Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts

3/29/2014

Imscared: A Pixelated Nightmare - A Review




Amaya coerced Oliv into playing Imscared - A Pixelated Nightmare... and Oliv was genuinely surprised with the game!

Please read the review here, at B-TEN.com! For regular content from Oliv, please visit B-TEN.com.

You can download Imscared here for free!

3/03/2013

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow - A Review



So, I just finished Castlevania: Lords of Shadow... and what is my prevailing impression of the game?

Eh... it was okay.

~ Visuals and Sound ~

The high point of the game is definitely the visuals. Parts of this game are jaw-droppingly gorgeous. Character models are unique and look great, environments are spectacular and brimming with detail, and the atmosphere is fantastic. The game world looks and feels big. Actually, to say this game is “big” is a bit of an understatement. This game is absolutely HUGE. The stand-out visual parts of the game have to be the first glimpse of the Vampire Lord’s castle, and the Baba Yaga’s swamp.

However, as great-looking as this game is, I did have a few minor instances of frame-rate drop when there were a ton of enemies on screen, and a few times when using finishing moves. And there were a few times when close-ups of character models made them look a bit bland and over-exposed, but this very rarely occurred. 

My only other complaint about this game’s aesthetics is the music. The music isn’t bad, and it DOES do a great job of adding to the game’s great atmosphere, but it doesn’t sound like a Castlevania game to me. Maybe I’m nitpicking too much, but this game didn’t leave any lasting impressions on me music-wise. Classic Castlevania games had me humming for days… so, why doesn’t this game have a great, memorable soundtrack? It’s just kind of… bland.

~ Gameplay ~

The gameplay is the second best part, though it is pretty much just a God of War clone, with a few simple puzzles and Shadow of the Colossus bits thrown in. As a God of War clone, it comes out feeling pretty solid. If you love the gameplay and puzzles of God of War, this game should be a ton of fun for you. Gabriel Belmont is more or less a duplicate of Kratos, with an almost identical fighting style, platforming abilities, and even powers. Hell, even the button-mapping on the controller is nearly identical to God of War!

I do have a few qualms about the gameplay, though. First, you never really have to change your fighting strategy the entire game. For almost every boss, the pattern is the same (slash slash slash, dodge, slash slash slash, jump, slash slash slash, dodge...). Even when you have certain secondary weapons on your person, you will probably barely use them, as this pattern works with most common enemies as well (except for the Holy Water, which you’ll probably be using the most once you obtain it).  Secondly, you will almost never use the high-level combos, since some of them require a bunch of complex button mashing, or require you to use valuable magic reserves.  This game does a good job of illustrating the idea of “dominant strategy" in game theory; if you are given a strategy that always works well, you will only ever use that strategy. Therefore, powerful moves you obtain late in the game pretty much become obsolete. Lastly, some of the camera perspectives make platforming more difficult than it needs to be. It would have been better to have control of the camera at times for platforming purposes. Hell, there were even times when I somehow got stuck INSIDE of platforms. Because of these reasons, platforming was actually the most frustrating part of the overall gameplay for me.

This game does NOT play like a typical Castlevania game. It plays like God of War. This doesn’t make the game BAD, but I can’t guarantee that it is going to please hardcore Castlevania fans. This game is more appealing to those who enjoy games like God of War. If you’re looking for something akin to classic Castlevania or Symphony of the Night, this is NOT the game you’re looking for.

~ The Story ~

The low point of the game is definitely its story. Whoever wrote the script for this game needs a good flick on the nose. Granted, the PREMISE is fine, if a bit predictable. But this game completely ignores one of the biggest rules in writing a good story: SHOW, don't TELL.

All of the story in this game is told through exposition. All character development happens through narration, and we NEVER see it on screen, so the main character pretty much seems to remain flat and unchanging the entire game. The bad guys spout expository oratories that can go on and on for minutes at a time. No, no, NO! That is NOT how you tell a good story! It isn't believable! Why would a villain stand there and tell the hero a bunch of stuff the hero already knows? Or, why would the villain stand there and tell the hero his entire master plan instead of just outright killing the poor bastard and getting it over with? We all know how it's going to end; the hero's just going to get up and kick your ass! This is so clichéd, it’s almost laughable. One of the bad guys even says something along the lines of, “You are evil! Search your feelings; you know it to be true!” Seriously, game? Seriously?

And listen game, I know you had Patrick Stewart on board, and he has an awesome voice, but don't make him speak about 80% of the dialogue WHEN HE'S NOT THE MAIN CHARACTER! How many lines does Gabriel get? Like, maybe 20 lines total? I can't connect with a main character who is unable to express himself! You can't build a connection between the player and Gabriel by making Patrick Stewart narrate something like, "Gabriel was very sad," when we never SEE Gabriel feeling sad! Gabriel's face looks the same almost the entire game! We don't SEE him suffering the consequences of his actions, we don't SEE any internal struggle, we don't SEE any goddamn emotions on his face, so why should I, as a player, feel sympathetic for Gabriel when Patrick Stewart comes on and says something like, "Gabriel felt a bitter sorrow growing within himself." Even Kratos in God of War showed emotions! He was sympathetic because the game SHOWED us his struggles and the consequences of his actions, and how it affected him, it didn't just TELL us about it in a loading screen. 

So, basically, Kratos is a more three-dimensional character than Gabriel Belmont. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that Simon Belmont in the original Castlevania is a more three-dimensional character than Gabriel...

But, even in light of the awful character development and glaringly clichéd villains, we haven’t even gotten to the worst part! The game’s biggest storytelling no-no of all: several of the game’s most important plot-points are thrown in at the very end, without having been built-up, or really even hinted at, the entire game. The final boss literally comes out of NOWHERE, spouting some expository trite to explain why he’s there. The ending feels incredibly anti-climactic, because Gabriel never even fights the villain that has been built-up the entire game. Instead, we get to fight this other guy who just kind of wanders in at the last second. Maybe it seems like I’m being harsh on this final boss. But when I started up the last level of the game, entitled “The Final Fight” no less, and discovered this new boss who was supposedly more powerful than any other foe I’d fought the entire game, I actually got a bit excited… and then I was let down when he turned out to be one of the easiest boss fights in the game. So all-around, the end boss ended up being incredibly lame...

I only have two other minor complaints about the game’s plot. First, I couldn’t stand the forced pop-culture references. Why would you try to force a “the cake is a lie” reference in your game if it doesn’t make any sense? All it succeeded in doing was making me groan aloud. Way to break the good atmosphere you had going… And second, I found it a bit lazy that character names from previous Castlevania games were tacked on to new, secondary characters. Why not come up with new names? I guess that would take up too much time and imagination. Come to think of it… “Brotherhood of Light…” battle between light and darkness, Heaven and Hell… yeeeaaah, there may have been more lazy writing going on here than I first thought…

~ The Final Verdict ~

So, overall, is this a BAD game? …well, no. From a plot standpoint, it’s lazy, clichéd, predictable, and the story is basically told in bursts of exposition and narration. And there is basically no connection between the end of the story and the epilogue; we just end up getting sequel fodder after the credits roll. However, the gameplay is good, the design is fantastic, and the game’s overall atmosphere is great. The best chapters in the game are definitely five through eight, which focus on the Vampire Lord, the lands surrounding the Lord’s demesne, and the Lord’s sprawling castle. This part of the game comes the closest to feeling like a true Castlevania experience, and I really had the most fun with this particular part of the game. Seeing the Vampire Lord’s castle looming in the distance… it honestly got me really excited. 

Is this a game I can recommend to others? Of course it is! However, I would recommend that you either get it at a fairly cheap price, or just give it a weekend rental. I wouldn’t recommend it to classic Castlevania fans, as this reboot is very different from its predecessors. Hardcore fans might enjoy this reboot to the franchise, however, if they keep in mind that this game is a lot more like God of War than it is like Castlevania. 

Will I play the sequel when it comes out? Do I think this reboot series will go in a good direction? If this game is used as merely a springboard for the plot of future Castlevania: Lords of Shadow titles, I can see this series being at least interesting. I think I might rent the sequel when it comes out, as I am interested in where the plot will go, now that we have Gabriel Belmont’s backstory out of the way. However, the storytelling of future games in this series MUST improve. The way this game’s story was told was unforgivably sloppy. If future entries in the series continue to push the idea of telling over showing, I will probably lose interest very quickly. We have a good foundation set here. Please, don’t let the sequel’s plot fall into the same traps.

So, what’s my final verdict on Castlevania: Lords of Shadow? To me, I think the game sits at a solid 6 out of 10. This game is a little above average, and I think you should give it a try if you have time to burn. Is it the epic I thought it was going to be? No, but I’m still glad I gave it a try. Let’s hope the sequel comes out even better.

Final Score: 6 out of 10

~ Oliv ~

3/09/2012

OJ News ~ March 9, 2012

Hey everyone! Here's what's going on with OJ Films right now!

I'm still doing Let's Plays of "Scratches: the Director's Cut" and "Phantasmagoria." Expect to see a Let's Play of "LIMBO" from me VERY soon!

Now that Jack has gotten his hands on Mass Effect 3, he is planning some sort of conglomerate review of all three games... I've yet to find out just what it is he is planning, but I guess we'll see in time. He will also be doing a Let's Play of "Amnesia: the Dark Descent" as soon as he gets some time to sit down with the game and actually play it.

Also, the two of us may be going to see "The Woman in Black" this weekend, and if so, you can expect to see a review!

In the meantime, we're curious to know what films and games YOU guys want to see reviews of. Nostalgic films and games? Bad films and games? Classics? Give us some feedback! Leave a comment, and let us know what YOU want to see.

That's all for now! Thanks for watching, and supporting our endeavors!

~Olivia~

3/05/2012

The Darkness II - A Review

For most of our lives, Jack and I have been retro-gamers, spending many gaming hours playing NES, Gameboy, or old PC games. Unlike a lot of the other kids in our neighborhood, Jack and I never owned a Super Nintendo, an N64, or a Playstation. Unfortunately for me and Jack, our parents weren’t really the types to shell out the big bucks for a gaming system. It wasn’t until one Christmas when, to our complete surprise, our parents gave us a Playstation 2, and our gaming experience completely changed. Now, instead of spending most of our time playing Mario, Pokémon, and numerous FMV computer games, we started to get into the Jak and Daxter series, Sly Cooper, and the Kingdom Hearts games. It was like we were on the cutting edge of gaming. And then, something even more incredible happened. On Christmas Day 2007, Jack and I unwrapped a present from our parents, revealing a brand-spanking new Xbox 360. It was like we had died and gone to gamer heaven. We started off with a modest collection, playing games like Lego Star Wars and Halo, but we soon learned of a few new games we just COULDN’T do without. One of those games would become one of my favorite games of all time, and change my outlook on the First Person Shooter genre forever. That game was “The Darkness.”

“The Darkness” had everything. It was noir gangster-style, it had gunfights, it had a powerful story, it had memorable characters, it had a tense creepy atmosphere, and it made the player feel like an empowered badass. I found myself awed by the game. From the opening chase scene, throwing the player directly into the shoes of mafia hit man Jackie Estacado, to the ending cinematic that literally left me in tears, I was hooked. Never before had I played a comic-book game with so much aspiration behind it. The visuals were some of the best I had ever seen, the music and voice acting was spot-on, and the Darkness Powers… holy shit, did I LOVE the Darkness Powers. Nothing satisfied me more than shooting out every light in a room, creeping up on enemies, and impaling them in the back of the head with a dark tentacle. For me, it was the perfect game, a game that I would always love…

Fast forward about 4 years later. It’s now February of 2012, and “The Darkness II,” a direct sequel to “The Darkness” has been released. Is it a good game? Does it live up to its cult-classic predecessor? Or, does it miss the mark completely, and fall flat on its face?


 ~THE STORY~

             Set two years after the events of the first game, the player once again takes control of Jackie Estacado, who is now the don of the Franchetti crime family. Jackie has kept the Darkness bottled-up inside since his final face off with Uncle Paulie in the last game. However, an unprovoked attack by a mysterious group known as the Brotherhood of Darkness forces Jackie to unleash the Darkness once again, and discover the mystery behind the Brotherhood, and their leader, Viktor.

            Although the story is intriguing and engaging enough to keep the player interested throughout the campaign, the plot itself is simple and barebones at best. However, with an approximate playtime of only seven hours, it isn’t surprising that “The Darkness II” has such a simple, basic story. The game has a very linear plotline, lacking the twists-and-turns and overall suspense that the first game offered players. “The Darkness II” ‘s plot is highly predictable, and the ending is unsurprising. This time around, the story feels more like something out of a comic book, but in terms of the series, I don’t think this works to the game’s advantage.

This leads to “The Darkness II” ‘s biggest problem – its identity. The story has strong ties to the first game, bringing back characters and locations from Jackie’s last adventure, and referencing moments players experienced in the last game. But, at the same time, the game tries to integrate more elements from the comic book series, which in itself isn’t a bad thing. However, because of this, the story seems lost somewhere between the two, unsure of what it is trying to be. And because of the story’s lack of identity, both players of the last game and new players to the series will find the plot odd and a bit confusing at times.

The best part of the story is the supporting characters, who are written extremely well. Characters like Johnny Powell, Fat Tony, and Dolfo have their own eccentricities that make them interesting and memorable characters. They have unique things to say, and it is well worth your time to interact with them and get to know them better. On the other hand, characters like Jackie and Jenny tend to get a bit tired and one-note as the game goes on, and other characters like the Darkness itself aren’t explored in enough detail to even warrant character development.

On it’s own, “The Darkness II” ‘s story is a short, enjoyable ride, but when compared to its predecessor, a game with a deep, layered plot and incredible characters, “The Darkness II” feels rushed, and even a bit lazy.


~THE VISUALS~ 

            “The Darkness” was one of the best-looking games on consoles when it released in 2007, and its detailed graphics and dark, creepy atmosphere still hold up over four years later.

            “The Darkness II” takes an entirely different approach to its visuals than the first game, opting towards a comic-book style cell-shaded look. Now, when it comes to cell-shading in video games, I’m not really a big fan of the style. I think it works well in cartoony games such as the Sly Cooper series, but as a visual style, I have never thought of it as being particularly atmospheric or detailed.

When I heard this game would be adopting this style, I was a bit skeptical about its ability to hold up visually to its predecessor. However, I was surprised to find that the visuals in “The Darkness II” are VERY detailed, atmospheric, and even breathtaking at times. The comic-book look is done incredibly well here, creating environments that are simple in design, yet grand in scale. Certain images, like New York City’s endless sea of skyscrapers, are incredible to look at, and the inclusion of larger outdoor environments make the game feel bigger. Even small details, like doors and windows, look great.

Unfortunately, the cell-shading takes away from character models, making the characters look slightly bland, though not enough to make them look bad. I found Jackie’s new look to be particularly standard, and found myself missing his design from the first game. Jackie’s in-game character design is closer to a “pretty boy” look, whereas in the first game he looked more like a greasy mobster. I guess one could argue that Jackie looks “nicer and cleaned-up,” and closer to his look in the comic books in this game, but honestly, I miss straight-haired trench-coat Jackie.

            Another thing that bothered me about the visuals is an overall lack of dark environments. This game just looks too bright to me. In the first game, players could shoot out all the lights in a room, and find themselves in an entirely pitch-black environment. In “The Darkness II,” rarely does a player find themselves in this same situation. In fact, I was stunned to find that, when I DID find myself in a pitch-black environment, I couldn’t see a single thing to orient myself. New players may be confused as to why this is surprising, but those who have played the first game know that Jackie has what is called Darkness Vision when the Darkness is manifested, allowing him to see the outlines and surfaces of everything around him, despite the complete darkness. This power is completely dropped in the sequel, making near-pitch-black areas hard to navigate, and resulting in more “bright” areas, that honestly don’t look dark enough for the Darkness to manifest in. This brightness makes the game feel much less creepy, and detracts from the feeling of being a monster hiding in the shadows.
            On the whole, the visuals are interesting and even stunning at times. However, the overall mood and brightness, and the look of the characters, don’t quite cut it, and leave me wondering why certain design choices were made. For what it is, it doesn’t look too bad. But I can’t help but wonder what it COULD have been.


~THE SOUND~

            Honestly, I don’t have much to say about the game’s sound. Like the first “Darkness” game, “Darkness II” has good music and voice acting, with great performances all around. However, although the acting was good, and the characters were highly engaging, the only one who stands out in my mind as being memorable is Johnny, probably because of how absolutely bat-shit insane he is.

I do have a few complaints, though. Although the acting is good, I can’t help but feel that the Darkling talks a little bit too much, and the Darkness itself doesn’t really have anything interesting or threatening to say. The performances are good, don’t get me wrong, but without strong character development, they just felt like they were there, just to talk and fill the silence. I’m disappointed that, while the other characters in the game are done VERY well, these two are bland, and feel somewhat unimportant.
            Although I realize there is a new actor playing Jackie, I have to say I didn’t care so much for his performance. The Jackie in the first game was incredibly expressive, and had a voice that was quiet, suave, soft, and threatening all at the same time. The Jackie in this game, however, seems like he’s just trying to sound “cool.” The voice is either far too angry or far too threatening, but not in the subtle way the first Jackie’s was. Don’t get me wrong, the actor does a good job, but the voice just doesn’t seem entirely right to me.
            And lastly, every once in a while, I would talk to a character in the game and the audio would sound like it was unfinished, with pops and scratches, and a very tinny timbre. I thought this might have been just my game at first, but there are others who have noticed this as well. This doesn’t detract from the game much, but I believe it shows signs of the game being unfinished, and in a way bolsters the feeling of this game being rushed and lazy.


~THE GAMEPLAY~

             “The Darkness II” is a different entity than its predecessor, and this is especially evident in the gameplay. This time around, the player has control of both of Jackie’s Demon Heads as well as dual- and single-wielding weapons. Jackie can use the Heads to grab and throw enemies, slash through obstacles and foes, and even perform new Execution Moves, which can yield benefits such as health and ammo, and provide an amusing animation of enemies being violently mutilated. Sadly, these Execution Moves will get old after a while, as will much of the gunplay, and you may find yourself merely bashing through enemies with a Demon Head, as it can destroy enemies with only a few powerful blows.
            Also new to the game is an upgrade system that uses Dark Essence collected throughout by completing certain tasks, like destroying light sources and killing enemies. The player is free to choose which upgrades he wants to fit his play style, which is a nice change-up from the first game, in which gaining powers and leveling-up was essentially dictated by the story. However, the go-to powers in “The Darkness II,” Gun Channeling and Swarm, aren’t a necessity for completing the game, and therefore feel very unimportant. I myself made it through the whole game without using Swarm once, and only using Gun Channeling when I had no ammunition. Other powers, like Blades and Black Hole, are not under your control, and happen at random. However, in boss battles they are practically useless as these powers occur rarely, and enemies in normal combat are easily defeated with a slice of your Demon Head. While the level-up system in this game is superior to the progression in the first game, and offers customization, the powers in the first game felt far more useful and destructive, and did more to add depth to the game. Here, the action seems less focused on powers, and more on gunplay and pure carnage.

            Collectibles are back in this game, however, they are painfully easy to find, and there is almost no incentive to explore the game’s environments, especially given the linear level design. Collectible telephone numbers and unlockable bonus content are gone, replaced with collectibles called Relics, which are simple to find, and finding them only results in extra Dark Essence and an achievement or trophy. A player can find every Relic easily on his first playthrough, whereas collectibles in the first game were more difficult to find, and it could take multiple playthroughs for someone to find them all.

            This brings me to the game’s overall design. The first “Darkness” game felt very open, with a subway HUB where players could travel to new areas, plenty of collectibles to promote exploration, and a few simple side-missions to enhance the experience. In “The Darkness II,” there is no open-ended exploration involved. The game, instead, takes a linear level approach, resulting in long paths and hallways with quick, wild gunfights, broken up only once in a while by short return trips to Jackie’s mansion. While the first game was about creeping up on enemies and smiting them with the power of the Darkness, this game is a series of staged fights that are only triggered once the player has reached a certain area, and the enemy always has the jump on Jackie. Gone is that feeling of immense power, replaced with a feeling of paranoia that at any time an enemy may jump out and attack.
            At first, enemy types seem varied and interesting, especially with the inclusion of lights that not only disable Darkness powers, but cause Jackie’s vision to blur, adding a new level of difficulty to the game. However, by the end of the game, it feels like you’ve been fighting the same five guys over and over again, and taking them out, along with lights, starts to feel like a chore. The AI in the game is average at best to being completely idiotic, never doing anything surprising or out of the ordinary, and after shooting for a while, enemies will tend to run straight at Jackie with guns blazing, just waiting to be sliced in half by a Demon Head. Because of predictable AI, fighting enemies, even bosses, is a fairly simple task, and doesn’t really build up much tension.

            New systems and controls in “The Darkness II” build upon those of the first game, creating interesting and creative ways to use powers and dispatch enemies. Leveling up also encourages player choice and customization, which is also a nice addition. However, powers don’t feel as important as they should be, and while the new style of gameplay is fast-paced and involves many opportunities for blood and gore, the bland linear level design, lack of exploration, and redundant, predictable enemies makes this game feel like a complete step backward from its predecessor.


~THE VERDICT~

If you are a hard-core fan of the original game, then you may be a bit disappointed with what you get in “The Darkness II.” Even fans of the comic-book series and new players may find this game to be a bit bland and lacking. But, does that mean it’s a terrible game?
            I know I’ve said a lot of negative things about this game, but that doesn’t make it a BAD game. In fact, I would say it’s a fairly GOOD game. Does it live up to the first game? Hell no. Did I expect this game to be as good as the first? Honestly, I didn’t expect it to live up to the expectations set by the first game. So, am I mad? Do I feel betrayed by this game? Maybe a little bit, but given the fact this game was developed by a completely different company than the first, who chose to do their own interpretation of the story, I can’t really be too upset. Digital Extremes made a decent game, and in the end, that’s really what counts. Could they have done better? Definitely. But the game is what it is, and it isn’t too bad.

If you’re looking for a game similar to the first “Darkness” game, or a shooter with a very deep, involved story, this may not be the game for you. However, if you’re a huge “Darkness” fan, or you’re into games with fast-paced action, like “Call of Duty,” this might be a game that will interest you. As for me, I don’t think this game is really worth the $60 my brother and I shelled out for it, but it is definitely worth a rent. If you’re a “Darkness” fan who absolutely HAS to have this game in your collection, I would say to hold off on buying it until you can get a cheaper used copy, or until it has gone down a bit in price.

My final verdict on “The Darkness II” is a 7 out of 10. It’s a decent game, if a bit short and simple. If you’re looking for a game to sink a couple of hours into, this one might be worth checking out.

2/25/2012

OJ News ~ February 25, 2012

~Upcoming Reviews~

- The Darkness II (will hopefully come out next week)
- The Woman in Black (will hopefully happen sometime soon...)
- Mass Effect 1-2 (hopefully Jack will write this thing soon...)

~Upcoming Let's Play Videos~

- Oliv Plays Scratches - Part Twelve (coming soon)
- Oliv Plays Phantasmagoria - Part Two (coming soon)

and, introducing...

- Jack Plays Amnesia, featuring Oliv

Yes, we will be doing a Let's Play of Amnesia, which so far is our most requested Let's Play. As soon as we're finished building this new computer and programming it with our dad, we'll be able to get Amnesia running on it, and begin making this new series! Something to look forward to!

That's all for now!

2/20/2012

OJ Review ~ "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance"



Oliv teams up with her friend Carrie to review the new "Ghost Rider" film. Is it any good? Or does it totally suck? Find out in this review!

2/07/2012

OJ Review ~ "Chronicle"



Oliv and Jack review the superhero film "Chronicle." Is it any good? Find out!

2/02/2012

OJ News: Planned Videos and Reviews

Hey everyone!

Jack has finally gotten around to starting up his account here on the blog, and so you should all expect to see some content from him in the future!

First of all, the "Scratches" Let's Play is going very well, even with a few minor hiccups with the video and audio. Expect to see regular episodes of this Let's Play for a while.

The Dracula Retrospective IS still planned for the future, although the project has been put on hold for the time being. Don't worry - we'll get to it!

Lastly, Jack has promised me that he'll be puting up some content soon, and hinted at perhaps doing a review of "Mass Effect." So, whether he really does a "Mass Effect" review, or something completely different, I would say to keep a look-out, because he may be posting something soon.

That's all for right now. Thank you for reading, and thank you for supporting our videos!

~ Oliv ~

1/23/2012

OJ News: Plans for This Week

Okay, boys and girls, here's what's been going on!

Any filmed reviews are on hold until I get a hold of a new camera, or my friend and benefactor, Amaya, repairs her camera so that I may once again steal it.

Until then, I have a couple other things planned!

First of all, I plan on starting the game "Scratches: the Director's Cut" on my old desktop some time this week. "Scratches" is a point-and-click adventure game in the style of old-school games like "Myst," with emphasis on story and atmosphere. It's in the horror genre, so I'm hoping it's similar to games like "Phantasmagoria" and "Shivers," two point-and-click adventure game series that I loved as a kid. I also downloaded a screen capture program that seems to work fairly well (of course, I had to download a FREE one, since I'm broke and can't afford something nice like FRAPS), so if all goes well, I may do a Let's Play of "Scratches." This will be a blind run, although, if my commentary during game-play ends up to be boring or I get stuck on a puzzle, I may edit the footage to make it more enjoyable.

Secondly, I'm hoping to go see "Underworld: Awakening" this weeked with a friend (and hopefully convincing Jack to tag along as well), and if I have a camera by then, I will probably be posting a review. So, look forward to seeing my views on the new Underworld film!

Thirdly, I apologize in advance if planned videos do not come out in a timely manner. This is mainly due to technical issues and how much free time Jack and I have. Jack's currently in high school and taking extra-curricular courses, and I'm currently in college, so as you can imagine, the two of us have a pretty heavy work-load between us. However, when we have the time, we REALLY want to work on these videos, so we can bring smiles to the faces of our humble group of fans.

I'm sorry for not updating in such a long while, and for not updating very often, but I promise you, Jack and I WILL be bringing you content in the future. I guaruntee it!

~ Oliv ~

12/06/2011

OJ News: Upcoming Reviews (Tentative)

Hello all!


November and December have been busy months for me and my brother, what with our involvements in various musicals and school. However, we DO plan on producing some reviews soon! These are the tentative reviews we have planned:


1. Dracula Retrospective: a collection of reviews focusing on the Dracula image / story and how Dracula has evolved in films


2. Hellbound: starring Chuck Norris


3. Thank You for Smoking: by popular demand


This is what we have planned for now. I'll let you guys know when we'll be posting new review, and anything else we have planned for the future!


~ Oliv ~

11/27/2011

Deus Ex: Human Revolution - First Thoughts

So, I've had the new Deus Ex game for almost a week now, and although I haven't gotten particularly far (I'm still in Detroit! *facepalm*), I have still played enough of it to form my own opinion of the game.

~VISUALS~

This game looks pretty good overall. Of course, what else can you expect from Square Enix, right? For the most part, their games are visually stunning. However, there are a few things that fall short in this particular Square Enix title.

When I saw the commercials for this game, I was bouncing up and down with excitement. This game looked AMAZING. However, what I saw in the commercials wasn't necessarily what I got with the game. To me, the look of Deus Ex in the commercials was reminiscent of games like "The Darkness" or "Batman: Arkham Asylum." In fact, I expected this game to look a lot like "Arkham Asylum," since Square and Eidos were in charge of this title. However, that wasn't exactly what I got.

The graphics of the game are good, don't get me wrong, but the character models bother me a bit. Mostly, it's because most of the characters look like they're made of plastic or rubber, especially in movie clips. There is too much shine and "rubberiness" to every character's skin, and at times I get distracted from the game because of this odd look. Strangely enough, the characters that look the most "normal" are the augmented humans, whose metallic limbs look more realistic than their flesh counterparts. I don't know why all the humans have this too-clean, rubber look, and I think the character models would have looked superb if not for this fact.

Lip movement was also off most of the time during the game. I was stunned to find most speaking animations were simply a mouth moving up and down, open and shut, and most of the time the lip movements didn't even match the dialouge. It doesn't really look like they even made an attempt to make the mouths match the dialouge, which is a shame, because lip movements looked great and matched up well during movie clips.

Another thing that bothered me was the considerable difference is contrast levels between the gameplay look and the look of the movie clips. Brightness levels during gameplay are good, but when a movie clip pops up, everything suddenly gets very, very dark. The colors also seem to deepen considerably between the gameplay look and the movie clip look. This is disorienting, especially when a movie clip suddenly cuts back into gameplay. It looks as if someone is suddenly turning up the brightness, or flashing you in the face with a fluorescent light. This inconsistency in composition only adds to further distract the player from the game, and I really have to wonder why Square thought this would look okay.

Lastly, while the rest of the game looks fantastic, with sweeping cityscapes that perfectly capture that "Blade Runner-esque" vibe, I have to say, the sky looks terrible. You want to watch the chopper take off into the clouds and disappear from view majestically? Yeah, keep dreaming. The sky is just a basic black with some sort of fog effect lazily slapped on, marring what would otherwise be a perfect environment. Maybe it's nit-picky, but when I'm playing a game like this, I want to be able to look up and see a real SKY, not just a black background.

All those things aside, this game looks great. The cities look HUGE and very detailed, the atmosphere is great, and the Augs look awesome. This game perfectly captures that seedy, futuristic metropolis look of "Blade Runner," although it substitutes the green tones for yellow-ish tones. Overall, the look is about an 8 out of 10.

~SOUND~

Not much to say here. The voice acting is spot on and the music works well to set the mood. Nothing seems to be missing, or seems to be wrong, with the sound in this game. The only complaint I would have is that Adam Jensen sounds like he's trying to imitate Christian Bale's version of Batman, and his personality is about as dynamic as a dead fish.

All-in-all, I'd say the sound is about a 9 out of 10.

~STORY~

As far as I've played, I am certainly intrigued by the story. It seems written well enough, and all the little tidbits you pick up during missions, or the dialouge you hear behind closed doors, are wonderful. This game has a depth to it, with everything in the world contributing the overall story and pulling you in.

The problem is, I've heard most people say the pay-off in this game isn't very good. Apparently, the game never reaches that tense, climactic moment. Instead, it plays it safe and doesn't take enough chances to bring the player to an intense, emotional point. I haven't played enough of the game to determine if this is accurate or not, but everyone I've talked to seems to agree, and therefore, I am dreading this lapse in storytelling in what would otherwise be a great story.

But for now, at the point I've gotten to in the game, I would give the story a 6.5 out of 10. It's okay, but I don't feel like I'm being pulled into the story's intrigue as much as I should be. Whether it's a lack of overall tension, or the fact that the main protagonist has the emotional capacity of a wet noodle, I'm not sure.

~GAMEPLAY~

This game is a fairly good mixture of an FPS and an RPG. However, it seems to lean more towards being an FPS game, and so I will treat it as one.

First of all, there is no melee in the game. And no, stealth killing doesn't count as melee. Why can't Adam use his blade augment as a weapon? Why can't he at least smack enemies with the butt of his rifle? Certain situations, like cramped corridors, seem like perfect opportunities to use a melee weapon, but apparently Adam is only capable of shooting a gun. If Adam has this sword he can whip out of his arm the way Wolverine unleashes his adamantium claws, why can't he use it in combat? It definitely would've made taking down the first boss a lot easier, and would've made up-close combat much better.

Secondly, the AI is retarded. The only reason I beat the first boss was because he seemed to think he could throw a frag grenade at me through a wall, and, of course the grenade merely bounced back at him and blew him up. Idiot... AI will charge at you without seeking cover, making them prime for picking off with a pistol. And most of the time, if you're hiding very poorly behind a box or similar cover, enemies will walk past as if you're not even there, even if you're in plain sight. Not to mention, enemies don't seem to have any unique strategies. All they do it move forward and fire wildly. Sometimes, if you're confronted with a large group of enemies, this means you will probably be killed quickly. However, when only faced with a few enemies like this, they are easily dispatched.

Thirdly, Adam Jensen is very, VERY weak. I spent most of my time augmenting his skills to focus on stealth, hacking, and persuasion. When it came time for me to fight the first boss, I very quickly realized that I was in trouble. Against a tank with an endless supply of frag grenades and a machine gun for an arm, who could pick me up and throttle me into the ground if he got close enough, I was about as strong as a toothpick. After about an hour of screaming at the TV, I finally figured out how to turn the idiotic AI against itself, and finally succeeded in making the boss kill himself with his own stupidity. It wasn't a satisfying victory, though. I should have been able to take on this boss in a fair fight, using strategy to defeat him. But no, I was such a weakling I had to hide behind a wall and wait for him to kill himself. How pathetic.

Lastly... punching someone drains my battery? WHAT!? Nuff said.

Despite the games shortcomings, however, the payoff for exploration more than makes up for these low points, and the cover system is designed very well. Playing through the world is a blast, finding hidden troves of ammo and items is satisfying, and it really is fun to hunker down behind a wall and take out a far-off target with a tranquilizer rifle. In the end, the gameplay is very good, and is a lot of fun. So, my verdict on gameplay.... how about an 8 out of 10?

~FINAL VERDICT~

Deus Ex: Human Revolution is a fun game. It has its ups and downs, but it definitely is a good addition to the series. If the problems in this game can be fixed in future Deus Ex games, I think this might be the perfect re-boot to a beloved franchise.

The final score: 7.9 out of 10

~ Oliv ~

Fight Club - I Wish I Hadn't Known the Ending First

Fight Club

Directed by: David Fincher

Starring: Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, and Helena Bonham Carter

~~SPOLIER ALERT!!!!!~~

Yeah, I'm probably going to talk about things that actually happen in the film. So, if you don't want it ruined, don't read this. Go watch the movie instead. ;D

I'm not really sure how to start off with this movie. I'll try to list the bad points first, and then move on to the good stuff, but this might be a little difficult, because of one simple fact:

This was a REALLY GOOD MOVIE.

BUT, I can't start off with that. Bad stuff first, THEN praise.

Okay, so here are my complaints about the film:

First of all, it is too long. Getting through the film seemed to take FOREVER. When I was finished watching it, it felt like 3 hours had just gone by. The actual running time of the film is about 2 hours and 20 minutes, so I guess, close, but no cigar. However, I was STILL surprised by the film's actual run-time. Over 2 hours? For a movie like THIS? That's sort of stretching it a bit...

My main gripe with the length has to do with the fact that the entire first half of the film goes by so quickly. The scenes go by at a fairly quick pace, the dialouge is swift and to the point, and no time is wasted. However, as we get into the second half of the film, things suddenly seem to slow down. I suppose it's because the second half of the film is much more serious than the first half, or maybe because Brad Pitt's character, who was carrying the story along most of the time, is absent for the majority of the second half. Whichever it is, it slows the movie down to a crawl compared to the swiftness in the beginning. In the beginning, it felt like time was flying. By the end, I was glancing at the clock and wondering how much longer the film was going to go on for.

Okay, second point: Tyler Durden and the Narrator live in an abandoned house, right? I have to assume this is just some house the Narrator found at random to live in after his own apartment exploded... so, here's my question: Why do all the utilities work? Sure, the water comes out of the drains all muddy and disgusting, but it's still THERE. In homes like that, the water and power would NEVER work. So, how is it that Tyler and the Narrator are getting running water and electricity? I know this sounds really nit-picky, but it bothered me the entire movie, and I just need to mention it.

Moving on to my third point: Why didn't anyone call the police, or call SOMEONE for help, when they saw the Narrator beating the crap out of himself? Why do these men decide to make a fighting club led by a man who obviously has serious mental issues? I have to assume it's all because of his intellect, his grasp on philosophy, and the fact that he can be pummeled relentlessly, and STILL laugh in your face. But I mean, really, this guy is freaking Looney Tunes! Realistically, someone probably would've called the mad house and had this guy carted off in a straight-jacket. But again, this is probably me just being too nit-picky.

And my fourth and final point: WHY DID EVERYONE HAVE TO RUIN THIS FILM FOR ME BEFORE I EVEN WATCHED IT!?!?!?

Okay, so this has nothing to do with the film itself. But the thing is I had been considering watching "Fight Club" for a long time, and then FINALLY, when I decided I wanted to watch it, a group of girls in my Psychology class told me how it ended. Not only that, but later that same evening, as I was watching the Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert ruined the ending as well! *insert Twilight Zone music here* So basically, I went into this movie knowing EXACTLY what the whole plot twist was going to be. I felt a bit disconnected from the film because of this, and I actually envied my brother (who was watching it with me), since he had no clue about what was going to happen. He was pretty much on the edge of his seat most of the movie, and I was more laid back, wondering when they were going to get to the twist ending, and how they were going to execute it.

Because of how upset I was about having the ending ruined for me before seeing the film itself, this is all I'm going to say about it. I will NOT ruin it for everyone else. Just know this - the twist is a good one.

Alright, now we can get to the good stuff.

First of all, the acting in this film is fantastic. All of the actors give top-notch performances, including a surprisingly tender performance given by Meatloaf, who I had never expected to see playing a nice guy.

Edward Norton is by-far the best in this film, capturing the Narrator's character so well. The way the character changes through the film is fantastic, metamorphosizing from a basically normal, if eccentric, man to a ruined mess with a broken mind. Norton pulls this off perfectly, as his attitude, appearance, and mannerisms change as the film goes on. Not only is Norton's performance impressive, however, but his voice-over work is great as well. Norton really keeps the film going with his voice-overs, leading the audience from one scene to another, giving us a chance to really get inside the Narrator's mind. What's interesting about the Narrator, however, is how he takes small events in the film and finds ways to integrate them into his narrative. For example, in one scene the Narrator finds a pile of old magazines, which have stories written from the point-of-view of different organs in a human body ("I am Jack's colon."). From then on, the Narrator sometimes interjects in a voice-over, saying things like, "I am Jack's broken heart," "I am Jack's cold sweat," and, my favorite, "I am Jack's smirking revenge." Not only that, but Norton pulls off "crazy" so well, it almost seems real. My favorite part has to be when the Narrator takes his revenge out on his boss (thus, "I am Jack's smirking revenge"), which really shows Norton's ability to play a nasty, cynical, and uncaring individual who's finally getting his vengeance.

Brad Pitt is great as well, although Pitt's performance seemed a bit overshadowed by Norton's, since the Narrator is the main focus of the film. However, there wouldn't be much of a film without Pitt's character, Tyler. No matter how much I think about it, I cannot see anyone else playing Tyler Durden as well as Brad Pitt does. Tyler's lines are probably the best in the whole film, and Pitt delivers the lines so well, giving the audience equal parts casual indifference and wild insanity. I have to say, I LOVE seeing Brad Pitt play a "bad boy," especially one who isn't totally there mentally. And no, I'm not swooning over Brad Pitt's "bad boy hotness." The fact is, when he plays a character who is evil, or uncaring, or just a complete jerk, his acting is at its best, especially if that character also has a touch of insanity. In comparison, his "nice guy" performances aren't as good, tending to be a bit more toned-down. "Fight Club" is one of those Brad Pitt films where Pitt is playing a cocky asshole, and he KNOWS it, and he's having FUN with it. Bottom line, I enjoyed every minute Pitt was on-screen in this movie. His best scene, though, has to be the part in which Lou's cronie is beating Tyler up, literally smashing his face in, and all Tyler does is laugh in the guy's face, coughing up blood. Pitt's delivery is perfect, replying to each punch with some smart-ass comment, or just a bout of insane laughter. I laughed as the scene went on, but did so uncomfortably, unsure of how to properly react to it.

Secondly, this film's composition is unique and daring, with its bizarre editing, and its strange scenes that come out of the blue and completely break the fourth wall. Thankfully, the film is able to pull this off without seeming silly, and no matter how bizarre things seem to get, the film is still able to run smoothly, without a hitch. The best example of this film's unique and bizarre composition is a scene of Brad Pitt just giving a monolouge, which seems to come out of nowhere. The camera slowly zooms in on Pitt, until it is uncomfortably close to his face, and as he looks straight into the camera, the entire frame suddenly begins shaking uncontrollably, until Pitt looks away, and the film returns to "normality." (If you would like to see this scene, I swear it won't ruin any part of the movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo-wkv8gW6k.) This scene is probably one of the most memorable parts of the film, coming completely out of nowhere and instilling a feeling of discomfort, and even dread. A lot of that, I believe, comes solely from the bizzare editting of this short, 30-second monolouge.

And thirdly, the film has a good, engaging story. This movie was written very well, with quick sarcastic dialouge and voice-overs that tie everything together. The majority of the film is in a flash-back, peppered with random scenes that could possibly be other flash-backs, or the Narrator's imaginings, or scenes that seem to have no rhyme or reason. The film is, for the most part, one long narrative being told by the Narrator, and so what the audience sees on the screen is what the Narrator is seeing in his own mind. What you end up with is a movie that is very much like a book written in the first person. The Narrator tells us the story while also showing us the action, and compliments the story with little anecdotes and scenes, pulling the viewer deeper into the story, and into the Narrator's mind. I have to say, this is possibly one of the most well-written films I have ever seen, with a bizzare story that somehow works very, very well.

So, to sum up: Despite the length of the film, and the fact that the second half moves at a slower pace than the first half, "Fight Club" is an extraordinarily good movie. I find it amazing how well the acting, the writing, and the composition of the film work together and compliment each other, creating a bizzare work of art that is strangely engaging and entertaining. This movie is very unique; I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it before in my life. I have to applaud everyone involved with the creation of this film. It is unique, and it is daring, and it is just plain weird, and yet it totatally works. Somehow, everything about this film falls into place so neatly. In fact, upon reflection, I have to say, this may have been one of the best films I have ever seen.

So, should you see it? I would have to say, HELL YES. This is a great film, and I am sure you won't regret watching it. This is definitely one of Brad Pitt's best movies, and if you're a Pitt fan, you can't afford to miss out on this film.

The final verdict on "Fight Club," then? Let's say it's a 9 out of 10. It's a great film, and I can't recommend it highly enough.

Now, stop reading about it, and go watch the damn movie! :D

~ Oliv ~

The Prophecy - When a Good Plot Goes Awry

The Prophecy

Directed by: Gregory Widen

Starring: Christopher Walken and Viggo Mortensen

~~SPOLIER ALERT!!!!!~~

Yes, I am going to reference things that happen in the film. If you don't want the whole thing spoiled for you, don't read this. I DO highly recommend the movie, though. :D

So, the set-up for "The Prophecy" is simply this:

The first war in Heaven was between the rebellious angels and those angels still loyal to God. Lucifer and his followers fell, and Hell was created. And now, there is a second war in Heaven, started by a group of angels that would not accept God's love for humans over all other creatures (including the angels themselves).

Easy set-up, right? A simple, but powerful plot with a lot of potential. So, how do you screw this up?

Well... what if you totally mess with the believability of the whole film?

As a viewer, I can totally accept everything that's going on in the film simply because I can SEE everything that is going on in the film. This movie doesn't have any questions of what is real and what isn't real. The film flat-out says, "Yes, there are angels. Yes, they are walking around on Earth. Yes, they are pretty bad-ass, so don't mess with them." I'm totally fine with that. But when characters in the film itself are so ready to believe these things, then I have a problem.

Our heroic main character, Thomas Dagget, is not what I'd call a fantastic detective. Alright, I get his backstory, he was just about to become a priest when his faith left him, he became a cop instead, blah blah blah. He's a flat, boring, stereotypical character, and he's not too hard to understand. However, as a detective, he has to think rationally, right?

So, here is the evidence he has: there is a hermaphroditic corpse with no eyes, un-aged skin and bones, and a tattoo in angelic script on its neck, which is later found burned to ashes in a morgue; among the corpse's effects is an ancient, hand-written bible with an added 23rd chapter to the Book of Revalations that tells of a second war in Heaven and prophesizes of a "Dark Soul;" there is a strange man named Simon that shows up in Dagget's apartment warning him of some mumbo-jumbo about the end of the world, who seems to have a connection with the charred corpse, and is later found burned to ashes as well; somehow the late General Hawthorne, a Korean War Vet that liked to torture people, is involved; there's a sick little girl rambling about "killing Chinamen;" and there's a suspicious man named Gabriel that seems to be involved in all of these events, and who also seems to like getting uncomfortably close to children.

So, what is Dagget's conclusion? Well, it's not that Gabriel might be some religious madman with a fixation on a man that liked to torture his enemies, who spends his free time murdering people, burning corpses, and getting close enough to these children to mess them up in the head. Neither does Dagget conclude that the strange corpse and Simon MIGHT have been religious madmen as well, perhaps in some sort of cult with Gabriel, or part of a gang. No, Dagget's conclusion is this: welp, they must be angels! (Insert much herping and derping here.)

I suppose you can't blame Dagget for coming to this conclusion, since he's been primed by his own religious beliefs. Besides, it seems logical, right? But it is in no way rational. If it were me, I'd need to actually SEE Gabriel do something supernatural before I would start believing he's some kind of evil angel.

And I know you're probably thinking, "But Dagget sees Gabriel do all sorts of supernatural stuff!" That's true, Dagget DOES see Gabriel perform some supernatural feats. However, Dagget comes to the conclusion that Gabriel, Simon, and the corpse are all angels BEFORE he even sees Gabriel do anything remotely inhuman. Dagget does have ONE encounter with Gabriel before he concludes Gabriel and the others are angels. The encounter only lasts about a minute, and all Gabriel says to Dagget is this, "Do you know how you got that dent, in your top lip? Way back, before you were born, I told you a secret, then I put my finger there and I said, 'Shhhhh!'" Wow... he must be an angel.

Dagget concluding Gabriel and the others are angels I can understand. What I have trouble understanding is why the leading lady of the film, Katherine, is so ready to believe this. The movie doesn't indicate that she's religious in any way. In fact, the film gives us NO backstory about Katherine. All we know is she's a teacher in a small, dying community. The only evidence SHE has to go on is this: some bum named Simon burned to death in the abandoned part of the school; some guy named Gabriel interacted with her students in a bizzare fashion; and one of her students, Mary, is sick from school and keeps rambling about torture and murder. At least Dagget has a seemingly inhuman corpse he can use as evidence. Katherine has virtually no evidence to suggest that there might be angels involved in everything. When Dagget says, "Gabriel is an angel!" Katherine sort of just looks at him and says, "Okay, I totally believe you." And I'm just sitting here, watching the film thinking, "Really? You people don't need any hard evidence?"

Okay... that was my first point. (Yes, I am long-winded. Bear with me here.)

Secondly, the film can't seem to make up it's mind whether Lucifer is a "good guy" or a "bad guy."

Okay, so the film is extremely clear that Gabriel is a bad guy. He's the main antagonist, he's cold-hearted and brutal... well, he's an asshole. One of my favorite lines in the entire movie is one that Gabriel says, with a cocky smile on his face: "I'm an angel. I kill firstborns while their mamas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even, when I feel like it, rip the souls from little girls, and from now till kingdom come, the only thing you can count on in your existence is never understanding why." Even though Gabriel's goal is to win the war in Heaven so he can put everything back to the way it was before God loved humans, which isn't evil in itself, he is still pure down-to-earth evil.

But what about Lucifer? He shows up near the end of the film to HELP Dagget and Katherine beat Gabriel. He gets awfully close to Dagget, almost tenderly so, and tells Dagget exactly how to beat Gabriel. And, at the last minute, Lucifer shows up to save the day, killing Gabriel and saving everyone. This sort of makes Lucifer seem like a good guy, right? However, Lucifer says he's only helping because Gabriel's actions will create another Hell, and Lucifer only wants there to be one Hell. He also says that because of the war in Heaven, no soul can enter there, but souls can still get in to Hell without any problem. And right after Lucifer saves everyone, he immediately tries to get them to give him their souls to bring back to Hell. Plus, Lucifer's attitude just makes him seem like a real cocky bastard.

So... what are we supposed to think of him? Are we supposed to like Lucifer, or dislike him? I suppose this could be argued as a good quality of the film, since the audience is left to ponder over whether the ultimate evil can be construed as "good." However, I feel as if this isn't really achieved, since Lucifer only appears in the last 15 or 20 minutes of the film. If Lucifer had been seen throughout the film, and had some form of development, then I would have found him a much better character. However, he only appears in 3 scenes, and probably only has roughly 5 or 6 minutes of screen-time in total, so the only thing I can really feel for Lucifer is confusion. It's almost as if the writers wrote his character in at the last minute.

Which leads me to my third and final point: the ending.

The ending of this film is an absolute mess. It's as if the writers ran out of time and hurriedly slapped an ending together, and the filmmakers shot and editted the whole thing as fast as they could. I was stunned at how abrupt the ending came, and how the outcome turned out. Everything about the ending of this film feels rushed. The acting feels like it isn't up to par with the rest of the film, the editting feels choppy, and the story sort of deteriorates in a way that left me sitting there thinking, "What the hell just happened?" Even the effects, which looked great throughout the rest of the film, seemed cheap and uncaringly thrown in. So... what happened?

The best parts about the ending of the film are definitely Christopher Walken and Viggo Mortensen. They may be overacting, but these two can definitely overact and get away with it. They are extremely enjoyable to watch, even when things seem to be falling apart around them.

So, to sum up the bad points:

The plot starts out strong and intriguing, and ultimately unravels into a confusing jumble at the end.

There is no real emotional connection to the characters, since they are so flat and don't really go through any character development.

Some bits that are supposed to be serious are made silly by awkward editting, stage direction, or performance on the actors' parts (mostly with Walken and Mortensen).

And lastly, (and this one bothers the hell out of me) some plot points either don't make sense or aren't explained very well. Like, how the heck does the little girl know you have to rip out the angels' hearts to kill them on Earth? Seriously, they never explain it. I guess that, by the movie's logic, she just knows because she's possessed by an evil spirit. Or, what about the Dark Soul? They never explain WHY the Dark Soul is so vitally important in winning the war in Heaven. I get that Gabriel wants the Dark Soul to fight for him... but why? I need an explanation here, movie! And what the hell is with the angels flying in the sky at the end, and the heavenly light that shines down on Mary to expel the Dark Soul from her? Did God just decide to suddenly intervene, or did the Native American chanting somehow summon angels to come to the rescue, or was it just "one of those things?" Seriously, it's just like "BAM! You're cured, the spirit is gone, hooray! End of movie." And why don't the Native Americans performing the exorcism EVER look up while all that crap is happening at the end. I mean, come on! Explain, movie, EXPLAIN!

Alright, so I went over every bad thing about this film. Now, here are the good things:

For a supernatural thriller / detective story, this movie actually isn't half bad. The story seems a bit choppy as a whole, but individual parts of the film work very nicely. You can take a scene on its own and say, "That was a very good scene." You get a nice mix of the supernatural, and a nice mix of mystery. The only problem is that, as a whole, it just doesn't seem to jive quite right. But still, those small parts are very well done.

Most of the effects and the atmosphere of the film are great. Any movie that can make the silhouette of an angel falling from the sky seem intimidating is doing SOMETHING right. The time lapse parts intertwined with normal-time shots of Christopher Walken are also extremely well done, producing quite a chilling effect. Like I said, the ending effects are laughable compared to the rest of the film, but for the most part the effects work and are executed perfectly. And, best of all, the film doesn't rely on CG or any tricks of that sort. The effects in this film feel very old-school, and I like that.

The cast, for the most part, is great. The best actor by far is Christopher Walken, with Viggo Mortensen in a close second. But the performances of Adam Goldberg as Jerry and Eric Stoltz as Simon are extremely good as well.

Stoltz has the perfect blend of "nice guy" and "creeper-stalker," making his character very likeable, but extremely suspicious all at the same time. The movie is very unclear whether Simon is good or bad, and he himself admits he's not sure which side he's on, and Stoltz pulls this uneasy balance off so well.

Goldberg is hilarious as Jerry, adding a nice touch of comic relief to an otherwise dark and twisted film. He's not overpowering, acting almost casual and sticking to the background in most situations, but when he opens his mouth and says something, it's usually enough to bring a smile to anyone's face.

Mortensen as Lucifer is, in my opinion, perfect. He has a soft voice and a handsome face, but he's cold and serious. Mortensen gives his performance fairly deadpan, almost non-chalant, but it is the perfect attitude for the character. By the end, he overacts to the point of perfection, matching Walken, making their own little battle seem so real. Mortensen gives a great performance, even though he gets a very small amount of screen-time, and has some of the best lines in the film.

Of course, the whole reason to watch this movie is to see Christopher Walken do what he does best: act like a creep. His performance is the best in the whole film. He's a bad-ass, he's a cold-hearted killer... he's a really bad guy, and he knows it. Not only that, but he LOVES it. You can just tell, Walken is having so much fun in this role. He sniffs random things, he licks blood off a table, he has a very strange tender moment with Simon, he whispers and shouts lines for no discernable reason, he pauses in strange places... this film was pretty much built around Chrisopher Walken just being Christopher Walken. Sometimes, it's like he's not even acting. At points, it seems like they just stuck him on the set and told him to do whatever he felt like doing, and then started rolling the camera. If you are a Walken fan, this is a fantastic Walken movie. You could cut out all the scenes he's not in, and this movie would still be totally watchable.

So, should you see "The Prophecy?" I would say yes, give it a watch. It is enjoyable enough, and most people seem to give it a decent rating. It was good enough to spawn four sequals, two of which also star Christopher Walken. It's kind of a blend of religious philosophy and supernatural action. Like, if you fused Underworld with The Exorcist. It's not quite action-y enough or stupid enough to be an Underworld-style film, but it isn't quite philosophical, smart, or scary enough to be an Exorcist-style film. This movie falls nicely in the middle, making it enjoyable for anyone. And, like I said before, if you like Walken, you'll love this movie.

My rating? ... I'd say it's about a 7 out of 10. Not a masterpiece, but certainly not the worst thing I've ever seen.

Thanks for reading, now go watch it!

~ Oliv ~

OJ Review ~ "Breaking Dawn"



Oliv and Jack bitch about the new Twilight film. (Our first video on this site!)

11/26/2011

Welcome to OJ Films!

We are Oliv and Jack, and we are here to rant about movies, games, and anything else that gives us a good reason to rant.

This marks our first post on this blog! From here on out, we will be posting any videos we make on this blog. Please check out our videos, and enjoy!