Friday, August 31, 2007
Sin and Punishment
Sin and Punishment is coming to the Wii's Virtual Console! It's been confirmed for Japan and VC releases don't usually take long to go global. Excitement. I might finally be able to play a Treasure game that we Europeans have missed out on for 7 years.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
'Miami Vice' - Film review
4 out of 10
I think Michael Mann is a great director but he's really slipped up here. This film is too schizophrenic to succeed. His previous films are generally very stylised but the excellent Collateral was very gritty and realistic. This seems to want to do both.
Most shots aim for the kind of verisimilitude that seemed so fresh in Collateral, all hand-held and digital video. But they are inter-cut (apparently at random) with shots captured on traditional film. The constant change in the image, even on DVD, is obvious and jarring.
Similarly, the script wants to be both gritty and stylised at the same time. Crockett and Tubbs inhabit the same exaggerated world they did in the 80's TV series, all Ferraris and power boats, but the actors have clearly been told to play it straight down the middle and it has none of the humour of the original. Is it possible to have a gritty drama about wealthy cops living the high life?
Colin Farrell struggles the most. He has the most screen time and never really convinces as Sonny Crockett. He drawls and sulks his way through the whole film and you really want to remind him that Don Johnson wooed the ladies with a smile and wink. But they've all clearly been told that any trace of 80's camp will destroy the film. I was desperate for someone to smile at least once.
And can anybody explain why Gong Li, who is clearly Chinese, was cast in a role playing a Cuban? It confused me for the whole film.
Some scenes are very good but overall the movie seems like a mish-mash of conflicting ideas, the only common theme being to stay away from the original series as much as possible.
I think Michael Mann is a great director but he's really slipped up here. This film is too schizophrenic to succeed. His previous films are generally very stylised but the excellent Collateral was very gritty and realistic. This seems to want to do both.
Most shots aim for the kind of verisimilitude that seemed so fresh in Collateral, all hand-held and digital video. But they are inter-cut (apparently at random) with shots captured on traditional film. The constant change in the image, even on DVD, is obvious and jarring.
Similarly, the script wants to be both gritty and stylised at the same time. Crockett and Tubbs inhabit the same exaggerated world they did in the 80's TV series, all Ferraris and power boats, but the actors have clearly been told to play it straight down the middle and it has none of the humour of the original. Is it possible to have a gritty drama about wealthy cops living the high life?
Colin Farrell struggles the most. He has the most screen time and never really convinces as Sonny Crockett. He drawls and sulks his way through the whole film and you really want to remind him that Don Johnson wooed the ladies with a smile and wink. But they've all clearly been told that any trace of 80's camp will destroy the film. I was desperate for someone to smile at least once.
And can anybody explain why Gong Li, who is clearly Chinese, was cast in a role playing a Cuban? It confused me for the whole film.
Some scenes are very good but overall the movie seems like a mish-mash of conflicting ideas, the only common theme being to stay away from the original series as much as possible.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Another manic Monday?
I thought the era of awkward corporate rebrandings had passed. I thought failed attempts like Consignia and Monday had finally put a stop to it in 2002. I read the Brand New blog because the subject of branding and logos is very interesting but I haven't seen much in the way of complete corporate reinvention for a while.
Today a company known for providing AI middleware for games, Engenuity Technologies, gained a new identity. They recently announced they were moving away from the games market and concentrating on the simulation market (they're owned by a simulation specialist anyway). They had a little monochrome swirl for a logo, in the classic nineties swirly style. You can see it in the top-left here, until they decide to remove their new forwarding page for good.
The name 'Engenuity' was a bit awkward, trying to combine 'engine' and 'ingenuity' as it does, but it was inoffensive and you could see what they were trying to do. The little swirl was also inoffensive, though meaningless. (I have to also say that the people I met who worked for the company were very nice, so I hope all this change doesn't affect them adversely - Paul K., if you're reading this, I hope you got your new house sorted :-)
Their new name is 'Presagis'. The new web site explains it thus:
I can't help wondering just how often they're going to have to trot out this explanation of both how to pronounce it and what it means. 'Engenuity' didn't have those problems. I also wonder why the company's name is speaking to their products. Shouldn't it speak to their customers?
The new logo is the R from the word 'PRESAGIS'. Why focus on the R? I think the idea is that the font they've chosen makes it look plausibly like a question mark, and combined with the colour blue makes one think of blue skies and exciting possibilities, to tie in with all this presaging.
Uncomfortable though I found all this, I was with them up to this point. Then I read their new slogan: 'Pre-live the future'.
This is the point at which I lost all ability to infer the logic that led them here.
'Pre-live the future'!
Today a company known for providing AI middleware for games, Engenuity Technologies, gained a new identity. They recently announced they were moving away from the games market and concentrating on the simulation market (they're owned by a simulation specialist anyway). They had a little monochrome swirl for a logo, in the classic nineties swirly style. You can see it in the top-left here, until they decide to remove their new forwarding page for good.
The name 'Engenuity' was a bit awkward, trying to combine 'engine' and 'ingenuity' as it does, but it was inoffensive and you could see what they were trying to do. The little swirl was also inoffensive, though meaningless. (I have to also say that the people I met who worked for the company were very nice, so I hope all this change doesn't affect them adversely - Paul K., if you're reading this, I hope you got your new house sorted :-)
Their new name is 'Presagis'. The new web site explains it thus:
"Presagis" (Pre - say - gis) is derived from the word "presage", which means to forecast or predict, and speaks to our core products that help our customers anticipate and prepare for the future.
I can't help wondering just how often they're going to have to trot out this explanation of both how to pronounce it and what it means. 'Engenuity' didn't have those problems. I also wonder why the company's name is speaking to their products. Shouldn't it speak to their customers?
The new logo is the R from the word 'PRESAGIS'. Why focus on the R? I think the idea is that the font they've chosen makes it look plausibly like a question mark, and combined with the colour blue makes one think of blue skies and exciting possibilities, to tie in with all this presaging.
Uncomfortable though I found all this, I was with them up to this point. Then I read their new slogan: 'Pre-live the future'.
This is the point at which I lost all ability to infer the logic that led them here.
'Pre-live the future'!
Sunday, August 12, 2007
'Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin' - Game review
8 out of 10
No Castlevania game in the last ten years has recaptured the brilliance of Symphony of the Night but this DS sequel comes as close as any. It sticks pretty closely to that game's patterns and mechanics and, unlike Dawn of Sorrow, doesn't make any misguided attempts to pander to the DS's touchscreen. It does introduce two characters that you can switch between or have on screen together but it rarely makes much significant use of this feature.
It really is just an extremely well executed, handheld version of the Castlevania that we have come to know and love. If you like exploring Dracula's castle while listening to Michiru Yamane's wonderful music and spending absolutely hours looking for the item that will finally give you the power to defeat Dracula, then you'll love this. I've played this for longer than any other DS game so far and enjoyed every minute.
No Castlevania game in the last ten years has recaptured the brilliance of Symphony of the Night but this DS sequel comes as close as any. It sticks pretty closely to that game's patterns and mechanics and, unlike Dawn of Sorrow, doesn't make any misguided attempts to pander to the DS's touchscreen. It does introduce two characters that you can switch between or have on screen together but it rarely makes much significant use of this feature.
It really is just an extremely well executed, handheld version of the Castlevania that we have come to know and love. If you like exploring Dracula's castle while listening to Michiru Yamane's wonderful music and spending absolutely hours looking for the item that will finally give you the power to defeat Dracula, then you'll love this. I've played this for longer than any other DS game so far and enjoyed every minute.
'Little Miss Sunshine' - Film review
8 out of 10
A great feel-good film and the sort of thing where you wonder how it ever got made. It's essentially quite formulaic (dysfunctional family go on road trip and discover themselves) but the writing and general weirdness lift it above the formulae it is borrowing. Wonderfully flawed, fascinating characters are brought together by a pin-sharp script that knows exactly how much detail is relevant and has no time for fluff. It's rare that a film knows when to end but this one gets it almost perfect, with only a gratuitous "into the sunset" shot right at the end taking the edge off. It also knows it is better not to explain everything and doesn't try to explain anything that isn't important - it assumes you're keeping up and doesn't patronise.
In short, it's as un-Hollywood as a Hollywood film is ever likely to get, probably because it was only signed to a studio after it was made. Light entertainment though it undoubtedly is, some scenes still have the power to take you from jaw-open incredulity to beaming smile in a few joyous seconds.
A great feel-good film and the sort of thing where you wonder how it ever got made. It's essentially quite formulaic (dysfunctional family go on road trip and discover themselves) but the writing and general weirdness lift it above the formulae it is borrowing. Wonderfully flawed, fascinating characters are brought together by a pin-sharp script that knows exactly how much detail is relevant and has no time for fluff. It's rare that a film knows when to end but this one gets it almost perfect, with only a gratuitous "into the sunset" shot right at the end taking the edge off. It also knows it is better not to explain everything and doesn't try to explain anything that isn't important - it assumes you're keeping up and doesn't patronise.
In short, it's as un-Hollywood as a Hollywood film is ever likely to get, probably because it was only signed to a studio after it was made. Light entertainment though it undoubtedly is, some scenes still have the power to take you from jaw-open incredulity to beaming smile in a few joyous seconds.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
'Transformers' - Film review
2 out of 10
When I first heard that Michael Bay was directing Transformers I was filled with equal measures of dread and hope. The man can make a good film but often doesn't (I'm lucky enough never to have seen his Pearl Harbor (sic)). After watching Transformers I realise I should have stuck with my first instinct that it would be a bad combination. This film is simply dreadful and I can't understand why most reviewers seem to think otherwise.
The script is terrible and packed with non sequiturs, technical errors and just pure nonsense. My personal favourite was when a top signal processing expert talks about "furrier transfers" instead of "Fourier transforms". Brilliant, she's clearly a genius.
The cast are terrible. It's hard to see that Shia LaBeouf has any value as an actor, never mind being a lead in a big film like this. The leading lady is utterly vacuous and has no merit beyond her physical shape. John Turturro is horribly miscast as a government agent.
The film is mostly about people running around, not big robot fighting. The robots rarely get a chance to shine and when they are finally given some action it is framed in such a way that you can't see what's happening most of the time.
I think this is because they couldn't actually do the robots well enough, so they've tried to hide them. The transformations don't seem physically correct - there are far too many moving parts and it just doesn't make sense if you try to watch it closely. I'm not a big Transformers geek but even I thought that the changes they'd made to them and their abilities were nonsensical.
There are three small sequences of a few seconds each that I liked, all involving robot fighting that you could actually see properly. If the whole film had been done as well as that then I'd have been much happier. It's possible that the poor framing is not deliberate, since I noticed at least one shot that was out of focus as well. Amateurs. The Citroen adverts are more technically accomplished.
I could rant on about how bad this is for a long time but I have to stop typing. If somebody can explain to me why most people seem to like this I'd appreciate it. I really thought it was awful and the more I think about it the more awful it seems. It's Hollywood franchising at its worst.
This is the most accurate review I can find on the internet: VGCats.
When I first heard that Michael Bay was directing Transformers I was filled with equal measures of dread and hope. The man can make a good film but often doesn't (I'm lucky enough never to have seen his Pearl Harbor (sic)). After watching Transformers I realise I should have stuck with my first instinct that it would be a bad combination. This film is simply dreadful and I can't understand why most reviewers seem to think otherwise.
The script is terrible and packed with non sequiturs, technical errors and just pure nonsense. My personal favourite was when a top signal processing expert talks about "furrier transfers" instead of "Fourier transforms". Brilliant, she's clearly a genius.
The cast are terrible. It's hard to see that Shia LaBeouf has any value as an actor, never mind being a lead in a big film like this. The leading lady is utterly vacuous and has no merit beyond her physical shape. John Turturro is horribly miscast as a government agent.
The film is mostly about people running around, not big robot fighting. The robots rarely get a chance to shine and when they are finally given some action it is framed in such a way that you can't see what's happening most of the time.
I think this is because they couldn't actually do the robots well enough, so they've tried to hide them. The transformations don't seem physically correct - there are far too many moving parts and it just doesn't make sense if you try to watch it closely. I'm not a big Transformers geek but even I thought that the changes they'd made to them and their abilities were nonsensical.
There are three small sequences of a few seconds each that I liked, all involving robot fighting that you could actually see properly. If the whole film had been done as well as that then I'd have been much happier. It's possible that the poor framing is not deliberate, since I noticed at least one shot that was out of focus as well. Amateurs. The Citroen adverts are more technically accomplished.
I could rant on about how bad this is for a long time but I have to stop typing. If somebody can explain to me why most people seem to like this I'd appreciate it. I really thought it was awful and the more I think about it the more awful it seems. It's Hollywood franchising at its worst.
This is the most accurate review I can find on the internet: VGCats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
