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!)

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!