True Grit (2010) Review

"The man wanted a proper burial, he shoulda got killed in the summer." - Ruben 'Rooster' Cogburn

Yep. It's me again.

I have not seen the original movie with John Wayne, nor have I read the book. Shame on me. I know. But knowing the Coen Brothers, I went in assuming that it would have their brand while still doing justice to the original concept. I suppoe they did that. I enjoyed this movie. I do have but a few things to discuss though, as usual. You know, when I'm not ignoring this blog.

The problem with having not seen the original film is that there is nothing to compare this too. I went in blind. All I saw in this trailer was Jeff Bridges = badass, Matt Damon = huh, this could be cool too; Hailee Steinfeld = I don't know you but you've already impressed me; Josh Brolin = Bran from The Goonies (jus kiddin); Coen Brothers = sold. Plus I'm a freaking nerd boy for western movies. It's a place I was very interested in seeing the Coens go.

The plot, which I suppose is kind of a classic story by now, revolves around the adventure of 14-year old Mattie Ross (newcomer Hailee Steinfeld) to capture her father's killer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), dead or alive. Helping her in this mission is the aged and lethal US Marshall "Rooster" Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) and cocky but underestimated Texas Ranger LaBouef (Matt Damon) as they set out across the terrain to find their man. Along the way they encounter nature's torments as well as some of the worst of the worst outlaws the old west has to offer. Mix in the Coen Brothers' mastery of dialogue, violence, and storytelling, along with some very enjoyable quirkiness from Jeff "The Dude" Bridges, and you have yourself one damn fine movie.

Tonally, this movie feels more realistic than most westerns. I know I have no way of knowing, but it just all feels plausible. They even have former outlaws Cole Younger and Frank James (not really them, of course) near the end, shown being chastised by an older Mattie whilst they profit from their wild west shows. There are particularly interesting scenes of complete clarity of speech and activity, such as young Mattie's negotiations with a lawyer, Rooster's cross examination in court, and of course the very well choreographed gunfights. As much as we love it, this is not The Outlaw Josey Wales go up against ten guys straight forward and win unscathed.

But in another way, it holds true to everything we love about westerns. Loud and intense shootouts with aged revolvers and top quality repeater rifles. Droll and/or weird characters that stick with us even after the movie. Beautiful photography of the great terrain of the time when their were large trees and more land. Roger Deakins is probably one of the best cinematographers, and I can see why the Coen Brothers keep using him; he's been with them since their first movie. This film is full of true blue western images, maybe moreso than other westerns.

It touches on something that is sometimes overlooked in, but always interesting in, westerns which is the innocence of children in a time like that. Mattie Ross acts older than she should and is competent and brave even under very nerveracking situations, but she also shows instances of being a kid that are real. For as cold and professional she tries to be, she does tend to see a light in people who have little of it or none at all (even her father's killer it seemed). I felt that was interesting. I read that the book was largely from Mattie's point of view, and the Coens wanted to capture that. I think they did well.

Now for the acting. I will go right into Jeff Bridges' much anticipated and now praised performance of Rooster Cogburn, iconically played by John Wayne in the past. All I heard for so long was that Bridges would not outdo Wayne. The Dude would never beat The Duke. Well, guess what? Maybe I can't compare, but people who've seen both can and most who I have talked to have said that Bridges beats John Wayne in this department. I have seen bits and pieces of the original True Grit and it looks good enough. Wayne seems good in it but from what I saw he's not really playing THIS character so much as he's playing John Wayne (not a bad thing). Bridges is definitely not playing himself, at least not totally. Bridges' Rooster is a ragged, dirty, gravelly voiced body of experience, death, decay, yet still some nobility and decency. Bridges has so much presence that he makes something wholly original out of the character. Something many have agreed with is that Rooster seems to have a stench just by looking at him. He's also a total badass, as we all knew. Matt Damon is interesting as LaBeouf, we get the feeling he is a shady guy with his own agenda at first, but as we know him more we quickly find out he's a smart man who wants to be taken seriously and is anxious when he isn't. Hailee Steinfeld deserves her Oscar nomination for her amazing first major performance. To share the screen with Bridges and Damon and dominate along side them is quite impressive. The way she carries herself and the subtext the writing that she adds to is something to be fascinated with. In many ways she is the best character in this movie. Josh Brolin in the small role of Tom Chaney was funny and intimidating. I love how astonished and then amused he is in his first appearance. Brolin is a very good actor, I'm glad he's getting work these days. He makes Chaney a truly vile thing. But the bad guy who beats out Brolin is Lucky Ned Pepper, played by Barry Pepper of course. This ragged, wild eyed, yellow teethed renegade is a far cry from Barry Pepper's actual chisled good looks, so this transformation is cool. Plus he just makes this character somehow endearing, because for as vicious and nasty he is, Lucky Ned can still be a civil gentleman. So acting is top notch, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

The direction is marvelous. Joel and Ethan Coen are master filmmakers and I doubt I will ever say otherwise. Their editing, their writing, their casting, their photography, their overall style is all perfect. There are very few bad things I can say about this movie. A lot of people have said that they weren't trying to make "True Grit: A Coen Brothers film" but they were just trying to make "True Grit: A Western." I'd agree. You can see the tweaks and touches of their style or humor in the story, but really it felt pure and unbound by a brand, at least not a brand as broad as western. That's okay, because I get the feeling that if this was a Coen Brothers movie it might be one of their lesser ones like Burn After Reading. Still good, just not quite as good. This is a western and they understood that and liked that.

Since this review is pretty damn late on my account, I would say that you should definitely watch this movie when it hits the market. It is fun, interesting, funny, and breathtaking in many ways. At times it may seem slow and it won't thrill you through and through, but it is enjoyable. I definitely liked it so, like I sometimes say, if you like what I like you will probably dig this film. Watching it for Jeff Bridges alone is good enough, I think. So yeah, six out of five stars.

This has been the review I said I'd post months ago, but here we are with Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Tron: Legacy Review

"You're messing with my zen thing, man." - Kevin Flynn

I've seen the majority of the original Tron film from the 1980s. Watching it, I thought that at the time Tron was a landmark for science fiction filmmaking. The virtual reality world the film presents was fascinating and extremely revolutionary. It paved the way for many other ideas of similar nature. Looking back at this moment, I'd say that in modern times, with all new kinds of technology in the business of film, you couldn't really leave a world like this alone. That's what happens with Tron: Legacy; it takes the atmosphere of the first film and makes as original as it was when first presented in the 80s. It's very refreshing.

The film continues the story of the first Tron's character, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges). After his success following the first film's story, Flynn is a leading corporate game developer who has found a way to reinvigorate The Grid world of the Tron games. Unfortunately, once he does he goes missing. Years later, his son Sam (Garrett Hedlund) takes time off from his corporate espionage hobby to investigate an apparent message from Kevin. This leads him to one of the coolest arcades I've seen (mostly because I haven't seen one in a long time) where he himself is transported to The Grid. Here, Sam must find his father and help him to defeat a program doppleganger named CLU, who seeks to "perfect" The Grid, before he escapes and perfects our world. They also must protect Kevin's program apprentice Quorra (Olivia Wilde), who is mysteriously crucial to her world and ours. So grab a disc and hop on to your Light Cycle. We're in for a ride.

The entire Grid world in the movie is something to truly be admired. It almost reminds me of black white movies with its highly saturated and crisp light and shadow effects that basically is the structure of the world. Light Cycle battles have never been so cool. Where in the first film it seemed like we were watching people almost in some sort of simulation, here we actually feel like were riding on one of these things. And there is plenty of new things too. The bizarre, building-like helicopters, or the Light Gliders, it was all cool.

I will be honest, I was excited for the movie but did not think it was going to be that good just the same. I, like most people I knew, were going to see it for it's clearly amazing technical attributes. To my surprise, though, I really enjoyed this movie. The visuals and soundtrack was monumental (and I'm not using that word lightly). Daft Punk creates an electric ambience and pace that drives the movie more than the plot sometimes. Some visuals and set pieces brought to mind films such as Dark City, The Matrix, and 2001: A Space Odyssey.
The acting was not oscar worthy or anything but it at least interested me and impressed me in some ways. Jeff Bridges shines here, remarkably, as two characters: one is a man who has attained a God status while also being an outcast, he's wise, cool, but regretful; the other is a cold, angsty tyrant whose existence was based upon a flawed purpose. Garrett Hedlund was actually very believable as Sam, the rebellious son. To my surprise, I liked him, though he's had more impressive roles, of course. Bruce Boxleitner reprises his role from the original Tron to play both Flynn's friend Alan, still in the gaming business in our world, and as Tron (you know, the title character the movie could care less about) who has also fallen victim to Clu's vision of perfection. I was very amazed that of all of the characters, Olivia Wilde's Quorra was the one I found most interesting. Come now, we all knew going in that Wilde was going to sell us on this movie. She is very beautiful after all. But no, Quorra was a fascinating sort of character. She was almost that classic anime archetype, the sweet and cute badass who is also very special. She was fun to watch, and not in a perverted way. Of course a movie this cool, needs some character to send it over the top. It needs something shiny amongst this deep and dark stuff that the kids can go crazy over. And in that, we get Michael Sheen as Castor, an eccentric night club owner in The Grid. It just goes to show that every Disney owned movie these days can not escape a freaking Mickey or Goofy. For Pirates of the Caribbean we get Jack Sparrow. For Alladin, we get The Robin Williams Genie (and many other Robin Williams voiced characters. For Tron: Legacy, we get Castor. I mean, Michael Sheen is a great actor, everyone knows he is, but he's a bit like Nicholas Cage where he's great at one point and outrageous at ten other points. It isn't bad per se, just overbearing in such a short time. At least his character is resolved the way the audience wants it to be.
I do not need to say that Joseph Kosinski's direction is top notch, because it really is. He kept most everything balanced (save for mystery and explanation of course), but unfortunately this means the movie was a bit understated. By understated I mean it doesn't impact the viewers as well on all levels. No one can say that the technical aspects of the movie were underplayed by the story and characters. The special effects were in sync with the world's atmosphere, therefore they were believable and amazing. I really liked that this movie can kind of stand alone, because you don't necessarily have to watch the first Tron to understand this Tron. Despite a fairly unfocused and needlessly complex explanations (did I mention the guys who wrote this were Lost writers), I thought the movie had strong dialogue, good characters (save one), and gripping storytelling. The movie is a straight adventure and that's what I loved about it.

So all in all, Tron: Legacy is certainly not a great movie but it is very good. If you want to have a lot of fun kicking off 2011, than by all means see this movie. I'm sure it'll get you more pumped for movies this year than Season of the Witch. It's really good, surprised the hell out of me how good it was. I guess I was a bit wrong to underestimate it. Understand I saw the first trailer for this mid 2009 and thought it looked incredible, then I saw Avatar and thought nothing could impress me after that. A Scott Pilgrim and Inception later, I was even more convinced that I was going to be severely underwhelmed. And I wasn't. Maybe modern movies will have a major impact on the future of movies.

So yes, this concludes the first in my two Jeff Bridges sagas I will be reviewing. Speaking of which, if there is one thing a gallery of Big Lebowski fans will be snickering about after seeing this is this: The Dude is God! After Tron: Legacy, I can abide that.

This is yet another review from Your Modest Guru and really that's pretty much all I do these days. Thanks for reading.

Call of Duty: Black Ops Review

"I can't get these fucking numbers out of my head!" - Alex Mason

I've always kind of wondered about our fascination with video games centered on warfare. Is the fact that game franchises like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor are so popular some kind of subliminal thing cooked up by the government. I think kids are getting a bit wiser these days about recruiters. But who needs some propagrazzi (propaganda + paparazzi, yeah I made it up) to tell people how cool it would be to be a soldier when they can just market a video game franchise that allows kids to take a first person look through the eyes of a soldier, even if many of the missions this soldier takes are highly implausible and some even hysterical. But enough of that. This isn't one of my thinking posts, it's one of my reviews. So without further a due, here's what I think about Call of Duty: Black Ops.

(I will not be mentioning the online play because I don't play online, but I'm told it's shitty)

Black Ops is without a doubt the best Call of Duty I have played. Instead of being some random yet inexplicably awesome grunt for a 70-year old war (why not WWI or the Civil War next time), this time we are the men behind the curtain. We get to play as a scarred covert operative working in alongside the CIA and other shady customers from our side and the others. And the game's frenetic action and fascinating non-linear storyline can keep the players on their toes and adrenaline fueled at the same. And if all of that isn't enough, you can get your blood pumping by playing the new and improved Nazi Zombies side game.

STORY

Black Ops is a sequel to the previous CoD game, World at War. You play as Alex Mason (voiced by Sam Worthington), a skilled wet boy who makes a living out of going to hell and back, during the height of the Cold War in the 1960s. After his involvement with the Bay of Pigs goes wrong, Mason is captured by Soviet terrorists and imprisioned in Vorkuta. He escapes after befriending Russian inmate Viktor Reznov (Gary Oldman), a character from World at War who helps you here and there during the game, Mason is able to escape and get back into his old line of work. Despite his mental scars, new missions granted by the CIA and President John Kennedy himself bring Mason and his compatriots to war torn Vietnam, the grimy Tokyo metropolis of Japan, and the harsh cold of Russia. All the while, Mason and his stealth comrade Reznov have their own score to settle with their targets.

BASICS

Okay, so Call of Duty is still the same basic first person shooter it's been since the beginning of the series. There are cool new things to be seen here, though. You can drive vehicles at times, which Call of Duty I don't think has done before save for tanks and planes. You pilot helicopters, drive cars, and ride motorcycles. All very cool, and a lot more fast paced. Most fascinating to me was that this game was a bit more story based and character driven. Whereas there was only a silent avatar as the protagonist in past games, Alex Mason has a personality and an arc (and an interesting one at that). You see things through his eyes, and you see how he has become mentally unstable through brief but vivid hallucinations (one in particular will catch everyone off guard, mainly because it doesn't seem like a hallucination). Also the story goes in detail and involves various situations, real or fictional or who knows, into the game. Realism seems to be a bit heavier here, even if there are moments of the usual Call of Duty improbability (moreso than usual in fact). Love the Vietnam standard music soldiers would play (CCR's "Fortunate Son" and The Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil") and subtle reminders of classic films. (Platoon, Hamburger Hill, Fullmetal Jacket, and Mason's partner Woods totally looked like Robert De Niro in The Deer Hunter) There is also a wealth of actual stars delivering voice work for the game: Sam Worthington, Gary Oldman, Ed Harris, Ice Cube, With all of this in mind, Black Ops is actually a more visceral, compelling, and intense Call of Duty game.

For Zombies, things have vastly changed too. There are three new and fun maps to play on (the latter two being unlockables). One is set in a run down movie theatre with Nazi decor. This map is set in 40s, but of course features health drinks ("Need a little REVIVAL!!!"), a teleporter, and a weapons customizer. This is also probably the easiest map for players, or for me at least. Here you can play as a gung ho American, a loud and strangely sexually frustrated Russian, a creepy German, or an eccentric Japanese man, all of them highly abrasive and over the top. The second map puts players in the 60s where the Pentagon's War Room comes under a zombie siege. In this instance, a player can play as President Kennedy, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamera, Fidel Castro, or Richard Nixon. The final map puts players in a 90s Arcade sort of setting where players can view things from an aerial point of view and watch monsters just flow and hand out a bunch cool upgrades upon dying. This can be fun, but is not entirely what I want out of Nazi zombies. All of these maps are interesting and put a new spin on the Zombies format to the game (a format that is becoming increasingly popular).

TOOLS

The tools department is a bit obvious. Aresenals for Call of Duty games rarely change, but then again most games don't. You get a new model of the same weapon depending on the era the game takes place. You get a wide range of assualt rifles, sub-machine guns, pistols, shotguns, explosives, and launchers of various sorts. A surprising change this time around is that a player can briefly drive a vehicle in a few instances. In this case, why shoot your enemies when you can plow threw them at the same time. I know a little bit about guns, and for some reason I felt like a lot of the guns seen in this game seemed almost out of place. By out of place, I mean, they seemed more modern and not like something you'd find in the 1960s. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. Either that, or the black operatives just got better tools.

ENEMIES

The enemies are all virtually the same. They are soldiers, they have guns, and if they see you they will try to kill you. Simple war mechanics. I guess I can diffrentiate them based on their nationalities. Early on you will be fighting Fidel Castro's Cuban army during the Bay of Pigs. Then later, and for the most part (being it's the Cold War and all), you will be facing down Russian soldiers of the Soviet Union. In a flashback to Reznov's time in World War II, you go back to a World at War feel and kill some pesky Nazis. There's actually a point where Reznov and his men are allowed to kill everyone in sight: I think it included Germans, Russians, and the British. Finally a lot of excitement is when you are in the worst hot zones of Vietnam and fighting the NVA, Viet Cong and the like. While the enemies in the game are bland and artificial (no doubt, a major contrast to real life), they can definitely be intense and startling when they rush at you in huge groups. Of course, there is the standard dogs that will go for your throat from time to time. Strangely, I think these dogs have been the easiest to kill out of all of the others I've seen in past games. The main antagonist is General Nikita Dragovich, a Communist terrorist from the Soviet Union. Along side him are Lev Kravchenco, Dragovich's ruthless lieutenant, and Dr. Friedrich Steiner, a Nazi scientist (slightly reminiscent to Josef Mengele) who defected to the Reds' side. Fidel Castro is a bit of an antagonist in the beginning, having teamed with Dragovich in order to ambush his would-be-assassins.

For the Zombie gameplay, there is a bit of a difference. The zombies are a lot faster and stronger, and harder to kill at times. And it's not just zombies this time. Joining them are stout demonic crawling monsters that slash and explode in poisonous toxins when killed. And there are also hell hounds (yes, hell hounds) that show up from time to time to maul the player(s). hell hounds are kids stuff compared to massive crowds of zombies and crawlers. Somehow fighting zombies is always more intense.

GRAPHICS

The graphics are top notch. Probably the best Call of Duty has done so far. Character and weapon designs are especially well done. They look authentic and slightly real at times. For characters voiced by big actors, Gary Oldman and Ed Harris for example, the designs were made to resemble how the actors actually look. This was done very well. The environments had a richness and saturated look to them that made them all the more vivid and believable. And there are a lot of different environments, so this look never gets old. Environmental graphics are on par with the Modern Warfare games. So all is well essentially, though I'm sure there is an obvious bug or two. I didn't notice if there were.

OVERALL

Black Ops provides a very exciting new twist to the franchise. I hope it keeps it up if it is like this for good. I even hope it improves. The action hasn't been this exciting in awhile. Every time I fell I was very determined to respawn and keep fighting. Plus there are just so many things that has been done regarding the style and substance of the game that has just been delightful. The campaign mode was scripted by David S. Goyer, the writer of Batman Begins and the Blade trilogy. Pretty impressive job too, as the story is very intricate and involving. Black Ops actually feels like it could be a movie. And if players are worried that this game might be too easy, don't be. I think the difficulty was fairly high even on Recruit. In the end, Black Ops is just a fun game. A wholly good time. Plus if you can't get into the campaign there is always Zombie and Online modes to play on. It is definitely worth a buy.

This has been a second video game review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Fallout 3 Review

"War... War never changes." - narrator

A friend let me borrow his copy of Fallout 3 and I must say it is exactly my kind of game. I made it no secret in my Red Dead Redemption review that I love the free roaming sandbox environment modern games have incorporated lately. This is the perfect sandbox environment. Post nuclear Holocaust Washington D.C. and all it has left. You venture out into the irradiated and lethal Capital Wasteland with nothing but the clothes on your back. The primary mission is to survive. And it all plays out (pun intended) in an almost realistic way. I'm loving it.

The scale of the game is so huge that I've finished the main story mode and scoured the the map yet I'm still sure I did not see all there was to see. Even so, I feel I should review it now. Even if this review is already a few years too late.

STORY:
Set in a future predated by an alternate history, Fallout 3 is set in the American North-East. After the end of World War 2, the arms race was focused on primarily which led to the development of futuristic technology. It also led to the Cold War boiling over into full scale nuclear devestation. The world was thrown into chaos. Though before the bombs fell, thousands of Americans were hauled off into underground fallout facilities called Vaults, where they would be safe and comfortable during the destruction. The game begins with our nameless protagonist, called The Lone Wanderer, apparantly being born inside Vault 101, a Vault specifically ordered to remain closed forever. After getting acquainted with controls and environment while gallivanting around the Vault as a kid, we flash-forward a few years into the future where the player's scientist father, James (Liam Neeson), opens the Vault door and escapes into the Wasteland. It is here, the player ventures outside of the Vault as well to find his father. This also means adapting to the extraordinarily grim Capital Wasteland, once called Washington D.C. And the adventure begins.


BASICS:
Fallout 3, as I said, is a massive sandbox environment. Fortunately, this means you can run around all of D.C.'s famed monuments and sites (and also see how the harsh future has tressed them up). I complained that the Grand Theft Auto games had way too much going on. This game has that, but the difference is each new subplot you happen across can end up being just as, if not better than the game's primary storyline. Also worthy of noting, the game does not have a set main character. The player is free to design the character's adult appearance during the birth scene in the beginning. I always loved that aspect. The game is not exactly easy. If you really work at it, I suppose the main story can be finished in a few hours. But there is over 100 hours of gameplay entirely, and the whole map and the missions found there are like a scattered puzzle. Places aren't just there to go to, they have to be discovered. Also survival with wits and mitts isn't as easy either. Enemies on this game can be overwhelming. What I really liked though, was the moral compass of the game. This game strongly employs free will. Meaning you can choose to be the hero or villain or just passing through. I will say being a villain is extremely difficult with those thoughtful people out there, as the evil choices can be shocking (nuke a friendly little town-shocking). There is also a leveling up system which allows you to gain perks and enhancements. You can sometimes pick up friends who will want to help you along the way; they can be useful or a burden. The game combines political, military, and social satire with a surreal survival horror scenario that is very enjoyable. I've seen few games this nuanced and intelligent with its design and story. It is a pleasure.

TOOLS:
Set in the dystopian future the weapons categories vary considerably. There is a vast array of assault rifles, hunting rifles, miniguns, missile launchers, fragmentation grenades, mines, pistols, and knives laying on corpses or just anywhere sometimes. Then again, we are in the future. Their are rather cool energy weapons such as laser and plasma rifles, as well as their grenade, mine, pistol, and minigun varients. There are also interesting weapons such as Abraham Lincoln's repeater rifle, military officer swords, or even a mini-nuke launcher. If you have the right materials, skills, and schematics you can also customize or invent a new kind of weapon. All of these weapons can be particularly harmful if used properly. The game gives the freedom to switch interchangeably from first person POV to third person (I'm mostly third person). It also has a system that allows you to freeze frame and target and enemy's body to get a somewhat cinematic slow motion shootout. This is particularly useful because the standard real time shootout, no matter the POV, is extremely gritty, fast paced, and unnerving. Needless to say a little free frame shooting here and there, or a lot of it, is not exactly the sissy way out but more like the smart way. Aside from guns, just about any other item can be picked up (not that they are exactly worth something to you). In the Wasteland, scavenging is helpful but you won't always find something good. And if you do, others may not be so keen on letting you take it.

ENEMIES:
This game has a freakish and horrific rogue's gallery that haunts every corner, street, alley, and shadow of the Wasteland. As a player, you have to be on your guard at all times. Depending on how you act around people can determine whether they will become friends or foes, while others merely unload first and don't ask any questions. Many humans have fractured off into groups, and a lot of these groups aren't your friends right off the bat. The raiders are cold blooded killers and rapists who look like they came off the set of The Road Warrior. Being that they are just people (albeit heavily armored, armed, and crazy), you can kill them pretty easy. There's also the Talon Company, a mercenary group and hit squad that attacks with deadly force. The most lethal humans by far are the Enclave, the corrupt remaining remnants of the U.S. Government headed by the mysterious President John Henry Eden (Malcolm McDowell) and his right hand man Colonel Autumn, or the amoral Outcasts of The Enclave's enemy The Brotherhood of Steel. Both Enclave and Outcast fighters are covered head to toe in advanced battle armor that make Master Chief piss himself, and carry energy weapons that would make him do it again. You will mostly come across the Super Mutants, hulking simple minded brutes who tote guns and the most immoral of attitudes. They are in groups and a handful to deal with. You will also face the Ghouls, zombie like humans driven insane and animalistic by nuclear exposure. They are easy to destroy but are fast and make good use of their claws.

There are also a variety of extremely deadly robots roaming around the wasteland or droning around abandoned facilities. Though these robots are modeled after the ones seen off of 1950s science fiction comic covers, they are not fun to go toe to toe with. These things will do their best to take you down with arms that double as miniguns, laser blasters, flamethrowers, and missle launchers. Proceed with caution. Okay a bit of a spoiler, but players who are wary of robots need not fret because in the end Liberty Prime, a 50 foot tall android who spouts ultra patriotic Cold War slogans and obliterates all in its path, is on your side.

But like in RDR, it is the damn animals that pose possibly the greatest threat. The mutated bear, Yao Guay, can ambush you easily and take your health from 100 to 0 in a matter of only three or four slashes. They are also hard to put down. Speaking of putting down, you may find packs of mutated dogs that are fairly easy to kill. Super Mutants sometimes travel with the hideous Centaur, which I can only describe as a blob of the melted bodies of several humans that just spews waste and flings its tentacles (they aren't pretty to look at, so kill them quick and be done with em). Like in old '50s B-Movies, the hilly wilderness is inhabited by large mutant scorpions and the cities are filled with large fire breathing ants. There are the cold blooded Mirelurk creatures, which just seem to be humanoid crawdad (the Mirelurk King is probably the creepiest thing I've seen in the game). Then of course there's the throwaway puny animal antagonists such as the enlarged cockroach or fly. So animals are the scariest and sometimes the hardest things to kill.

GRAPHICS
This is a tough one, because on the hand you have graphics which bring forth a stark, detailed, and highly effective environment, while at the same time player and AI character models are very low grade. The in-game avatars and non playable characters have their hints of detail but are more often than not just tweaked versions of the same model. It's not impressive but it doesn't totally ruin the game either. But like I said, the environmental graphics are amazing. This game does a good job of showing a barren and destroyed wasteland while at the same time making it seem as if a true inhabitable place could have been the pile of stone and dust you are standing in front of. Day to night effects are very crisp too. The graphics aren't perfect, but they are good and unique in many ways.

OVERALL
For those who love this type of open world, survival of the fittest type of adventure, I of course recommend it. The really good thing is that there is just so much to take in. If players don't like the graphics, there is an incredible plot to the game; if the plot doesn't interest them, they can be amazed at all of the different game mechanics; and if none of that catches their fancy than they have a ball ripping and running all over the wasteland just for the hell of it. It will be a long while before you can say that there is nothing to do on this game. Stick with it, I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

This has been the first of two new video game reviews from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Give em a chance

"An actor is at most a poet, and at least an entertainer." - Marlon Brando

Some people to this day do not fully appreciate actors. It takes a lot of freaking skill to make an audience believe a character even a little bit. But then again, not every actor was that shining star on Broadway or tour de force newcomer. Some just had the right connections and thought it'd be cool, and some got lucky. Very, very, very, very lucky. That's Hollywood. That being said, not everyone who comes along is going to be a new Brando or Freeman or Dicaprio. And ultimately some of these so called actors are horrible and can also destroy a movie they are involved with (I'm talking to you Sofia. No I don't care who your father is; you just keep directing like he did). Then there are some who are bad, but you can tell they are at least trying. These are the ones who usually end up being funny, likable, or at least memorable once you're done watching their performance. So I will take my time to talk about a few actors considered to be bad by some and how they are bad.

(Let me note that none of these things are limited only to "bad actors," because I've seen plenty of good actors do these things at least once, whether it is just a line or an entire performance. So there.)

OVER THE TOP:

Yeah, you know it when it happens. That point where your only reaction to a person's acting is "....SUBTLE!" Anyone can read lines, and I will go into those who do so with little enthusiasm later, but the more memorable are the ones who read the line and take it with too much enthusiasm. This leads to them being really goofy.

Going classic, my most memorable over the top actor is Charlton Heston. Heston was considered to be one of the greatest actors of his time, but looking at his films now, you can tell a lot of his roles were written as being a lot more subtle. Planet of the Apes is a prime example. While most remember his legendary line "get your paws off me, you damn dirty apes!" or better yet, "You cut up his brain, you bloody baboon!" I remember his reaction to one of his fellow astronaut's placing a miniature American flag in a small mound of rocks on the "mysterious new world" and all Heston had to do was deliver a cynical, perhaps even dry laugh. What does he do instead: he freaking guffaws. He does it again later, again unnecessary (maybe he was high). Oh yeah, and watch him hold his nose as he jumps from the sinking ship into the water. He does little over the top things like this in a lot of his movies. Sometimes the roles he was cast in were over the top just because it was him playing them; it is just weird casting the most red blooded American actor as the Mexican-American hero of an Orson Welles movie. Still though, I'll have to admit he was still a likable, fun movie actor who here and there had his moments of good performances.

Then there are really good actors like Nicholas Cage and Christopher Walken. Though they are very good in serious movies (both have been nominated at the Academy Awards before), they seem to take any role a studio throws at them and play it to the bone. This usually goes along with incorporating their own strange styles and mannerisms into any given role, so they are already a little bit over the top. And by a little bit, I mean "a lot." Nicholas Cage has this semi-smooth yet explosive hyperactivity breaking through the surface in his movies. And Christopher Walken just might be the most memorable actor alive, as well as the most impersonated. His monotone droll has been segued into just about every type of film scenario; he's been a Bond villain, a Batman villain, a scarred soldier, a struggling father, a mischevious hobo, the angel of death (twice), a gangster (god knows how many times), and let's not forget a war veteran delivering a boy a very interesting gold watch. The screen can barely contain these two when they're on, either by sheer awesomeness or absolute craziness. Look up their filmography, or better yet go on youtube and look up some of their craziest moments.

Then of course there is Arnold. Arnold-freaking-Schwarzeneggar. The Austrian body builder who took America by storm in the 80s and hasn't gone away since. We all love him. Is he a good actor though? Well, that's debatable. I mean if you look carefully at--...fine! He's not that good of an actor. I mean, I doubt there was ever a point the people at the Academy Awards were thinking "I think it's Schwarzeneggar's turn this year." They weren't as kind as California. No he's not great, but I still think he's at least good. I mean no one likes someone this much for this long if he's been terrible the entire time. There have been roles where he has played dramatic very well. And as easy as some people believe it to be, playing an emotionless cyborg has to be convincing or else we won't believe it and Arnold pulls it off. But really, he is best being over the top. Sure "Hasta la vista, baby" and "I'll Be Back" are great lines, but we remember the really over the top and cheesy ones moreso. It works well with Arnold because, with that thick Austrian accent, just about every word comes out of his mouth is funny. I mean there's a video editor on Youtube, hh1edits is his tag (look him up he does amazing stuff), who has not one but two ten minute videos just full of Arnold's corny ass or over the top lines. It is priceless. But hey, we love Arnold as is and he really can't get any better...well maybe the people of California would disagree, but I still stand by him.

UNDERPLAY

To put it simply, some actors just don't put forth the effort in their roles. Perhaps they've tricked themselves into thinking they are awesome. This comes down to a lack of emotion or just pure robotic line reading. Either way it can be just as unappealing as overacting.

Here are a few famous examples, all basically the same. Keanu Reeves, known for The Matrix trilogy, is notorious as a, frankly, wooden actor. While I think he has pretty much grown out of his bad acting stage, the majority of people just can't let go of his terrible acting in his early roles. I mean Point Break? Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure? I think the simulated world of the matrix was far more believable. Nowadays, he's either a brooder or a cocky bastard. He's good in each type. If you want to see some of his terrific acting I'd recommend Hard Ball or The Lake House (he cries in both, and is believable).

Kevin Costner is another A-list actor, and also a director and producer, who has starred in plenty of well known films. I think this is a case where it is how he handles certain roles rather than him simply being a bad actor. There are some roles where he is playing soft spoken or distant and ends up being just a boring actor. Other roles where his characters are very much alive and full of energy and he himself is alive and energetic. I really think people give him too hard of a time, but he really isn't bad at all. They give the same shit toward William Hurt (an Oscar nominated actor) who is a favorite of mine, and is also terrific.

There are a few very famous actresses who I've never understood why they were ranked so high at times. Kim Basinger won a Best Actress Oscar for L.A. Confidential (she was good, but not Oscar worthy) when a superb role like the trailer trash mother in 8 Mile is particularly overlooked. Or Halle Berry, who aside from the X-Men movies and Monster's Ball, has not been a particularly memorable actress. Then someone like Ashley Judd, who has more charisma and energy as a charitable activist type than an actress. Just perplexes me. Maybe these actresses' hotness gives them all certain benefits.

MUSICIANS

I have long backed musicians in movie roles. Most of them are pretty good. Rappers in particular have been interesting. Eminem, terrific in 8 Mile. He had real leading man presence, but then again maybe that was because the character was a lot like him. Tupac Shakur seemed to have an at least somewhat promising acting career before he was killed (his last movie had him and Jim Belushi playing dirty cops). 50 Cent was okay in Get Rich or Die Tryin' (a movie I really didn't care for), even if he did mumble his way through it. L.L. Cool J and Jamie Foxx both came into their own and have been very enjoyable. Of course the one we all think of when it comes to rappers turning to acting is the one. The only. Will Smith. The guy gained fame as a rapper, then gained super stardom as a TV star, then was Hollywood royalty as a film actor. Who the hell doesn't love Will Smith? Racists.

Country and rock stars have been so so for the most part. Guys like Gregg Allman (Rush, no band relation) and Keith Richards (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End) have been good in minor roles. Sting is always memorable as hell; he has true presence, especially as a villain. I know Billy Ray Cyrus and daughter Miley have each dabbled. I actually found Billy Ray to be hilarious in a short cameo as a movie director's wife's lover in Mulholland Dr. a David Lynch movie of course. Speaking of Lynch, Chris Isaak is well known as playing the missing FBI Agent Chester Desmond on the show Twin Peaks and it's movie prequel Fire Walk with Me. Jared Leto, the lead singer for 30 Seconds to Mars, is a terrific and very talented actor. So I guess they are good too in their own ways.

Pop stars are 50/50 and that's all I will say.

WRESTELERS

I surprisingly always back up wrestlers and boxers too. I've always liked Hulk Hogan in movies. I think Roddy Piper was freaking terrific in They Live. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has pretty much solidified himself as an actor these days and I think that is freaking great. He is really good. He gets shit roles most days, which is unbelievable since movies like The Rundown (one of the best action movies in years), Walking Tall, and The Scorpion King both sealed him in as THE new action hero. Arnold Schwarzeneggar even cameoed for a second in The Rundown and only had one line while passing by The Rock: "Have fun..." I see that as Arnie informally handing over the rank to The Rock. I think it is great. He has great delivery, can actually read a line, and is amazing in action scenes. Give him more cool movies. NOW.

So there's some categories frequently mocked and downtrodden by uppity critics who think if someone doesn't Tom Hanks or Meryl Streep the hell out of a performance it isn't worth seeing. Well they can go to hell, because if you really look at these guys they aren't that bad. They aren't great but they never go Troll 2 = "They're eating her...And then they're gonna eat me! OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!"... Yeah. And for that we can be thankful. Then again, The Rock did star in Southland Tales. Bad Rock.

So this has been a post from Your Long Absent Guru. Will try to stick around this time. Try! Thanks for reading.

I'm Here Review

"It was the best dream in the history of dreams." - Sheldon

I was very interested to see Spike Jonze's short film, I'm Here. It is a half hour independant romance set in an alternate history where robots exist in our time and are almost as common as a regular human, and act about the same. But being a robot can be very lonely, and two in particular find companionship with each other, despite discovering love's hardships.

The story centers on Sheldon, a polite if not timid robot who works at a library. The highlight of his day is when he is able to get a look at another robot, Francesca, driving in her car near his bus stop. Francesca, a free spirited robot, soon befriends him and they quickly fall in love. She shows him how to live really. The drama of the story is brought about by Francesca's clumsiness (a fatal trait of any robot), and Sheldon's subsequent self-sacrifice to help her. Sacrifices that leave one whole and the other barren, but neither unhappy. It is a very sweet story.

I can see this being up for an Oscar in the future. In such a short time, Spike Jonze is able to introduce to us a very simplistic yet fascinating version of our modern world, and one of the most convincing love stories I've seen in awhile. It is a subtle relationship. You may remember my bashing of Twilight's Edward and Bella chemistry. I claimed the majority of it was basically eye gazing. A lot of Sheldon and Francesca's relationship can be developing through their eyes, but they more take notice of each other's features and actions with complete joy as opposed to Twilight's sort of cold adoration. It is not a silent film, the two talk and talk very humanlike to one another. I especially love their conversations about dreams, which robots apparantly cannot do. The actors who voice Sheldon and Francesca, Andrew Garfield and Sienna Guillory, are especially tremendous. They establish great presence though they may not even be there, and with equally great emotion.

The special effects in this are some of the best I have seen in any kind of cinema lately. This is mainly because I can't even clearly define what kind of special effects it is. A part of me thought the robots were made with very well done CGI. I at first thought they were people in suits, and animatronics after that. I think perhaps the whole figures may have been people in suits (very well designed suits) and the only CGI involved were the mouths and eyes (both very human when conveying emotions). The design of the robots is particularly interesting because they aren't all I'Robot techy. Sheldon looks like he made his head out of a used Macintosh from the 90s; while Francesca looks a bit manniquin like. This makes the robots even more realistic. There is even a moment that I think was meant to be sex between the two, but it was done tastefully and in a sweet kind of way (plug ins through the back of the head).

An aspect worth mentioning would be the soundtrack. Just had to say it, the soundtrack was great. The song "There Are Many of Us" by Aska Matsumiya is used very well as a kind of theme song.

So yes, Spike Jonze, who has made great films like Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Where the Wild Things Are in his short career, once again proves he is one of the most talented and perhaps underworked American directors. He also wrote this, which earns him even more respect. I don't often watch short films, but I'm Here is one that caught my interest. I very much enjoyed it. It is a subtle and sweet little movie that tugs at the heart strings in poignant ways.

This has been the first short film review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

The Underrated: Malcolm McDowell

"Now let's make things nice and sparkling clear..." - Alex DeLarge

As amazing as it must have been, one still has to think that a problem with playing a character as inevitably iconic, and with such greatness, as Alex DeLarge from A Clockwork Orange would be that people might always think of you as Alex DeLarge from A Clockwork Orange. I disagree however, as Malcolm McDowell, the actor who infamously played the sadistic and gleeful Alex, is still a great actor. Now, okay, I'm sure people don't all think of him just as Alex and nothing else and know he is a good actor. Therefore he wouldn't be considered underrated, right? Well, if this were true and he were rated to the amount he should be, he wouldn't be starring in Rob Zombie's Halloween "revisions" and guest acting on Heroes. The last big budget movie he was in was Book of Eli, and while good, that wasn't a wholly great movie (and he was only a cameo near the end).

McDowell's portrayal of Alex reminds me a lot of, and probably inspired a lot of, Heath Ledger's portrayal as The Joker. They both play twisted and relentless men of unspeakable violence and unimaginable joy, violence and joy that the actors seem to be taking and putting their own brand on to an untterly convincing effect. After The Dark Knight, Ledger would no doubt have been showered with other big parts (he was even getting some and completed some during filming) had he not died. One would think the same thing would have happened to Malcolm McDowell, who's character and performance were even greater in many ways. This might not have happened because of the backlash against A Clockwork Orange when it first hit the theatres. It was given an X-rating and banned in England after all. Stanley Kubrick, the visionary director behind the movie, soon rejected the movie and McDowell as well after the negative criticism (Stanley you were a master, but you were also a fucking prick sometimes). So instead of getting Shakespearan roles and big name villains afterward, McDowell got Caligula, a movie that started out a historical epic before morphing into a sleazy and tasteless porno that was later known as one of the most bashed and hated movies of all time.

There were good roles after the initial reaction to ACO, like his creepy part in Cat People, a thriller that is all kinds of strange. He's done some cameo work in raunchy cartoon shows like South Park and Robot Chicken. Most notably though, he took the role once dominated by Donald Pleasance: Dr. Sam Loomis from the Halloween series. Though Zombie's retelling of the first Halloween was pretty damn weak, McDowell was great as Loomis because he played a different kind of Loomis. Don't get me wrong Donald Pleasance's Loomis is perfect and my favorite, but he does come across not at all like a doctor and more of a badass version of that standard old guy in horror movies who goes around moaning "You're doomed. You're all dooooomed!!!" McDowell's Loomis seemed like a believeable child psychiatrist. He cared about his patient, but was later opportunistic when time came to make money off of him and write a book. His later transition to Pleasance's style made sense but didn't feel right. So McDowell did a good job as Dr. Loomis not because he played a big hero but because he played a believeable doctor.

A part I am more impressed with is McDowell's portrayal as one of the main villians of season one of Heroes. McDowell played Daniel Linderman, an Ozymandias type of anti-hero who believes destroying New York City can play a part in bringing the world to a state of peace. I found it ironic he played a villain mainly because his power was healing (not very villainous). Still, in the few times Linderman was there he was one of my favorite characters. He had an air of wisdom and knowledge but at the same time was an obvious manipulator. While on his own level of corruption, McDowell brought some subtle nuances of humanity that really worked. He was a fun character on the show. Fortunately he only starred in the seasons that were really cool, as opposed to the ones that were really bad.

The point is the same as any of these posts: why is this guy underrated? He's a great actor who is never given a role big enough or noticeable enough to show that off. I'm looking forward to watching a movie of his from a few years back called Gangster No. 1, in which he plays an older version of Paul Bettany's hoodlum character. Looks very good. Give Malcolm McDowell good roles, he's an old man it's not like he just needs time to blossom. If you don't, then I say great bolshy yarblockos to you!!!

This has been another edition of the Underrated from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.