Wrath of the Titans is the sequel to the 2010's Clash of the Titans, a remake of the cheesy 1981 version. If you remember there was a backlash to Clash since it was a quick 3D conversion designed to take advantage of 2009's 3D blockbuster Avatar. Moviegoers felt cheated because there was nothing special about the 3D effects. And frankly, it did well enough as a 3D movie that it started a stream of 3D conversions to make their way to the theaters. Clash also did well enough for Warner to make a sequel. And get this, they had the chutzpah to make the sequel a 3D conversion.
Liam Neeson is back as Zeus. This time he comes to his son Perseus (Sam Worthington) with a problem. It seems that the Titans, the forerunners of the gods are breaking away from the Hades prison of Tartarus. Perseus refuses to fight since he is now a peaceful fisherman. In an attempt to stop the Titans, Zeus enters Hades. But he is captured by his son Ares (Edgar Ramirez) , god of war and Hades. (Ralph Fiennes) Ares and Hades plan to release Kronos, the father of the gods. And well since Kronos will probably destroy every human being on earth, that just isn't good.
What convinces Perseus, is a Chimera attacks his village. After Perseus dispatches the monster, he goes to seek the help of Queen Andromeda (Rosamund Pike) who he saved in the first movie. She and her Greek armies are at war with the monsters being released from Tartarus. With the help of Poseidon's demigod son Agenor (Toby Kebbell) , they travel to find god Hephaestus (Bill Nighy) who knows the way to Tartarus. Once there, they find the only way to defeat Kronos is to form a superweapon from Zeus' Thunderbolt, Hades' Pitchfork and Poseidon's Trident. All three form a magical spear.
To be honest, I was enthralled with the first twenty to thirty minutes. Peseaus' battle with the Chimera was a big WOW. But director Jonathan Liebesman makes the same mistake that filmmakers make when filming a maze scene. Much of it is first person or behind the backs of the actors to show the audience that our heroes are lost. And it's the maze to Tartarus that is where the movie gets lost. It's confusing and that drains the energy.
Still, writers Dan Mazeau, David Leslie Johnson and Greg Berlanti have crafted a good story. They inject some funny lines. I wish there was more of Hephaestus. There were some logic issues. I mean I don't remember from mythology that gods could die. One wishes that the writers and Liebesman could have put more of a climatic battle at the end. I mean the two headed warrior monster thing was cool. But there really needed more of them.
With a movie like this, it would have been easy for the actors to play their parts with a wink in their eye. Thankfully, everybody takes their parts seriously. Neeson and Fiennes are powerful as Greek gods. Sam Worthington knows when to deliver a funny line and when to play it straight. Bill Nighy steals every scene he's in with his goofy Hephaestus. And Rosamund Pike is regal and lovely to look at.
Director Liebesman previously stated that the movie would be shot in 2D and while it was being shot, care would be taken to set up the 3D effects. It shows to a certain degree. The lighting is better than most conversions. CGI effects have depth. It's good as conversions go. But you cannot make a 2D movie look as good as one shot in 3D. The technology cannot replicate every nook and cranny of an object that light casts on it. There's nothing in Wrath that made me say 3D was worth the extra bucks.
There are nice doses of action and humor in Wrath of the Titans. It's not going to make anyone forget Jason and the Argonauts but it's still a fun time at the theater. The grade is B.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
The Mass Effect 3 Ending Controversy
IF you're a Mass Effect fan, you've probably heard of the backlash by some gamers of Mass Effect 3's ending. The protests range from the rather dour end to the lack of differences in the ending to the story finish being unfulfilling. I'm going to tell you the real problems with the ending and why the protesters are ultimately wrong.
SPOILER ALERT. If you don't want to know the anything about the end to Mass Effect 3, stop reading. Additionally, I'm going to assume that if you want to know about what's wrong with the end and why the protesters are wrong that you have finished the game. That way I won't waste too much time explaining how your Shepard gets to the finish.
A. THE THREE ENDINGS
The Catalyst gives you three choices on how to stop the Reapers. To get all three choices, you must have a high enough Effective Military Strength. (EMS) This score must be higher than 2800 according to Mass Effect Wikipedia's article on the Priority: Earth mission. Catalyst opens three paths for you. By the way, there is a point of no return. If you go too far up one path you cannot change your mind. Here are the choices.
1. Destroy All Synthetic Life. This requires you to go up the right ramp. Shot the power conduit. That destroys it and cause an explosion. Red energy bolts from the Crucible. The Reapers are killed but so are the Geth. i'm also guessing that EDI won't make it since she does not come out of the wrecked Normandy. According to Mass Effect Wikipedia, if you have at least 4000 EMS score, Shepard survives or at least looks like it. Since you see his chest take a breath. Some label this the Renegade path and I can see that but the other two must vie for Paragon since one is more diplomatic than the other. Video below.
2. Control the Reapers. Ah, this is the Illusive Man's idea, only this time the Catalyst won't control you but allow you to control the Reapers. Go up the left path and access the control panel. You control the Reapers and order them to retreat. Blue energy bolts from the Crucible. You also end up dying in the process. Some consider this the Paragon ending. Video below.
3. Syntheis. Go down the middle and jump into the beam, combining your DNA with the... oh, I'm guessing with synthetic life. A green bolt of energy erupts from the Crucible. Reapers retreat. You have combined organic and synthetic life. Unfortunately, you die in the process. Now here's the best part. When Joker emerges from the crashed Normandy, he's with EDI. They look at the new planet and hug. I consider this the true Paragon ending since you create harmony among organic and synthetic life. Video below.
B. THE REAL PROBLEMS WITH THE ENDING
The first problem that I have with the ending is more with the writing than the actual ending. I don't have a problem with the somewhat sad endings. After all, didn't Halo: Reach end on a sad note? The exposition is lacking. First, Catalyst should tell the player how to execute the ending. For example, he could have said "Access the control panel on your left. You will control the Reapers." Yeah, they showed you what looked like Anderson shooting at the power conduit and the Illusive Man accessing the control panel. Still, it was confusing. I went to explore and was locked into an unwanted decision.
Second, the lack of exposition with the Normandy is a problem. I thought the bolt of energy from the Crucible only effected Reaper forces. Still, there's a scene where Joker is piloting the ship and trying to get her out of the way of the energy bolt. Okay. But why not have some dialogue to tell us what's happening. Then there should be a scene and dialogue where he makes jump to light speed and crashes the ship on a planet not earth.
Third, the game penalizes the single player. Look, if you want the ending where Shepard might live, you have to get a high EMS number. EMS is calculated by multiplying War Assets times the Readiness rating. Multiplayer gamers can get the Readiness rating up. For single player, your Readiness rating will be at 50 per cent. Obviously, the higher the Readiness rating the higher the EMS number. A single player must depend on collecting as many War Assets as possible.
If BioWare were thinking about changing anything, it's in this area. More exposition would be nice. And find a way for single players to get higher EMS scores.
C. WHY THE PROTESTERS ARE WRONG AND WHY THE ENDING IS BASICALLY FINE.
I believe video games are art. The Mass Effect series is an epic game series. But more importantly, it's a platform to tell a story. It's no different than a science fiction novel. This is writer Mac Walters game or if you will, novel. While he must respect his audience, he must be allowed to tell his story free from pressure of the masses. That way, his ideas have integrity.
There is nothing wrong with the way Mass Effect 3 ended. The whole game had a feel of desperation. Why? The Reapers were romping all over the galaxy and it seems nothing could stop them. The protesters can't honestly think that a sad ending may not happen. Think about how diminished Casablanca would be if the audience demanded Ilsa go with Rick. I commend Walters and BioWare for not pandering for the need for a Hollywood happy ending.
As for the lack of choices in the ending, I urge those protesters to try all three endings. The Renegade ending may kill all the Reapers but it eliminates the Geth. Controlling the Reapers may not stop the problem in the future. And if you combine synthetic life with organic, you get a new galaxy of new life forms. Those are three endings with different consequences.
I liked the ending. The world was in real trouble. It looks like civilized life was over. And over for many planets. You or Shepard did something heroic. He sacrificed himself for the greater good. Check out the hopeful epilogue with the Stargazer and the little boy. (End of the first video above.) I love the use of the original, meditative music from the first Mass Effect. It has a lovely warmth. Perhaps that is the happy end that some of you want.
SPOILER ALERT. If you don't want to know the anything about the end to Mass Effect 3, stop reading. Additionally, I'm going to assume that if you want to know about what's wrong with the end and why the protesters are wrong that you have finished the game. That way I won't waste too much time explaining how your Shepard gets to the finish.
A. THE THREE ENDINGS
The Catalyst gives you three choices on how to stop the Reapers. To get all three choices, you must have a high enough Effective Military Strength. (EMS) This score must be higher than 2800 according to Mass Effect Wikipedia's article on the Priority: Earth mission. Catalyst opens three paths for you. By the way, there is a point of no return. If you go too far up one path you cannot change your mind. Here are the choices.
1. Destroy All Synthetic Life. This requires you to go up the right ramp. Shot the power conduit. That destroys it and cause an explosion. Red energy bolts from the Crucible. The Reapers are killed but so are the Geth. i'm also guessing that EDI won't make it since she does not come out of the wrecked Normandy. According to Mass Effect Wikipedia, if you have at least 4000 EMS score, Shepard survives or at least looks like it. Since you see his chest take a breath. Some label this the Renegade path and I can see that but the other two must vie for Paragon since one is more diplomatic than the other. Video below.
2. Control the Reapers. Ah, this is the Illusive Man's idea, only this time the Catalyst won't control you but allow you to control the Reapers. Go up the left path and access the control panel. You control the Reapers and order them to retreat. Blue energy bolts from the Crucible. You also end up dying in the process. Some consider this the Paragon ending. Video below.
3. Syntheis. Go down the middle and jump into the beam, combining your DNA with the... oh, I'm guessing with synthetic life. A green bolt of energy erupts from the Crucible. Reapers retreat. You have combined organic and synthetic life. Unfortunately, you die in the process. Now here's the best part. When Joker emerges from the crashed Normandy, he's with EDI. They look at the new planet and hug. I consider this the true Paragon ending since you create harmony among organic and synthetic life. Video below.
B. THE REAL PROBLEMS WITH THE ENDING
The first problem that I have with the ending is more with the writing than the actual ending. I don't have a problem with the somewhat sad endings. After all, didn't Halo: Reach end on a sad note? The exposition is lacking. First, Catalyst should tell the player how to execute the ending. For example, he could have said "Access the control panel on your left. You will control the Reapers." Yeah, they showed you what looked like Anderson shooting at the power conduit and the Illusive Man accessing the control panel. Still, it was confusing. I went to explore and was locked into an unwanted decision.
Second, the lack of exposition with the Normandy is a problem. I thought the bolt of energy from the Crucible only effected Reaper forces. Still, there's a scene where Joker is piloting the ship and trying to get her out of the way of the energy bolt. Okay. But why not have some dialogue to tell us what's happening. Then there should be a scene and dialogue where he makes jump to light speed and crashes the ship on a planet not earth.
Third, the game penalizes the single player. Look, if you want the ending where Shepard might live, you have to get a high EMS number. EMS is calculated by multiplying War Assets times the Readiness rating. Multiplayer gamers can get the Readiness rating up. For single player, your Readiness rating will be at 50 per cent. Obviously, the higher the Readiness rating the higher the EMS number. A single player must depend on collecting as many War Assets as possible.
If BioWare were thinking about changing anything, it's in this area. More exposition would be nice. And find a way for single players to get higher EMS scores.
C. WHY THE PROTESTERS ARE WRONG AND WHY THE ENDING IS BASICALLY FINE.
I believe video games are art. The Mass Effect series is an epic game series. But more importantly, it's a platform to tell a story. It's no different than a science fiction novel. This is writer Mac Walters game or if you will, novel. While he must respect his audience, he must be allowed to tell his story free from pressure of the masses. That way, his ideas have integrity.
There is nothing wrong with the way Mass Effect 3 ended. The whole game had a feel of desperation. Why? The Reapers were romping all over the galaxy and it seems nothing could stop them. The protesters can't honestly think that a sad ending may not happen. Think about how diminished Casablanca would be if the audience demanded Ilsa go with Rick. I commend Walters and BioWare for not pandering for the need for a Hollywood happy ending.
As for the lack of choices in the ending, I urge those protesters to try all three endings. The Renegade ending may kill all the Reapers but it eliminates the Geth. Controlling the Reapers may not stop the problem in the future. And if you combine synthetic life with organic, you get a new galaxy of new life forms. Those are three endings with different consequences.
I liked the ending. The world was in real trouble. It looks like civilized life was over. And over for many planets. You or Shepard did something heroic. He sacrificed himself for the greater good. Check out the hopeful epilogue with the Stargazer and the little boy. (End of the first video above.) I love the use of the original, meditative music from the first Mass Effect. It has a lovely warmth. Perhaps that is the happy end that some of you want.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Stephen Colbert and the TacoCopter
Stephen Colbert does a very funny piece on the idea of delivering tacos by little robot helicopters. Check out his hilarious video piece.
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Stephen Colbert takes on gun buying hysteria
Stephen Colbert takes a look at the right-wing hysteria over President Obama's alleged desire to take away our guns. From the head of the NRA to all the crazy people trying to buy guns because they believe in some liberal plot by Obama to destroy the Second Amendment, Stephen Colbert in his funny way tells the conservatives that there is no proof. That's because Obama and the Democrats haven't pass any anti-gun legislation. Check out Stephen's funny video.
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Saturday, March 24, 2012
The Hunger Games Review
The executives at Lionsgate must have salivated when they decided to make The Hunger Games. It has the Twilight formula. Take best selling young adults book. Set said movie in a science fiction- fantasy world. And here's the important part, make sure the heroes are teenagers and have a love story with them. Voila. Hollywood blockbuster. Of course, it isn't that easy. A crappy teenage movie may not sell.
The Hunger Games is based on Suzanne Collins' best selling young adult novel of the same name. Taking place in the future, the government has divided the country into twelve districts. Because of a past rebellion, the government orders each district to send a male and female teenager from 12-18 to compete in "The Hunger Games" in which the teenagers fight to the death. The games are broadcast nationwide, with cameras everywhere in the wooded arena. It's part reality show, and gladiator contest. The games have their own obnoxious talk show hosted by Caesar Flickerman. (Stanley Tucci) And overseeing this dystopian future is President Coriolanus Snow. (Donald Sutherland)
District Twelve is a dirt poor district where mining is a primary source of income for the residents. Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) is adept at hunting with a bow to provide food for her indigent family. When Katniss' younger sister is chosen, she volunteers to take her place. Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) is also chosen from the district. Training them is alcoholic Haymitch Abernathy. (Woody Harrelson) He teaches them more than just how to kill each other, he teaches them about being popular so they can get sponsors. Sponsors are those people who may fly in medicine on a parachute if a contestant needs it. Peeta plays the game well, when he tells Flickerman on his show that he is in love with Katniss.
As I was watching the movie, I wondered what was the rebellion about that caused this dystopian society. I thought why would these games have a calming effect on the masses. After all, wouldn't this barbarism cause an uprising more than once? And that is one of the problems with The Hunger Games. We are not thinking but reacting. Director Gary Ross (Dave, Seabiscuit) knows how to pull the heart strings. But his movie lacks smarts. Then there is the uneven make-up, costumes and art direction. The District Twelve scenes look they belong to The Coal Miner's Daughter not the future. And what about that make-up, and hair? Elizabeth Banks character, Effie Trinket, looks like she was dipped in seventeenth century foppishness. Flickerman's blue hair looks ludicrous. Yeah, it might be in the book but it's a bad idea for the movie because it's too over the top in a distracting way.
But even with those problems, the movie takes off during the training scenes. It's all set up by a video flashback where a previous winner is looking at a bloody stone used to kill his final competitor. Director Ross gets great performances from his actors. There's a tension to them. And that comes across the screen. You feel dread because except for one, all these kids will die. When the game is on, Ross' direction is tight. He certainly knows how to stage a scene. The movie occasionally makes a mistake like a flashback in the middle of the game but those missteps are few.
Don't go to The Hunger Games looking for cerebral moviemaking. The gladiator type conflict was done much better in the original Star Trek episode, "Arena" because it was smarter. The Hunger Games is a teenage version of Gladiator. (2000) Still, The Hunger Games is an emotional thriller. The grade is B.
The Hunger Games is based on Suzanne Collins' best selling young adult novel of the same name. Taking place in the future, the government has divided the country into twelve districts. Because of a past rebellion, the government orders each district to send a male and female teenager from 12-18 to compete in "The Hunger Games" in which the teenagers fight to the death. The games are broadcast nationwide, with cameras everywhere in the wooded arena. It's part reality show, and gladiator contest. The games have their own obnoxious talk show hosted by Caesar Flickerman. (Stanley Tucci) And overseeing this dystopian future is President Coriolanus Snow. (Donald Sutherland)
District Twelve is a dirt poor district where mining is a primary source of income for the residents. Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) is adept at hunting with a bow to provide food for her indigent family. When Katniss' younger sister is chosen, she volunteers to take her place. Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) is also chosen from the district. Training them is alcoholic Haymitch Abernathy. (Woody Harrelson) He teaches them more than just how to kill each other, he teaches them about being popular so they can get sponsors. Sponsors are those people who may fly in medicine on a parachute if a contestant needs it. Peeta plays the game well, when he tells Flickerman on his show that he is in love with Katniss.
As I was watching the movie, I wondered what was the rebellion about that caused this dystopian society. I thought why would these games have a calming effect on the masses. After all, wouldn't this barbarism cause an uprising more than once? And that is one of the problems with The Hunger Games. We are not thinking but reacting. Director Gary Ross (Dave, Seabiscuit) knows how to pull the heart strings. But his movie lacks smarts. Then there is the uneven make-up, costumes and art direction. The District Twelve scenes look they belong to The Coal Miner's Daughter not the future. And what about that make-up, and hair? Elizabeth Banks character, Effie Trinket, looks like she was dipped in seventeenth century foppishness. Flickerman's blue hair looks ludicrous. Yeah, it might be in the book but it's a bad idea for the movie because it's too over the top in a distracting way.
But even with those problems, the movie takes off during the training scenes. It's all set up by a video flashback where a previous winner is looking at a bloody stone used to kill his final competitor. Director Ross gets great performances from his actors. There's a tension to them. And that comes across the screen. You feel dread because except for one, all these kids will die. When the game is on, Ross' direction is tight. He certainly knows how to stage a scene. The movie occasionally makes a mistake like a flashback in the middle of the game but those missteps are few.
Don't go to The Hunger Games looking for cerebral moviemaking. The gladiator type conflict was done much better in the original Star Trek episode, "Arena" because it was smarter. The Hunger Games is a teenage version of Gladiator. (2000) Still, The Hunger Games is an emotional thriller. The grade is B.
Hell freezes over; Bengals hire more scouts
Holy sh*t. The Cincinnati Bengals added two more scouts. Owner and defacto GM Mike Brown usually ignores what other people say he should do, like hire more scouts. A little over a year ago, I wrote that the Bengals suck because of Mike Brown; lack of scouts and a lack of creativity on offense. And since then the Bengals added Jay Gruden as offensive coordinator. He's still unproven but he seems to he more creative than Bob Bratkowski. Now the Bengals have added two scouts. Now that's something that many NFL experts have said the Bengals needed to upgrade. What next? A GM instead of owner Mike Brown? Super Bowl Championship? One can dream. One can dream.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Ads attacking Romney as the Etch-a Sketch candidate
You've heard Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's adviser describe Romney like an Etch-a-Sketch for the right-wing views that will be discarded during the general election. Well the left has produced two ads. One from the Democrats and one from American Bridge. They use Romney's own words to demonstrate his serial flip flopping for political expediency. Look to see protesters at Romney events with Etch-a-Sketches.
DNC ad.
American Bridge
DNC ad.
American Bridge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
