Video Games Stuck in First Gear

Well, superhero films have gotten better. Why not video game movies? Wait, wait, I'm serious! I mean, many game franchises are almost interactive movies as it is, from Mass Effect, to the latest Tomb Raider, to Bioshock, to Halo, to Uncharted. With these games, playing is like penning your own screenplay AND performing the lead role at the same time. So with all these storytelling advancements in the genre, why does Hollywood continue to treat the video game adaptations like the lazy child that hasn't earned its place at the table? Aren't we far enough by now from the early days of Super Mario Bros and Double Dragon? It's tough to get excited about these movies when it's plainly obvious that the biggest studios, actors and directors don't really want anything to do with them. Instead, entire legions of fans are insulted by low budgets, casting of whomever was desperate enough to appear at the time, and even - if they're REALLY special - the execrable presence of Uwe Boll.

SOMEbody needs a booster seat!

And that casual dismissal of the genre is what doomed Need For Speed, the adaptation of the franchise street racing game of the same name, before it could pop the clutch: nobody cares about who made or is in this film, or why. The only reason anybody was interested in the project was because of the racing aspect, a genre already monopolized by the popular, peaking, and far more insane Fast & Furious series. It doesn't help that there's not much story to begin with. After spending the first act on pointless setup, Tobey Marshall (Breaking Bad's Aaron Paul) is released from two years in prison, immediately hatching a plan to get revenge on entrepreneur/racer Dino Brewster (Dominic Cooper), who framed Tobey for another man's accidental death. Naturally, revenge involves illegal street racing. Because this is a video game adaptation.

The closest you'll ever get to a "Bro" moment, thank God.

If you can't tell by now, I was thoroughly unimpressed by the hacktastic effort that was Need For Speed's story. Getting beyond the fact that it's an adaptation of a game series that hasn't been particularly popular or memorable in years, the tale is lazily scripted (by first-time writer George Gatins; what a SHOCK they didn't get a good screenwriter on board) and doesn't have nearly the plot to hold together the disconnected racing and chase sequences. The story is a dismal blend of tropes, from Getting the Band Back Together (despite the crew in question being largely inconsequential) to the required Will-They-Won't-They romance between Tobey and Julia - an exotic car dealer who would be completely forgettable were she not played by Imogen Poots - to Poetic Justice in the revenge storyline. There's even the idea of doing all this in the name of the film's most head-shakingly annoying character (why can't anyone genuinely interesting die in these movies?) to get it all started. The story has no flow, the characters have little motivation for their actions (at least, not beyond the usual stereotypical behavior), and there doesn't even appear to be anything akin to logic in the way the plot progresses. It's by-the-numbers blandness, from the pointless opening scene to the ultimately predictable conclusion.

Oh, hey! I was just thinking "Crash & Burn!"

But even Nicolas Cage movies have some redeeming value (Drive Angry was on TV, and now I've got Cage on the brain), and the same is true here. Most notably, it's the direction of stuntman-turned-filmmaker Scott Waugh that keeps things exciting on the screen. The focus on practical effects in the action sequences allows the film to stand apart from the Fast & Furious franchise, which had been defined more by their CGI effects in the more recent entries. And Waugh shows a great improvement in his style, judging from the differences between this and Act of Valor, the military flick he co-directed with Mike McCoy. The visuals are rarely too close to the action (except where understandable), and there really is a feel of excitement seeing these vehicles race, crash and - on occasion - soar like birds. My only complaint comes from the opening race, when we literally have no clue who is driving which car. Still, I can only imagine what Waugh could accomplish were he to have a serious budget on his hands, but he definitely shows a solid aptitude for this kind of noir action thriller.

He wears his sunglasses at night, too.

And despite the characters being written as though they were designed by a third grader on acid, the acting is actually pretty solid. Yes, there are the useless filler roles and Scott "Kid Cudi" Mescudi plays as token a black, flamboyant sidekick as he can possibly be (which is to say not all that well), the quartet of lead actors really do possess talent and take as much advantage of their screentime as they can. Dominic Cooper might be a six-dimensional actor confined to a one-dimensional stereotype, but he still brings menace to a role that wasn't so threatening as written. Michael Keaton steals the intermissions between action sequences as a cool-as-ice radio DJ pulling strings behind the scenes (and for the record, it's great to see Michael Keaton doing regular work again. He's a fairly amazing performer). Poots is strong as always, and I really can't wait for the young lady to break out as a Hollywood star, even as she seems to be stuck in these sad, third-tier roles. But Aaron Paul might be the biggest surprise. I still haven't seen Breaking Bad, but already it's easy to see why the actor has accumulated so many fans with one role. Yes, his voice is distractingly deep for a man NOTICEABLY only 5'8", and his dialogue borrows directly from "Emo 101", and again, Tobey's motivations as a protagonist are vague at best. Yet Paul commands a presence those unfamiliar with his work would NEVER expect. Simply put, he proves that despite lacking a large frame, he BELONGS front and center. He might be a little too old to enjoy a Tom Cruise-like career at this point, but if he can pull off something of a "Cruise-Lite" path from now on, he'll absolutely deserve it.

When it came to hair gel, no expense was spared...

(Oh, and for the few people who might have noticed that Dakota Johnson, the star of the upcoming 50 Shades of Grey, was in this: she still doesn't impress me. I don't know whether casting directors see something the rest of us don't, or if Johnson is the person they go to when NOBODY ELSE is interested in a role, but I'm really starting to think the latter is the more likely scenario. So, yeah, I'm really convinced 50 Shades will be a dud upon its release in 2015.)

I've got the Need! The Need for Speed! Trademark! 

But great actors and great action does not a great movie make, especially when they are hampered by the kind of script that makes David Goyer look like a certified genius. I don't know if video game adaptations will EVER get the kind of dedication and effort that superhero flicks are getting right now, but Need For Speed is one of those titles that suffers mightily from the connection to its original medium. Could it have been better? Absolutely. Could it have been great? Maybe. But make no mistake, this is a bad movie made worse by the fact that talented people were brought in to try and hide its flaws. The producers behind this movie simply didn't care whether or not it was any good, and despite some excellent visuals and a few more strengths, the evidence is still plain for anyone to see.

Twilight, Meet Fright Night

Wow, I can't believe how much is out that I need to catch up on. Okay, NEED is a strong word. This past weekend marked the release of two titles that may play major roles in setting up the 2011 award season, the old-school biological scare film Contagion and the Fighter-meets-Rocky-meets-Mixed Martial Arts slow burn Warrior. Two other titles, Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star and Creature, were also released, but will only be seen by me ironically if at all. That being said I've yet to watch any of them. These last few weeks have had me see fewer movies than usual, and as such I'm still catching up on films released in the past few weeks. It's getting to the point where Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, Apollo 18 and Shark Night might end up as eventual DVD releases after I'd expected to see them in theaters. But while newer titles beckon, I've still got time for a little catching up, and Fright Night was the best (or at least best timed) option on the table. A remake of the 1985 vampire film starring William Ragsdale and Roddy McDowall, Fright Night looked to perhaps be the weakest of 2011's wide-release horror titles. Looking too campy, too silly, and too repetitive to live (not to mention pointlessly made in 3D), I didn't expect much from this title except for perhaps strong acting performances from the renowned Colin Farrell, David "Dr. Who" Tenant and Toni Collette.

Hey, look! Mr. Anderson is paying attention to us!

When people start disappearing from the insular neighborhoods outside Las Vegas, most people don't pay any attention. After all, nobody stays in Vegas, with the exception of Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) and his mother, real estate agent Jane (Collette). Charley's life is going pretty well these days. A former geek, Charley has grown into one of the :"cool kids", having abandoned his old life and entered into a new one, including a relationship with formerly untouchable hottie Amy (Imogen Poots). Soon, Charley is approached by his old friend "Evil" Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and told to his disbelief that his new neighbor Jerry (Farrell) is in fact a vampire, feeding on the people coming and going from the neighborhood. While Charley doesn't at first believe this (and seriously, would you?), events occur which shake his resolve and force him to believe the unbelievable. And when Jerry's reign of terror hits home, Charley finds himself battling a creature with centuries of experience in survival on his side.

Jerry? What an AWFUL name for a vampire!

Let's get this out of the way right now: 3D is the most overrated technology introduced to film in the past decade. I know I must sound like a broken record by this point, but seriously? Every film seems to want to be in 3D, thinking that it's what people want. It's not. It never was. People wanted more films like Avatar to be in 3D, sure. With the outstanding visuals presented in that 2009 Oscar contender, that makes sense. There have even been a few films that have successfully used 3D as a vehicle for improving the overall quality of their product. Those films have been very few, however, as most titles simply do not need 3D to be "better". Horror is possibly the last genre that can use the technology, and for Fright Night, that is no exception. While some horror films can use 3D to at least some effect (Final Destination 5, for example), in Fright Night it is completely without use, as even the film's few action scenes don't make great use of the imagery. Only the occasional rays of sunlight are remotely impressive, and while that is likely intentional, it's not worth the added cost of admission.

Awkward moment will end with much blood

But once you get past the silliness of parading this title in 3D, Fright Night actually surprises with a clever story, interesting characters, and dark humor that raises the occasional smile. The biggest reasons are among those that brought me to the theater in the first place, Colin Farrell and David Tenant. Farrell's suburban vampire is effectively both scary and amusing. It's as if Farrell took inspiration from Ghostbusters's demon-infested Louis Tully and made him the straight man, as Jerry appears at times torn between his human-like and animalistic sides. Tenant, meanwhile, is at first unrecognizable as a Chris Angel-like "vampire expert", who is really a television performer who specializes in the undead. Tenant is at times hilarious and never worse than plain funny, stealing each and every scene. I know a young couple for whom Tenant is the only reason to see this title, and I can safely say that they will not be disappointed. Unfortunately, the final piece of my talent trifecta, Collette, is underused and unappreciated. I know that as Charley's mom she's just a secondary character, but since I know she has the talent to be better than that I still feel she was not given enough to work with.

The best part of Fright Night, hands down

As for the younger actors, they have their moments, but pale in comparison to the adults, which is a shame since they turn out to have more to do with the story. Imogen Poots is the best of the bunch, hands down. I loved her small role in last year's Centurion, and while the girlfriend/victim role she plays isn't quite as satisfying here, she is good enough to overcome the character's limited range. The same cannot be said for Yelchin, who seems to prove himself more a poor man's Shia LaBeouf with each successive films appearance. And since LaBeouf is already a poor man's Charlie Sheen, that's not much credit given. I'm still hopeful for his upcoming Like Crazy, but only because it's supposed to be amazing and not because he's in it. Christopher Mintz-Plasse has only a minor part, but he like Tenant has the ability to steal multiple scenes, not bad for a young man nobody heard of five years ago.

...Aaaand the cross is on fire. Good going there, Van Helsing

The film covers more than a few vampire retreads, but for a completely unoriginal film Fright Night is a lot better than it has any right being. Sure, the ending is a bit sudden, but between the good acting and decent pacing, there's an enjoyable film in there. I might not recommend it for the theater, but it'll be a must-see on DVD, which thankfully will have the option to turn off the groan-inducing 3D for your home viewing pleasure. Certainly not a bad film from director Craig Gillespie, whose previous effort Lars and the Real Girl probably stands much higher (I never saw it), but it's obvious he's still in his formative years creatively, as the future shows us the film adaptation of teen horror parody Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, but no potential Oscar favorites. Still, we can still be entertained by Fright Night, and put it on our sleeper lists for a fun night out this month.

A Bloody Good Time

The legend of the Roman Ninth Legion is an interesting one. Supposedly, the veteran legion of over three thousand men who were stationed in Roman-occupied England in the waning years of the Empire disappeared in the woods of Scotland. Though this may no longer be the preferred explanation of historians who believe that the Legion was actually transferred to the eastern fringes of Roman occupancy and destroyed there, either in Judea or Parthia, it's certainly enough of an idea to capture the imagination of filmmakers. Next year, I'll likely check out The Eagle, which is about that very idea (though I'll likely enjoy Jaime Bell's performance more than that of the film's "star", Channing Tatum). But that film likely will have little improvement on a film that reached limited release this year, Neil Marshall's Centurion. When the film was first released this past summer, I was first entranced by the cast, which included The Wire's Dominic West and Quantum of Solace's Olga Kurylenko. When I discovered that Marshall was the director, I was hooked and determined to see the film at the earliest opportunity. Sadly, it's run in theaters was depressingly short, and my busy schedule meant I didn't get a chance to see it immediately. So it was only recently, when i re-discovered the film on DVD, that I finally got the opportunity to sit down and take it in. Would it be worth the wait?

Yeah, if I saw her chasing me, I'd run faster...

Centurion gets off to a quick start. In Roman-occupied Britain, the army is faring poorly against the Picts, Celtic warriors inhabiting the Scottish highlands. The Picts fight a guerrilla war that is foreign to the soldiers of the Roman military. They use sneak attacks and feints to defeat much larger foes, and the Romans have no plan or tactic against it. Under pressure from Rome, the governor sends the Ninth Legion north into Scotland under the command of Titus Flavius Virilus (West), their elite military army, to wipe out the Picts once and for all. That doesn't quite work out for them, as the Ninth is obliterated in an ambush that results in the capture of Titus and decimation of his soldiers in a battle bloodier than any you've seen in recent years. In the end, only seven soldiers are left, led by Centurion Quintus Dias (Michael Fassbender). They decide to rescue Titus before returning home, all the while being hunted by the hunter and assassin Etain (Kurylenko), who has her own reasons for spilling Roman blood.

...Faster than him, anyway

While "Seven Centurions with Swords" doesn't have quite the same ring to it as "Six Chicks with Picks", Centurion shares some similarities with Marshall's previous films. In seemingly all Marshall movies, a small group is cut off from all help and forced to fight the elements, each other and external forces in an attempt to get home, and Centurion is no different. Many of these men are damned to die never being able to see their homes or families again, as they are killed off one by one the closer they get to their homeland. Not all the soldiers are noble, either, and some downright villainous, and this thankfully leads to something of a mix of character types. But the thing it truly shares with it's predecessors is the blood flow. Marshall never shies from spilling blood, guts, or anything else in his battles, whether they be one-on-one or hundreds against hundreds. When someone, good or bad dies, you wince automatically, as the death is as brutal as you can expect from a Marshall film.

Not a zombie film, but from this shot you'd be forgiven to think so

The film, though similar in tone to Marshall's previous works, still manages to keep the tension high. Though the film is at it's heart a chase/action film, it doesn't feel samey and the audience doesn't feel like it's been sitting through the same sequence over and over. And any time Kurylenko is on the screen, that tension is tripled, as even playing a mute assassin she manages to convey with her mannerisms most of what you need to know to get the character, with what little else to know spoken of by others. Simply her presence is performance enough, and as a physical embodiment of revenge she's the real star of this film. Fassbender, before this best known as the Inglourious Basterds officer who couldn't count to three in German, is noble and strong as the film's lead. He comes across believably as a leader of men in dire circumstances, consumed with getting these soldiers home. Dominic West, best known (and amazing) as Det. Jimmy McNulty in the HBO series The Wire (The best show you've never seen, or in many cases ever heard of), has only a small role in this film but as a General who commands the respect of his men by leading them into the fight and will sacrifice anything for them, he works with his usual charismatic style. West is one of the best actors who hasn't made it big on the mainstream stage, and any chance you have to see him, you should take it.

They're not exactly "merry men"

It's a shame the film's secondary characters don't get as much presence as the film's stars. Far too often are characters confusable with one another, and it's not until after the scene is over that you realize who has died and who is still around, or which character committed a particularly dastardly deed. This isn't helped by the fact that most of these characters get precious little time for introspection, so we know very little about them before they are wiped from the slate of the film. The most recognizable of them creates his own problem, as while Noel Clarke is a talented actor, somehow a black Centurion seems a little too far-fetched to be believable. Marshall has stated that the film was never mean to be historically-accurate, but still. Are there any historians out there who can tell me whether this was at all feasible? Regardless, the handling of the film's cannon fodder could and should have had more time attributed to it. The best of them is actually Imogen Poots as Arianne, a Pict outcast that the survivors meet late in the film, with Liam Cunningham a close second as a veteran Roman soldier named Brick.

She just watched Quantum of Solace for the first time

The best thing about the film might be the moral ambiguity of it all. Though Dias is obviously an honorable man, and Etain more or less a monster (though justifiably so), the Romans are not necessarily the heroes of this tale. Though the Picts are shown as "tribal" and "barbaric" in their living styles as opposed to the "civilized" Romans, they almost certainly could be seen as the "good guys" from a different angle. After all, the Romans committed atrocities against the local British populace during their invasion and occupation in expanding their Empire. The Picts simply want to drive the Romans from their shores, to live free apart from the Empire. The legendary fate of the Ninth Legion is not so surprising when you consider the expansion of empires over the centuries, and their inevitable weaknesses from becoming stretched too thin. Getting back to the film, however, we still only have Dias to root for, and Etain to root against. That it could easily be the other way around is an interesting, and no doubt there's some who saw this movie thinking just that. In the end we're just hoping someone chops the head or arm of somebody else, to sate our apparent blood lust.

There's a LOT of blood in this film

It might not have been as good as Marshall's best film, The Descent, but Centurion was in my opinion well worth checking out. It's a shame when small imported films like this get overlooked for U.S. wide release, with Hollywood instead deciding to churn out their own story shortly afterward. I have no doubt that 2011's The Eagle will be nowhere close in quality to Centurion, despite it's assuredly larger budget and billions of camera filters to get the look "just right". It's a shame because Marshall is one of those directors who will never get any real attention from the mainstream until he makes some film about a far-east boy who finds the love of his life thanks to a corrupt quiz show (Sorry, Danny Boyle). But Marshall doesn't do that kind of film. He makes bleak, non-heroic action films in which the characters are often running away from danger instead of into the thick of it. And that's good enough for #7 on my Top 10 List. A little more character development would have gone a long way, but blood and guts and strong acting from all corners makes this not only one of this year's faves, but one of the year's more unappreciated flicks. It's not for everybody (Understatement of the year), but for those it appeals to, it is worth a watch.