Review: “The Book of Eli”

Considered the first major epic of 2010, The Book of Eli has a lot going for it: a great cast, incredible visuals, and plenty of kick-ass action.  Underneath it all, the film also has a layer  of something deeper, something that requires a little more than a suspension of disbelief.

If you haven’t heard, or guess, by now, the ‘book’ is a King James Bible.  Not just any King James Bible, the only King James Bible left on the planet.  The Book of Eli takes place several decades after a nuclear war has devastated the Earth.  American society has devolved into something akin to the Old West, with small dusty towns and roving bandits preying on people as they travel.  Eli (Denzel Washington) is a man on a mission.  He must get his Bible from one end of the country to the other.  He understands that there are those willing to kill him to take that book, and he goes to extreme measure to ensure its safety.  Gary Oldman plays Carnegie, an educated man who, like Eli, was alive in the ‘world before’.  He understands the power religion has on people and wants to use it for his own purposes.

I won’t go any further into the plot, as knowing little going into this movie will serve the viewer better.  While there can be plenty of religious and philosophical discussions that could take place as a result of this movie, there’s enough that anyone looking for an enjoyable popcorn flick will enjoy it.

Washington and Oldman are fine in their respective roles as good guy and bad guy.  Obviously, Oldman looks like he’s having a ball playing the villain, although he’s toned down quite a bit in comparison to his performances in The Professional and The Fifth Element.  Washington seems to be putting in some really good work here, and you can feel his committment to his character coming through in every scene.  The only squabble I had was with Mila Kunis’ character of Solara.  While she’s not bad, per se, I just didn’t fully believe in her character.

Visually, the directors (Albert and Allen Hughes) and their DP Don Burgess have nailed it.  If you’ve ever played the 2008 video game Fallout 3, you know that the world ain’t a pretty place after a nuclear war.  Here, not only is the environment and the general landscape desolate and barren, it’s downright haunting.  Everywhere Eli turns to there is a reminder of our current state of society (roads, cars, buildings, technology), but it’s wrapped up in this unforgiving backdrop of desperation.  The colors are desaturated to enhance its bleak look.

Also, the music fits perfectly.  Composed by Atticus Ross, the score resembles a bit of Vangelis’ score for Blade Runner, and accompanies the visuals perfectly.

The Book of Eli may turn off some with its overt tones toward religion, but I applaud screenwriter Gary Whitta for crafting something that definitely takes its chances.  It’s suspenseful, action-packed, and thematically very beautiful.

8.5/10

(images from Yahoo!)

Review Catch-Up: “Sherlock Holmes”

The famous 19th-century detective has been reimagined for today’s 21-century audiences, and has led to some mixed results.  While the film, as a whole, is enjoyable, it suffers from real stretches in logic, unnecessary scenes, and for just being too damn long.

Good news is that the acting pretty much saves this movie.

Robert Downy, Jr. (who just received a Best Actor Golden Globe for this role) plays the title character.  He’s not your stiff, well-mannered English detective; Holmes is indeed intelligent, which gives him the uncanny ability to analyze every situation, no matter how dangerous.  But, it leaves him lacking, especially int he etiquette department.  He’s constantly the social foil of his crime-fighting partner, Dr. John Watson.  Watson acts as Holmes’ agent, finding him crimes to solve.  He’s no slouch in combat either, after having spent time in the British army, Watson can hold his own in a fight alongside Holmes.  But his want of a ‘normal’ life puts him at odds with his famous detective partner.

Rounding out the cast is Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler, a former flame of Sherlock’s; Mark Strong as the seemingly immortal Lord Blackwood; and Eddie Marsan as Inspector Lastrade, Holmes’ liason to the police.  While all are good, McAdams seemed the most wasted here.  She’s a real talent, but in Sherlock Holmes, she’s reduced to playing up the sexy femme fatale role without any real ‘bite’.

I won’t go over the plot, as it becomes nonsensical (it involves some crazy rich guy’s scheme to take over England, and then the world).  What I will say about it is it leads to some great action scenes, although a few are unnecessary.  For example, during the movie Holmes and Watson investigate an apartment belonging to an underling of Lord Blackwood’s.  They get into a fight with a few thugs, including one giant Frenchman.  It’s a funny and inventive fight, but all of a sudden Holmes and the giant carry the battle to a shipyard, where it continues for another five or so minutes.  Long story short, the Frenchman gets away (as he did when he fled to the shipyard), and nothing had changed since leaving the apartment.

The shipyard scene wasn’t needed at all, and it’s scenes like that which make the movie drag into the 2-hour mark.  While I’m not saying every movie needs to come in an 90 minutes; once you breach 120 minutes, you’d better have a damn good story to back it up, and Holmes doesn’t have it.

Sherlock Holmes is still an enjoyable ride, though.  Guy Ritchie knows how to handle his visuals, with stunning views of 19th-Century London (albeit mostly CG).  Kudos also to the sound team for some great sound design.  As flawed as the story and pacing of this flick are, I can say that I’ll most definitely be watching the inevitable sequel.

7/10

(images from Yahoo!)

Review Catch-Up: “The Twilight Saga – New Moon”

I’m not a fan of the Twilight series.  I’m not against it, I’m just not the obvious target demographic for this franchise.  If all the tween girls and their moms want to read and watch it, that’s fine by me.  The only reason I actually paid money to go to the theatre to watch the latest offering was because I owed my girlfriend since I took her to see Paranormal Activity (which, needless to say, scared the crap out of her).

So, that being said, I’ll get right down to it: this movie is better than Twilight, but that’s not saying much. The acting on Kristen Stewart’s part is improved, but someone needs to give Taylor Lautner some acting lessons, quick.  Can’t really tell from Robert Pattinson, since he’s gone for much of the movie.

My issue with Twilight, which I saw only because director Katherine Hardwicke (whose Thirteen I’m a fan of) was speaking at my school and I wanted to have a better knowledge of her body of work, is that nothing happened. There’s no character development and barely any story.  Also, the whole thing felt like some made-for-TV flick on the SyFy Channel.  I know that fans of the books will come to its defense, but I’m not talking about the books.  My opinion on adaptations is that they exist separately from the source material; if you make a movie out of a book, treat the movie like a movie and not like you have to cram everything in from the book.

Now, this second movie comes along, and more stuff happens.  We do get way more character development here than we did in Twilight, but that’s also part of the problem.  New Moon is nothing but character development.  Instead of the ‘movie-of-the-week’ quality if Twilight, we get a movie that felt like a long TV episode.  We learn more about Bella and her schoolgirl obsession with Edward, more about Jacob and his infatuation with Bella.  But, what we don’t learn is that driving force behind the movie.  The only interested part I can remember is at the end, when Bella goes to Italy to save Edward.  That’s the only part in the movie that I enjoyed.

And about that Italy part.  What the hell was going on?  People dressed in red?  A vampire court that governs all vampires?  At least it was way more interesting than watching Taylor Lautner’s friends go shirtless for half the flick.  Honestly, all those boys wearing nothing but jeans made me think I was watching some gay porn fantasy or something.

Bottom line: more character development, but less story.

If this doesn't look like gay porn, I don't know what does...

If you look at the way the Bourne films are handled, they truly exist separately from the books.  The plots on the books are very different from the movies, which is fine by me.  As long as you get the mood and themes of the book across, you’ve done your job in adapting the work.  I hear they’ve got David Slade (30 Days of Night, Hard Candy) to direct, so hopefully he can inject some action into this.  It’s just so damn boring.

4.5/10

I’m the Juggernaut, Bitch!

After spending many hours with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2′s multiplayer, I’ve arrived at what I consider my best weapons and perks loadout:

Weapons:

• Riot Shield
• Any shotgun (most likely, you’ll be in CQC with the shield)
• OR throwing knife

(grenades don’t matter too much to me when I use this setup)

Perks:

• Marathon (Pro)
• Lightweight (Pro)
• Commando (Pro)

Killstreak:

• UAV
• Supply Drop
• Sentry Gun

Deathstreak:

(doesn’t matter)

Why do I like it so much?  When used properly, you are almost unstoppable.  Here’s what it can protect against (it being a shield and all): most, if not all, small arms fire; sentry guns; non-artillery/explosive fire from above (AC-130 gunships, pave-lows, Harriers, attack helicopters); frag grenades and mines; RPG’s (as long as the RPG strikes the shield directly and not your feet, you’re probably fine).

Another bonus: you get extra points for distracting opponents and for surviving attacks by sentry guns and from above, so what I like to do is, for example, stand in front of an enemy sentry gun and absorb all the hits while a teammate goes around and takes it out.  Or, rush in front of a group of enemies and hope I survive they volley of fire, while my teammates take cover nearby and start shooting.

The riot shield is also a pretty decent offensive weapon, when combined with the Commando perk (it’s especially deadly when combined with Commando Pro).  Usually, opponents don’t know how to handle a guy charging at them with a riot shield.  Their first instinct: shoot.  The problem: the riot shield will most likely protect against the gunfire.  Then, they usually back up, sometimes backing up against a corner or wall.  At that point, it’s pretty much over: two quick thrusts with the riot shield, and your opponent is dead.  The first thrust disorients the victim, second finishes them off.  Unfortunately, you can’t earn any upgrades for the riot shield.

Also, drawing your secondary will cause you to move your shield to the back.  This is particularly useful when running away from someone as the shield will protect your rear (again, as long as the bullets strike the shield and not any exposed body part, like legs).

However, this doesn’t mean the riot shield class is invincible.  The more bullets the shield absorbs, the more cracks appear to hamper your vision.  Though partially blinded with the riot shield equipped, it still doesn’t lose it’s protective capabilities.  Here’s how to take down a player (like myself) that’s using the riot shield:

• Teamwork
• Good aim
• Fast melee
• Semtex

If I’m charging at you with the shield, your best bet is probably to have a buddy nearby.  One to distract me, another to flank me and hit me from the side or rear.  As long as I’m not accompanied by a teammate, I’m dead.  If I am, I’d still probably die, but I’d get assist points for being a distraction while my teammate (hopefully) takes you and your friend out.

When charging, or moving at all, with the riot shield, your legs are exposed.  Hit my toes enough times and I go down.  Same goes for exposed shoulders and arms.

If I do manage to close on you, intent on bashing your face with the shield, you can still get the kill if you’re quick enough with the knife (or another shield).  Maneuver around me and stab me anywhere will result in a kill (works best if you have Commando Pro).  However, if I manage to hit you, it’ll make things a little harder since the first shield impact slows you down for a moment.

And the one that probably kills me the most when I use the shield: semtex explosives.  These sticky bombs stick to pretty much anything, including shields.  If it sticks to my shield, I have absolutely no way of getting it off, meaning I’m finished.  However, if I’m close enough, I could still rush you.  The resulting explosion, in close proximity to you, will kill you as well.  You’d get points for the kill, I’d get points for an assisted suicide.

Old vs New: The Resurrection of Electronic Gaming Monthly

Like many, I was totally bummed when I heard Electronic Gaming Monthly was being shut down (especially after that digital Hugh Jackman cover…ewww).  And, of course, I was totally stoked when EGM founder Steve Harris bought the mag and had plans to resurrect it sometime in 2010.  But I’ve noticed something regarding this new EGM ‘experience’ that troubles me: it sounds a lot like the old EGM.  From what I understand, Harris plans to revamp the magazine and launch it alongside a digital version (EGM[i]) and an online counterpart (EGMNOW).  Details about these new properties are slim, and I do expect that more info would be released as the launch day draws closer, but so far, it doesn’t seem like all that much has changed.  Area 5 will produce video content for EGMNOW, which sounds a lot like the stuff Ryan O’Donell and Co. did for 1UP.com, Dan Hsu and the good folks here at Bitmob will contribute editorial and news, and they will all tie together somehow for a seamless integration of print and internet media.  Which is what 1UP said they were doing when they were part of Ziff-Davis.

Don’t take this as some sort of negative criticism of how I think 1UP sucks or that the new EGM is going to fail; I still enjoy 1UP.com and continue to read articles and features posted there.  I also watch Area 5’s CO-OP show (being a huge fan of the 1UP Show, myself), and, of course, I’ve been reading blog posts and editorial here at Bitmob.  Given the great opportunity Mr. Harris has to completely revamp his EGM brand, I just don’t want to see it wasted on something that has been tried before, and has met with mixed results.  Now, I can’t speak much of what I’d want to see done differently for the online features, given that the internet is still an evolving medium, but print has been around since the first Bible rolled off the press (like 10 zillion B.C. or something), and I think we all have our own opinions of what works and doesn’t work in a magazine.

What I don’t want to see in a video game magazine are:

1) Reviews
2) News
3) Hints, guides, or cheats

I believe it was one of the latest episodes of 4 Guys 1UP, where they had Hsu and some of the Bitmob guys discussing their roles in the new EGM.  I believe they mentioned something about doing game reviews for the magazine, and this automatically started setting off alarms in my head.  My thing with print is that it is less and also more convenient than online media.  You don’t get the immediacy of online with print, but you don’t need an internet or phone signal to be able to pull out a magazine and read it.  If a review is in the magazine, who cares?  It’ll probably be old news, and that reviewer may have already posted it online somewhere else.  The internet is full or instant access, from watching TV shows on Hulu whenever I want, to browsing RSS and Twitter feeds for the latest news.  Everything is NOW, NOW, NOW on the internet.  Even though I said I read features on 1UP, it’s usually pretty rare, as I’m accustomed to perusing stories and only fully reading maybe a handful of articles (game reviews I generally read all of, since I prefer an explanation of a score, rather than a score itself).

That makes any kind of ‘breaking news’ or ‘exclusive review’ almost non-existent for a magazine.  If it’s in print, it has probably already been online for days.  So, where does that leave the brand-new Electronic Gaming Monthly?

I think the magazine should focus on the gaming lifestyle rather than the business.  I always enjoyed reading the interviews with the developers, like the ‘Afterthoughts’ segment of EGM.  Let me read about how Street Fighter IV fans are getting ready for the latest tourney, or what developers and publishers think of the potty mouths on Xbox Live, or the gradual merging of the “casual gamers” crowd into “hardcore” gamers.  Don’t give me the latest NPD numbers, show me the gamer that paid the money which fuels those numbers.

Um... no, thank you.

Also, while I appreciate the idea of combining print and internet, I disliked how, in the old Electronic Gaming Monthly, some articles pointed you to 1UP.com to “read more interview questions with the developers”, or “for more on this story, go to 1UP.com.” My thoughts were always, “I’ve already read what I wanted to; I’m not going to bother going to a computer, punch in the web address, find the story, and read the continuation.  If they wanted me to go to the website to read this article, they should just post the whole thing online instead of having me pay a subscription to read only part of it.”

In short, I want a reason to stuff a paper magazine in my bag as I catch a ride on the BART.  Why should I flip through real pages when I can pull out my phone and read while on my lunch break?  Again, I don’t mean to criticize anyone or Steve Harris’ latest endeavor, especially since the public hasn’t yet seen what it is he’s trying to do.  I just don’t want the same old magazine.  I do trust the talent behind this project, and I will still pick up the very first issue once it’s released. I wish nothing but the best for the new Electronic Gaming Monthly team.

Review: “Avatar – The IMAX 3D Experience”

I’ll admit it, I was a bit down on this movie since the first screens started popping up on the Internet.  James Cameron is an amazing filmmaker and all (Terminator 2: Judgment Day is one of the best films of all time, in my opinion), but there wasn’t anything I was seeing that made me go “Yes, I will support this film unconditionally.”  Even when I went to a screening of 15 minutes of IMAX 3D footage, I was still unimpressed.  Don’t get me wrong, the visuals looked amazing; the story, however, still wasn’t captivating me.  But, when tickets went on sale for midnight on opening day, I was all in.  Regardless of the story, I love movie spectacle, and at the very least, this promised to be quite the spectacle.

Avatar takes place on a distant planet called Pandora (technically a moon, since it’s orbiting a much larger body).  Pandora is home to a rare mineral called Unobtanium (pun possibly intentional), as well as the world’s native species called the Na’vi.  Earth wants the Unobtanium, and has hired military contractors to go in and extract the mineral from the planet, thinking nothing of the Na’vi.  As you can imagine, it creates conflict between the natives and the humans.

Attempting to find a peaceful resolution, Grace (Sigourney Weaver), a scientist studying the Na’vi, has developed a unique way of communicating with them via avatars: genetically engineered bodies that look just like the Na’vi, but the ‘mind’ is inhabited by a human through some crazy scientific process that involves sleep.  Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is a former Marine, now a paraplegic.  His brother was one of the chosen few accepted into this avatar program.  His brother is now dead, and since the two of them were identical twins, Sully is picked to replace his brother and use his avatar to gain the trust of the local Na’vi.  The military, lead by Col. Quaritch (Stephen Lang) want a local Na’vi tribe to relocate away from their massive ‘hometree’ in order for a greedy company, headed by Miles Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) to begin excavation.

Long story short, Sully and a few others begin siding with the Na’vi and an uprising begins that pits all the tribes of the Na’vi against the smaller, yet far more technologically advanced group of military contractors.

This movie will probably go down in history as the most expensive flick ever made (so far).  Some reports have it at $200 million, funded primarily through the distributor, 20th Century Fox.  Others have it at around $500 million (that’s half a billion dollars folks), funded partly by Fox, and the rest through Cameron and other investors.  The reason for the hefty price tag: a new, state of the art 3D camera system, dubbed the ‘Pace-Cameron Fusion’ camera system.  It’s so cutting edge, that rumor has it Spielberg, Lucas, and Jackson were all giddy like schoolkids when they were allowed time with the cameras.

Well, regardless of what it really cost, every frame of this film is gorgeous.  The 3D technology here is leaps and bounds ahead of other live-action 3D (like My Bloody Valentine 3D).  For one, it didn’t hurt my eyes every time I tried to refocus on something else.  Also, the depth of field is amazing.  The way they use 3D here really allows the camera to feel like its inside the space it’s filming, regardless of whether that space is a CG grassy plain, or a real studio set dressed to look like science lab.  There’s not a moment when you don’t see where all that money went.

Area 5 Media co-founder Matt Chandronait tweeted that it’s the first time the uncanny valley has been crossed in film. While I believe the CG is still not that good just yet, it’s still damn pretty.  When a real hand touches CG skin, it looks like it’s touching something, and not just empty air.  Things look like they have weight and presence in the environment, and the blending of real and fantasy is almost seamless at times.  Just watching the hair on the Na’vi was impressive.

The cast is also very good here.  For a film that’s mostly CG inhabited by real people, the actors do a great job ‘living in their environments’.  I give kudos to the great Stephen Lang, who was also in this summer’s Public Enemies (and had a great turn in the Civil War epics Gettysburg and Gods and Generals).  Lang is fantastic as the xenophobic Quaritch.

So now, let’s get to what I found slightly lacking in this film.

The story is basically a rehash of FernGully: The Last Rainforest.  Evil corporation comes in, wanting to destroy nature for resources and profit.  Band of technologically disadvantaged natives must fight back in order to protect their home.  Nothing new here.  What is impressive is the world that James Cameron has built.  Roger Ebert compared this film to Star Wars, in that a complete world was created from scratch; the people, the customs, the plants all have some kind of meaning.  In fact, the Na’vi speak of an energy force that a lot like Lucas’ concept of The Force.

Unfortunately, the overall story arc left me wanting more.  The entire movie was like an anti-war film wrapped up in a green message.  A lot of the references made, such as ‘fighting terror with terror’ would’ve been relevant in 2005, but instead made the audience chuckle and shake their heads when we heard it.  And as much as I enjoyed Stephen Lang, none of the villains here had any real depth.  Here’s the bad guy, and he’s bad.  Here are the good guys, and they’re misunderstood, so they must be good.  Only Worthington’s Sully goes through any change throughout the entire 2 1/2hr+ run time.

In comparison, when you look at Terminator 2, all the main characters (the Terminator, John, and Sarah Connor) go through some kind of change.  John finds a father figure in the robotic assassin, in robot actually learns to understand and even have human emotions, and Sarah learns to finally trust and to live like a human again.  In Avatar, Quaritch is a bad guy through  and through, Selfridge us a selfish dick (pun probably intended there, too), and Grace is a compassionate humanitarian who probably wishes she were one of the aliens.  Even supporting characters like Michelle Rodriguez’s pilot Trudy don’t really go through a change (at least not one that’s fleshed out).

And although I liked the visuals of the film, I still don’t believe the 3D added anything to this story.  Sure, it looked awesome, but was there anything in the plot that warranted developing an entirely new filmmaking technique for?  I don’t think so.  The story was entertaining at best.

James Cameron’s Avatar is one of those few films that has the word E-P-I-C written all over it.  Not since 2005’s Revenge of the Sith has there been such cinematic spectacle as this.  Underneath it all, Cameron still knows how to tell a pretty fun story.  While the plot may be cliché, there’s no denying that it’s still damn fun to watch, and you don’t ever really get bored.  Avatar would probably have no problem making its way onto Best Films of the Year Lists.  Also, the film’s Golden Globe nod is also well-deserved (could an Oscar nom be far behind?).  It’s a solid, well-made science fiction epic, the likes of which haven’t been seen since 1977.

8.5/10

The IMAX 3D EXPERIENCE

I feel I must address my experience dealing specifically with IMAX and the whole 3D presentation in the theatre.  For the first 20 minutes or so, my girlfriend and I did not see anything in 3D.  Why?  I had the wrong 3D glasses. We’ve been using the same pair of glasses for 3D flicks for about a year now, and the only reason is because all the 3D theatres use the same 3D projection tech.

Not IMAX.

I’m assuming it’s because the way the screen is curved, and the fact that the print is 70mm (twice as big as traditional 35mm), it requires special glasses.  I had to get up, go outside, and ask for the proper ones.  Once everything was OK, I was finally able to marvel at the visual brilliance of the film.

If you’re going to see this movie, you need to see this in IMAX.  Some movies it won’t matter (Monsters vs Aliens, Star Trek), but for Avatar, IMAX 3D is the way James Cameron intended the movie to be shown.  Now, I’m not saying you won’t enjoy it in a regular 2D theatre (like I mentioned previously, the story doesn’t warrant itself a 3D presentation), but rarely does a film come along that demands this kind of attention, that almost requires you to shell out the big bucks for a $15+ movie ticket.  It’s like having a home theatre system: there are some movies that just need the best presentation possible in order to be fully immersed in it.

Review Catch-Up: “Ninja Assassin”

I may be alone on this one, but I wasn’t the biggest fan of James McTeigue’s V For Vendetta.  I didn’t hate the movie, in fact I’ll say I liked it.  However, it wouldn’t be on my top 5 of greatest comic book adaptations list.  When I heard he was working on a ninja movie, starring none other than Asian sensation Rain, I was skeptical.  I told myself that I’d see anyway, since it was a movie focusing solely on ninjas, and we haven’t had a movie like that in a while (Last Samurai doesn’t count; it was about samurais).

Ninja Assassin barely has a plot.  It’s about a ninja, Raizo (Rain), who rebels against his clan, choosing the path of peace over killing for hire.  He travels the world, trying to expose his clan to the public.  Unfortunately, there’s not much peace for him, as his actions have brought dishonor to his mentor, Ozunu (the great Sho Kosugi).  In retaliation, Ozunu has unleashed his entire clan to bring down Raizo.  Then there’s Mika (Naomi Harris), a Europol agent who’s investigating a string of political assassinations which may all be related.  Her hunt for evidence has put her on the list of Ozunu’s enemies.

If that sounds like a decent story (and it could be, given the proper medium, like comic book), it’s an afterthought here.  The movie’s 90-minute runtime is commanded by a) fight scenes, and b) flashbacks that fill in Raizo’s backstory.  Generally, things like flashbacks and voice-overs are frowned upon in the screenwriting world as ‘lazy storytelling’, and while I’m not going to fault this movie for having flashbacks, I will say that there’s too many of them, and every time we see one, I get bored.  I want to see ninjas fighting.

And you see that.  In spades.

I thought the name Ninja Assassin was stupid.  I mean, it’s kind of redundant, right?  Aren’t ninjas already assassins?  But then, watching this movie, I realized that Raizo assassinates other ninjas.  Get it?  He’s a ninja assassin!  And if I thought V for Vendetta was a little slow and boring, Ninja Assassin is the exact opposite for most of the movie.  The story is inconsequential, this flick is all about ninjas versus thugs, ninjas versus some crazy army/police force, ninjas versus other ninjas.

McTeigue and his stunt team have crafted some ridiculously awesome fight scenes.  And these aren’t quick, 30-second, quickly edited fight; some go one for minutes at a time.  And, there’s probably a fight scene every 10 minutes or so.  One particularly stands out: the setup is an abandoned warehouse being used as a command post by Europol.  Mika is the target.  You’d think being surrounded by dozens and dozens of trained guys with automatics would offer some protection.  Ozunu’s ninjas make short work of them, but Raizo makes short work of the ninjas.  Watching the excellently choreographed fights make me want to just jump around and kick people.  And, this fight scene lasts for the better part of 10 minutes.

What I also appreciated was that the movie kept a bit of the mystery surrounding ‘the ninja’.  They move with inhuman speed and can stalk their prey from, literally, the shadows, using the darkness to appear and disappear.  These aren’t The Foot Clan from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, these are trained, merciless killers.  I also didn’t expect the movie to be this gory.  The blood flows freely, only stopping when the blades stop moving.

With a title like Ninja Assassin, you probably already know what to expect from this movie.  Lots and lots and lots of fighting.  For action or martial arts fans, this is a can’t-miss kinda movie.

7.5/10

Review Catch-Up: “2012″

Run!  It’s the end of the world!  Or so Roland Emmerich would have you believe.  First, he sent aliens to destroy us, then Godzilla came stomping around New York City, and next he froze the world with an ice age.  Now, he throws absolutely everything into a blender in hopes of creating the ultimate disaster movie.  What comes out is stupid, cheesy, and over-the-top.  But it’s also a pretty fun ride.

Plot is of no consequence here, but I’ll give a rundown anyway.  It’s the year 2012, the same year the Mayans supposedly predicted the end of the world.  It’s also the same year there’s a once-in-several-thousand-years alignment of the planets in our solar system, an event that has some negative effects on our sun’s solar flares.  The Earth heats up and the core melts, causing the plates on which our continents sit on to shift around.  Thus, all hell breaks loose as the world is restructured after some dramatic earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, tsunamis, etc.

The governments of the world aren’t exactly sitting around doing nothing.  The U.S. has sent Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to get to the bottom of this.  Meanwhile, the governments plan for a contingency: ride out the storm of all storms on gigantic ships designed to ensure the survival of mankind.  In the middle of it all is Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a failed writer-turned-limo-driver.  He helps his family outrun the end of the world, trying to find a safe place on a planet where there are no safe places.  Anywhere.  Oh yeah, Woody Harrelson is in it as a crazed conspiracy theorist, and Oliver Platt is great as Helmsley’s boss, who is a general asshole.

The real highlight of this movie are the visual effects.  With every movie that Emmerich does, he attempts to outdo himself.  Well, I find it hard for anyone to outdo all the CG carnage featured here.  Yes, there are giant waves hundreds of feet high.  Yes, there are earthquakes that swallow entire cities whole.  Yes, an aircraft carrier gets lifted and tossed onto the White House.  Did I also mention the destruction of Hawaii, a volcanic explosion akin to a nuclear bomb, or the entire state California sliding into the ocean?!  If nature can do it, it’s done here.

I don’t really have too much to say as to why I enjoyed this movie so much.  If this movie piques your interest even in the slightest way, check it out before it leaves theatres.  This is one of those that must be enjoyed on a giant screen with thousands of watts of sound blasting in your ears.  Sure, the plot is dumb, but the actors all seem to have a good time, and if you go in with your expectations in check, you’ll come out with a smile on your face.

7.5/10

Review Catch-up: “Where the Wild Things Are”

Having vaguely remembered the beloved Maurice Sendak children’s book, I went into Spike Jonze’s latest with absolutely no expectations.  And I walked away fairly impressed.

Where the Wild Things Are, in case you haven’t heard, is actually not a children’s movie.  In fact, parents, or adults in general that have read the book, may enjoy it more.  Jonze and co-screenwriter David Eggers have crafted a story that is not about the whimsical nature of youth or imagination, but one that deals with the theme of ‘belonging’.  Young Max (Max Records) is a hyper, imaginative young boy who is still coming to terms with his parents’ divorce.  His mother (Catherine Keener) works hard to support Max and his older sister, but is also on the lookout of a new love.

Skipping over the family drama bits, Max finds himself in a strange land across the sea, a land populated by creatures several times his size.  Most are human-like in speech and behavior, but still retain an element of scariness to them (the sharp teeth don’t exactly endear them to Max).  It is in the world that Max sets himself up to be the king, ruler of all.  Not in a malicious way, but only to help his new friends, especially Carol (voiced by James Gandolfini).  Only when he deals with the responsibilities of being king does he understand how hard it is to make everyone happy, even when the best solution is compromise.

What I find fascinating about this movie are the lessons that he learns while being king, and how they can apply to Max’s “real world”.  There isn’t a sitcom-esque moment where Max has some kind of epiphany and realizes what the real problem is.  In fact, that moment is implied and never really underscored.  Much like in real life, there aren’t really any moments where you can pause and reflect upon your lessons; you’re constantly being challenged to apply the new teachings.  All of the themes of loss, divorce, love, etc come into play during Max’s time among the Wild Things, and he comes back a more enlightened kid because of it.

Many of the themes will probably fly over kids’ heads, which is why critics have said that it’s much less of a children’s flick than it “should” be.  Still, it’s entertaining and certainly ranks among Spike Jonze’s best.

7.5/10

More Microsoft Woes…

OK, so continuing on my previous post regarding my cousin’s Xbox 360 repair debacle, I got some things clarified from him.

What I thought originally was that Microsoft had sent him a different consoles (a broken one) than the one he mailed to them.  That would’ve made it Microsoft’s problem.  Turns out, Microsoft told him that when they received the console, it was already missing the faceplate and the serial number was different than the one that he registered.  Which leads me to believe that something happened on the UPS end (like someone stealing 360’s).

Once Microsoft received my cousin’s 360 (which, if my suspicions are correct, technically wasn’t even his) they promptly sent it back, along with a letter.

This is what he got the in mail earlier this week:

What’s really amusing is the letter.  It’s in Spanish.  We haven’t bothered to get it translated yet, but maybe I will.