The Grey review

First of all I have to say this: I dislike movies that vilify animals. I wasn't looking forwards to this movie for that reason alone, and to be honest the trailer didn't help. But I heard it was very good so, when it happened to be showing at a convenient time one day as I was looking for something in the local cinema to watch, I decided to go for it.

While this may sound like just my own inherit bias, I have to say that I strongly believe this movie would have worked much better without the wolves playing such a big role. As a survival movie, a tale of man versus nature, it is very well done. Every death matters, every character is mourned by the audience when they're gone, no matter how we felt about them while they lived.

But the wolves' behavior is out of place. They kill not for food, but just to kill. This explained as a territory thing, but I have trouble with that: even if they are killing for territorial reasons, I would still expect them to eat the corpse afterwards - they are still a pack of hungry predators after all.

What's more they come and go randomly; one minute the whole pack will be chasing the everyone, the next they'll hide in the trees howling until the humans manage to start a fire, then they'll just run off. Then a random number will appear at a random time later - well, I say random, but I'm sure the timing has been carefully chosen for pacing and dramatic effect, but it's logically random. Sometimes it's at night, sometimes it's during the day, sometimes it's just one wolf, sometimes it's the whole pack, sometimes it's two or three.

I'm no expert, but I imagine they either hunt at night or during the day, not both? More importantly, I have have a hard time accepting that, if they are protecting their territory, they'll just all run off, and then decide to protect their territory again later. Never mind the difficulty of accepting the humans managing to escape when their progress over the deep snow is so slow and clumsy while the wolves fly over the surface so swiftly.

It just didn't make sense to me, it really felt as though the wolves had been shoehorned in to make it look more like an action flick in the trailers, I guess action movies sell better than survival films? It doesn't help that the cost-cutting measures - wolves hiding behind the treeline, wolves hidden in the darkness so only their eyes are visible, close-up frantic camera work that just shows people's faces and random patches of fur or flashes of teeth - are not terribly subtle, making them feel even more out of place.

The other thing I couldn't understand was the main character himself. Surviving in such harsh conditions takes a real will to live, to keep pushing on despite the increasingly overwhelming urge to sit down and rest, just for a moment, as the seductive warmth of hypothermia sets in. But the night before the plane crash, he very nearly took his own life, so if the only thing we really know about him is that he has no real desire to keep living. So what, then, is keeping him going? A vague old poem? Everyone else had family, or at least something to live for, to go back to, but not him. Maybe it's just me, maybe it's incredibly deep and I just didn't get it.


Anyway, despite my problems with the movie, I'm going to give it a 7 out of 10 for the things it did well, under the assumption that most people won't be as bothered as I was with the aforementioned issues.

#####SPOILER WARNING#####

That bit with the broken bottles? Clearly there just for the trailer. I mean, he's surrounded by a dozen wolves after somehow walking RIGHT INTO THEIR HOME despite the way they were supposedly attacked for being too close when they were some twenty or thirty miles away. And yet all these wolves are just lounging around as he digs around in his backpack for some tape and tiny liqueur bottles (he was able to find the edge of the tape despite recently climbing out of freezing cold water while wearing wet woolen half gloves? how the hell do his hands even work at all right now?), then tapes the bottles to one hand and knife to the other? How very gentlemanly of them to wait. What now, do they take ten paces then turn and fire?

Plus the fact that it is literally the very last few seconds of the movie - the very last thing we see in fact - makes it feel especially pointless. As I said before, clearly just there for the trailer - which is really cheap since trailers aren't supposed to show you the very end of the movie.

Also, the bit after the credits? It was only a few seconds long and I couldn't even tell what we were being shown. Were they both dying, or only the wolf? I'm assuming both, but the fact that I don't know, after waiting over ten minutes for a 5 second clip, sounds like a mistake on their part to me.

The Big Bang review

This movie flew completely under my radar, so I had no idea what to expect going in. I found it surprisingly fun and quirky. It plays out like a cross between a caper movie and an old private eye flick, but with enough surreal touches to make you question the reality of what you're shown.

The movie is stylish, I enjoyed the little touches like the constant physics references, and it did a good job of creating a sense of anticipation as it drew me in. Unfortunately I wasn't satisfied with the ending. To try to explain it, the ending is not what you would expect in that it is what you would expect if you weren't expecting more. OK, that probably doesn't sound like it makes much sense, so I'll try to clarify in the spoilers section.


I'm giving it a 7 out of 10. Basically, it's a fun and slightly unusual movie, more-so if you don't have any expectations and just let it take you for a ride.

#####SPOILER WARNING#####

Coming back to the end, I thought it was too simplistic. Yes, it explained everything and tied up all the loose ends, but it was just too mundane considering how the movie increasingly flirted with the metaphysical towards the end.

Also, the bit with ground collapsing in a line that chased their car was just silly and, worse, out of place.

Cowboys and Aliens review

With a title like that you would probably expect something a little silly, a comedy or even a spoof. But this movie is not silly or light-hearted at all. Without the aliens it would be a decent character-driven cowboy movie. Without the cowboys it would be a decent sci-fi action/horror.

As it is though, it's somehow less than the sum of it's parts. As a cowboy movie, the importance of the human issues and relationships seems unimportant next to the threat of the aliens, but the "western" movie structure doesn't work all that well for the alien angle. At least that's what I've come up with for why it doesn't quite work. But there's some more concrete issues as well.

The setting, while novel, puts the humans at too much of a disadvantage - not only do the aliens have superior technology and weapons, they are also larger, much stronger, faster and more agile than us, easily capable of climbing walls and roofs, taking down a horse and rider, killing a man with a single blow, and shrugging off mass quantities of arrows and bullets. Against such odds, the eventually human victory is simply not believable, and the movie falls apart.

Another issue is that the aliens themselves, as the 'bad guys', don't have any real character. That's not to say that they aren't well designed; I thought they were quite original. But consider Predator; while the Predator was barely seen for most of the movie, it all came down to confrontation between it and Arnie at the end - same for Alien and Sigourney. And while Star Wars is arguably a better comparison in that it has large battles and a more extensive cast, it still comes down to Vader, Luke, Obi-Wan and the Emperor. The aliens of Cowboys & Aliens don't have the personality and presence of Vader, don't dominate the movie the way the Xenomorph and Predator do. In the end, they are distant and faceless.

There is one single recognisable alien in the movie to serve as Daniel Craig's nemesis, but the fact that it has a scar fails to elavate it beyond the pack, and it's eventual demise doesn't really have much weight. All in all, while the aliens do present a very credible threat, they are unfortunatley distant and rarely seen - even in the large 'final battle' there's usually not more than one alien on screen at a time - which robs the final victory of it's gravitas, it's importance.

Having said all that, the characters themselves are generally believable, some are even likeable, and their personal stories do matter to the viewer. Unfortunately the protagonist himself is trying so hard to be a strong, silent, square-jawed hero that it's hard to actually form a connection with him, even though he get most of the screen time (hell, even the character's name is Jake Lonergan). Nevertheless, Daniel Craig handles the action scenes and the meagre dialogue well. Harrison Ford perhaps has the more interesting character; if you're expecting Indiana Jones, you'll be disapointed, but the character has depth and Ford does nail the role.

The special effects don't feel out of place, the aliens are well designed, and the action is entertaining. The story is pretty good overall - at least considering the fact that the title came first and the plot second. In fact I would say it has one of the more believable reasons for an alien invasion, although there's a few too many things left unexplained for my liking.


Overall though I'm going to give it a 6 out of 10: it's not bad, but I can't find it in me to say it's good.

#####SPOILER WARNING#####

I mentioned the movie has one of the more believable excuses for an alien invasion. The way I see it, mining for a precious mineral is quite believable. I don't know how prevalent gold is in the universe, but I'm guessing it can be found in non-inhabited planets, so why come to an inhabited planet? Economics. If the economics of mining the gold makes it worth it to come into conflict with the natives, then that's what they'll do (we do the same on a country basis all the time). Clearly earth matches their home planet environment, else they would need space suits or something, which could be a significant factor. Gravity, temperature, so many factors could interfere with the refinement and related processes, that not just any gold-containing planet would do. Humans are probably the least of their worries.

What the hell was up with that boat? Oh, and why are the aliens naked? We don't send astronoughts into space naked. How come they can take so much abuse? Those are bullets, not spitballs.

But most of all, if the humans have one single weapon capable of actually harming the aliens, and at least several, if not all, of the aliens have similar or better weapons:
a) how do the humans not get instantly annihilated?
b) how does Jaker Lonergan manage to so easily take out several dozen of them, when they have the same weapons and should be more familiar with them?
c) why the hell don't more humans pick up alien weapons when they drop them?

Charlie Bartlett review

Basically, this is just a nice movie. It's entertaining and mildly thought-provoking, the cast do a great job, and the way Charlie is able to see past the surface is somewhat inspirational. The only mild criticism I have is that it could probably have used a little more punch, a little more drama towards the end.

I give it an 8/10, probably not the kind of movie you'd want to watch at the cinema but definitely rent it if you get the chance.

Anaconda 2 impressions

Or Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid. I saw this in a theatre in Bad Flim Club, so there was a running comedic commentary. For that reason (and because I can't be bothered), I'm not making this an actual review.

Basically I thought this was actually better than the original (which was crap) as it actually tried to have a story beyond just "there's some guys in boat and a snake attacks them", which actually does tie together better than most monster movies I've seen. It's still a mediocre movie at best though. You probably won't like or care about any of the characters, and you can predict who will die quite easily based on the typical clichés. And if you're expecting to actually see any giant snakes, you'll be a little disappointed; beyond the occasional tip of a snake's tail seen vaguely through the water, there's probably less than a minute of actual CG and animatronics in the entire movie.

#####SPOILER WARNING#####

First of all, why act so coy about showing what's eating people for so long? Most people will probably figure out that it's a BLOODY ANACONDA! It's the title of the damned movie! OK, yes, I know it's to cut down on costs. That doesn't make it less stupid.

Yes, the British guy was evil. Big surprise. However, near the end of the movie I suddenly came to a horrific realisation: the really annoying panicky wimp WASN'T going to die! Dammit, I should have seen it sooner. What a disappointment.

There were a couple of points that seemed to have been lifted from star wars: they need to hire a ship so they find Han Solo and Chewbacca. When he showed them his boat I actually half expected him to say it would do the Kessle run in twelve parsecs. Also, notice how the only guy willing to sail them down(?) river was not from around those parts? Coincidence?

Can monkeys swim? It seems they can run faster than a boat anyway, and they survive falling over waterfalls so...

Was I the only one that noticed this? I've scoured the internet but found nothing (not even on IMFDB), so I guess I must be. The revolver seen in the movie looks like a Colt with a full round underlug, meaning it's probably either a Colt Python or Anaconda. Bonus points to the movie (and me) if it is!

Looks like a Colt python

Dues Ex 3 Impressions

A few days ago I started playing Deus Ex 3. I was a big fan of the first game, I still consider it one of the best fps games ever. In theory that should bias me such that I would disappointed if this deviates too greatly from the mold set by the original, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I would be satisfied with a carbon copy with a facelift either; a difficult proposition for the developers I imagine.

I have put a large number of hours into the game over the last four or five days, as I found it quite engaging - engaging, but not always very much fun. My issue is mainly with the combat, which makes the details hard to pin down, but there are some things I can say.

One of the big things about this game is that it's really a hybrid between first and third person. In fact, I would say it's more third person than first. It all comes down to the cover system; when you press the cover button to hug the nearest wall, the camera jumps to a third person view. This works very well for stealth, which is a big part of the game, and for shooting from cover. In fact I would say that these two areas are exactly what third person control schemes are best at, and at least one of their main weaknesses - traversing cramped interior environments - isn't an issue here since you move around in first person. So that's actually very well designed.

But what really pushes it over the line into third person territory is that the combat doesn't work in first person. Getting into a gunfight in the open is a sure invitation for a very, very quick death. So you're forced to play combat as a third person game. In fact it's less forgiving than most third person cover shooters because if you get caught out in the open when the bullets start flying there's a very good chance you won't even make it to cover – in a third person game its' easier to back away and jump behind something than it is to either run backwards or turn away and search for cover in a first person game. And moving between cover is not smooth as you either have to use the set transitions or step back into first person, which is disorientating (especially as the camera pops into a close up view of the wall you were pressed up against).


So while the story is engaging and the open world with multiple objectives has drawn me in, I just didn't enjoy the combat very much. The actual stealth gameplay was not bad, but not really deep enough for me to enjoy it that much for it's own sake – dedicated stealth games like Hitman tend to have more technique involved. Or perhaps it just wasn't forgiving enough for me: it's very, very easy to mess up and give yourself away, at which point you're often in a bad position. And while if you're in a good position combat is not very hard (or interesting), getting caught in a bad position or getting flanked is a real problem since you die so quickly. The load times are surprisingly long, making dying a real pain.


Then I tried the Rage demo. After a few minutes of tedium as I changed costume and delivered a letter, I was blasting away at mutants and having so much fun that I almost gave up on Deus Ex. In fact Rage is some of the most fun I've had just playing a shooter in a very long time, and that was just the demo. I felt as if finally I was playing a proper FPS again.

The graphics really impressed me, the combat was fast and fluid, the enemies surprised me with their speed, aggression, and acrobatics. The weapons had great impact with some very nice hit reacts. It looks like you can carry a bunch, and the different ammunition and upgrades look like they will add depth and keep things interesting. The combination of a weapon wheel and quick swap seems to have the best of both worlds, with a little set-up you can have special weapons like the crossbow swapped instantly for a close range piece like the shotgun.


I'm not saying that Deus Ex isn't a good game. In fact I really appreciate how close it is in many ways to the original, and it does do a lot of things quite well. I just don't really enjoy the slow, deliberate, unforgiving third-person cover shooting nature of the combat.



I wasn't sure whether to mention some specific points in detail, but since I'm not sure if I'll actually finish the game so I don't know if I'll ever write a proper review, I decided I might as well.

Controls are just a little sluggish compared to a dedicated FPS and the aim assist is weak. Dodging or side-strafing seems to be completely useless – all your enemies have great aim. All of this forces you to hide behind cover and makes it impossible to actually fight in the first person.

Speaking of controls, who the hell decided you wouldn't be allowed to change them at all? This is simply unforgivable. Whoever the hell you are, your favourite control scheme is not better than mine, just different. If you want people to play it as a stealth game and not a shooter, fine, force them to use the default scheme in the opening level so they see how it works but allow them to change it later, or if you absolutely must, limit some swaps (so if you really are so arrogant that you're completely convinced that no-one could possible enjoy the game without the cover button being a trigger, force it to be one of the triggers), but there's no reason not to allow anything to be changed (what if they're left handed and like to shoot with the left finger and use use the right trigger for cover?), like the face buttons: you cannot tell me that there's only one possibly way to use them. Hell, Devil May Cry used Y as the jump button!

You seem to do an ammo check whenever you pull out a pistol, even when you're getting shot at. In fact taking out your weapon is always a bit slow, which is especially annoying when a cut-scene forces you to put it away, then it ends and the guy you were talking to pulls out his pistol and shoots you twice before you finish drawing your weapon. Aren't you supposed to be some sort of experienced combat specialist?

If you pick up a weapon you don't already have it is added to your inventory, but if you already have one all you get are a few rounds of ammo (surprisingly few, typically just two or three when picking up an automatic weapon) and the weapon itself disappears. This is a bigger deal than it sounds: you can sell the unwanted ammo for a few dollars, but the weapon itself can fetch several hundred dollars. This means casually picking up weapons is like throwing away money, ferrying them to a dealer one by one can easily net you a few thousand dollars.

Of course doing this is so tedious that not even I can be bothered with it - but that doesn't stop me from being unhappy about watching cash evaporate. Besides, it encourages you to keep as few weapons in your inventory as possible so that you maximise your profits - just sell that shotgun, you'll pick up another soon and you'll be up a few hundred for it. The problem here is upgrades.

Upgrades are applied to the specific weapon - drop your upgraded pistol and the next one you pick will still be bog standard. This encourages you to either hoard weapons or severely limit what you upgrade. Since there's no safe box or anything for you to store weapons, this forces you to fill your inventory with weapons and ammo that you don't use much but aren't willing to drop or sell (or drop them on the floor somewhere and hope they don't disappear - functional but unpleasant). Upgrades cannot be removed from a weapon and don't even raise it's resale value (at least not all upgrades seem to).

Added to this is the difficulty in finding some weapons and the rarity and expense of upgrades (and the inventory space they take, which forces you to use them quickly). It's all a big hassle, at least if you care about your kit. Yes, I know the original was pretty much the same, but this one area where I would have liked to see some kind of an improvement. Just make it so weapons don't disappear, but you take the ammo automatically when you walk over them and only pick up the weapon when you click on it, and give you access to a locker that you know you will always be able to come back to, and it would be so much better. Oh, and make upgrades increase the monetary value of a weapon.


Oh, and why the hell does the pistol take up more than half as much room a the silenced sniper rifle? It is neither half the size nor half the weight. Pistols should take 4 spaces tops, right?

Legend of the Guardians

I wanted to watch this for a while for one simple reason: I like owls, and the idea of a movie about them was intriguing. Plus the name suggested something more than the animal-centered comedy animation that we see so many of these days. A few days ago I finally saw it.

I found it to be one of the most epic animations I've seen in a long time, and I enjoyed it immensely. Watching it made me feel like a child again, I felt awe and fear and amazement.

Looking back, it feels as if the focus of western animation, at least on the big screen, has moved away from the old 'confrontation between good and evil' and shifted focus towards the personal growth of the protagonist. Take for example Megamind, How to train your Dragon, Kung Fu Panda, Wall-E, Up, Toy Story; whilst all have very credible threats, the focus is more on the characters understanding themselves and their place in the world than defeating some great evil.

Is this a reflection of the times? The idea that the real battle is not against some outsider, but against the worst parts of ourselves? I don't know. All I know is that animated movies with "The Lord of the Rings" style epic struggles against the all-consuming forces of evil are few and far between these days. But Legend of the Guardians does it, and it does it well.


Without going into detail in the plot, it does feature many classic elements of fantasy, with emerging evil, legendary heroes, struggle and hardship and an unlikely band of companions thrown together in the face of adversity, and it all works quite well. I was certainly taken at the time, finding it to be very engaging.

In retrospect, there was almost too much story for the movie. This is expected as it is an adaptation of series of novels, but it means that certain story moments feel rushed, the whole thing feels a little chronologically compressed and suffers a few inconsistencies. For example, two young owls, having only just learned to fly and having flown quite a distance to escape pursuit, almost immediately set out and cross a great distance that it is suggested even adult owls would find almost beyond their endurance. And it's over sea, so there's no chance they could have rested on the way. In fact the same trip is undertaken at different times in the movie and it feels vastly different each time, and while some of this could be explained as non-linear storytelling, other times it just doesn't make sense.

These issues are actually quite minor, but it feels as if it would have worked better as a much longer movie or even a series. It certainly feels as if the world is rich enough to sustain a longer run-time, even with just the current story arc. Or perhaps I think that as an adult, while a child would grow bored by then. Actually that's quite unlikely in my experience; I believe children to have a greater endurance than most adults as far as watching TV and movies goes. Perhaps it's for the sake of the parents, who are unlikely to take their children to the cinema to watch a two hour movie?

One issue that did bother me a little was the 'message' of the movie. Arguably one of the messages was of equality in that the evil owls believe they are the 'master race' who have the right to rule over smaller weaker owls, while the protagonists are of mixed species (including the one that the evil owls belong to, so it's not a case of 'this race is evil' the way it often is in animal-based storytelling) and the main Guardian of the film is in fact a smaller breed of owl. Another is that war is not glorious and it has terrible consequences.

However, the big 'lesson' that the main protagonist learns is to trust his gizzard, not his head. How exactly does that translate into human terms? Trust your gut I suppose, but to a child it may come across as something like 'don't think about what you're doing, just do what you feel like'. Either way I disagree; I believe people already don't spend enough time thinking about their actions.

Another thing that worries me is an argument between the hero and another character where he is accused of being a foolish dreamer and he responds something to the effect that 'our dreams are what make us who we are' (I'm probably misquoting that). While I agree with the generally concept of not giving up on our dreams, the dreams they are talking about are idle daydreams, not goals or hopes for the future.


The quality of the animation is fantastic. It is both technically and artistically impressive. Since owls are nocturnal, much of the movie occurs at night. The artists have taken advantage of by creating some stark images that use the darkness to their advantage, so the available lighting (moonlight, fire, lightning) has more impact. Also worth mentioning are some impressive flying sequences that reminded me why I used to dream of flying, with glorious dawn skies and intense lightning storms.

The visual style itself is unusually realistic. Surprisingly the owls are barely anthropomorphised at all - no wings gripping objects or wingtip feathers gesturing like fingers. Perhaps this style is possible thanks in part to the complete absence of humans, which bypasses most worries about the uncanny valley, but regardless it lends a sense of weight to the film that is perfectly suited to the story. Feathers and fur look amazing, metallic objects are stunning (perhaps doubly so as they stand out so much as almost everything else is mostly natural), and the various set-pieces look wonderful.

There are some excellent dramatic scenes and surprisingly engaging fights. There's more action that I expected, with some pretty effective use of slow motion at times. The sight of owls wearing helmets and carrying weapons is surprising at first, but it quickly comes to feel natural, thanks in large part to how the setting grows (at one point we actually see a smithy), and how effectively they use the weapons while flying.


Overall I give it a 9 out of 10: it's a little lacking in depth in places, but you won't care too much as you quickly get drawn in to this epic and visually stunning movie.

#####SPOILER WARNING#####

The thing with the "flecks" feels a little strange; perhaps not out of place exactly, but most of the film does not stray too far from what is believable of a world of intelligent animals while the glowing energies of the flecks are more fantastical. Having said that, I wonder if there is some sort of basis to it. I'm not sure why it matters, but I believe there is some kind of justifiction possible.

I believe the flecks are meant to be magnetic. It's my understanding that birds navigate at least partly by sensing magnetic fields, like a built-in compass, so I suppose the idea is that excessively strong magnetic fields destroy their sense of balance and hence their ability to fly or even stay upright (and would probably make them nauseous, explaining how it affects their gizzard the same we that we feel sick in our stomachs). I don't think bats have the same navigational ability, so would not be affected by magnetism.

I do have one other complaint: the Cain and Abel story. I get the idea that the two had the same start in life but ended up in such different places, meaning that who we are is not just a consequence of our blood or situation, but of our choices. However, it felt a little generic and more importantly a little forced: Kludd was a little too quick to turn "dark side", and Soren was always shown in a brighter light (such as when they are 'branching', and Soren is instantly better and Kludd openly cheats). It would have been easier to believe if Kludd had just been a close friend or more had happened to lead them down seperate paths; instead it ends up feeling more like Kludd is inherently evil and Soren inherently superior, as they make such vastly different decisions for no obvious reason, which I don't think was the idea.


Oh, and what's up with the snake? How the hell did that happen?