mecandes Reviews

Video Games: The Movie (2014)

A 2-hour long commercial for the video game industry

[4/10 · 23 July 2014]

Calling this "The Movie" is a little ostentatious; it's actually a TV- style documentary — and I have to say I was quite disappointed. In short, it felt like a 2-hour long commercial for the video game industry.

Funded through Kickstarter and making close to double what it was asking, their pitch claimed this would be "the first ever in depth feature length documentary about the video game industry & the culture it's created," a claim which is demonstrably false... but one of the reasons they said they should be backed is because they would "tell the whole story... not just part of it." In this regard, the finished documentary completely fails. It's not hard to see why they needed to use Kickstarter to drum up funding; better and more professionally made feature length documentaries already exist, and this one apes most of their style while adding little to the subject.

One of the tricks that "Video Games: The Movie" has up its sleeves is this: it's constantly tickling your nostalgia bone through frequent fast montages of video games of yore. You'll see an obscure game you forgot you loved and think "Wow! I remember that one!" It's like the book "Ready Player One" in that regard; by merely mentioning something nostalgic, it's able to somewhat piggy-back on the feelings that memory brings... rather than inspire feelings on its own merits.

These documentaries always need talking heads, and what puts this one straight into the lower level of "television documentary" is the inability to give voice to actual industry veterans and people of importance to the gaming industry. These lesser documentaries always seem to fall back on using famous (or more attractive) people more than they use people of actual import to the topic, and that's definitely the case here. Wil Wheaton, Alison Haislip, Chris Hardwick, Chloe Dykstra... these are all fine entertainers to be sure, but you'll find little or no relationship with the games industry in any of their Wikipedia articles. Now, having famous actors talk about the influence of video games on their lives is fine — more interesting than any Joe Blow off the street, I'm sure — but these people are given way too much screen time, far more than the actual people from the industry. Much more valuable is hearing what Nolan Bushnell, Ed Fries, David Crane, Hideo Jokima, and the likes have to say about the industry. They're there, but edited down to small sound bites.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure they actually included interviews with ANY women at all who actually work(ed) in the games industry? Early on, they inform you that 47% of gamers are women, but ironically the documentary then itself immediately pushes women aside... leaving the representation of women confined to the couple of talking- head actresses and visuals of all of the deplorable imagery of the tropes Anita Sarkeesian has been pointing out. (I daresay you'll learn more eye-opening facts about video game history from Anita's Kickstarter project than this one...) Where are Amy Hennig, Jade Raymond, Robin Hunicke, Jane McGonigal, Kim Swift, Rhianna Pratchett, and all the rest...? So much for telling "the whole story."

Another major problem with this documentary is that it clearly comes from the angle that home video game consoles are the only really important story in the history of video games. It skips pretty quickly over arcade games, and with the exception of mentioning Doom, it completely ignores the home computer revolution that changed video games in huge ways. Apple II, Commodore 64, Atari ST, Amiga... IBM PCs and the advent of dedicated 3D video cards... none of this gets so much as a mention... and yet arguably the biggest game of modern times, World of Warcraft, owes everything to the Ultima series that began on home computers, the risks Richard Garriott took with Ultima Online, and the development of PC gaming technology. Again, so much for telling "the whole story."

Other mishaps had the effect of pulling me out of the narrative; just a couple of examples: while someone speaks about the influence of the Atari 2600 version of Space Invaders, they show footage of the arcade version instead (there's a big difference). When the PS3 is introduced, it's done with the iconic music of the Halo franchise playing in the background — which was exclusive to Xbox. These inconsistencies happen throughout.

On a positive note, I have to say, one of the best things they did with their Kickstarter money was invest in the creation of an animated visual time-line. It becomes absolutely essential to the documentary, because the narrative ends up meandering all over the place. Prepare to watch the time-line fly forward, and then backward, and then forward, and then backward, making it possible to understand where you are in the disjointed story.

All that said, you're not going to watch this documentary and hate it... it's enjoyable enough... but you won't really learn anything, and you won't remember it for long. Alas, this is yet another example of a Kickstarter project that greatly overstated what it would ultimately deliver. Unfortunately, the world really could still use the documentary that they originally pitched to backers. Hopefully one day we'll get one.

In the mean time, if you're looking for more than what "Video Games: The Movie" has to offer, see if you can find "Video Game Invasion: A History of a Global Obsession" from 2004, or the Discovery Channel's 5-part "Rise of the Video Game" documentary series from 2007. Neither are perfect — the later seems a bit obsessed with a connection between video games and war, for example — but both have more to offer, I think.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

Disappointed. Remember Azkaban?

[5/10 · 16 July 2011]

I have to say I was really disappointed by the final Harry Potter film. This is the opening weekend, and the reviewers are all raving... and they are all wrong; it's like they saw a different film than I did -- is it because I didn't read the book? I've generally enjoyed the films, but this was far from the best Potter film -- and frankly it leaves me continuing to wonder how this series managed to stay so beloved and highly hyped for so long. Really, this is what it was all building to for all these years?

The kids put on Prisoner of Azkaban this morning; ah, the good 'ol days. That's the film I think of when I think of Harry Potter.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008)

This is going to be an awesome television series!

[8/10 · 16 August 2008]

First, you have to understand what this is: it's the first few episodes of a half-hour television series which will air on a children's cartoon channel. If you go in thinking it is the next epic "Episode" in the Star Wars saga, you'll be sorely disappointed. But if you take it for what it really is, you will realize that it is going to be a very cool TV show! I went into this expecting to be disappointed -- I loved Genndy's animated Clone Wars and am a Star Wars geek, but the trailers for this 3D version hadn't impressed me. Instead, I was surprised to find myself very entertained by this, especially during the second half when it becomes more light-hearted and comical. (I'd even say I enjoyed it better than Pixar's Wall-E, for example.) We laughed a lot, and outside the theatre after the film all the kids were talking excitedly about their favourite aspect of the film: the comical battle droids. I'm really looking forward to watching more of this series on television with my kids!

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

The lesser film of the trilogy

[9/10 · 13 June 2007]

I loved FOTR and have seen the SE DVD about 8 times already. And yet, I left The Two Towers a little disappointed, and a little bewildered by all those reviews that claim it is "better" than FOTR. Now, don't get me wrong -- The Two Towers is a fantastic movie. In fact, it's hard for me to put into words what I think is "wrong" with it -- if that's even the right way to say it -- it just didn't have the... sparkle?... of FOTR to me.

Here's a few specific nitpicks: - We just don't see enough of the characters, and they don't interact with each other as poignantly as in FOTR. Sure, there's more action, more battle -- but less... life... somehow. - Does Grima have to look so obviously evil? Did Jackson say, "The audience is too stupid to realize he is a bad guy, so we need to make him look like a walking corpse so that the idiots watching this movie will understand." - What's the deal with the way Theoden looks when we first see him? I guess they wanted to show his corruption "visually"... but they went too far, and the difference is drastic enough to prevent the suspension of disbelief. He should have looked sick, or dark, or something, sure... but not 200 years old. - Not sure what all the hype about Gollum is... he was well done, but the performance didn't blow me away. It was a bit hard to swallow the constant shifting between him being 100% murderous to 100% childlike... I felt like I was constantly "filling in the gaps" with my knowledge of him from the book -- not sure how a non-book reader would take Gollum... he's kinda stuffed down your throat in the movie. - The dream sequences with Arwen were pretty dull. I think they would have been better to stick more closely to the Appendix -- show how they met, etc. Shoulda played up the conflict between Aragorn and Elrond more, or something. - The changes to Faramir didn't thrill me. I think it was the point where he puts his sword to Frodo's throat that it just goes to far. I just don't see why this darker Faramir was better for the movie than the gentler book version (though I said the same about the darker Prancing Pony in FOTR... ). And in what way was the Osgiliath trip an improvement? It didn't seem to do anything besides introduce a new set. - Eowyn seems under-used, alas. During the battle of Helm's Deep, my wife leaned over and said to me, "What ever happened to Eowyn?" -- she needed some sort of role there -- not battling, but at least doing something. - I didn't mind them bringing the elves to Helm's Deep... but there is a cynical side of me that thinks they only did it because they wanted to bring in Haldir... someone known and yet expendable. I can't think of anyone else who would have been better suited -- and so it makes me think that they said, "Okay, who can we kill off that will bring at least a little emotional impact. Sure, Haldir. Okay, now how do we get him to Helm's Deep?"... ;) - I really wish they hadn't used John Rhys Davies as the voice of Treebeard. It's not that there was anything wrong with it -- it's just that I could only hear Gimli whenever Treebeard would speak, and so it ruined the suspension of disbelief for me... (what reminds you that you're only watching a movie more than the same actor in two different roles?) I mean really, couldn't they find someone else? ...so, all of these nitpicks probably make it seem like I didn't like The Two Towers, and yet that's not the case at all. It's a better movie than most, that's for sure! But FOTR was sooo good, it had my hopes up a bit too high for TTT, I guess. (I don't think TTT is going to be nominated for 13 Academy Awards the way FOTR was... I'd say they'll get a Special Effects award, but that'd be about it, I think.)

Anyway, I'm happy to report that the Special Extended Edition DVD of The Two Towers goes a long way towards addressing my original reservations.

In the Extended Edition of Fellowship of the Ring, the "Most Improved Character" award goes to Galadriel -- but here, in The Two Towers, that award definitely goes to Faramir. You get much better insight into his motivations during the flashback with Boromir (always great to see more of Sean Bean!) and his father, Denethor. In the book, of course, he is never even slightly tempted by the One Ring -- wouldn't even pick it up if he found it lying by the side of the road -- and so it is nice to learn in the Extended Edition of Two Towers that he's not tempted by the Ring in and of itself: he is only thinking about pleasing his father.

Another noteworthy addition comes when Faramir first captures the hobbits -- in the Extended Edition, there's a glimmer of Faramir's character from the book when he walks over to the body of the fallen enemy and delivers some poignant lines (which I think were originally Sam's in the book):

Frodo: "Those who claim to oppose the enemy would do well not to hinder us."

Faramir: "The enemy? His sense of duty was no less than yours, I deem. You wonder what his name is... where he came from. And if he was really evil at heart. What lies or threats led him on this long march from home. If he would not rather have stayed there... in peace. War will make corpses of us all."

Wing Commander (1999)

Worth watching if you're flipping channels and find it on TV

[6/10 · 18 April 2006]

The original Wing Commander video games were not-so-subtle rip-offs of the Star Wars franchise -- think Star Wars without the Force or Jedi, concentrating just on space combat. (Mark Hammill was even cast as the main character when they began incorporating live-action cut-scenes into the game, forever cementing the connection.)

So one can understand that when Chris Roberts decided to bring it to the big screen, he felt the need to make changes to the Wing Commander franchise to differentiate it more from the Star Wars franchise -- thus the clunky WW2 fighter designs and naval-style battles. Although this works fine on film, it really changes the look and feel of the franchise completely, giving nothing for fans of the amazing games to connect with... and lets face it, fans of the games were really the core target audience (or should have been!)

The whole added subplot about the "Pilgrims" -- something not found in the games -- felt a little bit like a rip-off of Star Wars' "The Force" in a way, too (that is, as we understood the Force before The Empire Strikes Back): a plot device to give the main character a special power to set him apart from the other characters. Again, it works okay, but I wish Roberts had taken all the time spent talking about the Pilgrims and used it instead to flesh out the enemy Kilrathi, who were much more interesting and fully-realized characters in the video games. (Though admittedly, the budget probably wouldn't have allowed that much time with the creature effects.)

It's bound to be a disappointment for fans of the video game franchise upon which it was based, simply because it had so little in common -- and because the video games themselves featured more well-known actors, such as Mark Hammill, Malcolm McDowell, John Rhys-Davies and Tom Wilson.

But in the end, it still makes a fine sci-fi film, well worth watching if you're flipping channels and find it on television, or renting if you are a fan of the sci-fi genre or any of the film's actors.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

The family film we've been waiting for since The Neverending Story!

[10/10 · 5 January 2006]

The film is absolutely fabulous in pretty much every way! My four and five year-old kids really loved it, particularly my daughter, and they weren't at all scared.

The only problem with the film is that director Andrew Adamson didn't really do a great job of letting the viewer understand the power and majesty of Aslan before his death. Sure, he growls menacingly, but otherwise you don't really understand "what the big deal is" about this lion. (I don't think it was a conscious "dumbing down" of Aslan, as much as a simple failing of the director -- it's really his first major live-action film, and so one can't reasonably expect everything to be "perfect.")

But that is a minor complaint, and I still rate the film a 10. Like Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films, I feel myself truly blessed to have seen such faithful adaptations of such beloved classics during my lifetime. (Fingers still crossed for Tolkien's "The Hobbit" and C.S. Lewis' "Space Trilogy"...!)

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Tears welled up on at least five occasions. (Spoilers)

[10/10 · 23 December 2003]

An absolute triumph, and the bittersweet ending to the best films of all time.

I'll start with what I liked about the film by telling you where the tears welled up:

1. Arwen's vision of Aragorn holding her child.

2. Gandalf describing what it is like to die to Pippin.

3. Eowyn holding Theoden as he dies.

4. When Frodo awakes in Minas Tirith, the moment when his eyes meet Sam's.

5. When King Elessar, and the masses, kneel before the hobbits.

I really liked the pacing of this film; a vast improvement over TTT, and I have to admit, I didn't even miss Saruman -- like Jackson has said, "it's old business" from TTT, and I was happy to just get on with ROTK. Unlike TTT, there is less jumping around, and you really have a feeling throughout the movie that the fates of each group of people (Frodo/Sam, Theoden etc., Gandalf etc.) are closely intertwined.

The acting was top drawer, to be sure, and the emotional intensity of the trilogy definitely reaches a crescendo in ROTK.

I do have some nitpicks -- the things that kept the film from "exceeding" my expectations:

First and foremost, I despised the part where Elrond claims Eowyn is dying because "her fate is tied to the ring." It defies all logic, all sense, and it just comes out of left-field without warning or precedent; especially when the last scene of Arwen is when she has a vision about "living happily ever after," and now all of a sudden she is dying, and shown lamenting that she will never see Aragorn again? It simply didn't make sense, and seemed an incredibly cheesy plot device.

It seemed strange to emphasize Eowyn's heartbreak, and Theoden passing on the rule of Rohan to her, but then to cut out the Houses of Healing scenes where, in the book, she hooks up with Faramir. After she slays the Witchking, Eowyn is only seen for a fleeting instant in the crowd at the coronation... sure, she's standing beside Faramir, but it doesn't seem a fitting end to her tale.

I'm surprised that the Mouth of Sauron wasn't in the film; it seems like it would have been nice to have him present Frodo's mithril shirt as apparent evidence of his destruction, and then have Aragorn take his step of faith in Frodo in spite of this evidence.

I was excited to see Merry and Pippin's strong roles in the film -- but saddened to see that Legolas and Gimli have very little to do, besides basically an exact repeat of their "counting game" from TTT. We've been there, done that... mumakil or no mumakil.

The "web" Shelob wraps around Frodo looks too fake during the scene when Sam is holding him (thinking him dead) -- it took away from the dramatic tension of the moment, and killed the "suspension of disbelief."

I don't feel like the army of the dead should have looked like grotesque rotting corpses -- they WEREN'T corpses, they were spirits, and should have looked fully human; but leave it to Peter Jackson, the horror film maker, to throw in a cheap horror element. That whole sequence fell flat because of it: had we seen the spirits of dignified men of yesteryear honestly seeming to be trying to redeem themselves, it would have been a much more powerful aspect of the plot. A bargain with corpses makes Aragorn look to be using evil to fight evil, and I doubt that's how Tolkien would have intended it to appear.

I could have done without the Smeagol/Deagol introduction; I quite disliked the make-up jobs as they attempted to show Smeagol degenerating into Gollum; it just looked aweful, and forced me to give the make-up 4 out of 5 (that and some fake looking hobbit ears and feet -- and the awfully over-done aging applied to Bilbo at the end.)

At the very end, when Frodo is invisible and Gollum jumps on him, the struggle should have been a bit more dynamic -- the shots of Gollum floating around in the air went on too long -- people in the theatre thought it was comical and started to laugh... well, clearly, this is not a moment in the film when people should be laughing. (And what's the deal with Gollum sinking into the lava without any look of pain and the way his body must be burning and melting away?)

There was something that failed to grab me about the Grey Havens scene at the end, and I finally realized what it is: we're never shown the ocean. All we see is the ship in an extremely sheltered cove, sailing towards a tight passage between two huge sheer mountains -- I wanted, no, NEEDED to see the ocean's vast expanse. (And, I had always secretly hoped that we would see the ship "leaving Middle-earth" in the way it does in that old John Howe painting... some how.)

I was surprised, after reading so many reviews that said "it has long, multiple endings," to actually feel that the ending seems quite short. Sure, if you think the Ring's destruction is the end of the story, maybe it would seem long -- but no, this isn't a movie about a Ring, it's a movie about, first and foremost, Frodo -- his journey isn't quite over just because the Ring is gone, and we must follow it through to the end; quite right.

When all is said and done, I think Fellowship of the Ring will remain my favourite film of the trilogy -- that's not to say anything about about ROTK, though, because FOTR has always been my favourite part of the book, too, and I always expected I would like it best. ROTK will obviously be most peoples' favourite, though, and understandably so; it is a stunning achievement.

One final word: No offense, but I actually hope Peter Jackson lets someone else direct The Hobbit (maybe he could produce it or something). I think I'd rather not see the horror film maker put his hand to what should be a lighter, children-oriented movie.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

A dark vision of the book, but it works well...

[23 December 2001]

Firstly, this is undisputably one of the best films ever made. It is a modern-day adaption of Lord of the Rings, an intense three hour journey into a vision of the reality of Middle-Earth. As a film in it's own right, there is little to find fault with. The casting is excellent, the acting is flawless (Ian McKellen is perfection itself as Gandalf). The settings are amazing, in that you barely realise that it is a fantastical place -- everything seems very real. Shots are set up perfectly, with excellent positioning of characters within the frame. In several places, if I may be so bold as to say so, Jackson actually IMPROVES on Tolkien's masterpiece, and adds depth by drawing from The Silmarillion and other related works.

However, no three-hour version of Fellowship of the Ring could possibly capture all of the book and make everyone happy -- it would have to be a dozen hours to capture everything presented in the book. I think that perhaps Peter Jackson (a horror film director) focused a bit too much on the dark side of the story. After the ringwraiths appear, he literally takes the colour out of the film, making it almost black-and-white, and the hues -- and joy -- never returns. Bree is dark, and there is no fun in The Prancing Pony. Rivendell and Lothlorien become mysterious and menacing places. Also, almost all of the areas where Jackson added to the work were to make the movie even darker: Saruman's evil role is increased, the orcs/Uruk-Hai feature prominently, and there's a nasty cave troll added as well. This isn't to say that the movie fails -- but it is a far darker, and much more intense, vision of the Lord of the Rings than I personally might have preferred. It's definitely not a film for children -- mid-teens and upward only. All-in-all, I found that Jackson's version of Fellowship of the Ring is perfectly executed according to his slightly more "current", darker vision of it. I'm sure that very few people will find fault in that... one could argue that he makes it even more... "real"... with the more prominent and tangible evil. (And there's definitely no room for Tom Bombadil in Jackson's vision of FOTR, that's for sure!)

Some small technical issues that I hesitate to mention but shall nonetheless:

The music was excellent, but it really plays a subtle supporting role and lacks a certain... punch or originality (though some would say that is exactly as it should be, and I wouldn't dispute that.) The special effects were a bit unbalanced -- some elements, such as the cave troll and the incredible balrog were perfectly executed, while others were noticeably flawed and unreal looking. (However, the size-difference of the hobbits is handled well, with very few moments where you notice any problems with perspective.) There are scenes shown in the trailers which are not present in the final film (can you say "special edition DVD version"...?), and there are threads that sort of dangle with the edits. For example: Gimli makes grandiose statements about people falling under the spell of the "elf-witch" of Lothlorien... and someone who knows the book realizes this is a set-up for the moment when he himself "falls under her spell" and asks for a strand of her hair -- but this never happens; and the scene of them receiving brooches (a scene shown in the trailers) is missing... and yet, strangely, Jackson seems to go out of his way to show their brooches later in the film without explanation.

But, these are all nitpicks of an arm-chair critic -- this is an excellent film. I was spell-bound for three hours, on the edge of my seat even though I have read The Lord of the Rings several times. The three hours passed so quickly; I could have easily sat and watched the entirety of the trilogy, glued to the screen. It's going to be a long year, waiting for the next film -- and I'm going to pick up the books again as soon as I get home...!

One final nitpick: Is it just me, or was Arwen presented as a more powerful wizard than Gandalf? What's up with that? She commands the water to rise against the Nazgul, while Gandalf gets whipped (pun intended) in both his "magical" battles. (In the books, Gandalf takes credit for the water rising at the ford; in the movie, it is clearly Arwen who calls the water forth with magical words.)

Shadowlands (1993)

Lewis' step-son says the portrayal of emotion is perfect.

[10/10 · 14 May 2000]

A few years ago, I had the pleasure to correspond with Douglas Gresham. (FYI, Douglas is Joy's son -- thus C.S. Lewis step-son -- played by Joseph Mazzello in this film.) I had recently seen Shadowlands, and so I asked Douglas how "true to life" the picture was. He told me that some details (dates, places) had been changed slightly for obvious dramatic/story-telling reasons, but that the "spirit" and "feeling" of all the emotions portrayed in the movie were perfectly accurate. That's exactly what it all felt like, he said.

I own the movie (and the soundtrack), and have seen it a dozen times... and I still get teary-eyed at the scene where Douglas and Jack cry in each other's arms... this movie rates a perfect 10 from me; I can't find any fault with it at all.