Bobby747 Reviews

Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception (2011 Video Game)

Veteran Gamer: One of the Best Games of All Time

[9/10 · 11 November 2011]

I realize the summary is incredulous, however I really mean it. I have played through the game 4 times now, and I'll still do another in crushing mode. What is so great is that Naughty Dog not only successfully incorporated their past unique concepts (Crash Bandicoot- style chase scenes), with Hollywood calibre plot and action sequences much like an updated Indiana Jones that you get to interact with. The game is visually stunning, far beyond the idea of refined graphics and textures.

I have been playing games for a long time (Played/owned most consoles at one point (from Atari onward), as well as a PC gamer), and I have to say this is definitely within my top 3 favourite games of all time. I did not agree with the media for Uncharted 2 (which was no doubt a great game, but it seemed to get perfect scores, which I would not give unless I thought the game was not only in a league of its own, but perfectly executed, which it was not), but Uncharted 3 has really blown me away.

I don't want to give away too much, but most of the criticisms I have with the game are nit-picky at best. For example the museum case key in Nate's flashback is poorly rendered, which stands out like a sore thumb in an animation that is finely rendered. I know game animation hasn't really reached the point of being able to make realistic looking kisses, or at least I've never seen it done successfully, and this game seems to avoid it.

My main criticism is with the online multi-player. They did a great job for what it is, and I realize it is their first time doing that kind of multi-player for Uncharted, but it is really only okay. Though I'm very harsh with only player vs player multi-player reviews as I've been playing those kinds of shooters since Half-life. And closer to what they are trying to do is like Assassin's Creed mixed with Gears of War type of multi-player. The Co-op multi-player was very well done however. I don't think the levels are free ranging enough as far as being able to climb around anything. I think they should still make it that there is only one or two ways to get to where you need to be, but it would require much more looking around, and more complex planning for a route to get to something (which really is what is awesome about parkour being incorporated into a game) Some areas are good, but others are limiting for no particular reason (some are limiting to keep you in the area during more difficult fights). Like a pile of fallen wood wouldn't stop me from walking on it to grab a ledge. There are also times where Drake shouldn't have been able to make certain jumps but it wasn't as blatant as it was in the first or second Uncharted releases. I think it was just level-design flaws that were overlooked.

ALSO, as far as more game to play, it seems we didn't get to see what happened with Cutter and Chloe before you find them in Syria. Seems a good chunk of the plot that was copped out of. I would suggest have the player play as Chloe (as she is talented with guns and moving around in her own right, and is familiar from the second game). It would be nice for a DLC but it seems like it really should have been in the game to begin with.

That is all I can say to criticize the game. It is otherwise a brilliant game, and I've had a ton of fun with it. It's one of those games that I'll likely lug around for 10 years because it is so awesome that I don't want to let it go for the single player campaign alone.

DEFINITELY worth the buy. I can only wonder where they can take Uncharted from here, as it seems dealings with Francis Drake seems to have come to a climax and resolved. Perhaps something totally out there related to the historical accounts of, "buried treasure," as Francis Drake was the only pirate in history that was documented to have buried any treasure. But make it more complicated of course. Nathan Drake walking around a beach with a metal detector doesn't sound like an adventure... unless it was hell getting to that beach, people start firing rockets at him while he's looking around! Anyways I'm digressing. Fantastic game!

Dragon Age II (2011 Video Game)

Okay story, great gameplay

[8/10 · 15 March 2011]

This is my first review of a video game on IMDb, as I usually post game reviews on ign.com. There is a lot to talk about in DA: II so if you get bored, just skip to the last few sentences of my review for my final judgment.

Anyways, I was absolutely obsessed with Dragon Age: Origins. The rich and epic storyline, emotional depth and involvement of the characters, along with the fantasy-RPG format and gameplay really captivated me to the point that I actually played through the game three times, with the expansion (Awakening) and all the DLC.

How does Dragon Age II compare? They changed aspects that I could see many taking issue with in the first game, such as the combat not being fast-paced enough, and seeming lack of consideration in creating a compelling visual representation of the Qunari.

The combat in DA II is much more fast-paced, and difficulty levels are maintained, and the Qunari are brilliantly depicted as their menacing selves. These changes I can agree with.

What I take issue with is the significantly weaker storyline and limited itemization and customizing options in comparison to DA: Origins. I rather enjoyed being able to meticulously equip and train all of my companions. It is replaced by a general upgrading system that is based on finding character-specific items that party members will automatically add to their existing attire. Accessory items are still interchangeable, but I feel that change was detrimental to the experience.

I realize that consistent itemization is a lot of complicated work for developers, and DA: Awakening suffered slightly in that respect, however I am always against limiting the power of the player when it comes to RPGs.

On the subject of DA: Awakening, the changes to the Runecrafting system for DA II was very welcome. I do not miss the hours spent upgrading runes to fill my equipment.

Concerning the use of characters in DA II, I feel was not bold enough. It seems that attempts were made to present difficult dilemmas for the player to choose from. However, since very few of the characters are even likable, almost all of the decisions were in fact easy to make, or rendered moot. This is likely due to the apparent lack of camaraderie between the central character and his/her companions that was present in DA: Origins, combined with the dialogue of DA II that appeals more to emo subculture than the vast majority of teens and young adults that play fantasy RPGs, and a lack of comic relief in an apparent struggle that seems more commonplace than a time of crisis.

There is an exception to the absence of comic relief in the character Merill, whose neurotic and often clumsy dialogue is a source of entertainment. Also, a couple of short encounters with characters from DA:O were entertaining while they lasted. However, generally the characters are much more severe in DA II than DA:O, when the conflicts and crisis of DA II do not feel as urgent.

I use DA:O and Awakening as a reference point to assess the direction of DA II because, in my opinion, DA II does not function on its own. It requires an understanding of DA:O to assess the successes and apparent failures of DA II.

Having finished both games, I highly recommend that prospective buyers play and finish Dragon Age: Origins, before playing Dragon Age II. If you don't play DA:O, I cannot guarantee that the context of DA II will be totally clear. If you did not like DA:O, you still might like DA II. If you loved DA:O, you won't be as enthused by DA II as you were the first game. It is still a solid fantasy RPG.

8/10. This would be an easy 9 or even 10 if a better effort was made towards the storyline, character development, dynamics between characters, dialogue, and companion itemization. The score is only so high because I believe in giving sequels a fair shake as a standalone item. If I was rating based on my comparisons to DA:O, I would have given it a 6 or 7.

Before Sunrise (1995)

Before Sunrise

[7/10 · 27 February 2011]

Before Sunrise, while the story is really meant to be taken at face value, in combination with obvious film techniques such as shot composition, lighting, and the changes from "real-time," to "created-time," certainly creates this wandering aspect, representative of the "Slacker genre," of film relating to Generation X.

The story being a simple, open-ended love story is an effective means of breaking the conventional strategies of story-telling (Protagonist vs Antagonist, conflict, epiphany and a decisive conclusion). The film gives the viewer a sense of the wandering, loose, flimsy, and sometimes clumsy reality of a date (even though this would be an exceptional date between two people) between two people who share a sense of being overwhelmed by their post-modern condition, where they struggle to think of or do anything original or particularly substantial. through the film having very little conventionally shot scenes, and very normal dialogue (which is unconventional in Hollywood films), helps with that sense of realism.

In any case, I was pleasantly surprised by this film, not thinking it will be all that interesting, but if you are a film-buff, it is not your run-of-the-mill Hollywood romance movie. It achieves a sense of realism with this ideal date scenario far more successfully than anything I've seen in the past 5 or so years, as trends are currently to create a fantasy that viewers can relate to, rather than realistic scenarios in any genre really (even the news is susceptible, nowadays).

I would give this movie an 8, however I think of it as an, "acquired taste," so I gave it a 7/10.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

A decent movie

[7/10 · 2 January 2011]

I feel this film got bad reviews over it's depiction of the military in a time where the political rhetoric in the US and Canada is to, "Support the Troops." However, as recent history dictates, generally the army will do what is asked of them regardless of what the personal opinions of the soldiers might be. Supporting the troops doesn't necessarily mean supporting a war. Opposing an unreasonable war and demanding the troops be brought home is in fact supporting the individuals who are willing to sacrifice everything for the well-being of their nation's people. Anyways, on to the actual movie review.

For a science-fiction movie, I found this to be quite good actually. Recent news of Stephen Hawking saying that alien contact would likely mean colonization/invasion is a perfect example of the kind fear people have about first contact with alien species that are far more advanced than us, and the reaction that humans might have. However, for obvious reasons it is sometimes hard to detect when Hawking is being sarcastic unless he would add, "ha-ha-ha-!" One can't really expect too much from a film like this, the writing was pretty bare-bones, none of the characters were particularly "meaty," roles, and the story was very fast paced and to the point (which isn't a bad thing). Socio-politically I think the movie makes its point as a warning or reminder about humanity's effect on the Earth. Given the time of the original 1951 film, it is more than understandable that humanity's opinion of itself in general was pretty bleak. As in destroying each other is boiled down to "human nature," and just accepting that.

I personally believe people stand a chance against the potentiality to destroy itself, so long as a people can learn to control their baser emotions and take something of importance away from even the most horrific situations. I think if even someone as crazy as Kim Jong-Il can come around and say, "Hey... we really should just end the war. Because so long as the war remains, nuclear warfare is an inevitability," (paraphrasing of course), then I think most other people can learn to be more mindful and driven to make humanity's outlook an optimistic one.

I know my review went a little off-the-rails, but this was what the movie made me think about.

I would typically give a movie like this a 6, but I gave it a 7 because I feel a lot of people were unfair with their reviews. Anyways, watch the movie, just don't expect it to be a classic like, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," or, "E.T."

Triangle (2009)

Horrible movie

[2/10 · 18 December 2010]

I watched this movie on netflix, thinking it would be at least okay given its 3/5 star rating, and the fact that I tend to enjoy supernatural horrors. Little did I surmise that the movie was riddled with weak characters, dialogue, and the central character herself was infuriating. There are two factors to this movie that almost make it not painful to watch and they are the concept behind the plot, and the cinematography. There was probably a span of about 10 minutes, just after the half-way mark, of the movie that I actually found it interesting to watch.

It appears like the filmmakers had a good idea for a movie and ran with it before fully thinking it through. It is a good example of representing a time-line, given special circumstances, however I found myself utterly disinterested in whose time-line it was, due to the extremely weak dialogue, and horrendous characters (especially the central character).

Usually, I wouldn't even bother doing a review of a movie I didn't really like, but I will review a movie that I hate. This movie was truly bad.

2/10: 1 point for concept (only one because the concept is rendered

uninteresting very quickly due to major conflicting flaws)

1 point for the cinematography (It was on par with most average-

budget thrillers, but it was nothing spectacular).

The Expendables (2010)

You get exactly what you're expecting

[7/10 · 30 August 2010]

Going into this movie I expected gory ultra-violence, tongue-in-cheek jokes based on careers, intermittent and absurd one-liners, and a lot of explosions. That is exactly what you get when you watch this movie. The plot is well enough to prevent the feeling that you're just watching a series of explosions, however the action is clever and the dialogue is really what you would expect. And with most of the major action stars from the past two decades, having realistic expectations going in, I was very pleased with this movie.

The CGI in certain parts were pretty flawed, but I found the movie so entertaining as a whole that it didn't make me lose interest. This is just a really good action movie. Definitely worth the price of admission.

Another thing, is that I find that I really miss the old '90s action movies. Action movies with over-the-top, while sometimes dry, humour and the gratuitous nature in any way that might get someone excited. Maybe this is a sign that those kinds of movies will begin being made again.

I give this movie 7/10 which is a very good rating for me.

The Other Guys (2010)

Hilarious in ways you wouldn't expect

[7/10 · 30 August 2010]

This movie was very entertaining to me. It is not the kind of movie where you'll be laughing the whole way through (which is not a bad thing), but it tends to catch you off guard.

There are only a couple classic Will Ferrell parts in this movie, which is refreshing. He is a comic genius to have lasted this long as a comedic actor where people tend tire of them very quickly. This is probably one of Will Ferrell's best roles because his natural talent for the hilarious really fits well with the character whom is paradoxically funny (there's a new term to think about... when you see the movie anyways). He was great, and that's all fine and well but he was no match for the, "Batman," in this movie.

By, "Batman," I mean Michael Keaton. I was laughing hard enough watching the movie, and continued to laugh about his character long after I had gotten home from the theatre. I had actually heard him say to David Letterman that he got his start in show business as a stand-up comedian, and that really shows in this movie. Fantastic work, Mr. Keaton! Mark Wahlberg played his character perfectly. That man has so much acting talent. He showed that he is able and willing to do comedic roles as well as dramatic ones. This movie was ideal for him to get his feet wet, as his character was very similar to a lot of his previous characters; only incidentally funny and purposefully exaggerated.

Kudos to Adam Mckay and Chris Henchy. Their writing really made the movie, for me. The characters were so funny on their own, that it's hard to imagine any of these actors not be funny while playing them. I suspect the characters were actually tailored to the stars as Adam Mckay is apparently a very close friend of Will Ferrell's, and possibly the other actors in the movie as well. The cop-fight scene was incredible (being vague to avoid spoilers). I'm still laughing about it two days after seeing it.

I recommend you see this movie with friends, as with any comedy. There are a lot of good movies in theatres right now and this one is definitely in the top 3, in my opinion. I'm glad I saw it.

Avatar (2009)

Trite concept, bad writing, good action

[6/10 · 26 July 2010]

This movie relies too much on the new 3D technology. I understand that it is an historical film for movie making in that sense, however, I found the 3D visuals had tension with the poorly rendered Navi bodies which looked like Night Elves from World of Warcraft with tiger stripes on them. It is amazing how people are fooled by the hype when the hammer-headed rhinos and the flying creatures were the most stunning part of this feature.

The concept isn't bad per se, however it has been thoroughly explored through great films like, "Dances With Wolves." Initially rejected outsider through perseverance gradually becomes like the previously resistant Natives and earns acceptance into their society as the individual is chosen by and bonds with a creature the Natives respect and deem sacred.

I found every time the Navi would physically interact with humans the humans were either static or unconscious. This was very disappointing to me, and I feel that Cameron should have gotten a video game company to help him out on that (Many of the best operate in California).

The dialogue was pretentious and some characters were just blatantly bad as far as having any depth to them. I found myself the entire time asking myself why certain characters were helping these characters. There was no apparent breaking point or any kind of build up for certain characters. And what I mean by pretentious dialogue is that there are many parts that clearly seem like a phrase Cameron just uses on a regular basis, "They're spitting down on us without the decency to call it rain," or something like that, and I thought, "... really?" Those aren't the words of a scientist, those are the words of a self-involved prick. I do not mean to say Cameron is a "self-involved prick," because I don't know him. I just mean that kind of writing is very pretentious and breaks the order of a dialogue between characters within the story.

Aside from that, the action was good and the 3D technology is admirable, and the movie is whether I like it or not, an historical film. Since the action was entertaining I give it the 5 (which is the perfect average movie score for myself personally), and I give it the extra star because of the value of having developed the 3D technology. Only one extra star because I thought the collaboration of new and existing technologies was very short sighted.

Never Back Down (2008)

Nothing special.

[3/10 · 29 June 2010]

This movie was mediocre in every way as far as production went, then I was somewhat attracted to the concept of a fight club (we had those when I was in High School), and it was just bad lol. The main characters don't even look like real fighters, and their technique is flawed all over, some intentional so as not to actually apply pressure on say a triangle choke or an armbar, and some just... weak lol. To be honest neither character looks like they could take a well timed body shot and keep going. I guess this movie was never meant to be beyond just fluff, but it was bad even for that. A waste of Djimon Honsou's acting talent in my personal opinion. What ever happened to getting REAL TALENTED Martial Artists with acting ambitions to star in movies like this? There are plenty of them around in Hollywood! Look at your stunt crew, ffs! Put Tony Jaa (Ong Bak) in a movie like this! That guy is awesome!

Stardust (2007)

Beautiful movie

[9/10 · 24 May 2010]

I would typically give a movie like this an 8/10, but since I hold the Fantasy genre close to my heart, I give it the extra boost.

The story is very original, witty, well directed, produced, and some great acting from everyone. Not that the other actors don't typically do good work but I'm pretty sure Robert De Niro and Michelle Pfeiffer being in the movie made everyone step up their game.

Claire Danes was impressive as always, and I think she'll become one of those Hollywood legends someday. She is such a talented actress, and always seems to pick amazing and intelligent roles over popular ones. I hold great admiration of her for that reason.

If you're a fantasy nut like myself you will enjoy this movie. If you're not well versed in the fantasy genre, I'm sure you'll still find it entertaining. De Niro's eccentric character blew me away, and Michelle Pfeiffer did a flawless job playing the villain.

I hope to see Charlie Cox do a lot more movies, because he played the part of a poor boy becoming a man brilliantly. Kudos to the writing for creating a situation that many men can closely identify with in the central character.

Well done!

Temple Grandin (2010 TV Movie)

Fantastic movie with an inspiring story

[9/10 · 11 February 2010]

This was a great biopic. The lovely and multi-talented Claire Danes did fantastic work playing an autistic person. I have not seen or met Dr. Temple Grandin in real life, though I have known autistic people in my life and there was never a moment in "Temple Grandin," that wasn't believable.

Addressing the whole "reinforcing the stereotype," situation that constantly come about after films like, "Rain Man," I do not believe the films reinforce stereotypes. It is the mistake of the viewer to make general assumptions based on a single incident.

Temple Grandin shows more about someone with a psychological condition than just having the ability to persistently have a big heart as in "Radio," or "I Am Sam," (important to say that those characters were not autistic)even though they served their own purposes.

Autism is a different way of experiencing the world, but the individuals who are autistic are individuals as any one else. It would be ignorant to say that they are all savants or have special abilities, but if they are immersed in an environment that suits an autistic person's needs and way of thinking, then they can grow, thrive or fail as any other individual in society. As far as the movie illustrates to us, in Temple Grandin's life, she needed to be taught self-reliance, self-awareness, and have her potential recognized and cultivated as well as patient, loving, and understanding emotional support.

Temple Grandin's story explains this all quite well I think. Of course there is an entire spectrum of intelligence levels among autistic people, as there is with people without predisposed psychological conditions, it would be ignorant and cynical to assume otherwise. Temple Grandin is a genius, who happens to be autistic. Fantastic movie.

Twilight (I) (2008)

Hype saved this movie

[3/10 · 30 October 2009]

This movie to me was laughably bad. As if we needed another vampire movie let alone another vampire novel!

The only thing that kept me watching this movie was that I was laughing the entire time. The acting was generally substandard and the scriptwriting was a poor adaptation of an already mediocre novel. The only good acting job I had found was Peter Facinelli as Dr. Carlisle Cullen. His part (the classic role of the patriarch vampire teaching those he had turned) was played very well in the whole pursuit of, "making the fantasy believable," that has always been a primary concern for fantasy writers.

Another element that I did not mind and that was Cam Gigandet's portrayal of James, which was a throwback to the Lost Boys. This is also likely credited to the director Catherine Hardwicke.

I thought visually, Pattinson was a good choice for the role of Edward, but I found Edward to be not only passé, but a very weak character (the compassionate vampire who thinks and acts like a depressed teen, and not the 80-90 something year old vampire he is supposed to be)in the movie. It appeared as though what was supposed to make us believe he was that old were simple visual strategies of books and graduation caps in his home, while the acting seemed very one dimensional. Whether it is the writing or the acting that failed to deliver is still unclear to me, but I am leaning towards the writing. My reasoning is it seems Stephenie Meyer ripped the character "Louis," from Anne Rice's novel "Interview With The Vampire," turned him into a boy and created "Edward."

Bella was played by Kristen Stewart, who seemed to be playing her part. The anxiety riddled teenage girl who deals with her nerves by retracting socially and showing little emotion. The only problem is that when you do connect with someone like that, they open up and often beam with personality, and when she was connected with, she still didn't open up. There is an extreme duality in a person like that, and Bella appears to be more of a psychopath than an anxious and confused teen. This is apparent to myself in the scenes where she is interacting with Edward and emotions are addressed directly but not expressed in other than words and transparently forced gestures.

The fact that they are adapting the sequel is a testament to the notion that even bad movies and okay novels can be successful if you market them correctly. I would not be surprised if the sequel were to flop.

The Pursuit of Happyness (2006)

Fantastic representation of the times we live in

[9/10 · 2 October 2007]

The Pursuit of Happiness is a very realistic expression of the current state of the world. A rags to riches story with the emotional beating of a man not only trying to survive in an unforgiving system, but also trying to protect his son from feeling the same despair he does. Will Smith does a beautiful job acting the part. The Pursuit of Happiness is perhaps one of the most inspiring movies I have ever seen. It encourages one to press on even in the worst of junctures, which is a much needed push in the youth of today. And it just hurt my heart to see Will Smith cry... Big Willie Style. I recommend when this movie is watched, let it be while you're alone. The plot line is indeed predictable but you don't find yourself expecting so much as you do just hoping so hard for things to happen. Great movie.