Reviews by T-Pulla

All reviews - Movies (2) - DVDs (25) - Music (10) - Games (36)

-

Posted : 2 weeks, 2 days ago on 18 November 2009 04:59 (A review of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2)

I played through Modern Warfare 2's single-player campaign no more than a week ago, proceeded to play through it again, and have finally decided to do a review on it. The minute I completed the single-player portion of it I couldn't wait to drop by Listal and write up a glowing review. Nothing's changed in that regard, but I felt perhaps giving my thoughts a little more time to marinate was probably in the game's best interest.

So here we are. The Modern Warfare 2 hype has died down and in the ensuing aftermath magazines and online gaming publications have spoiled Infinity Ward with nothing but positive reviews for their highly anticipated mega-hit. As much as the critics loved it, I'm not too sure about the fans. I've heard everything from "It's just a glorified expansion pack" to, and I laugh to myself as I type this, "The first was better." After my last review - which was coincidentally on the first Modern Warfare - you should know that I cringe whenever biased fanboys hype up Call of Duty 4 even more than it already is. And with this review coming from a CoD fan who openly admits to enjoying Treyarch's World at War more than any of the others, leave that grain of salt at home because, and you can quote me on this, Modern Warfare 2 isn’t just the best Call of Duty I’ve played thus far, but one of the best games I've ever had the joy of playing.

Those familiar with hot shot director Michael Bay's movies (funny, this is the second time I've dropped his name in a matter of months) will find a lot of similarities and references to them throughout Modern Warfare 2's six hour campaign. The one referenced the most is the Nicolas Cage/Sean Connery action vehicle The Rock, and when you reach these moments in the game, there's no doubt in my mind that those familiar with the film will find themselves grinning from ear-to-ear. Infinity Ward is no stranger to referencing movies in their games as each CoD developed by them has slyly nodded towards war movie favorites like Saving Private Ryan, Enemy at the Gates, and Black Hawk Down, just to name a few. What makes these moments so much fun to partake in - especially those in Modern Warfare 2 - is that there are so many like them.

MW 2 really does look and feel like an epic summer blockbuster with a controller attached for audience input. The first Modern Warfare was all kinds of ridiculous, but Infinity Ward have successfully cranked the dial up so high and so quickly that they damn near snapped it off. There's absolutely nothing in this game, real-world or not, that should be taken the least bit seriously. Modern Warfare 2 is easily one of the most ludicrous, over-the-top, and downright brain-dead games I've ever played. Even with that said, I loved every minute of it.

I could sit here and list each and every one of the amazing set pieces that dropped my jaw, but in doing so I would give away practically the entire game. Let me put it this way; if you high-fived your friends and pointed at your TV screen while exclaiming "Did you just see that?!" during MW 1's Shock & Awe mission, MW 2's entire six hour duration will probably send you to the hospital. Not only are the set pieces more elaborate and more satisfying than ever, but the sheer number of enemies on-screen is nearly overwhelming. Infinity Ward has also fixed that vexing franchise issue where enemies continuously respawn if the player doesn't begin to advance. Even so, IW have upped the number of on-screen enemies considerably and as a result of that, made this one of the more challenging games in the CoD canon.

Referring back to the "expansion pack" comments, I have a bit of a rebuttal to the folks making that claim. Every sequel I have ever played is usually nothing more than a "glorified expansion pack." Apparently modern gamers don't understand that if a developer finds massive success with a certain formula they'd be fools to change it. Treyarch utilized said formula for World at War, so what should stop IW from one-upping their own formula. There is absolutely no difference between the first Modern Warfare and the second aside from some cosmetic and slight game play differences, but logic dictates that there probably wouldn't be. Even when comparing the first and the second, MW 2 completely obliterates the first without so much as breaking a sweat. Everything that worked in the first is back, everything that didn't work has been excised, and those aforementioned set pieces make the ones found in the first game look like child's play in comparison.

I was much relieved to find that Infinity Ward's winning formula has gone unchanged. The controls remain the same and the core game play has been totally untouched. What has been changed, or at least updated, is the already powerful graphics technology that backed Modern Warfare 1 and has been carried over to its sequel. IW has touched up the engine to the point where it barely looks as if it's the same technology. Besides the tonal shift in locales, the excellent character models also deserve a mention. They are probably the best they're ever going to look, and this is probably the closest this gen that we're going to get to photo-realistic textures, architecture, and character models. Everything encompassed by the powerful graphics engine is astoundingly detailed and just flat-out beautiful. I'd really like to see Infinity Ward's updated technology earn some kind of best-of win for the traditional end-of-the-year awards. It deserves it.

If you know me well enough, you should already be fully aware that I won't be touching on the multi-player portion of this title. I will, however, mention the new Spec Ops mode. What it is is basically a single-player or co-op (that's left up to the player(s) own discretion) competition mode that rewards you based on set parameters given to you before undertaking any mission. It's amazing that the same scale and spectacle seen in the single-player portion of the game has been carried over into a mode most other developers would use as a pretentious game play augmentation in which to increase the shelf life of their game. Not only has Infinity Ward use the Spec Ops mode as an amazing way to stretch the game's overall length, but also an as interesting way for gamers to take what they've learned from the single-player campaign and put it to use in a sort of objective-based challenge mode.

Modern Warfare 2 really is one of the year's best and will probably end up winning Game of the Year even though I have already heard complaints directed towards the length of the single-player campaign. But again, my opinion of the first Modern Warfare's single-player mode can be carried over to MW 2; it says what it has to say, does what it has to do, and doesn't waste any time beating around the bush. I personally found the length of the campaign to be perfect and I stand by that statement. Multi-player gamers will probably get a bigger thrill out of it (if that's your thing) than those who aren’t, but rest assured single-player gamers, even with the brevity of the single-player campaign it is definitely an epic experience you’ll want to play through again. If you haven't picked up MW 2 yet, do so immediately.

1 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 1 month ago on 29 October 2009 02:38 (A review of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare)

Let me forewarn all of you who will eventually read this review: I'm not a Modern Warfare fanboy. If anything, I much prefer Treyarch's World at War to Infinity Ward's overrated entry in the Call of Duty canon. But before I jump head-first into Modern Warfare, let me recap my experiences with you all.

I first purchased Modern Warfare's PC port just under two years ago. I played it to the conclusion and found myself really enjoying the time I spent with it. I began wondering what Infinity Ward's next move was going to be, as well as quietly hyping the game up to friends that had absolutely no idea what Call of Duty was. Now mind you, in late 2007 this game had not yet entered mainstream consciousness, not to mention the CoD series was largely PC-oriented. Maybe six months or so after I had played through the game, friends of mine (and it would seem people from just about every other country also) jumped on the Modern Warfare bandwagon and it was then that I began to truly loathe it. Sure, it's a great example of a fast-paced war shooter done right, but it irritated me to no end that my beloved Call of Duty series had become synonymous with Modern Warfare.

Allow me to elaborate a bit. I have no problem with Modern Warfare other than the fact that most fans of it aren't really Call of Duty fans. They have absolutely no want or desire to play the games that came before it and even then, have no interest in CoD 4's short but totally involving single-player campaign. I understand that multi-player gaming is the wave of the future, but I stand steadfast in my reviews and focus only on the single-player portion of each title. I could care less about meaningless game modes and heaps of perks that Infinity Ward introduced to their vast online community with this game. If anything, I'm more irritated at the fact that so many "CoD fans" have denounced Treyarch's far superior World at War when I'm fairly certain that if it had the Infinity Ward logo on it they would be commending them on a job well done.

But don't let this fool you. Before the fanboy love started turning me off to this particular entry in the franchise I couldn't get enough of it. As I briefly mentioned, the single-player story is inexcusably short. Your first playthrough will probably last you six or so hours, and subsequent playthroughs diminish that length considerably. I picked up a copy of the game for my PS3, yearning to have another CoD game on a console, and breezed through the single-player mode in roughly four-and-a-half hours. It comes as no surprise to me that most reviewers nagged on the game for having such a short single-player campaign, but I wouldn't want it any other way.

Modern Warfare is unapologetically repetitive. I'm not one to stick my nose up at games that abide by a formula, but there's really not much else to do here besides blow holes in Middle Easterners and Russians and set a few demo charges here and there. I firmly believe that some games benefit from a lengthy single-player campaign... if they manage to do more than routine shooting throughout. That's the problem I face. Too many people ignore what is an action-packed, well-paced, and well-told story simply for the fact that it has largely been regarded as "too brief." I don't know about you, but I don't want to spend 10-15 hours repeating the same actions over and over again ad nauseam. I really enjoyed Modern Warfare for the fact that it said what it had to say, did what it had to do, and then scrolled the end credits with nary a second glance. No matter how short it may be, I found myself enjoying nearly every second of it even on what is probably my fifth playthrough.

So why am I deducting half a star when World at War was awarded a perfect score? Simple. I thought World at War did so much more with the Modern Warfare engine and patented formula of the franchise. It looked better, played better, and seemed so much more refined as a result of that. I also really liked the fact that Treyarch weren't afraid to push some buttons with their oh-so-gruesome take on World War II. I thought to myself numerous times while playing World at War, 'Now this is how you make a war game.' I felt Modern Warfare could have been a bit grislier and more foul-mouthed in order to emulate a real-war situation. MW has the better plot, but WaW has such involving action that you barely notice its thin narrative.

I guess two years after MW's initial release and a year after the release of what I consider to be the best CoD game out of the bunch, I just don't look at Modern Warfare in the same light. It's still a great looking game and has many intense action sequences that have by and largely gone unrivaled, but a lot of that initial magic is gone. I've recently found myself impatiently wading through slower-paced missions with said impatience virtually non-existent while going through World at War. I'm also of the mindset that having CoD 4 take place in a modern setting reduced some of it’s charm. I'm probably one of the few who still loves WWII shooters and hasn't yet gotten over the change of setting. There are more gun and enemy variants, but something was lost when Infinity Ward made that awkward sidestep.

As for what worked then and still works now; the soundtrack is simply amazing, the graphics are still beautiful, and Captain Price's All Ghillied Up level is one of the best missions, bar none, in any Call of Duty game. Infinity Ward made sure to place as much emphasis on squad combat as possible, and by the end of the game you really feel as though you are a part of the unit you have just fought alongside for six hours. The ending is truly harrowing and one of the best closing acts to a video game in a long, long time. There's a lot of interactivity in Modern Warfare also. There are no cut-scenes and that makes for a highly involving campaign. Everything that's happening on your TV screen you play an active role in which really helps CoD 4 earn it's place in the upper-echelons of pure immersive action gaming.

So what's my point here? I don't think I really have one. This is just something that's been eating away at this seasoned CoD fan for going on two years now. I've been down with the series since it made its first appearance on the PC six years. I've even spent time with the mediocre handheld Call of Duty game, Roads to Victory, so with that said it's even harder for me to watch the days go by as more and more players ditch the previous games in favor of a massively overrated one. It really is a great game but not nearly as great as the fanboys would have you believe. If you don't already have a copy (which I think is not the case) seriously look into picking one up. No matter how overrated, it's still one hell of an experience. I do, however, recommend picking up World at War first. Just as Modern Warfare is criminally overrated, Treyarch's WaW is about as underrated as a CoD game can get.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 1 month, 1 week ago on 25 October 2009 04:37 (A review of Uncharted 2: Among Thieves)

Hype can do one of two things for a highly anticipated upcoming title. It can spark interest in a game that no one really cared about beforehand, or it can increase buyers' expectations to a level that, no matter how good or great the product may be, it will never be able to reach those daunting heights.

Sony's latest blockbuster, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, has been so hyped and so awaited for so long that you'd have figured by default that acclaimed developers Naughty Dog couldn't do much to meet fans' and critics' lofty expectations. Remember back, if you will, to mid-February; I reviewed the first Uncharted and gave it a perfect score. I was completely enamored by Drake's Fortune and couldn't, in a million years, fathom what would or could make it any better than it already was. I'll admit, I was really, really anticipating Among Thieves, but I figured Naughty Dog would take the Epic Games route and simply refine the visuals, touch up the game play and leave everything else as is.

Oh how wrong I was. As you read through reviews for Among Thieves and take note of all the perfect scores, endless amounts of praise, and resounding cries of "Game of the Year contender," you will probably be predisposed to think otherwise, but this really isn't enough praise. Among Thieves is one of the best action games, best adventure games, and perhaps best games of all time, period

Playing through Among Thieves is like being the director of your very own 10 hour action movie replete with engrossing shootouts, death-defying stunts, amazing set pieces, and beautiful visuals. Uncharted 2 is the virtual equivalent to a Michael Bay film but with better actors (or in this case, voice actors) and endearing characters. But not every gamer will appreciate what Among Thieves dishes out. There will be plenty of those who will complete the single-player campaign and exclaim, "That's it?!" There's literally no focus on any kind of realism and, trust me, your suspension of disbelief will be tested. But that's the beauty of it. As much as we as consumers feel that over-the-top action movies are insulting to our intelligence, the same will more than likely be said about Uncharted 2. If you're into grounded fair that plays more realistically there are still plenty of other games you should consider purchasing because this is not one of them.

Some of the more engrossing aspects of Among Thieves are the numerous elaborate set pieces that would ordinarily define any big-budget summer blockbuster, not a piece of interactive entertainment. During one such sequence, Drake will find himself jumping from moving truck to moving truck as he narrowly dodges RPG rounds, as well as hurling himself out of a crumbling building's window that, consequently, just had its supports blown to pieces by an attacking helicopter, and even a moving train segment that ends in one of the game's most beautiful displays of pure visual prowess. Among Thieves' entire package is simply jaw-dropping from the time you pick up the controller to the last time you put it down. One minute you're climbing up huge, lumbering structures and making incredible leaps-of-faith, and the next you're blowing and shooting shit up as you fight to stay alive against insurmountable odds. Perhaps more an interactive action/adventure flick than a game, but for this gamer that was not at all a problem.

Keeping in tone with the "bigger is better" approach to sequels, Naughty Dog are not resting on their laurels here. The mechanics of the game have been greatly improved in the two years between games. The platforming segments feel more natural and as a result more fun, shooting is as good as it's ever going to get, and enemy AI is greatly improved. I loved that Naughty Dog ditched one of the biggest problems of the first game: enemies that were able to soak up nearly a full clip of ammo and keep coming for more. Not only was this a nuisance in intense firefights, but having enemies that were constantly moving didn't help, either. I'm happy to say that the so-called "breakdancing enemies" have been done away with. There's also the ability to play stealthily whenever possible. Surprisingly enough, it is fully functional and works better than I would have ever anticipated.

Drake has also learned some new moves over the years. Hand-to-hand combat has been revamped and no longer requires combinations of the square and triangle buttons to pull off hard-to-perform combos. Naughty Dog has seen fit to relegate all melee attacks to only the square button this time around. Not only are combos much easier to perform, they are even more satisfying here than in the first game. Apart from this, Drake can also shoot while hanging from various objects in the environment. This gives the game a nice vertical feel and allows for more variety in ways to play through a gun fight.

I was also relieved to find that the puzzle-solving elements were given more depth even if they aren't as frequent as the first game. Each puzzle segment in Drake's Fortune felt criminally easy and way too simple despite their abundance. The puzzles in Among Thieves, however, require a bit of digging through Drake's journal (and this time around you can actually scan through the numerous pages in his journal in order to find solutions to these puzzles instead of being presented with the correct page no matter what) to solve and often go just as vertical as the gunfights. It's obvious to this gamer that Naughty Dog didn't place as much emphasis on these segments, but by giving you puzzles that weren't as easy and also much more complex, they feel more rewarding.

But I would be remiss if I didn't mention the graphics, and Naughty Dog have truly outdone themselves here. It's been rumored that the first Uncharted used about 30% of the PS3's Cell processor whereas Among Thieves uses between 90%-100%. It's also been said that the game's files take up all available space on the Blu-ray disc. Considering the sheer amount of detail strewn across 10 or so hours of game play, as well as the astounding differences between each respective locale Drake will visit, this all comes with nary a framerate drop, no in-game loading screens, and more surprisingly still, no installation process. With that said, Uncharted 2's visuals do not disappoint. Graphically it's right up there with PS3 favorite Killzone 2 only much broader in design and with much more variety in colors. One chapter has Drake traversing a moving train as his surroundings slowly transitions from dense jungles to snow-capped mountains. It's awe-inspiring to just sit back and watch this happen as the lighting swiftly shifts tone to pronounce the snowy textures. Drake then says aloud, "Jeez, I should have brought a jacket!" It's this attention to detail that makes Uncharted 2 such a joy to play.

No matter your stance on shooters, adventure games, or platformers, Among Thieves is the first must-play, must-buy game of the season. With the holidays fast approaching and so many great games being set for release, we'll see if the inimitable Nathan Drake can sustain the competition. For my money, the first Uncharted piqued interest in me and many others, and quickly became the one reason to contemplate owning a PS3. With the release of Uncharted 2 there should no longer be any contemplation, you should already be heading out the door to purchase the system along with one of the best games I've ever played. The explosive action, brilliant cut-scenes, mouth-watering visuals, superb voice acting, memorable, relatable characters, and mesmerizing story is only scratching the surface as to why this game should be in every PS3 owners collection. I can sit here and talk all day about how great a game Among Thieves is, but it means absolutely nothing until you experience what will undoubtedly be this year's best action game for yourself.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 1 month, 3 weeks ago on 11 October 2009 04:38 (A review of Wolfenstein)

Let me begin this review by saying that Wolfenstein is, indeed, not a "clone" of Halo as many uninformed gamers are thinking it is. For those not in the know, Wolfenstein 3D is considered to be the granddaddy and main inspiration of many other first-person action games with Doom coming in a close second. id Software - developers of these two highly acclaimed FPS's, as well as the Quake series - would certainly have a lot to say about their beloved series being compared or argued a clone of a vastly inferior console shooter.

Enter Wolfenstein (no... the new one). Developed by Raven Software (Heretic, Hexen, Soldier of Fortune, and Soldier of Fortune: Double Helix) and published by id Software (they honestly need no introduction though I have already given them one), this game takes place after the events of Return to Castle Wolfenstein and is considered to be the series' only true sequel. You see, Wolfenstein 3D was later remade in 2001 under the name Return to Castle Wolfenstein. But for those who haven't played the classic original or its excellent remake, don't fret. This is as much a sequel as it is a fantastic stand-alone FPS. Franchise fans, however, will definitely get more out of it than those unfamiliar with the series.

So how exactly do you keep a treasured shooter series relevant 17 years after its first incarnation and eight years after its remake? Favoring old school game play over new school ideals, this new Wolfenstein is about as simple as shooters come. Surprisingly enough, Raven have not opted to go the route of "updating" the game with an abundance of modern touches (aside from a pseudo-open environment and regenerating health) and have kept it as the twitch shooter the series started and stayed as. Granted, some FPS fans, as well as those that got their first taste of the first-person shooter genre on the original Xbox, will find that there is really nothing new to see or do here. You do have the Veil powers but the game play itself is decidedly old school.

Many will probably ask what the purpose is of making a shooter with it’s play aesthetics firmly planted in the early ‘90s when so many newer FPS's are vying for supremacy with top-of-the-line visuals, brand-spankin'-new ways to play the single-player campaign (such as co-op or heaps of unlockables), and multiplayer modes that are keeping youths worldwide up to the wee hours of the morning. Case in point, Wolfenstein has none of these things and doesn't need them. Where it succeeds is with its single-player campaign that is both involving and fun. There's little to do besides going from room to room and blowing away those ghastly Nazis, but that’s the beauty of it.

I very rarely find action games that place such firm emphasis on keeping the action this satisfying. Game developers of today seem too worried about sales, multiplayer/co-op modes and finding interesting, albeit vein ways of keep the gamer playing without actually offering much in the way of a fun, memorable experience. Wolfenstein dishes out some of the most intense firefights I've had the pleasure of playing through so far this year. Raven was obviously unconcerned with current facets of game development and opted instead to create a game that was rewarding to those favoring fantastic single-player experiences over a fantastic multiplayer one. Wolfenstein brings us back to the good ol’ days of cool weapons, great level design, and huge boss fights. Gamers looking for that extra drop of icing on the cake won't find it here but those of us that grew up on old school shooters will certainly dig the new face put over an all-too-familiar canvas.

Going into the Veil powers that you will have to master as the game ramps up in the difficulty; they are a unique addition to the game but ultimately amount to very little. Watching time slow to a crawl as you slam through waves of enemies while watching them fly through the air via Havok physics is insanely cool, but too much of the game relies on the Veil powers as a sort of gimmick instead of a helpful aid to completing levels. There are a number of enemies that require you to use different Veil abilities to defeat them, but I can't help wondering if the game would have been even better without these obvious inclusions created simply to pander to the modern gaming audience. Wolfenstein was meant to be a pure, unfiltered run-and-gun shooter and I would have definitely preferred it that way.

There's also the issue of what would appear – at least on first playthrough - to be an open environment. Gunfights take place in larger areas than seen in past Wolfenstein games and there are just as many open-locale firefights as there are ones set in tight corridors. I really did like this approach, but I could have done without the gimmicky (there's that word again) "open-world" game play. As with most modern games, you accept missions from a couple of different locations that you must travel to throughout the game, then rush out to complete them. Raven could have just as easily made Wolfenstein a level-based shooter instead of a mission-based one. It brings nothing new to the table, but because this feature is so dumbed down it doesn't affect the overall feel of the game much.

And as much as I enjoy open-world games and love innovative game play features and jaw-dropping graphics, I just can't get into the mindset that Wolfenstein adhere to these rules, too. I loved playing the previous two games because they were so simple and a nice break from more complex shooter fare. Wolfenstein is still unapologetically simple, but you get that feeling that id was having Raven shed their old school roots instead of embracing them.

Wolfenstein is also not a visually stunning game. It does look good, but gamers will find nothing here that begs them to tap their friends on the shoulder and say "Holy shit! Look at this!" As visually stunning as Return to Castle Wolfenstein was eight years ago, I half-expected to see the same kind of visual quality for its sequel. The various lighting effects are nice and water looks good, as do most character models, but there's only so much Raven was able to squeeze out of the aging Doom 3 engine. Enhanced it may be, but this is simply not a game where graphics were the forerunner.

As old school as Wolfenstein is - even with the inclusion of some new school elements - that will ultimately be the deciding factor between buy, rent or ignoring it completely, I loved nearly everything it threw at me. I bought the game on release day and haven't looked back. It's a rewarding, well-programmed, intense, and unbelievably fun experience that I have been awaiting for eight years. It's nothing new, nothing extraordinary, and won't win any awards for originality, but what it does offer is some of the best twitch shooting since PC favorite Painkiller. If a game lacking any sort of complexity and/or plot turns your stomach, it's best to not even give Wolfenstein a second glance when passing by it in the aisles.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 1 month, 3 weeks ago on 9 October 2009 10:12 (A review of SAW: The Video Game)

When I first caught wind that now-defunct developers Brash Interactive were working on a Saw videogame I had hoped for the best but expected the worst. As much as I love and enjoy the Saw films, Brash wasn't exactly known for its quality titles. Among these games are movie tie-in's like Space Chimps, The Tale of Desperaux and the abominable Jumper: Griffin's Story.

But when Brash folded near the end of 2008, development firm Zombie Studios took over the project and proceeded to both revamp and complete the title. With the publishing help of Konami, I really started to wonder if Saw: The Videogame wasn't going to be the detestable monstrosity I had first anticipated. Zombie Studios has only worked on a handful of games (including the fantastic PC military shooters Spec Ops and Spec Ops II: Green Berets), but if a well-respected company like Konami would risk their near-flawless reputation by releasing a movie-based game from an unknown developer, it had to be better than us rabid Saw fans were giving it credit for, right?.

Going back to when I first heard of plans for a Saw videogame, my most permeating thought was, 'How are the movies' universe and mythology going to translate into interactive entertainment?" Initial guesses from fans were that the player would take on the role of Jigsaw, create traps, and test unwitting victims while others anticipated it to be a mini-games-and-puzzles-based title that tied lightly into the Saw universe. I'm happy (and quite relieved) to reveal that Saw is almost none of these things.

You play as Detective David Tapp (Danny Glover's character from the first film) in a story and script written by series creators James Wan and Leigh Whannell. It is revealed that Tapp was nursed back to health by Jigsaw after the gunshot wound he suffered at the hands of hospital orderly, Zepp, and is thrust into a game of his own. Wan and Whannell's script takes place between the first and second movies in the franchise and proceeds to answer previously unanswered questions while also delivering an all-new story.

Tapp wakes up to find himself sitting in the bathroom from the first movie - which is now located inside of an abandoned insane asylum - with Amanda's bear-trap device on his head, no less. The Television in front of him flickers on and Jigsaw proceeds to warn Tapp of the device strapped to him and that, if he should make it out of this room alive, there will be a slew of others in the asylum that have devices on them as well. This wouldn't pose much of a problem, but the obsessed Detective learns that the key to these devices has been surgically implanted in his body, making him highly sought by the asylum's desperate inhabitants.

But what a way to open a game. Not only are you immediately pushed into play, but there is a Quick Time Event following this extremely atmospheric introduction that forces the player to remove the trap from Detective Tapp's head or witness a gruesome death animation if they fail. The Saw films usually open with a character being offed by one of Jigsaw's devices, and if you so choose to let that happen the videogame is no different.

I'm sure the biggest question I should address is, "How exactly do you make a Saw videogame?" The answer to that is very simple, actually; take one-third Silent Hill, one-third exploration, and one-third puzzle-solving, mix it up, and you have yourself a unique concoction that is nothing original but certainly better than any of the other movie tie-ins presently available. Couple that with the quick-cut editing and strobe-like scene transitions of the movies and you have yourself a visual treatment very faithful to the franchise.

But the visual authenticity is only half the experience. The game play is solid and offers up a vast array of fantastic, oft-challenging puzzles that need to be solved (some with time limits and some without) in order to progress, but exploration feels a bit stilted. You are usually led down a linear path with a mostly easy-to-understand way of proceeding if stuck. It's obvious that the focus of Saw isn't on exploration. The meat and potatoes of Saw: The Videogame lies in the aforementioned puzzles that you must solve. It seems like there are puzzles accompanying nearly every action you must perform; picking locks, escaping rooms, opening boxes, and saving Jigsaw's victims (the ones that are important to Tapp's game, at least). There are times, however, when exploring, one almost feels as if the game is holding their hand. While Saw has derived unarguable inspiration from Konami's Silent Hill series, it is considerably easier in comparison.

As a matter of fact, the traps in Saw: The Videogame that even Tapp must avoid (like shotguns hanging in doorways, for example) are usually what will off you and not the various other puzzles/traps that you will encounter. Timed ones will result in your death if not solved fast enough, but players will undoubtedly learn that dying a few times is the best strategy in which to study them, restart them, and then complete them. All of the puzzles are sufficiently difficult, but extremely logical.

I find the biggest complaint from those who have actually decided to purchase a copy of the game is that the combat system is unresponsive/broken, but I wholly disagree. Sure, swinging your weapon takes way too long and hitting an enemy sometimes depends on dumb luck, but that's the point. The object of the game is to avoid direct confrontation as much as possible while still eliminating your enemies. The AI is decent and there are numerous ways you can defeat them without "melee-ing." The traps that you disassemble can be re-activated to your benefit, such as the shotguns in the doorways. You can often lure the AI into these traps. You can even bolt doors to keep enemies away from you until their traps spring. I found this to be one of the coolest aspects of the game.

Saw: The Videogame is running on UnrealEngine3 technology and, considering the quality of most movie-to-videogame adaptations, looks way above par. Some textures are blurry and the various areas of the asylum tend to look the same after a while, but that's the Saw universe in a nutshell; grimy and dingy locales with victims who are practically interchangeable. Tapp's character model looks good, but it's sorely disappointing that Danny Glover was not available to voice or be rendered for his character. The look of the game mirrors that of the films flawlessly with dark, decrepit rooms and quick-cuts galore.

Voice-acting is shoddy, but that too ties in with the movies. The Saw films aren't known for their Oscar-worthy performances and have become infamous for their poor acting. Whether through intention or coincidence, the game is no different. I will say, though, that the music is an eclectic mix of original pieces and more familiar bits from the films. Hearing some of these music tracks from the early Saw movies put a huge, fanboy-ish grin on my face.

Saw: The Videogame is by no means a Game of the Year contender. What it is, however, is a shockingly solid experience that is signicantly better than any other direct movie tie-in I've ever played. It is faithful to the Saw universe while also being fun, challenging, and rewarding in its own right. I can't recommend this to those who have no interest in the movies as that is half the fun: recognizing similarities and parallels to the Saw films. Survival-horror fans may get some enjoyment out of it, but this is a game that was made with a lot of love for the fans and really is intended for them. So if the thought of a Silent Hill-lite experience set within the Saw universe gives you goose bumps, don't hesitate to pick this up or, at the very least, consider a rental.

3 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 3 months, 1 week ago on 23 August 2009 05:59 (A review of The Last House on the Left (2009))

Movie studios seem to be gravitating more and more towards remaking old (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre & Dawn of the Dead) and some not-so-old (The Hitcher & A Nightmare on Elm Street) horror films that were financially and critically successful in their respective eras for dozens of reasons. It's been argued by seemingly thousands upon thousands of fans that these remakes are inferior because the studios want nothing to do with the originals' respective subtexts. Instead, they lift only the barest of plot elements from them then proceed to loosely "reimagine" key sequences and moments.

Many of these remakes tend to get a bad rap though. The 2007 version of The Hitcher is much maligned, but I think fans missed the point on that one. I don't think director Dave Meyers ever intended for it to be the thought-provoking, tense, and largely isolated movie the Rutger Hauer/C. Thomas Howell version was. Instead it maintained a much steadier pace and became a slam-bang action vehicle that, of course, utilized a number of plot devices and pieces of dialogue from the original but was something else entirely. The same can be said for Zach Snyder's 2004 update of Dawn of the Dead which was, surprisingly, much better received than most Hollywood remakes.

This is where we enter Dennis Iliadis' Last House on the Left. Wes Craven's original film - which was also his first - has gained quite a reputation. Looking back on it, it's essentially an anti-exploitation exploitation flick. It is an admittedly nasty piece of work that may have been effective in 1972, but after 30+ years of existence, seems laughable by today's standards. The special FX were cheap even when it was filmed, as was the acting and script, but today the whole thing feels utterly unspectacular. I think through word-of-mouth and false praise it's gained the large cult following it has, but much like Alexandre Aja's remake of another Wes Craven cult classic, The Hills Have Eyes, it was a mediocre film made better with a remake.

Unlike the current trend of modern redo’s, Iliadis's film sticks very closely the narrative elements of Craven's version. I've noticed a lot of folks claiming that Iliadis's version is far less gruesome than the original, which in some cases I will agree with. Craven's version featured very realistic, if not perverse, scenes of torture and Iliadis seem to have to have strayed away from these moments (there's no "Piss your pants" scene or main villain, Krug, carving his name in Mari Collingwood's chest). I personally felt that was all for the better as the rape of Mari is so unsettling and hard to watch here that the inclusion of more overt physical torture would have rendered the segment virtually unwatchable.

Garrett Dillahunt, as Krug, plays the character much differently than the original's David A. Hess. He comes across as a closet sociopath rather than a twisted sadist as Hess played him. Dillahunt's Krug is a cold-blooded murderer who has no concern for innocent human life but does seem to genuinely care for those tagging along with him - his brother Francis (played well here by Aaron Paul), girlfriend Sadie (Riki Lindhome), and his son, Justin (Spencer Treat Clark) who he feels he treats lovingly despite the audiences ability to see otherwise. I loved Dillahunt's performance and felt that his underlying sense of menace was both compelling and frightening. This iteration of the villain sees him as "just a regular guy" on the surface, but underneath one can sense unbridled rage. The entire gang, in fact, are people that seem relatively normal until provoked, then become distempered animals. This realism is what separates the remake's gang from the over-the-top caricatures in the original.

Mari's (Sara Paxton) parents, John & Emma Collingwood, are played to near-perfection by Tony Goldwyn and Monica Potter, respectively. I loved Goldwyn's moments with his daughter when he discovers that she was raped and shot. Goldwyn plays the moment so genuinely. The character then performs hasty surgery on his daughter in order to get her breathing again, further fleshing out the movie's mention of his profession (in the original John Collingwood is also a doctor, but nothing is ever done with it). I bought Goldwyn's performance wholly. Monica Potter is the best she's ever been, playing a character that is clearly distraught by the situation at hand but adept at fighting back – believably, no less – when the time comes. Last House... is so well-acted throughout that it becomes so much more harrowing than the original. Watching Tony Goldwyn brutally beat, grind the hands, and hammer claw the back of one of the assailant's head is as much sickening as it is strangely gratifying. Chalk that up to a stellar cast giving it their all.

The script is also solid and borrows just enough from Craven's original while injecting plenty of writers' Carl Ellsworth's and Adam Alleca's own ideas. I admire these two for bringing likeable, relateable characters to the table and using the plot to more affective means. Iliadis's direction is fantastic throughout, and the cinematography elevates this from "just another horror remake" to a movie that is admirably classy. The set design is excellent and lighting is pitch-perfect. I appreciated that Iliadis filmed this as more of an artsy crime film than as quick-cutting, blood-for-blood's-sake torture porn we see far too much of.

But if anything can be said about the film in terms of violence, I will state that it goes much further in the on-screen gore department than the original. While not as perverse, it approaches the subject matter just as realistically. When Krug and company start getting offed, these sequences become elongated, brutal, and sometimes downright gratuitous. But there is something to be said about punishing those who have terrorized our loved ones. Whether right or wrong, I related to the Collingwood's and asked myself if I would have or could have done the same thing. We want to see these terrible people suffer for what they've done to two innocent young women. The acting, again, plays a big part here as characters are brutalized and killed and each actor plays it accordingly. The rape scene (extended greatly in the unrated version) in particular is so hard to watch - not because you really see anything - but because it feels so real.

What more is there to say, really? This is one of few remakes that isn't just as good as the original, but better in every possible way. The violence feels all too real, the acting is way above par for the type of film this is, and the movie is also extremely well-shot. Much like the original, it's not an easy watch and some of the changes made to the script will certainly divide audiences, but I however, found the changes effective. It may not be the original, but this is one instance where I can't complain about that.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 3 months, 3 weeks ago on 12 August 2009 11:39 (A review of Friday the 13th, Part V: A New Beginning (Deluxe Edition))

I'm seriously considering starting a "Friday 5 is underrated" campaign. If one decides to read through message boards and fan sites, there's quite a bit of hate directed towards this film. Both A New Beginning and Jason Takes Manhattan are the most maligned in the entire Paramount series of Friday the 13th movies.

It's not hard to see why these would be the most disliked, however. Jason Takes Manhattan is virtually goreless; many of the kills were either reshot or hacked to death by the MPAA to secure that coveted R-rating. One of the other big reasons being the title of the movie is quite misleading. About 20 minutes of the movie takes place in New York or Canada doubling for New York, while the other hour or so is set on a cruise ship full of graduating high school students which, needless to say, is headed towards Manhattan.

A New Beginning is always the one that gets me. It is essentially a trashier version of the previous three sequels, but just as entertaining. The kills are very imaginative, but so ridiculous at times that the movie approaches parody. Director Danny Steinmann (who had his hand in the porn industry at one time) throws his influence all over the picture. The flick is gratuitously violent - with a body count over 20 - and features the most T&A I've ever seen in one of Paramount's Friday films. The fans' biggest complaint is the lack of villain Jason Voorhees; an issue I've never quite understood. Up until the end of the third act, we had no idea this hockey-mask wearing maniac wasn't the Jason. The big twist of the film revealed that it was a character named Roy, an ambulance driver, who donned the iconic mask and was cleaning house.

Herein lies the problem. In 1985 no one suspected the third-act twist which must have been terribly disappointing for those wanting to see Jason doing what he does best again. With that said, it would be totally understandable for unsuspecting audience members to be vastly upset with Paramount's decision to not have "Jason" in the film. But after 24 years, I find the stream of complaints of "It's not really Jason" to be superfluous. A big guy wearing a hockey mask and carrying large cutting implements in which to dispatch of horny, pot-smoking teenagers is no less Jason than the iterations seen in the previous films. Just because there's someone "pretending" to be Jason, which isn't revealed until the end anyway, shouldn't automatically negate the fact that there is at least a Jason-like villain in the movie. And besides, Jason's iconic presence is brought to life through very recognizable physical traits; like the mask and trademark machete. This pseudo-Jason walks, moves, acts, and kills like the J-man; therefore it is.

By 1985 Jason wasn't just some cut-and-paste murderer, either; he was the omnipresent poster boy for slasher films and '80s horror flicks. But beyond the imposter problem, this truly is the last of the "realistic" Friday movies. Tom McLoughlin's Jason Lives, for example, had a resurrected Jason Voorhees robotically slashing his way through Crystal Lake accompanied by McLoughlin's gothic imagery. Steinmann's film is rooted firmly in the Jason-can-be-hurt motif of the previous sequels. The character of Tommy Jarvis (played well here by John Shepard) is also the only returning character from personal favorite The Final Chapter. Funnily enough he is the film's focal point yet I don't think he uttered more than 10 words throughout the course of the movie. I also love how Danny Steinmann never took the film too seriously. Many of the kills and expected Friday moments (like the final chase sequence and revealing of the corpses, for example) are injected with a bit of humor. In fact, the entire movie is.

But it's disappointing that there exists no uncut version of A New Beginning. For as violent and unrelenting as it is, there's not a lot of on-screen gore. Most of the kills are cut dreadfully short or relegated to having their gory details revealed in an after-the-fact fashion. On the other hand, the characters are some of the most memorable in any Friday film (especially redneck couple Ethel and her son, Junior) that elevates this beyond simple slasher fodder. Quite true that the movie is utterly ridiculous and many of the kills are just thrown in there so Steinmann was able to meet his quota (the director has gone on-record as saying that Paramount had him toss in a scare or kill every six to eight minutes), but I would rather have a slasher flick do too much than too little.

But as a Friday film and fourth sequel, this couldn't have worked better. The movie has an extremely high body count, a fantastic sense of humor, great characters, tons of nudity, inventive kills, and a quick pace. It also does the fans a service by bringing Tommy back and showing us what has transpired between the events of The Final Chapter and A New Beginning. Too many people, I think, let the five second unmasking at the end of the film completely negate the events preceding it. But watching Friday 5 again after a good four years doesn't make it anymore appealing as a straight-laced sequel. The movie is, in fact, so different from the others tonally that even sequences that were seemingly meant to be taken seriously (like Tommy throwing a character through a table after said character scares him with one of his own masks) had me howling.

All in all, however, A New Beginning is an immensely unique addition to the series. There is so much gallows humor & violence that the picture remains to be one of the most awkward, yet entertaining in the series. The bad rap the movie receives is something I will never be able to look past as I feel it has all of the right Friday ingredients only hampered by a miniscule problem that fans have chosen to beat the flick to death over. The last of the true Friday films and also a damn fine sequel.

*Paramount has released the film in a Deluxe Edition DVD set that is probably the best we'll ever get out of them for such a universally hated picture. The DVD includes a funny, but uninformative commentary with director Danny Steinmann, actors John Shepard and Shavar Ross, as well as self-proclaimed horror guru and Friday 5 fan Michael Felsher. It also includes a making-of featurette (short, but more informative than the commentary), another piece of the fan-made short film Lost Tales from Camp Blood, another installment in the DVD-based mockumentary The Crystal Lake Massacres Revealed, and the ever-popular theatrical trailer.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 4 months ago on 5 August 2009 06:08 (A review of Halloween - Unrated Director's Cut (Widescreen Two-Disc Special Edition))

"Make it your own."

John Carpenter sent those very words Rob Zombie's way when he had asked the legendary director, indirectly, how he should remake his classic 1978 slasher flick. The phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" couldn't apply more traditionally to a film than it does here.

Carpenter's low-key, morally righteous (arguably) but superbly well-executed horror classic is re-imagined with - instead of small-town folks and a sense of brutal calmness – a bevy of white trash stereotypes, foul-mouthed teens, dysfunctional families, and a limitless mean streak. While Carpenter's film was light on the bloodshed, on-screen violence and profanity, anyone who knows Zombie knows he likes to push buttons. And as Carpenter told him, "make it your own." Zombie's Halloween is dark, unforgiving, brutally violent, and totally unrelenting.

Not content with just slightly reworking the original film's plot, Zombie dedicates the first 45 minutes of his re-imagining to the backstory of a 10 year old Myers, then proceeds to follow it up, very loosely, with the events that took place in Carpenter’s classic. Humanizing Myers as Zombie does during the film's opening act had many purists up in arms and that is very understandable. Michael has always been a senseless killing machine; his connection to the holiday in which he chooses to butcher his family members was never explained until much later in the series and, thus, took the franchise in a direction that had been decidedly ignored in Halloween 6’s sequels, H20 and Halloween: Resurrection. But Zombie manages to do what I never thought possible, and that is maintain Myers frightening facets & characteristics while also giving the character reason for his rage. Of course, purists will still denounce Zombie's decision to do this, but Rob has always seemed fascinated with questions posed by serial killers inner-workings; this is seemingly yet another way for him to quell his curiosity.

Although Zombie has always been fantastic at casting his films, too many B-list stars clutter Halloween's cast list whereas a remake of this caliber should, by all rights, have had bigger names to accompany its high importance. That is not to say that I didn't enjoy seeing Brad Dourif (Child’s Play), Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange), and the always-excellent Danny Trejo (a favorite of director Robert Rodriguez) chew the scenery, but they never came close to the iconic presence of - and probably won't be as revered as - the late, great Donald Pleasance or Jamie Lee Curtis. McDowell, no matter how great he may be as a much crasser, more grounded Sam Loomis, never channels the excellence of Pleasance.

It is simply astounding, though, how far Zombie has come as a director. From the out-there-as-all-hell, faux-music video vibe of House of 1000 Corpses to the very realistic, very gritty Devil's Rejects, to the film in question which can only be described as a seedy, stylish, sometimes surreal semi-recreation of one of America's first slasher classics. Imagery has always been important to Zombie, as expressed in his music videos, and that is at the forefront here. Blood is a deep red, the Myers mask is the best its looked in years, and his angles so dead-on throughout I nearly applauded them. Zombie has done something else here as well - either through writing or directing - and that is make Myers scary again. Fantastic lighting, excellent cinematography, and Rob's creative direction won’t sit well with everyone, but fans of the musician/director will be more than satisfied.

I was particularly surprised to see that Dimension billed this two-disc set as a director's cut (that is, as opposed to a simply “Unrated” print) and chose to give the fans a substantial amount of additional footage. The 11 added minutes contain, first and foremost, more character and plot development. There is a rather disturbing and completely unnecessary rape scene thrown in there (Zombie loves those rapes, doesn't he?) that takes the place of the theatrical print's big-budget break-out sequence, but the remaining footage only betters the picture.

You will either love or hate "Halloween" for everything that it is and isn’t, but don't sit down on your comfy sofa, DVD inserted in player, and pretend you have no idea what you're getting into. This 2007 re-imagining was written and directed by Rob Zombie, so expect a lot of Zombie-esque touches (as just mentioned, rape included) that don't quite gel with the prototypical Halloween formula. But as Rob Zombie's take on the franchise, it's a grungy, atmospheric, and downright effective slasher flick that scores big in my book.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 4 months, 1 week ago on 29 July 2009 09:50 (A review of Resistance 2)

First-person shooters are a dime a dozen nowadays. Therefore it takes a very unique, truly quality FPS to make even a dent on the ardent shooter enthusiast's radar. It takes something even more for piqued curiosity to evolve into a purchase.

As far as first-person shooters are concerned, Resistance 2 doesn't do anything particularly new with the genre. If you've been around long enough to play through the original Half-Life, it's expansions, as well as Half-Life 2 and its respective episode packs, you'll know just what to expect. That familiarity, however, isn't always a bad thing as Resistance 2 so matter-of-factly proves. Short on story but big on everything else, this isn’t a game that seeks to innovate a tried-and-true formula, but rather to do everything within the confines of said formula extraordinarily well. I give developers Insomniac Games major credit for delivering not only a stand-out FPS experience, but also delivering one that trudges through various FPS clichés without coming off the least bit contrived.

Everything you would expect from a post-Halo shooter is here; limited weapon slots, regenerating health, and hordes of odd-looking creatures/aliens to shoot your increasingly interesting weapons at. Battling the Kraken in R2's second chapter and finally bringing the monstrosity down offers to the player one of the most rewarding sights in video game history. And to think, there are at least five more boss fights of the same scale and spectacle. The reward for playing through Resistance 2's intense single-player campaign is definitely the lead-up to each of the game's bosses.

However massive the scale in these end-chapter battles, R2 is otherwise precisely what you'd expect from a first-person shooter post-Half-Life in which you utilize particular strategies in order to defeat these huge enemies. One particular boss fight sees protagonist Nathan Hale having to quickly move from generator field to generator field, trapping something called a Swarm in these fields’ electrical range, and then blasting it with the Pulse Cannon (which is basically a huge gun that shoots plasma electricity). What the Swarm is is never clarified, but it looks to be a bunch of electrically charged molecules that can decimate any living thing in its path (literally tearing them apart). Getting caught within it proves deadly and much of this end-chapter fight's lead-up has you running from it while spraying it with machine gun fire – disorganizing its cohesion - as it attempts to trap you within.

The boss fights are so huge and so epic that the rest of the game’s gunfights tend to pale in comparison. That in itself says a lot as most of R2’s skirmishes see you going up against at least 30 or more baddies in rapid succession. Traversing the streets of Chicago only to hear hatch pods burst open, followed up by dozens upon dozens of zombie-like Grims clawing bloody murder as they dart through the alley ways, crash through windows, and leap out from the inside of dumpsters with the sole intentions of taking you and your squad out is impressive to behold.

If Insomniac could have made any narrative changes, I would have preferred a more involving, perhaps even articulate story. As many publications have already pointed out, there is no narrator this time around (Resistance: Fall of Man had one) and Nathan Hale isn’t exactly the game’s most exciting character. Cut-scenes are brief and simply act as set-ups for the ensuing chapter. Nothing too big is revealed (I guess that’s what Resistance 3 is for) and there’s surprisingly less story being told here than there was in the first Resistance. Understandably, those seeking an involving plot won’t find one, but R2 does sport an unremittingly grim ending that will definitely have even the most jaded players talking about it long after they’ve finished the game.

Resistance 2 isn't running on the most groundbreaking hardware, either. But the amount of enemies the engine is capable of throwing at you while still maintaining its excellent frame rate is something worth mentioning. Some textures are a bit blurry and understandably low-res, most notably on in-door environments, but enemies and bosses are well-animated and detailed. The best looking environments tend to be those set in exteriors as opposed to interiors. Even given the scope of the gun battles there are some glaring flaws, such as static brush, largely non-interactive levels, and a jarring lack of visual polish. Cut-scenes, however, look fantastic. I'm also fond the cut-scene/in-game art style and the variety of locales you and the Chimera shoot it out in.

AI is one of R2’s strong suits as each class of Chimera has differing abilities that the game’s artificial intelligence implements to their advantage… and your detriment. Enemies require a good number of shots to defeat, so when you have angry Chimera rushing you, flanking you, and tossing grenades from all sides, you can expect to become overwhelmed. No, Resistance 2 is not an easy game. Due largely in part to fantastic AI (even in regards to friendly NPCs) you will die many, many times over. Sometimes the key to victory is as simple as having pinpoint accuracy, other times it is all a matter of adapting to a certain combat situation. Even if R2 can become a bit trial-and-error, that makes it no less fun.

Resistance 2 isn’t the most innovative game Sony has released as a system exclusive. But unoriginality aside, it’s an immersive, deeply satisfying FPS that warrants at least a couple of playthroughs. There’s much to do – such as taking on “real-life” foes in the competitive online modes and going through the co-op campaign with up to 8 players – and it is simply a fun, action-packed shooter. I’m most fond of the atmosphere that R2 is all but soaked in. Resistance 2 goes from fast-paced actioner to survival horror in the blink of an eye. The sense of being overwhelmed and outgunned makes for memorable game play and is also damn effective. Granted, R2 is, as I said, not easy, but it is a wholly rewarding experience that offers up some of the most intense gunfights on any system. Fans of first-person shooters owe it to themselves to give this one a purchase.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 5 months, 2 weeks ago on 17 June 2009 11:34 (A review of Friday the 13th (Extended Killer Cut))

I caught a showing of German director Marcus Nispel's Friday the 13th (he who had previously helmed the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake of 2003, as well as the entertaining but unsuccessful viking flick, Pathfinder) in theaters back in February - on a free ticket, no less - and found myself thoroughly unimpressed.

Maybe I wasn't in the mood for this kind of slickly produced slasher throwback that day, but I walked out of that dark theater feeling no less unenthused and inquisitive because of it. For one, why did Jason now seem so well-organized (a man-made underground lair complete with tunnels and an alarm system made up of bells and tripwires), cunning and, beyond all else, methodical. What happened to the animalistic maniac of past films that hung bodies in doorways and sauntered after his prey? This iteration of Jason now finds him speeding after his victims with all the speed of a track runner and the taught anticipation of a Chess champion. The J-man didn't seem too comfortable with his trusty machete, either. Sure, he slices and dices with the infamous blade for a good amount of the picture but he seems surprisingly comfortable using everything from a bow & arrow (!), bear traps, campfires, deer antlers, and other assorted items as well.

Me being the guy I am, I can't say I shunned the film for being all about the gore 'n' tits, but Nispel certainly seemed more reliant on the tits getting the average horror fan in the door than the gore. The kills were inventive and bloody where it counted, yes, but just not vicious enough. There were death sequences that cut so haphazardly I was left wondering what had just occurred: an axe in the back that went nowhere and a murder in a tool shed that was virtually bloodless are good examples. Despite the ridiculousness of some of these sequences (the biggest offender, I think, being Jason using a bow & arrow to pick off two unlucky twenty-somethings carelessly cruising Crystal Lake on a speedboat). For the most part, Friday the 13th was creative with its kills but didn't deliver on the gory goods its predecessors promised.

But Killer Cut indeed as this version of the film, despite still earning itself an R-rating even with the inclusion of more gore/more elaborate deaths and a good deal more sex, feels like the satisfying slasher flick we should have gotten the first time around. With its run time clocking in at 106 minutes as opposed to the meager 97 minute duration of its theatrical counterpart, much of what the Killer Cut presents to its audience is not copious amounts of additional bloodshed and fornication. Rather, it is added character exposition and plot development. Most of these added minutes really compensate for the theatrical print's lack of punch. One sequence in particular involves Amanda Righetti's character, Whitney, watching Jason trash his lair after he realizes the similarities between her and his previously beheaded mother. Jason then proceeds to sharpen his machete as Whitney watches in horror from afar.

The Killer Cut's additional footage makes Friday the 13th a more watchable film through and through. Where the theatrical cut lent no pathos to Jason's actions and behavior, there's more digging being done here and it makes the movie that much more effective. The added gore helps, definitely, but I appreciated more the footage that defined this faceless killer that had literally become all too faceless.

The movie itself – although filmed in 2008 - feels quite similar to the '80s slasher flicks it's paying fitting tribute to; stupid characters saying and doing stupid things – like smoking pot, drinking profusely, and having sex while characters disappear systematically - with an unstoppable madman on the loose that the audience tends to root for more than the supposed protagonists. Still, some of these characters are marginally likeable (Aaron Yoo (Chewie) and Arlen Escarpeta (Lawrence) steal the show) and you do actually hate to see them go. Others are as one-dimensional as they come and feel like typical Friday the 13th fodder which, by the way, is nothing but a compliment.

Director Marcus Nispel, who had a rather illustrious career directing music videos before helming feature films, puts up a nice visual show if a touch too dark. It is sometimes hard to see what's going on during nighttime sequences and my best guess is that most of the film was shot using natural lighting. With that being said, it lends to this Friday a tense, ominous flavor that hasn't been relevant to the franchise since the early ‘80s. Beyond that, there’s too much time spent on promiscuity and not enough on Jason doing what he does best. Perhaps a fault of the screenplay and not Nispel's, but it is still one of the movie's biggest flaws nonetheless. There is, however, a high body count and some truly smirk-inducing deaths that successfully offset that glaring negative.

Certainly not the best Friday film I’ve ever seen thanks to an overreliance on nudity, drug use, and sex as opposed to the other half of the Friday equation, the Killer Cut does manage to spruce up the theatrical print nicely by tossing in more gore, more character exposition, and more plot development (for those that are actually concerned about the latter two in a Friday film). As mediocre as I initially felt the movie was four months ago, revisiting it that much time later I’ve come to realize that Marcus Nispel’s Friday the 13th hits (mostly) all of the right notes and harkens back to the days of old in a way that only true Friday aficionados can appreciate. A little too pretty, too well-crafted, and too pristine at times, but the unluckiest day of the year has just become valid again.

0 comments, Reply to this entry