Ninja Attack

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire -- Film Review

2013-11-25T09:40:00.000-07:00

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire stars Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, and Donald Sutherland. Directed by Francis Lawrence.

Catching Fire takes places a year following the events of the first movie. Coping with her traumatic experiences surviving the previous year’s Hunger Game – in which she, and others like her, is chosen to represent her district in an annual free-for-all deathmatch – protagonist Katniss Everdine (Lawrence) is finding herself between a rock and a hard place. Her bold and unorthodox victory has inspired the flames of revolution in amid the districts, furious against the futuristic and ruthless dystopian government responsible for these brutal games. These revolts have ruffled the feathers of one President Snow (Sutherland), who would like nothing more than to expunge Katniss and the defiant nature she represents to the rising rebellion.

While the first film felt tame and lacking teeth, considering the subject matter, it at least left an impression that Katniss’ brazened victory teased something bigger on the horizon; that a single act of defiance in a tournament that annually massacres children was going to lead to bigger stakes and even bigger sacrifices now that revolution is night. Catching Fire does feel “bigger”; the budget sure feels bigger. Frankly, this second verse of the mockingjay’s song plays too closely to the first; this case of déjà vu keeps this sequel from getting too interesting until the final five minutes with a bait teaser for the two-part finale, vis-à-vis The Matrix Reloaded.

[Hit the jump for full review]

And by the expression “same ol’ song and dance”, Catching Fire deviates little from the narrative threshold set by its predecessor. Once we and Katniss head for the Capital, we follow a familiar pattern: parade of tributes, the pre-game commentary (and yes, that means more of that obnoxious purple-haired Stanley Tucci character), more literal “girl on fire” antics – and we haven’t even gotten to the main plot event. Katniss is once again pitted into the Hunger Games; this time, the tributes are former victors. One of the greatest flaws of the last films was a lack of character among the tributes. Kids are killing each other and we, the audience, know we’re supposed to feel guilty about it. Unlike the first film, Catching Fire sports a more colorful cast, from the uncomfortably friendly to the downright eccentric – Jena Malone’s devil-may-care Johanna should at least warrant smiles (i.e. that elevator scene). The problem, however, is that we aren’t given enough time to appreciate them. I would have appreciated it more than the lukewarm Peeta-Gale love triangle B-plot. Look, I get it; it was enough to put teenage girls into theater seats for Twilight; but I really, really, really don’t want to sit through Mockingjay Parts One or Two for the chance for this sub-plot to detour the narrative.

The Bottom Line:
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire strays too little from familiarity that it feels more like a replay of the first movie rather than a true continuation. Higher budget and some interesting new faces do little to add some needed heat to a simmering “epic”.

Buy tickets to The Hunger Games: Catching Fire!

Thor: The Dark World -- Film Review

2013-11-12T10:19:00.000-07:00

Thor: The Dark World stars Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Christopher Eccleston, Tom Hiddleston, and Anthony Hopkins. Directed by Alan Taylor.

Iron Man 3 may have officially kickstarted Phase Two on the pathway to the much anticipated Avengers sequel, it may be Thor: The Dark World, that gives off a good impression that the next tier of films in this shared Marvel continuity is ready to pick up steam.

[Hit the jump for full review]

The nine realms of Yydrassil have been in turmoil since the initial destruction of the Bifrost has kept our Asgardian superhero (Hemsworth) busy as the galactic mystical enforcer of the peace; but Thor's devotion to serve his subjects seems to be at odds with the devotion for his mortal love, Jane Foster (Portman), whom remains on Earth trying to adjust to life after Thor's departure. Fate brings the two together when Jane stumbles across an ancient superweapon of the Dark Elves; lost after a conflict between the Elves and Asgard that sent their leader Malekith (Eccleston) packing into exile. Sensing the weapon's arousal after hidden for millennia -- and now embedded within inside Jane -- Malekith returns to reclaim the weapon and purge the universe into eternal darkness. Thor brings Jane back with him to Asgard in hopes to extract the weapon dubbed Aether to keep her from harm, only to find the Dark Elves already knocking at the gates of Asgard. Havoc is wreaked, uneasy allegiances are forged, insurmountable risks are taken; all for saving the world, within some lighthearted humor for good measure. Intense stuff, and damn, it's pretty damn good. Not Avengers good, but it's the closest since the first Iron Man.

The Dark World's scale benefits from a more realized universe that the previous film sadly glanced over. The art direction of the film is to be commended to making Asgard and the other mystical elements in the feel like a living, breathing world -- taking aesthetic cues from The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The design of the Dark Elves is also impressive, from the haunting guises of the footsoldiers, the beautiful grotesqueness of the hideously transformed Kursed juggernauts, to Malekith himself.

It's also good to see that much of the supporting roles from the first Thor film are given more to do, second time around -- with a few exceptions. Hiddleston is charming as usual with the trickster Loki, and it's obvious he's having too much fun with the role. Stellan Sarsgard as Eric Sulvik has an awkward development of dipping into the downright eccentric; it's funny until you've seen the same streaking bit at least twice throughout the film's run time. What is a bit disappointing is the build up that the film has for the warrior goddess Sif (Jamie Alexander), teasing a possible love triangle between herself, Thor, and Jane -- chances are this is likely setting the scenario up for the inevitable sequel.

The Bottom Line:
The Dark World is a massive step from it's serviceable processor; everything in scale, energy, and enthusiasm. The return of the God of Thunder could not be more welcoming.

Movie Music: Pacific Rim

2013-07-09T15:32:00.001-06:00

Getting ready for Guillermo del Torro's badass-looking sci-fi blockbuster, Pacific Rim, before it hits theaters this Friday. Turns out the soundtrack has been available via Amazon since June, and it is now listenable in it's entirety via Spotify, which you can give a listen with the widget below -- and it's recommended that you do, it's pretty good.

Go big, or go extinct.

My picks: Pacific Rim, Gipsy Danger, We Are The Resistance

Purchase the soundtrack, available now on Amazon.com!

Blitz Review: The Hunger Games (2012)

2012-09-08T13:00:00.000-06:00

The concept of televised arena games in which kids are forced to kill another in gladiator fashion certainly piques interest - the power of the concept to which the fanbase to the trilogy of novels the first book the film is based on can attest to - for an audience wanting something more visceral to sink their teeth in, unlike the otherwise bland offerings of another, popular book series with vampires for the young adult demographic. With this regard, it comes across as a bit of a shame when The Hunger Games takes what could easily have been a more intentionally controversial premise and takes a more tame and conservative execution of these themes.

And perhaps having this film's teeth dulled could have been more forgiven had those not familiar with the events of the book be given enough of a reason to care about combatants in this 'battle royal'. Often, the film is eagerly trying to get us to feel for our reluctant little gladiators forced into combat in an authoritative society that greets their eventual demise like the punchline of a long and sick joke. Yet, there's only so much gravitas to be had about any of these fighter's death when we are only treated to several seconds of screen time among each, outside the characters the film wants us to root for. It doesn't help much when the rules surrounding the contest are constantly in flux, and thus the tensions and stakes for our heroes is dulled and no doubt thrown in to insure those with shorter attention spans are kept at the edge of their seats.

The Bottom Line:
Fans of the books will no doubt find this film caters the elements that drew them to the franchise in the first place. Otherwise, this film leaves much desired, even if it still manages to provide the moderate enjoyment one can appreciate from a rental.

The Hunger Games stars Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson, available on Blu Ray & DVD from Lions Gate Entertainment .

Rant Attack: Why You Shouldn't Give A Damn About Versus XIII Anymore...

2012-09-02T11:25:00.000-06:00

I once loved the Final Fantasy series, and I suppose in my own funny little way, I still do.

Even today, when the polygon-models of PlayStation era - the era I was introduced to the series - graphics have been long rendered obsolete and too crude to be called 'amazing' anymore, there still lingers something magical when I dust off my copy of Final Fantasy VII from the shelf, pop it into my PS3, and move that gloved hand over the "New Game" and press the start button. From memory I can recall that I have escaped from Midgar at least seven times in all my years gaming. I can attest that since 1997 I have: been forced to re-do an entire playthrough once when my sister accidentally overwritten the only save file I had on the memory card, played games where I have dated both Tifa and Aeris at the Golden Saucer before entering the Temple of the Ancients, spent countless frustrating hours breeding chocobos, cursing at the game during the Battle Arena (and swearing the penalty slot machine was possessed and wanted me to loose on purpose), defeated Sephiroth and saved the world on numerous occasions and still have yet to kick Ruby Weapon's cheap ass.

But, damn, I still love that game.

Every Final Fantasy since that time was my gaming equivalent of Christmas, and each entry was a highly anticipated journey of swords and sorcery, airships and dragons that demanded a young adventurer like myself to explore it. Much like many a Christmas, sometimes you are given an unforgettable gift of a game, and, of course, you do receive the occasional gift that you just didn't like as much and eventually grow to despise it - but this was okay. Any person well-versed about the franchise can attest that one of the great appeals of the games outside their quality was the series' ability to provide a whole other world with each release, allowing the developer to experiment with new game mechanics, visual aesthetics, stories and characters - yet is familiar enough that it invite the longtime fan to feel comfortable with the new, while inciting the potential new fan without feeling neglected for missing the prior games. It is this philosophy that regarded developer Squaresoft among the best in the industry. And for a time, especially with it's PlayStation era, things were going well. And like any fan of the series can tell you, once "Square" and "Enix" decided to bed another and put a ring on it, things started going downhill. And the rest is history.

Square-Enix sure cares alot about Final Fantasy XIII, so much, apparently, now they have announced over this past weekend the next chapter of a withering, defecating sack of horsemeat that just refuses to lay down and die as long as sub-series director/biggest fan Motomu Toriyama has a say in it. Quite a shame that I don't share his enthusiasm nor do I think highly of his contribution to the franchise, having his sticky fingers sticking into almost every major Final Fantasy game has worked on this generation; Final Fantasy XIII being the worst offender and my personal vote for the point where the series as sunk the lowest. And all the while, one question looms over my mind, "Where the hell is Versus XIII?" From where I stand, the only answer Square-Enix seems bothered to give is this (paraphrased for effect): It's coming. We won't say when. Satisfied? Now shut up and oogle at our new game - Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII! Get used to seeing it's face, because we're giving this piece of shit all the limelight. Translation: More of the ever expanding Versus XIII news drought, and that also means it's a no show at this year's Tokyo Game Show.

Fine. Fuck you, Square-Enix, up the ass. You're just making it that much easier not to care anymore. I had rather hoped that after XIII-2 that you would, I dunno, put your priorities into your other Fabula Nova Crystallis: Final Fantasy XIII projects that has been placed on the backburner. Where the hell is the English version Type-0? After Lightning Returns, should we already expect yet another goddamn sequel in the oven? How hard would it be just put an end to sick carrot-on-a-stick gag and just cancel the damn thing? Would save many of us what little patience we have saved for you, for one shred of hope that your collective head hasn't been crammed so far up your ass, prison style. Stop dicking around with us, dammit!

I want to believe...

I want to believe that this isn't how a beloved franchise deeply rooted in my childhood nostalgia would end. I want to believe that this isn't the best we can expect from a company with such a legacy behind it. I want to believe that Square-Enix could end this generation of gaming with something special, something profound, or at least prove that it's still in the business to provide gamers worldwide fantastic experiences. I want to believe that if and when Versus XIII finally gets the exposure that everybody wants, and when it finally is done and is shipped, that all the bullshit we had to endure to see it a reality was worth it.

I want to believe, but I'm finding it hard to care anymore.

"Somnus" composed by Yoko Shimomura for the game.

Blitz Review: "Restless" (2011)

2012-09-02T03:52:00.000-06:00

Restless is an amusing specimen in that it is a drama that speaks of seizing the moments and opportunities in what short lives we have and the value of life, and drives the themes with the ferocity and enthusiasm of a three-toed sloth. While the film is not devoid of life, the tone is so tame that it is lukewarm enough to keep us enticed of the lover's relationship, but any tension is immediately pulled when the inevitability that is Annabel's (Mia Wasikowska) demise to cancer is already out and in the clear by the middle of the first act, the rest of the film plays out at such a mellow pace that it certainly seems to be on auto-pilot. It's harmless overall enough to warrant a rental, if you prefer something more vanilla than A Walk to Remember.

"Restless" stars Mia Wasikowska and Henry Hopper, released by Sony Pictures Classics, now on DVD.

Disney/Pixar's 'Brave' -- Film Review

2012-06-24T03:02:00.001-06:00

Whenever a newly announced film has Pixar’s name attached to it, given the company’s legacy of master storytellers, anticipation immediately skyrockets. These folks have given us some, or rather, the best of what computer animation - or animation, in general - is capable of, not because the renders look lovely (to be fair, when has any Pixar film looked terrible?) but rather the stories that are told. Thanks to Lasseter and friends, we believed that toys are alive when we don’t see them, and that a robot can melt our hearts. Since their amazing freshman hit with Toy Story, it seemed Pixar could do no wrong.

Then this happened...

Sucked out dry both our fun and wallets. How fitting...

Suffice to say - and I am confident I can speak for many on this regard - Cars 2 was disappointing, to put it lightly. Suddenly that near-perfect slate of Pixar’s suddenly got a nice nickel-sized crater punched in the middle. Granted, as bad as Cars 2 was, it didn’t necessarily tarnish or taint Pixar’s legacy. Yet it could be argued that this meant Pixar put itself under a finer microscope.

Speaking for myself, Brave was seen as a pivotal point, either spelling what I could only fear was the start of Pixar’s fall from grace or the reassurance that Cars 2 was only a hiccup and that somebody on Pixar still had their head straight. Needless to say, Brave may not have been the rebound everyone may have wanted, it’s still a step back to the right direction. Then again, in hindsight, anything would be considered a step-up from Cars 2, and I’ll leave my bitterness about that film here.

Brave is both cut from the same tapestry of Pixar’s legacy, sewn in with bits and pieces of that whimsical, lighthearted fairytale charm abundant from Disney’s Second Golden Age favorites including The Little Mermaid, stirring in the mix the themes familiar in that era - the pressures of expectation and the internal desires of the protagonists aggressively colliding, often resulting in the discovery with a lesson in humility and understanding the dangerous consequences of heedlessly seeking those dreams. One can understand this noble notion to weave these themes into any story story, the film’s reluctance for subtlety serves, what I believe, the film’s biggest flaw. While not a dealbreaker, it potentially makes Brave for a more jaded experience, the sort of arsenal that Disney is famous (or notorious) for packing.

Rest assured, if I make it seem that Brave is a bad film, it's not. Far from it. While it certainly plays out like the typical Disney parable, Pixar’s execution of the material is to be commended, with the pacing smartly keep on a rolling pace, and never missing an opportunity to provide comedy where it can be taken advantage of (and doesn’t shy from a few kilt jokes for good measure, much to my amusement). The colorful cast of characters, each with their own charm without overstaying their welcome, is also present as a Pixar trademark; notably the protagonist Merida’s mischievous, triplet brothers that easily give Tangled’s determined-as-hell steed Maximus a run for his money.

The Bottom Line:
Albeit formulaic, Brave is a gorgeous and fun adventure, as well as valiant addition to the Pixar legacy.

Marvel's 'The Avengers' -- Film Review

2012-05-14T09:15:00.000-06:00

It's been a long time coming, and the moment is finally here, in all it's glory. Simply put, if this is not the best film experience in recent movie-going experience, then it's for sure the best superhero film experience in recent memory, if not for all time. Why yes: it's that damn good. Suck on this, Michael Bay - this is entertainment.

For what was at stake, somewhere down the line, Marvel must have known that in for a high concept such as this to stick, it needed a tour de force with all pistons firing for Avengers to work, not just as a merchandising gold mine that the whole Avengers initiative could have easily become. And for the most part, the road that brought us to this moment was, overall, pretty good. Some hot, and some, that were good in their own way, and luckily no casualties to fall into the "god-awful" end of the enjoyment spectrum. Not only did the man who would undertake the job as writer/director of this gambit of a film combine all these heroes into a single film, but has done so with so much gusto and charm that the film excels in it's own limelight. Every member from Iron Man to Agent Coulsen feels like a living, breathing cell of the experience, and without sacrificing often what is missing in team-up films - enduring and relatable characters, with real issues, real conflicts, and arguably the most memorable of the these folks being a green-skinned behemoth that flails aliens about like a rag-doll. Serious props go to director Joss Whedon.

Of course, still a superhero film in it's simplest form, action is aplenty in The Avengers and delivers well. Never does the film slip into a monotonous pace and keeps the pressure on the heroes and the audience at the edge of their seats without risking the oft bombastic circus of post-Transformers Hollywood style getting out of control - with shots and choreography fluid and easy, and most of all, enjoyable to watch.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

An excellent example of having your cake and eating it, Marvel's The Avengers is a must-see list and worth every penny of the admission ticket.

Update!

2012-04-24T21:36:00.004-06:00

Like the new look?

Been meaning to get back to posting more here. With school and that, I got really distracted. So, alot of aesthetic changes are going to be made in the next couple of days, experimenting with layout structures and maybe adding some goodies to liven up the place again.

Anyways, it's good to be back.

Also, I am also running a separate blog for my artwork at Liquid Kryptonite, which you can open here or refer to the link at the left sidebar. Subscribe to that, as I'll post anything I draft as they come along.

Early Impressions of "The Legend of Korra"

2012-03-25T02:47:00.000-06:00

The legend has begun, and from very early observations, we are in for another excellent chapter in the Avatar saga.

The first two episodes of the new spin-off series Avatar: The Legend of Korra has already been leaked on the internet. So tonight, being a lazy ass, I decided to give 'em a watch, already stoked for the show. I mean, come on, it's Avatar.

It's sort of nice how the creators have been bridging the events between The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra. While most of the characters involved have long passed on, we see how their efforts have changed the world since then. Nations are now more or less unified, but there is a nice sense of contention between the population, far most the most apparent between the benders and non-benders, and while the new Republic has prospered, there are still many vagabonds that have to scavenge for food and a home. Also, technology has taken a huge step since the events of The Last Airbender. Cars and flying machines are commonplace, radio is the main outlet for news and entertainment. It's definitely a brand new world, and it will be interesting how other fans will adapt to the new changes. For my opinion, it's a bit jarring at first, but I feel the creators (the same from TLAB) have taken these into consideration, and it shows in these two beginning episodes that while we are seeing new things, the spirit of the old show is still present.

Sadly, he's already kicked the bucket. You will be sorely missed, Sokka.

This is good, considering that the makers have the challenge of not only bringing new concepts of the world to long-time fans, but also introduce characters that will fill in the void now that the characters from the previous show are gone. Well, kinda. So far, the only surviving member of the original to be seen is Katara, a woman aged well past her prime, and now a grandmother. In these episodes, we are introduced to Aang and Katara's son, Tenzen, who plays the pivotal role of the mentor figure that Korra will be apprentice under in her plight to learn airbending. He's definitely a stickler to the spiritual side of the traditions that he must have inherited from his parents, but he's not without a sense of humor, and a tad of his uncle's humorous cynicism. We also see only a bit of another descendant of the original cast in Toph's daughter, who is actually the captain of the police in Republic City. Right off the bat, she and Korra are not exactly the best of friends, and even her mutual relationship with Tenzen isn't without some reluctant reservation.

Meet your new Avatar.

Then there's the main protagonist and the new Avatar, Korra. Unlike the playful and passive Aang, from the first time we see her, Korra is not only cocky but also impatient. This makes a nice foil with the more docile Tenzen, who typically finds Korra's wild teenage spirit tiring. The writers take the opportunity to use this tension makes for witty humor material in the second episode after an argument where Tenzen openly wishes that his own children never act like Korra in their teenage years, to which his eldest daughter quips, "no promises". Luckily, Korra, while impulsive, is not without humility; all good in my book considering how easily cocky protagonists can easily slip into the category of "annoying". It should also be noted how even when Korra is highly skilled in most forms of bending (with the exception of air, which she can't even summon a breeze to save her at this point), that her lack of discipline often exposes her vulnerability. This is apparent in the second episode where Korra sneaks out of the training grounds to participate in a sport akin to the duels in Tron using bending skills, but team-based instead of mano a mano. While Korra can tap into the three elements she can utilize, her over-confidence finds her in trouble when more seasoned benders take advantage of her stoic approach to bending. This can lead to the hope that the writers can use this more for when Korra comes face-to-face against future enemies, we are shown how this could potentially affect Korra's growth in identifying her own weaknesses and use them to not only to better herself as the Avatar, but a person to her peers and supporters.

Overall, given we are only two episodes in, it seems that The Legend of Korra already has great potential to it. Perhaps the hype leading up to this series' launch will pay off.

Good vibes about the show, so far. Good vibes, indeed. Avatar: The Legend of Korra officially airs on Nickelodeon, April 14.

Top Five Unsung Animated Films

2011-08-29T20:52:00.003-06:00

Before I was a would-be critic, I was (and still am) a film student. Before I was a film major, I was a more disciplined artist, one that loved animation as a kid, and at one point, wanted to tackle the genre as a career path. Eventually that dream fell through, but the passion for great animation, the films that featured them, and the respect for the talent responsible for them remained very much alive. But as CGI has steadily stolen traditional animation’s thunder within the past decade and a half, almost to the point of extinction, I figured it’s never been a better time to salute the unsung “hidden gems” and reflect how, despite wishful thinking and what-if scenarios from a fan’s perspective, would never get their own share of the limelight among the other titans of the genre.

Titan A.E.

I grew up watching a lot of Disney animated films, and was lucky enough to be around for what many refer to as Disney’s “Second Golden Age”, where classics like Aladdin, The Lion King, and Beauty and the Beast where testaments to the Disney animation artistry. Then, there were the constant rewatching of older Disney animated treasures at my house, from Oliver & Company to 101 Dalmatians. As I got older, around twelve years old, you may call it typical that I gradually grew tired of the worn-out routines that are standard in those sorts of films. Anthromorphic talking animals, catchy sing-alongs, and whole-hearted family content was fine and all, but it just couldn’t appeal to a kid wanting more science fiction action, much in the vein of Star Wars, in his cartoons, and it seemed no major studio was interested in producing such a film.

Okay, I got him distracted. Punch it before he realizes!

That is, until animator legend Don Bluth, under 20^th Century Fox, released Titan A.E. in the year 2000. Finally, I thought after watching, a cartoon film that I suits my demographic. Titan A.E. certainly was a bold venture. Not only did it ignore many standards established in the genre for Western productions (animated blood and mild nudity, in PG-rated film, mind you), but it also marketed towards older audiences. Which would explain why ultimately the film bombed at the box office, and was the last nail on the coffin for Fox’s internal animation studios. Since then Fox has relied on the CGI craze that swept Hollywood following the commercial success of Toy Story and Shrek. It was a shame, considering that despite some minor missed opportunities with the story, Titan A.E. sported a solid story, and some nice animation. Unfortunately, it now serves as a reminder of an animated film that was not afraid to take risks, but ultimately failed to make an impact in a Western market that still regards cartoons for solely for child amusement.

---

Laputa: Castle in the Sky

You don’t have to go to deep into a discussion into anime before the name Miyazaki, or the title of anything he’s directed, gets brought up. If Osamu Tezuka is the Japanese equivalent to Walt Disney, it might not be a compliment to refer to Hayao Miyazaki as Japan’s Don Bluth (A Troll in Central Park notwithstanding). It’s also not unexpected when conversation involving or eventually transitioning to Miyazaki is which film is everyone’s favorite made by the renowned animator/storyteller. Personal surveys I’ve noted accumulate the usual suspects: Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away. Both are incredibly well made and deserve the praise and recognition fans and critics alike give it. For me, however, my favorite is Miyazaki’s race to the clouds in his steampunk-ish romp in Laputa: Castle in the Sky.

In comparison to his other work, Castle in the Sky (as it is titled in the States), may seem a bit conventional in fantasy storytelling: a boy catches a girl floating to Earth and the two become friends and embark on an adventure to discover the mysterious surrounding her and the necklace she wears. The tone in the narrative also tends to be more comical and so much in a tongue-in-cheek humor, a departure from the more somber narrative in Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke, or even Kiki’s Delivery Service. Nevertheless, the story plays its high adventure premise rather well: the main characters are likeable, and while the rest of the cast serves more for comic relief than anything else, are enjoyable in their own right. More than any other Miyazaki film I am aware of, Castle in the Sky gets nods for having a pretty iconic villain in Muska, an elusive operative of the government chasing the protagonists. I would be lying if this wasn’t contributed by Mark Hamill’s performance in the 2003 English re-dubbing done through Disney.

That Luke Skywalker guy? A villain?! Get out!

It’s understandable that when placed among bigger, more glimmering diamonds in a tiara, a gemstone like Castle in the Sky would often than naught would be lost to obscurity. Nevertheless, Castle in the Sky gets recognition here as a great Miyazaki film, which judging from the rest of his filmography, goes without saying.

---

The Black Cauldron

The animated film The Black Cauldron is an especially curious case, and in two ways. Not only a victim of the taboo of being a “dark Disney film”, but also victim from what seems as disappointment from fans of the book series penned by Lloyd Alexander called The Chronicles of Prydain, from which the film is based on. Having been exposed to this film previously oblivious to the source material as a kid, I was surprisingly both impressed and sort of bummed about The Black Cauldron. Impressed in that Disney had indeed produced an animated film with darker elements (at least as dark you can get from a company like Disney) in the past, but was no doubt a commercial flop as a result. Bummed in that despite John Hurt’s haunting portrayal as the Horned King (no doubt the source of many nightmares for kids who watched this film), the voice acting was a bit…hallow and lacking relevant emotion in some instances. That and the fact Gurgi kind of annoyed me throughout the movie. Like a cross between Jar Jar Binks and a yappy Yorkshire terrier that never shut up.

Don't be fooled by appearance. You'll want to whack his head in with a sledgehammer by film's end.

Missed opportunities and some lukewarm performance from the cast, The Black Cauldron is at the very least a valiant effort, if any, to show that it dared to go against the grain, the very same grain they cemented into the Western animation genre for the past seventy years.

---

Atlantis: The Lost Empire

Sensing a pattern with this list, yet? Yup, it’s another Disney film that was not make enough bucks at the box office and was a departure from the standard the company is known to pump out.

Enter Atlantis: The Lost Empire, a tale paying much tribute to Jules Verne, in which a wealthy tycoon spares no expense on a costly expedition to find the ruins of lost civilization of Atlantis with the help of the supposedly only surviving written account of its whereabouts, in what is known as the “Shepard’s Journal” in the movie, which can only be translated by the protagonist, a bookworm named Milo Thatch (voiced by Michael J. Fox). Much to the crew’s surprise, Atlantis exists, and its civilization is literally thriving inside an air pocket deep in the earth. Things turn ugly when Milo learns that the members of the expedition intend to ransack the city of its greatest treasure, the Heart of Atlantis, at the cost of the population’s lives.

"Okay, so my sultry design screams, 'bad girl'. So what?"

Much like Castle in the Sky, the high adventure of the story is often peppered with the occasional comedic gag, which may have more serious fans of Jules Verne adventure epics to roll their eyes. Perhaps it doesn’t help much when much of the cast is often created from some stereotype from gun-toting hillbilly, to the dedicated but compassionate warrior princess, to the hopelessly awkward but well-meaning introverted intellectual. However, much like Castle in the Sky, the film’s narrative does not shy to shift gears into a more serious tone when the story calls for it. And in terms of anesthesia, Atlantis is one of Disney’s most stylized animated features, art direction much inspired and consulted by Hellboy-creator Mike Mignolia. It’s not ugly, but it may put off many who are more attuned to more “realistic” art style.

I think I’m sensing another pattern, and may be going on a limb when I think this: even Disney animators want to do something different than the same-old routine. Would explain why many notable animators have left Disney eventually.

---

Grave of the Fireflies

Fans of anime may notice a trend that comes with many series the genre: the knack to ‘demonstrate’ the atrocities of war and sometimes reflecting a negative view towards military. The problem isn’t so much the message, but that it feels phoned-in, pretentious, and detracts from the story. This motif will be described in more detail in a future article. Of all the anime I have seen, only two come in mind when the horrors of war are portrayed in a humanistic, powerful, and more importantly, humble manner: Now and Then, Here and There and Grave of the Fireflies. For sake of this post, I will focus about the latter.

The tragic and heartbreaking tale of Grave of the Fireflies takes place in Japan following the aftermath of World War II. Two siblings, Seita and his younger sister, Setsuko, to fend for themselves when their mother dies following an air raid and wish to leave the cruel treatment by their aunt. For a while, things work out until Setsuko gets increasingly sick, forcing Seita to steal out of desperation for his sister’s life. The film takes a high road approach to the tragedy, not coercing audiences to place blame on either American or Japanese, but invites them to endure the hardships the siblings do to remain together, where the story really shines.

E3 2011 -- Day One

2011-06-06T23:48:00.003-06:00

E3 2011

Musings of a Ninja

- Day One -

Here we are again: another year, another E3 (Electronic Entertainment Expo). Often coined as the "Christmas for video games", if something big is coming down in the industry, it is usually here - from newest blocker buster titles, to cutting-edge technology, it's an exciting week for video game journalists and enthusiasts alike.

This year promises the advent of many potentially ground-breaking reveals: Nintendo finally crossing the threshold into the HD territory with the high-anticipated "Project Cafe", boasting the horsepower rivaling that of the PlayStation, Sony introducing it's second generation portable device, and Microsoft spearheading hands-free gaming experiences with the Kinect. And, of course, game developers of varying pedigrees show of their newest games, enticing gamers to add just one more title to their ever-expanding wishlist.

E3 2011 started earlier today with a parade of big hitters: Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft, and finishing with Sony taking to the big stages to impress the gaming world.

Okay, okay. That's great and all, right? But was there anything that was cool this year? Any kickass reveals? Any games that tickled my fancy? Yes, there was some great announcement, and some disappointments, and I will go over each with you right now, what I felt were the biggest (and worst) in today's E3 events.

Top Games

Mass Effect 3

Commander Shepard's last mission to save mankind came out in full-force today, and there was quite some tasty tidbits that Bioware offered for the finale of this sci-fi RPG epic, including some awesome gameplay demos featuring some new gameplay mechanics (Shepard's new laser-blade melee attack looked both brutal and fun), as well as features for additional command inputs outside the standard controller with voice-command. While the X-Box 360 version will allow for integrated use of Kinect, I am still scratching my head as to how well this mechanic could even work (still wondering how Kinect can allow you to turn your camera around), even being more skeptical if Mass Effect 3 with Kinect will get the X-Box fence-sitters to jump on the Kinect bandwagon. The improves visuals seem to be an improvement from Mass Effect 2, and for fans of the franchise, Bioware insures that choices made in the previous games will affect things in Mass Effect 3, as well as the return of familiar faces. A late comer to this series (having only played the demo for Mass Effect 2), this impressive game has gotten my attention. At least with ME3's spring release, should give me ample time to catch up for the finale.

Tags: GameTrailers.com, E3 2011: Reaper Base Gameplay Demo (Stream), PC Games, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360

---

Overstrike

I am a fan of Insomniac Games. If my love for Ratchet & Clank and the Resistance games have any say, I am in full support of this developer, geniuses behind all weaponry wacky and batshit craziness! While Resistance 3 gave us a solid showing at Sony's press conference with a onstage demo, it is Insomniac Game's newest multi-platform IP, in partnership with EA Games, that got me fixated. Enter: Overstrike. Based on the rather humorous teaser trailer, the easiest way to describe the premise is a four-player co-op game, whereas players take control of a motley crew of armed specialists, each with their strengths and weaknesses, using high-tech weaponry and gadgets like a shield gun and invisibility, kicking ass. Think of it as Team Fortress 2, played more like Left 4 Dead, without the zombies, and quirkier equipment.

Tags: GameTrailers.com, E3 2011: Debut Trailer (Stream), PC Games, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360

---

Battlefield 3

Move over, Modern Warfare! There's another kid in town, aiming to put you in your place as the realistic military FPS game to beat. DICE's onstage showcase of Battlefield 3 was breathtaking, from the gorgeous environments, to the painstaking amount of detail, the the fluidity of the engine's performance, Battlefield 3 is pulling all the stops, and I means all the stops. Even though the version shown was the PC version, prior interviews with DICE concerning their new Frostbite 2 engine suggests that the same level of graphic quality would be present in the console versions of Battlefield 3. I wish I could explain how awesome it looked, but perhaps the demo trailer can show better what I fail to describe in words that would do it justice:

Tags: GameTrailers.com, E3 2011: Tank Battle PC Gameplay (Stream), PC Games, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360

Military shooters were never really my thing, but I couldn't think of a better way to introduce myself to this subgenre of the shooter. Also, it helps to note that all the online features in BF3 are free of subscription. Take that, Activision!

---

Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception

Oh, hell yes! Need I say any more about this that hasn't been said before? It's rare to see series continue to improve on itself much like NaughtyDog's love letter to the adventure genre and everything pre-Crytsal-Skull Indiana Jones. It looks better, looks more massive than before, and it never seems to miss a beat. Combine this with what has been revealed about the multiplayer (and need I remind you of how awesome Among Thieve's multiplayer was), Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception demands your full attention.

Tags: GameTrailers.com, E3 2011: Cruise Liner Gameplay Demo (Stream), PC Games, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360

---

Bioshock: Infinite

The newest trailer doesn't quite clear up many questions in the wake of the impressive ten-minute gameplay demo prior, the little tidbits handed to us by the folks of Irrational Games provides some more insight into Elizabeth, the mysterious love interest your character seems to be charged with protecting, and the tenacious menace that prowls the both of you - hellbent to make sure you don't leave Columbia with Elizabeth. If not for the appeal of Bioshock: Inifinite's bizarre and surreal world of floating paradise gone wrong and the horrors that await in the clouds, the trailer sports some of the best facial animation seen in a game of this kind.

Tags: GameTrailers.com, E3 2011: Gameplay Trailer, PC Games, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360

Seeing just a little of this game is great, but it seems Irrational Games has something more in mind for PlayStation fans. In addition to a PS3 version already slated, developers are offering both this game and the original Bioshock game (for those pathetic enough like myself to have not already own a copy of the original) in a bundle, on the same Blu-Ray disc, and is Move compatible. In addition, a Bioshock game for the PS Vita (explained later) has been confirmed. What lies in store for that? I dunno, but it sounds awesome!

----

Best Conference

Sony

Surprising, right? Now, now, before you lash out, lemme start off by saying that EA had a great conference, as well. Unfortunately, with the exception of Mass Effect 3 and Battlefield 3, most other things presented in EA's press con was mostly comprised of teasers, albeit mostly good ones. It may be unfair, but EA Sports titles have never phased me, and the announcement of such titles have become expected (I mean, they are only released once every year, right?). The same could be said about the new Need for Speed, as well. Just not my cup of tea. Plus, it felt a little odd having a game featuring high chase car sequences to have QTE's running down an alley way with the main protagonist.

But what about Microsoft? It had Halo 4, and HD remake of Combat Evolved. They also featured Modern Warfare. Gears of War 3, was there, too, I believe. I wasn't able to catch the live feed, and had to resort with Twitter feeds following most of the major video game news websites. And what was received on my end, felt much like a repeat to Microsoft's last E3: too much focus on Kinect, not enough on hardcore titles. Kinect or Move, motion gaming just hasn't struck a chord with X-Box or Sony's demographics, both trying to ride on the coattails of Nintendo's success, catering to a broader demographic, who could probably not care as much for precise control schemes. Even with Microsoft's offering of hardcore titles, it just seemed bare-boned.

Ubisoft? Even worse. Assassin's Creed aside, another case of been-there-done-that-like-last-year. And no Beyond Good & Evil 2 really hurt, too.

Let's go back to Sony. Leading up to E3, the whole PSN-hacking fiasco really put a damper into Sony's reliance and trust in many gamer's eyes. Regardless where you place the blame regarding that issue, Sony needed to come into E3, admitting to the flaws of the PSN's recovery, all the while restoring public assurance into the PlayStation brand. Tonight, Sony immediately started doing just that. Time can only tell if Sony truly took what happened with PSN and did everything to set it right, but at the very least, their open apology was a start. A good start. What followed was a string of solid performances and demos, with the latest of Sony's next big entries to their signature IP's, also managing to snag some promising exclusives, and introducing some deals to nudge people to translate to their 3D gaming model - in a tempting PSTV bundle: a 29-inch, 3D-ready monitor with a cool splitscreen feature (where two people with glasses could look into the same monitor, but not at the same player's screen), including a pair of 3D glasses, a copy of Resistance 3, all for a generous price of $499.

Of course, there is also Sony's newest handheld device, the officially dubbed "PS Vita". Many questions surrounded the device, it's specs and capabilities, the games being developed for it, and of course, what you can expect to pay for such a device. Judging from the demos at the press conference, the tech in the Vita sounds rather impressive, and a huge improvement over the original PSP. We're talking dual analog sticks, touch screens and cameras on the front and back of the device, augment reality capabilities (which would not require the use of a card), a built-in gyroscope, a crisp OLED display, and pretty damn good visual output. And they had games (Uncharted, Street Fighter x. Tekken, LittleBigPlanet, Modnation Racers, etc.) demoed live and running good (although it looked like Modnation Racers had a small lag during track creations). Most of these games, and the Vita itself, has some form of dual connection and features that can be shared cross-platform between the PS3. To top it off, one developer behind another of Vita's featured games, Ruin, showcased the ability to transfer the game via cloud from the Vita, transfer AND play the same game on the PS3. But this piece of hardware must cost a fortune, right? Sony is notorious for that, right? Well, you would be wrong. It actually hits a sweet spot, which could make it a deadly competitor to Nintendo's 3DS: $249 for a wi-fi only model, while a 3G/wi-fi model will be priced around $299.

Biggest Disappoints

No Kevin Butler

No Beyond Good & Evil 2

The Last Guardian's Absence

Fast Five -- Film Review

2011-05-06T11:01:00.002-06:00

The Ninja

vs.

Fast Five

Ask for a general consensus, and no doubt you will be handed two of the strongest baits to the adolescent male: hot chicks and cars. Hence, it goes without too much to say that this combination will bring this flock to theaters. After all, it worked so well for Transformers (and the only plausible explanation as to how those piles of bile movies managed to score themselves a trilogy), and the main selling point to the Fast & the Furious series, from my understanding.

Truth be told, I walked into Fast Five cold-turkey, having never seen the previous movies before this one. While I was never a grease-monkey in any stretch, the appeal to high-speed vehicles wasn’t foreign to me. Alas, many times I had often found films whose premise greatly involve cars to be dull, unless the concept somehow included that these cars were equipped with some nuclear or some deviation of a high-energy reactor, dash into supersonic speeds, and screamed around on tracks that could make Hot Wheels pale in comparison; and why I was guilty for enjoying Speed Racer far more than my colleagues cared for. With at least some form of science fiction (or fantasy) element in place it allows any film in which daredevils are performing these otherwise impossible stunts seem less ridiculous than it otherwise should be. So when Fast Five expects me to suspend my disbelief that their cars, all that exist in reality, can pull the same stunts as the Mach Five and bend the laws of physics for sake of convenience, it’s asking a bit too much. The film might have gone away with it had it not been guilty of doing this so liberally.

Can't touch this!

Now, with my lack of exposure to the series beforehand mentioned, it might come to no surprise how I would describe the plot to Fast Five to be a lukewarm, at best, and the players involved as convincing and memorable as cardboard cutouts. Of course who else could give this film an adrenaline shot in the arm other than Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson (who proves that his hard-as-nails wrestling routine still somehow gets him work in the film industry) as the FBI agent out to take ‘em down our heroes hard. You know he is hardcore about his job. Just look at his goatee! Oh, and he and Vin Diesel have a fight scene. I suppose that’s something. Not that the actual plot actually holds any minute interest, right? Sure, a story of a huge bank heist might be a tired-out concept, but this film has cars! Fast performance cars that can tear out a 10-ton vault clean from a building! Plus, there are babes!

Oh yeah, and Vin Diesel and The Rock duke it out! Why worry about the little details like meaningful character development?

Phew. That was a little much. Chances are, if you stuck around this long with the Fast and the Furious, you know what you're getting yourself into. And that's great, really. But with potential blockbusters like Thor and Pirates, you might want to hold off tickets to Fast Five for something better.

The Bottom Line: As high octane as the frantic car stunts and action sequences can get, Fast Five is a forgettable farce that fires on all cylinders and goes nowhere.

Top 5 Movies That I Would Like To See Made...But Probably Would Be Butchered

2011-05-06T10:35:00.003-06:00

I believe this happens at least once to everyone, from the biggest movie buff to the casual viewer:

You are reading a book, or even a comic book or graphic novel. Half way in, you are enjoying the world the author/artist has created, and the characters that live within. As you read, a bright lightbulb clicks on inside your mind’s eye. A revelation! You think to yourself, wow, this could be a kick-ass movie! I’d pay money to see this! Why hasn’t anyone done it yet?!

It is probably for the best, frankly. How many times have we seen these sorts of movies getting butchered? While it may be unfair to suggest all of Hollywood is guilty of being greedy folks out of the expense of the fanbase it caters to, but it never seems to fail that for every good gem of an adaptation we get, tens upon twenty more pieces of bile keeping getting pumped out. And as fickle as the filmmaking business as proved itself to be, this proves to determine which adaptations will turn out rocking socks or pissing off the key demographic difficult.

Yet hope springs eternal with every film adaptation, from the newest episode of the glittering vampyric soap-opera to the next big fantasy epic with alien invaders.

So, without further ado, here are the top five films that I, personally, would love see made, but am mildly glad they dodged the bullet, for now…

5. Redwall

While it got a short run in the UK as an animated television series, Brian Jacques’ extensive twenty-or-so long book series where woodland rodents live much like humans in a peaceful abbey, defending their home against vicious sea pirates and blood-thirsty warlords, never had the streamline success that Harry Potter and its various copycats had. While animated films and talking animals are much of a winning combination as chocolate and peanut butter, there may lay an underlining reason to why Redwall may not get a film of its own – these animals have a tendency to gut each other, with at least two prominent characters murdered by the middle of each book. This is not implying that the books are relentlessly violent or considered too grim for children, as they are the demographic the novels were written for. In fact, the majority of these books share as much mixture of dark and light-hearted elements that could be found in the Harry Potter series. If anything, I feel it is much due to the West’s or rather America’s view on animation. While comic and slap-stick gimmicks are easily glanced over, and often expected, a more realistic depiction of violence in a “cartoon” always seems taboo. Given the lukewarm reception to Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, a film in which owls ravage in dogfights and armed to the teeth with armor, this may open doors for a Redwall film to be realized. And while CGI is the way to go with animation these days, seeing Redwall in cell-based animation, much to the style of Don Bluth’s take on The Secret of NIMH would, at least in my opinion, would be awesome to watch.

---

4. Resistance: Fall of Man

For those who read my review to this year’s alien versus human romp in Battle: Los Angeles can argue that this entry to the this list can easily parallel to many other alien invasion films like it, and fall into the same clichés that the genre has established for itself. And you may be absolutely right. Besides the backdrop of alternate-history England after the events of World War II, there wouldn’t be much that a Resistance film could differentiate itself from its predecessors.

While the game may be the same (no pun intended), the board, pieces, and rules are slightly different. Unlike the Marines in Battle: LA, the British and American armies in Resistance are arguably more inferior to the Chimera alien weapons, making them a tougher foe to beat. Also, new Chimera are born from the virus the species can spread, and has virtually no cure to those humans infecting it, giving protagonist Nathan Hale a more personal motivation to fight against the Chimera. This gives ample chance to provide conflict among supporting characters and character development, since Hale could turn any moment, and the fact that the world in the 1950s wasn’t exactly a fully trusting and united one. Then again, it would require a good script, a director whose vision of the film that doesn’t collide with the tone that the games intended, and a bit of money to pull off. But seeing how video game films do critically, already, a Resistance film can easily turn mediocre, at best.

---

3. Thundercats

If nostalgia has proven anything with the course of time, not all things age well. This is certainly true for Thundercats. I enjoyed my own share of this show, as I’m sure many countless others have, there are plenty of things with it that would be downright silly if they were maintained in a big-budget film today. Hell, could anyone argue that if Snarf acted in such film like he did in the cartoon, it would make Jar Jar Binks an enduring character by comparison? Uhh… Perhaps not. Regardless, certain tweaks would be in order for a Thundercats film to be taken with an ounce of seriousness, or at least made accessible. Too many tweaks, or the wrong kind of tweaks, and the film would fail in arguably worst merits. I can give you two guesses what other set of films based on 80s cartoons went down that path and ended up a god-forsaken trainwreck. Here's to crossing fingers the TV reboot will enjoyable.

---

2. Half-Life / StarCraft

When acclaimed game developers have a knack of creating outstanding games with some of the most noteworthy narratives in the medium, some cannot help but pry at the notion of such games making a smooth transaction to a film adaptation, even if they ultimately denounce such an idea as being a disservice to the game(s), some bold enough to state that their storytelling elements are superior to that of filmmaking. However you might feel about the topic, the folks at Valve and Blizzard sure know how to give their games the cinematic touch, hinting they could be capable of making films themselves if the trailers to their respected games are a testament to that trait (something that Valve have teased about looking into, but just leaving it at that).

And with Sam Raimi still onboard the World of Warcraft picture (at least from my understanding as I type this), who could rule the possibility of StarCraft getting its own production green-lit? While I, and other, can dream, Hollywood still hasn’t laid a finger on Halo, no doubt the most prominent game of this generation, for a film opportunity, much speculation placed that nobody wants to piss off fans if it ends up sucking. And even if studios okay either a Half-Life or StarCraft film, it would seem wrong if the Valve and Blizzard had no part in the production, which would likely be the case. If so, I rather not see it done.

----

1. Calvin & Hobbes

If you needed two reasons as to why a Calvin and Hobbes movie should never be made, as much as I would love one, I would give you these: Garfield and Marmaduke, both comic strips like C&H, and both their movies sucked hard. Even Bill Murray himself was so ashamed of the Garfield picture that he even mentioned it as he died as himself in Zombieland (did I need a spoiler alert for that one? Sorry...). Lousy jokes, lousy plot, lousy casting with the exception of Murray; pretty much everything about the film was lousy. Whereas the comic strip had some charm and humor to it, Garfield’s feature picture debut was a rather hallow and mirthless snooze-fest that tries to needlessly cram the “importance of family” any chance it got. The Marmaduke movie was cut much from the same cloth.

Not to rule out that movies adapted from comic strips is impossible, however. While Over the Hedge wasn’t spectacular, it was a solid film (and even had a “family” element spread throughout but on more tolerable levels) and felt almost on the level with the tone of the comic strip. If Calvin & Hobbes were to have the potential of a good movie (and I really think it can), a delicate balance between the hilarity and the more somber pieces of all the characters that would fit into such a film must be maintained throughout. Most importantly, the connection between the two title characters must feel genuine, as they were in the comics, friends with their ups and downs, the mischief they both get themselves into, and their appreciation (and sometimes abuse) of each other must be steadfast in execution. Also, cutting corners must be avoided. And lastly, such as project needs to be handled by caring hands if it is expected to be great, and the only hands I see worth of handling are from the creative team of Pixar, masters at building a story with as much heart as laughs, something that I strongly feel a Calvin & Hobbes film needs.

(So, yeah, if anybody at Pixar, as unlikely as it may be, reading this: make a Calvin & Hobbes film and I will gladly pay full-price, opening night to it!)

Ode to the Blue Hedgehog

2011-04-07T16:31:00.001-06:00

Ah, Sonic the Hedgehog. Remember when you used to be so cool? Awesome, even. Remember the great times we had, in those 16-bit era days on the Sega Genesis? I don’t know about you, but as a shut-in, reclusive youth of nigh eight years old, I remember those days fondly. It was a sweet, sweet time in my life: too young to care about the console wars that raged between Sega and Nintendo, too naïve to see that the Sega CD and the 32X were novelty console add-ons with great games that were almost non-existent, when you had less annoying companions, no rival hedgehog with a Vegeta complex and guns, and Eggman was still Dr. Robotonic.

"You're kidding me, right?"

Yep. It was a blissful time, then. Quite some time has passed on since then, hasn’t it? The commercial failure of the Dreamcast pulled Sega from the console market forever. We both got older. You got slimmer, got yourself a cast of more buddies (some more god-awful annoying that it hurt), and with more and more games, you started losing your charm. I got more cynical with age and, deep down, grew very disappointed in you. You were a major icon to me as a kid. Hell, you should have seen my face when I got one of your plushies for Christmas, when I was but eight years old.

The times have not been fair to you, not that Sega or the Sonic Team has been generous either. You’ve come between a rock and a hard place, old friend. Fans demand that you return to your roots, yet the corporate wants you to sell millions, trying the same things that made a fat Italian plumber that has made the Big N so fat from profits.

It would be bigoted to claim you aren’t trying. Many, including myself, would love to see you rise from the ashes, in the glory of your former self. It’s hard. We are treated to disappointment at every bend and turn. You and Sega keep insisting you’ve learned from your mistakes, going to set things right. Some of us are growing tired and a little mad of it all.

Yet, time after time, we get baited into every new game. This time, you even tickled our nostalgia further:

I’d be lying if I was touched a bit. A little excited, too. I wanted to believe. I wanted to convince myself that this was it. I wanted to throw all doubt away and embrace you again into my life. The hero has returned, I would say.

Forgive me. I wanted to believe. But it’s hard to. I hope you understand. You are free to try, but you would need to work damn hard to impress me again. Don't take this the wrong way. It is asking for a lot, I know. I just don’t want to be disenchanted again by empty promises.

At least you left a great legacy behind. That's something. Thanks for the fond memories.

Film Review: Sucker Punch (2011)

2011-04-04T10:11:00.005-06:00

I’m going to risk sounding cliché, but when a film’s main focus is great visuals, somewhere down the line the ball is dropped in exchange, and naturally, the victim that receives the most gouging is the film’s potential to tell a compelling story. And in some ways, it can be argued that director and first-time writer Zack Snyder attempts to tell such a story in which a girl is wrongfully placed in a mental institute for girls and plans to break out. The problem is, however, whatever Zack Snyder is trying to convey through the story’s premise can suddenly be thrown out the window when audiences watch this same girl suddenly go into flights of fantasy in which she is an ass-kicking, katana-wielding babe in a skimpy sailor outfit, duking it out against giant stone samurai toting mini-guns, re-animated ghoul Nazi soldiers, and robots straight from the iRobot movie reject, but less lame. Of course, these are dreams within dreams, much like Inception, except the girls imagine they are harlots forced to entertain in a burlesque house instead of a looney bin, while still having the other illusions of fighting in worlds straight from a video game. Trying to make sense as to how girls in 1940s-ish could imagine combating robots, let alone piloting steampunk mecha, could prove fruitless.

Giant evil samurai with mini-guns. Damn!

Does the film fail because of this? Not necessarily. But it leaves some missed opportunities to build these characters, at least care more of their plight. There are some intriguing characters present on the stage Snyder has created, but we never get past their limited dimensionality. Most wooden of them all, Baby Doll, the aptly named protagonist, is easier on the eyes than her performance on screen.

Aforementioned, if Sucker Punch does a few things right, one is the combat dream sequences, which illustrates a dance Baby Doll and company use to distract their captors and collect items needed for their grand escape. These scenes are full of high octane, kinetic energy. But the film isn’t afraid to slow things down a little, figuratively and literally, and is not without some of Snyder’s signature revving into and out of slow-mo that could make The Matrix blush.

The Bottom Line: Those expected more from Sucker Punch than a sequence of sexy girls kicking the tar out of mutant samurai, ghoul Nazi, and robots, with some story sprinkled of a breakout from a mental institute, will be sorely disappointed. Otherwise, Sucker Punch is a visceral visual kick in the teeth.

Battle: Los Angeles -- Film Review

2011-03-12T10:58:00.002-07:00

THE NINJA vs BATTLE: LOS ANGELES (2011)

I’m going to go ahead and inform the obvious: Battle: Los Angeles is as fresh as a pair of dirty boxers in a drawer of other dirty boxers. It’s sort of like watching any film that set in World War II, as in we get the same concept that Nazi’s are the villains, the Allied Forces were the good guys, and good ol’ Adolf Hitler and friends get their asses kicked in, eventually. The only major difference between these films in this backdrop in history? Different squad, different battlefield, same bloody war. The concept of aliens invading Earth to (naturally) harvest our natural resources or our brains – whatever the case – and all of humanity sets aside their differences to send E.T. packing back to the far side of the Milky Way, is a parallel one.

Now that we are done with the topic concerning originality, the challenge remains for Battle Los Angeles: how does it compared to such other dirty boxers like mega-hits Independence Day. Overall, about the same.

The story is very forthright. Aliens invade Earth, under the guise of crashing meteorites. They want our water (surprise, surprise) and they intend to kill off the human race to get it. The US Marines, the finest examples of American patriotism and can-do G.I. Joe mentality that can be asked for, are immediately dispatched to combat the threat. Forced out prematurely from retirement, Staff Sergeant Muntz (Aaron Eckhart) leads a squad to evacuate civilians from the Santa Monica district before a bombing operation blows the place to high hell, destroying the aliens. The film does not try hard to flesh out any characters save for Muntz, and probably for the best considering how most of these soldiers are picked off quite quickly throughout, with any screen time dedicated to such people shouting military jargon.

Naturally, the lack of complex storytelling allows the film to focus more on the carnage presented in the film. And carnage is plentiful, and rarely without a dull moment between heart-racing gunfights. It’s just too bad that we can’t watch this without the jarring camera shots. I’ve watched Cloverfield, District 9, and Black Hawk Down, all movies notorious among critics for the intentional “shaky camera” and had little complaints. We’re talking almost on par with both Transformers films, here. If nothing else, this is my biggest quip with the film. I understand that shaky cameras can add to a chaotic scene, but what I wouldn’t give to be able to grab the camera and force it steady.

The Bottom Line: Modestly delivers on what it aims for – aliens, Marines with firepower, and the chaos that ensues when worlds collide. Whatever morsels of storytelling are wedged between is just enough to remind audiences that they are rooting for the humans, and the frantic firefights, shaky cams, and explosions do the rest of the talking.

Movie Review -- Tangled

2010-11-28T00:32:00.006-07:00

THE NINJA vs. TANGLED (2010)

Tangled, Disney's 50^th animated feature (and the second CGI project not made under the Pixar name), we follow the story of Rapunzel, a young maiden extremely long hair who is held against her will in a remote tower when she meets a stranger and has her first exposure to the outside world. A tale as old as time, retold with a fresh coat of Disney paint. But how does it fare?

Tangled starts when a “sundrop” falls from the sky and lands on the earth, where there blooms a radiant flower with special magical properties, it is discovered by a withering old woman, who uses it magic to restore her youth, and keeps it hidden for herself. But when the queen of the land grows weak during labor with her daughter to be, the king sends out a search for a cure. The magical flower is found, and it cures the queen – and Rapunzel is born. Distraught, the old woman steals Rapunzel from her crib, and spirits her away into the woods. Raising the child on her own, the woman continues to use the flower's powers that now reside inside Rapunzel's own golden locks, and isolates her from the world. Eighteen years later, Rapunzel is growing tired of being cooped up in her tower, and wishes to explore the outside world. Along comes Flynn Rider, a dashing thief on the lam, who decides to lay low in Rapunzel's tower after a successful heist, but is knocked out cold by frying-pan-wielding Rapunzel. Striking a deal with Flynn, Rapunzel agrees to hand back his spoils if he takes her to see the “floating lights” that appear every year for her birthday. Reluctantly, he accepts, and the duo strike off on adventure.

Chances are, if you've seen enough Disney animated films, you know what to expect from the story. It flows in the formulaic, whimsical and family-friendly style that Disney has spent the last seventy years making themselves known for. That said, you can also expect the other motifs that are to be found in your typical Disney feature: slapstick and tongue-in-cheek comedy galore, a foray of musical arrangements that you have all been introduced to in prior films, with a dash of (usually) well-done animation by Disney's talented team of artists. Disney sticks to their guns with Tangled, more or less.

But for what little it does to really do anything too daring with the film, what is shown is still rather good. The main cast of Tangled, headed by Mandy Moore as the free-spirited protagonist Rapunzel, supported by Zachary Levi as the thief Flynn and Donna Murphey as the beauty-obsessed mother Gothel, are charming in their own right and add sparkle to what could easily ended up as a half-baked, pop-culture-filled animated ride. The animation is especially impressive, from the subtle expressions of the character's expressions to giving Rapunzel's hair a character of their own to presenting a beautiful world that is surprisingly spacious and eye-catching. The songs written for the film by composer Alan Menken are nothing too special from what he has provided with his prior material, but it won't cause any bleeding ears or any sudden urges to cringe. At least there is a lack of pop-music, and for that, I'm willing to set my nitpicks with the soundtrack aside.

The Bottom Line: It is nothing too original, and the been-there-done-that familiarity may fade the magic a little, but the film has enough retained from the beautiful animation and charming performances from the cast, there is plenty to love from “Tangled.”

"And Now For the Conclusion..." -- My Thoughts on Two-Part Films

2010-10-27T19:29:00.003-06:00

Out of all the recent trends that has taken the film industry by storm or at the very least buzzing - be it 3D, high-def digital projection, same-time-as-in-theaters cable movie streaming, midnight premieres, etc. - there is one lately that has struck me as down right cheap and annoying as hell. These are being the new two-parter films. Not to be confused with sequels, which continue in its predecessor's story but in a different arc, but films that take a single story arc, but release them in episodic content. For those who are gamers, think of it as game developers who are releasing games like Half-Life 2 and Sonic 4 in little snippets. Much in the same spirit, these films are released within months of each other, rather than the typical one to two year recesses between sequels that film franchises usually follow. Some of the most fan-anticipated film adaptations, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, and (one I am excited about solely on the fact it finally got greenlit by Warner Bros.) Peter Jackson's The Hobbit are said to be following this.

So begs the question: why the hell are filmmakers doing this? Why can't any of these films just be shortened to a single film? The Harry Potter film series have lasted six movies and garnered enough critical and commercial success with the one-book/one-film ratio. Same with The Lord of the Rings. As much as I hate to agree, even Twilight has done fine with the traditional routine. So why? Money, most likely. As if we should be surprised that Hollywood is more than willing to try marketing gimmicks to attract zealous fanboys/fangirls everywhere for their wallet-money, right? While fans won't mind, do we really need to prolong the Twilight films, and the evil it spawns in it's wake, any longer with more sequels? The Hobbit, as I recall, wasn't any bigger than any of the single entries of the main Lord of the Rings books. So is it really necessary for two films to cover the events of one book?

Now some can argue that this allows the films to dive further into the universe that the books established that films only scratch the surface of. True. But let's be frank here. Books, and movies, are two totally separate beasts each with their own limitations and triumphs. While trying to stay true to the source material is great and should be always encouraged whenever an adaptation is done, people tend to forget that, at times, less is sometimes better than more. Films may never dive so much into the characters as the books do, but let's not delude ourselves thinking we should devote more screen time to character or universe development means the film would be any better. And trying to match every event that was written in the book to appear the same way in the film is just ridiculous, not too mention, redundant in a filmmaking standpoint. In order for some things to work in a film adaptation, some things are going to have to be omitted. What are omitted and how can make/break a adaptation, but as long as all the important pieces are in place, it's safe to say that any other changes are easier to forgive and glance over.

It is my opinion that each film, game, book, comic, whatever should be able to be it's own stand-alone story. If part of an ongoing saga or epic, each entry should tackle a certain partition, wrap enough loose ends so that there is closure, but leave enough for us to want to what happens next. Have you ever read/played/watched something that suddenly left you hanging abruptly in the middle of the action? Right in the middle of the action? I have. And while it will definitely spark an interest to see what happens next, more often than naught I find myself getting annoyed because it took such a cheap way out. You could say it's like you were given a piece of a cake, you took some bites, then suddenly, an all-powerful force pulls that same piece away and forces you to wait until it decides to give you more of that same small piece. It's tactics like this that piss a member of the audience like myself.

Films That Could Use a Reboot

2010-10-09T17:40:00.001-06:00

Film reboots - taking an established franchise, rebuilding it from the ground up with a new team with new ideas - has been taking Hollywood by storm. This is more apparent to film that have been met with high box office sales but receive lower critical acclaim and more fanboy/fangirl rage with each new sequel. While it's easy to see this as the major studios simply recycling old films in hopes to gain some revenue; the practice, surprisingly for the most part, has paid off.

Take Batman Begins, The Incredible Hulk, and Predators as a small example of films that have taken the reboot plunge, and have more or less fared rather well. Now even Superman and Spider-Man are getting reboots, hoping to revitalize each franchise.

But films that have been released could also use a reboot? Who could benefit commercially and/or critically from it? Here's a few that I think that could use a re-do.

Fantastic Four

This has already been announced being in the works shortly after the Marvel/Disney merger, but after the last two films, I think the dynamic quartet could use a second chance. The prior two films mainly focused on tongue-and-cheek gags and rather silly melodrama, straying somewhat very far from the spirit of the source material. Not to mention the film version Doctor Doom was a joke of a villain. And no, almost seeing Jessica Alba in the nude twice does not make up for it.

---

Transformers

While both films made bank at theaters, both films were an utter disappointment. While the gags in the two Fantastic Four movies were cheesy as you can get, the Transformers movies took to a whole new low, and then some. But what can you expect from a director that apparently has little to no respect for an otherwise well-liked franchise? Explosions, sex jokes, racial stereotypes, shaking cameras, convoluted or dump plot devices, overdose of Bay's American patriotism, Megan Fox and Shia LeBouf's "acting" up the yin-yang, among other things. Granted, there are robots in both films. Awfully designed giant robots. Sigh...

---

Eragon

When reading the first book of then-young Christopher Paolini fantasy epic, you can't help but feel that the world you are reading about is a fantastical one. While borrowing heavily from Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, the books had their own majesty about it. So it's understandable how the very thought of a live motion picture being filmed by 20th Century Fox could make fans of the saga drool. Too bad the end result was, in order to best describe it, half-baked. Save for Jeremy Iron's performance of the Obi-Wan-ish character Brom, the rest of the film was a bland concoction of over-the-top corny acting, paper-thin dialogue, and a production value that would have a major TV show laugh at. It's probably no surprise why after the film was released that Fox has not even go as far as to announce any possibility of sequels to follow. Having read to a bit of the book myself, it comes across as a shame.

---

Video game film adaptations

This doesn't count movies like Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children and Resident Evil: Degeneration, which were made by their respective creators. Much like early comic book films, video game based movies have experienced a rocky transition. From the Super Mario Bros. movie to Alone in the Dark, from Street Fighter: The Movie to Doom, there seems to be little chance for such movies to achieve a critical high - the closest being the box-office bomb Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within with 48% on RottenTomatoes. But who's to blame for the poor adaptations? The producers? The writers? The directors? Not enough filmmakers who respect the source material, or in that fact, video games? Should filmmakers strive to make a great video game movie when many video game titles are arguably delivering epic stories that can make film plots blush? As long as there is a prospect for revenue, Hollywood is going adapt it into a film.Why not make one that was...I don't know...Really good! An actually, I thought Spirits Within was pretty good. Everything else? Meh.

The Decline of the Movie Theater?

2010-09-28T13:13:00.005-06:00

One of the big buzzes going around the film industry lately is the joint venture being evaluated by the big studios Sony Pictures, Disney, and Warner Bros. While the details concerning this is vague at the moment, what is understood is that for roughly suggested $30, viewer will be able to view the newest upcoming films via their cable provider in the comfort of their every own home, while the film is still being shown out in traditional theaters. Some independent films have already gone done this road, and many through the Apple Store, but this will be the first time that major Hollywood studios are seriously considering it.

So, with the possibility of streaming films featured in cinemas on the verge of becoming reality, what does this mean for the already established neighborhood movie theaters? Will this trend spell out doom to those facilities? Very possible. As more and more films are being released, many of them don't last very long in the theaters, as they may have in the past. The tables have turned from how a film is deemed profitable. Instead of seeing how long a film makes in the length it stays in theaters, it's more now weighed at how much a film can pull in just the opening weekend. There are exceptions of course. Christopher Nolan's Inception was a box office smash and showed healthy theater life for a better part of a month. Same with How to Train Your Dragon. But how many other films have lasted that long? Last I checked, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is already slated for early home release after a somewhat disappointing box office run.

Of course, there's also the consumer to think about. With 3D making a head with successes as James Cameron's Avatar or Piranha 3D, consumers have become weary of the hefty prices of admission tickets. Not to mention, with the recession and all, most folks aren't going to be willing to invest that much money in going to the theater. This is probably where Sony, Warner Bros., and Disney see potential with this kind of consumer market. For the same price that it might cost a family of four to see a film in a theater, you can watch the same film at your very home and save money that you might otherwise spend on concessions and the tickets combined.

That's not to say that there aren't cons. One of the bigger issues with this method of distribution or the theater is going to be piracy. While no doubt measures would be taken to discourage piracy, there's no way to truly stop it. And while Sony, Disney, and Warner Bros. will be on-board since day one, that isn't too say that other studios will follow, or at least wait until the particular service proves itself to be profitable. On the other hand, it was these same key companies that help sway victory to the Blu-Ray disc format during the HD hard format war years ago.

But what does this all mean for the move theaters? Only time will tell. If this type of distribution does pan out, then theaters would have to find other means to stay afloat. Those that offer 3D versions of films should be fine if 3D continues to make as much money as it does now. But we have to assume that services like this wil catch on. No doubt, like any other service, there will be skeptics, or enough people like myself that still love the whole theater experience. And since there's only been talks about this recently and no official announcement has been made, you can rest easy those cinemas won't be going anywhere for now.

For more information regarding this, visit this [LINK]

Japan Games Turning Westernese?

2010-09-17T01:57:00.002-06:00

There has been a peculiar trend that has seemed to be caught in the wind in the gaming industry these days -- outside both Sony and Microsoft testing the waters with their own version of motion gaming. But the one thing that I've noticed being apparent is that alot of Japanese games are getting rebooted. Not just rebooted, however, but also being developed by Western developers.

Case in point, almost half a year ago, Metal Gear Solid creator/co-writer/director/mastermind Hideo Kojima announced the re-imagining of one of Konami's most cherished franchises Castlevania with the newest title, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, being developed from the ground up from Spain developer MercurySteam. Kojima will be on board as the game's executive director, although it is quite questionable how much involvement other than producer that Kojima will have. And from what is said, the game has little to little relevance to past games in the franchise timeline, and features a whole brand new story with a different cast of characters.

Just recently, in the eve of this year's Tokyo Game Show, Capcom announced that one of their own franchises is getting a reboot with a more western feel -- this being Devil May Cry (or the awkwardly abbreviated 'DmC'), being developed by European game developer Ninja Theory responsible for the PlayStation 3 exclusive Heavenly Sword and the upcoming multi-platform title Enslaved: Journey to the West being released in the next week. This reboot shows main character Dante getting a more gritty (some would say more emo) design, seen in the screenshot below.

Not only are some of Japan's franchises are getting a serious make-over, but it also appears that many Japanese games have tried to switch up their game to appease to gamers overseas. Final Fantasy XIII director Motomu Toriyama stated in interviews that many of the gameplay design decisions were derived with the Western audience in mind. Many games like Tecmo's Quantum Theory and Platinum Games' Vanquish mirror the look and feel of Epic Games' own Gears of War franchise. Gone now the anime-ish antics of stylistically exaggerated characters and worlds, and in are the more realistic, gritty brown environments.

So what could this change in gears mean to Japanese-developed games, and the gamers that play them? Personally, this can be both a great potential and a great threat. How so? Rebooting a popular franchise, with a different spin and a different development team - complete with their own styles of storytelling and gameplay design - can allow new audiences to experience the franchise in a new way. This could draw in gamers who may have neglected such franchises in the past due to personal preference or whatnot. However, this new venture could be at the cost to the already established fanbase, who have grown to the accustomed to the franchises they love. This is not exempting that no change is necessary if a franchise expects to further their success with future titles. However, sometimes big deviations from a formula that worked can prove to be problematic in the long run.

As far as I'm concerned, Japanese games, with any faults that one might see in their presentation or gameplay, are probably best to be handled by Japanese developers. If you think avid nerds complaining that Dante looks too much like a emo than he did in Devil May Cry 2, could you imagine the outrage if a big established Western franchise were suddenly handed to a Japanese developer like Halo? Mass Effect? Or even Call of Duty? I could imagine a lot.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World: The Game

2010-08-29T00:28:00.000-06:00

Now, before you start asking...

No, I have not seen the movie, yet. And believe me, I have been kicking myself for not doing so yet. No, I have also not read any of the comics. Yeah, I can already imagine the shocking appall emanating from many of you out there. In my defense, I haven't read or bought many comics lately. Not by choice, mind you.

But I have been playing the demo (because the ability to accumulate any form of income to buy the full version eludes me at the moment) of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World: The Game. And boy, I tell you, it really brings me back to the arcade-style beat-them-ups of the 90s -- tickling my nostalgia and love for retro 16-bit era of gaming. Playing much like every beat-them-up in the industry, it delivers from what you'd expect from the genre. There is one exception. The music. Is. Kick-ass! Techno-esque classic gaming music at it's finest, friends.

For those curious, you can download the demo from the X-Box Marketplace and the PSN Store, and the full game is roughly ten bucks. Totally worth it, I think.

Final Fantasy Versus XIII : So What's The Bloody Delay?

2010-08-25T05:51:00.000-06:00

Back in E3 2006, Square-Enix drove the press and Final Fantasy fans wild with it's announcement with it's newest, and biggest ambitious project yet: Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy XIII. A collaboration of three games (some rumors suggested the existence of a forth title), each different games sharing the name "Final Fantasy XIII" derivatively, each with different stories that centers around the mythology of crystals. The three titles are developed by three different development teams, each sharing many of Square-Enix's notable employees like Final Fantasy character developer, Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children director Tetsuya Nomura, who is present on all three projects as main character designer.

The first title under the FNC:FFXII project is the flagship title, Final Fantasy XIII, directed by Motomu Toriyama (Final Fantasy X-2), announced as a PlayStation 3 exclusive but later decided mid-production to be ported to the X-Box 360. The second title is Final Fantasy Agito XIII, a title originally planned as a game for mobile phones, but later switched to the PlayStation Portable early in development, a decision probably made in response to the lackluster of previous Square-Enix mobile titles outside Japan. And the last title announced is Final Fantasy Versus XIII, a title that places Tetsuya Nomura back at the helm as main character designer and creative director for a game since Kingdom Hearts II.

Development for all three games were started relatively around the same time, although when progress with Final Fantasy XIII was facing what they stated issues with the HD console development (although some theories speculate the fear of Versus XIII's hype overshadowing Final Fantasy XIII, hence hampering it's success), Square-Enix placed Versus XIII on hold to help the production of Final Fantasy XIII further along. Five years later since E3 2006, Final Fantasy XIII finally was released in Japan in December 2009, worldwide in the spring of this year. The game received generous sales in both Japan and worldwide, being the fastest selling title in the series, and was met with generally positive reviews with most game journalists. For the record, I found the game utterly disappointing, for reasons I wish not to elaborate for this blog.

With Final Fantasy XIII done and out of the way, it seemed only natural that Versus XIII and Agito XIII would gain more spotlight and be on the top of Square-Enix's priority list. Quite frankly, the case seems rather converse. Square-Enix seems content to hold Versus XIII and Agito XIII on the backburner, while instead placing the spotlight on games like Final Fantasy XIV, Square-Enix's second MMO following Final Fantasy XI; 3rd Birthday, a PSP addition to the Parasite Eve franchise; and Kingdom Hearts: Birth By Sleep, a prequel set in events prior to the first Kingdom Hearts game. Additional announcement regarding Versus XIII has been scarce at best, with updates being vague as to the game's development, although director Tetsuya Nomura has insisted that the game is making some progress, releasing new screenshots of the game to Japanese game magazine Famistu months ago. Although it has been announced that Versus XIII would be making an appearance at the upcoming Tokyo Game Show 2010 after a no-show at E3 this year, FNC:FFXIII co-producer Yoshinori Kitase stressed that the possibility of a 2011 release was not likely, suggesting that 2012 may seem more probable.

With all due respect to the folks at Square-Enix, this farce is getting really old, really fast. Constantly teasing about the possibilities of a Final Fantasy VII remake is one thing. And to be honest, at this point, I am growing more assured that if that day never comes, I would remain ever content. But this lack of a sensible focus is bullshit. If Square-Enix had been able to retain it's status as a pristine developer it build itself today as it did from the original PlayStation era and further back, and limited their collective creativity to one to the max three games at a time -- Square has every right to pull a Blizzard or Valve, in which they can take all the time in the world they need and be able to deliver excellent games. It can be said that the company, however, has lost much of it's edge. While many of Square's dream team have remained with the company, the departure of franchise creator Sakaguchi seemed to taken somewhat on a toll to Square.

Final Fantasy XII, it's first game without Sakaguchi involved, has been received with mixed reviews among fans, at the very least maintained an a decent amount of flare that could be seen in previous titles even with it's change of gameplay suited for more Western-style of RPG. The FFV II compilation, as a whole, was mostly a cheap milking ploy to bank in more from the FF VII legacy (even though I admit to have enjoyed much of Advent Children, and Crisis Core but to a much smaller degree). Now it seems Square has gotten a little too crazy with Kingdom Hearts, providing more filler games than actual sequels. In all seriousness, what more could fans seriously want more so than a Kingdom Hearts 3? I can almost guarantee that fans would be more eager to dig their wallets to pay for that than being handed a portable game that offers little relevance to the main story. And at the rate Versus XIII is taking, it'll be 2019 before Kingdom Hearts 3 will be released, and by then, the fanbase would be too burned out waiting to care anymore for it (or one would hope).

Even now, Versus XIII has remained one of my most anticipated games to date, and my most anticipate title of the whole Fabula Nova Cystallis compilation. Judging from what has been presented in early teasers and trailers, and the minuscule morsels of info provided by Nomura, Versus XIII has the potential to be the best Final Fantasy in a long time. And, as a fan of Square since Final Fantasy VII, this could very well be their last chance to hold on to whatever last hope I have for the company, as much as I hate to think about it. Square needs to learn to focus and direct it's energy more effectively, if it hopes to live up to their legacy as one of the top developers in the gaming industry.

League of Legends -- Too Addicting for One's Good for All the Right Reasons

2010-08-10T02:13:00.001-06:00

You know those days when there's something that has gotten you hooked so bad, that it becomes such a grand time killer? You are fully conscious that you could be doing something more productive, yet you can't help but feel that you are being drawn to it that you simply can't resist it. This latest game I have been wasting hours upon hours on has done exactly that. And as much as I can acknowledge that there is clearly many other stuff, such as spending more time on school work, I find myself coming back for more.

And what is the source of such madness, you might ask? A free-to-play game called League of Legends.

(queue epic orchestra music)

What exactly is this game about? Simply explained, it's a PVP (player-versus-player for you noobies) mix up of StarCraft and World of Warcraft. You get to choose a warrior from ever-expanding roster of characters, each with their own strengths, weaknesses, and unique ability sets. You then select between a 3-player or 5-player team match, and you are placed in a map that is designed for the separate team sizes. Each team has a Nexus or command center, inhibitors (which I will explain further as to their purposes), a shop and healing platform, and defense turrets that are placed along the paths leading to each team's bases.

The main purpose of each match is to destroy the enemy's Nexus while defending their own. This is done by destroying the outer turrets until you reached behind the enemy fortress and attack inhibitors. When the turrets guarding the nexus and least one inhibitor are destroyed, the Nexus is vulnerable to attack. Throughout the game, the nexus of both teams will automatically spawn minions in small attack squadrons that march along a path and automatically target the nearest enemy, destroy it, and proceed until they are killed off by champions (player characters), turrets, or enemy minions. By destroying enemy inhibitors, your own nexus will spawn much stronger and durable minions for that specific pathway.

Meanwhile, as champions, you and your team go out to support your minions, all the while kill any enemy champions that cross your path. All players start at the initial level (Level 1), and become stronger as they gain levels by slaying enemy minions, champions, and neutral monsters that spawn in set positions around the map. The level cap for every player ends at Level 18. Each minion, champion, and monster kill awards you experience to level up in addition to gold, which you can spend for weapons, gear, and items to boost your damage output, defense, etc. Also, killing certain monsters grant temporary buffs like slowing an enemy down when attacking to mana generation to increased damage output.

As mentioned before, the game offers a wide variety of characters to choose from, although not all characters are immediately accessible when you start. The developers weekly rotate characters that are free to use, while you can unlock any character with IP that you earn through participating in battles, or RP which you can purchase with real currency from cards offered to various video game or convenient stores. Each character has their own pros and cons, although (ideally), none of the characters are significantly stronger than the others - although some characters are more challenging to master or some than others. All the characters can be characterized by their assigned class such as mage, fighter, ranged, support, and tanks. Choosing which character to play in your team plays a crucial role in your team's success, since a balanced team can often turn the tides to a battles where a team mainly composed of mages may find a major disadvantage, especially if the opposing team can counter the damage done to spells and finish them quickly due to mage's weak HP build-up.

Akali, a fighter ninja character, is only one of the current 56 characters you can choose from in League of Legends.

Adding even more strategy to the mix is the use of runes and masteries. As you gain player level's, which are different from the character levels you gain inside a match, you receive a single mastery point for each level (the player level cap being 30), in which you can spend on talent trees, like the ones shown in the first example below, which can help build your characters' offensive, defensive, or general skills - according to your liking. The rune book, as seen in the second image, works the same way, in which you are given a rune slot for each player level achieved. Unlike masteries, runes have to be purchased with IP gained from participating in matches. The cost of IP per rune varies on each rune and what the rune adds to your stats, and the runes are separated by four categories: glyphs, marks, seals, and quintessentials.

That pretty much sums up the premise behind League of Legends. While getting used to the game's character building systems can be daunting at first, building a great setup is easy once you establish you play style and get familiar with the characters. And the gameplay inside a match can really get exciting to the point where you'll whoop at the top of your lungs when you know victory is nigh, or cursing profoundly when losing.

However, there are some cons about the game. Since the gameplay is PVP-oriented, all the gameplay is done online - although you can enter practice matches with bots to sharpen your skills if needed. The match-making system the game uses does a good job trying to match up players with the same player level, like any online game, sometimes you'll find yourself in annoyingly one-sided matches. And like any other online game in the market, you should expect to at times find yourselves in the company of the scum and villainy of the internet. The servers also seem to be subject to constant maintenance and at times, servers can get so crowded that servers will not allow you to enter, in periods as longs as hours, even.

But overall, if there is a bottom line, the game is a blast to play, and if you are a fan of WoW style of PVP and have a group of friends that are fans as well, I recommend giving the game a try. Not to mention, it is free to play, and you don't need to enter credit card information unless you decide to purchase RP points directly from the store.