I'm going to keep this review fairly short, because frankly words simply cannot express my experience with Journey, nor the game itself. However, I shall try to manage something.
Journey's story is simple, yet carries an enormous amount of depth. You start with your little cloaked figure knowing nothing except that there's a bright shining mountain in the distance, and maybe you should go that way. There are various ruins along the way, as well as strange stones that give the distinct impression of grave markers. You quickly discover a shining emblem that adds a length of scarf to your attire, which allows you to jump. There's a trick however. Once you jump, your scarf loses its pattern, and doesn't regain it until you find more fabric strewn about the wastes or you gain more length to your scarf, which allows you to jump longer. Your only other interaction with the world is a "chirp" button that sends out a sound pulse that serves to activate markers, gather fabric to you, or communicate with anyone you happen to meet.
That is one of the beauties of Journey: wordless co-op. As you wander among the ruins, you may see another like you who can join you, but the only way you can communicate is via varying chirp lengths. See something interesting? Send out a ton of small chirps as you make your way over. Found the next way to go? Send out a big chirp so it's easier to find each other. On top of that, you're encouraged to stay with each other by the fact that when standing next to each other your scarves regenerate, meaning you don't have to wait to find fabric for you to keep jumping. It's a fascinating system that makes you form this inherent connection with a random stranger. It nearly broke my heart when about halfway through the person I had been journeying with and I got separated. I was chirping for him, thinking he was right behind me, but when I looked back both he and the white coloration on the screen that tells you where your partner is were gone. Soon enough another took his place, and we finished the journey together in a way that will stick with me for a long time, but I was left wondering what had happened to my starting companion, wishing they were the one beside me.
Journey is a game that will definitely be tugging on your heartstrings, despite the fact that it's only 2 hours long and uses no words. Really the only bad point I have against Journey is its length, because I wanted to keep exploring more of this world, encountering new puzzles and new challenges. I wouldn't want much more, I'm not even talking like a normal 10 hour game. Just another hour or two to fully realize the puzzle mechanic and deal with other environments. Still, I can't really complain about what they did present. Each location is a surprising variation on a theme, using very simple changes in color or fabric placement to make desert, "underwater" and snow sections. The amount of depth they got from this amount of simplicity is frankly staggering. At one point it seriously feels like you're surfing on gold it looks so rich.
I really cannot express how much I enjoyed this game. It truly is an experience like none I have gone through before in gaming. Journey stands as a testament to the fact that games can be art. While the art itself is gorgeous, it's the experience of the thing that is the true work of art. When the credits rolled and the trophies popped up I kind of had to shake myself and be like "Oh right, trophies. Cause this is a game." I cannot recommend it highly enough, and suggest you go out and buy it right now. If you don't have a PS3, get one, then buy Journey. Yes, it is worth it.
Journey gets a 10/10 and beyond.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Sunday, May 20, 2012
This Wide Night
This Wide Night is the reason I love theater. Well, not the play specifically but what it represents. Every so often a show will come along where everything works in perfect harmony: sound, lights, set, script, direction, acting, everything. This Wide Night is one of those shows, and it was a hell of a way to end Seattle Public Theater's season.
The story takes place in the humble and poorly kept apartment of Marie (Emily Chisholm), who we come to learn is living on her own after spending time in prison. When the lights come up we see her lounging in a sack chair, staring blankly at a TV, until a sudden knocking sends her into a panic. However, the caller at her door turns out to be her harmless old cellmate, Lorraine (Christina Mastin). At first she appears just to be checking in on Marie since she hadn't heard from her, but it quickly becomes apparent through some masterful use of subtlety that Lorraine is looking for a place to stay. From there on, it's a convoluted mess in the best possible way. Each has a lot of crap going on, and each are reaching out in their own way for help to deal with it.
There is a fascinating mother/daughter dynamic throughout the entire piece, and it's far from simple. While the younger Marie can often slip into childishness, she often becomes the caretaker herself. On the other hand Lorraine is an actual mother whose son was taken from her when she went to prison. So while she can slip on the mom hat when Marie needs it, she has just as many problems and needs almost as much mothering. These are two women struggling to grasp at a sense of family that left them behind, yet keep missing that their new family is right in front of them. It's beautiful, and hauntingly poignant.
I do have to give a shout out to Kyna Shilling and the entire design/tech team, who put together a fantastic set, including an incredibly elaborate curtain made of hundreds of plastic water bottles. Bravo, it looked pretty incredible.
As for the actresses themselves, a big bravo to them as well. As the play is set in England there were some accent issues as there almost always will be, but for the work those two put into their characters, I really couldn't care less. Emily Chisholm as Marie took us all the way from giddy joy to the edge of madness, while Christina Mastin as Lorraine was so masterful in her use of subtlety that I felt like the subtext was being spoken aloud. Both presented to us a side of humanity we (hopefully) rarely see, and pulled no punches about it.
Overall, This Wide Night is a fantastic and deeply moving play that deserves to be seen, so go grab your ticket now. Fair warning, you might also want to grab some tissues on the way too.
This Wide Night gets a 10/10.
The story takes place in the humble and poorly kept apartment of Marie (Emily Chisholm), who we come to learn is living on her own after spending time in prison. When the lights come up we see her lounging in a sack chair, staring blankly at a TV, until a sudden knocking sends her into a panic. However, the caller at her door turns out to be her harmless old cellmate, Lorraine (Christina Mastin). At first she appears just to be checking in on Marie since she hadn't heard from her, but it quickly becomes apparent through some masterful use of subtlety that Lorraine is looking for a place to stay. From there on, it's a convoluted mess in the best possible way. Each has a lot of crap going on, and each are reaching out in their own way for help to deal with it.
There is a fascinating mother/daughter dynamic throughout the entire piece, and it's far from simple. While the younger Marie can often slip into childishness, she often becomes the caretaker herself. On the other hand Lorraine is an actual mother whose son was taken from her when she went to prison. So while she can slip on the mom hat when Marie needs it, she has just as many problems and needs almost as much mothering. These are two women struggling to grasp at a sense of family that left them behind, yet keep missing that their new family is right in front of them. It's beautiful, and hauntingly poignant.
I do have to give a shout out to Kyna Shilling and the entire design/tech team, who put together a fantastic set, including an incredibly elaborate curtain made of hundreds of plastic water bottles. Bravo, it looked pretty incredible.
As for the actresses themselves, a big bravo to them as well. As the play is set in England there were some accent issues as there almost always will be, but for the work those two put into their characters, I really couldn't care less. Emily Chisholm as Marie took us all the way from giddy joy to the edge of madness, while Christina Mastin as Lorraine was so masterful in her use of subtlety that I felt like the subtext was being spoken aloud. Both presented to us a side of humanity we (hopefully) rarely see, and pulled no punches about it.
Overall, This Wide Night is a fantastic and deeply moving play that deserves to be seen, so go grab your ticket now. Fair warning, you might also want to grab some tissues on the way too.
This Wide Night gets a 10/10.
The Descendants
Something bugged me about The Descendants. All throughout the movie I kept feeling like there was just something a little off about what I was watching. And then it hit me. George Clooney should not have been in this movie. It seemed to me like The Descendants was written to be a slightly quirky but emotional and endearing indie movie, and Clooney to me simply carried too much gravitas/seriousness for it. It made the more dramatic moments all the more compelling, cause those are Clooney's bread and butter, but the lighter elements that it was trying to convey simply weren't there.
Let me backtrack. The Descendants is about Matt King (Clooney), a man who is soon to face a decision about what to do with a giant plot of untouched land in Hawaii that he and his family own through a trust. As the trust is set to expire in 7 years, all the cousins and uncles decide to get together and sell it. However, different factions have arisen as to who to sell it to, or whether it should be sold at all. Matt is the sole trustee, and as such has the final say, but promises to uphold whatever the family votes on in a couple days. Meanwhile, Matt's wife has gotten into a boating accident and has lapsed into a coma, leaving him to do the parenting for his younger daughter Scottie, which he obviously hasn't done much of. Soon enough it becomes clear that his wife isn't going to make it, which leads him to retrieve his troubled teenage daughter Alex from a private school. And so it goes that Matt ends up on a quest with his two daughters (and Alex's airhead boyfriend) to unite friends and family, sort out a troublesome realization about his wife, say goodbye, and become a better father along the way.
When this movie hits its slower, dramatic, quiet moments, it shines. Clooney's grace and experience shine through and really show off an ordinary man beset by troubling situations. It's in all the other moments that it seems to fall a little flat. There are plenty of amusing situations, but with Clooney's presence they're all treated with an edge of drama that dampened them. The only truly funny bit that stood out to me was Robert Forster as Clooney's father-in-law telling the airhead boyfriend "I'm going to hit you," and then smacking him right in the nose. Which also brings me to the airhead boyfriend, who in a typical indie movie would be providing quirky one-liners and comic relief, but was frankly written and acted poorly to the point where when he was gone in the last couple scenes I breathed a sigh of relief. The same went for the barely developed younger daughter Scottie, who practically disappears into the background once Alex shows up. Then there's the medley of cousins and relatives involved in the land sale who again could've added some much needed spirit but instead pretty much only show up to remind us about the sale and then disappear.
As much criticism as I have for this movie, I did enjoy it. It just felt like it was out of its element. It was trying too hard to be a serious drama in place of the quirky indie movie it should've been. Admittedly going that route is probably what earned it the Best Picture nod, but I just can't help but feel that with a lesser known lead and more emphasis on the quirky bits, this really could've been something special. Instead, it's just kind of average.
The Descendants gets an 8/10.
Let me backtrack. The Descendants is about Matt King (Clooney), a man who is soon to face a decision about what to do with a giant plot of untouched land in Hawaii that he and his family own through a trust. As the trust is set to expire in 7 years, all the cousins and uncles decide to get together and sell it. However, different factions have arisen as to who to sell it to, or whether it should be sold at all. Matt is the sole trustee, and as such has the final say, but promises to uphold whatever the family votes on in a couple days. Meanwhile, Matt's wife has gotten into a boating accident and has lapsed into a coma, leaving him to do the parenting for his younger daughter Scottie, which he obviously hasn't done much of. Soon enough it becomes clear that his wife isn't going to make it, which leads him to retrieve his troubled teenage daughter Alex from a private school. And so it goes that Matt ends up on a quest with his two daughters (and Alex's airhead boyfriend) to unite friends and family, sort out a troublesome realization about his wife, say goodbye, and become a better father along the way.
When this movie hits its slower, dramatic, quiet moments, it shines. Clooney's grace and experience shine through and really show off an ordinary man beset by troubling situations. It's in all the other moments that it seems to fall a little flat. There are plenty of amusing situations, but with Clooney's presence they're all treated with an edge of drama that dampened them. The only truly funny bit that stood out to me was Robert Forster as Clooney's father-in-law telling the airhead boyfriend "I'm going to hit you," and then smacking him right in the nose. Which also brings me to the airhead boyfriend, who in a typical indie movie would be providing quirky one-liners and comic relief, but was frankly written and acted poorly to the point where when he was gone in the last couple scenes I breathed a sigh of relief. The same went for the barely developed younger daughter Scottie, who practically disappears into the background once Alex shows up. Then there's the medley of cousins and relatives involved in the land sale who again could've added some much needed spirit but instead pretty much only show up to remind us about the sale and then disappear.
As much criticism as I have for this movie, I did enjoy it. It just felt like it was out of its element. It was trying too hard to be a serious drama in place of the quirky indie movie it should've been. Admittedly going that route is probably what earned it the Best Picture nod, but I just can't help but feel that with a lesser known lead and more emphasis on the quirky bits, this really could've been something special. Instead, it's just kind of average.
The Descendants gets an 8/10.
Friday, May 4, 2012
The Witcher
Way back in the dinosaur ages, also known as 2007, a little game from Poland based on a series of beloved books called The Witcher came out. It didn't make much of a splash back then, except for a bit of controversy with its rather adult themes and the ability to collect "sex cards", which are essentially nude paintings given to you by the women you sleep with. Even with the controversy it barely made a blip on my radar, but the sequel came out just recently to great acclaim and in a handy sale I decided to pick it up and see the original before I darted into the next one. And oh boy am I glad I did.
The story revolves around Geralt of Rivia, a witcher (a not-quite-human monster slayer) who mysteriously loses his memory after successfully, but at great cost, curing the king's daughter of a curse that made her transform into a beast. Years after he is found and brought to the witcher compound of Kaer Morhen, meeting several others of his kind along with the sorceress and former lover Triss Merigold. Soon enough the castle is attacked, and Geralt has to quickly relearn how to fight and deal with the incursion of a powerful sorcerer named Azar Javed and his slinky sidekick The Professor. Unfortunately the two slip into the castle and grab the witchers' most prized possessions: the recipes for their mutagenic potions, which grant the witchers amazing abilities. Before Geralt can stop them, Javed opens a teleport and they're gone. From then on it's an epic journey in five acts to reclaim the witchers' secrets, stop Javed and the Professor, and do what every witcher does best: kill monsters.
You also quickly become embroiled in a conflict between the religious/tyrannical Order of the Flaming Rose and the non-human (ie. elves and dwarves) Scoia'tael who are fighting for their freedom. You can side with one or the other, as well as try to remain neutral, and the game plays out differently depending on the path you choose. Both sides have their positives as well as their negatives, and which side you choose really does depend on your own judgement, as well as the kind of morals you want Geralt to have. You can make him a more methodical witcher who only slays monsters, or you can give him a moral compass and have him make decisions about whether some humans can be monsters as well. It's a fascinating, and surprisingly political, system that I found greatly rewarding.
While The Witcher's story and all its many nuances throughout the five acts set it apart from the pack, possibly its most distinguishing feature is its combat. First of all, this is not a hack-and-slasher, though at first it appears to be. In fact it more rewards patience and tactical fighting, especially with the basic attack system. Instead of each click being an attack, one click starts you into a series of combos which can be lengthened by clicking at the right time, and each successive combo deals more and more damage (to a point). You have two swords to choose from (as well as a myriad of lesser weapons you will never use), a normal steel sword for humans and a silver sword for monsters. You also have three stances: heavy, fast, and group. Heavy lets you deal major damage, but you miss quicker opponents, fast lets you deal less damage but hit consistently, and group helps you clear out mobs that surround you. You also have 5 magic "signs" at your disposal, which are learned by finding stones imbued with their element. Your first sign is a wind attack that stuns and knocks down opponents, another sets them on fire, another traps them in place, another shields you until you attack, and the last even temporarily turns opponents to allies. Then on top of that, there is a "meditation" system whereby you level up, heal, and create potions that enhance your stats. However, each potion is slightly toxic, so if you drink enough of them without meditating you will be poisoned. Throw all that together and you get a fairly complex system that adds a lot of variety to each enemy encounter. I played on normal difficulty where alchemy isn't expected of you, so when I mastered potions I essentially just became a wrecking ball with a sword, but I still appreciated the depth of options offered. And this is all not to mention that you can craft bombs and oils to enhance your swords as well.
The leveling system is at first intimidating, because you can level up your attributes (strength, dexterity, endurance, intelligence), each of your 5 signs, the 3 styles for your steel sword, and the 3 styles for your silver sword. So not only do you have a large variety to choose from when leveling, but each of the above also has a subset of stat boosts and abilities within them you can choose from. The lower-tier abilities require bronze talents, mid-tier silver, and top-tier gold. Thankfully the speed at which you level is mirrored perfectly in both how many talents and which kind of talents you are given. I never felt too underpowered or overpowered because of the leveling (only felt overpowered at the end because of alchemy). It's also a nice, new way of getting to decide the type of fighter you're creating. By the end my swords and stats were practically maxed, but my signs had lagged behind simply because I didn't use them that much.
I feel like it's been quite a while since I have played such an interesting and well fleshed-out RPG. It's possible I like it so much simply because it is so very different. The characters, combat, and story all merge together to create a unique experience that while at first seems a bit too different/intimidating, rewards those who stick with it and discover its depth. It's one of those rare games where you can really see all the effort and heart that went into making it, and I for one applaud their success. Any gripes I had were so minor they were quickly forgotten. That being said, I don't know if this game is really for everyone. I for one totally enjoyed what many would probably consider a rather threadbare overarching quest line, simply because the world and the characters in it were so interesting and there was a whole lot more happening on the side that made it enjoyable. Basically if you consider yourself an RPG fan, and are looking for something a little different than what we're used to in the states, give The Witcher a shot. And since it's retailing for only like $10 and you can easily get 40 hours out of it, I'd say it's more than worth it.
The Witcher gets a 10/10.
The story revolves around Geralt of Rivia, a witcher (a not-quite-human monster slayer) who mysteriously loses his memory after successfully, but at great cost, curing the king's daughter of a curse that made her transform into a beast. Years after he is found and brought to the witcher compound of Kaer Morhen, meeting several others of his kind along with the sorceress and former lover Triss Merigold. Soon enough the castle is attacked, and Geralt has to quickly relearn how to fight and deal with the incursion of a powerful sorcerer named Azar Javed and his slinky sidekick The Professor. Unfortunately the two slip into the castle and grab the witchers' most prized possessions: the recipes for their mutagenic potions, which grant the witchers amazing abilities. Before Geralt can stop them, Javed opens a teleport and they're gone. From then on it's an epic journey in five acts to reclaim the witchers' secrets, stop Javed and the Professor, and do what every witcher does best: kill monsters.
You also quickly become embroiled in a conflict between the religious/tyrannical Order of the Flaming Rose and the non-human (ie. elves and dwarves) Scoia'tael who are fighting for their freedom. You can side with one or the other, as well as try to remain neutral, and the game plays out differently depending on the path you choose. Both sides have their positives as well as their negatives, and which side you choose really does depend on your own judgement, as well as the kind of morals you want Geralt to have. You can make him a more methodical witcher who only slays monsters, or you can give him a moral compass and have him make decisions about whether some humans can be monsters as well. It's a fascinating, and surprisingly political, system that I found greatly rewarding.
While The Witcher's story and all its many nuances throughout the five acts set it apart from the pack, possibly its most distinguishing feature is its combat. First of all, this is not a hack-and-slasher, though at first it appears to be. In fact it more rewards patience and tactical fighting, especially with the basic attack system. Instead of each click being an attack, one click starts you into a series of combos which can be lengthened by clicking at the right time, and each successive combo deals more and more damage (to a point). You have two swords to choose from (as well as a myriad of lesser weapons you will never use), a normal steel sword for humans and a silver sword for monsters. You also have three stances: heavy, fast, and group. Heavy lets you deal major damage, but you miss quicker opponents, fast lets you deal less damage but hit consistently, and group helps you clear out mobs that surround you. You also have 5 magic "signs" at your disposal, which are learned by finding stones imbued with their element. Your first sign is a wind attack that stuns and knocks down opponents, another sets them on fire, another traps them in place, another shields you until you attack, and the last even temporarily turns opponents to allies. Then on top of that, there is a "meditation" system whereby you level up, heal, and create potions that enhance your stats. However, each potion is slightly toxic, so if you drink enough of them without meditating you will be poisoned. Throw all that together and you get a fairly complex system that adds a lot of variety to each enemy encounter. I played on normal difficulty where alchemy isn't expected of you, so when I mastered potions I essentially just became a wrecking ball with a sword, but I still appreciated the depth of options offered. And this is all not to mention that you can craft bombs and oils to enhance your swords as well.
The leveling system is at first intimidating, because you can level up your attributes (strength, dexterity, endurance, intelligence), each of your 5 signs, the 3 styles for your steel sword, and the 3 styles for your silver sword. So not only do you have a large variety to choose from when leveling, but each of the above also has a subset of stat boosts and abilities within them you can choose from. The lower-tier abilities require bronze talents, mid-tier silver, and top-tier gold. Thankfully the speed at which you level is mirrored perfectly in both how many talents and which kind of talents you are given. I never felt too underpowered or overpowered because of the leveling (only felt overpowered at the end because of alchemy). It's also a nice, new way of getting to decide the type of fighter you're creating. By the end my swords and stats were practically maxed, but my signs had lagged behind simply because I didn't use them that much.
I feel like it's been quite a while since I have played such an interesting and well fleshed-out RPG. It's possible I like it so much simply because it is so very different. The characters, combat, and story all merge together to create a unique experience that while at first seems a bit too different/intimidating, rewards those who stick with it and discover its depth. It's one of those rare games where you can really see all the effort and heart that went into making it, and I for one applaud their success. Any gripes I had were so minor they were quickly forgotten. That being said, I don't know if this game is really for everyone. I for one totally enjoyed what many would probably consider a rather threadbare overarching quest line, simply because the world and the characters in it were so interesting and there was a whole lot more happening on the side that made it enjoyable. Basically if you consider yourself an RPG fan, and are looking for something a little different than what we're used to in the states, give The Witcher a shot. And since it's retailing for only like $10 and you can easily get 40 hours out of it, I'd say it's more than worth it.
The Witcher gets a 10/10.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Limbo
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.
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.
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)
