#trereviewsstuff

Tre

Hey guys, your friendly neighborhood Trevor-Man here. So this is my review thread, where I (surprise!) review things. It's not a video game column or a phone column or anything, it's just... whatever I feel like writing a monsterpost about. Feel free to reply to the reviews, I don't mind. Also, if you're willing to recommend things that I'd like (or enjoy, at the least) just shoot it over this way and I'll do it.

Before we get into it, I'll just point one thing out: I use hashes to indicate how much I like something. The closer the number is to 10, the less I dislike it. :) Also, that's the reason why the name of the thread is a hashtag, because why not.

So, yep.

Tre

Brink: hanging on the verge

a review by Tre L.

Author's note: As of right now I haven't fully finished Brink, though if my opinions change at all after I play it a bit more I'll update this to reflect that.

So, Splash Damage had an idea in 2008-ish to make a game. It wasn't going to be entirely like their previous efforts in the FPS genre, which were straight-up shooters in the Id Software series Enemy Territory. They wanted a game that would integrate the high-flyin', fast-movin' action of parkour with their FPS bread-and butter.

Brink was an ambitious project, one that had only one contemporary at the time -- EA's Mirror's Edge, which was released in '08 to critical acclaim, but didn't have a very large audience. Had it been released around that time Brink might have been the start of a new trend, but Splash Damage kept their darling project in until 2009... and then 2010... and then 2011, when it finally got released.

Does Brink live up to its lengthy incubation time? Well, sort of.

Fans of Mirror's Edge and its unique gameplay will be a bit disappointed. Brink is first and foremost a shooter, and can be played exclusively as such, though if you play it just like that, you'll be missing out. The game's most fun if you take advantage of the SMART button, which is what Splash Damage calls its system for automatically making your character vault over obstacles and stuff. It's a bit wonky at times (like, say, when you're trying to perform a jump and it puts you in the wrong direction) but overall the button works pretty well. If you're the type that's willing to learn, though, you can just perform all of the funky parkour moves yourself (though this requires much patience and possibly a black belt).

The storyline, which focuses on the conflict between a floating city's rebellion and police (appropriately named the Resistance and the Security, woo), isn't as engaging as the concept could allow, though it tries to make it work, and ends up fairly decent as a result. One good thing about it though is that neither side is particularly marked as "good" or "evil", hence making whichever side you choose a moot point.

Some of the missions, however, can be tedious thanks to the wishy-washy AI. Sometimes the battles you go to will be lost thanks to the rest of your team not performing their objectives, and it can take a human to win for the team often because of this. I found this to be one of the lower points of playing, and since a good amount of people have left the online servers for other, newer shooters... yeah, not the best experience around.

In contrast, though, I found the character customization system to be one of the best ones this side of Rock Band 2. The three body types and the four classes all let you tailor your Brink to your preferences and adjust to any changes you'd like to make, and most of the bells and whistles you can put on your characters can be combined to make some pretty nice looks. (Of course, since this is an FPS you won't be seeing much of your character, but hey, it's nice to see a cool-looking dude represent you at the main menu.)

Brink can be tedious at times but if you're willing to put the time into it it can become a quite fun, if somewhat flawed, game. It doesn't entirely live up to the hype it built up, but if you can ignore that then it's worth it.

And for $11, you can't go wrong, right?

##########

Brink gets 7 hashes out of 10 from me.

PlutoniumFist

A friend of mine was really looking forward to Brink, both for its customization options and its aesthetic (he's a big fan of TF2). I was mostly interested in the SMART system. He ended up hating it and I didn't bother buying it.

Though, if SMART really works, I want to see more stuff like that implemented into FPSes. Verticality and flow is a thing that a lot of combat-oriented games struggle with, and I wanna see an effort made to correct that.

Similarly, I want there to be an FOS with a hand-to-hand combat system deeper than "B swings gun." A series of quick combos (but not QTEs) to initiate grabs and holds. Punches, kicks, and counters that change depending on context and weapon. Something to that effect.

Tre

^ I would so play that.

Tre

Here's another review I did. I wrote this one a while ago for school but eh, I figured why not put it here too.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World: Canadian pilgrims

a review by Tre L.

“Not so long ago... in the mysterious land... of Toronto, Canada... Scott Pilgrim was dating a high schooler.” So begins the film bearing his name with bombastic narration by Saturday Night Live’s Bill Hader, and although the introduction seems inappropriately over the top at first, what with the film cutting into Scott having a conversation with his friends and fellow bandmates, it eventually turns out to be a perfect intro into the world of Mr. Pilgrim, which isn’t quite as normal as it leads on at first.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010, Universal, PG-13) appropriately is focused around Scott (played by Michael Cera), a jobless, twentysomething slacker who lives in an apartment with his best friend Wallace Wells (Kieran Culkin) and plays bass for a rather unpopular garage band named Sex Bob-Omb. Oh, and he’s also dating Knives Chau (Ellen Wong), a Chinese-Canadian, 17-year-old high school girl (appropriately enough). His life stays pretty normal for the most part until he meets Ramona Flowers (North Carolina’s own Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a mysterious American delivery girl working for Amazon.ca. Scott thinks he’s found the perfect girl for him, but she comes with a hitch: in order for Scott to date her, he has to defeat her seven evil ex-boyfriends. This, surprisingly enough, doesn’t keep Scott from bailing out on her, and he manages to stay undeterred despite possibly facing defeat himself. Now, as for whether he succeds, it’d be spoiling the movie if I told you, so I’ll stop here.

Michael Cera is a good fit for the role of Scott, and he manages to deliver perfectly on the “quirky slacker” personality that comes with the character. As for his performance during the fights, he doesn’t stand out as much as Scott did in the graphic novels, but you can tell that he was trying, and he’s certainly not the most boring action hero to watch. I’ve seen worse for sure. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a pretty good Ramona too, but she seems flat at times rather than providing the charismatic, snippy femme fatale that Bryan Lee O’Malley was aiming for in the books.

One of the best things about Scott Pilgrim is its supporting cast. Winstead and Cera aren’t slouches either, but at times it felt like the background characters were stealing the show, and this is especially apparent in almost every scene Kieran Culkin shows up in as Wallace. Culkin’s performance as Scott’s gay roommate is fiery and wild, and he’s a great fit for the movie for sure. Knives is also an interesting variation on the “bubbly schoolgirl” archetype, and her later appearances in the film actually had me rooting for her to get with Scott rather than Ramona sometimes. Finally, this wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t mention Scott’s bandmates in Sex Bob-omb, Stephen and Kim, who stand out particularly during their performances and in their scenes.  

The exes themselves are a fairly varied set of characters with their own quirks, and most of them keep the same variations of “bad guy”-ness that comes with their characters. In fact, the only ones I found to be a disappointment were the Katanayagi twins (Shota & Keita Saito), who don’t have any lines. I can’t say much here for spoiler reasons but I thought that the other exes were quite fun to watch and deserved more screen time.
All in all, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a fun little romantic action comedy movie with two pretty good leads and a great group of secondary characters. It’s a movie set squarely for the young, indie and nerd set, but if you’re not considered any of those, you should still enjoy something. This movie didn’t do well at the box office when it released, but since then it’s found its audience on home video and is set to become a cult classic of the 2010’s, and with good reason. If you’re ready for a good laugh, or just want something to do for two hours, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a fun little film that’s certainly worth seeing.

##########

Scott Pilgrim gets 9/10 hashes.

One-Winged Eagle

I loved the Scott Pilgrim film because of all the comic-book-styled shots which didn't purposely degrade into panels and gutters.

Seriously, that stuff is glorious.

Justice4243

I really enjoyed watching it, but felt the relationship between Scott and Ramona was rushed.

They don't spend a great deal of time showing these two hanging out or getting to know each other. Scott probably spends more time with Knifes in the film (which really does explain the alternative ending).

Obviously, it's difficult to condense  a years worth of time into a two hour film, that's why I felt the should have tried too films. I'll grant that it might be hard to squeeze a ton of action out of Matthew Patel and Lucas Le, but there's ALOT of action surrounding Todd Ingram. Not to mention you get to see more of Envy. 

The other three volumes could have easily fit into a second movie, and besides getting a few more actions scenes, there'd be time to watch Ramona and Scott develop and also watch Knifes get over Scott.

I'm not saying it's a bad film. It's really entertaining, but even not considering the source material, character and relationships seemed rushed, and it's difficult to understand why Scott made some choices that he did, though the movie makes it seem like Scott doesn't really understand either...

I will say many of the core characters where simply dead on, the movie LOOKED perfect, the directing wasn't bad. We just needed some more time to really get to know these people.

Tre

Yeah, it does seem a bit frantic in comparison to the tone set by the comics.

One thing I will say though is that a second movie, as much as it would be nice to do it like that, probably wouldn't be seen as profitable by Universal, considering how well it did at the box office (read: not very). I think the crew might've known that in the back of their minds.

Justice4243

There's certainly a risk in not telling the whole story to do it like I suggested.

Though, I think I'd rather have half the story done and sit around wondering why they never finished then all the story and sit around wondering why they didn't do it differently.

And, a better movie might have made more money leading to a second, but that's all just hypothetical.

Really, I think the money would have been better spent on an animated series. If this was popular enough, that might have meant a bigger budget for movies and a better established audience to see them.

I still want an animated series, really...I guess it's really sad to me that Scott Pilgrim came and went and there was a lot of missed potential that went with it.

PlutoniumFist

It's Universal's fault for releasing it the same weekend as The Expendables.

I mean...come on. How could they have thought that would be a good idea?

Gelzo

I thought the visual effects were amazing, and the best part of the movie. I wasn't really a huge fan of the main characters or the central relationship.

Justice4243

Scott is suppose to have a likable personality, but he does really unlikable things.

Thing is, you sort of find out Ramona is the same...

Sadly, the movie didn't give us time to really figure this out, or see the two grow as people.

The Visual effects where pretty cool, though.

Gelzo

Not that I hate Micheal Cera, but I don't think he really pulled off "likable" as an actor in this movie.

Unknown

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Gelzo

I think comedy tends to work better when you feel something for the characters.

Unknown

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Viani

Comedy:

I absolutely hated Jerry, but found it hilarious when things didn't work out for him.

Gelzo

I didn't think I had to specify this, but "feel something" includes hatred or dislike.

It has been a while since I saw the movie, but I don't really remember seeing the main characters as especially notable people.

Unknown

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Gelzo

Oh yeah, the supporting cast was pretty great.

Viani

Gay room mate for the win.

Tre

The Avengers: Some assembly required

a review by Tre L.

 
  

Ah, the summer blockbuster. One of the most (in)famous genres of our time, with films of various qualities coming out of its ilk, from the good (like, say, the first two Spider-Man films) to the bad (the last Spider-Man film) to the just plain ugly (cough, cough, Transformers 2). One studio that's managed to get the genre right is Marvel Comics's production arm, Marvel Studios. With offerings like the Iron Man series, the company has made a name for itself with its burgeoning universe. 

But there's something different about their newest movie, The Avengers. There's something... special about it. 

Maybe it's just the satisfying combination of their past movies' heroes coming together as a team for the first time on the big screen. Maybe it's because the hype has gotten ridiculously high that only The Hunger Games has been its equal this year. Or maybe it might be because they got Joss Frakking Whedon to direct the whole shebang. 

But one thing is for sure: Marvel's gotten their biggest hit yet in this one, and the box office numbers don't lie. The Avengers is a ride you won't want to miss, and this rollercoaster's running without brakes.

If you don't know what it's about, the concept is fairly simple: A bunch of superheroes attempt to work as a team once an otherworldly threat rolls up and starts wrecking stuff. It's not a complex formula and you probably won't need much past knowledge of the other Marvel movies to have a good time, but it certainly helps. Don't go into it expecting to be swept off of your feet by too much drama; there is certainly enough there to keep the plot interesting, but Whedon keeps his notable chain-yanking moments to a minimum here, and the movie's better for it. 

While I don't want to go too into the plot for fear of spoilers, I will say that Tom Hiddleston (aka Loki) manages to pull off an amazing performance as the movie's villain. I wanted to wring his neck the whole time (even moreso than in Thor) and I can't honestly see anyone else as playing the role, a trait that actually applied to most of the cast. 

The action is top-notch as we've come to expect from both Marvel and Whedon, and the look of the film is bright enough to keep it from seeming like it was filmed through a lens of a pair of sunglasses, and we need more of those for 3D films like it, I tell ya what. Speaking of the 3D, it's subtle enough to not distract us from the action, but it's done in a way that still gives the whole movie a sense of dimension while you watch it. (Unfortunately I had to take my glasses off during some of the cooler parts because some fat guy was using his phone and it was irritating to look at, but it really wasn't too big a deal.)

All in all, The Avengers is a fun, fast and entertaining movie, and even if you don't like superhero movies, this one is definitely worth taking a look at. The final showdown at the end made the whole thing worth coming to on its own, but that doesn't make the rest of the film seem any less epic in comparison. My only gripe would be that we didn't get as much Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury than one would hope for, but that's a small price to pay for the rest of this amazing film.

 ########## 

 The Avengers gets 9/10 hashes.

Justice4243

I really agree with the 3D here.

It helped the the glasses where the kind where I could also where my prescription sun-glasses at the same time.

Nick Furry could have used a little more focus.

I suppose the movie is called "The Avengers" and not "Nick Fury: Agent of Shield", but it would be nice to see him kick a little more ass.

millercross

I disliked the movie's 3D, as it was done in post-production and it simply darkened the film's photography. I watched it without 3D the second time and I enjoyed it a bit more. Might be the fact that it gave me a giant headache.

Nick Furry could have used a little more focus.

:|

Anyway, I didn't mind the lack of focus on Fury simply because his role in the Avengers formation is far bigger than what it should be by itself. Not to mention that in comparison to Jackson's other appereances, it was truly a doozy. 

And he gave us, "Since that is a stupid-ass decision, I refuse to aknowledge it", which is truly a righteous quote, indeed. 

Justice4243

He did have some good administrative moments, I just would have liked to have seen him kick a little more ass.

Tre

Justice42 said:

He did have some good administrative moments, I just would have liked to have seen him kick a little more ass.

This.

millercross

Fair enough. I just never liked SHIELD being involved in the Avengers formation, simply because of the Ultimates after-taste, I guess.

Tre

Okay, so I was planning on doing a feature on Skrillex but when I read my review of "My Name Is Skrillex" I basically just nuked the idea.

So instead I think I'm gonna do another movie.

Without further ado...

Brave: Mama bow-s best

a review by Tre L.

Fairy tales are strange. They can run the gamut from kiddy, unoffending fare to nightmarish fantasies that serve as frightening to the audience (unless you just don't care, in which case, whatever). We've seen plenty of stuff about princesses, especially from Disney (though they've kind of let up on that, as we can see from the not one, but two Snow White movies recently released). So Pixar's made a fairy tale, with a princess as the main character-- and while a few years back we might've thought this was an alright proposition, a lot of people weren't very big fans of their effort last year, Cars 2 (even though I didn't think it was that bad, m'self), and as a result Brave has a bit of a problem: can it convince people that Pixar hasn't lost the spark that kept them adored by audiences since Toy Story back in 1995?

Well, it surely convinced me.

Brave is an interesting little film: it focuses on the exploits of Merida (Kelly MacDonald), a reckless young princess who's not afraid to loosen her dress a bit and go out to do "unprincess-y" things, much to the chagrin of her mother, Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson). Merida herself is fun to watch-- she's quirky and isn't one of those run of the mill Disney princesses you'd think of when you hear "Disney" and "fairy tale" in the same sentence. She's more Rapunzel from Tangled, say, than Snow White from the 1930's, and it's refreshing to see that Pixar and Disney are willing to keep their lineup more diverse (rest assured, Disney will most likely assimilate her into the princess merchandise). Heck, even if I were a younger boy who figured girls were icky, I'd probably still think she was a cool protagonist, which she is, though her mistakes do run rather deep.

To pare the film down to its basic elements, Merida's parents get letters sent from the Lords of the nearby clans accepting their offer to have a competition for the hand of Merida, and as practically any arranged bride would, Merida isn't pleased by the development. After having a falling out with Elinor over the arrangements and the idea that Elinor won't listen to anything she says, Merida runs away to the forest, where she's led to the cottage of a witch (Julie Walters) who gives her a spell to change her fate. I won't say exactly what happens but let's just say the results are disastrous for everyone, and Merida has to find a way to reverse the spell before time runs out and the kingdom gets changed permanently.

It feels pretty familiar, but fresh at the same time. Mark Andrews, Steve Purcell and Brenda Chapman use the strengths of the concept to create a story that doesn't retread the same ground we already knew-- instead, it seems to zigzag into new places that make it feel distinctively Pixar. Elinor and Merida's relationship in particular is the device that drives the entire story, and it definitely feels real enough to do the job.

Pixar completely rewrote the software they used to create their films to do Brave, and it certainly shows-- this film is a spectacle of both sight and sound. I didn't see it in 3D, but it didn't matter, because the visual and sonic elements still immersed me into the movie and I definitely would recommend it on this alone. Heck, the first scene after the prologue treats us to Merida climbing a cliff next to a waterfall, and if I only saw that part, I'd have thought it was a live-action still. And that's just the tip of the iceberg: this movie has to be seen to believe.

Brave is, in many ways, a revolution for Pixar: it's the first movie they've done with a female lead, and afemale director at the helm. But it's also the first time they've had to renew faith in their audience since Cars 2 wasn't very well received. Luckily, the film lives up to the title and manages to be a courageous return to form for the studio and I think it does a splendid job overall. Go see it.

########## 8/10

Tre

The Amazing Spider-Man: Swingin' into new territory

a review by Tre L.

I'll put it out of the way now: I love superhero movies. I really, really do. I dunno what it is about watching dudes and chicks in spandex kicking bad guy butt but I am a total sucker for it, and I don't really care how unprofessional that may sound (yeah, I know, but I'm 15, I'm allowed). But there's one superhero movie from recentlythat I could not get myself to like. (No, Batman Forever is not "recent", so it doesn't count.)  It felt like such a fall from grace in comparison to its predecessors, and there were glimpses of that same greatness I was able to see before in it but that's just what they were: glimpses.

That movie, and I know I may get some flack for saying this, is Spider-Man 3.

Luckily, when I'd heard the rumors that the movies were going to be rebooted, I got excited. Maybe a new outlook on the same premise might have been the kick in the pants the series needed to get back on its feet after it got stale with the third installment of the originals. And once I heard that the director of (500) Days of Summer, Marc Webb, was at the helm of the new Spider-Man, I smiled. I'm a big fan of the character, and I knew his take on the hero would be an engaging one from the amazing depth he had taken with the story of Tom and Summer from his last movie.

Boy howdy, was I right. Thanks to its surprisingly subversive portrayal of the Spidey mythos and its well-placed actors, The Amazing Spider-Man manages to make its own path to greatness rather than retreading old ground. Some people may say Andrew Garfield may not be a full fit for the role of Peter because he's British (he's only half-Brit, anyway) but I found his performance outweighed that (and besides, he already proved he could pull the weight with the amazingness that was The Social Network).

As one can probably figure out relatively quickly, the movie focuses on Peter as he starts to come to terms with his newly developed powers during his high school years. But unlike the old movies, we get to see more of his Peter persona this time around; his life's complex and multifaceted, like any superhero's would be. Furthermore, we get a look at what happened to his parents, territory that the original series never touched upon, further cementing that this isn't the same Spider-Man we saw with Tobey Maguire. 

Some might call this version of the story "darker and edgier", which it kind of is, but the best thing about the way they did this was that it didn't seem like a forced change at all. Peter doesn't come home from fights unscathed (in fact, practically every time he gets there he's got a new bruise or injury). For the most part, the movie takes a more grounded and serious approach to Spider-Man, which kind of reminded me of Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy; however, this isn't to say that the whole thing's a serious and grimdark affair. There are some genuinely funny moments interspersed in there, and they made for a nice pick-up for the mood when things get bad (and indeed they do).

Speaking of "bad", the main villain in the movie, the Lizard, was fairly well-done. His CGI was top-notch, but I will say that Rhys Ifans's performance of the archetypal "good scientist goes bad" was just not as gripping to me as Alfred Molina as Dr. Octavius/Dr. Octopus in Spider-Man 2. (He was, however, a HUGE step up from Venom and the Sandman both in Spider-Man 3.) One area where the new films nail it just as well as the originals did was Peter's main love interest, Gwen Stacy. I will admit, I'm kind of extremely fond of Emma Stone, but even if I weren't I'd still think she did a good job in the role of "the hot scientist intern". Probably.

Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man lives up to its name. It may not reach the same heights that the original series hit with its second installment, but it comes extremely close. The new take on its story is a great call and the cast fit very well into their roles. I saw it in 3D, and I have to say I didn't really see much of any use of it besides maybe one or two scenes, one of which is at the very end of the film before the credits roll. But as long as it isn't exploited as a gimmick, I guess I'm OK with it.

Also, the fact that they got a guy named Marc Webb to direct it was rather hilarious.

########## 9/10