|
|
Post by Black Cat on Oct 21, 2008 12:17:59 GMT -5
Come on folks it's a video game turned into a movie. Lower your expectations a little its exactly what it promises to be 90 minutes of sex and violence. Why do you play the video games in the first place? To blow off steam and alleviate stress by I don't know imagining your targets as your co-workers? customers? Bosses? So why is it the minute you hear they're making a movie all of a sudden you expect shakespeare in the park. I said it earlier: I know that, when making adaptations, the end result will be different than the original. There's a difference between a bad movie that is a good adaptation and a good movie that is a bad adaptation. In the case of MP, it's a bad adaptation and a bad movie (okay, maybe an average movie at the best). One thing that I love in the original game is the atmosphere, the sense of mystery that floats over the story. It has been evacuated from the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by wildhare on Oct 21, 2008 15:23:24 GMT -5
Max Payne really was a cool game.very film noir. don't trust anyone kinda feel. dare I say it...yes I will... a classic.
Of course the minute you saw Marky Mark's named attached to the film you knew the funky bunch was going to ruin it.
|
|
|
|
Post by zipp on Oct 28, 2008 10:03:52 GMT -5
Come on folks it's a video game turned into a movie. Lower your expectations a little its exactly what it promises to be 90 minutes of sex and violence. Why do you play the video games in the first place? To blow off steam and alleviate stress by I don't know imagining your targets as your co-workers? customers? Bosses? So why is it the minute you hear they're making a movie all of a sudden you expect shakespeare in the park. How about this then every time you feel jaded by a bad movie from your favorite video game go and rent either the super marios bros. or street fighter movies (you remember those i'm sure) and then you can see the great strides they have made in video game adaptations. And count your lucky stars that they don't make them like that anymore... Or you can go read some shakespeare... The dawn, red mantle clad o'er the hills... See, Tomb Raider was a movie that I expected nothing more than 90 minutes of sex and action out of, and was given it in a very satisfying format. But just because it's a video game being turned into a movie doesn't make me lower my expectations. That would be like lowering my expectations for the Watchmen because it's a comic book. |
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Bear on Oct 30, 2008 4:03:17 GMT -5
Come on folks it's a video game turned into a movie. Depends on the game in my opinion. If they were to turn a truly great game into a film, I'd expect them to put the effort in to make it great - Deus Ex for instance. However, anyone expecting any depth from something like a Doom film is definitely going to be dissapointed. Of course, this is highly subjective - I didn't particularly like the Max Payne games, so wouldn't really expect the film to be that good. Black Cat and Zipp obviously have a different opinion to me on the matter though! -GB |
|
|
|
Post by zipp on Nov 1, 2008 11:40:20 GMT -5
Oh, Max Payne was no glorious reinvention of the human dilema... but it was a dedicated tip of the hat to old gritty crime noirs. It had great style and killer dialouge, and I'd expect the same from a movie. Haven't seen it yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by NightHunter on Nov 2, 2008 18:09:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zipp on Nov 2, 2008 19:00:47 GMT -5
ANOTHER Dan Brown movie?! Ugh... |
|
|
|
Post by NightHunter on Nov 2, 2008 19:34:49 GMT -5
Come on Zipp, you don't love Dan Brown and I know it. Another one.....  |
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Nov 3, 2008 13:18:17 GMT -5
ANOTHER Dan Brown movie?! Ugh... What? You didn't know they were making Angels & Demons? I'm pretty sure they'll made another one when that third Robert Langdon's novel is out (which should be next year). |
|
|
|
Post by Samildanach on Nov 5, 2008 21:55:05 GMT -5
Saw 5. Disappointing. Weakest in the series so far, but it's obvious that it's the second part of a longer plot arc, so really Saw 6 will reveal how well 5 has worked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Nov 6, 2008 13:52:44 GMT -5
I thought it was my typical slowness in keeping track that had me confused at the new Bond, but six of us went and none of us had any idea what had been going on. A bit of a mess really, and very disappointing after Casino Royale.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Nov 6, 2008 14:36:45 GMT -5
Funny, I thought it was more obviously plotted that Casino Royale. I thought the action was very well done and plenty of it, but it didn't have the subtlety of character of Casino Royale with some small exceptions. I enjoyed it anyway, but would really want to see it again (like Casino Royale) to work out if I truely liked it or not!
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Nov 6, 2008 16:04:40 GMT -5
Still have to wait a week to see QoS... Dammit...  Why did they have to push the release in the first place? |
|
|
|
Post by zipp on Nov 15, 2008 16:19:05 GMT -5
Seeing it in a couple of horus'.* You know me... I love to review things, so expect a full critique. I am a HUGE bond fan, from the books to the movies.
* a mispelling of "hours" that I kept because I like the imagery. I'm gonna starting saying that around town, make it the new slang
|
|
|
|
Post by zipp on Nov 16, 2008 4:25:19 GMT -5
Recently I said that I've learned to deal with disappointment, and yet I never thought I'd have to bring that education to bear on the latest Bond film. I love Bond films. I love James Bond as a character, whether he's the cold killer of the books or the goofy slap stick spy portrayed by Roger Moore. As far as Quantum of Solace is a Bond film, I'm satisfied. Casino Royale showed us that a Bond film does not have to be campy, it does not have to be filled with sexual innuendo, and it's okay if Bond bleeds... a lot. Quantum of Solace thankfully carries on the gritty tradition. It doesn't manage to carry on its predecessor's artistic style and grace. In fact, if it weren't presented under the Bond title, it would be written off as a second rate action film. Actually, many critiques are actually writing it off, and I can't blame them. Most critics complain about the brooding nature of Bond in the film and that there's not enough sex scenes. I think the problems are more intrinsic to the structure of the film, and not at all to these superficial considerations. First of all, the cinematography. It's simply awful, and I blame director Marc Forster, who isn't a Bond fan, nor an action director. Marc is known for complex shots that artistically tie together. The truth is, this kind of approach doesn't work in an action heavy film like Quantum of Solace. I'm not sure if Marc is trying to be artistic here, but what we get is simply bad shots. Rarely is space clearly established so we rarely know where the characters are moving around. Compounding this problem is a reliance on close shots and quick cuts that creates such disconnects like Bond suddenly appearing on a roof when a second ago he was in a stairwell. We don't see him busting through a door onto the roof. No, he's just suddenly there. While we can generally infer how he got there, the effect is so jarring that we are often taken out of the action. Things only get worse during the quick and subtle choreographing of the fights. One place I'm sure Marc is trying to be artistic is in the way he often cuts from action shots to random scenes of horses running, or of opera. While we can assume that he's trying to infer violence and intensity with these match cuts, the comparisons feel innappropriate, making the action duller rather than more intense or meaningful. After all, it's bond fighting nameless henchmen. How meaningful can it be? Overall, the effect comes off as overdone and unfocused. Another area where the film lacks focus is in the story. The previous 21 Bond films have all shared a foundational formula that has never failed to work as a good set up. Bond would be given a clear mission by his superiors. With that simple formula, the audience was never confused as to Bond's goal. The fun of the films would come from seeing how he would pull off this mission. And if he suddenly decided to take a trip to Cairo, we could watch contentedly, sure in the knowledge that somehow this would help further Bond's goal, and that we would see how shortly. In Quantum of Solace, we're never really sure what Bond's goal is, except the very general long term goal of revenge. Bond seems to know what he's doing, jumping all over the world with a confident swagger and a cold glint in his eyes, but we as audience members are never sure why he's in a place or what he's doing there, and we're none the wiser by the end of a scene. This makes the movie a confusing, rather than engaging, experience. The director seems eager to get in as much exotic locales as he can, taking Bond to new locations with such rapid pace that one can easily imagine where most of the film's budget went. Most locations are only used for a scene, then it's on to the next one, with little reason given to justify either the scene or the jump. The film starts off in the middle of a high speed car chase, not giving us the "why" of the scene until it's already over. This is the general set up of the entire first half of the film. Things start to come together in the second half, but the most important plot pieces seem to be waiting for Bond 23. So the whole film really has little point. I think it's supposed to act as a medium to work through Bond's lingering rage over Vesper's betrayal and death, but the writing isn't really good enough to carry this through. Quantum of Solace, I believe, is the first Bond film not in any way based on Ian Flemming's work (admittedly, many of the films were only loosely based off the novels). Following Casino Royale, which was very closely based on Flemming's first novel, the difference is notable. Flemming knew the world of cabaret and card playing, of smoky bars and lounges, of politics and bureaucracy. He even, to a degree, knew the world of agents and double agents, and added to this a taste of his own dreams of the non-existent glamour of such lives. This showed in his novels and in the movies most closely based on them. Quantum of Solace is written like a film trying to be a Bond movie, but without any frame of reference. Gone are Bond's subtleties, replaced by emphasis on brute force. The contest of wills that was so exciting to watch in various Bond films (Le Chiffre's card game, Goldfinger's golf game, the dinner with Dr. No) are gone here, replaced by... well, brute force again. We get the impression that there are scenes of subtlety happening somewhere, but we don't get to see them. Most notable is the final confrontation of the film, built up from the beginning and then bizarrely skipped with an ill placed jump cut. There's a lot of little things beside this, such as the fact that the opening credits are set to one of the worst excuses for music I've heard in years, and graphics so bad they make me yearn for the cutscenes of Mirror's Edge, but hey... as a whole, it's still artistically better than anything Roger Moore did. Certainly Daniel Craig is the best of the Bonds, and he saves the film from utter disgrace, delivering every line perfectly and hinting at the darkness lurking within the character. This is a Bond you want to know more about, a complex Bond. A Bond for the ages, even if supporting actress Olga Kurylenko can't keep up. To conclude, it's a Bond film. You'll enjoy yourself, but don't expect the grace and style of Casion Royale. Don't even expect a coherent plot. Certainly Bond 23 doesn't have as much to live up to. In other news, I've been hired as a freelance reviewer for Honest Gamers! They'll actually send me video games for free, host my reviews, and send them around other sites to give me exposure! They really are a great site for your video game reccomendations, check it out, and look me up: www.honestgamers.com/Check out the Mirror's Edge review on the front page! |
|
Why did they have to push the release in the first place?