When this critically-acclaimed indie title hit a sale on Steam a while back for only $3 I knew I had to grab it. Unfortunately it got pushed farther and farther into the backlog until yesterday when I finally decided to break it out and see what all the fuss was about.
Limbo is a hard game to describe. There is no real coherent plot, no overarching objective besides "survive", no concrete characters to identify with, nothing. All you're given is the silhouette of a boy, who wakes up in this shadowy forest, with the only way to go being forward. You run into all sorts of life-threatening situations with bear traps, giant spiders, brain-burrowing worms, and at times even other silhouettes that seem bent on your destruction.
In essence Limbo is a puzzle-platformer, with various strange situations put in front of you where you need to use your wits and good timing of the jump button to move on. The puzzles themselves are ruthlessly inventive, requiring heavy brain use to overcome them. The solutions are often staring you in the face, but as with every great platformer, it doesn't make you feel stupid when you finally figure out what you were doing wrong.
As with any work of art, the game itself is open to interpretation, especially with the rather abrupt ending (which I will not spoil). Many critics praise it for its humanity and insight, while frankly, I think they're just seeing what they want to see. The game is left so completely devoid of information, and left so completely up to interpretation, that honestly you can say whatever you want about the meaning of the game and probably be right. While normally I would find fault with this and call it pure pretension, the game itself is wonderful enough that I don't really care. The sound design, environments, and gameplay all create this rich immersive experience that is at once impossible to understand and yet completely understandable. I ran through it in only 3 hours, without trying to find or pick up all the hidden gems throughout, but I would easily call it 3 hours well spent.
Overall, Limbo is a very interesting experience that stands on its own both as a solid platformer, and as a work of art.
Limbo gets an 8/10.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
The Artist
I have unfortunately fallen very far behind with movies lately. When the Oscars came around I didn't even recognize half the names on the list, so I'm at least trying to get back in the habit of watching them. And what better way to start than with the best picture winner?
Undoubtedly everyone already knows what The Artist is about so I'll keep this short. The film is an homage to the silent films of old, set in the late 1920s and centered on the famous silent actor George Valentin (Jean Dujardin). It mostly follows his relationship with Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), a chorus girl who he accidentally makes famous and falls for despite his being married, as well as his downfall thanks to the advent of talkies. There's ups and downs and everything in-between until George finally gets one more chance to rise from the ashes.
It was really a fascinating film to watch, as it meticulously drew the line between modern filmmaking and the old silent style. It was a brilliant homage to its source while also standing on its own. The acting was marvelous, especially from Dujardin who could make you laugh in one second and cry at the next. Everything came together to create a wonderful experience to watch.
However, there was one problem I had with it. With a running time of 1 hour 40 minutes it's hard to believe I'm saying it, but it was too long. They probably could have chopped the last 20-30 minutes or so and been totally fine. It was obvious where it was going towards the end, and they just took too long getting there. Honestly it just kind of felt like padding put in there because it's hard enough to sell a silent movie these days, let alone one that's only a little over an hour. It still served, it's not like it ruined the movie, but it did kind of detract from the impact of the end.
So overall I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the film, despite how it seemed to linger longer than it needed to. Would I call it the best picture of the year? Well it's hard to say without seeing the other contenders but while I enjoyed it, I certainly wouldn't rank it as the best of the best. I commend it for taking a risk and managing to be a silent film that's just as entertaining as anything else put out these days, but the best? That remains to be seen.
The Artist gets a 9/10.
Undoubtedly everyone already knows what The Artist is about so I'll keep this short. The film is an homage to the silent films of old, set in the late 1920s and centered on the famous silent actor George Valentin (Jean Dujardin). It mostly follows his relationship with Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), a chorus girl who he accidentally makes famous and falls for despite his being married, as well as his downfall thanks to the advent of talkies. There's ups and downs and everything in-between until George finally gets one more chance to rise from the ashes.
It was really a fascinating film to watch, as it meticulously drew the line between modern filmmaking and the old silent style. It was a brilliant homage to its source while also standing on its own. The acting was marvelous, especially from Dujardin who could make you laugh in one second and cry at the next. Everything came together to create a wonderful experience to watch.
However, there was one problem I had with it. With a running time of 1 hour 40 minutes it's hard to believe I'm saying it, but it was too long. They probably could have chopped the last 20-30 minutes or so and been totally fine. It was obvious where it was going towards the end, and they just took too long getting there. Honestly it just kind of felt like padding put in there because it's hard enough to sell a silent movie these days, let alone one that's only a little over an hour. It still served, it's not like it ruined the movie, but it did kind of detract from the impact of the end.
So overall I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the film, despite how it seemed to linger longer than it needed to. Would I call it the best picture of the year? Well it's hard to say without seeing the other contenders but while I enjoyed it, I certainly wouldn't rank it as the best of the best. I commend it for taking a risk and managing to be a silent film that's just as entertaining as anything else put out these days, but the best? That remains to be seen.
The Artist gets a 9/10.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Back, Back, Back
As with every show this season except Ros & Guild Are Dead, I knew little to nothing about Seattle Public Theater's production of Back, Back, Back. From the posters and the scoreboard hung against the back wall I quickly deduced it was about baseball, but thankfully I overheard two audience members talking who managed to sum it up perfectly.
1: "So what's the play about?"
2: "Baseball."
1: "Right. And?"
2: "Steroids."
1: "Baseball and steroids."
2: "Yep."
Essentially the play follows three baseball players from the 1980s to 2005. Raul (Ray Gonzales) is a pro player with a big ego and a bad attitude that sees no problem with using steroids. Kent (Patrick Allcorn) is another big name player who uses steroids but is ethically torn about it. Adam/The Rookie/Rook (Trick Danneker) is a big up-and-comer who doesn't use, and really tries to stay away from the whole issue since he respects Kent so much. They all start on the same team, but eventually life gets in the way and they go their separate ways. Raul keeps getting injured or shooting his mouth off, Kent becomes a heavy user as does the rest of his team, while Adam stays on the periphery never quite achieving the greatness expected of him. All of this is told in 9 scenes/vignettes, reflected rather ingeniously as innings on the scoreboard on the back wall.
Unfortunately, that was about the only ingenious thing about this production. I do first have to say that the direction, staging, technical aspects, and 2/3 of the acting were great. My problem comes down to the simple fact that the script was just plain boring. The dialogue was stilted, several of the vignettes were seemingly stuck in there for no purpose whatsoever (I'm looking at you filler press conferences), the characters were entirely too one-dimensional, and worst of all to me, there was no message. There was no story to this play. There was no overarching point that made me want to keep watching. When I walked out of the theater I tried asking myself what I had learned from this play, what this play was really about, and all that came back to me was that simple audience exchange: "Baseball and steroids."
The best way I can describe it is that it was like I was watching a boring documentary with some bits that had been chopped for TV. There was no taking one side or another, no artistic vision, just an impassive observer relating events. And any scenes that might have had emotional impact, such as actual dialogue or fights between these men and their wives instead of hearsay or phone conversations, were gone. There were no stakes. There was no action. And I would be totally fine with that if they had treated this as some kind of 3 way philosophical discussion on steroids or cheating in sports or anything, but the play never takes a strong enough stand on any side or makes any real arguments for any side. It tries in some measure to be clever at points, which is worse because you can really tell it was trying. For instance, the word "steroids" is never said in the play, it's just obliquely referred to. I could at least understand if you're just building up to using it in the final act as a big statement, but no, there seems to be no real reason. Then there was a moment in the final scene where Raul and Kent are talking to each other about meeting Bush and Clinton and they're standing next to each other saying how they're just two douchebags and it's just so obvious the text is screaming "GET IT, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS BUT REALLY THESE TWO ARE JUST DOUCHEBAGS TOO. I'M SO CLEVER LOLOLOLOL" Okay, maybe not that extreme but it stood out.
I suppose I should back up for a second to that whole "2/3 of the acting was great" thing. Ray Gonzales as Raul was perfect. He was brash, unapologetic, and unwavering in his convictions. As for Trick Danneker, the more shows I see him in the more impressed I am. Adam was by far the most interesting character to me (which is why it was so disheartening that he was on the sidelines most of the play), due in no small part to Trick's very honest portrayal. Which leaves Patrick Allcorn as Kent. I don't know if it was just because it was a Sunday matinee or what, but Allcorn's acting left much to be desired to say the least. He came across as fake and often awkward, which to his credit his character often is, but it was never "the character is awkward". It was "he is awkward" or "he is playing awkward". It was like he didn't truly get in touch with who the hell this character was. He didn't make any bold or interesting choices with it, and the script simply wasn't strong enough to support that kind of performance.
It's hard for me to say if, even if he had been perfect, I would have actually enjoyed the play. After all, Kent is probably the most major character of the 3 in this play, so it certainly didn't help that his performance was weak. However, I really must harp on the fact that to me the downfall of this show was simply that it's not an interesting script. Of the 9 scenes, only 4 stood out to me as having any impact on the story or the characters themselves, and even most of those ending up feeling irrelevant as the characters' lives simply continued without much consequence until we catch up with them again a couple years after.
Part of the reason I am so adamant in spelling out why I didn't like this play is because I am so very confused as to why at the end of the show they got a standing ovation. I simply cannot fathom it. I'm just going to tell myself it was for how well the actors and the director Kelly Kitchens dealt with such an uninspiring work.
Back, Back, Back gets a 5/10.
1: "So what's the play about?"
2: "Baseball."
1: "Right. And?"
2: "Steroids."
1: "Baseball and steroids."
2: "Yep."
Essentially the play follows three baseball players from the 1980s to 2005. Raul (Ray Gonzales) is a pro player with a big ego and a bad attitude that sees no problem with using steroids. Kent (Patrick Allcorn) is another big name player who uses steroids but is ethically torn about it. Adam/The Rookie/Rook (Trick Danneker) is a big up-and-comer who doesn't use, and really tries to stay away from the whole issue since he respects Kent so much. They all start on the same team, but eventually life gets in the way and they go their separate ways. Raul keeps getting injured or shooting his mouth off, Kent becomes a heavy user as does the rest of his team, while Adam stays on the periphery never quite achieving the greatness expected of him. All of this is told in 9 scenes/vignettes, reflected rather ingeniously as innings on the scoreboard on the back wall.
Unfortunately, that was about the only ingenious thing about this production. I do first have to say that the direction, staging, technical aspects, and 2/3 of the acting were great. My problem comes down to the simple fact that the script was just plain boring. The dialogue was stilted, several of the vignettes were seemingly stuck in there for no purpose whatsoever (I'm looking at you filler press conferences), the characters were entirely too one-dimensional, and worst of all to me, there was no message. There was no story to this play. There was no overarching point that made me want to keep watching. When I walked out of the theater I tried asking myself what I had learned from this play, what this play was really about, and all that came back to me was that simple audience exchange: "Baseball and steroids."
The best way I can describe it is that it was like I was watching a boring documentary with some bits that had been chopped for TV. There was no taking one side or another, no artistic vision, just an impassive observer relating events. And any scenes that might have had emotional impact, such as actual dialogue or fights between these men and their wives instead of hearsay or phone conversations, were gone. There were no stakes. There was no action. And I would be totally fine with that if they had treated this as some kind of 3 way philosophical discussion on steroids or cheating in sports or anything, but the play never takes a strong enough stand on any side or makes any real arguments for any side. It tries in some measure to be clever at points, which is worse because you can really tell it was trying. For instance, the word "steroids" is never said in the play, it's just obliquely referred to. I could at least understand if you're just building up to using it in the final act as a big statement, but no, there seems to be no real reason. Then there was a moment in the final scene where Raul and Kent are talking to each other about meeting Bush and Clinton and they're standing next to each other saying how they're just two douchebags and it's just so obvious the text is screaming "GET IT, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS BUT REALLY THESE TWO ARE JUST DOUCHEBAGS TOO. I'M SO CLEVER LOLOLOLOL" Okay, maybe not that extreme but it stood out.
I suppose I should back up for a second to that whole "2/3 of the acting was great" thing. Ray Gonzales as Raul was perfect. He was brash, unapologetic, and unwavering in his convictions. As for Trick Danneker, the more shows I see him in the more impressed I am. Adam was by far the most interesting character to me (which is why it was so disheartening that he was on the sidelines most of the play), due in no small part to Trick's very honest portrayal. Which leaves Patrick Allcorn as Kent. I don't know if it was just because it was a Sunday matinee or what, but Allcorn's acting left much to be desired to say the least. He came across as fake and often awkward, which to his credit his character often is, but it was never "the character is awkward". It was "he is awkward" or "he is playing awkward". It was like he didn't truly get in touch with who the hell this character was. He didn't make any bold or interesting choices with it, and the script simply wasn't strong enough to support that kind of performance.
It's hard for me to say if, even if he had been perfect, I would have actually enjoyed the play. After all, Kent is probably the most major character of the 3 in this play, so it certainly didn't help that his performance was weak. However, I really must harp on the fact that to me the downfall of this show was simply that it's not an interesting script. Of the 9 scenes, only 4 stood out to me as having any impact on the story or the characters themselves, and even most of those ending up feeling irrelevant as the characters' lives simply continued without much consequence until we catch up with them again a couple years after.
Part of the reason I am so adamant in spelling out why I didn't like this play is because I am so very confused as to why at the end of the show they got a standing ovation. I simply cannot fathom it. I'm just going to tell myself it was for how well the actors and the director Kelly Kitchens dealt with such an uninspiring work.
Back, Back, Back gets a 5/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
