Comment ยป


Want your own avatar? Click here.

Bark at the Moon

2010-02-17

First things first:  The Wolfman is fantastic.  The only part that truely did not sit well with me came near the end which felt Hollywoodized (new term, it's mine) and one which you almost knew was coming but was hoping not to see.  Perhaps that's just on my end and others don't feel this way.  It just didn't seem to gel with the rest of the flick. 

The directing is brilliant as is the palatte.  The writing is well done with only a handful of lines coming across as odd or, better, cheesy.  Hopkins is Hopkins which means he's fantastic.  Come to think, everyone in the film is excellent and I can't think of anyone I really had issue with.  Even Weaving doesn't pull too much of an Agent Smith which I feel he does quite often in his roles slipping into the same speech patterns time and again.  I'm not complaining about this as I love me some Hugo, just noting.  All of the throwbacks to the 1941 version are fantastic and welcome as well from the special effects to some of the shots.  As someone who loves the original despite not having seen it in some years this remake doesn't crap all over it like so many other remakes so often do.

Anyhow: I'm poor at expressing myself as I tend to just babble and jump from "I loved this" to "I loved that" so I'll leave the subject here.  Suffice it to say that I thought it was excellent.  And anyone who tells you it's too gory - and there is gore, two beheadings, in fact, and an intestine (or possibly a liver, it was covered in goo) needs to be slapped.  These are the same people who want their Vampires to glitter or walk around their estates feeling sorry for themselves.  You're dealing with a werewolf.  What do you think it's going to do?  I mean honestly.  These are some of natures greatest killing machines and you don't suppose things are going to get a little messy?  That's like going into a romantic comedy and coming away angry that there's too much PDA on screen.  Werewolves + anything = blood.  I'm not even good at math and I can handle that. 

Moving on.

The PSN had a sale over the weekend selling Flower for $4.99.  I won't get into too heavy of a review here as I've already likely taken up much of your time as it is, but it's brilliant.  I've wanted to play this for a while now and could not bring myself to drop $10 on it as that's not really "impulse" to me (I'm cheap) but in all honesty, Flower is easily worth double that.  As a gamer I'm pretty difficult to impress when it comes to graphics and gameplay having grown up in the era when 8-Bit was grand and anything beyond that as far as visuals go is really just gravy as far as I'm concerned.  Heck, I think Super Mario World still has some of the best graphics offered and the gameplay kills much of what's released today.  But still, Flower is one of the very few games that genuinely left me in awe in both departments and really shows what video games as a medium are capable of.  This is not an experience you can get by reading a book or watching a movie.  Music is the closest thing that comes close to touching what's offered which isn't too surprising as Flower itself using music exceptionally well.  So yeah, buy it.  It's incredible.

And finally: Plants vs. Zombies is now on the iPhone all for the low-low price of $2.99.  I played the demo when it first came out, loved it, but again couldn't bring myself to drop too much on it but at $2.99?  That's cheaper, and healthier, than a dollar menu.  I've never played a tower defense game and I'm told PvZ falls into this catagory albeit a superior offering from the genre but I'm certainly enjoying what I've played so far.  It's just simple enough and complex enough to make it accessible to a wide audience which is really what Pop Cap does best.  If you have an iPhone and have yet to play this, you should. 

Wolfman Too

2010-02-17

I know that Blue was hoping not to see the bit of Hollywood at the end of Wolfman, but I certainly was. There was a certain satisfying feeling knowing that Wolfman was able to accomplish with a couple of guys in suits what Van Helsing couldn't do with all the CGI in the world.

And that's really how I feel about the movie in general. Sure, there's CG work - a good amount of it - but that really has nothing to do with why the movie is so enjoyable or why I'd see it again in a heartbeat.

In the Wolfman you get loads of blood, werewolf violence, a bit about lycanthrope, fathers and sons, and a little bit of a love story. But at the end of the day - it's watching Del Toro, Weaving, and particularly Hopkins, chew through scenery like it's made of Big League Chew that really makes this bad boy work. (Emily Blunt was also solid - but her character was clearly understated on purpose.)

All three of them put on their best 'tortured Victorian' faces, and give you a glimpse of the madness inside their characters that's just begging to be come out. (and in some cases - it comes out as a hairy fanged killing beast.) Throw those performances in a blender with some old-fashioned horror violence and some creepy cinematography, and you get a seriously entertaining night at the movies.

I've actually been looking forward to this movie for quite a while, there were rumblings of Del Toro and Hopkins remaking the Wolfman as far back as a couple of years ago - and I'm really happy to say that it's worth the wait.