Showing posts with label wall of text. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wall of text. Show all posts

Saturday, 30 June 2012

Prometheus: Small Beginnings


First off I’d like to bellyache about the length of time it took me to view my latest obsession, Prometheus, after its nationwide release. 5 whole days. Saw The Avengers on opening night. Even saw Men in Black 3 on opening night. But the film I’ve been dying to see for months now? 5 days late. Stupid life getting in the way of more important things.

Secondly I’d like to complain heavily about Cineworld’s crumminess. My ‘local’ multiplex is a relatively large, 12 screen cinema. And yet, the management decided to put an evening showing of a 5-day-old major blockbuster in one of their tiniest screens. So by the time my friends and I showed up inevitably late of the advertised starting time, the few available seats were practically full, meaning we had the displeasure of sitting in the very front row, mere feet away from the screen. FUCKING CHEERS. Love cranking my neck and twisting my head to see everything going on. This is definitely the way movies were meant to be seen. Bravo.

Seriously, the screen I saw The Artist in, several weeks after its release, and at a late night showing time, was larger (and much emptier) than that for Prometheus. This is part of the reason cinema figures are declining, because of the idiocy and complete lack of basic logic that goes on behind the scenes, i.e. monstrously dumb screen choices, psychotic food prices, and apathetic staffing. Get it together.

Onto the film itself. For a good long while, I’d been building up Prometheus as a prospect for genuine masterpiece material. Those wonderfully mysterious trailers, the intriguing casting, and Ridley Scott’s sci-fi pedigree all seemed to add up to a product that would have trouble going wrong. Sure, Alien never needed a prequel, and I don’t think anyone really asked for one. True enough, the unexplained nature of the so-called ‘space jockeys’ was just another important part of the tension that clouded the first act of the film. But then Alien never needed a sequel either, and look what happened: Aliens was the BEST SEQUEL EVER MADE (The What-Father Part II? LALALALALA). So necessity wasn’t really an issue with Prometheus, and with Scott back at the helm, it could only be a thing of majesty, right?

Well that’s what I thought. But then the reviews bled out, and everywhere was a sea of mediocrity. 3 out of 5 stars, a 60-something Metascore, a 70-something % on Rotten Tomatoes, nothing even approaching the acclaim of Alien. And naturally, my expectations suddenly plummeted, and I went into that poorly-chosen Cineworld screen on a very diminished buzz, expecting a decent, but not nearly mind-blowing, experience.

Essentially, that’s pretty much what I got. There’s an array of ups and downs present during its considerable running time, but there’s very little here to compare with Alien. That is, save for one scene in particular. (Spoilers onward)

One of the main facets of Alien that has always made it fascinating to me is the lasting impact of the famed ‘chestburster’ scene, in which John Hurt’s character Kane has a bit of a bad time during a meal. It’s an unforgettable sequence, one of shock and chaos, of progress and evolution, of watershed and significance, and eventually of silence. I’ve always wondered how one would respond to that scene on first viewing, particularly in the tense and hushed cinema environment, which is something I never got to experience (having been born 12 years after its cinema release), and unfortunately I don’t really recall my reaction to seeing the chestburster on first viewing. Luckily, Sir Ridley saw fit to include another such scene in Prometheus.

This time, it’s not a xenomorph forcing its own way out of Kane’s chest into the world, this time it’s a squid-looking creature about to be born from Shaw’s lady parts before being forcibly removed in a medical pod. Something horrifying about this sequence had me absolutely gripped, more than any other chunk of the film. I sat, neck wrenched upwards, mouth literally agape, watching this semi-parallel horror unfold above/in front of me. There was something different about this one.

Over the numerous viewings of all 4 Alien films, I’ve become accustomed and effectively desensitised to the chestburster trope, but that still didn’t prepare me for the bloody thrashing and constant danger of Prometheus’s caesarean scene. It stands alone from the chestburster scenes, much as Prometheus stands alone from the Alien franchise. What was in Alien a bizarre and revolting scene of sudden helplessness and disruption, is in Prometheus a fresh scene of urgency and panicked survival. This showcases a new tone and a new creature, and despite a similar narrative frame, it’s a relatively different shock. It’s really quite difficult to describe that feeling of ‘sweet merciful crap, what in the fuck is that?!’, but it has been a long, long while since I reacted so noticeably to a film, and that’s something incredibly meaningful in today’s Hollywood of repetition and regurgitation. The fact that a setup that I’m so familiar with can be reimagined to affect me in the way it did makes Prometheus, for all its flaws, a success.

Beyond that, it’s really rather hit-and-miss. On the pro side, it’s beautiful. Once again, Sir Ridley provides a wondrous collection of shots and edits, including some magnificent establishing shots. The film’s first act contains a series of breathtaking outer space shots, focussed around the titular spaceship, which combine Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography with the excellent visual effects of Moving Picture and Weta and various other companies to create something truly awe-inspiring. Gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh.

The scale on show in Prometheus is what really separates it from Alien in terms of style. This film constantly deals with grander issues in a grander frame. We’ve got a much bigger crew with a much bigger mission asking much bigger questions. And stylistically, the film has a much bigger aesthetic. Large chunks of Alien were presented through very claustrophobic cinematography, while everything in Prometheus feels more open and breathable. We get more and bigger creatures, and ultimately we get more questions than we get answers.

Which leads me to a con. At some points, it feels a little unfinished – like it’s holding back, or setting up for something more. Something like Alien? Possibly. But Sir Ridley said he was going to make an individual film (and that he did), so why would he produce a near-2 hour prologue for a film he wanted to distance from? Perhaps it’s setting up for a sequel. The big questions that were teased in Prometheus trailers and in Alien are mostly left unanswered, frustratingly so, leaving plenty of sequel potential. Honestly though, I hate when filmmakers do that. Like in The Hunger Games. The very end was a clear “Next time on...” ploy, which I refuse to play along with. Fuck you Hollywood, don’t treat me like an obedient fucking dog. Bad Hollywood. Slap on the wrist for you.

Further pros include Michael Fassbender, about whom I frequently complain (despite his undoubted acting talent) because of his status as the current “let’s cast him in everything” bloke in Hollywood. He’s once again a revelation in Prometheus. Perfect casting choice for the android David. Plus that sequence of him prowling the ship alone near the beginning, imitating TE Lawrence and putting Ripley’s clone’s basketball skills to shame put a smile on my face. The rest of the cast follows suit, with Noomi Rapace giving a consistently not-Ripley Ripley, Charlize Theron gives a good standard cold corporate bitch (which was actually jarring after watching her play Rita on Arrested Development...), Guy Pearce is... odd... as the aged Peter Weyland from the TED conference video, and everyone else is generally good.

There’s also a great score, a passable screenplay, and some genuinely exciting action – which is surprisingly hard to come by in this age of giant fighting robots, superheroes, and alien invasions which all somehow find a way to be boring. So, good job for actually entertaining me.

Back on the con side, though, is the pressing issue of pacing. Part of Alien’s slow-burning glory (I KNOW it wasn’t supposed to be another Alien and I should stop comparing them like it was blah blah BLAH BLAH BLAH) was that it built up the tension to boiling-point and released it all out of one man’s chest. Prometheus doesn’t take much time to do that. We start off with the why the crew’s going where they’re going, then they get there. Then after the initial exploration, it’s set-piece after set-piece after set-piece, without much breathing time in between. In Alien, after each set-piece (in this case each crew member death) there was time for the characters and the audience to settle, take in what had happened, and reflect, which further allowed for us to bond with and understand the characters. Not so much of that in Prometheus. For instance, after the aforementioned scarifying caesarean sequence, we go almost immediately into the next sequence, wherein the surviving crew go back onto the planet to ‘meet’ the space jockeys (or ‘engineers’, as they are so-called in Prometheus), leaving very little time to take in the insane, panicky body horror we’d just witnessed.

So in summary, Prometheus offers a mix bag of greatness and not-so-greatness, resulting in something transcending mediocrity, but not quite reaching brilliance. I think the key to enjoying the film is to try and view it separately to Alien. If you try and compare the two, you’re gonna have a bad time, because Scott didn’t intend this to be a new Alien, nor a direct prequel. It’s a rather different film with an independent atmosphere, with minimal (though deliberate) links to Alien. But it seems to be confused. It can’t make up its mind about what it wants to be, flipping and flopping between horror and action, never quite nailing either in the way Cameron’s Aliens did.

What Prometheus needs is another viewing or four. And inevitably a sequel that may or may not answer the questions it opened up, and may or may not tie it more closely into the Alien series. And if James Cameron were to direct that sequel, I might just explode.

Wednesday, 16 May 2012

The Great Debate


The last few weeks for me have consisted of dividing my time between Mass Effect 3, discovering Arrested Development, and doing uni work (aka – procrastinating with Mass Effect 3 and Arrested Development). I also managed to leave the confines of my room to catch The Hunger Games, The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!, and The Avengers (still refusing to refer to it by its British title) which I may or may not review here later.

This period has given me time to think about my own approach to video game critique, and whether or not I should take it as seriously as film critique. One of the problems here is that video games are a more difficult medium to actively pursue, partly due to the higher costs, and partly because of the lesser ease of access. For example, to discover and watch films for criticism is relatively easy – they can be found on TV regularly, they can be bought on DVD for quite cheap, they can even be found for free on the internet (or so I hear...)*. Whereas, there’s no real similar means of access for video games, one has to find and buy most of them, sometimes much more expensively than films. There’s also the problem of changing platforms. With film, you could just as easily watch something from 1910 as from 2010, but to play a video game from even 20 years ago would require tracking down the necessary console (unless you use an emulator, but that’s not the same).

Another of the problems of video game critique is Roger Ebert’s favourite debate – are video games an art form? To make a real decision regarding this, one would probably need a definition as to what ‘art’ is. And that’s where the whooole debate becomes a big ugly mess before it’s even begun. ‘Art’ is a loose and subjective issue. What one person might consider to be art, another might not. Personally, the furthest I could possibly define art would be some sort of creative expression that evokes a reaction. Sure, video games can evoke reactions – TimeSplitters made me laugh, Amnesia made me shriek like a lady, Mirror’s Edge made me cry tears of frustration. But for me the real debate lies in whether or not games are much of an expression.

Something that the Seven Arts (as detailed by Georg Hegel, then Ricciotto Canudo, then the French** – although how they ever agreed upon the set is beyond me) seem to share is that they lack any audience participation, in that their pieces are created with the express intent of being judged, thereby being a focus of creative expression. This is what could separate video games from the other ‘arts’, as games are generally made with the audience’s direct interaction in focus, often pushing the creative element to the side. For example, can a World War II video game like Call of Duty or Medal of Honor be as much an expression about war as a film like Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket? Can a game like BioShock be as much an expression about Objectivism as a book like Atlas Shrugged?

Certainly if we look only at the visual and aural aesthetic of video games, they can be opened up for critiquing. There are many games that use creativity in these areas to draw the attention of an audience much in the same way as a film would – Okami, Limbo and Rez are notable examples. There are also plenty of less artistic games that still feature a particular graphical style which sort of contextualises the gameplay, like Gears of War, Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Dead Space. But to only consider the audio-visual side of games would be to detract from the very thing that makes it individual as a medium. Gameplay needs to be analysed as well to form a proper artistic critique. And yet how do we consider the ‘art’ of gameplay?

Here’s where I think the ‘games as art’ debate could be eventually settled. If some serious video game critics begin to theorise about the artistry of gameplay and game design, then maybe it can begin to achieve some legitimacy as an art form. For cinema, it took a good couple of decades of infancy before meaningful narrative features started to arise and be written about seriously. Video games seem to be maturing now, much as cinema did. What started with Pong and Asteroids has now moved onto Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect, like cinema moved from Train Pulling into a Station and Fred Ott’s Sneeze to Birth of a Nation and Wings. Maybe if some critics or even just gamers begin to write some analytical and critical debate and theory, maybe we can give Canudo an eighth art.

Although maybe not, ‘cause he’s a bit too decomposed to really reconsider his work.

So to link all this back to my original point, whether or not it’s an agreed-upon art form, video games can still indeed be taken seriously as both a hobby and a pursuit, not just a time-waster. I don’t consider much of my gaming time to be wasted time – I’m doing something I enjoy and being mentally stimulated, as I would be whilst watching films, so how can that be anything but good? So through this approach of taking them seriously as an art form and as an important cultural pastime, I can critique video games with a meaningful attitude... as far as money will allow.



*Disclaimer: The Company and its employees do not endorse the extra-legal discovering of films for free.

**Hegel listed architecture, music, painting, poetry and sculpture as the five Arts before Canudo added dance and film.

Friday, 11 November 2011

GAMEfest and Other Tales

GAMEFEST...

A few weekends back, the NEC in Birmingham hosted the first ever GAMEfest - an exhibition for British, poverty-stricken, saddos who can't afford the cost or effort of going to E3 or Gamescom or TGS or whatever. All the big publishers (Activision, Bethesda, EA, THQ, Ubisoft, Capcom, etc.) along with PlayStation, Xbox and Nintendo, came along to show off their newest and upcoming games. And at the low low price of £10 per ticket, I couldn't resist...

And to no surprise at all, it was totally worth it. Even though I didn't get to play some of the games I'd gone there for (Batman: Arkham City, F1 2011, Battlefield 3, The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim, among others), simply because of the massive queues, I still tried out a load of great games. And some not so great games.

The very first thing that happened, against my will, was the involuntary grabbing of free Mountain Dew, which had been hastily thrust at me during the great stampede as the hall opened, followed by a try-out of the new Sonic game, Sonic Generations. Which was fantastic - looks like it should be as entertaining as the original Sonics on Mega Drive (<3). Next was a trip to the Ubi booth for a hands-on with the next Rayman game, Rayman Origins. THIS I have been waiting eagerly for. The original Rayman on PS1 was, and still is, one of my favourite games ever, so a new one, akin to the original instead of the 3D crap they've been churning out heartlessly for a few years, is very welcome. To my joy, it was thoroughly enjoyable, although not as good as the original...

Also, I didn't get to play Rayman Origins straight away because some chumps were hogging the booths, so I had to play The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn - The Game (dumb title) in the interim. NOT A GOOD SUBSTITUTE. The general rule that video games adapted from movies suck, remains true. Playing the game while being watched by the Ubi booth man, and trying not to hurl my opinion at the screen with a flurry of expletives was more of a challenge than the game itself.
BUT YAYAYAUGYUDFSIULFLB RAYMAN.

Other highlights included shift-switching with a friend in the 2-and-a-half hour queue for Mass Effect 3, managing to play SSX, Dark Souls, Journey, and more, win a Batman poster, steal a Skyrim/Rage bag without having to suffer the extensive Bethesda, all while my friend held our spot; A couple guys completely breaking WWE '12 with a Stretch Armstrong-esque glitch (I imagine they were swiftly removed from the booth and never seen again); showing everyone my skillz on the Assassin's Creed Revelations multiplayer and winning a Driver soundtrack vinyl for my troubles; and laughing at some people who'd queued for hours at Bethesda only to find Skyrim wasn't even playable.

Got to play Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One, Resistance 3, Uncharted 3, GoldenEye 007: Reloaded (bugged to fuck, way to ruin one of the best games ever guys), Ace Combat 3DS, Gears of War 3, Street Fighter X Tekken and Lord of the Rings: War in the North as well. Didn't play any Kinect games liked I'd hoped though. Not because I love looking like a knob, but because I've not experienced the fancy tech myself yet.

...AND OTHER TALES

I shall reserve for another post. This has already become a risk of tl;dr.

I should go.

Monday, 5 September 2011

New Wave, Old Game


Alright, here’s the first post with some actual content.

ANGLES

I’ve never really been a big fan of the Strokes. I bought their debut, Is This It, a while back and liked it, but I always thought it was a bit samey. But then I saw them live at Reading Festival a couple weeks back, and thought I’d give them another chance. So I borrowed their fourth and latest album, Angles, having heard and loved its first track, Machu Picchu.

To my surprise, I really enjoy it. It’s got more variation throughout than Is This It, and has a really interesting sound. Not to mention that it’s all kinds of New Wave-influenced. I mean just look at the album artwork. I like the fact that there’s some backing vocals present, ‘cause that’s always a selling point for me. Part of why I like bands like the Beatles and the Beach Boys – they always had great backing vocal tracks.

Also, I borrowed the CD off a friend - a certain friend who happens to be a huge, screaming fan of the Strokes. So this CD could come in handy as a potential bargaining tool if ever I need a morally-grey favour (“If you ever want to see Angles again...”).

RESISTANCE 2

So a day or two ago, I finally finished Resistance 2 on PS3. And only 2 and a half years after first starting the game...

Needless to say, I didn’t enjoy it as much as I initially hoped, hence the massive hiatus between sessions, punctuated by other, better games. Unwarranted changes from the first game, a not-that-interesting campaign, a lead character that I don’t really give much of a shit about...

BUT that’s not even what annoyed me about it. What annoyed me was the total unfairness of it. I’m not saying it was too difficult, but every time you run into a battle with a squad, the entire enemy force just aims for you. Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK. There’s like 20 freaking guys next to me that you could shoot instead of me, so that maybe I could move my arse out of cover for 5 seconds, long enough to shoot someone without my screen going red immediately.

And I’m not even exaggerating! There was one bit where I had to kill 3 gigantic cannon-wielding aliens, and as soon as I was in view, they all aim straight at me, completely ignoring the bunch of guys on their other side shooting them without argument. Funnily enough I died multiple times, because, unsurprisingly, 3 giant aliens with cannons can quite easily beat one puny human with a crappy shotgun.

IT WAS A TAD FRUSTRATING.

But then I beat the game, and now the disc will probably never see the light of day again. 
TOO BAD, IT’S YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT.

I have to go.