I watched the original version of Maniac last spring in anticipation of the new remake coming out, based largely on its cult status. And I honestly couldn't tell you much of the details of the movie all these months later, although I did enjoy it. What I do remember is that it had the feel of an exploitation flick, sympathizing with the killer (rather than his victims), without attempting to make any kind of heavy-handed moral commentary, similar to the style of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (but maybe a little more fictionalized). I also remember that it had pretty good gore effects, and a bit of a surreal (but not at all unsatisfying) conclusion.
I was worried that they couldn't (or wouldn't) film such a morally ambiguous tale in this day and age, but I was pleased to discover that Maniac (2012) is surprisingly faithful to the spirit of the original. It made me uncomfortable, and gave me that feeling of wondering, "why would anyone make this movie?" Which is exactly what it's supposed to do. I was also concerned that Elijah Wood would be too attractive or too much of a celebrity to pull off the role of the lead, but he looks just rugged enough, and he does a great job of channeling the dull and detached exterior, but tortured and deranged interior of his character.
The movie is almost exclusively shot in first person perspective, with a liberal sprinkling of reflective surfaces to get Elijah's money's worth, and a few dream sequences that briefly enter the third person. It serves to effectively provide a terrifying look into not just the life, but the warped psyche of the titular maniac. His conversations with strangers (mostly beautiful women) are genuinely awkward, and the glimpses we get into the character's delusions (and the way the symptoms of his "migraines" affect him) are fascinating. The musical score (which almost recalls the days of Pink Floyd doing movie soundtracks) also greatly contributes to the eerie atmosphere of the film. If you liked the original Maniac, I think you'll be pleased with the new remake. It's a disturbing treat of a horror movie.
Showing posts with label remake. Show all posts
Showing posts with label remake. Show all posts
Monday, November 18, 2013
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Evil Dead Marathon
The Evil Dead (1981)
I watched a scene once from Army of Darkness while flipping through the channels on TV during October - it was the scene where Ash is fighting miniature versions of himself - and it was so shamelessly slapstick that I was totally turned off. I viewed the Evil Dead series as more of a joke than a serious contribution to the horror genre. But, as a dutiful horror fan, and because the series has garnered so much acclaim by fans through the years, it was only a matter of time before I broke down and watched the series. To my delight, I discovered that the earlier titles in the trilogy were progressively less slapstick and more horror than Army of Darkness. Thus, The Evil Dead - the first movie, at least - earned a place in my horror viewing repertoire.
Naturally, when I heard that they were remaking The Evil Dead, and after I saw the gruesome red band trailer which made the point that they were emphasizing the horror and gore over the campy, slapstick elements of the classic series, I was beyond excited. I saw the new film, and I loved it. Enough that I decided to see it a second time. But before doing so, I figured it would be an excellent opportunity to go back and watch The Evil Dead once again.
Having just done so, I think I enjoyed it even more than the first time I watched it. In fact, I can now proudly rate it as one of the perennial horror classics I can recommend to any aspiring horror fan, along with other genre staples such as Halloween, Texas Chain Saw Massacre, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and the like. It's such an original and imaginative film, like a simultaneously fun and frightening meld of Friday The 13th, Poltergeist, and The Exorcist. It conjures an atmosphere of fear with a frighteningly unpredictable supernatural, demonic force of terror, and doesn't shy away from the gruesome nature of the both physical and psychological torture the film's protagonists are subjected to throughout their night in a remote cabin in the middle of the woods.
Evil Dead II (1987)
Right from the start, Evil Dead II adopts a drastically different tone from the first movie. It has a very campy mood, with unselfconsciously over-the-top acting by Bruce Campbell (who is a very charismatic actor, but his subdued performance in the first Evil Dead is far preferable to this cartoonish caricature of a man plagued by evil, undead forces). Nor does this movie take any time at all to build up an atmosphere like the first one does. It is without explanation that, instead of allowing the first movie to stand on its own, Evil Dead II insists on bastardizing The Evil Dead by retelling (and greatly simplifying) the events of the first movie in the first five minutes of the second, only to pick up right where the first one left off.
It's too bad the movie is marred by these problems, because it does have a few memorable fx shots (although they are very much hit and miss), and when Bruce Campbell isn't acting like one of The Three Stooges, he does have something of an action hero bravado that is uncommon in horror movie protagonists. But, these are all things I've said about this movie before, and ultimately, its few pros don't make up for its plentiful cons, and it is mostly forgettable. Fans' opinions are drastically divided on this point, but if you ask me, watch The Evil Dead (it is excellent) but don't waste your time on the sequels.
Evil Dead (2013)
Finally we come to the remake, which I have already told you I enjoyed. After the slapstick sequels, this film takes the series back to its roots as a gritty, gory horror tale. And it updates the story excellently, given modern filming techniques and special fx, while staying true to the original. Honestly, this is a case where I couldn't tell you that either version is better than the other. You could watch either one - in fact, I recommend you watch both, whether back to back or on different nights - and still get the full experience of "Evil Dead".
Honestly, I have very few complaints about this film, and they're so minor (like that there wasn't enough nudity in the tree rape scene in this version - but I'm a pervert), that they're hardly even worth mentioning, because they're totally overwhelmed by everything that is good about this film. I thought the addition of the addiction withdrawal plotline was a spot of creative genius, giving the group a plausible (and less cliche than the raucous teenage vacation that sets up so many traditional slashers) reason to be out in the middle of the woods staying in an old cabin, while also blurring the line (though for the characters perhaps more than the audience) between psychological hallucination and supernatural occurrence.
I could say a lot of things about this film that I've already said about the original - like how imaginative a horror film it is, and how much fun - not in the sense of campy, humor fun, but in the sense of good old-fashioned blood and guts and terror fun - it is to watch. The fx are creepy and in many cases more convincing than in the low budget original - let me just say, I loved the rain of blood. I was going to complain about how in movies that have occult texts (like the Necronomicon), the illustrations in the text are always more intriguing and scary than what monsters actually attack the protagonists (and this is still true in this movie), but everything that happens in this movie is so cool, and pulls out the stops like few horror films even today have the guts to do, that I'm not even going to, because I'm content enough with what we did get.
So far, it seems that fans' opinions on this remake are as divided as they are on the rest of the series, so your results may vary. But if your taste in horror movies is anything like mine, you're gonna love this one. I count it not only one of the best movies and best horror movies to come out this year, but also one of those titles that, however deserving fans' apprehensions about remakes is, proves that remakes can be fantastic if done properly. Don't miss this one.
I watched a scene once from Army of Darkness while flipping through the channels on TV during October - it was the scene where Ash is fighting miniature versions of himself - and it was so shamelessly slapstick that I was totally turned off. I viewed the Evil Dead series as more of a joke than a serious contribution to the horror genre. But, as a dutiful horror fan, and because the series has garnered so much acclaim by fans through the years, it was only a matter of time before I broke down and watched the series. To my delight, I discovered that the earlier titles in the trilogy were progressively less slapstick and more horror than Army of Darkness. Thus, The Evil Dead - the first movie, at least - earned a place in my horror viewing repertoire.
Naturally, when I heard that they were remaking The Evil Dead, and after I saw the gruesome red band trailer which made the point that they were emphasizing the horror and gore over the campy, slapstick elements of the classic series, I was beyond excited. I saw the new film, and I loved it. Enough that I decided to see it a second time. But before doing so, I figured it would be an excellent opportunity to go back and watch The Evil Dead once again.
Having just done so, I think I enjoyed it even more than the first time I watched it. In fact, I can now proudly rate it as one of the perennial horror classics I can recommend to any aspiring horror fan, along with other genre staples such as Halloween, Texas Chain Saw Massacre, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and the like. It's such an original and imaginative film, like a simultaneously fun and frightening meld of Friday The 13th, Poltergeist, and The Exorcist. It conjures an atmosphere of fear with a frighteningly unpredictable supernatural, demonic force of terror, and doesn't shy away from the gruesome nature of the both physical and psychological torture the film's protagonists are subjected to throughout their night in a remote cabin in the middle of the woods.
Evil Dead II (1987)
Right from the start, Evil Dead II adopts a drastically different tone from the first movie. It has a very campy mood, with unselfconsciously over-the-top acting by Bruce Campbell (who is a very charismatic actor, but his subdued performance in the first Evil Dead is far preferable to this cartoonish caricature of a man plagued by evil, undead forces). Nor does this movie take any time at all to build up an atmosphere like the first one does. It is without explanation that, instead of allowing the first movie to stand on its own, Evil Dead II insists on bastardizing The Evil Dead by retelling (and greatly simplifying) the events of the first movie in the first five minutes of the second, only to pick up right where the first one left off.
It's too bad the movie is marred by these problems, because it does have a few memorable fx shots (although they are very much hit and miss), and when Bruce Campbell isn't acting like one of The Three Stooges, he does have something of an action hero bravado that is uncommon in horror movie protagonists. But, these are all things I've said about this movie before, and ultimately, its few pros don't make up for its plentiful cons, and it is mostly forgettable. Fans' opinions are drastically divided on this point, but if you ask me, watch The Evil Dead (it is excellent) but don't waste your time on the sequels.
Evil Dead (2013)
Finally we come to the remake, which I have already told you I enjoyed. After the slapstick sequels, this film takes the series back to its roots as a gritty, gory horror tale. And it updates the story excellently, given modern filming techniques and special fx, while staying true to the original. Honestly, this is a case where I couldn't tell you that either version is better than the other. You could watch either one - in fact, I recommend you watch both, whether back to back or on different nights - and still get the full experience of "Evil Dead".
Honestly, I have very few complaints about this film, and they're so minor (like that there wasn't enough nudity in the tree rape scene in this version - but I'm a pervert), that they're hardly even worth mentioning, because they're totally overwhelmed by everything that is good about this film. I thought the addition of the addiction withdrawal plotline was a spot of creative genius, giving the group a plausible (and less cliche than the raucous teenage vacation that sets up so many traditional slashers) reason to be out in the middle of the woods staying in an old cabin, while also blurring the line (though for the characters perhaps more than the audience) between psychological hallucination and supernatural occurrence.
I could say a lot of things about this film that I've already said about the original - like how imaginative a horror film it is, and how much fun - not in the sense of campy, humor fun, but in the sense of good old-fashioned blood and guts and terror fun - it is to watch. The fx are creepy and in many cases more convincing than in the low budget original - let me just say, I loved the rain of blood. I was going to complain about how in movies that have occult texts (like the Necronomicon), the illustrations in the text are always more intriguing and scary than what monsters actually attack the protagonists (and this is still true in this movie), but everything that happens in this movie is so cool, and pulls out the stops like few horror films even today have the guts to do, that I'm not even going to, because I'm content enough with what we did get.
So far, it seems that fans' opinions on this remake are as divided as they are on the rest of the series, so your results may vary. But if your taste in horror movies is anything like mine, you're gonna love this one. I count it not only one of the best movies and best horror movies to come out this year, but also one of those titles that, however deserving fans' apprehensions about remakes is, proves that remakes can be fantastic if done properly. Don't miss this one.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Silent House (2011)
Spoiler warning: This review contains massive spoilers for both this movie and the Spanish-language original that it was based on.
So, take a movie with a subtle plot about a young woman who may have had a romantic relationship with an older man, resulting in a pregnancy that didn't go well (for one reason or another), and put its domesticated remake (because Americans just hate reading subtitles) into the hands of a proud American team of filmmakers, and what do you get? A heavy-handed and highly stereotypical revenge fantasy about a young woman whose angel of lost innocence goads her into reaping murderous vengeance against her dirty uncle and perverted daddy who did nasty things to her when she was a little girl (that she doesn't remember, but screwed up her life just the same). Typical American obsession... Either this story resonates with a lot of Americans' life histories, or a lot of them find it to be an intriguing fantasy (I don't know what they find more exciting - the notion of children being violated sexually, or the fact that it gives them a legitimate excuse to commit violence against their fellow human beings). Neither case is very comforting.
Comparisons with the original:
* The basement in the remake is pretty creepy, but otherwise, the house is not nearly as dark or decrepit (and thus, scary) as the house in the original.
* On the other hand, I liked the motif of the mold infecting/rotting the house. Very Silent Hillish.
* As I said, the remake switches out the main character's anger over losing her daughter for a contrived plot about repressed childhood abuse. This could have effectively ramped up the horror (if it weren't so cliché), but is undermined by the film's attempt to associate photographing a pretty little girl in a tutu with extreme violation and loss of innocence. There are other things that could have been taking place on that pool table that would have better set up the plot, rather than offensively reinforcing the fear of 'the male gaze' as a weapon of rapacious intent.
But alas, the delusional minds that profess that rape is a worse fate than murder would be all too thrilled to have you believing that getting your picture taken is even worse than that. So if someone snaps a polaroid of you half-dressed, that's worse than being stabbed to death. Personally, I wouldn't trust anyone who fears semen more than blood. The way I see it, life is created when semen flows. But when blood flows, life is destroyed...
* Following on that plot point, the girl ghost that was the missing daughter in the original is reinterpreted as the main character's younger self (which works effectively as a memory device)/manifestation of lost innocence (which is much less effective and comes off as being really contrived). The result is a much less scary/unnerving apparition (despite the torture she represents being a victim of).
* Also in line with those points, this movie appropriately demonstrates the importance of hiding the photo evidence! Because showing photos that sufficiently demonstrate our fears would get the filmmakers in a lot of hot water, and showing photos that don't undermines their terror value as a narrative tool. I actually appreciated the original version for actually lingering on the photos and showing them off clearly, instead of keeping them under wraps, as is all too often (and obviously) the case, and letting the audience use their imagination. But as a result, the photos - ambiguous as they are - kind of undermine the revelation I think we're supposed to get from them.
This is an apt demonstration of the problem that self-censorship imposes, when we have to tiptoe around the subjects we intend to address. Not that subtlety and suggestion aren't effective narrative tools, but in this case, the story is so overwrought and has become so convoluted that a nice straightforward approach is necessary if you want to tell a convincing tale. Otherwise, it runs the serious risk of falling into hollow cliché, as it does here.
* While the three characters were a lot more conversational and amiable in the remake's opening scenes - which sort of facilitates this version's movement from "everything's cool" to "everything's fucked", as opposed to the original which starts out, socially, just as uncomfortably as it ends - the acting leaves something to be desired, and the creepy tones to the characters come off more cringe-worthy than shudder-worthy, which should have been the intent.
So, take a movie with a subtle plot about a young woman who may have had a romantic relationship with an older man, resulting in a pregnancy that didn't go well (for one reason or another), and put its domesticated remake (because Americans just hate reading subtitles) into the hands of a proud American team of filmmakers, and what do you get? A heavy-handed and highly stereotypical revenge fantasy about a young woman whose angel of lost innocence goads her into reaping murderous vengeance against her dirty uncle and perverted daddy who did nasty things to her when she was a little girl (that she doesn't remember, but screwed up her life just the same). Typical American obsession... Either this story resonates with a lot of Americans' life histories, or a lot of them find it to be an intriguing fantasy (I don't know what they find more exciting - the notion of children being violated sexually, or the fact that it gives them a legitimate excuse to commit violence against their fellow human beings). Neither case is very comforting.
Comparisons with the original:
* The basement in the remake is pretty creepy, but otherwise, the house is not nearly as dark or decrepit (and thus, scary) as the house in the original.
* On the other hand, I liked the motif of the mold infecting/rotting the house. Very Silent Hillish.
* As I said, the remake switches out the main character's anger over losing her daughter for a contrived plot about repressed childhood abuse. This could have effectively ramped up the horror (if it weren't so cliché), but is undermined by the film's attempt to associate photographing a pretty little girl in a tutu with extreme violation and loss of innocence. There are other things that could have been taking place on that pool table that would have better set up the plot, rather than offensively reinforcing the fear of 'the male gaze' as a weapon of rapacious intent.
But alas, the delusional minds that profess that rape is a worse fate than murder would be all too thrilled to have you believing that getting your picture taken is even worse than that. So if someone snaps a polaroid of you half-dressed, that's worse than being stabbed to death. Personally, I wouldn't trust anyone who fears semen more than blood. The way I see it, life is created when semen flows. But when blood flows, life is destroyed...
* Following on that plot point, the girl ghost that was the missing daughter in the original is reinterpreted as the main character's younger self (which works effectively as a memory device)/manifestation of lost innocence (which is much less effective and comes off as being really contrived). The result is a much less scary/unnerving apparition (despite the torture she represents being a victim of).
* Also in line with those points, this movie appropriately demonstrates the importance of hiding the photo evidence! Because showing photos that sufficiently demonstrate our fears would get the filmmakers in a lot of hot water, and showing photos that don't undermines their terror value as a narrative tool. I actually appreciated the original version for actually lingering on the photos and showing them off clearly, instead of keeping them under wraps, as is all too often (and obviously) the case, and letting the audience use their imagination. But as a result, the photos - ambiguous as they are - kind of undermine the revelation I think we're supposed to get from them.
This is an apt demonstration of the problem that self-censorship imposes, when we have to tiptoe around the subjects we intend to address. Not that subtlety and suggestion aren't effective narrative tools, but in this case, the story is so overwrought and has become so convoluted that a nice straightforward approach is necessary if you want to tell a convincing tale. Otherwise, it runs the serious risk of falling into hollow cliché, as it does here.
* While the three characters were a lot more conversational and amiable in the remake's opening scenes - which sort of facilitates this version's movement from "everything's cool" to "everything's fucked", as opposed to the original which starts out, socially, just as uncomfortably as it ends - the acting leaves something to be desired, and the creepy tones to the characters come off more cringe-worthy than shudder-worthy, which should have been the intent.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008)
Please welcome our guest poster, Scott, with his review of the modern remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still:
I have to introduce this review by saying that I've never seen the original movie, outside of some fuzzy stills showing the giant robot. I pretty much went into the movie blind; I knew Keanu Reeves was in it, but that was it.
The basic premise of the movie is that an alien comes to Earth to save it because it's a planet capable of sustaining complex life -- something that's apparently quite rare. Humans are killing it and in the grand scheme of things, one species versus all of the species on earth is a no-brainer. So the alien decides to destroy all humans.
It's a chilling concept, honestly; as a science fiction fan, I'm used to all kinds of justification for human behavior: we're more evolved, we're smarter, we're self-conscious, we have souls, we have love, we have courage... but here, the alien, named Klaatu, makes quite a reasonable argument. Humans are killing the Earth. If the Earth dies, everything dies; if humans die, everything lives. Humanity isn't the good guy here... and it's hard to find any argument for us being the good guy other than the urge to root for the home team.
The movie certainly doesn't make that much of a case for us, either; the instant Klaatu lands, we shoot him. Then when he asks to talk to someone, we try to drug and imprison him. I couldn't help but wonder if this was for two reasons -- one, to make us look critically at humanity and what we've become post-9-11, and two, to criticize everything going on in the real world as a reaction to 9-11. A character in the movie discusses the preparation for what they think is an asteroid strike and even claims that it's all "theater," a word often used to describe airport security. It's all a charade designed to make us feel better.
In a way, the movie could be read as saying, "Here's the situation. The world is dying. You're doing it. You're ignoring it for entertainment."
There are a few other bits in the movie that contribute to the image of ruthless humanity: a thief in the airport, a fight with a man that ends with him on the ground with a heart attack (though the people who try to help him are conveniently ignored), a ruthless Defense Secretary, a violent president, a ruthless politician who condemns a man to death, a trigger-happy colonel in the Army... there are plenty of examples. Like I said before, the movie isn't trying to make humanity out to be the good guy.
The movie does a splendid job in building atmosphere between the color, the music, and the tones the actors use. It's almost enough to make me want to like the movie, but unfortunately there are too many plot holes for me to give in.
The first one is the most jarring one; the spaceship is originally believed to be a large object heading for the Earth and scientists are assembled to deal with the aftermath of the impact, which is supposed to be in Manhattan. This is fair enough; I can believe an emergency response team. What I can't believe is the idea that the government would make a response team, toss it on a chopper, and then send that chopper to the estimated impact site.
What's the point of that? You want to plan for mass devastation from an asteroid impact and then you put your planners at the impact site?
Not only that, but so close that they can see the object come down?
As long as you don't think about it too much, it's convenient for moving the story along, since the main character is right there when the spaceship lands.
Interpersonal relationships also suffer a lot; people come and go without any real sense of relation or background. You learn pretty quickly that the two main characters, a scientist named Helen and her step-son, have issues. The main characters come out and read some of those back issues for you. Nothing's hidden -- they just bring everything out and put on a parade, sledgehammer-style. The boy's father died, and so did his mother, so he's living with a step-mother and has lots of problems. There's a good scientist who shows up when he's needed, a decent politician motivated by fear who does what she thinks is right, a trigger-happy Army man... pretty much all of the stereotypes you need for a movie like this. There's even an alien who's been on the planet long enough to come to love the human race, as flawed as it is. Aww.
What we don't get, though, is a story.
The idea is that Klaatu sees the human capability for self-sacrifice and love in the face of danger and stops armageddon with a sacrifice of his own. I can buy that; it's something that's been done well a few times. Unfortunately, this isn't one of those times!
Helen and her step-son fight for the entire movie, and she pleads for his life in the end. That's about the whole of the story arc there.
The alien is resigned to destroying humanity for the entire movie, then makes a sudden reversal in the end. That's about the whole of the story arc there.
So ultimately, the movie wasn't all that effective. I felt like there were a lot of scenes cut for length that might have made it a better, smoother movie. There was a lot that could have been done with this movie to turn it into a more allegorical tale, considering the time it came out (2008). It would have been very easy to turn the alien(s) into an allegory for America -- coming in, doing what they think is right because they think someone else is wrong, using force to stop violence.
Perhaps it was really meant that way and it just didn't come through clearly enough.
This movie has a lot of unfulfilled promise and could have been a lot more interesting. As it is, it's worth watching over dinner, but hardly fodder for longer discussions.
Final Score: A Sour Note
Final note: John Cleese with a moustache has a very uncanny (and eerie) resemblance to a skinny James Doohan.
I have to introduce this review by saying that I've never seen the original movie, outside of some fuzzy stills showing the giant robot. I pretty much went into the movie blind; I knew Keanu Reeves was in it, but that was it.
The basic premise of the movie is that an alien comes to Earth to save it because it's a planet capable of sustaining complex life -- something that's apparently quite rare. Humans are killing it and in the grand scheme of things, one species versus all of the species on earth is a no-brainer. So the alien decides to destroy all humans.
It's a chilling concept, honestly; as a science fiction fan, I'm used to all kinds of justification for human behavior: we're more evolved, we're smarter, we're self-conscious, we have souls, we have love, we have courage... but here, the alien, named Klaatu, makes quite a reasonable argument. Humans are killing the Earth. If the Earth dies, everything dies; if humans die, everything lives. Humanity isn't the good guy here... and it's hard to find any argument for us being the good guy other than the urge to root for the home team.
The movie certainly doesn't make that much of a case for us, either; the instant Klaatu lands, we shoot him. Then when he asks to talk to someone, we try to drug and imprison him. I couldn't help but wonder if this was for two reasons -- one, to make us look critically at humanity and what we've become post-9-11, and two, to criticize everything going on in the real world as a reaction to 9-11. A character in the movie discusses the preparation for what they think is an asteroid strike and even claims that it's all "theater," a word often used to describe airport security. It's all a charade designed to make us feel better.
In a way, the movie could be read as saying, "Here's the situation. The world is dying. You're doing it. You're ignoring it for entertainment."
There are a few other bits in the movie that contribute to the image of ruthless humanity: a thief in the airport, a fight with a man that ends with him on the ground with a heart attack (though the people who try to help him are conveniently ignored), a ruthless Defense Secretary, a violent president, a ruthless politician who condemns a man to death, a trigger-happy colonel in the Army... there are plenty of examples. Like I said before, the movie isn't trying to make humanity out to be the good guy.
The movie does a splendid job in building atmosphere between the color, the music, and the tones the actors use. It's almost enough to make me want to like the movie, but unfortunately there are too many plot holes for me to give in.
The first one is the most jarring one; the spaceship is originally believed to be a large object heading for the Earth and scientists are assembled to deal with the aftermath of the impact, which is supposed to be in Manhattan. This is fair enough; I can believe an emergency response team. What I can't believe is the idea that the government would make a response team, toss it on a chopper, and then send that chopper to the estimated impact site.
What's the point of that? You want to plan for mass devastation from an asteroid impact and then you put your planners at the impact site?
Not only that, but so close that they can see the object come down?
As long as you don't think about it too much, it's convenient for moving the story along, since the main character is right there when the spaceship lands.
Interpersonal relationships also suffer a lot; people come and go without any real sense of relation or background. You learn pretty quickly that the two main characters, a scientist named Helen and her step-son, have issues. The main characters come out and read some of those back issues for you. Nothing's hidden -- they just bring everything out and put on a parade, sledgehammer-style. The boy's father died, and so did his mother, so he's living with a step-mother and has lots of problems. There's a good scientist who shows up when he's needed, a decent politician motivated by fear who does what she thinks is right, a trigger-happy Army man... pretty much all of the stereotypes you need for a movie like this. There's even an alien who's been on the planet long enough to come to love the human race, as flawed as it is. Aww.
What we don't get, though, is a story.
The idea is that Klaatu sees the human capability for self-sacrifice and love in the face of danger and stops armageddon with a sacrifice of his own. I can buy that; it's something that's been done well a few times. Unfortunately, this isn't one of those times!
Helen and her step-son fight for the entire movie, and she pleads for his life in the end. That's about the whole of the story arc there.
The alien is resigned to destroying humanity for the entire movie, then makes a sudden reversal in the end. That's about the whole of the story arc there.
So ultimately, the movie wasn't all that effective. I felt like there were a lot of scenes cut for length that might have made it a better, smoother movie. There was a lot that could have been done with this movie to turn it into a more allegorical tale, considering the time it came out (2008). It would have been very easy to turn the alien(s) into an allegory for America -- coming in, doing what they think is right because they think someone else is wrong, using force to stop violence.
Perhaps it was really meant that way and it just didn't come through clearly enough.
This movie has a lot of unfulfilled promise and could have been a lot more interesting. As it is, it's worth watching over dinner, but hardly fodder for longer discussions.
Final Score: A Sour Note
Final note: John Cleese with a moustache has a very uncanny (and eerie) resemblance to a skinny James Doohan.
Monday, November 1, 2010
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
I'm gonna start with some major plot spoilers. Skip to paragraph three below if you don't want to know about Freddy's [new] past, and the moral dilemma that this film conjures.
Picture this: a gardener at a preschool becomes the focus of a satanic ritual abuse scare. The parents of the children attending the preschool - in the interest of protecting their children (or is it avenging the death of their children's innocence?) - choose to forego the usual process of justice and apprehend the gardener (reasonably fleeing in fear for his own safety) with no evidence beyond hearsay (after all, it's too risky to consider the possibility that he might be innocent), and kill him in a rather gruesome manner, by burning him alive while trapped in an old building.
Shall we talk about society creating monsters? I of course won't justify the murder of innocents under any context, but is there not some sense of justice in the accused seeking revenge against the children of those who judged and executed him before the eyes of god? After all, he's already paid the ultimate price for his crimes - if he hasn't already committed them, is he not somewhat entitled to by this point? Those parents condemned their children - and they did it with the purest of intentions. And even if their hunches were correct, as they may well have been, brutality is paid with brutality, and in continuing the cycle they have again condemned their children to their fate. And if the crimes were nonviolent in nature? Then the parents themselves are responsible for entering bloodlust into the equation.
(End spoilers)
Among the classic slasher series, A Nightmare on Elm Street stands out as being rather unique, in that the killer's preferred venue is his victims' dreams. This opens the door for some really spectacular - and really terrifying - scenes. Nightmares don't have to make sense, and terror is so much more visceral in the dream world. Plus, there is the troubling questions of whether or not to believe that the monster tormenting you is real, how to get others to believe you, and the fact that the symptoms of the fear are exacerbated by your natural reaction to it - avoiding sleep.
I have mixed feelings about the remake; the movie is flawed, but the source material is so rich. The nightmares were exciting. But I felt like there wasn't enough establishment of the characters - this is something the original accomplished in spades. The one character in particular, Kris, gave off a kind of a Taylor Swift vibe - in that she looked like a 25 year old pretending to be a 15 year old. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I think the role called for a high schooler, not a career woman pretending to be a high schooler. I liked Nancy in this film, but there's just no way she can hold a candle to the original Nancy, who was unforgettable - one of the all-time great protagonists from a slasher film.
This film introduced two ideas I don't remember being specifically outlined in the original, that really enhanced the terror. First is the recounted fact that after the heart dies, the brain lives on for a number of minutes - meaning that if Freddy kills you by stopping your heart, you've got that many minutes left to endure his torture before you can finally die. The other idea is the details of sleep deprivation - that if you stay awake long enough, you'll start to experience "micro naps", and begin to dream with your eyes open. The film capitalizes on this by effectively blurring the line between the waking and dreaming worlds. Furthermore, if you stay awake long enough, your brain will instinctively snap into a coma - thus, no matter how hard you try to keep from falling sleep, you're moving inevitably towards that result, in which you'll be trapped in the nightmare indefinitely!
The concept behind A Nightmare on Elm Street is so good (and the realm of dreams so rich for exploration), that it's hard to watch any movie like this and feel like the depths were adequately explored. But, I think this movie was good and scary. Jackie Earle Haley put in a good turn as Freddy Krueger, and reflected the rather dark nature of the rest of the film, but not without retaining little flashes of the character's trademark black humor. The original film is just so good though, that I can't say this one matches it. Also, the sensational kills of the original can never be topped. But the infamous bathtub scene is reprised. ;-)
Picture this: a gardener at a preschool becomes the focus of a satanic ritual abuse scare. The parents of the children attending the preschool - in the interest of protecting their children (or is it avenging the death of their children's innocence?) - choose to forego the usual process of justice and apprehend the gardener (reasonably fleeing in fear for his own safety) with no evidence beyond hearsay (after all, it's too risky to consider the possibility that he might be innocent), and kill him in a rather gruesome manner, by burning him alive while trapped in an old building.
Shall we talk about society creating monsters? I of course won't justify the murder of innocents under any context, but is there not some sense of justice in the accused seeking revenge against the children of those who judged and executed him before the eyes of god? After all, he's already paid the ultimate price for his crimes - if he hasn't already committed them, is he not somewhat entitled to by this point? Those parents condemned their children - and they did it with the purest of intentions. And even if their hunches were correct, as they may well have been, brutality is paid with brutality, and in continuing the cycle they have again condemned their children to their fate. And if the crimes were nonviolent in nature? Then the parents themselves are responsible for entering bloodlust into the equation.
(End spoilers)
Among the classic slasher series, A Nightmare on Elm Street stands out as being rather unique, in that the killer's preferred venue is his victims' dreams. This opens the door for some really spectacular - and really terrifying - scenes. Nightmares don't have to make sense, and terror is so much more visceral in the dream world. Plus, there is the troubling questions of whether or not to believe that the monster tormenting you is real, how to get others to believe you, and the fact that the symptoms of the fear are exacerbated by your natural reaction to it - avoiding sleep.
I have mixed feelings about the remake; the movie is flawed, but the source material is so rich. The nightmares were exciting. But I felt like there wasn't enough establishment of the characters - this is something the original accomplished in spades. The one character in particular, Kris, gave off a kind of a Taylor Swift vibe - in that she looked like a 25 year old pretending to be a 15 year old. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I think the role called for a high schooler, not a career woman pretending to be a high schooler. I liked Nancy in this film, but there's just no way she can hold a candle to the original Nancy, who was unforgettable - one of the all-time great protagonists from a slasher film.
This film introduced two ideas I don't remember being specifically outlined in the original, that really enhanced the terror. First is the recounted fact that after the heart dies, the brain lives on for a number of minutes - meaning that if Freddy kills you by stopping your heart, you've got that many minutes left to endure his torture before you can finally die. The other idea is the details of sleep deprivation - that if you stay awake long enough, you'll start to experience "micro naps", and begin to dream with your eyes open. The film capitalizes on this by effectively blurring the line between the waking and dreaming worlds. Furthermore, if you stay awake long enough, your brain will instinctively snap into a coma - thus, no matter how hard you try to keep from falling sleep, you're moving inevitably towards that result, in which you'll be trapped in the nightmare indefinitely!
The concept behind A Nightmare on Elm Street is so good (and the realm of dreams so rich for exploration), that it's hard to watch any movie like this and feel like the depths were adequately explored. But, I think this movie was good and scary. Jackie Earle Haley put in a good turn as Freddy Krueger, and reflected the rather dark nature of the rest of the film, but not without retaining little flashes of the character's trademark black humor. The original film is just so good though, that I can't say this one matches it. Also, the sensational kills of the original can never be topped. But the infamous bathtub scene is reprised. ;-)
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Friday The 13th (2009)
The original Friday The 13th was unique in that (spoiler) the killer everyone remembers - Jason Vorhees - didn't take center stage until the second movie, and he didn't even pick up his iconic hockey mask until part three. I was wondering what direction the remake of this classic film would take, and, perhaps not surprisingly, it rushes through the origin story (via an admittedly captivating flashback/introduction scene with an attractive camp counselor, followed by an abridged campfire tale) in order to feature the villain everyone wants to see - Jason. Though, I thought it was rather interesting to see the whole progression from introducing Jason, to his rise as the killer, and the adoption of his iconic look, all in one film.
Still, the result, while not a bad movie, failed to impress me terribly much. A lot of the characters (young adults, not teens) were hard to care about, being the stereotypical obnoxious jerks that you expect to get killed off in a slasher flick. But Danielle Panabaker (who I recognized as the hot teenage daughter in the magnificent film Mr. Brooks) looked amazing in her pink tank top and jean miniskirt (later swapped for a pair of skinny jeans in the evening). And while the naked flesh on display was mostly of the porn star variety (not that I'm complaining, exactly) there were a couple of hot scenes out in the woods and one really steamy sex scene, which deserves mention despite the characters involved being utterly without redeeming personalities.
As I read some comments from other viewers about this film, it becomes clear to me that this movie does indeed feel quite a lot more like another Friday The 13th sequel than a remake. And the way it's set up, it could well be a reboot of the sequel franchise - that is, a remake of the following story while still holding the original film as more or less canon. In any case, it's got the gore and nudity one ought to expect from a slasher, but I have trouble getting especially excited about it. If you like the series, it's worth a look. Or if you hate the series, but want to know what all the fuss surrounding "Jason" is all about, you could get away with watching a single film if you pick this one. I'd still recommend the original, however.
Still, the result, while not a bad movie, failed to impress me terribly much. A lot of the characters (young adults, not teens) were hard to care about, being the stereotypical obnoxious jerks that you expect to get killed off in a slasher flick. But Danielle Panabaker (who I recognized as the hot teenage daughter in the magnificent film Mr. Brooks) looked amazing in her pink tank top and jean miniskirt (later swapped for a pair of skinny jeans in the evening). And while the naked flesh on display was mostly of the porn star variety (not that I'm complaining, exactly) there were a couple of hot scenes out in the woods and one really steamy sex scene, which deserves mention despite the characters involved being utterly without redeeming personalities.
As I read some comments from other viewers about this film, it becomes clear to me that this movie does indeed feel quite a lot more like another Friday The 13th sequel than a remake. And the way it's set up, it could well be a reboot of the sequel franchise - that is, a remake of the following story while still holding the original film as more or less canon. In any case, it's got the gore and nudity one ought to expect from a slasher, but I have trouble getting especially excited about it. If you like the series, it's worth a look. Or if you hate the series, but want to know what all the fuss surrounding "Jason" is all about, you could get away with watching a single film if you pick this one. I'd still recommend the original, however.
Halloween (2007)
I was not expecting Rob Zombie's remake of the greatest Halloween film ever made to be this good - but it was. Concern over remakes is well-founded - especially when dealing with movies that are as good as John Carpenter's original Halloween was; but I can say that they picked the right man for this job.
Rob Zombie's version of the story spends more time on Michael Myers' childhood, building up the killer. I had heard about this, and sympathized with comments by fans who feared that making Michael human would take away much of the terror of the character, who represents an inhuman monster - the bogeyman, "pure evil" as Dr. Loomis would say. But Zombie's portrayal of the character didn't have that effect on me - he was just as terrifying. Even though I could sympathize with him to an extent (that bully totally had it coming), it's still quite clear to me that he's a monster, even as a child, and that's frightening.
And the back story adds to the tale (the mask fetish element was particularly intriguing); it makes the movie more well-rounded. Actually, the beginning was probably the most uncomfortable part of the movie. Michael's father was an abusive cripple (though his mother was a hot stripper, and his sister was just hot). But there's lots of swearing and abuse and general poor treatment between the family members, and it's very uncomfortable to watch, even more so than when Michael later goes on his killing spree. But even though you almost want to cheer him on, I think the film effectively gets across the point that what he's doing is genuinely sadistic, and whether they deserve it or not, you still can't quite defend it - and that's what keeps it terrifying.
The original Halloween still maintains its place at the top of the slasher bin, but I really am impressed with the remake. It's probably the best Halloween sequel that's been made; I wouldn't be ashamed to put them on a shelf together. I think that fans of the original will be happy with all the homages (or perhaps simply preserved plot points) Rob Zombie pays to the original film (if you're concerned, Malcolm McDowell's portrayal of Dr. Loomis is spot-on), and I was myself delighted that, in addition to picking out some great songs for the soundtrack, the original Halloween theme by John Carpenter was preserved. That is, perhaps, the greatest scary movie theme ever composed. So simple, yet frightening.
And before I close this review that's going on longer than I anticipated, I have to mention the nudity. (It's me, remember? :p) I give two thumbs up for the nudity in this movie. The film still had the same sort of modest, be-careful-with-the-camera-angle approach towards nudity that is the modern paradigm*, but with far more allowances for peeks here and there, which is what deserves my accolade. Ideally, I'd prefer an even more liberal approach towards nudity in which it is treated almost as happenstance - instead of choosing between carefully guarding it and intentionally letting it slip - but that's a lot to ask in this climate, and I'd be very happy even just to see more movies with an approach like Rob Zombie has here, with more allowances for peeking.
*An aside: Do people really have sex under the covers? Doesn't it get hot? And wouldn't it be hard to keep the covers in place with all that moving around? And anyway, looking is part of the fun, why cover things up? Though perhaps my perspective is clouded, as a voyeur and an exhibitionist...
Rob Zombie's version of the story spends more time on Michael Myers' childhood, building up the killer. I had heard about this, and sympathized with comments by fans who feared that making Michael human would take away much of the terror of the character, who represents an inhuman monster - the bogeyman, "pure evil" as Dr. Loomis would say. But Zombie's portrayal of the character didn't have that effect on me - he was just as terrifying. Even though I could sympathize with him to an extent (that bully totally had it coming), it's still quite clear to me that he's a monster, even as a child, and that's frightening.
And the back story adds to the tale (the mask fetish element was particularly intriguing); it makes the movie more well-rounded. Actually, the beginning was probably the most uncomfortable part of the movie. Michael's father was an abusive cripple (though his mother was a hot stripper, and his sister was just hot). But there's lots of swearing and abuse and general poor treatment between the family members, and it's very uncomfortable to watch, even more so than when Michael later goes on his killing spree. But even though you almost want to cheer him on, I think the film effectively gets across the point that what he's doing is genuinely sadistic, and whether they deserve it or not, you still can't quite defend it - and that's what keeps it terrifying.
The original Halloween still maintains its place at the top of the slasher bin, but I really am impressed with the remake. It's probably the best Halloween sequel that's been made; I wouldn't be ashamed to put them on a shelf together. I think that fans of the original will be happy with all the homages (or perhaps simply preserved plot points) Rob Zombie pays to the original film (if you're concerned, Malcolm McDowell's portrayal of Dr. Loomis is spot-on), and I was myself delighted that, in addition to picking out some great songs for the soundtrack, the original Halloween theme by John Carpenter was preserved. That is, perhaps, the greatest scary movie theme ever composed. So simple, yet frightening.
And before I close this review that's going on longer than I anticipated, I have to mention the nudity. (It's me, remember? :p) I give two thumbs up for the nudity in this movie. The film still had the same sort of modest, be-careful-with-the-camera-angle approach towards nudity that is the modern paradigm*, but with far more allowances for peeks here and there, which is what deserves my accolade. Ideally, I'd prefer an even more liberal approach towards nudity in which it is treated almost as happenstance - instead of choosing between carefully guarding it and intentionally letting it slip - but that's a lot to ask in this climate, and I'd be very happy even just to see more movies with an approach like Rob Zombie has here, with more allowances for peeking.
*An aside: Do people really have sex under the covers? Doesn't it get hot? And wouldn't it be hard to keep the covers in place with all that moving around? And anyway, looking is part of the fun, why cover things up? Though perhaps my perspective is clouded, as a voyeur and an exhibitionist...
Friday, October 29, 2010
Red Dragon (2002)
Watching Red Dragon was a surreal experience, for two reasons. First, the basic plot is similar to The Silence of the Lambs, in that an FBI agent solicits Hannibal Lecter's help in tracking down a(nother) serial killer. And second, the story had been filmed once before, as Manhunter, which I watched only days earlier. But Manhunter is sort of outside the main Hannibal series because it was filmed before Silence, which was immensely popular; and, most notably, introduced Anthony Hopkins as the iconic portrayal of Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lecter. So what we've got with Red Dragon is the story I'm familiar with from Manhunter, but with the Hannibal from Silence of the Lambs, complete with the same prison and prison staff. So I'm getting flashbacks to both of those films, while simultaneously picking out (without trying) all the differences between this adaptation of the story and the previous one. It all makes for a confusing viewing.
Still, it was a good film. Better than Hannibal. But I still like Manhunter better. William Petersen as the agent who originally caught Hannibal was captivating in Manhunter. I have to admit, Edward Norton may be a good actor, but I didn't believe him as much, in the same role in Red Dragon - the gritty FBI agent who gets into the minds of the serial killers he tracks down. As for the killer, he was pretty creepy. I thought the killer in Manhunter seemed more real, this one has got the whole schizophrenic psychosis thing going on and I'm not sure if that whole fantasy aspect makes it more, or less scary. I would say it's another case of Hollywoodizing the horror. It's really fascinating watching two adaptations of the same story, filmed in two completely different decades (mid-eighties versus early noughties). I'm sure there's some interesting cultural observations to be made there, but I'm not going to go into that.
I'm sure my appreciation of this film was hurt somewhat by the fact that I already knew the story, from watching Manhunter. Murder mysteries are just that type of story where a lot of the suspense and draw comes from not knowing how you're gonna get from A to B. Instead of really getting into the clues, since I already knew where they were all headed, I spent my time remarking at the similarities and differences between the adaptations. I want to say that this one was less effective than the previous one, but that could just be my bias of having seen the earlier one first. One thing I can say with certainty is that Red Dragon does not have the stylistic pizazz of Manhunter.
The Great Red Dragon
and the Woman Clothed in Sun,
by William Blake
"We live in a primitive time, don't we, Will? Neither savage nor wise. Half measures are the curse of it. Any rational society would either kill me, or put me to some use."
- Hannibal Lecter
Still, it was a good film. Better than Hannibal. But I still like Manhunter better. William Petersen as the agent who originally caught Hannibal was captivating in Manhunter. I have to admit, Edward Norton may be a good actor, but I didn't believe him as much, in the same role in Red Dragon - the gritty FBI agent who gets into the minds of the serial killers he tracks down. As for the killer, he was pretty creepy. I thought the killer in Manhunter seemed more real, this one has got the whole schizophrenic psychosis thing going on and I'm not sure if that whole fantasy aspect makes it more, or less scary. I would say it's another case of Hollywoodizing the horror. It's really fascinating watching two adaptations of the same story, filmed in two completely different decades (mid-eighties versus early noughties). I'm sure there's some interesting cultural observations to be made there, but I'm not going to go into that.
I'm sure my appreciation of this film was hurt somewhat by the fact that I already knew the story, from watching Manhunter. Murder mysteries are just that type of story where a lot of the suspense and draw comes from not knowing how you're gonna get from A to B. Instead of really getting into the clues, since I already knew where they were all headed, I spent my time remarking at the similarities and differences between the adaptations. I want to say that this one was less effective than the previous one, but that could just be my bias of having seen the earlier one first. One thing I can say with certainty is that Red Dragon does not have the stylistic pizazz of Manhunter.
and the Woman Clothed in Sun,
by William Blake
"We live in a primitive time, don't we, Will? Neither savage nor wise. Half measures are the curse of it. Any rational society would either kill me, or put me to some use."
- Hannibal Lecter
Sunday, June 24, 2007
That Which Anniversary Lacks
Note: This discussion of the game Tomb Raider Anniversary was originally posted on Myspace. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. It has been backdated to the date of its original posting.
Briefing: I posted this on the tombraiderforums, and I thought it was a particularly well written explication of exactly what Tomb Raider Anniversary is missing in terms of the original Tomb Raiding experience. So I'm reproducing it here.
(Begin post)
Having played through Tomb Raider Anniversary, including unlocking all the rewards, I can say that it was a very enjoyable gaming experience. As with any game, there are complaints and there are praises to be awarded. I thought the gameplay additions such as the grapple tool and the adrenaline dodge really added something to the Tomb Raiding experience. Many people have complained about the camera view, but for me, it wasn't a problem, as I used my PS2 controller on the PC. Being able to simultaneously control Lara's movements and the camera view with the two analog sticks felt perfectly natural to me.
Though I thoroughly enjoyed playing Anniversary, since it is a remake (okay, re-imagining), you can't help comparing it to the original, and in that respect, there were two things that were a major disappointment for me. Again, they didn't ruin the gaming experience, but they did disappoint me, because in these respects Anniversary does not live up to the original.
The first thing is the music. The background music in the original Tomb Raider was so memorable for me. The echo-y sounds in the Caves, and the dripping water and distant animal cries in the Cistern, these really added to the tomb raiding experience, and stuck in my mind over the years. In comparison, the ambient sounds in Anniversary are lacking. And the orchestral scores that accompany certain sequences, like every time an enemy comes up...they just felt out of place. I like the idea of having a different score for each type of enemy (though the mischievous playful quality of the rats' theme pissed me off because those little nippers were anything but :p), but in the end, it just doesn't make sense hearing orchestral music deep inside a long forgotten tomb, you know what I mean?
The other thing that majorly disappointed me about Anniversary was the level design. Missing areas aside, as there were plenty of nostalgia-invoking sections, even the parts that were there didn't feel as exciting to explore as they were in the original. And I think I know why.
After playing through Anniversary, I was taken by the desire to replay the original. So I dusted it off and, after some frustration, got it running reasonably well on my XP machine. I was fully anticipating my expectations of the original levels to be shattered by playing through them again, realizing that all my fond memories were more nostalgia than substance. But what happened was, I was once again amazed at the levels and how much fun they were to explore. And then it hit me, why the levels in Anniversary weren't as exciting. And reading through this thread, I'm excited to find that Kasperg is the first person I've come across that has been able to put into words this feeling I have. Elysia has also described it as "honeycombing" in her excellent diary.
(QUOTE by Kasperg)
The TR1 levels had a different flow in terms of architecture, sometimes having areas bigger than what was really needed. That made if feel less linear.
Anniversary seems to retain most of the key areas from the levels (central rooms, puzzle rooms) but in some cases it might seem like the transition from one to another pales in comparison to TR1. Where you used to have one room overlooking another one, you might find that the connection is now a rather boring L-shaped hallway with some occasional trap.
It's true that the original puzzles are now bigger and better (specially after seeing the St Francis' Folly media), but that "something" that linked and intertwined the areas in a level to one another seems to be absent. Concept art shows that some of the areas have been rethought as symmetrical, which is kind of a step back in terms of architectural interest. Gathering what I've seen, there's no complain on textures, models or ambience. It's just the layouts might be inferior to those of the original. Could this be related to the 3D engine's limitations?
I'm an architecture student and do level design as a hobby, so I might be worried about nothing. I don't know.
(End QUOTE)
The Palace Midas and the City/Temple of Khamoon levels especially stood out for me as good examples of the difference in level design between Anniversary and the original. In the original, Palace Midas truly took my breath away. That one tunnel that twists and climbs up through rock passages, opening out onto the roof of a structure that you stood at the foot of earlier in the level, really excited me. And the Aqueduct! Oh, the Aqueduct is soo cool, but it's nowhere to be found in the Anniversary version of Midas' Palace. (Wait a minute, you're telling me that structure in the main statue room is the aqueduct? Talk about disappointing...).
As for the City/Temple of Khamoon. Most of the areas were preserved in Anniversary, but they were unnecessarily separated. I almost suspect that that's the reason they renamed the level "Temple" of Khamoon and not "City" of Khamoon, because in the original, it really felt like a city, in that you could see practically the entire level from the main chamber with the Sphinx and the Obelisk. Going through some tunnels and then walking back out onto the main chamber, but standing higher up in a chained-off area that you couldn't reach before, really makes you feel like you're getting somewhere, and that these rooms are part of something, and not just distant, separated cells connected by long, identical passages... Realism? Realism be damned.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I really enjoyed playing through Anniversary. The unlockables were exciting for me (the level commentaries and the comparison galleries were particularly interesting), and I'm still playing through it periodically in order to take advantage of the beautiful custom outfits the modders on this forum and others are creating. I don't know if my complaints here will be perfectly helpful for the continuation of the Tomb Raider series, as basically they are only areas where Anniversary pales in comparison to the original, and since most Tomb Raider games aren't remakes of existing titles, I suspect the game developers are more interested in moving ahead rather than trying to recapture past achievements (and I understand this). However, I was really happy to find somebody else that could articulate the feeling I had about why the levels in Anniversary didn't stand up to the originals, and maybe somebody else will read this and discover that they too had the same feeling.
(End post)
And now, for those that missed the comment in my other TRA thread, here's a link to a graphics comparison between the two games: http://zharth.tenjou.net/tracomp/
Briefing: I posted this on the tombraiderforums, and I thought it was a particularly well written explication of exactly what Tomb Raider Anniversary is missing in terms of the original Tomb Raiding experience. So I'm reproducing it here.
(Begin post)
Having played through Tomb Raider Anniversary, including unlocking all the rewards, I can say that it was a very enjoyable gaming experience. As with any game, there are complaints and there are praises to be awarded. I thought the gameplay additions such as the grapple tool and the adrenaline dodge really added something to the Tomb Raiding experience. Many people have complained about the camera view, but for me, it wasn't a problem, as I used my PS2 controller on the PC. Being able to simultaneously control Lara's movements and the camera view with the two analog sticks felt perfectly natural to me.
Though I thoroughly enjoyed playing Anniversary, since it is a remake (okay, re-imagining), you can't help comparing it to the original, and in that respect, there were two things that were a major disappointment for me. Again, they didn't ruin the gaming experience, but they did disappoint me, because in these respects Anniversary does not live up to the original.
The first thing is the music. The background music in the original Tomb Raider was so memorable for me. The echo-y sounds in the Caves, and the dripping water and distant animal cries in the Cistern, these really added to the tomb raiding experience, and stuck in my mind over the years. In comparison, the ambient sounds in Anniversary are lacking. And the orchestral scores that accompany certain sequences, like every time an enemy comes up...they just felt out of place. I like the idea of having a different score for each type of enemy (though the mischievous playful quality of the rats' theme pissed me off because those little nippers were anything but :p), but in the end, it just doesn't make sense hearing orchestral music deep inside a long forgotten tomb, you know what I mean?
The other thing that majorly disappointed me about Anniversary was the level design. Missing areas aside, as there were plenty of nostalgia-invoking sections, even the parts that were there didn't feel as exciting to explore as they were in the original. And I think I know why.
After playing through Anniversary, I was taken by the desire to replay the original. So I dusted it off and, after some frustration, got it running reasonably well on my XP machine. I was fully anticipating my expectations of the original levels to be shattered by playing through them again, realizing that all my fond memories were more nostalgia than substance. But what happened was, I was once again amazed at the levels and how much fun they were to explore. And then it hit me, why the levels in Anniversary weren't as exciting. And reading through this thread, I'm excited to find that Kasperg is the first person I've come across that has been able to put into words this feeling I have. Elysia has also described it as "honeycombing" in her excellent diary.
(QUOTE by Kasperg)
The TR1 levels had a different flow in terms of architecture, sometimes having areas bigger than what was really needed. That made if feel less linear.
Anniversary seems to retain most of the key areas from the levels (central rooms, puzzle rooms) but in some cases it might seem like the transition from one to another pales in comparison to TR1. Where you used to have one room overlooking another one, you might find that the connection is now a rather boring L-shaped hallway with some occasional trap.
It's true that the original puzzles are now bigger and better (specially after seeing the St Francis' Folly media), but that "something" that linked and intertwined the areas in a level to one another seems to be absent. Concept art shows that some of the areas have been rethought as symmetrical, which is kind of a step back in terms of architectural interest. Gathering what I've seen, there's no complain on textures, models or ambience. It's just the layouts might be inferior to those of the original. Could this be related to the 3D engine's limitations?
I'm an architecture student and do level design as a hobby, so I might be worried about nothing. I don't know.
(End QUOTE)
The Palace Midas and the City/Temple of Khamoon levels especially stood out for me as good examples of the difference in level design between Anniversary and the original. In the original, Palace Midas truly took my breath away. That one tunnel that twists and climbs up through rock passages, opening out onto the roof of a structure that you stood at the foot of earlier in the level, really excited me. And the Aqueduct! Oh, the Aqueduct is soo cool, but it's nowhere to be found in the Anniversary version of Midas' Palace. (Wait a minute, you're telling me that structure in the main statue room is the aqueduct? Talk about disappointing...).
As for the City/Temple of Khamoon. Most of the areas were preserved in Anniversary, but they were unnecessarily separated. I almost suspect that that's the reason they renamed the level "Temple" of Khamoon and not "City" of Khamoon, because in the original, it really felt like a city, in that you could see practically the entire level from the main chamber with the Sphinx and the Obelisk. Going through some tunnels and then walking back out onto the main chamber, but standing higher up in a chained-off area that you couldn't reach before, really makes you feel like you're getting somewhere, and that these rooms are part of something, and not just distant, separated cells connected by long, identical passages... Realism? Realism be damned.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I really enjoyed playing through Anniversary. The unlockables were exciting for me (the level commentaries and the comparison galleries were particularly interesting), and I'm still playing through it periodically in order to take advantage of the beautiful custom outfits the modders on this forum and others are creating. I don't know if my complaints here will be perfectly helpful for the continuation of the Tomb Raider series, as basically they are only areas where Anniversary pales in comparison to the original, and since most Tomb Raider games aren't remakes of existing titles, I suspect the game developers are more interested in moving ahead rather than trying to recapture past achievements (and I understand this). However, I was really happy to find somebody else that could articulate the feeling I had about why the levels in Anniversary didn't stand up to the originals, and maybe somebody else will read this and discover that they too had the same feeling.
(End post)
And now, for those that missed the comment in my other TRA thread, here's a link to a graphics comparison between the two games: http://zharth.tenjou.net/tracomp/
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Tomb Raider Anniversary
Note: This review was originally posted on Myspace. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. It has been backdated to the date of its original posting.
Tomb Raider Anniversary is a "re-imagining" of the original Tomb Raider game, with modern graphics and gameplay, in celebration of Lara Croft's 10th Anniversary. Having beaten the game and unlocked most of the secrets (still working on the last few) in the last four days, I can say this was an enjoyable gaming experience. Not surprising, considering the quality of the original, but I can't say that Anniversary could replace the original.
First, the pros. The graphics are light years ahead of the original, and Lara's lookin' better than ever. Some of the additions to the gameplay are quite fun, like the grappling hook and the adrenaline dodge technique (infinitely frustrating before I got the hang of it, but infinitely exciting afterwards) - which revolutionizes the action/combat factor of Tomb Raider, at least compared to the original. The unlockables are quite exciting, too. In addition to art galleries and character profiles and the like, you have unlockable cheats which includes things as useful as infinite breath (for those long underwater passages), as pointless yet cool as equipping Lara with stylish sunglasses, and as bizarrely interesting as textureless mode. Plus, being able to unlock alternate outfits for Lara is brilliant.
Now, for the cons. Most (all?) of the negative aspects of the game exist only in comparison to the original, but considering that it's a remake, such comparisons are par for the course. Anniversary simultaneously feels like a modern Tomb Raider game, while harboring endless nostalgia for the classic environments. Ultimately, though, I feel as though the environments in Anniversary are somehow lacking. They look fantastic, and are far more detailed than in the original game, but the feel, the personality, the atmosphere of the environments isn't the same. Anniversary is brighter, and less claustrophobic, and yet the really big spaces don't feel quite as big.
And the sense of adventure is somewhat compromised - I like the way another reviewer described it. In Anniversary, it's like there's one set path through the levels, with all the ledges and swinging poles and grapple loops marked out, so that you can walk into a room, take a look around, and know exactly how to progress to the next chamber. Ledges that aren't part of that path are largely inaccessible (unless they lead to a secret, in which case they're usually fairly well-hidden).
In the original Tomb Raider, it was more of an effort to figure out how to move from point A to point B, and the various ledges and areas you could access - some that led to secrets, others that led to dead-ends - heightened the feeling of adventure and discovery - the feeling of entering a tomb that hasn't been populated for hundreds, even thousands of years. Though I would recognize a particular area in Anniversary, it wouldn't be as exciting as discovering that area in the original game. Maybe it's partly nostalgia - having explored these areas already has eliminated the excitement - but I still feel like something of the atmosphere of the various chambers is lacking in Anniversary, and it leaves me desiring to go back and play through the original again.
(Read this post for a more in-depth study of what's lacking from the Anniversary version of Tomb Raider).
(I would love it if there was, like, a source port of Tomb Raider, like there is with Doom, or something like that - completely faithful to the look and feel of the original game, with minimal modification. But then, it's not much of a multiplayer game, and I haven't heard of anyone designing custom tombs.)
A note on controls: When I first downloaded the TRA demo (which led me to buy the game), I initially had difficulty with the keyboard/mouse controls. Other people might not have the difficulty I had, but I like to think of myself as primarily a console gamer, and I'm used to using a controller. Keyboard is fine for simple games that don't have a lot of commands, but for a game like TRA, there's just way too many keys to keep track of, and hitting them fast when you're in a jam seems like a crap shoot.
So I plugged my PS2 controller into my computer, and mapped all the most important keys to where they felt right. Having the dual analog sticks was especially helpful for simultaneous manipulation of Lara's movement and the camera view. Jump, Crouch/Roll/Drop, Shoot, and Grapple were on the Circle, Square, X, and Triangle buttons, respectively; I put Aim Lock and Manual Combat Mode on the shoulder buttons, along with the Prev/Next Weapon selection. The only mildly awkward thing was constantly pressing start to Interact with the environment (picking things up, pushing switches, opening doors, making Lara move faster on ledges, etc.), but it just took a little getting used to. Everything else I left on the keyboard; I think Esc for Pause, Tab for Inventory, and the shortcut keys for quick medpack were pretty much the only of those I even used.
If there was anything else, I didn't miss it. Oh, the Walk and Sneak keys. As essential as Walk was in the original Tomb Raider, I hardly even used it in Anniversary, and if I needed to, it was already accounted for by how much I moved the analog sticks ('barely' for Sneak, 'softly' for Walk, full-on for Run). Another thing, I originally had the Prev/Next Weapon selections set to the analog buttons (when you actually press the stick like a button), but I found that in heated battle situations, I ended up unintentionally hitting those buttons while moving around (inconveniently scrolling through weapons while trying to fend off a charging enemy), so I disabled them and put those functions elsewhere.
Recommendations: Obviously recommended to Tomb Raider/Lara Croft fans. I don't know how Anniversary compares to the other recent TR games on the market, but being a dedicated fan of the first three games, this new yet familiar gaming experience felt like a good introduction to modern TR. I can't say that it's a must-play for any and all fans of the original Tomb Raider game, but if you're even a little interested in how TR has changed over the years, or else if you just feel nostalgic for your favorite old tombs and want to rediscover them, give this game a chance. Just don't give up on those boss battles before you've made an effort to learn the adrenaline dodge - it's like riding a bike, and you'll love it after you learn it.
The Bottom Line: Tomb Raider Anniversary is a really fun game, and a heartfelt tribute to the original that started it all, but should not be taken as a substitute for the original.
Tomb Raider Anniversary is a "re-imagining" of the original Tomb Raider game, with modern graphics and gameplay, in celebration of Lara Croft's 10th Anniversary. Having beaten the game and unlocked most of the secrets (still working on the last few) in the last four days, I can say this was an enjoyable gaming experience. Not surprising, considering the quality of the original, but I can't say that Anniversary could replace the original.
First, the pros. The graphics are light years ahead of the original, and Lara's lookin' better than ever. Some of the additions to the gameplay are quite fun, like the grappling hook and the adrenaline dodge technique (infinitely frustrating before I got the hang of it, but infinitely exciting afterwards) - which revolutionizes the action/combat factor of Tomb Raider, at least compared to the original. The unlockables are quite exciting, too. In addition to art galleries and character profiles and the like, you have unlockable cheats which includes things as useful as infinite breath (for those long underwater passages), as pointless yet cool as equipping Lara with stylish sunglasses, and as bizarrely interesting as textureless mode. Plus, being able to unlock alternate outfits for Lara is brilliant.
Now, for the cons. Most (all?) of the negative aspects of the game exist only in comparison to the original, but considering that it's a remake, such comparisons are par for the course. Anniversary simultaneously feels like a modern Tomb Raider game, while harboring endless nostalgia for the classic environments. Ultimately, though, I feel as though the environments in Anniversary are somehow lacking. They look fantastic, and are far more detailed than in the original game, but the feel, the personality, the atmosphere of the environments isn't the same. Anniversary is brighter, and less claustrophobic, and yet the really big spaces don't feel quite as big.
And the sense of adventure is somewhat compromised - I like the way another reviewer described it. In Anniversary, it's like there's one set path through the levels, with all the ledges and swinging poles and grapple loops marked out, so that you can walk into a room, take a look around, and know exactly how to progress to the next chamber. Ledges that aren't part of that path are largely inaccessible (unless they lead to a secret, in which case they're usually fairly well-hidden).
In the original Tomb Raider, it was more of an effort to figure out how to move from point A to point B, and the various ledges and areas you could access - some that led to secrets, others that led to dead-ends - heightened the feeling of adventure and discovery - the feeling of entering a tomb that hasn't been populated for hundreds, even thousands of years. Though I would recognize a particular area in Anniversary, it wouldn't be as exciting as discovering that area in the original game. Maybe it's partly nostalgia - having explored these areas already has eliminated the excitement - but I still feel like something of the atmosphere of the various chambers is lacking in Anniversary, and it leaves me desiring to go back and play through the original again.
(Read this post for a more in-depth study of what's lacking from the Anniversary version of Tomb Raider).
(I would love it if there was, like, a source port of Tomb Raider, like there is with Doom, or something like that - completely faithful to the look and feel of the original game, with minimal modification. But then, it's not much of a multiplayer game, and I haven't heard of anyone designing custom tombs.)
A note on controls: When I first downloaded the TRA demo (which led me to buy the game), I initially had difficulty with the keyboard/mouse controls. Other people might not have the difficulty I had, but I like to think of myself as primarily a console gamer, and I'm used to using a controller. Keyboard is fine for simple games that don't have a lot of commands, but for a game like TRA, there's just way too many keys to keep track of, and hitting them fast when you're in a jam seems like a crap shoot.
So I plugged my PS2 controller into my computer, and mapped all the most important keys to where they felt right. Having the dual analog sticks was especially helpful for simultaneous manipulation of Lara's movement and the camera view. Jump, Crouch/Roll/Drop, Shoot, and Grapple were on the Circle, Square, X, and Triangle buttons, respectively; I put Aim Lock and Manual Combat Mode on the shoulder buttons, along with the Prev/Next Weapon selection. The only mildly awkward thing was constantly pressing start to Interact with the environment (picking things up, pushing switches, opening doors, making Lara move faster on ledges, etc.), but it just took a little getting used to. Everything else I left on the keyboard; I think Esc for Pause, Tab for Inventory, and the shortcut keys for quick medpack were pretty much the only of those I even used.
If there was anything else, I didn't miss it. Oh, the Walk and Sneak keys. As essential as Walk was in the original Tomb Raider, I hardly even used it in Anniversary, and if I needed to, it was already accounted for by how much I moved the analog sticks ('barely' for Sneak, 'softly' for Walk, full-on for Run). Another thing, I originally had the Prev/Next Weapon selections set to the analog buttons (when you actually press the stick like a button), but I found that in heated battle situations, I ended up unintentionally hitting those buttons while moving around (inconveniently scrolling through weapons while trying to fend off a charging enemy), so I disabled them and put those functions elsewhere.
Recommendations: Obviously recommended to Tomb Raider/Lara Croft fans. I don't know how Anniversary compares to the other recent TR games on the market, but being a dedicated fan of the first three games, this new yet familiar gaming experience felt like a good introduction to modern TR. I can't say that it's a must-play for any and all fans of the original Tomb Raider game, but if you're even a little interested in how TR has changed over the years, or else if you just feel nostalgic for your favorite old tombs and want to rediscover them, give this game a chance. Just don't give up on those boss battles before you've made an effort to learn the adrenaline dodge - it's like riding a bike, and you'll love it after you learn it.
The Bottom Line: Tomb Raider Anniversary is a really fun game, and a heartfelt tribute to the original that started it all, but should not be taken as a substitute for the original.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)