An old(Well not that old really) saying goes "Movies based on video games are going to fail as are games made out of movies" and this one wasn't an exception. It wasn't as bad as some other video game adaptions but still not worth anyone's time, since there are better movies in the "tournament of death", like Blood Sport or Mortal Combat and "underdog fighter", Rocky and the original Karate Kid, categories. The main problem here are the inconsistent characters and a plot that just doesn't make sense. These two problems go hand in hand.
The movie is set in your typical "governments have collapsed and greedy evil corporations oppress everyone"-dystopian future that we have seen a million times before. The main character, Jin, lives in the Anvil a slum outside of the city where all the rich and pretty people live. The movie hints to resistance movement against the current regime, but they never really do anything. Jin's mommy gets killed in a raid against the resistance, while Jin is fucking some blond chick we won't meet for the rest of the film. Jin becomes angry and wants vengeance against the head of Tekken, the evil corporation that runs things. To accomplish this noble goal, he enters the Iron Fist tournament in order to gain access to Tekken. Jin makes it in beats a bunch people with your average every day Kung Fu moves seen a million times before and forgetting that he had the blond girl friend has an affair with a brunette babe also participating in the tournament. Before he can meet his target, the old guy's son coup's him and everyone involved in the tournament gets arrested, but they manage to excape, the old guy who used to lead Tekken explains to Jin that the bad boy who couped him is his dad.(like no one guessed it already) They get arrested, the old guy gets executed and a bunch of death matches start. Eventually Jin beats a cyborg dude and his dad, the good guys win and freedom is restored. The End.
This plot didn't make any sense, why does Jin's victory bring the downfall of Tekken? He didn't even slay the bad guy. Suddenly the big generic Stormtroopers who massacred indiscriminently both civilians and their own members suddenly decide not to follow their leader and the rich pretty people in the Tekken city are going to open the doors to hordes of bikers, gang bangers and drug addicts from the slums. I think not, more probably the still alive bad guy carpet bombs the slums with napalm before going back to his business of being a bad guy. This didn't make any sense. The character of Jin made even less, he wasn't really a character, he was just someone who did stuff to fit the plot, any attribute that was established about him was discarded in the next scene. The other characters weren't really interesting either, more like props than anything else, ready to fill their pre-set functions. The supportive girl supports when the hero is down, the mentor gives useful hints about the hero's opponents, the bad guy does bad stuff and so forth.
This movie was pretty much a waste of time, not worth watching or paying for that matter. I feel sorry for any who did.
sunnuntai 16. tammikuuta 2011
keskiviikko 12. tammikuuta 2011
Titanic - The movie I both hate and love
Bet you didn't see this one comming. Titanic is a movie that I label into the category "missed opportunities", a good movie that could have been awesome.
First the things I liked about this film. James Cameron does an excellent job at depicting the Titanic. The set is magnificent from the dark and hot hellish conditions of the boiler rooms with the shirtless masses of men showling tons of coal hour upon hour to keep the iron behemot moving to spledour of the first class areas filled with chrystal chandeliers, silverware and waiting staff that keeps the wine glasses of the rich full. James also does a good job of depicting the social background of the film, where women are expected to behave in a certian way, the teeming masses of immigrants leaving the old world to the promised land in America and the obvious classism in action.
Another thing I like is the portrail of the real life people abroad, we get to meet Mister Andrews, the desginer of the ship, Bruce Ismay the owner of the Titanic, Molly Brown a true hero of the Titanic(After the sinking she lead the relief effort of the survivors in the water and took care of other survivors until finally collapsing from exhaustion), Captain Smith and his command crew. All of these wonderful we meet, albeit briefly.
Now for the parts that suck, namely the plot and the main characters. The plot, what can I say, its your average teenage high school relationship drama with the one of the worst human tragedies at sea used as setting. You could take the plot of the Titanic and dump it with minor alterations on to the following platforms, a Baltic sea booze cruise, a high school or a camping trip and it would work just as well. For fucks sake the story of Titanic was already monumental enough without having to add one of the most overused plot in the world on top of it. Why couldn't the movie have been about the tragic disaster in itself?
The main characters reflect the plot, Jack is the sensitive poor artsy guy, who has a lust for life, Rosie is the good girl who is pushed to marry the rich asshole, but who would like to live a little, Caledon is the stereotypical rich dickhead, Mr Lovejoy is his equally assholeish lieutenant and Rosie's mom is the typical stern mother figure. Again all characters could be easily tranplanted into other settings. Why couldn't we get to see Captain Smith, Mr Andrews and Bruce Ismay play the lead? Molly Brown would have made an awesome lead character. As nouveau riche with a working class background she could have been used to explore the burning social issues of the era. Why they didn't do this is beyond me.
But overall I see the movie as an allegory of the era. Titanic sank in 1912, two years before the First World War began and changed the world forever. Titanic, as the western world in that era, is steaming ahead at full speed, full of confidence in the ability of technology to overcome any problems, only to realize too late that they hit an iceberg and there are not enough life boats. Most nations going into the first world war believed it was going to be over in few months, when the reality was a bloody 4 year war with unimaginable human suffering. The story of Titanic is a story human hubris in front of nature and not a love story.
First the things I liked about this film. James Cameron does an excellent job at depicting the Titanic. The set is magnificent from the dark and hot hellish conditions of the boiler rooms with the shirtless masses of men showling tons of coal hour upon hour to keep the iron behemot moving to spledour of the first class areas filled with chrystal chandeliers, silverware and waiting staff that keeps the wine glasses of the rich full. James also does a good job of depicting the social background of the film, where women are expected to behave in a certian way, the teeming masses of immigrants leaving the old world to the promised land in America and the obvious classism in action.
Another thing I like is the portrail of the real life people abroad, we get to meet Mister Andrews, the desginer of the ship, Bruce Ismay the owner of the Titanic, Molly Brown a true hero of the Titanic(After the sinking she lead the relief effort of the survivors in the water and took care of other survivors until finally collapsing from exhaustion), Captain Smith and his command crew. All of these wonderful we meet, albeit briefly.
Now for the parts that suck, namely the plot and the main characters. The plot, what can I say, its your average teenage high school relationship drama with the one of the worst human tragedies at sea used as setting. You could take the plot of the Titanic and dump it with minor alterations on to the following platforms, a Baltic sea booze cruise, a high school or a camping trip and it would work just as well. For fucks sake the story of Titanic was already monumental enough without having to add one of the most overused plot in the world on top of it. Why couldn't the movie have been about the tragic disaster in itself?
The main characters reflect the plot, Jack is the sensitive poor artsy guy, who has a lust for life, Rosie is the good girl who is pushed to marry the rich asshole, but who would like to live a little, Caledon is the stereotypical rich dickhead, Mr Lovejoy is his equally assholeish lieutenant and Rosie's mom is the typical stern mother figure. Again all characters could be easily tranplanted into other settings. Why couldn't we get to see Captain Smith, Mr Andrews and Bruce Ismay play the lead? Molly Brown would have made an awesome lead character. As nouveau riche with a working class background she could have been used to explore the burning social issues of the era. Why they didn't do this is beyond me.
But overall I see the movie as an allegory of the era. Titanic sank in 1912, two years before the First World War began and changed the world forever. Titanic, as the western world in that era, is steaming ahead at full speed, full of confidence in the ability of technology to overcome any problems, only to realize too late that they hit an iceberg and there are not enough life boats. Most nations going into the first world war believed it was going to be over in few months, when the reality was a bloody 4 year war with unimaginable human suffering. The story of Titanic is a story human hubris in front of nature and not a love story.
maanantai 10. tammikuuta 2011
The Brand Delusion
A few years ago a fellow by the name of Richard Dawkings wrote a book called The God Delusion, which dealt with how insane the belief in God in its many disguises is and how the 90% of the planet who more or less believe in some for of a supreme being suffer from some form of a mass delusion. He goes on to desrcibe how harmful these delusions can be. For the record I hold the man in high regard, largely due to his formidable defense of the theory of evolution against the bull shit known as the "Intelligent Design"-theory, but this I didn't like. Believing in things that are not and cannot be proven to exist is delusional, wow Dick, tell me something I didn't figure out by the time is was 10. Even more so when there are even more retarded delusions hanging out there, the biggest one being brands.
Branding is the fine art of attaching emotions, ideas, values and feelings to inanimate objects that various businesses are designing, producing and selling. When you see a Coke sign, it makes you think and feel something, just as Ferrari, Appel, H&M, Gucci, Google, Albert Heijn, BMW, Euroshopper, etc. make you think and feel stuff. The companies who own these brands attempt to manage these thoughts and feelings through various advertisment medias, but the response is generally individual. Some of these are tangible attributes in the product, for example if you buy a BMW you can expect a quality car, while Euroshopper is usually the cheapest option on the self, but sometimes this is not the case.
Why do companies do this then? Simply because it adds to the value of the product that the customer perceives. When the value goes up, you can charge a higher price, and you really need to since you spent a ton of money on ads to create those emotional attacments.
Now here comes the delusion part. You are deluding yourself if the added value is purely in your head. For example if you buy Ferrari you can be assured that you will get a fast, well made car, or when I buy Pepsi I get soft drink that tastes good, to me. But for example I fail to see how having some guys name on my underware adds to my underwear wearing experience or to anyone elses for that manner. Some implied brand values are even more insane, as an occasional Axe user I have yet to meet the horde of beautiful models attempting to gang rape me. When it comes down to it the Hugo Boss underpants aren't really different from the unbranded ones next to them, the only difference being the price.
So when looking at any brand, you have to look at whether or not the intangible things the company is trying to sell to you have anything to do with the tangible aspects of the product. Sometimes the two even contradict each other. Pepsi is a clear example of this. If I wanted to look like Thierry Henry, I wouldn't go near Pepsi bottle and if I wanted to be anywhere near his level of an athlete, I sure as hell wouldn't be anywhere near a place that shows Pepsi ads.
If you think of all of this what is the sense in paying ten times more for having some dude's name on your underpants, a dude I have never met and of whom I know very little of, on my underpants? If you believe that I say that you are the one who is deluded, even more so than the crazy dude who believes in his imaginary friends in the sky. At least his delusions are mostly free.
Branding is the fine art of attaching emotions, ideas, values and feelings to inanimate objects that various businesses are designing, producing and selling. When you see a Coke sign, it makes you think and feel something, just as Ferrari, Appel, H&M, Gucci, Google, Albert Heijn, BMW, Euroshopper, etc. make you think and feel stuff. The companies who own these brands attempt to manage these thoughts and feelings through various advertisment medias, but the response is generally individual. Some of these are tangible attributes in the product, for example if you buy a BMW you can expect a quality car, while Euroshopper is usually the cheapest option on the self, but sometimes this is not the case.
Why do companies do this then? Simply because it adds to the value of the product that the customer perceives. When the value goes up, you can charge a higher price, and you really need to since you spent a ton of money on ads to create those emotional attacments.
Now here comes the delusion part. You are deluding yourself if the added value is purely in your head. For example if you buy Ferrari you can be assured that you will get a fast, well made car, or when I buy Pepsi I get soft drink that tastes good, to me. But for example I fail to see how having some guys name on my underware adds to my underwear wearing experience or to anyone elses for that manner. Some implied brand values are even more insane, as an occasional Axe user I have yet to meet the horde of beautiful models attempting to gang rape me. When it comes down to it the Hugo Boss underpants aren't really different from the unbranded ones next to them, the only difference being the price.
So when looking at any brand, you have to look at whether or not the intangible things the company is trying to sell to you have anything to do with the tangible aspects of the product. Sometimes the two even contradict each other. Pepsi is a clear example of this. If I wanted to look like Thierry Henry, I wouldn't go near Pepsi bottle and if I wanted to be anywhere near his level of an athlete, I sure as hell wouldn't be anywhere near a place that shows Pepsi ads.
If you think of all of this what is the sense in paying ten times more for having some dude's name on your underpants, a dude I have never met and of whom I know very little of, on my underpants? If you believe that I say that you are the one who is deluded, even more so than the crazy dude who believes in his imaginary friends in the sky. At least his delusions are mostly free.
lauantai 8. tammikuuta 2011
The Great Jihad of Samwise Gamgee
The biggest movie disappointment I have ever had was Lord of Rings Return of the King. I am a HUGE Lord of the Rings fan, I have read the book about 20 times, so needless to say when the movies came out I was psyched. The first two movies were not too bad and I enjoyed them very much, but the third one let me down very badly and here is why.
The movie really awesome until the second half the of the first big battle scene(The Battle of Pelennor Fields). The first half of the battle is one of my favourite battle scenes, the charge of the rohirrim was everything I could have hoped for and more. It had a great feel to it, the music was spot on and it looked awesome. The fight against the mumaks( the elephant things) was ok, but at that point I started to have bad feelings. Then Aragorn arrives with the boats and then the Army of the Dead appeared and this went through my mind; WTF!!! No, no, no, no, Jackson, you asshole, how could you fuck this up so badly. Then the magic army comes and kills everything in sight and there is a really retarded scene with Legolas killing a Mumak. The end of the scene. Jackson couldn't have missed more compeletely what the battle was about.
In the books and to an extent in the movies the greatests weapons that Evil has are fear, despair and corruption. If you think of the Nazgul, they aren't like Aragorn or any of the other heroes, they don't plough through ranks of enemy warriors, because they don't need to, since no one is willing to fight them. It doesn't take a lot of skill to kill a guy who is paralyzed with fear. Another good example of this is the beginning of the Siege when the orcs fire the heads of the executed soldiers into Minas Tirith to cause panic, in the movie this almost makes the defenders give up before the fight has even started.
Sauron also very cunningly attacked the leaders of his opponents Theoden, King of Rohan, and Denethor, the Steward of Gondor. His major objective was to cripple the kingdoms by crippling their leaders and without the efforts of Gandalf, Sauron would have succeeded. Theoden was driven to despair and almost crippeled by Grima, the spy of Saruman, until Gandalf convinced him that he was still more than capable of being a leader. In the book the effect was more psychological while in the movie Theoden is possessed by Saruman. After the spell is broken Theoden becomes an inspiring leader who leads his men into two great victories. Denethor is driven to despair by Sauron through the use of a Palantir, unlike Theoden he is beyond hope and
all Gandalf is able to do is contain the damage. Gandalf's presence helps inspire the Army of Gondor into fighting the seemingly impossible odds and hold of the darkness until help arrives.
The final weapon of evil is its most potent weapon, corruption. The Ring is the focus of this power and it was able to lead several great leaders of the good in their doom. The first victim was Isildur, who for the record defeated Sauron in combat. The second was Boromir, also a mighty warrior and a great leader, who tried to take the ring from Frodo and valiantly atoned for it by dying in combat while trying to protect Merry and Pippin. Even the innocent Frodo is eventually overcome by The Ring. The only one in the book who was able to reject the lure of the ring was Samwise Gamgee. When Frodo gets captured by the orcs, Sam is able to save the ring. The ring tempts Sam with the possibility becoming so strong and powerful that likes of Elrond, Gandalf and Galadriel would treat him as an equal. Sam is tempted at first but then he sees himself leading an army into a charge and at that point he realizes how ridiculous he would look, how insane the whole idea is and how it is not really what he wants out of his life. In this context Sam is the greatest hero of the book, without him the destruction of the ring wouldn't have been possible.
This internal struggel that the heroes in the Lord of the Rings go throught reminds me of the muslim concept of Jihad, a very much misunderstood, misused and abused concept. In muslim theology Jihad is split into two parts the greater and lesser, the greater jihad is the internal struggel against the evil with in and the lesser is the physical struggel against evil and injustice in the world. Nearly all of the characters in the book overcome some internal barrier before they can realize their potential and those who fail generally don't make through alive. Samwise realizes that power and greatness isn't what he wants, Aragorn is able to overcome his doubts about being suitable to be a king, Theoden is able to overcome his despair and sorrow, Boromir unable to overcome the lure of the ring and is lead to his doom, Gimli and Legolas are able to overcome their predjudice about one another and forge a lasting friendship, Eowyn and Merry are able to overcome the social prejudices againt their fighting abilities and defeat the might Witch King, whom no man can kill, and finally the Armies of the Good are able to overcome fear and despair and put everything on the line to fight off the armies of Mordor.
The Battle of Pelenor Fields and the Siege of Minas Tirith were the first major battle where the forces of good really put an effort to fight Sauron. It was the first time that they were able to stand against the darkness and hold it at bay untill morning came. Unlike in the movie in the book the gates of Minas Tirith don't fall until moments before sunrises and the Rohirrim arrive. The arrival of the Rohirrim halts the advance on Minas Tirith and the charge of the Rohirrim breaks the siege lines. The defenders of Minas Tirith start sallying out as the Rohirrim are confronted by Mordors reinforcements. Then one of my favourite scenes occurs when Eowyn and Merry slay the Witch King. The moment where Eowyn reveals her identity as a woman and responds to the Witch Kings statement "No man can kill me" with "I am no man" and shows her sword into his face. Another cool scene in the book happens when the black ships arrives. Eomer, now the King of Rohan, sees the ships arrive. While seeing other panic around him and after feeling abit of despair himself, he starts to laugh, when he realises that he is young and uninjured, a leader of an army of one of the fiercest warriors in the world and this is what he was born to do. Then he decides to fight to the last man but before he has the need to do that he realizes that the ships are bringing Aragon and the army from the south of Gondor. The narrative of the battle ends on after Eormer and Aragon meet in the middle of the battlefield. Tolkien concludes the battle by stating that after hours of grueling fighting the armies of Mordor are driven from the field and the battle is finally won.
And this is the disappointment I had. In the book the victory came because the good finally had to courage to put it all in a fight no matter what. The battle wasn't an easy one either the book lists all the great leaders who died in the battle. In the movie the are almost lost and then the magic army arrives and hands the victory to them on a silver plate. If the army of the dead was so powerful, why they just didn't send it to Mordor and kill all the orcs in sight? In the book the army's greatest asset is ironically terror, all it did in the book was drive away the enemy, which is even remarked by some character, can't remember who, that they used the enemy's weapons against them.
Jackson missed the major point, that is best summed up by Edmund Burke, "All that is needed for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing" Which really pissed me off.
The movie really awesome until the second half the of the first big battle scene(The Battle of Pelennor Fields). The first half of the battle is one of my favourite battle scenes, the charge of the rohirrim was everything I could have hoped for and more. It had a great feel to it, the music was spot on and it looked awesome. The fight against the mumaks( the elephant things) was ok, but at that point I started to have bad feelings. Then Aragorn arrives with the boats and then the Army of the Dead appeared and this went through my mind; WTF!!! No, no, no, no, Jackson, you asshole, how could you fuck this up so badly. Then the magic army comes and kills everything in sight and there is a really retarded scene with Legolas killing a Mumak. The end of the scene. Jackson couldn't have missed more compeletely what the battle was about.
In the books and to an extent in the movies the greatests weapons that Evil has are fear, despair and corruption. If you think of the Nazgul, they aren't like Aragorn or any of the other heroes, they don't plough through ranks of enemy warriors, because they don't need to, since no one is willing to fight them. It doesn't take a lot of skill to kill a guy who is paralyzed with fear. Another good example of this is the beginning of the Siege when the orcs fire the heads of the executed soldiers into Minas Tirith to cause panic, in the movie this almost makes the defenders give up before the fight has even started.
Sauron also very cunningly attacked the leaders of his opponents Theoden, King of Rohan, and Denethor, the Steward of Gondor. His major objective was to cripple the kingdoms by crippling their leaders and without the efforts of Gandalf, Sauron would have succeeded. Theoden was driven to despair and almost crippeled by Grima, the spy of Saruman, until Gandalf convinced him that he was still more than capable of being a leader. In the book the effect was more psychological while in the movie Theoden is possessed by Saruman. After the spell is broken Theoden becomes an inspiring leader who leads his men into two great victories. Denethor is driven to despair by Sauron through the use of a Palantir, unlike Theoden he is beyond hope and
all Gandalf is able to do is contain the damage. Gandalf's presence helps inspire the Army of Gondor into fighting the seemingly impossible odds and hold of the darkness until help arrives.
The final weapon of evil is its most potent weapon, corruption. The Ring is the focus of this power and it was able to lead several great leaders of the good in their doom. The first victim was Isildur, who for the record defeated Sauron in combat. The second was Boromir, also a mighty warrior and a great leader, who tried to take the ring from Frodo and valiantly atoned for it by dying in combat while trying to protect Merry and Pippin. Even the innocent Frodo is eventually overcome by The Ring. The only one in the book who was able to reject the lure of the ring was Samwise Gamgee. When Frodo gets captured by the orcs, Sam is able to save the ring. The ring tempts Sam with the possibility becoming so strong and powerful that likes of Elrond, Gandalf and Galadriel would treat him as an equal. Sam is tempted at first but then he sees himself leading an army into a charge and at that point he realizes how ridiculous he would look, how insane the whole idea is and how it is not really what he wants out of his life. In this context Sam is the greatest hero of the book, without him the destruction of the ring wouldn't have been possible.
This internal struggel that the heroes in the Lord of the Rings go throught reminds me of the muslim concept of Jihad, a very much misunderstood, misused and abused concept. In muslim theology Jihad is split into two parts the greater and lesser, the greater jihad is the internal struggel against the evil with in and the lesser is the physical struggel against evil and injustice in the world. Nearly all of the characters in the book overcome some internal barrier before they can realize their potential and those who fail generally don't make through alive. Samwise realizes that power and greatness isn't what he wants, Aragorn is able to overcome his doubts about being suitable to be a king, Theoden is able to overcome his despair and sorrow, Boromir unable to overcome the lure of the ring and is lead to his doom, Gimli and Legolas are able to overcome their predjudice about one another and forge a lasting friendship, Eowyn and Merry are able to overcome the social prejudices againt their fighting abilities and defeat the might Witch King, whom no man can kill, and finally the Armies of the Good are able to overcome fear and despair and put everything on the line to fight off the armies of Mordor.
The Battle of Pelenor Fields and the Siege of Minas Tirith were the first major battle where the forces of good really put an effort to fight Sauron. It was the first time that they were able to stand against the darkness and hold it at bay untill morning came. Unlike in the movie in the book the gates of Minas Tirith don't fall until moments before sunrises and the Rohirrim arrive. The arrival of the Rohirrim halts the advance on Minas Tirith and the charge of the Rohirrim breaks the siege lines. The defenders of Minas Tirith start sallying out as the Rohirrim are confronted by Mordors reinforcements. Then one of my favourite scenes occurs when Eowyn and Merry slay the Witch King. The moment where Eowyn reveals her identity as a woman and responds to the Witch Kings statement "No man can kill me" with "I am no man" and shows her sword into his face. Another cool scene in the book happens when the black ships arrives. Eomer, now the King of Rohan, sees the ships arrive. While seeing other panic around him and after feeling abit of despair himself, he starts to laugh, when he realises that he is young and uninjured, a leader of an army of one of the fiercest warriors in the world and this is what he was born to do. Then he decides to fight to the last man but before he has the need to do that he realizes that the ships are bringing Aragon and the army from the south of Gondor. The narrative of the battle ends on after Eormer and Aragon meet in the middle of the battlefield. Tolkien concludes the battle by stating that after hours of grueling fighting the armies of Mordor are driven from the field and the battle is finally won.
And this is the disappointment I had. In the book the victory came because the good finally had to courage to put it all in a fight no matter what. The battle wasn't an easy one either the book lists all the great leaders who died in the battle. In the movie the are almost lost and then the magic army arrives and hands the victory to them on a silver plate. If the army of the dead was so powerful, why they just didn't send it to Mordor and kill all the orcs in sight? In the book the army's greatest asset is ironically terror, all it did in the book was drive away the enemy, which is even remarked by some character, can't remember who, that they used the enemy's weapons against them.
Jackson missed the major point, that is best summed up by Edmund Burke, "All that is needed for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing" Which really pissed me off.
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)