Dragon Age: Origins

I initially beat this game a while ago on the PS3, but I wanted to play it on the PC and do a comparison, which took me until about two weeks ago to finally through it.

This game, simply put, is amazing. While naturally it's not perfect, it comes a lot closer than most games I know, so let's break it down.

Story. Without giving spoilers for anyone who hasn't played through this yet (then why are you reading this? Go. Play it. Now.), the story of this game is incredible. It creates a deep world filled with history and culture. The extensive background work they did is readily apparent. While not overloading the player with information, the culture reveals itself through the rules of the world, the culture apparent in how the NPCs behave, and how events unfold. Having this kind of basis to build on creates a world that's cohesive and credible, allowing the player to dive in and stay immersed. Additionally, while the player is inducted into an ancient and honorable order, you are not hailed as a hero. Quite the opposite. The bad guys are spreading rumors about your order, and even if the people of Ferelden don't believe the rumors, they largely wonder if your order is still relevant, or strong enough to make any kind of difference.

One of the greatest things about the story is that the player is presented with a number of choices that change and shape the story. However, while these choices strive to be interesting, they fall just a shade short. Looking at the 6 major choices in game (the 5 major quests of the second act of the story, and the Landsmeet in the third act), two come very close to being something that will engage the player, but then turn around offer a third "warm and fuzzy" option. While this may not end up available to the player in all playthroughs, it does kind of distract from things. Another choice comes down to "be a jerk for power, or not", so unless your character is a little wishy-washy in their morality, this will be an easy choice. This goes on for many of the choices. If you have a strong idea of your character's morality, this quickly turns into easy choices that have far less meaning than if they had balanced the pros and cons of the choices a bit better. I think only one of the choices really becomes interesting, and that's "The Broken Circle" quest line. Here, your character can feel good either way, but it comes down to the many versus the few in terms of who deserves what.

Character development is incredibly powerful in Origins. Every one of your companions has a unique back story, unique and developed personality, and interacts realistically with other members of your party. Who you have in your party will change not only the banter, but how the group seeks to influence you in your choices.

A wide array of side quests exists, both offered by the common folk, and most of your companions will have quests. This creates a rich and immersive world where you will really feel part of a living, breathing world.

As far as class balance, there is none. Mages are grossly overpowered, and including the player you can have up to three in your party. Rogues are useful and versatile with options to be melee, assassin or archery. Warriors, however, move very slowly. While they can deal damage, especially among widespread groups of base level enemies, your ranged party members can often dispatch the one you're going after before you get there.

Tactics can be set for each of your party members as well. This is useful ability to keep your party working in unison or to set "oh shit" options up if squishier party members get aggro. Use of abilities or potions at key moments if your attention is on characters is hugely helpful. But they can be difficult to set up properly for total reliance. I found myself pausing every few seconds and cycling through characters to manually set their inext action. This could make some battles last incredibly long but with half that time not actually in action.

But despite these issues, this game is beautifully designed, creating a world that is enjoyable, deep and vibrant. I'd definitely say it's worth the time and money to buy, especially now that it is a lot cheaper and comes bundled with a bunch of goodies.

Dead Like Me: Life After Death

Dead Like Me: Life After Deathwas the straight to DVD movie that followed the critically acclaimed series, Dead Like Me, and attempted to give it some closure that it didn't get in its second (and final) season.

The movie starts with the restaurant where George, Daisy, Mason and Roxie all gathered together to get the day's reaping assignments from their boss, Rube, burning to the ground. Our quartet of protagonists are shocked to find their former boss no where in sight, and discover that he has finally moved on and that they have a new boss.

The movie manages to capture a lot of the charm of the series. However, a lot of issues just played out as cheap and contrived, in an attempt to bring closure in the space of a movie. George's reap causes her to become entwined with her younger sister's life. It felt forced and contrived, and served little purpose. The lack of closure for Reggie and Joy after George died (and, unbeknown to them, became a reaper) was part of what made the series so poignant.

The loss of Mandy Patinkin (who played the original boss of the reapers) was a big hit to the charm of the show, and it lost some of the structured feeling, as each of the reapers gave in to the excess provided by their new boss. While their characters didn't necessarily act out of character, they felt largely forced. The loss of his guidance forced the characters to make their own way, which was certainly an interesting plot, and better than many they could have done, but it jsut didn't feel bad.

Dealing with a reaper gone bad (their new boss) felt too much like one of the episodes in season 2. The emotional core of George and her sister again felt forced, with Reggie being involved in a secret romance and trying to find acceptance among her peers. This felt incredibly cheesy for the story.

All in all, it wasn't a bad ending for the series, and it wrapped up lose ends perfectly well, but it still managed to fall far short of the original series and leaves the viewer feeling disappointed.

The Biggest Loser: The Ultimate Workout

The Biggest Loser: The Ultimate Workout is the latest in a line of Biggest Loser workout games, and the first compatible with the Kinect. While I have not played other TBL games, I have played other fitness games, mainly on the Wii.

The Ultimate Workout is probably the best I've seen. First, if you're a fan of the show, you'll enjoy getting to work with your choice of Bob, Jillian, or both. If TBL isn't your thing, then you still get an excellent comprehensive workout. You are given a wide range of tools to help you meet your goal that I don't see so comprehensively offered in others.

The first thing offered by TUW is a body analyzer. This picks up your measurements without the need to go find a tape measure. These are not entirely accurate, but if it is off by enough to matter, it seems to go far enough that it is easily noticeable (it read my neck as 216" around. I'm pretty sure that my neck isn't 18 feet around). It has a standard array of offering recipes, calorie trackers, and a "Lifestyle Tasks" that give you simple tasks to help build healthy habits.

The game offers 10 different workout programs, with focuses ranging from large amounts of weightloss to muscle toning, to intensive training. The game uses a fitness test to help you determine your level of fitness, which helps to ensure that you don't push yourself too far, or go too easy. While other games offer this, I felt TUW had a much better test, and I was very happy with the level of my workouts. It also provides a variety of workouts from basic aerobic and muscle exercises to yoga to boxing training, keeping your workouts varied and more interesting.

Utilizing the power of the Kinect to provide a controllerless experience, this game takes away a lot the frustration of at home workouts. When using workout videos, it can be hard to do a new exercise and be sure that you're doing it correctly, and with the Wii, the necessity of holding the Wiimote and Nunchuck makes adding things like dumbells and medicine balls nearly impossible. With the Kinect, TUW is able to tell you if you're not doing an exercise correctly, urging you to correct your shape, kick higher, lunge farther, etc.

By far, this is the best workout game I've played, but it is far from perfect. There are a number of features that are lacking, or outright missing. First, despite clearly being compatible with XBox Live, there is no way to email yourself the recipes listed in game. You have to break out the pad and pen and try to copy it down from the screen.

Next, there is no way to change your workout to account for injuries. During my first week, I bruised my knee (unrelated to the game), but there was no way to adjust my workout to avoid aggravating the injury. There were plenty of exercises that didn't bother me much, but no way to reset my daily workout.

Third, there is no way to schedule specific days off outside of trying to set your initial schedule (when you start a workout program) to line up with what you need. There is no way to account for things like going out of town for a day or two, or other one-time adjustments easily. This would be a great addition to the game, to allow that week's workouts to be set to catch up with what you will you be missing.

Finally, the limitations of the Kinect can skew your scores for individual exercises, and cause the trainers to get pissy with you. It can be incredibly frustrating to be executing the exercise correctly, and hear that you're quitting, or have that one show up as your worst exercise (instead of seeing your real worst that you need to focus on improving).

Now, I know many gamers rail against the idea of workout games. They feel that exercise and games are antithetical. However, this view severely constricts what our consoles are capable of doing for us. I've found games make the best form of exercise. Going to the gym is a headache, exercise videos can end up doing more harm than good, and the structure and motivation provided in these games can help to keep you focused.

If you're interested in working out, whether to improve your fitness or to lose weight, this is a good buy that will not end up on the back shelf when you reach your initial goals.

Wizard of Oz

A couple weeks ago I was watching Wizard of Oz with the kids. I've seen before, of course, but not in years. I was actually very impressed with the quality of the film, and the special effects, particularly given that it was made 72 years ago.

The story, of course, is timeless. The novel came out 1900, and even 111 years later, its still a story filled with heart and magic, and entirely entertaining. The journey of Dorothy as she learns how important friendship and family is, and learns the importance of intelligence, courage and love.

Aside from being visually beautiful, the actors are filled their parts perfectly. Judy Garland's Dorothy creates a charming heroine, but one with faults that she must overcome. Almost surprising for the time period, Dorothy does not come across as a damsel-in-distress, and aside from being a little naive, has the spunk to be a formidable foe for the Wicked Witch. She travels through the land of Oz, eager to get to her destination and find her way home, and remains resolute in the face of danger, even when the Wicked Witch offers her safety in return for the ruby slippers.

The Scarecrow creates a charming, clutzy, and loyal character to help guide Dorothy through the hazards of Oz. Initially, the studios wanted to hint at a future romance between Dorothy and the farmhand counterpart to Scarecrow. While this was cut from the film, you still can see the chemistry between them, and see the affection they have for each other.

The Tin-Man is caring and compassionate, and provides the moral compass for the group, helping them remember to be kind to others, and take the moral high ground. The Cowardly Lion provides excellent comic relief, and his character has become widely recognizable. His fear at the silliest things helps keep things lighthearted when the movie takes darker turns.

The Wicked Witch was masterfully portrayed by Margaret Hamiltion, and her character has become iconic. She provides the perfect amount of pure evil, and creates a formidable foe for Dorothy and her friends. She is thoroughly well-developed, and has a fullness to her character that many other similar movies lack in their villains.

A story of friends, love, and perseverance makes this movie into a timeless classic that will still be popular for years to come. An instant classic, and one of the best movies out there.

Futurama

Futurama is one of my favorite shows, and over the break (and a little before) I worked my way back through the series (thank you Netflix). I was almost surprised to see that the original 4 seasons have weathered the last ten years well.

The show was timeless. The jokes they made weren't so caught up in cultural relevance that they've lost their kick, and the various moral-of-the-story moments were universal enough that it didn't feel stale. the show is amusing, and lampoons social issues without beating you over the head with it.

The show is also visually impressive with its unique (for its time) blend of hand-drawn and CGI elements. It gave a look that was new and innovative for its time, and one that has never really been copied. You could look at a frame from Futurama, and you'd likely recognize it from the show immediately.

The show kept itself more or less on track, but since a strong timeline wasn't really necessary (it uses the sitcom standard that things more or less return to normal at the end of an episode), they could change it up a bit. We see varying version of Fry's freezing, a couple possibilities about the life of his dog, and even the all-important career chips get largely ignored throughout the season.

This change to the "canon" is done without a lot of excessive justification. They just do it, and instead of weighing it down, just run too fast over the top of it for it to be jolting to the viewer. This jostling of the plot isn't meant to insult the viewer's intelligence, or try to break up the already fairly sturdy plot. The writers would just get a new idea of what happened in certain events and let it roll. Screw the paradoxes, and just go with it.

The humorous show wasn't without its tear-jerkers though. The episode (Luck of the Fryish) of flashbacks to the time Fry spent with his brother is poignant, but without becoming maudlin. The final episode of season 5, The Devil's Hands are Idle Playthings, the series culminates with Fry finally being able to win Leela over enough that she at least considers and respects his feelings, and is a very tender ending to the series proper. And of course, the ending to Jurassic Park, as we watch Fry's faithful dog from the 20th century sit forlornly, waiting for his time-lost master to return has been said to be one of the saddest things on television.

The movies that followed, and wrapped up, the series were incredibly well done. In The Simpsons Movie as well, Matt Groening shows a knack for taking television shows to the big screen. Rather than trying to trump them up to Hollywood proportions, he makes them feel much more like extended episodes. All four of the movies were hugely entertaining, keeping both the moral lessons, and the jaunty humor rolling, ending with Fry and Leela finally confessing their love, and sharing their first kiss as the Planet Express ship flies straight into a wormhole.

It was a fitting end to the series, but when Comedy Central decided to bring it back, it was welcomed with open arms.While Fry and Leela's new romance altered the dynamic of the cast slightly, the show continued on, and managed to do so without having to repeat plotlines, and managed to come off as fresh as ever. Some fans have been disappointed, but that's only to be expected, I guess.

I'm not sure when the rest of season 6 will finish airing, likely next summer. But my DVR is waiting for it.

Assassin's Creed II

The acclaimed sequel to the hit Assassin's Creed, Assassin's Creed II took the already hit formula and ran with it. Assassin's Creed was an amazing game, but ACII blew it out of the water. The story of Desmond picks up immediately where the first on ends. As you and Lucy escape Abstergo and reach the Assassin safe house, you learn a lot more about the overplot that was hinted at in the first game. As the plot thickens, and you begin to learn the true significance behind the search for the Pieces of Eden.

What really amazed me about the game, was that I wrote my review of Assassin's Creed before I started playing the second (although ACII was long since out). Almost every problem I had with the original was addressed, even if not perfected. Ezio's character was far more fleshed out than Altair. His motives were more clearly defined, and his drive for justice for his family creates a sense of immediacy and real engagement for the player; so much more than provided by Altair more or less simply following orders.

One of the best parts about Ezio's character that makes him far more enjoyable to play than Altair is the lack of monologuing. He doesn't sit and engage in a one-way conversation every time he kills someone, blatantly and unimaginatively spelling things out for the player. Instead, Ezio engages in active dialogues with his allies, and while he occasionally mutters to himself, it's more natural, and not nearly as intrusive.

The story is far more coherent, and the past and present are much more closely linked. In the first one, especially if you took long breaks during play, you could almost forget about Desmond's story. What Desmond goes through is only tentatively related to what Altair is doing. In ACII, however, while the cuts to the present were still rare, you did at least get voiceover contact that helps provide background about the other characters, and some of the in-game objectives. While this may not seem like much, it is enough to keep the player anchored to Desmond's storyline.

While combat and other gameplay is very much the same as in the first, Ezio comes with a slightly larger bag of tricks than his predecessor. A variety of weapon types are available, including upgrades to the iconic wrist blade, including the ability to poison, and a double blade, allowing for killing multiple targets. With these, comes new ways to kill your targets. Poison tends to be fairly discrete when the situation demands it, but can be difficult to execute without notice. More fun are the opportunities offered by the double blade, which allow you to perform air assassinations (descending upon one or two victims, driving your blade in as you land) and double assassinations where you can walk up to two targets and down both at once.

A few new weapons provide some interesting gameplay. First, the smoke bombs. Using this to distract guards in tight spots gives you the option of either running away, or just slipping through the chaos executing them with your wrist blade. The second new addition to your personal armory is a pistol attached to your wrist blade. It's loud, it attracts a lot of attention if used in populated areas. But it has the benefit of one-shotting enemies at a good distance. You are also given daggers, but I found little use for these.

However, while they tried to expand on the weapon selections in the game, they missed the mark. They gave the weapons a wider range of stats, attempting to give you an option between being able to hit harder against better armored targets (using mauls), being more defensive with the ability to deflect incoming strikes, or simply dealing more damage. However, because the mauls and defensive weapons were more suited to individual enemy types, and you couldn't switch equipped weapons on the fly, it wasn't much of a decision. I really think they could have taken that decision a little bit further.

One of the new features in the game was the use of money. You could use it to upgrade your stronghold, increasing your income, you could purchase upgrades and other items, and you could hire citizens to help you out. You can gain money in a number of ways. You can find treasure boxes scattered around every city, you can pick pockets, complete small jobs around the city, or you can earn it from your stronghold. It was a good idea, but one that quickly becomes trivial. First, after a few upgrades to your stronghold, and keeping up on clearing out your stronghold's moneybox, and you will quickly have more than enough for expenses and filling out your upgrades. This quick trivialization of the money system distracted from the novelty, and could have been better developed.

Another feature that got woefully undeveloped was the use of dyes to change the color of your clothes. This change is purely cosmetic. I felt that this had a lot of potential for providing possible camouflage and disguise in cities, but the idea was completely undeveloped. It was a fun idea (even if I stuck with classic Assassin white), but other than that, it served no purpose.

All things considered, the deeper plot and character development gave a great boost to the already strong game. The story was well-paced, and the character development was a great deal deeper than the first. I haven't started on Brotherhood yet, but if Ubisoft continues to build on and improve the features of their game, They will have one of the best games ever made on their hands.

The Social Network

The Social Network is the film that follows Mark Zuckerberg's rise from Harvard nerd to the youngest billionaire in the world. The story itself is rather interesting. Mark, after a long night of drinking following a breakup creates a website. A rather simple website even, you just go to the site and are given the photos of two girls, and the user simply clicks on the one he/she thinks is prettier.

This site, FaceSmash, doesn't sound particularly impressive at first glance. But, to create this site, Mark had to hack the student directory of almost every dormitory house, and the site brought in over 22,000 hits in a matter of hours and caused the school's network to shut down. After that, some fellows from one of the more prestigious houses try to get him to program a site called Harvard Connection. Mark stole their idea and expanded it to a far broader base, while maintaining the exclusivity that Harvard Connection was trying to provide. After borrowing some money from a friend, his career takes off. He tramples anyone and everyone that stands in his way, and eventually ends up in court hearings being sued by several of those people.

Jesse Eisenberg plays Mark Zuckerberg. Jesse Eisenberg has all the charm of Michael Cera, but the ability to play much deeper and more complex characters. Mark is almost an anti-hero. He cheated the creators of Harvard Connection of their idea, he cheated his best friend out of his share of the business, he was a jackass to his girlfriend. When confronted and dragged to court, he was never attentive in these meetings. He worked on his site, he daydreamed. He viewed the events around him with a mildly curious detachment.

You can never really root for him as he faces his obstacles. They were so clearly of his own making, and he just as clearly felt little remorse for them. But at the same time, while he was arrogant, there wasn't a great deal of gloating over his adversaries. He just did what he felt was best for the creation of his company, regardless of who got mowed down along the way.

At the same time, however, you never feel a terrible amount of sympathy for those he trampled over. The three jilted creators behind Harvard Connection all came from substantial money. Two of them (brothers) even rowed for the United States in the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. His best friend and initial business partner also had money, and all four of them had perfectly lucrative futures ahead of them.

Even Mark Zuckerberg was never in any real sense of peril. If, at any time, Facebook had failed, he had more than enough skill with computers to get hired on at any major IT company. It made the story, strangely enough, more interesting. In most of these other "real-life" stories surrounding the creation of great things, there's almost a sense of melodrama in how the characters overcame obstacles and gave everything they had for the small chance of success.

Jesse Eisenberg's performance was not the only noteworthy performance. Justin Timberlake's portrayal of the erratic and charismatic Sean Parker, founder of Napster, was masterful. Timberlake completely inhabited his character, creating a man similar in many ways to a natural disaster. He sweeps in and, despite the fact that he is clearly an emotionally unbalanced man, spending too much time trading on his success to throw wild parties with cocaine and young floozies. Despite the fact that he is incredibly unbalanced, there was some kind fire behind him that made him valuable to Mark in making Facebook the vast success it is today.

The movie was incredibly well done, and definitely worth seeing, even if you aren't big on Facebook. The story surrounds a peculiarly complex young man as fortune, quite nearly, falls directly into his lap.

Review: Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore

This is one of those movies where only the pleas of my children managed to drag me to the theatre to see. I was sure that the movie would cause me to claw my eyes out in irritation and disgust. However, it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.

This is not to say it was really "good". The characters were stereotypical of the James Bond and buddy-cop movies. Digs, the German Shepard, is your standard agent who plays by his own rules, and consistently screws up because of it. Butch is the experienced agent with a short amount of patience for the young agent, and comes down (sometimes too harshly) on him for his lack of control. Katherine is the sleek female agent that is smart, capable, yet has a major obstacle she must overcome to save her friends. Kitty Galore is the absolutely insane villain that is determined to destroy those who have wronged her. None of them had any deep development, or motivations that weren't woefully 1-dimensional.

But, the plot, while again not original, was at least solid. There were no glaring plot holes. A little drama, a little intrigue, a little heart-warming tenderness, a little action, and a lot of slapstick made the movie at least tolerable. The humor, while it didn't make me laugh out loud very often, at least had me cracking a smile. Some of the jokes were adult, but without being crass for family viewing. (My personal favorite was the announced seminar "Even if she's a Doberman, don't pinch her"). Kitty Galore having a mouse that takes the place of the evil cat most villains have was vastly amusing, as was the Hannibal Lecter-inspired Mr. Tinkles.

Given the lack of depth, there isn't much more to say about the movie. The bottom line is that if you don't have kids who want to see the movie, don't bother. It's definitely not worth it. But, if your kids are like mine and are dying to see the movie, you can at least go in and have an enjoyable time.

Review: Silent Movie

Mel Brooks' Silent Movie may not be my favorite of his movies, but was still a highly enjoyable movie.

The movie follows a washed up director trying to make a modern silent movie. The studio, who is in dire straits trying to keep by getting bought out by a conglomerate (a jab at the current events in Hollywood at the time), agrees on the condition that he can nail some big name talent.

He then goes after Burt Reynolds, James Caan, Liza Minnelli, Anne Bancroft, Marcel Marceau and Paul Newman in an attempt to get talent for his movie.

While the plot is in many ways incredibly predictable, the slapstick comedy is great fun to watch. With Dom DeLuise and Marty Feldman as his two sidekicks, they manage to get in quite a lot of trouble as they go around Hollywood recruiting these actors. One of my favorite things about the movie was you could tell the characters were mouthing obscenities, yet the dialogue cards showed more "family friendly" language.

Really not a whole lot to say about the movie. Character development was thin, the plot was thin, but if you're looking for an enjoyable movie, and you're a fan of Mel Brooks, you'll enjoy this as well.

Review: Robin Hood (1938)

This retelling of the classic story is one that is both fun to watch, and incredibly well designed.

Many movies from this era tended towards the campy. Special Effects were not really given the same importance that they are today, and often, these movies come off as painfully dated. This movie avoids that, and manages to put together a package that is as enjoyable as any out today.

Errol Flynn plays Robin, and he pulls of the role masterfully. He is cocky, sure, funny and irrepressible. He does the perfect job portraying a bandit who is only acting in the interests of his country. His offhanded remarks carry just the right undertone of threat and insult to them that makes his already witty banter all that much more fun to watch.

I am not going to comment much on the rest of the cast specifically. They all performed their roles beautifully, but I didn't feel were anything truly remarkable. They were all fun characters to watch, fulfilling their responsibility to the storyline admirably.

But where this movie really shined for me was in the visually effects. The movie made use of all eleven Technicolor cameras in existence at the time. For a movie so early on in color, this had all the clarity of any movie today, allowing for bright colors, and a vibrant look that hasn't dimmed over time. The backdrop featured footage that was correctly out of focus, drawing attention away from itself, and maintaining a look of being outside without actually being so.

Another point of interest was that the stuntmen were shot with real arrows (they were carefully padded of course) by the production's archery master (who also plays Robin's opponent in the tournament.) This man also fired Robin's arrow which split his opponent's down the middle, winning him the tournament. This was done in one take, with no camera tricks. Skills.... You're doing it right.

If I had to find one problem with the movie, it would be the lighting. The lighting often felt overly bright, as if everything was taking place at high-noon during the summer. But this was something that didn't really click with me until after viewing, so it really does nothing to downplay the movie.

Truly a masterpiece, and it's very clear why Disney in 1973 and Mel Brooks in 1993 drew so heavily on this movie for their inspiration (Mel Brooks so much so that during the scene where Robin meets John Little that my husband and I were cracking up at the memory of the Mel Brooks scene more so than the already funny 1938 scene).

If you enjoy the story of Robin Hood, this is a must-see. It's enjoyable, funny, and incredibly well crafted.

Review: Metropolis

Metropolis was made in 1927 in Germany by famed director Fritz Lang. The screenplay was written by his wife of the time, Thea von Harbou. It's old-school black and white and silent. So it's not the kind of fare most of us are used to.

One of the first interesting things about the movie, is that while most Science Fiction films can be slated as "Tech Noir" (Tech is bad) or "Tech Blanc" (Tech is good), this movie is very much Tech Neutral. There isn't a big pro or con either way. The technology simply is.

Instead, it focuses on the strains between the Haves, and the Have Nots. However, it also had an additional moral, that gets beaten into the viewer: The Mediator between the Hands and Head must be the Heart. This moral is announced roughly every 15 minutes or so. Subtlety, a German strength it is not.

But, the movie was actually very good in terms of story. It surprises me that no one has done a remake. The story surrounds young Freder, the son of the leader of Metropolis. He lives "topside" with the all the other rich people. Life is good. He gets a different pretty woman every day, food and sunshine are plenty, and is a reflection of all the upper businessmen of the time.

He, like most of the Haves, gives no thought to the Worker class that slave and toil away to keep the machines working to provide paradise to Metropolis' masters. At least, not until a lovely young worker woman appears with a slew of children, giving a stirring speech about how these youngsters should "look upon their brothers" and see the hedonist, carefree lifestyle they live, and that they should hope someday that the Haves will, in fact, accept them as brothers. As she and the children disappear back into the bowels of the city.

Young Freder, instantly enamoured, chases after our young mystery woman (Maria) where he discovers the plight of the worker class, as well as the fact that his beloved is a prophetess. She has foretold the coming of one who will bring peace and happiness to everyone.

I don't want to go any further, so as not to spoil the plot.

The story, while lagging in areas, was very good, and despite the length, kept the viewer interested through most of it. The dialogue cards were a little on the "meh" side, but considering that you don't have a natural dialogue system, and everything has to be handled on a card or two, it's clearly a necessary evil.

The special effects were, for the time, actually quite amazing, and the attention to detail is great. Watching the workers at the machines, they were not just moving pieces, but moved in a carefully choreographed movement that was actually beautiful to watch.

The acting was a little overdone, even for a silent movie though. But this did little to detract from my interest in the film. With it being a silent film, a lot can be forgiven seeing as exaggerated gestures were the best thing they had for conveying emotion.

All in all, if you can dig up this movie somewhere, watch it. Much of the original footage has been lost, but the story is still comprehensible. The version I watched included extra text frames explaining what has happened in the areas you miss.

A truly enjoyable movie, and one that I would love to see revamped and rebooted for the modern era of talkies and color.

It was, given it's origins in Germany, hard to watch on some levels though. While the director was at least partially Jewish, his wife was a supporter of the Nazi party. Given that the actors were German, I could not help but think "So.... Over the next 20 years, how many of you are going to do some very bad things..."

Interesting how an event that holds little personal significance for me (WWII) could still bring about such an uncomfortable feeling when I watch anything with Germans in it from that era.

Review: Toy Story 3

The third movie of the Toy Story franchise had me worried when I first heard about it. Pixar had been so emphatically against any future sequels that I feared being forced into this one would result in an inferior movie that would be nothing more than a waste of time and money.

I was happily mistaken. Toy Story 3 had all the heart and excitement of its predecessors.

For the first time, we see a toy as the antagonist thoughout the movie. The Prospector was a great antagonist to be sure, but we don't see his true colors until very late into the second film. The toy store owner was clearly the primary adversary. But in this movie, human villainy is virtually non-existent. The franchise stops being about people who treat toys badly (Sid and Al) and moves to toy against toy. This gives a new dynamic to the motivations. Both Sid and Al could almost be excused with "Well, they didn't know that toys have feelings." Now, it's not so cut and dry.

This also presents the opportunity to show off some very complex ideas for a kids' movie. How easy it is for good toys (or people) to be driven to do bad things when they choose a strong leader with bad motives; the danger of "just following orders."

The story also pulls hard at the heartstrings. We see the pain of toys who are no longer played with, have lot friends to charity/trash/garage sales. Uncertain what the future holds for them, and their friendship.

Some aspects were a little cheesy, and could come off as rehashing rather than saluting the previous installments, but this was minimal, and for me didn't distract from the story.

Props, Pixar. Another fine film.

Review: Inception

Inception was a masterful movie. It's so hard to say everything I want to say about it without giving away a lot.

The story was told masterfully. Christopher Nolan weaves together concurrent storylines and locations (moving through layers of a dream) while never making the audience feel lost or confused. Each thread is unique in look and feel and action that even with constant cutting between the layers, the audience never has to stop and figure out what's going on.

The action was constant, while not making the audience feel tired. The special effects were incredible, without being flashy. Nolan even forgoes computer graphics in areas and does things the old fashioned way (in one scene, there is a spinning room. The set actually spun, a la Fred Astaire type effects rather than using CGI). Each location was carefully constructed with it's own unique color undertones, themes, and other design choices.

As for the acting, I could find no complaints. Leonardo DiCaprio put forth the same first-class performance that anyone would expect from him. His character is complex, driven, and very expressive. You have no difficulty buying his character as real, and pulling you through the story. As a pleasant surprise, Joseph Gordon-Levitt also put out a very strong performance. I wasn't expecting him to be bad or lacking, but all I've seen him in have been (500) Days of Summer, 3rd Rock from the Sun and a few other movies and shows when I was a kid. I've never seen him in this kind of movie, but he managed to hold his own, and keep his character performing the task he was meant to. The two female leads were just as masterfully portrayed by Ellen Page (Ariadne) and Marion Cotillard (Mal). Each brought a unique sense and manipulated DiCaprio's character in exactly the right way.

The only flaw to this movie was a largely unavoidable one. A lot of the dialogue was a little forced and filled with exposition. But, really, it couldn't have been done any other way. There is so much background that is vital for the viewer to know that can't really be expressed in any other way. While it could have been written so this information comes forth more organically, it would add a great deal of time the already 2.5 hour long movie. So it wasn't a huge issue for me.
 

The ending leaves you with something to think about and consider. For this first viewing, I just kicked back and enjoyed the ride. But I'm greatly looking forward to viewing it again to unravel the deep clues and symbols that I grasped the edges of on my first viewing.

If you haven't seen it yet, go now.

Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

The fourth and most recent installment of the Indiana Jones series again loses it's way. I don't want to give away too much of the plot, but I do want to point out (and counter) some of the problems I and others seem to have in the movie.

First, many have said that the scene where Indy survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a refrigerator was incredibly unbelievable. I'm willing to buy it, just because that refrigerator was made from 2 inches of solid lead. That will protect you from quite a bit. And it's no less believable than using a self-inflating raft to safely coast down a mountain and off a cliff.

Shia LeBouf plays Mutt. While his acting was hardly high-caliber, his character was still endearing on many levels. As most "bad boys" in the 50s, he was a James Dean wannabe; a Rebel Without a Clue. His obsessive nature over his image was very believable as an adolescent young man that had no direction in his life. So not great, but not so bad as to be irredeemable.

I could even buy the man-eating ants in South America. I'd buy a lot of weird creatures from that region of the world. There is some seriously fucked up shit in the Amazon. Mother Nature was definitely PMSing when she populated that area.

Even the story itself wasn't terribly unbelievable. Both Russia and the US in the 1950s were studying telepathic warfare. Aliens have long been theorized to have had connections to the Mayans, given that their gods were white, and the pyramids they built sprung up in similar forms around the world, at about the same time. But yet, these things just aren't the Indiana Jones kind of stories. El Dorado is rich enough in legend and mystery that we didn't need to bring Science Fiction into the equation.

The legion of monkeys that come to our heroes' aid as Shia LeBouf leads them Tarzan-like through the trees was a little far-fetched. The fact that the skull was shown to be highly magnetic (even to non-magnetic metels like gold) seemed to come and go as it suited the story. Sometimes it effected weapons, wielded by good guys and bad guys alike. Other times, it conveniently didn't.

A lot the dialogue felt forced and unimagined, particularly a useless scene where Indy is arrested by a government agency. The entire scene does nothing but give us some exposition about how Indy was involved in WWII and got all kinds of medals and so on and so forth. This could have been easily covered in other ways and did not need a 5 minute scene.

Finally, the main antagonist, a Russian KGB scientist was two-dimensional, poorly acted, and just altogether thrown in as a villain without any depth or interest.

One thing that I got a huge kick out of, however, was Indy saying "I have a bad feeling about this". Star Wars references always make me feel warm and happy inside.

So, overall, this movie would have been fairly decent if it wasn't an Indiana Jones movie. Enjoyable action, fairly funny, however it was still very much flawed.

But honestly, anyone who says that it was the worst movie ever made, and that it ruined the Indiana Jones series and left it a broken mess should really go back and re-watch Indiana Jones and the Temple of Cheap Plot Devices. For me, I still found far and away better than the second movie, even it trailed the first and third installments by just as much.

Review: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

In the third installment of Indiana Jones, Spielberg comes back to the series to provide an excellent tale. We open up with a flashback to Indy's childhood where we discover what led him to become a swashbuckling archeologist, see the inspiration for his iconic fashion sense (and see why that hat is do damn important to him) and get the first glimpses of a father who's obssession would cause a distant relationship between them.

After we return to Indy's present-day life, we discover that his father (who spent his life chasing the Holy Grail) has gone missing. What ensues is a long mystery, full of secret societies, hidden clues, and a lot of great entertainment and humor.

The acting was well done. Harrison Ford, as always, pulls off his character with complexity and depth, as always, with that trademark humor that makes the Indiana Jones character such an icon. Sean Connery was perfect as Indy's father, a mix of humor, distantness, fatherly love and absent-mindedness. Their interactions were plausible, filled with just the right amount of emotion, and truly gave a new depth to the character of Indiana Jones.

The female lead, Dr Elsa Schneider, provided the first strong female lead of the series. While Marion was not a damsel in distress to be sure, Elsa was a whole level above. She was smart, quick, calm under pressure, and more than able to take care of herself.

I don't want to give away too much for the few people out there that haven't seen this yet. But it brings back what an Action/Adventure movie is supposed to be. Action, good plot, a hint of mystery, and great underlying humor.  A most worthy sequel of a timeless franchise.

Review:Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

This movie was hard to watch, even for a sequel. Spielberg seemed to lose everything that made the first movie great in such a short time.

The movie opens, not with an exciting archeological find, but with Jones negotiating with Chinese mobsters in a Shanghai nightclub. This whole scene, while amusing at parts, seemed more fitting for a James Bond movie than an Indiana Jones.

The other two primary characters, Short Round and Willie, were two-dimensional, shallow, and largely unnecessary. Short Round was a young orphan Jones saved and let tag along and help on his mission to deal with the mob.While perky and relatively funny, he served almost no purpose except for towards the end of the movie. Willie was a night-club singer in the club where Jones was going through his dealings. She was a bimbo, unhelpful, unproductive, uncatalystic to the story outside of providing a love interest. After the better depth and development Marion had, (and it irked me that she wasn't even mentioned, just vanished) it was disappointing to see such an uninspiring female lead.

To escape the Chinese mob, Jones (taking Willie as a hostage) boards a plane that happens to be owned by the mob. It crashes, and how does our trio save themselves? By jumping into a self-inflating raft, falling a good hundred or more feet, landing safely on snow, rocketing down a mountainside without crashing, off a cliff, dropping even farther down, yet still everyone comes out just a little damp. Um.... what? My suspension of disbelief is straining and we aren't even 20 minutes in.

We then end up in a small village who is suffering greatly because they lost their Mystical Stone of Happy Goodness, but Indy is too busy and needs to get back to the States (subtle foreshadowing is subtle....).

The group continues on and stops at a city that is known for bizarre worship and all kinds of nastiness. Oh, but they don't do that anymore....

While staying the night, we discover that they actually do continue to do bizarre sacrifices, and everyone there is evil. Oh, but their mind control can be broken by touching them with fire. Because this is clearly not an issue in a place lit brightly by torches. You seriously want to tell me that no one ever accidently burned themselves and figured this out before now?

But can Indy and Co escape this cult's vile clutches before the worst happens? To find out you'll have to sit through the crap like I did.

The entire movie is cheap special effects, and a loosely threaded storyline. Worth missing altogether unless you are really wanting to watch the entire Indy saga. But if you skip it, you're not missing much.

Review: Shrek Forever After

Shrek: Forever After is the fourth and final chapter in the Shrek tale. While it, like the other sequels, failed to capture the inspiration of the first, it was still solid and enjoyable.

The story starts at the triplets' first birthday. And Shrek is suffering under being a new dad. He's frustrated that he's hailed as a hero, stuck in routine, and missing the days of being the fearsome and hated ogre he once was. So he makes an ill-fated deal with Rumplestiltskin and gets transported to a paradoxial world where nothing is how it was before. In many ways reminiscent of the second film, yet still with enough twists to make it feel a little less repetitive.

Rumpelstiltskin is a fun villain, though not any more menacing than Fairy Godmother or Prince Charming. His army of witches reminded me a lot of the third movie, but again it didn't feel like a complete repetition. The Pied Piper was certainly the coolest flute-playing bounty hunter ever. they did well with his music where it was varied both in style and tone, and was able to convey a lot when he used it to communicate.

The biggest difference between this and prior iterations of the movie trilogy was this focused less on the idea of "be yourself, no matter what" and more on the importance of love. While the former lesson is still present, much of it is more in the undertone that accepting your situation and finding happiness with it is important. More important, is Shrek learning to reprioritize his life. Learning that repetition and a loss of his "evil ogre" image is far less important than his family and friends is the heart of this story.

The enjoyability of this movie really comes down to whether or not you enjoyed Shrek 2 and 3. If you enjoyed these, then you'll enjoy this latest installment. If Shrek 2 and 3 left you feeling blah, then you probably won't enjoy this one either, as it offers no more than these.

As far as 3D, I would say not worth it. I saw it in 2D, and didn't feel like I missed anything without the 3D. So save yourself a few bucks per ticket and just see the 2D version (if it's even still playing in 3D in your area).

Review: Despicable Me

Despicable Me has the perfect mix of humor and heart. It tells the story of Gru, a less than successful super-villain attempting the biggest heist in history: the moon. He adopts 3 young orphans to help him foil a rival villain, and the story revolves around how he balances these young children and his villain career.

The story, as I said, is filled with humor. From his little yellow minions that are incredibly funny, and full of sight gags, yet without being crude or over the top. Gru himself is humorous, especially with antics like using his Freeze Ray to cut to the head of the line at the Coffee Shop (come on, who of you wouldn't).

The characters are well developed, and believable within their universe. Heartfelt moments will tug at your heartstrings, perilous scenes will leave you worried (even though as a children's movie, you'll know things will work out all right) and the humor will keep you laughing.

The three orphan girls, particularly the oldest, are portrayed as reasonably complex, and are diverse in their personalities.  They're enjoyable to watch, and their interactions are both fun and believable.

The only problem I had with the entire movie was the physical appearance of Gru's mother. She looked too much like the granny from Hoodwinked, and that got on my nerves. A little more originality in looks would have helped greatly.

It's hard to say more without spoiling the movie, but if you have kids, be sure to take them. If you don't have kids, be sure to go anyway. It's a great film that is a lot of fun for everyone, and well worth the cost of a ticket, even for 3D.

Review: Little Big Planet

Little Big Planet has been a smash hit for a while. I finally got to play it last month, and I fell in love instantly.

You play a little sack person, navigating through the world of Little Big Planet. You go through a wide variety of zones, each with 3 main levels, and numerous bonus levels. These worlds are lumped together into themes, based around a theme, related to the location and the "Creator Curator" of that subsection of levels.

You travel through levels based in Europe, Africa, South America, Latin America, USA, Japan, India and Russia, with a final boss level. The villain is the elusive Collector, who is stealing people from the other levels.

Throughout the levels, you have Goodies to collect. These include objects found in the instance, stickers, costumes and more. You can use these to decorate yourself, your home base, and create your own levels.

The story is loosely threaded, but really, the "Story" levels are just there to highlight what you can do. Everything you see in the levels can be recreated when you build your own levels.

Building your own levels is actually quite simple. Tutorials for every aspect can either be played through linearly, or the appropriate tutorial will play the first time you try to use a new tool.

Each of the levels (including bonus levels) offered on Story mode has 3 in-game trophies associated with it: Completion, All Goodies, and No Deaths (except for bonus levels that don't end until you die). This means that even after you've beaten all the levels, you have plenty of reason to go back.

Multi-player play is very well done. On your own system, you can play with those with their own account on your system, or as a guest. They just turn on a controller, select their account (or play as a guest if they don't have an account) and they pop in at the next save point. If they don't want to play anymore, then just turn off the controller, and they will disappear, without having to leave the level. Online play is supported where you can round off your group (you can play with up to 3 other people) with strangers from online. And very nicely, any goodies collected by one person is credited to all (which is actually necessary, as there are areas labeled with the number of players you need to move through the area and collect the goodies within.)

Replay value is very high. Between gathering all the goodies (which definitely requires multiple playthroughs of levels, as you'll find stickers to trigger the switches in later levels, or later on in the level), beating every level with no deaths, and a nearly unlimited amount of community-made levels, you will never get bored.

The faults in this game are few, but they do exist. First, the ending to the Story line is cheesily stupid. It reminded me of shows like Ni Hao Kai Lan or Dora the Explorer. While I get that the story levels are just to showcase what can be done, and that this is a very family-friendly game, it still was disappointing. Also, changing depth between foreground, midground and background could get a little touchy. But no so much so as to really interfere with the game. I ran into the issue primarily when trying to get a goodie that was hidden behind something else.

The game truly lives up to it's motto: Play. Create. Share. If you enjoy gaming at all, this is a must for your collection.

Review: The Last Airbender

 Even if you haven't seen it yet, you've probably heard a lot of criticism about it. While it certainly had some problems, I did not think it was without its redeeming qualities.

The problems stemmed mostly from the changes M. Night Shamylan made. I expected a lot of changes; you can't condense an entire season of television (over 6 hours) into a movie without making some adjustments. And not all of the changes were bad.

Changing the pronunciations of the names. This was annoying, but considering that M. Night specifically adjusted the names to the Asian pronunciation, I was willing to overlook it. He didn't change the names themselves, and I could understand the change at least.

Changing firebending to require pre-existing fire. Not something I was thrilled with. The fact that firebenders could generate their element was part of what made them such a threatening element. However, this is a reasonable change, and doesn't really change the dynamic of the story that much.

One change that really bothered me though was Fire Lord Ozai. We see him walking around his palace, not silhouetted behind a wall of fire which made him far, far more intimidating and evil looking. He also seemed to have a much softer feeling for his son than he did in the series. That really irritated me. One of the main driving forces behind the story was how much the Fire Lord disliked his son. I would have to say that this, above all else, angered me more than anything about the movie.

Another thing that really bothered me about the movie was how underdeveloped both Sokka and Katara were. Neither of them were clearly defined, nor given real purpose throughout the movie. For me, this was just a half-step behind the changes to Fire Lord Ozai in terms of causing anger and damaging the movie. They didn't even develop why Sokka and Yue fell for each other, it was just "love at first sight" happy happy. (Oh, and they made Yue an orphan who ruled the Northern Water Tribe. A meaningless change that while it didn't affect the plot at all, was unneeded.)

However, I felt that Aang and Zuko were well developed, especially given the limited scope of Season 1 in this regard. All the important groundwork was laid for future episodes. We see Aang giving over to duty, and Zuko's anger and desperation to regain his honor. Uncle Iroh was also well portrayed, even if his character lost the goofy manner he had in the series. I was actually very happy with his development, and his change to a more adult and less jokerly character.

 Finally, Aang says the Avatar is not allowed to have a family. Thanks to season 3 and knowing that Avatar Roku had a family (which, while able to be worked around, provides some very important insight to events following this revelation), this was obviously bull. It's been a while since I've watched the first season, so I don't know if Aang said it then, and the creators adjusted later, but with the series in its completion, there was no reason to put it into the movie. Aang had plenty of motivation with just the stress and pressures of being the Avatar to justify his running away.

However, it was not without its upsides. M. Night kept very close to the series, and it was cool being able to say "Omg, I remember this episode!" The scenery was beautiful, and matched, by and large, the vistas in the show. The 3D effects weren't needed, but at the same time seemed to work as the 3D in James Cameron's Avatar and simply added depth, without getting the vibe of "Omg! Look at my 3D!" (I have heard that many people had issues with the the 3D making it hard to see what was going on, but the only time I had this problem was with the Spirit Dragon that replaced Roku as Aang's mentor. But he was supposed to be hard to see. Your experience may vary.)

I also liked how he put larger chunks of description and exposition into voice over by Katara, keeping awkward dialogue to a minimum, though not completely absent.

All in all, if you go in knowing that the film is flawed, I think the enjoyment level goes up immensely over what others have said about the movie. M. Night was given the difficult task of adapting an entire television season (and a largely expositional one at that as the creators laid out the Avatar world) into a movie with a largely limited time frame. While he certainly did not hit the mark, I think it is undeserving of the hate that it has received. The largest cause of problems seemed to be that he waffled between laying out the world for new viewers, as well as trying to explain his changes to the fans. I think if he had just laid it out for new viewers, it would have been received better by the fans.