Video Game Movies

The first blog I posted for the semester was entitled "My First Love". I named it that because I had fallen in love with the movies at a fairly early age. I had become fascinated and intrigued by the stories that were being told on the big-screen. But if the movies were my first love, then I'd have to say video games were my second. I grew up in the 80's and the video game industry was nowhere as popular as it is today. Graphics were nothing but a few blips on the screen. Yet, I was as equally entertained by video games as I was with the Hollywood movie industry.

"Super Mario Bros." is considered one of the worst movies ever made.

Today, video games resemble Hollywood movies in almost every way. The most cinematic titles are pretty much interactive versions of Tinsletown's biggest blockbusters. Games like "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3" and "Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception" rival Hollywood's best in terms of sheer spectacle. They manage to engage the player with action segments inspired by scenes shown in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Rock". So I find it ironic that Hollywood has turned to video games for source material.



Mark Wahlberg starred as the titular character in the visually stylish, but bland "Max Payne".


Of course, "video game movies" have never been critically acclaimed endeavors. "Super Mario Bros." was the first one and it is generally regarded as one of the worst movies of all time. In addition, more recent titles like "Max Payne" and "Doom" were also critically reviled. For the most part, video game properties are filmed only to capitalize on their own success. However, "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider", "Silent Hill" and "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" are exceptions. They were made by filmmakers who were passionate about the original ideas.


"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" is arguably the best movie adapation of a video game.


In the fall, "Silent Hill: Revelation" and" Resident Evil: Retribution" will be released in 3D. I doubt either of them will win the Oscar, but I'm sure they'll entertain their respective audiences. Personally, I'm a fan of "Hitman" (2007) which starred Timothy Olyphant as a bald assassin who is a clone. It captured the essence of the game while being similar in style to Luc Besson's "The Transporter". I also liked "Silent Hill" thanks to director Christophe Gans' artistic apporach to the dark material. It's a very bizarre horror film that holds up well on its own. If there's a game I'd like to see adapted to the silver screen, it would be "Gears of War". I could see it being done in the style of "300".


The first image of "Silent Hill: Revelation" (2012) features actress Adelaide Clemens.




  

The City of Los Angeles

My mom and sister will be leaving to sunny California next week. If all goes well, they'll be arriving at the Greyhound station in Los Angeles on Friday, April 28th. Of course, L.A. is the home to Hollywood and has been featured in many of its films. When I first visited the Big Orange in the early 90's, it was quite an experience. I was a tourist, yet the city seemed a little familiar to me. Slick action films of the era such as "Speed" and "Lethal Weapon 3" showcased the urban development of the city. And as I walked through it, I thought, "Hey! That's where Mel Gibson and Keanu Reeves chased down the bad guys".

"Speed" is one of the best L.A. action films of the 90's.

L.A. is the second biggest city in the nation and one of the things I find amusing is how it's depicted in movies. I personally like how director Michael Mann photographs the city. In his films, the City of Angels is almost a character in itself. He gives it a very vibrant and evocative look bringing to mind postcard-type pictures. This is most evident in his 2004 action-drama "Collateral" which starred Tom Cruise as an ice-cold killer and Jamie Foxx as his meek cab driver. The city's skyscrapers literally shine brightly in the background.


Tom Cruise is a white-haired assassin visiting L.A. in "Collateral".

Most recently, Los Angeles was prominently featured in "Drive", a 2011 indie action flick with Ryan Gosling as a stuntman/getaway driver. I liked how it maintains a sense of visual beauty while revealing L.A.'s less glamorous side. The film also showcases the city streets with aerial shots and close up camera angles of nighttime driving. Director Nicolas Winding Refn's portrait of the the City of Angels is startling because it revisions the city with an almost dream-like atmosphere.

Ryan Gosling drives through the streets of Los Angeles in "Drive".

There are plenty of films that show L.A.'s extreme variety of locations. 1993's "Falling Down" is a film I remember due to its effective use of the city's urban sprawl. But there are also films that give the city a very exaggerated look. For instance, in the sci-fi sequel "Predator 2", L.A. is featured as a semi-comic urban hellhole. It's not a pretty vision to say the least. I haven't visited the city in over 10 years, but I plan to this summer. And when I get there, I think I'll do a Ryan Gosling by driving through the streets with 80's-inspired music playing in my car.               

Movie Revisions

I just recently watched “Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace” in theaters for the umpteenth time. The film was presented in 3D and included a few additional scenes as well as a newly-enhanced Yoda. This was not the first time a “Star Wars” movie has been changed and it certainly won’t be the last. Series creator George Lucas is well-known for updating his franchise on a continual basis. And since it’s his property, he has every right to change it. Or does he really? To the eyes of many, a completed film is considered to be finished, warts and all.  

Yoda in "The Phantom Meance". In the 1999 version (right) and the 2012 release.

A change to a finished film often sparks debate because a movie’s final cut is what the public ultimately remembers. But when a filmmaker alters a movie in any shape or form, we are somtimes told it is the definitive version. I personally have no problem with that if the film originally proved to be flawed. For instance, in 2007, Ridley Scott released an enhanced version of his 1982 film “Blade Runner” with the subtitle “The Final Cut”. His changes were subtle refinements that automatically improved the film. New dialogue, sharpened special-effects and a re-shot scene perfected his dark, masterful vision of the future. 

"Blade Runner: The Final Cut" included subtle refinements that improved the film.

While I am grateful for the “Final Cut” of “Blade Runner”, I believe Lucas’ enhancements are a bit self-indulging and unnecessary. At first, I accepted his “Special Editions” (of the original trilogy) since they were conceived to re-introduce the series to a new generation. But then Georgie fell in love with the idea of updating the older films. His reason? To bridge the technological gap between the two trilogies. The director has always felt the technology of the late 20th century limited his vision of a galaxy far, far away. So he has constantly gone back to the old films to add new scenes, dialogue and special-effects. And while "Star Wars" fans have come to accept this, they generally feel his changes tarnish the films' legacies.



The 1997 version of "Jedi" included a musical segment not shown in the original film.

Many filmmakers release "director's cuts" and "extended cuts" to either make an extra buck or to show a film as it was originally intended. But there's never been a series of films that have been continously changed throughout the years. Well, other than "Star Wars" that is. Love it or hate it, Mr. Lucas has chosen to tinker with his films long after they were completed. If only he allowed the original films to live on beside the new versions. Then he'd have a little more respect from the fanboys.       

                

Almost Famous

The last time I visited LA, I stood right beside Grauman's Chinese Theater and was immediately struck by the poster hanging right across me. It featured the face of a blond woman wearing sunglasses which reflected...something. I couldn't tell what it was. So I just stood there, transfixed for several minutes as I tried to make out the image. It was a person. But, what were they doing? When my mind gave up seeking answers, I asked my mom who replied with, "it's a person on stage". The movie's title was "Almost Famous" and the tagline read: "Experience it. Enjoy it. Just don't fall for it." It was quite pragmatic. Was it about Broadway, sex, drugs or rock n' roll? About a month later, I was back at home and read the Friday paper. The movie had been released and I found the answer I had been looking for.

The theatrical poster for "Almost Famous" (2000)

The movie was about 70's rock 'n roll. It starred Patrick Fugit as a dorky high school kid who is given the chance of a lifetime: writing for Rolling Stone magazine. Unfortunately, I didn't see this film when it premiered. But when I did, I instantly fell in love with it. The hero, William Miller, is an unpopular student who has an overprotective mother and a passion for writing. He's a character that I immediately identified with. Like William, I had always felt like I was an outsider. I never did fit in with the popular crowd in high school. And I wanted my educational experience to come from the real world. That's exactly what happens to William Miller in "Almost Famous".



William Miller is an aspiring rock journalist from the 1970's.


In the film, the 15 year-old writer travels the country with a rock band named Stillwater. He eventually develops a crush on a girl, experiences heartbreak, saves a person's life and finishes his project on time. The picture is a comedy-drama that covers its subject lightly. It's not a heart-edged movie, but a heartwarming portrait of a teenage boy's coming-of-age. There's not one unlikeable character in the movie. Russell Hammond, the lead singer, cheats on his wife and has an ego the size of Mount Rushmore. But because he's played by the charming Billy Crudup, we don't feel his character is "bad", just a bit misguided. With just a little help, Russell could see things more clearly and be a better person.

Billy Crudup plays Russell Hammond, the lead singer of Stillwater.

"Almost Famous" is one of my favorite movies because it struck a chord within me. William's adventures are like the daydreams I had as a teen. High school was boring. I wanted to move to Los Angeles and experience a "higher learning". William Miller experiences exactly that. He is transported from the world of high school into the world of rock. And on the day of his graduation, he is in New York City and saves the woman he loves from certain death. I'm sure he didn't regret missing one of the most "important" days of his life.

Kate Hudson won a Golden Globe for her performance as "groupie" Penny Lane.