Andrew Bud Adams's Blog, page 3

"Ready Player One" Review

Ready Player One by Ernest Cline

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

A revival of '80s geek culture has been going on for a while now, especially as evidenced by (maybe caused by?) the dominance of superhero movies and the rebooting of sci-fi franchises. What's more, these often make more '80s references in the form of "easter eggs" and in-jokes. Some are subtle and surprising (Tony Stark catches a SHIELD officer playing Galaga) while others are the sum total of the appeal (practically every other line in Guardians of the Galaxy). Ready Player One author Ernest Cline tapped into this trend in a big way, admittedly slightly earlier than either of those examples (2011).

The thing is, the '80s "wink winks" are starting to wear on me. I don't know if it's because I only really remember half of the '80s, having been born at the first part of that decade, or because the references are becoming a lazy shortcut to humor and audience appreciation.

Ready Player One is a book full of those forced references. The difference is that these aren't usually played for humor. They're at the heart of the plot and setting because both were created by someone even more obsessed with '80s culture than Star-Lord. Sometimes this works really well. Other times it's like reading Wikipedia. For chapters on end. Especially in the beginning.

Despite how it sounds, I enjoyed this book and felt completely engrossed in the plot - especially once it actually got going. It worked on me the way The Big Bang Theory does (and coincidentally, both feature Wil Wheaton as himself). Unfortunately, said sitcom tends to divide audiences, offending some for its perpetuation of geek and other stereotypes. This book has some of that going on, too. Occasionally Cline tries to balance the pure escapism by challenging some of those stereotypes (and pure escapism itself), but these moments feel a little clumsy and disingenuous. See the SPOILERS section below for examples.

That said, this book is really more safe than offensive or controversial, focused more on nostalgia than originality. The cover blurb calls it a cross between Willy Wonka and The Matrix, and it's startling how accurate that is. All its really fun elements are not just borrowed from other games and movies; they are those games and movies, so you can only enjoy it as much as you enjoy watching someone else play Pac Man or watch WarGames. I spent much of the book distracted by the knowledge that this is being made into a movie, wondering how they will possibly get the rights to all those properties or recreate them in a way that doesn't just look like a supercut of unrelated characters and settings. I predict the movie will fall short in its inevitable comparison to Wreck-it Ralph, especially if it keeps the content that prevents it from being appropriate for kids. It will probably be more at home alongside lesser known but successful teen action/comedies like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

The thing is, Ready Player One knows what it is, which is every gamer's dream: a conflict that can only be overcome by being good at games and knowing otherwise useless trivia! For as long as such a premise can possibly work, this one does.

SPOILERS:

There were a series of what felt like small political asides that didn't work for me, including the early debunking of God, the midpoint masturbation theory, economical concerns, and the "big reveals" of the female characters' identities.

Regarding the first three, at one point I thought Cline intended on connecting them to a larger theme about reality vs. fantasy. I actually think a case could still be made for that, but it isn't explored enough, leaving Wade's original theories unchallenged and his character development limited to "won over the girl" (as if that's the highest and hardest goal of any geek). Worse, that girl is relegated to the same "Strong Female Support System" role we've seen so much before, with her dream of fixing the economy treated more like an adorable quirk Wade is willing to tolerate.

That brings me to the third aside. I give Cline props for acknowledging that girls are gamers, too. However, does it really count as diverse or stereotype-reversing when the stereotype, and not it's reversal, is what dominates the narrative? Whether it's Aech as an African-American lesbian or Art3mis as a full-bodied, facially-scarred love interest, the implication is that such individuals can only win their way into the hero's/audience's hearts by first pretending to be someone else. It's clear Cline was aiming for something more innocent, hoping to indict intolerance and prove his hero's depth, but somehow it ends up feeling shallow instead - patronizing.

As a final gripe, I was disappointed with the Tomb of Horrors scenario. I never played that D&D module myself, but I did get to flip through a copy and hear about it in enough detail to remember some of its nastier traps, including the Sphere of Annihilation inside the devil's head. This is a terribly creepy, iconic image for D&D players, but gets only passing reference in this book and no physical description whatsoever. Its casual treatment is a good example of Cline's preference for telling rather than showing, and one of many possible moments that fans of the source material might consider missed opportunities.



View all my reviews

Ninja Turtles and Other Mutants: An Illustrated History

teenagemutantninjaturtlesmovie.comEgyptian Gods. Fairy tale creatures. Mickey Mouse. Animals have always been used to tell stories, but in these cases - and many, many others - they don't just talk, as in, say, The Jungle Book or Finding Nemo. They also stand upright, wear clothing, and generally behave like humans. They are anthropomorphic (anthro, "human being" + morphe, "form").
In these past two weeks, two blockbusters featuring humanoid animals were released: Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy with Rocket Raccoon, and the rebooted Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Critics loved the first and hated the second. Neither quite lived up to my expectations. Admittedly, the hype itself was more entertaining in both cases, allowing me to revisit my longstanding love of "mutant" characters and how they have fueled my own imagination. So I give you my TMNT review by way of this lengthy illustrated history!
My first stories, dictated to my parents before I could write, definitely featured animals as protagonists, but were more keeping with the less-anthropomorphized examples mentioned earlier. Eventually I discovered the short-lived (and absolutely awesome) Battle Beasts  toy line, which inspired a story of mine called "Shark Laser" (above): warring humanoid animals find a way to turn killer sharks into scale-tipping doomsday weapons. Shark Week has nothing on this!

Thanks to my mom's diligent scrap-booking efforts, I have several pages proving my love of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles during their 1987-96 cartoon and toy run. The first newspaper clipping above reports on the rise in pet turtle sales. I've had a total of three in my life: Michelangelo (technically a desert tortoise lost in our backyard by his real owners), Dippy (a red-eared slider), and Bartolomeo (another red-eared slider, naturally named after a Renaissance painter). The second clipping shows that a Turtle action figure cost only $3.77 back then (they're three times that now). Also pictured is one of my first childhood sketches of Turtles characters: Leonardo and villain-turned-ally Attila the Frog.

The Turtles, themselves a parody of comic book heroes, prompted a lot of even weirder mutant superhero teams like Biker Mice from Mars and Street Sharks. I took a stab at it with my own rip-off, four lizard heroes like "Band-o Geck-o" pictured above. Clearly what I'd learned from franchises like this - or earlier, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe - is that the gimmick and weapon of choice are most important. (I would later find classical precedent for this in Homer's Iliad.)

By my early teens I had discovered anthropomorphic animal characters all over the place, whether in superhero cartoons (Batman: The Animated Series, X-Men), games (many Dungeons and Dragons monsters, like gnolls), or books. While mutants seem to be more commonly found in visual mediums like comic books, the drawings above - no doubt doodled during class - were inspired by Brian Jacques's Redwall series, in turn inspired by the classic Watership Down. The rabbit-man in the top right also bears close resemblance to Usagi Yojimbo, a comic book character created by Stan Sakai and featured in several incarnations of TMNT.




Many writers and artists have acknowledged that role-playing games like D&D were a big influence on their storytelling abilities. This was true for me, too, though I didn't play the regular rules or campaigns for long before usurping them with my own epic fantasy world, the basis for what became my first (complete) attempt at writing a novel. As you can see above, I made humanoid animals - what I called "manimals," believing I was clever - a common race in my world and a playable one in my version of D&D. (The ram-man at top left was created by my cousin/friend David.) You will notice I also picked up the unfortunate trend of creating more male mutants than female.

Goofing around, I even tried my hand at anthropomorphic food, like this French hot dog halberdier named Mustarde. Even here I wasn't being terribly original, having owned several of the obscure 1988 Mattel action figures called Food Fighters.

My first son was born at the end of my 2-3 year break from trying to become an author. Stupidly, the first thing I did after we brought him home from the hospital was run out and buy the Usagi Yojimbo action figure you see above (as featured in the 2003 TMNT cartoon). My wife kindly pointed out that he couldn't play with it for several years, so I mounted it on the wall in his nursery. This became a tradition, with the Raphael on the right belonging to my second son. All three kids' birthday action figures are still hanging on the wall of my office. Early next year I'll get to add a fourth!

Although I decided my earlier novel wasn't worth publishing, I wanted to try again. In college I wrote papers on "supernatural transformation," naming this the defining feature of all fantasy - not to mention my own religious beliefs. The connection between the two was a possible explanation for my lifelong interest. For my MFA I finished a new novel, another fantasy with mutant characters, as an homage to this literary and personal history. Unfortunately, I stopped drawing during this time, so the concept sketch above is one of the few. I demoted that novel to volume two in a series and wrote a new volume one. The series doesn't feature any humanoid turtles - yet.



Meanwhile, my kids produced their own TMNT drawings. These predate the current Nickelodeon cartoon, which we love watching together, along with other shows and movies featuring animal characters. This phenomenon of reliving 80s popular culture with my own children is something I started writing about for various online publications and made a major focus of this blog.



I sketched these with a stylus on my Kindle Fire as part of a silly "pre-game" ritual before seeing the new Turtles movie. That ritual also included re-watching the 1987 cartoon, re-reading the first three issues of the original Mirage comic book by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird, drinking only out of TMNT cups, and attending the theater with my son in matching TMNT attire! I was aiming for a more realistic red-eared slider mutant with the top left and bottom, and felt rewarded when the baby Turtles were depicted as red-eared sliders in the movie (even though one character refers to them as box turtles).
So! At long last, what did we think of the movie? Skip down to "The Verdict" for the non-spoiler summary. If you're not worried about spoilers, here's how I revisit my earlier fears and predictions:Michael Bay-ness: Neutral. The dramatic slow-mo does create a mixed tone, but overall the destructive action is toned down.Megan Fox: Neutral. She's actually fine as April, who is an even more important character than the Turtles themselves. However, she's also exploited a bit for her sex appeal. While disappointing, this is toned down to only two or three jokes that went right over my son's head.Shredder: Neutral. Not whitewashed after all, though I do wonder if the division between Eric Sachs and Shredder was a late decision based on fan reaction. I actually enjoyed the robotic, magnetic, blade-crazy suit because it felt like one of the few examples of 80s and 90s TMNT sci-fi weirdness, like something right out of the hit SNES games. What I didn't like was his lack of motivation, or the fact that Karai was present (yay!) but apparently not a ninja or relative of his (boo!). Same goes for the Foot Clan.Faithfulness: Neutral. Again, I wonder if fan reaction caused them to about-face on decisions that might have wound up being a lot more original and interesting than the generic story we got. The plot is absolutely the biggest problem in this movie because it's too similar to what we've seen before while making even less sense. (Here, mutagen = power source and panacea that can be extracted...?) But I say "neutral" because everything here is very faithful to all the different incarnations. I kind of like April's role in the Turtles's origins here, which is pulled from the current IDW comic book run. But it also causes problems...Splinter: Neutral. He's uglier than he has ever been, but also kind of awesome. Tony Shalhoub's voice works surprisingly well on him, and he gets some of the best fight scenes. My problem: his back-story. Here, in the original movies, and in the original comics, Splinter started as a rat. In the latter two he picked up ninjitsu from his owner, Hamato Yoshi, which was never a particularly satisfying explanation because he was a regular rat at the time. The 1980s cartoon and current Nick cartoon offer a more feasible background, which is that Splinter is Hamato Yoshi transformed. This is my favorite, as it supplies Splinter with his own character arc and motivation. The IDW version sort of marries the two ideas in an even more supernatural way: He is actually Yoshi reincarnated, and recalls his past life. This movie leaves out the reincarnation and the character of Hamato Yoshi entirely, replacing them with...a ninjitsu manual found in the sewer. In other words, Splinter's ninja-ness - his martial arts, his clothes, his hair style, his decorating sensibility - are all put-upon for no other reason than to supply his adopted turtle sons with purpose. Part of me really hated this and couldn't stop thinking about it throughout those fight scenes ("He learned that from a book. That too. Oh, and that.") but part of me realizes it's really not all that more ridiculous than some of the other versions. As a literature major, writing instructor, and general believer in the ability of writing to alter behavior, this seems like an idea I should be able to get behind. Also, it's arguably less stereotypical to suggest Splinter looks/acts like an ancient Japanese warrior because he's an avid fan than because he's Japanese. (I.E., a modern-day Hamato Yoshi who is also a master of ninjitsu, eats sushi and wears robes, etc. seems rather racist.)The Turtles: Neutral. I was still fine with the redesigns, although they do draw attention to one of the sillier mysteries in the TMNT universe: How can mutant turtles make effective ninjas? I suspect this was originally tongue-in-cheek (turning the whole "turtles are slow" stereotype on its head), but in this movie, by dint of their extreme size (especially in the case of Raphael), they really do seem kind of heavy and lumbering. So, yes, they're more realistic here, which is cool to see, but no, they're not really ninjas anymore. Personality wise, fans like me probably didn't need as much development as others, but I would have appreciated more conversations and fewer shouting matches.The Verdict: Neutral. Like I said, it was okay. I enjoyed it more than critics did, but my son enjoyed it even more. Still, while he wondered about the sequel, he seems far more interested in what will happen next in the Nick series. I don't blame him at all. If this illustrated history has proven anything, it's that we can never get enough mutants!

"Guardians of the Galaxy" Review

marvel.com/guardians
Background: I didn't have any. I knew Guardians of the Galaxy was the 10th installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and enjoyed the first trailer so much I showed it to my college students.

The Good: For me, most everything in this category is showcased in the various trailers -- upbeat music, witty one-liners, self-parody, colorful mutant characters, etc. Extra:

The 1988 prologue shows hero Peter Quill about as old as I was then. Thus begins the long series of fun 80s references. Bonus: His emotional attachment is more than just nostalgia.Dave Bautista's character Drax ("the Destroyer!" my boys quickly reminded me, informed by the LEGO Marvel Super Heroes video game) struck me as boring in the trailers, especially alongside the goofy Rocket, Groot, and Star-Lord. Turns out he's funny, too.I'd counted on my boys loving Groot. He doesn't disappoint, especially in his final scenes.
What Does Disappoint (some spoilers):

Underuse of the bad guys, most of whom are whiny and boring (although I still liked Karen Gillan's Nebula). Lee Pace's black face lingerie is weird. And in case anyone's counting, this is the second Thanos tease telling us how scary he is without showing us. What does he do when Ronan betrays him? Nothin'. Granted, they have shown us the power of the Infinity Stones (here and in Thor: The Dark World), and imply that he is strong enough to wield them. I expect this to pay off eventually.Very predictable and forgettable plot, like an afterthought.For introducing entire new worlds to the MCU, it is surprisingly short on "world-building." You just sort of have to accept that all this is going on outside Earth's knowing, even though Earth culture and dialect is prevalent throughout. It's like Star Trek without the lens flare.Scenery is a bit claustrophobic and dull. I actually kind of missed the Star Trek lens flare.Worst post-credit scene of all the MCU. Isn't the point of these to show how the different installments are connected? Instead we get a cameo from a goofy character most people don't know belongs to Marvel. (Thanks again to LEGO Marvel, my boys were happily in-the-know.)
Conclusion: Win for my boys! What else matters?

"Edge of Tomorrow" Stuck in Yesterday

www.edgeoftomorrowmovie.com
In Edge of Tomorrow, a video game character's ability to reset or "respawn" is a very apparent metaphor (and intentional, according to this Hollywood Reporter interview with director Doug Liman). It occurred to me that the movie's central question could be "What if you had to keep playing a video game until you won?", which at first sounds intriguing. But on second thought, wouldn't it be more poignant and memorable a movie if it made me think about things like reincarnation, resurrection, or succeeding in life? The metaphor inside a metaphor is a bit convoluted. More interesting to me is the premise of a villain that can respawn and learn from its mistakes, sort of like the robots in The Incredibles or maybe the artificial intelligence of the xenomorph in the upcoming game Alien: Isolation.
It was Incredibles director Brad Bird who first piqued my interest in this movie when he tweeted the following:

Sure, he may be biased, being a sci-fi aficionado and having directed EoT star Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible -- Ghost Protocol. Then again, he is also the writer/director of some of my favorite movies, including those mentioned, The Iron Giant, and Ratatouille. That, and I was intrigued by his calling EoT "original." He made a similar pitch for Gravity, another movie that won me over and that inspired the amateur film study on this blog.
While EoT is not a sequel or a reboot, it is an adaptation of a Japanese book called All You Need Is Kill, and therefore not original in the sense of a "new idea." Bird suffered a lot of Twitter backlash on this point and so clarified two days later that he knew it was a book adaptation and simply meant "original" as "first film."
Now having seen it, I have to call "foul" on interpreting originality so loosely. As a fan of retellings, I have no complaints about recycling old ideas; however, I personally felt a little betrayed by his and critics' praise for the film as something unexpected and fresh. I did enjoy it, but I kept waiting for the originality I'd paid for, wishing I could reset my expectations. Like Tom Cruise's character in the movie, it's only on the edge of tomorrow because it's still stuck in yesterday.
To demonstrate, the following are plot points or other elements from the movie that draw from existing films (spoilers follow):

...Except, well, she isn't the protagonist, which to me is kind of the point. It's not a question of whether she's a good character (flawed, interesting, etc.); she certainly is. It's a question of whether her role in the story is all that different from what we've already seen before. And I say no, it's not. Even her awesome propeller sword is just a live-action realization of any number of video game and anime weapons.
Again, all this is just a rebuttal of that claim to originality, which sent me in expecting something different from what I got. What I got was familiar, but sometimes familiar is fun and comforting. For example, the Aliens appeal is amplified by the presence of Bill Paxton, whose character is a surprising high point. Also, what's a sci-fi action flick without a convoluted time travel twist that requires us to analyze and argue its internal logic?
So on that note, here are my unanswered questions. If you have an explanation for one or more of these, please leave it in the comments!Why is Cage sent to the front lines so unceremoniously? Did I miss a line of dialogue explaining why General Brigham (gotta love Brendan Gleeson) felt justified in sacrificing a key war spokesman?Why are the aliens called Mimics? One soldier even wears a shirt printed with the words "Mimic This." Why? I noticed no shapeshifting, mimicry, or camouflage abilities.Why was everyone alive at the end? I get that Cage absorbed the Omega's blood and reacquired the looping ability, but wouldn't that just reset the day again, restoring both Cage's team and the Omega?

"X-Men: Days of Future Past" Review

I don't worry much about film adaptations staying loyal to their literary origins. Resemblance is one thing, but too literal translations strike me as boring and somewhat pointless. However, I do have a strange obsession with internal continuity.

Last November I reacted to a Days of Future Past announcement by listing ten (or X -- get it?) X-Men film franchise continuity problems and how they might try to fix them. My anticipation continued to build until the movie's release, and all the positive reviews that came out last week led me to believe my expectations would be fulfilled. Was I right? See the updated tables below (which contain spoilers).

But in the spirit of not obsessing over little things like continuity, here are the things I really liked about Days of Future Past (again, beware of spoilers):
Singer's signature style (opening and closing monologues, Magneto prison break, Mystique being awesome, etc.).Quicksilver.The joke implying Magneto is Quicksilver's father (per the comics).The homage to Magneto ripping out Wolverine's adamantium in the comics.The futuristic frame story as a "ticking clock" device for conflict and tension.Blink. Well, pretty much all the future team members who die twice. But especially Blink.The fact that Anna Paquin's Rogue has only a very small cameo. (She was my favorite character as a kid but the movie version doesn't do her justice.)The return of James Marsden's Cyclops! (I'll admit I like the actor more than the character.)A few things I didn't like:No return of Moira from First Class.We wait seven films for an actual fight with the Sentinels (the homage in Last Stand doesn't count) and Wolverine is stuck with lousy bone claws!The strange ending with Mystique as Stryker. What in the world was that about?The disappointingly cryptic post-credits Apocalypse teaser.And, of course, the continuity stuff... X-Men  Film Continuity ProblemsDOFP ExplanationsThe Last Stand and First Class depict Beast as an early member of the team, transformed in his youth. This is contrary to X2, where he is briefly shown in a television interview, pre-transformation.None, although he is shown using a mutant power-suppressing drug. I suppose he could still be using this during X2, but that doesn't explain why he a) isn't using it in Last Stand, or b) seems so shocked and tempted by the Cure in the same movie. Fail.Mystique and Xavier's brother/sister relationship as shown in First Class has no basis in the other films, where Mystique is coldly antagonistic toward Xavier (poisoning him via Cerebro in X-Men).It's proven that Mystique is actually pretty annoyed at Xavier for always trying to control her, and w/o Wolverine coming back in time to reunite them, it's easy to see an increasing polarization between them. Success!In First Class, Hank creates Cerebro, but in X-Men, Xavier says that he and Magneto built it.The mansion Cerebro is shown fully completed, even though Xavier and Magneto haven't reconciled yet and the latter has been in prison. Fail.Magneto acquires his telepathy-canceling helmet in First Class and uses it against Xavier, but in X-Men, Xavier claims he's unfamiliar with it.This one's probably unfixable, though at least pretty minor. Fail.Being portrayed by different actors is one thing, but Sabretooth in Origins is far more interesting, witty, and dangerous than in X-Men, where he doesn't even seem to know who Wolverine is.I don't know why I thought this could be fixed by DOFP. Sabretooth isn't even mentioned. In fact, while Last Stand is clearly still part of this film's background, it's possible they are ignoring Origins entirely. Then again, the film assumes we know why Wolverine has bone claws in the 70s timeline, which is only explained by Origins. Fail.Last Stand and Origins depict a bald, standing Xavier older than James McAvoy in First Class, who is paralyzed and put in a wheel chair (with hair!).Ignoring Origins would resolve 1/2 of these scenes, but the Last Stand scene is still problematic. It shows both Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen in their respective roles, recruiting like their younger counterparts did in First Class. Fail.Emma Frost—or a character very much like her—is depicted in Origins as a teenager, yet she appears in First Class as an adult.The character was never named, so maybe I can let this one go. N/A.Moira MacTaggert is appropriately depicted as Scottish in Last Stand but American in First Class (and too close in age). Also, she’s a doctor in the former and a CIA agent in the latter.Unfortunately, Moira isn't even mentioned. Fail.The experiment that gives Wolverine his adamantium skeleton is depicted differently between X2 and Origins.DOFP includes flashbacks of Weapon X, and these are pulled from X2 instead of Origins. Again, this is more like selectively ignoring than fixing. Fail.When Jean Grey “dies” at the end of X2, her flaming Phoenix figure is foreshadowed. However, the same flaming figure is completely absent from Phoenix in Last Stand.Another small complaint that couldn't really be fixed. Fail.
1 out of 10 (9?). Maybe my nerdy comic book fan feels were too hard to live up to. Worse, Days of Future Past actually introduces even more continuity errors:
DOFP Continuity ProblemsPossible ExplanationsXavier was disintegrated by Jean in Last Stand. He shows up alive in The Wolverine end credits scene and Logan asks how that's possible. The scene is a teaser for DOFP, so the assumption is that we'll get an explanation. Nope.A stinger at the end of Last Stand shows Xavier reawakening in the body of Moira's comatose patient, but that still doesn't explain why he looks like himself or is still in a wheelchair in DOFP.At the end of The Wolverine, Logan loses his adamantium claws. He has them back at the start of DOFP.Magneto restored them by drawing from the adamantium still lacing the rest of Logan's skeleton.Bolivar Trask is a primary villain in the 70s timeline, played by Peter Dinklage. However, there's a Trask in Last Stand played by Bill Duke.They're different Trasks (pfft).Kitty Pryde acquires the ability to send someone's consciousness into their past body, but there's no precedent for this in her mutant powers as depicted in previous films.It's somehow an extension of her phasing ability that she figures out by the future timeline.
It seems like most of these could have been explained with a few simple lines, though I almost wish the intro was lengthier to bridge the gap between it and The Wolverine.
In the end, what most disappoints me is that the new installment is not an attempt to strengthen the franchise's credibility, but is in fact tearing it down. After all, Days of Future Past doesn't just retcon the films most people hated, namely Last Stand and Origins; it removes X-Men, X2, and The Wolverine, too. So if you want to re-watch those movies without thinking, "But who cares? These characters' choices have no consequences in the larger X-Men universe because they were all erased!", it's best to look at the individual films as separate retellings that are not necessarily related.
The good news is that the new continuity -- First Class, Days of Future Past, and the upcoming Apocalypse -- is made consistent by shedding those earlier films. So maybe the franchise's future is looking bright after all...an impressive achievement considering its long and sorted past.

"The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" Review

20th Century FoxI'm the right audience for this movie: I like minimalist humor, daydream a lot, and have a fondness for stories that confuse reality and fantasy.

The corporate villains are pretty archetypal (acknowledged in a cool "Mr. Smith vs. Neo"-style sequence), the "real" adventures aren't terribly believable (I don't think sharks behave like the Shrieking Eels from Princess Bride), and the plot parallels As Good As it Gets in more ways than one (middle-aged single guy obsessed with his work slowly overcomes a slight mental disorder through his attraction to a single mom and by acting as a kind stranger to her son).

That said, the visuals, direction, writing, acting, and music all come together quite nicely. The movie hammers home the "stop dreaming and live" concept, but again, I'm the right audience for that. I like how the details come together in the end, the character Cheryl's meta-fictional line about writing a mystery, and the repeat interruptions from Patton Oswalt. We've seen the "customer service representative as hero's helper/deus ex machina" idea in countless commercials before, but none of them have anything on Patton Oswalt.

Roundup: PSN Downloadable Games

Happy Easter and Passover! Aside from heartwarming, faith-building religious celebrations (and pretty unrelated but associated secular traditions), my kids and I took advantage of some PlayStation Network sales going on this weekend. A simple tweet would have sufficed for passing these along, but I decided to share my impression of one in particular:

Jurassic Park: The Game - Full Season
Released 11.15.2011
Teen
1 player
$0.99 (This weekend only!)


One of the things I've come to love about downloadable games is how much more affordable they are than disks. We've been known to pay the dreaded new release price on games like Lego Marvel Super Heroes, usually as gifts, even though the price always drops over time. We make sure we'll like these games before buying, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to pay less (legally, of course). With Jurassic Park: The Game, we got all four chapters of Telltale's episodic story for only a dollar, which means I'd be happy even if it was only okay. That's what I was expecting based on reviews, but after completing Chapter 1 today, I'm even happier with this deal. It's more than okay.

I'm a huge Jurassic Park fan (I've read the book more than any other, and consider the movie a classic), so maybe I'm easy to please. Then again, knowing the material as well as I do, it was also possible I'd be extra critical. The game is based on the first film, taking place during and after its events, so I do wonder why Chapter 1 hints at a larger, free-roaming group of velociraptors when the movie Park only had three that didn't escape until the last act. Maybe Telltale pulled some material from the book, which ends with the discovery that the raptors had built an underground nest and were breeding all along (a concept explored in the movie relative to other species). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the writers did pull from the book, given the subtle scientific details woven into the game's story and extras. I don't recall Harding having a daughter in the book, so they're clearing picking and choosing; still, that strikes me as both appropriate and agreeable, and in many ways results in a story that feels more Jurassic Park than the sequel films. Michael Crichton, the book's author, was reluctant to write the sequel (The Lost World), but I wonder if he ever considered a story that runs concurrent to the original, as these writers did.

The main complaint I noticed in reviews is that there's more story than game. You know those cinematic moments in other games where you lose full control of your character and have to press the right sequence of buttons to survive something dramatic? That accounts for most of the gameplay here. There's no free roaming, no traditional fighting, no leveling up, etc. It's like a "choose your own adventure" novel on screen. However, if I'm being honest, the story and characters are what draw me to video games in the first place; once those run their course, I quickly lose interest in repeat play-throughs, competition modes, and elusive trophies. (The Batman: Arkham series is sort of an exception to this...but that's because it's Batman.)

In other words, Jurassic Park: The Game has surprised me with its authenticity, tension, and depth, and I'm very interested to see how Chapter 2 will pick up on the cliffhanger ending of Chapter 1. The deserved Teen rating and single player restriction means it's not a game I can share with my kids yet (much to their disappointment), but once they're ready for the movie itself, they'll be ready for this.

And while I'm on the topic of downloadable games, here are the others we've collected. Prices are subject to change and not all are exclusive to the PSN.


Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows
Released 4.15.2014
Teen
1-4 players
$14.99



As the release date indicates, this is another recent purchase. This game actually came out a while ago on other platforms but, owing to bad reviews and lots of bugs, was delayed on PS3 for tweaking. If you ask me, it paid off. The 3D cityscape, the streamlined combat, and the environment interaction all feel like the developers took a page or two from the Batman: Arkham series. Though filled with mutant ninja violence, this is one I let my kids play. The backgrounds and character designs are more realistic, but it's still the same cartoon fun to be expected from the post-comic Turtles (no blood, no killing). In fact, it draws a lot from the current Nickelodeon cartoon, despite the lack of resemblance and different voice actors. It does still seem a bit buggy (sometimes we can't get it to recognize more than two players), and it's not quite "drop in/out co-op" (you have to choose player settings from the menu), but it's the best Turtles game I've seen in a long time. Bonus: There's a side-scrolling Arcade Mode that brings back memories of the classic Manhattan Project for NES.



Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons
Released 9.02.2013
Teen
1 players
$14.99 (Free for PS+ members)



A while back I wrote an article about video games as an art medium, which is a topic that still really interests me. If the popularity of games like Okami and Journey are any indication, I'm not the only one who feels this way. I consider this Swedish game a member of that class because of the creative way it uses gameplay to reinforce its message. As the title suggests, the story is about two brothers. Their mother is dead and father is sick, and they must work together to locate a cure. As opposed to most games with a party of characters, this one requires you to control both at once by use of the dual analog sticks. Not only is this harder than it sounds, it also reinforces the theme of cooperation and brotherly love. The entire game is relatively short and eventually earns the Teen rating as the brothers explore war-torn territories, but I still let my own two boys take control of its entirety while I sat back and watched, feeling all fuzzy and validated when one of them commented, "Look at how they help each other. We should be more like that."


Trine
Released 10.22.2009
Everyone 10+
1-3 players
$5.99 (sequel)


My son and I love this game. It's a side-scrolling platformer through beautiful fantasy environments by a knight, a wizard, and a thief who have been stuck together by a curse. In single-player, you can switch between them and their respective crucial skills with the push of a button, with only one of them present on screen at once. Multiplayer actually increases the challenge because it means more characters on screen at the same time, which requires more careful coordination when navigating dangerous terrain and enemy encounters. Only the knight can guard, only the thief can use grappling hooks and attack at long range, and only the wizard can bridge certain obstacles. I had a hard time relocating it on the PlayStation web site, and I haven't tried the sequel yet, but I'm excited to -- especially at the current price.



Dungeons & Dragons: Chronicles of Mystara
Released 6.18.2013
Teen
1-4 players
$14.99


This one is more of a guilty pleasure. The PSN has a lot of video games classics to download, but I had to jump at this one because it includes not one, but two D&D arcade games, namely Tower of Doom -- which I was addicted to for about a week over one summer in my youth -- and its sequel, Shadow of Mystara. Both have multiplayer drop in/out co-op, with four basic character options in the first and a few more than that in the second. It's pure side-scrolling action in slightly updated graphics, with the role-playing aspect that usually accompanies D&D only present in its most basic form: Will you go here or there? How will you spend your swag? Can you make these decisions under a time limit, because monsters need slaying!

Minecraft
Released 12.16.2013
Everyone 10+
1-4 players
$19.99


If you're reading this post I'll assume you are acquainted with video games, so you also probably know about Minecraft. Heck, if you know any boys, teenagers, or single adults you've probably at least heard it mentioned. My boys were introduced to it by their cousins, convinced us to let them play on mobile devices, and, once that drove us nuts, received the PS3 downloadable edition for Christmas as ransom for permanently recovering said mobile devices. Until pretty recently I could only scratch my head in confusion, wondering how such a poor-looking, simplistic game could be so wildly popular. However, after my kids (two boys and a girl, ages 9-4) finally convinced me to play with them, I quickly discovered how fun it could be to build blocky, three-dimensional worlds alongside them (sometimes in spite of them). My interest was somewhat short-lived, but they still love it and all its accompanying merchandise. (This is the game that necessitated time restrictions and a better balance of activities in our house.)


Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - Deluxe Edition
Released 4.01.2014
Teen
1 player
$19.99


I'm cheating a bit with this one because I don't actually own it yet; I've only played the demo. This sequel to the game Batman: Arkham Origins (itself a prequel to the popular Arkham franchise I've mentioned several times in this post) was made for handheld gaming consoles like the PS Vita, and not having those consoles, I never expected to play it. So when they announced its release on PSN I was pretty excited. Again, it's mostly the story that interests me; the gameplay is a 2.5D shadow of the original games and, from what I've seen, pretty simplistic -- though I hear the boss fights are interesting. At twenty bucks I'm not rushing to buy it, especially because I still have plenty to do in Arkham Origins. (Contrary to the impression given by this post, my solo game time is pretty limited.) Still, the completist in me is itching to check it out in full.

Other downloadable games I and/or my kids are looking forward to playing include Castle of Illusion Starring Mickey Mouse, Child of Light, The Cave, and The Unfinished Swan. If you have recommendations, feel free to share in the comments!

"Noah" Review (Binary Style)

www.noahmovie.com
I'm going to tackle this one "good vs. bad" style, mostly in hopes that doing so will help me decide what I think! Don't continue if you want to see the movie fresh, though I'll leave out major spoilers.

The Good

The performances. Everyone is good, but Emma Watson stands out the most, in part because her character really redeems the movie (in more ways than one). Russell Crowe's changing hair style is an impressive performance of its own.The plot seems to develop around the idea "What if Noah didn't know exactly what God wanted him to do or why?", or in other words, "What if Noah misunderstood his mission?" The faithful, bible-believing side of me was uncomfortable with that at first, but I quickly recognized the value in debunking the notion that prophets are perfect men and God's BFFs. I think the portrayal of doubts, fears, and mistakes is far more realistic and, in a sense, encouraging.An an extension of the above, I like the turmoil Noah and his family undergo when faced with their own weaknesses. "Survivor's guilt" is a believable conflict, given the situation, and overall, the movie does a good job reminding us that the story of Noah, despite its end message, is a tragedy.Family heritage, priesthood, and patriarchal blessings play a large role in the disguise of supernatural relics and healing powers. Cool by me.
The Bad

The Watchers. Going in, I knew the movie took liberties and was completely comfortable with that. (As my wife put it, we already know where to look for spiritual reinforcement. This is entertainment.) I even like the explanation for why the Watchers look and act the way they do, and their redemption provides nice foreshadowing. But they are just too familiar. Ents if they were rocks instead of trees. Everything about them screams The Two Towers, which is why so many reviews are referencing The Lord of the Rings. As a plot device to protect Noah's family and heighten tension, they are far too "stock."I was actually so prepared for creative liberty that I am a bit disappointed by the lack thereof. In other words, if the movie isn't going to feel obligated to the scriptural account (short as it is), why not push the boundaries a bit? Despite several moments of genuine, gut-wrenching surprise, too much of the movie feels safe. For example, why go to the trouble of designing extinct/under-evolved animals if you're only going to show them in vague groups from a distance? Or why not merge the biblical account of the deluge with its equivalent in other religions and cultures (The Epic of Gilgamesh, for example)? The attempt to satisfy both the literal and the literary falls short.Likewise, the attempt to merge ancient and modern worlds is unnecessary (an assumption that the bible is outdated) and clumsy. Anachronistic technology is an interesting idea (who knows what they'd figured out in the antediluvian world?), but a welding helmet? How random.I don't know if the environmentalist/vegetarian agenda is necessarily trying to replace the traditional message about death and rebirth, but it definitely butts in several times. You have to roll your eyes a bit when the religious apology for animal products -- that God gave man dominion over the beasts -- is put in the mouth of the disgusting, overindulging villain.
That's a tied score by my reckoning, so I guess I'm saying I didn't hate it, didn't love it, but could be pushed further one way or the other with a second viewing or a really persuasive interpretation. Because I'm flaky like that.

And while I did approach this film as a very separate entity from the scriptural account of Noah, I will add that, for me, that story is most significant as a foreshadowing of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, whose life and teachings bear a message of mercy and hope.-- a message left intact in this telling.

What I Learned From "Gravity"

Warner Bros. PicturesThis director hasn't disappointed me yet, and I doubt if he can. I guess that means I was sure to enjoy this (biased). Ex: I was giddy over the signature long shots and use of mirror reflection just for being there, sort of like finding the toy in the cereal box. The zero gravity stuff terrified me like I thought it would (thank goodness I didn't see it in 3D in the theater).

But what's really crazy is that it convinced me -- someone who gets anxiety on the freeway or in a plain old crowded hallway -- to untether, relax, and let come what may. The death and rebirth imagery was so so cool (like the fetus shot above). Really. How does a special effects action film make you want to fight to live but also accept your inevitable death? I don't know, but this one does.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Today the first trailer for the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie was released:



I sort of get all the fans' fear and loathing about this one. Michael Bay producing, Megan Fox as April, Shredder has been whitewashed, etc. The current Nickelodeon cartoon is a lot of fun (my six-year-old and I have followed it faithfully) and it's a little odd that its live-action counterpart is not really its counterpart -- i.e., they look nothing alike. True, the movies never have been faithful to any of the animated series, but at least they were to each other; even the 2007 CGI movie was intended as a loose installment in that series (the fourth). This, however, is the only TMNT film not connected to the others, causing worry (fueled by early comments from Michael Bay about aliens and stuff) that it will try to be too different.

At the same time, I don't get all the fuss. Every film in that series was tonally different than the others, and if you ask me, a reboot can't do any worse. It may even do better. Remember Vanilla Ice? Super Shredder? Time travel? Leonardo trains in Central America in the same film in which ancient Aztec warriors try to take over New York...and there's absolutely zero connection? And that's just the movies. My point is, the Turtles have seen a lot of incarnations, from comic to cartoon to toy to video game to film, and all of them have been just a little bit stupid nuts...because this is the Ninja Turtles we're talking about! I loved all that cheesy, crazy, not-to-be-taken-too-seriously stuff as a kid, and my own kid does now. (A recent episode involved a mutation between a cat and...ice cream. Michelangelo could both pet and lick it. Seriously.) So when we finally see this new movie -- as we inevitably will -- will I be worried about how it validates my childhood, or my son's?

Yes, I hope that "Eric Sachs" -- this movie's Oroku Saki/Shredder -- is some sort of red herring. Yes, I wish they had gone with a tall Splinter a la the current cartoon (instead, he's played by Danny Woodburn). Yes, I wish April was more interesting. But these are all details, and when it comes to a Turtles movie, the biggest thing that matters is the Turtles themselves. Unlike most reactions I've seen, I actually like the CGI redesign. A human-sized turtle really should be big and bulky, because...shells! I enjoyed the lean, more "teenaged" look in the animated film, but I'm intrigued by these grittier designs, and I expect the action will be a lot of fun.

And Michelangelo's gag at the end? You can't tell me you didn't laugh at that!