good of the village, "sorry, but those dragons have to go." Cue Hiccup fixing the problem and the dragons getting to stay. YAY!
Seriously, it's exactly that same plotline for the first four out of five episodes. Luckily, though, right as I was getting really tired of it, they do give Stoic a dragon and the next time Mildew manages to stir the village against the dragons, the dynamic has changed and Stoic isn't okay with getting rid of the dragons---and after that we never see anything even resembling that plot line again.
The show is at its best when it focuses on its characters and the relationships between them. How to Pick Your Dragon, for instance, the aforementioned episode in which Stoic acquires his dragon, is the first episode to really start doing this, breaking away from the aforementioned formulaic dragons-causing-problems episodes. Because of this, it really stands out as an episode as being very good, both of its own right because it focuses on the differences/relationship between Hiccup and his father (one of the strengths of the movie as well) and because it's being compared to those lesser, more formulaic episodes. After this, the show starts to focus more on these types of episodes (in addition to adventure storylines and progressing the overall storyline) and it really benefits from making this the emotional center as opposed to the threat of losing the dragons. Relationships were the center of the movie and the show does well when it follows suit. The best episodes of this show are the ones that focus on these relationships.
Another great delight of this series is the fact that Mark Hamill voices the biggest of the villains, Alvin the Outcast. I found this out because I thought that old Alvin sometimes sounded a hell of a lot like the joker and was delighted to find out that that was actually just because Mark Hamill was the one doing the voice acting. Mark Hamill as the Joker, and indeed Mark Hamill as a villain in general=awesome. Enough said.
Other than the repetitiveness of some of the earlier episodes, there were a few other things that bothered me enough that I feel like they deserve a mention here: the squicky accidental twincest vibe that exists between Ruffnut and Tuffnut, their hitting of the reset button regarding Astrid and Hiccup and the inconsistency sometimes seen in the show.
Given that this is a kid's show, I am pretty sure that the whole twincest vibe between Ruffnut and Tuffnut is accidental, but it's actually very strong. When I started mentioning it to Fathead, he immediately knew exactly what I was talking about, even though I'd only mentioned the words "uncomfortable" and "Ruffnut and Tuffnut." His reaction? "Oh, good, it's not just me."
On the show, the twins have this whole too kinky to torture thing going on where they beat the crap out of one another then talk about how they like it. It gives their whole relationship the air of belligerent sexual tension. This is sealed by the fact that when we get an episode that focuses on the twins, Twinsanity, it's ended with a held gaze between the two.
Dragons: Riders of Berk, you're doing twins wrong.
On the other end of the relationship scale, as mentioned above, they've basically hit the reset button in regard to Astrid and Hiccup, in an annoying attempt to give us some romantic tension. At the end of the movie, we're given the pretty clear implication that both Astrid and Hiccup are interested in one another, have expressed that interest and are going to be a thing. In Dragons: Riders of Berk, they're in that just friends but obviously interested in one another phase, which does nothing for the show. I'm serious, absolutely nothing. There was no point to it and they basically are just ignoring continuity that's already in place. It's probably stupid to be so upset about it but it but color me unhappy.
Finally, the show is occasionally very inconsistent in a way that is bothersome and speaks of poor writing. How many dragons live in Berk exactly? We have no idea. It varies from episode to episode. When the plot calls for it, it's just the dragons that the kids have. At other times, we see way more dragons who need to be removed. Even worse than that inconsistency is the fact that they once managed to casually forget that Toothless can't fly without Hiccup. Given that this is a huge plot point even within the show itself (and, of course, within the movie), I find the fact that they just forgot about it, especially since they really didn't have to, completely unacceptable.
So, I am looking forward to seeing the next season of this show, which will be starting this fall. That said, I am ten times more excited about the new movie coming out next year (have you watched the trailer for that yet? You should!).
Be aware that that this review will have some minor spoilers for Dragons: Riders of Berk and will simply assume that you've seen How to Train Your Dragon, so if you haven't and don't want to know how it turns out, I'm going to suggest coming back to this post later (please?).
So, my overall verdict on Dragons: Riders of Berk? It was good, but nowhere near as good as How to Train Your Dragon. While the series had some very good high points, it suffered a little bit from some unintentional squickiness, inconsistency, some repetitiveness and being aimed at children. That last one is, I think, the cause of the occasional repetitiveness and the true downfall of the show, partially because while the original movie was very much aimed at children, it didn't suffer from it the way that Dragons: Riders of Berk occasionally does. Somewhat delightfully, it does have a very Pokemon feel without the idiot protagonist or the uncomfortable contradiction between the whole you-should-love-your-pokemon message and the fact that while preaching this they're essentially cockfighting with them.
Dragons: Riders of Berk starts out with a premise I like a lot: yes, things have worked out for the better now that the dragons and the vikings are friends, but the fact of the matter is that dragons are wild animals (and more specifically, large, if friendly, predators) and that can make them tough to live with. It is, perhaps, an obvious place to go if one is going to be making a TV show set right after a movie wherein the protagonist shows his fellows that dragons are really not their enemies and can, in fact, be the most awesome pets known to man, but I do think it's a problem that most shows, especially ones where the dragons are as nice as cute as they are in this, would just hand wave or ignore entirely. The problem with this early plotline is, however, the formulaic and repetitive way in which it's handled. Until (spoiler!) Hiccup's dad gets his own dragon (awesomely named Thornado) in the sixth episode, we get the same exact story (basically) back to back to back to back: the dragons cause some sort of problem (usually involving destruction), people complain and the resident curmudgeon, Mildew, starts to stir up the residents of Berk against the dragons---because apparently they've all forgotten exactly how often they had to rebuild their entire houses before the dragons were their friends---Hiccup is tasked with controlling the dragons, but fails in his first attempt because, dammit, he's new at this. Ire at the problem caused by the dragons then rises, and Stoic then says, for the good of the village, "sorry, but those dragons have to go." Cue Hiccup fixing the problem and the dragons getting to stay. YAY!
Seriously, it's exactly that same plotline for the first four out of five episodes. Luckily, though, right as I was getting really tired of it, they do give Stoic a dragon and the next time Mildew manages to stir the village against the dragons, the dynamic has changed and Stoic isn't okay with getting rid of the dragons---and after that we never see anything even resembling that plot line again.
The show is at its best when it focuses on its characters and the relationships between them. How to Pick Your Dragon, for instance, the aforementioned episode in which Stoic acquires his dragon, is the first episode to really start doing this, breaking away from the aforementioned formulaic dragons-causing-problems episodes. Because of this, it really stands out as an episode as being very good, both of its own right because it focuses on the differences/relationship between Hiccup and his father (one of the strengths of the movie as well) and because it's being compared to those lesser, more formulaic episodes. After this, the show starts to focus more on these types of episodes (in addition to adventure storylines and progressing the overall storyline) and it really benefits from making this the emotional center as opposed to the threat of losing the dragons. Relationships were the center of the movie and the show does well when it follows suit. The best episodes of this show are the ones that focus on these relationships.
Another great delight of this series is the fact that Mark Hamill voices the biggest of the villains, Alvin the Outcast. I found this out because I thought that old Alvin sometimes sounded a hell of a lot like the joker and was delighted to find out that that was actually just because Mark Hamill was the one doing the voice acting. Mark Hamill as the Joker, and indeed Mark Hamill as a villain in general=awesome. Enough said.
Other than the repetitiveness of some of the earlier episodes, there were a few other things that bothered me enough that I feel like they deserve a mention here: the squicky accidental twincest vibe that exists between Ruffnut and Tuffnut, their hitting of the reset button regarding Astrid and Hiccup and the inconsistency sometimes seen in the show.
Given that this is a kid's show, I am pretty sure that the whole twincest vibe between Ruffnut and Tuffnut is accidental, but it's actually very strong. When I started mentioning it to Fathead, he immediately knew exactly what I was talking about, even though I'd only mentioned the words "uncomfortable" and "Ruffnut and Tuffnut." His reaction? "Oh, good, it's not just me."
On the show, the twins have this whole too kinky to torture thing going on where they beat the crap out of one another then talk about how they like it. It gives their whole relationship the air of belligerent sexual tension. This is sealed by the fact that when we get an episode that focuses on the twins, Twinsanity, it's ended with a held gaze between the two.
Dragons: Riders of Berk, you're doing twins wrong.
On the other end of the relationship scale, as mentioned above, they've basically hit the reset button in regard to Astrid and Hiccup, in an annoying attempt to give us some romantic tension. At the end of the movie, we're given the pretty clear implication that both Astrid and Hiccup are interested in one another, have expressed that interest and are going to be a thing. In Dragons: Riders of Berk, they're in that just friends but obviously interested in one another phase, which does nothing for the show. I'm serious, absolutely nothing. There was no point to it and they basically are just ignoring continuity that's already in place. It's probably stupid to be so upset about it but it but color me unhappy.
Finally, the show is occasionally very inconsistent in a way that is bothersome and speaks of poor writing. How many dragons live in Berk exactly? We have no idea. It varies from episode to episode. When the plot calls for it, it's just the dragons that the kids have. At other times, we see way more dragons who need to be removed. Even worse than that inconsistency is the fact that they once managed to casually forget that Toothless can't fly without Hiccup. Given that this is a huge plot point even within the show itself (and, of course, within the movie), I find the fact that they just forgot about it, especially since they really didn't have to, completely unacceptable.
So, I am looking forward to seeing the next season of this show, which will be starting this fall. That said, I am ten times more excited about the new movie coming out next year (have you watched the trailer for that yet? You should!).
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Kenneth Branagh's Othello (And Shakespeare in General)
So, last night Fathead (my spouse and near-constant companion in the viewing of most media) and I decided to watch Kenneth Branagh's Othello. I'd heard this particular version was pretty good and Fathead has always rather liked Othello because he's always liked Iago. So, this viewing was to be the great experiment about what my preferences on Shakespeare really are: in a nutshell, this was to be my test case on whether or not I only like Shakespeare when I'm watching it performed or whether I only like Shakespearean comedies as opposed to dramas.
A little bit of background before I give my verdict and then go on to discuss the movie more generally: up until last night, I was in the rather odd position of having only read dramas (Othello and Romeo and Juliet) and hated them but having seen comedies (a high school performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream and Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing) and loved them. I wasn't really sure, this being my experience, what made the difference between whether I loved Shakespeare or hated him. Was it simply that the dramas didn't really move me but the comedies are legitimately hilarious? Or was it that Shakespeare doesn't really come alive when it's not performed and that, as such, you miss a lot of the more enjoyable nuances that really make you connect with the play? I had my suspicions, of course, but they were somewhat conflicting and, in any event, I didn't really know the answer. For instance, I was pretty sure that Romeo and Juliet would be dreadful no matter what simply because the tragedy seems to come from actually being upset that these two kids died, instead of thinking the stupid gits got what they deserved and that their love was really just lust anyway. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that A Midsummer Night's Dream would suck if you read it. I just can't imagine Bottom (who was played in the version I saw by a very talented and completely hilarious young man who had also been my middle school sweetheart) being funny if you can't actually see him sitting around with a donkey head or engaging in physical comedy. Yes, Shakespearean jests are funny by themselves but I do think they lose something without being able to see what's happening.
In any event, I got my answer last night and it is (drumroll, please) . . . both. Shakespeare is definitely better when seen but I also prefer the comedies to the dramas.
So, my verdict on Othello itself? It was okay. I definitely liked it a lot more than I had in high school---for instance, I hadn't connected with Iago at all then but I definitely really appreciated his manipulative bastard talent when watching this. Furthermore, I think Othello himself made more sense to me. Frankly, when I read the play in high school, I really just didn't pick up on exactly how intricate and well done Iago's plan was and I think that missing that really just ruins the whole play for one. It makes Othello seem nuts if it's not there and you can't appreciate how awesomely clever Iago is if you're missing that.
On the other hand, I still didn't really connect with the play enough for it to really pluck my little heartstrings and really see it as a tragedy. While Othello worked a lot better for me than he had in high school---when he simply seemed to jump to conclusions and in general just be an out of control maniac whose tragic flaw was too large to let me feel for him---I still didn't really connect with him. Honestly, I'm not even entirely certain why not. Some of it, I suppose, is that his passion didn't really save him from going over the moral event horizon when he killed Desdemona. He didn't just become convinced that his love had cheated on her and then immediately go kill her, he premeditates it by planning it out with Iago beforehand (deciding to strangle her in her bed instead of poisoning her, as he initially planned) and then even asks if she's said her prayers before doing the dead. Frankly, that kind of killing is just really cold. I think a rage killing would have made the realization that he killed an innocent woman much more tragic. That said, I'm not convinced I would have been crying at the end if he had killed her in the heat of passion instead because I hadn't exactly liked him overmuch before the premeditated killing and I can't really put my finger on why.
My other problem with this play that keeps it from being a glorious tragedy for me is Desdemona, who is so loyal that I just can't like her (and therefore be overly upset at her death, unjust as it is). She gives up everything for the love of this man and then he accuses her of sleeping around and yet she still loves him wholeheartedly, not even a little bit mad at him, and stays with him even though she thinks he may kill her. I liked much better Emilia, Iago's wife, who has her wonderful speech about why women cheat. That's more my kind of gal ( ...and this is where it will surprise no one to learn that Beatrice of Much Ado About Nothing is thus far my favorite of Shakespeare's characters).
My final problem with the play was simply that I wished that Iago had gotten away in the end. Now, obviously his treachery needed to be revealed or the play wouldn't work---Othello must find out that he's been tricked in order for the tragedy to really take place. That said, once his treachery has been revealed and Othello's dead, I would have loved to see Iago slink off into the darkness, his plan foiled (I, for one, am convinced that he never meant to be discovered, so I'm perfectly okay with his treachery being discovered serving as the reminder that this sort of behavior is bad and never really turns out well). Frankly, with a character as epically clever as Iago it's a just a shame to not see him manage to weasel his way out of justice. In other news, I think I may have made an emotional connection with the wrong character.
Regarding Kenneth Branagh's film itself, I can say that it was, overall, a pretty good adaptation of the work. The scenery is, as is to be expected, gorgeous. Branagh as Iago is delightful and Laurence Fishburne also turns in a very nice performance.
On the other hand, there were two things that drove me absolutely nuts and really pulled me out of the movie. The first was Iago talking to the camera. Now, I often love breaking the fourth wall in fiction but I firmly believe it should only be used for comedic purposes. When it's used for comedic purposes, I get something out of it happening---it's funny and I usually laugh (it's a type of humor I especially seem to appreciate). When it's not, however, it just pulls me out the story while giving me nothing. I much prefer my Shakespearean soliloquies to be dealt with as though they're the character's private musings.
The second was the fact that Othello's rage cum sickness/epileptic fits were not cut into something less dramatic. Now, I understand that this is from the original text and that the idea that such great anger could cause such a thing probably seemed like good sense in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries but every time I saw it happen there was always a long "what the hell?" moment until the text explained what was going on. Frankly, I just don't think it works very well for modern audiences (where most of what happens in Shakespeare really is, overall, timeless) and I think it would have been best cut around.
Having said all that, however, about Othello and how, overall, it doesn't really entirely do it for me even in spite of Iago and his wife Emilia, I will say that I haven't given up entirely on the idea that maybe I could really love some of the dramas. Othello certainly wasn't a complete flop for me, even if it has convinced me that the comedies are overall much better. I think it quite possible that the right drama could really be a favorite for me. To that end, I'm thinking the next Shakespearean drama I watch really should be Macbeth. I've been told that I'll really love Lady Macbeth and that sounds like reason enough to give the play a shot for me.
A little bit of background before I give my verdict and then go on to discuss the movie more generally: up until last night, I was in the rather odd position of having only read dramas (Othello and Romeo and Juliet) and hated them but having seen comedies (a high school performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream and Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing) and loved them. I wasn't really sure, this being my experience, what made the difference between whether I loved Shakespeare or hated him. Was it simply that the dramas didn't really move me but the comedies are legitimately hilarious? Or was it that Shakespeare doesn't really come alive when it's not performed and that, as such, you miss a lot of the more enjoyable nuances that really make you connect with the play? I had my suspicions, of course, but they were somewhat conflicting and, in any event, I didn't really know the answer. For instance, I was pretty sure that Romeo and Juliet would be dreadful no matter what simply because the tragedy seems to come from actually being upset that these two kids died, instead of thinking the stupid gits got what they deserved and that their love was really just lust anyway. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that A Midsummer Night's Dream would suck if you read it. I just can't imagine Bottom (who was played in the version I saw by a very talented and completely hilarious young man who had also been my middle school sweetheart) being funny if you can't actually see him sitting around with a donkey head or engaging in physical comedy. Yes, Shakespearean jests are funny by themselves but I do think they lose something without being able to see what's happening.
In any event, I got my answer last night and it is (drumroll, please) . . . both. Shakespeare is definitely better when seen but I also prefer the comedies to the dramas.
So, my verdict on Othello itself? It was okay. I definitely liked it a lot more than I had in high school---for instance, I hadn't connected with Iago at all then but I definitely really appreciated his manipulative bastard talent when watching this. Furthermore, I think Othello himself made more sense to me. Frankly, when I read the play in high school, I really just didn't pick up on exactly how intricate and well done Iago's plan was and I think that missing that really just ruins the whole play for one. It makes Othello seem nuts if it's not there and you can't appreciate how awesomely clever Iago is if you're missing that.
On the other hand, I still didn't really connect with the play enough for it to really pluck my little heartstrings and really see it as a tragedy. While Othello worked a lot better for me than he had in high school---when he simply seemed to jump to conclusions and in general just be an out of control maniac whose tragic flaw was too large to let me feel for him---I still didn't really connect with him. Honestly, I'm not even entirely certain why not. Some of it, I suppose, is that his passion didn't really save him from going over the moral event horizon when he killed Desdemona. He didn't just become convinced that his love had cheated on her and then immediately go kill her, he premeditates it by planning it out with Iago beforehand (deciding to strangle her in her bed instead of poisoning her, as he initially planned) and then even asks if she's said her prayers before doing the dead. Frankly, that kind of killing is just really cold. I think a rage killing would have made the realization that he killed an innocent woman much more tragic. That said, I'm not convinced I would have been crying at the end if he had killed her in the heat of passion instead because I hadn't exactly liked him overmuch before the premeditated killing and I can't really put my finger on why.
My other problem with this play that keeps it from being a glorious tragedy for me is Desdemona, who is so loyal that I just can't like her (and therefore be overly upset at her death, unjust as it is). She gives up everything for the love of this man and then he accuses her of sleeping around and yet she still loves him wholeheartedly, not even a little bit mad at him, and stays with him even though she thinks he may kill her. I liked much better Emilia, Iago's wife, who has her wonderful speech about why women cheat. That's more my kind of gal ( ...and this is where it will surprise no one to learn that Beatrice of Much Ado About Nothing is thus far my favorite of Shakespeare's characters).
My final problem with the play was simply that I wished that Iago had gotten away in the end. Now, obviously his treachery needed to be revealed or the play wouldn't work---Othello must find out that he's been tricked in order for the tragedy to really take place. That said, once his treachery has been revealed and Othello's dead, I would have loved to see Iago slink off into the darkness, his plan foiled (I, for one, am convinced that he never meant to be discovered, so I'm perfectly okay with his treachery being discovered serving as the reminder that this sort of behavior is bad and never really turns out well). Frankly, with a character as epically clever as Iago it's a just a shame to not see him manage to weasel his way out of justice. In other news, I think I may have made an emotional connection with the wrong character.
Regarding Kenneth Branagh's film itself, I can say that it was, overall, a pretty good adaptation of the work. The scenery is, as is to be expected, gorgeous. Branagh as Iago is delightful and Laurence Fishburne also turns in a very nice performance.
On the other hand, there were two things that drove me absolutely nuts and really pulled me out of the movie. The first was Iago talking to the camera. Now, I often love breaking the fourth wall in fiction but I firmly believe it should only be used for comedic purposes. When it's used for comedic purposes, I get something out of it happening---it's funny and I usually laugh (it's a type of humor I especially seem to appreciate). When it's not, however, it just pulls me out the story while giving me nothing. I much prefer my Shakespearean soliloquies to be dealt with as though they're the character's private musings.
The second was the fact that Othello's rage cum sickness/epileptic fits were not cut into something less dramatic. Now, I understand that this is from the original text and that the idea that such great anger could cause such a thing probably seemed like good sense in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries but every time I saw it happen there was always a long "what the hell?" moment until the text explained what was going on. Frankly, I just don't think it works very well for modern audiences (where most of what happens in Shakespeare really is, overall, timeless) and I think it would have been best cut around.
Having said all that, however, about Othello and how, overall, it doesn't really entirely do it for me even in spite of Iago and his wife Emilia, I will say that I haven't given up entirely on the idea that maybe I could really love some of the dramas. Othello certainly wasn't a complete flop for me, even if it has convinced me that the comedies are overall much better. I think it quite possible that the right drama could really be a favorite for me. To that end, I'm thinking the next Shakespearean drama I watch really should be Macbeth. I've been told that I'll really love Lady Macbeth and that sounds like reason enough to give the play a shot for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)