Movie Review: X-Men 3

If I had to sum up X-Men 3: The Last Stand in a single sentence it would be... "At least we know the X-Men use DELL computers." Basically the movie is a walking advertisement for over a half dozen products ranging from the Xbox 360 to the aforementioned DELL computers.

Normally such blatant product placement wouldn't have been such an eye sore, but when combined with a few other faults you can really put a good movie franchise in the basement. The errors made in this film are many so let us get started.

First off the story is horrendous. Each and every scene is a mini-excuse to get to the next. Sure it makes a "story", but it doesn't captivate or immerse. Weighty dialogue that only sets up actors for failure upon delivery plague this movie at every turn.

I used the word excuse to explain how the plot moves along and it seems like the writers spared no excuse to introduce new mutants or kill off existing ones. While not shocking that main characters die off it was quite shocking in the circumstances leading up to their untimely deaths. The special effects were spot on with flying house and all, but the reasons that push the story to that point are featherweight at best. It sucked every last drop of emotion out of it. Characters make appearances just to die? And we're not talking about something like the disappointing Lady Deathstrike from X-Men 2... we're talking worse.

Next they just poke the plot full of holes for future movies to branch off. I'll spare spoiling them here, but they are so horribly obvious that I had a hard time NOT LAUGHING in the theatre when the credits began to roll. I found myself laughing a lot at different parts of the movie only to realize I was the only one in the audience laughing... maybe I am the only one that got the joke? Blah... who knows.

The one bright spot of the movie is the fact they picked the right person to play The Beast and that was Kelsey Grammer. He fits the profile to a T and delivers through out the movie. Sadly he is an interruption within the movie only appearing at vital plot turns never really being fully realized.

So you can tell I didn't like the movie... err well I should say I enjoyed watching it, but it is by far B rate at best. The special effects lived up to the hype, but everything else fell by the wayside. If there is anything that I can say to convince you of the weak sauce this movie brings to screen let it be this...

I'm the Juggernaut bitch!

Update: 7 Nov, 2006 - Reposted from old Heartless Gamer Reviews section and applied labels.

Movie Review: Chronicles of Narnia

Here is my Chronicles of Narnia review for your viewing pleasure.

Not having read the books I went into this movie with an open mind. I understood the mindset that this was geared towards children and it was obvious from the onset. However, this did not impact the pleasure of watching this movie at all. I think back to some of the greatest fantasy ever. The Hobbit, which later spawned the Lord of the Rings, was written as a children’s book. Even when Tolkien began the LotR saga he was gearing it towards a children’s story.

There is something about the child’s mind that inspires true fantasy. As I watched the movie I immediately understood why the youngest child of the group, Lucy, was the first one into the world of Narnia. Narnia is a place you do not seek out; it happens when you are the least expecting.

Let's get back to the fact that this movie is geared towards children. This leads to some awkward scenes where the young actors fail to really carry the weight their roles required, but overall the movie was excellent. Looking at the roles I will give my thoughts on each.

Lucy - The youngest of the group she quickly sets herself apart in terms of acting. She carries many awkward scenes and that is a lot to say considering her young age. Her first initial interaction with the faun character of Mr. Tummus is by far one of the best of the movie.

Edmund - Really the only character in the movie with any sort of character development he definitely fits the role. He evolves and over the movie I believe he grows indefinitely on the audience.

Susan - The A-typical older sister attitude. The sad part about her role is that she seems to be there mainly to fill in holes in various scenes. There never seems to be a connection built between her and her younger sister which was disappointing.

Peter - As the designated "hero" for the story he is a very lateral character. He fits the role well, but the role leads nowhere. Like Susan, Peter suffers from being a filler character. In the opening scenes of war stricken Britain a connection begins to form with his younger brother Edmund, but by the end of the movie it is relegated to weak and quick scenes of bonding.

However, the movie is a sum of its parts and together they make for one hell of a kick ass ride. Pardon the language if there are young ones around. Outside of the four children the movie is filled with a host of computer generated characters that range from talking beavers to half-man/half-horse centaurs.

On the note of the special effects it is noticeable in some areas that Sony Imageworks is no Weta Workshop or ILM. We are still in the transition period for major motion pictures using large amounts of special effects and if Narnia is any sign its getting better by the movie.

The special effects and complete CG characters never fail the movie. The prominent character of Aslan, a Jesus inspired lion voiced by Liam Nisan, is a joy the entire movie. The comical duo of Mr. and Mrs. Beaver are a wonder to behold. I loved the imagination put into the various creatures and it makes me want to learn about each and everyone of them.

Comparisons to the Lord of the Rings trilogy were apparent before Narnia hit theatres. I’m glad to report that Narnia is nowhere near as dark or moody as Peter Jackson’s films. Again this is akin to the fact it was a Disney production developed from stories meant for children. As the scenes lift from winters blight to spring bliss the mood never strays far from the scenery.

The other disagreement point of the movie before release was the religious overtone of C.S. Lewis’s work. This is left up to interpretation during the movie. To some it has overtones into their religion while to others it is simply Narnia. It by far does not disappoint those faithful to the books from what I’ve read.

Overall the movie is like its final battle scene. It starts with a triumphant roar and as it nears its collision point it silences itself into a single heartbeat that explodes into the rage of battle. The dark points of the movie pound to a dramatic turning point, but silence into the light and magic of Narnia. It is then preserved and there is enough magic left for both adults and children alike.

Update: 7 Nov, 2006 - Reposted from old Heartless Gamer Reviews section and applied labels.

World of Warcraft - Warriors, Taunt, PvP

Originally, I slated this article to be a review of nearly all of the Warrior skills, talents, and the rage system. However, it was definitely apparent that the Warrior class is a sum of its parts and that debating the power of each part was an ineffective way to present my view on the balance of Warriors in WoW PvP.

Warriors are the tanks of World of Warcraft. They are the best damage absorption class in game. To the delight of most warriors, they are also quite capable of producing large amounts of damage. Offensively built and equipped warriors are a force to be reckoned with, and while defensive warriors will not achieve stellar damage numbers, they make up for it in sheer hit points, defense, and the melee advantage in regards to stats.

What is the melee advantage of stats? Basically, it is the simple fact that WoW melee classes benefit much more from each stat point when compared to the caster/hybrid classes. Casters essentially only gain benefits from one stat: intelligence. Melee classes derive an excess of benefits from every stat other than intelligence. Since stats in WoW are determined via gear, it makes sense that the essential melee class, the warrior, would derive the greatest benefit for gear. In essence, a warrior is more about the gear they wear than the skills, abilities, and talents they use.

Warriors are the melee class in World of Warcraft and are completely dependent on the gear they wear. When it is removed, their class skills do not pick up where their gear leaves off. The power of their skills, abilities, and talents are directly defined by the warriors’ gear. Almost every other class in WoW receives enhancements in their skills from the gear they wear, but are not dependent on it.

You take away the gear from a rogue, mage, or priest, and they are not completely destroyed. A warrior is not so fortunate. This concept is hard to grasp, but fortunately there has been a great video made that demonstrates the point. It focuses on the Rogue class, but it shows very well the concept of how classes other than warriors are carried by their skills and not their gear. The gear enhances these classes, truly making them better, but the foundation of the class is not the gear.

This is a departure from what I feel is good balance. Warriors that strive towards better gear are becoming terrors on the battlefield. Their skills scale upwards with their gear in a fashion that is greater than the rest of WoW classes. Over time, gear is only going to get better, and in essence, balance is at stake.

Warriors would have faired better if their PvP prowess was defined from their skills. I will use a clear example of what was missed for warriors. The taunt skill allows warriors to direct targets towards themselves to hopefully save fellow group members. However, in PvP it does nothing. This is a key skill that could have helped define warriors in PvP. However, it does not, and warriors are left chasing towards more power and damage through gear.

I will even go a step further and say that taunt would have defined warriors in PvP, if it worked to clear an enemy’s target box. A simple delay of 3-5 seconds before the enemy could re-acquire the removed target would have given warriors a defined roll in PvP. This in no way would of pigeon-holed all warriors into being taunt machines in PvP and nothing else. Warriors would still have the same choices they have now, but they would have had a much more obvious role in PvP, outside of being the person with the most hitpoints, armor, and damage.

Sadly, due to the lack of a defining role in PvP, warriors are delegated into just doing more damage and charging head-first into the enemy. While this is what many warriors may wish to do, there is a piece of that tank title that is lost when warriors are unable to get targets off of their support classes. Blizzard seems more than content to simply increase the power of gear with each and every patch/expansion, therefore further propelling warriors into a *must do more damage* mold. There were opportunities missed to make warriors less gear-dependent and offer the ability for every warrior to have a more clear and concise role in PvP.

Update: 6 Nov, 2006 - Removed post, but this will be kept as a placeholder for historical value.

This post originally linked to a Gamergod.com (now defunct) article that I wrote about World of Warcraft warriors and their effects on PvP. Unfortunately no copies of the article were saved.

Update: 9 Feb, 2007 - Article has been saved from an old post on WarcraftRealms.com. I will edit it sometime in the future.