Motion Control are good for the future of gaming

IS motion control gaming the future? Yes. Does its arrival mark the death of controller gaming? Absolutely not. It is a fantastic and new option ready to breathe fresh ideas and money into the stagnant industry.

The new systems of the PSMove and the Kinect are expensive models with costs of the Kinect starting at the wallet-emptying figure of £140. This is a weighty figure for anyone, and excessive for an Eyetoy 2.0. Every gaming control/technology has an expensive starting cost with companies capitalising on fanboys’ desperation to get the latest technology – it’s not right but it’s business. However, prices do decline and soon the Kinect and PSMove will be available to the masses.

Furthermore, motion control is to the gaming industry as 3D to the movie industry. In 2009, the film industry bucked the recession achieving a record box office of £944m and a large factor in that was Avatar’s popularity and high-ticket prices. Granted motion control will not have such a large appeal but the increased costs of the Kinect will help boost the industry, as console and accessory sales have fallen 35% from 2003.

Why would people want it though? I recently saw a trailer for the XBOX Kinnect version of the latest Harry Potter game and went ‘wow!’. As a child, this is what I thought gaming would evolve to. I could now be the character, the ultimate suspension of reality. Indeed, this evolution of motion control gaming does open the door to brand new opportunities. The new Heavy Rain: Move Edition has received great early reviews as the motion control adds an extra layer to the game, as one flick of the controller can lead to a complete change in narrative. It mimics our real life mistakes adding to the experiences and immersing the player even further into the game. This highlights the advancement of motion control gaming and shows why this has a future. Money is an object but the greatest necessities are time and effort, and with the combination of all three things motion gaming will be a success in both gaming and financial terms.

One must realise that Sony and Microsoft have decided to cash in on this due to the success of the Wii. By 2009/2010, 70.93 million units had been sold, and one of its key selling points is its simplicity and accessibility for non-gamers. Indeed, professional reviewers malign shooters on the Wii so much for the same reason casual gamers enjoy them so much: point, shoot and that’s it. With the Kinect and PSMove, this is the advancement of this technology allowing the embrace of ‘die-hard’ gamers and casual gamers without the fear of alienation. Indeed the PS3’s fantastic graphics and 360′s variety of games will provide motion control gaming what it has been lacking, meaning motion control is now a better accessory as a whole and able to provide to what people want instead of only a small target market.

It’s time to ignore all the haters and embrace the simplicity and potential brilliance of this new wave of motion control games. This is no gimmick, it really is the next step to gaming and I can’t wait to get involved.

The American Review

With Oscar season beginning to heat up, the American has been pushed forward as a potential candidate to snag nominations for film and mainly gorgeous George Clooney. The American represents a new trend emerging in potential Oscar grabbing films; instead of taking the historical/true story approach, they take the road of redemption and lost souls. Although, an unfair criticism to some extent, The American does tick many of these boxes. However, The American is much more than simple award season fodder down to Clooney, Corbijn and Joffe.

Clooney plays Jack/Edward, an assassin hiding out in a small town in Italy for one last assignment after a job in Sweden goes wrong. Corbijn’s film is completely focused upon Clooney’s central performance with 90% of the film’s shots featuring him. Clooney used his Hollywood power to push through this film for production (as credited) and throughout the film, he seems almost affectionate for the scenes playing out around him. Furthermore, the studio’s release of this film indicates that Focus Features, the studio behind The American, smells awards. In one sense, they are correct. Clooney plays the part well utilising every line of dialogue, of which is there is little, effectively and using his very presence as another tool in his acting arsenal. The lack of back story does cause an atmosphere of mystery and suspicion around Clooney’s character, however, it leaves too much to the imagination. Indeed, Joffe’s script does not keep the audience fully interested throughout its full running time therefore meaning Clooney’s performance can never hit the heights of Up in the Air.

Nevertheless, this film is a two-pronged attack upon your senses with Clooney’s performance leading the charge with Corbijn’s achingly beautiful shots and sequences. The film is an overload of beauty upon the senses with Corbijn’s scouting agent finding the most iconic town in the all of Italy. The long drawn out shouts of beautiful Sweden in the beginning and the small Italian town are beyond beautiful with each shot seemingly descending from the heavens above and into Corbijn’s lens. As with Control, Corbijn uses his wealth of experience as a D.O.P to push as much as beauty onto the screen as possible. However, as with many D.O.P’s, the fear is that there will be no meat on the bones to their beautiful imagery. Corbijn proved sceptics wrong with Control, however, there are little niggles here with his second feature.

Whether this be due to Corbijn, Joffe or just other factors, this film does enjoy looking at its own beauty a tad too much. Don’t get me wrong, I could watch these shots all day as part of my screen saver, however, I was hoping for the plot to move along at slightly a faster pace. Indeed, outside of the film, this is one of the factors that caused bad reviews for The American. In the U.S. the film is advertised as an action film with high tension and multiple shootings and as shown in the film’s poor IMDB reviews, many feel aggrieved by the lack of die-hard action. This film is definitely a slow burner and one that requires patience and respect. That being said, it felt like the film was trying too hard and needed more content inside to make it a more well-rounded experience.

The supporting characters do well and provide good support for the solo show that is Clooney. Indeed the sexual intensity between Clara (Violante Placido) and Jack is hot and passionate and Corbijn truly brings that across and provides a great depth to both characters. This scene does in fact actually provide on of the high points of this beautiful if ever so slow film. The end is horrendously clichéd but all in all, it is a slow, respectful and well acted film if guilty for trying too hard.

3/5

FlashForward Season 1 DVD Review

The now cancelled FlashForward began with such great ambition and hope, aiming to fill the void left by Lost. A brilliant high-concept premise that caused everyone on the planet to blackout for 137 seconds simultaneously. Furthermore, supported by David S. Goyer, it genuinely seemed to have a huge future ahead of it. However, ABC pulled the plug as figures nosedived throughout the series, descending from a strong 12.47 million viewers in its first episode to a series low of 4.75 million.

FlashForward is such an enigma of a show. It started so brightly with all those involved infusing the project with masses of effort, money and talent. Indeed, it pays off from the first episode, which acts as a real hook for the rest of the season. We are brought into the worlds of Mark (Joseph Fiennes) and Demetri (John Cho) – FBI agents tracking a terrorist group. Furthermore, we meet Mark’s wife Olivia (Sonya Walger) and fellow nurse Bryce Varley (Zachary Knighton) beginning at work. The basic set-up is that at 9am, everyone in the world becomes unconscious for 137 seconds, and when they wake chaos ensues – and FlashForward begins.

The opening episode is good, with nice graphics and a tight script which reveals enough to keep us interested, but reserving some of its stronger moments for later. The writers ask a lot from the audience: to swallow their qualms with the idea of the entire world fainting, and just allowing the writers the benefit of the doubt. Although not spectacular, FlashForward delivers everything it promises early on, and its initial ambition should be admired.

However, the problems become apparent from episode two, as very little is actually revealed, with the pace seemingly slowing to a crawl. This may seem a harsh judgement only one episode in, but I expected more from it. This is a recurring theme throughout the series, with few episodes raising the pulse-rate. The problem is that the writers had a great initial concept but few ideas/subplots to keep the audience interested. The sub-strand of Cho/Fiennes is good, along with the continuing idea of predestined fate and whether these visions would be true or not. Nevertheless, in some episodes it seems that the writers drag out plot reveals endlessly, after fearing they might run out of material later in the series.

FlashForward’s sudden cancellation is consequently no shock, and in all honesty, it seems unlikely that the cast and crew were shocked either. With a strange mid-season break for no apparent reason, it interrupted the audience’s interest-level, leaving behind only the dedicated. The average TV series takes alot of dedication, and so, a series that declines in quality and often bores at times is never going to be a ratings success. Furthermore, Guggenheim and Goyer departed the series after episode 10, and from this point on, the series’ fell into even steeper decline.

In terms of acting, everything is adequate. Personally, it’s good to see Jack Davenport getting more screen time, and he does a good job playing the wise academic. The best of the cast are Cho and Monaghan, who provide extra depth, and are interesting throughout. However, Fiennes never truly shines. and it is hard to connect truly with our protagonist, since he doesn’t have the requisite humour or depth to engage us. The large cast and ambitious plot seem to suggest that ABC were looking for a Lost replacement; Despite this, most of the cast are never given enough to really shine.

As the series reaches its finale, those who have remained would have hoped for a much better pay-off. The final reveal is frustrating, and the producers were clearly yearning for another season, meaning that we will never get closure for this one. Furthermore, the big budget spent on the first episode had clearly evaporated by the finale. The desperate hope for a next series fell on deaf ears, and perhaps deservedly so. FlashForward introduced a brilliant premise, but in the end proved a disappointment, and one that should have concentrated on securing a solid character-base and setting up irresistible intrigues for future seasons instead of shifting ground in the fading hope of season renewal.

Extras

Architects of Destiny
This focuses on the premiere day of FlashForward, with all the cast fully pumped and excited, but it’s surreal to see them act like there is a second season coming. Nevertheless, hearing the actors and crew talk of the dilemma of “free will vs. pre-determination” makes for interesting viewing.

FlashForward on set
The usual look behind the scenes. Nice, if nothing special.

Interviews from the Mosaic Collective
Enjoyable little vignettes, but it doesn’t last very long and would have been better-used if integrated into the overall series.

Meet Yuko
A worthwhile insight into the actress’s first American role. But again nothing more. She does seem lovely though.

Kangaroo?
Rather pointless, and doesn’t explain the purpose of the Kangaroo.

Creating Catastrophe: The Effects Of A Global Blackout
This little extra – coming in at 7 minutes – shows how the pilot episode’s massive beginning happened, and it is impressive to see how visual effects and real footage combine to create what you see in the final result. It made me slightly sad, as the effort put into this faded away notably in the final episodes.

Indeed, there’s a lot of talk time from all involved, and their enthusiasm makes you feel sympathetic for the FlashForward case. However, the extras don’t answer any of the lingering questions that remain, and continue the tone of the TV show itself: bewildering and frustrating.

Why Games To Films Don't Work

As a fan of both worlds of video games and film, the torrid and painful relationship angers and annoys myself and millions of others. It just does not work. It is not due to one media being inferior to the other; it is just the fact that they are different and do not belong together. It’s like turning marmite into jam.

One only has to look at the backlog of diabolical video game to film adaptations – Lara Croft 1 and 2, Mortal Kombat, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and Super Mario Bros *shudder*. All of them were poorly acted, poorly scripted, dull, unimaginative and just an unpleasant waste of 90-100 minutes of my life. One problem arrives at the lack of effort put into these films, as shown with the recent adaptation of Prince of Persia, it seems the current trend is to throw money and hope for the best. Furthermore, taking into account the current state of these adaptations, no big name director or writer would be willing to stick their neck on the line due to the horrible task of channelling the video game experience into a suitable film experience.

Videogames just do not suit the big screen as they focus upon interaction from the audience whereas with films, the emphasis upon the auteur controlling the audience. Therefore, this transfer of power is unnatural and comes across as awkward on celluloid. Is it due to the inferiority of videogames? No. Games such as Legends of Zelda, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy and Call of Duty have great plots, fun experiences, and brilliant dialogue. Granted videogames use cinematic styles and thematic to provide greater atmosphere but there is no reason for this to be replicated onto the big screen. However, they need to remain separate to keep their own identity and credibility and to maintain their brilliance. Indeed, Max Payne and Resident Evil have lost some of their stature within the gaming world due to their respective god-awful films.

There has been financial success with some adaptations such as the recent Resident Evil series but many who saw the most recent entry into the series were not the original fans of the gaming series. Therefore, the target market is not interested anymore and renders these films almost obsolete. Many hopefuls of future videogame adaptations use the argument of coolness stating how cool it would be; however, it is similar to the idea of starting a band. It’s a great premise but a bitterly disappointing reality.

Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps

Oliver Stone’s 1987 Wall Street was a scathing satire on the greed of corporate America fuelled by Reagan’s Free Market initiative. Therefore, with the banking crisis in the last few years, Stone has found the perfect time to release Wall Street 2. Stone, renowned for tackling difficult subjects his ballsy direction and biting scripts, has sadly fallen flat here.

A film about one of the most talked about issues right now in the world, the economic crash, should be exciting, revealing and easy for a director to capitalise on. It’s got twists and secrets that are just begging to be exaggerated and revealed on the big screen. Plus with Gordon Gekko in tow, the greasiest stockbroker of all time, this should be an enthralling watch. However, Wall Street 2 is just a tepid and boring affair.

The main blame must be pointed at the actors and Stone’s script. Douglas, reprieving his best remembered role, seems out of touch with who Gekko is and it’s only due to his natural charisma that our interest remains in him. He underplays it to the extreme and at times looks plain bored. However, I fear that Stone’s script has a hand in Gekko’s weaker portrayal in this film than its predecessor. Stone over emphasises the fact that Gekko was away for a long time and develops the character no further than that.

Instead, Stone seems to rely upon previous memories/ideas surrounding Gekko and places all his effort into boosting Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf). LaBeouf does not exude the same charisma as Charlie Sheen in the first Wall Street thus meaning it is harder to care and rout for our protagonist through his moral turmoil and hardship. Again, he is crippled by Stone’s script which does not allow LaBeouf to play around much with his role. Brolin, Wallach and especially Langella provide good support with Langella standing out by adding a much needed passion and personality to his role. Sadly, the rest of the film could not follow Langella’s lead.

Although Stone’s script is stoic at times, his ability to handle boardroom drama increase tension and interest levels making the film a much more enjoyable watch. Indeed, the scene involving discussions over the future of Langella’s company is by far the best scene in the film. Well-acted, well-shot and interesting. The problem with Wall Street 2 is that there is no excitement and there are no stick-out moments, and scenes turn into a procession of economic jargon and boredom. In fairness, the script allows new comers to come enjoy the bright lights and extensive economic terms.

Nevertheless, the ending is horrifically clichéd and makes one cringe at how saccharine it is and sums up the pointlessness of the film. As shown by Alex Gibney’s documentary, Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room, tales of deception, lies and economic failure can be astounding and shocking; however, with Wall Street 2 the plot takes us nowhere and with such a brilliant ensemble in his hands, it’s bewildering how he missed this golden opportunity.

2/5

Where Have All The Laughs Gone?

Having recently become a second year student at university, I have been overcome by sense of nostalgia. On my trip of nostalgia, I’ve been thinking back to the funnier moments and most of these have been linked to films. Films such as Blazing Saddles, Airplane! and the Naked Gun trilogy all formed a key part of my travels through puberty and indeed, most of my everyday humour derives from these films. However, as Screen Editor of Exepose, we were recently informed of the upcoming release of Vampires Suck. I’m not angry with the trailer, simply disappointed. Why is this being labeled as comedy? Where have all the laughs gone?

It is very easy to sit upon a high horse and simply sneer at new films trying to be funny and claim how “they were much funnier in my day”. However, to a great extent, I would be right. Comedy is a cornerstone of film with the likes of the great Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin entertaining audience from the early 1910s, 1920s and 1930s. Their comedy was not simply Norman Wisdom without sound; it was delicate, caring and heart felt. Whilst full of great slapstick, The Great Dictator dared to poke fun at the unpokeable. The Nazi regime was an extremely taboo subject but Chaplin with subtlety and outrageous hilarity, making one of the best comedy films of all time. Today, a recurring trend of simple slapstick with gross jokes cuts off any possible connection with its audience. As shown by the early works of the silent film kings, a character we can care for is a character we can laugh with and characters placed upon celluloid for us simply to take the piss out of, it simply removes the fun out of it.

Today, society is a miserable and complex system. Therefore, the cinematic audience has greater demands than ever from their comedies looking for laughs by barrelful. With this in mind, filmmakers must now present us with a main protagonist who we can laugh with but others who we can laugh at. As shown with films such as Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Pirates of the Carribean, however, the filmmakers and the audience are all in on the joke.

However, the problem with these films is that they cannot define the difference between characters and objects. Having capitalized on the current popularity of pop culture, Michael Jackson became target number one prior to his death in 2009. Indeed, I watched Scary Movie 4 the other day where it featured a joke about Michael Jackson stealing children and it was an extremely awkward experience. They used Michael Jackson as an object, not as a character meaning they used minimal effort to put this “joke” on celluloid. They were looking for the laugh instead of telling us a joke.

So, have all the laughs gone? No. Indeed, many leap to this shortsighted conclusion based solely upon the Scary Movie and Vampires Suck franchises. I found these films terrible and just not hugely entertaining. However, my declaration of these films being completely unfunny is simply my opinion. I’m a 19-year-old student studying History at Exeter University but what if I was a 12 year old, buzzed on iPhone’s and Facebook groups, would I not find this film hilarious? Hopefully not. Indeed, as shown by their returning dwindling box office returns, it seems this franchise could be soon be gone for good.

I’ll admit it is easy to look through rose tinted glasses at the past but there is still comedy gold within the film industry at the moment, it’s just harder to find them. In 2009, over 550 films were released meaning over 10 new films a week hit our screens meaning that comedy gold is going to be harder to find. In the last 18 months, we have laughed along to Zombieland, I Love You, Philip Morris, A Serious Man and many more.

Nevertheless, it is noticeable that filmmakers are releasing more bad and lazy films than ever before and more effort is needed to put into these films and provide better laughs. Vampires Suck may be sucking some comedy’s soul out but there are plenty of others out there willing to keep it alive.

The Hole 3D Review

In Dante’s first film since the catastrophe that was Looney Toons: Back In Action in ’03; in The Hole, he returns to his roots with this child aimed horror with hints of his Gremlins best. The film’s basic plot surrounds the story of 2 boys (Chris Massoglia and Nathan Gamble) who, upon moving into their new house, discover a mysterious hole in their basement. With their next door neighbour (Haley Bennet), the hole begins to bring all their worst fears to life.

Within the movie world, there has been considerable amount of hype surrounding this film – acting almost as either the saviour or final damning of Dante’s past and future career. So, what is the verdict? Dante’s is back on track if with a bit of rust in his wheels. Dante’s strengths were/are his use of the camera, his ability to create believable characters and the ability to provide maximum shock for the very minimum. Dante’s camerawork, helped by D.O.P Theo van der Sande, is great. Instead of providing us with patronising shots from up above, he brings us down to the kids level. He makes us relive what made us scared when we were young. The best moments shone with Gremlins brilliance and really brought back the vitality that has been long absent from Dante’s other films – in particular, the moment with Lucas (Nathan Gamble) and the unstoppable clown; incredibly well-shot and genuinely scary. However, unlike many other reviews, I must take of my rose tinted Dante sunglasses and look at it as a normal film and indeed, there are problems.

Firstly, the 3D is clunky and unneccesary and is simply pandering to the younger audience in an attempt to hold their attention for the whole 90 minutes. E.G when Lucas throws the ball in the air and catches it…yes we get it, it’s 3D. *yawn*. In normal 2D, I can imagine the film being a rather dull spectacle at times with some scenes simply washing over you. However, the 3D is merely a filming/marketing technique and not a great defect of the film; however one defect comes in the form of some pretty poor dialogue.

In this modern era, it’s really hard to write dialogue for children without coming out at extremes whether it be Nick Jonas/Miley Cyrus spiel or too-cool-for-school Juno. In attempting to hit the middle ground of just describing normal kids, some of his 80s style dialogue doesn’t ring true. The opening and closing scenes involving their mother are damn cringe worthy. It’s just awkward. Furthermore, with a 12A certificate clearly in mind, “goodness” and “gosh” ring out constantly with the odd “dickhead” to seem really edgey.

However, this is all a bit harsh. The film is meant for children hitting their pre-teen stride and in that sense it’s great. Until the end, the suspense of what does the hole mean excites and intrigues with each character experiencing different things highlighting the fact that not every child is the same. It’s a story about morales without being too patronising; although Dante does allow himself some preaching time towards the end. Indeed, the pay-off of The Hole is not well executed with the grand reveal not being half as scary as the previous 80 minutes build up.

Nevertheless, as a film directed at kids, starring kids and focused on kids – it’s a refreshing little film falling alongside The Spiderwick Chronicles and Bridge to Terabithia nicely. For us bigger kids, it’s a rather effective little film that anyone could happily sit through again. The greatest point of all is that it finally heralds the return of Joe Dante with strong glimpses in this film of his previous best. One should not jump the gun here and state he is back to his best as there is much more in the tank from the great man but boy, it’s good to see a him back in the game. However, next time, go right back to the start – bring us a proper horror for the big kids.

3/5