Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie

August 18, 2014 by  
Filed under Movies

In the fall of 2006, I started mining YouTube after hearing so much about it being this outlet for people to make videos of themselves and whatnot. At first I thought it’d be just a passing fad, something that would be like an internet version of America’s Funniest Home Videos (which in some ways, it still is), but have no staying power. Obviously, I was completely wrong. It grew, and grew, and by the time I got into it, there were already internet celebrities.

The one that immediately caught my interest was a guy who went by the name The Angry Nintendo Nerd. The first video I watched was “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles”, his rant on the NES version of the game. Immediately, I felt like I was 8 years old again, remembering all the frustrating things about it. I remember all the insane little jumps and the electric seaweed in the underwater stage. As nostalgic and classic as the game was, it certainly caused many headaches. And I liked this refreshing look at these old games–sure, AVN was angry. But you could tell he had a love for these games as well–or at least gaming in general. I subscribed immediately, and through the years I grew beyond just the Angry Nintendo Nerd stuff (renamed Angry Video Game nerd as he got bigger and tapped into bigger markets–plus there’s that pesky trademark issue). I watched “Monster Madness” on his Cinemassacre site, and followed some of his short films like “Rocky Jumps a Park Bench”, and even watched some of his old films he made as an adolescent. His fame grew wider, and I had a feeling he was going to do something more with the Nerd. Of course…the obvious thing was…make a movie.

In 2011, I saw that there was a posting about auditioning throughout the country. Being based in Chicago, I immediately responded saying I was interested. I went to the audition, got to meet The Nostalgia Critic (Doug Walker) and have my picture taken with him, and I wound up on an audition video that was compiled sometime after. Not to brag (because I thought my audition was terrible), but The Critic gave me a thumbs up and said he liked it. Sure, he was probably just being nice. But so what!

Anyhow, I didn’t know what to think of the movie once I started seeing the trailers and such. I knew he was putting a lot of effort into it, as his quality of his other efforts dipped a bit (time constraints will do that); but I wasn’t really into the plot I guess. And I didn’t know if he could sustain this character for a whole two hour movie. I still remember being disappointed with feature-length adaptations of short themed sketch-like endeavors such as “Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie”. So once the film was finally completed, and release dates were published, I knew I had to go see it. I just didn’t know that I was excited to.

I decided not to follow his progress, or read any blogs relating to the movie. I didn’t watch any updated trailers. I wanted to go in fresh. So, August 14th, a second showing opened for Chicago, and I went.

Before I start the review, I will admit that I am a total fan of James Rolfe and the AVGN brand. I feel like I’ve followed his career through the thick and thin (there were some lean years) and I have always admired his acumen in both film and gaming. That said, I am not reviewing this film as a fan. I feel like I can’t do that. I have to do service to the film itself and knowing how hard Rolfe worked on this, how many sacrifices he probably made and how wonderful of a wife he must have to go through this with him (and now having a child on top of all that), I will fairly critique the film.

The film opens with an homage to AVGN as a celebrity, and his fans. It references some of his trademark reviews an signature riffs and rants, and splices shots of fans saying how much they are a fan of his. These are genuine videos made by the fans, presumably by those who donated to the film as well.

I’m mentioning this because, even though I am a fan, and I love the Nerd and his rants…this has to be the most useless way to start his film. I realize that Rolfe has a soft heart, and loves his fans dearly (I can’t say enough how much I appreciate his devotion to his fans)–but this wastes some time and it starts the film off wrong, and slow. And no, I didn’t make a fan video and am just disappointed he didn’t use mine. But if you are a fan of his, you already know how funny and awesome he is. If you aren’t, do you really need to sit through 5-10 minutes of people adulating him? I think that’s a bit self aggrandizing, even if Rolfe doesn’t mean to make it that way.

It does serve a narrative purpose, slightly (not enough to justify it completely though). We learn that the Nerd (Rolfe) will do anything for his fans–except review The Worst Game Of All Time–“E.T.” for the Atari 2600. The Nerd, who works at GameCops (ha…) is egged on by a fan of his, and friend, Cooper (Jeremy Suarez), who also does game reviews as well. You could call Cooper a protege. The Nerd is shocked to see that a gaming company, Cockburn Gaming, is launching a sequel called “EeeTee Too” (they also refer to the original as EeeTee). A representative of the company, Mandi (Sarah Glendening), tries to entice the Nerd to review the game. But he is fearful that if he reviews that game, it’ll only stir up more interest in the original, which traumatized his childhood so much (in a very amusing scene) he can’t bring himself to relive it.

There’s also a myth he wants to debunk that there are countless copies of the original buried in the Alamogordo dump in New Mexico, which apparently is very close to Roswell. An irate and insane general, General Dark Onward (hilariously played by Stephen Mendel), goes after the Nerd thinking that he is after the UFO remains at Area 51, not the landfill dump.

Another subplot involves a scientist named Dr. Zandor (Time Winters) who is partly behind the “EeeTee” conspiracy, and his plot was to uncover the UFO conspiracy to help the alien that crash landed here in the 40’s. The alien, voiced by Robbie Rist, is one of the most entertaining characters in the film. Rist, if you’re not familiar, is the voice of Michelangelo in the first “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” film.

One more subplot that adds to the last third of the film involves a theory of a mechagod that will destroy the universe and ultraverse and everything in between…existence as we know it will no longer…exist.

All of this actually winds up working well. The film is part buddy movie, part caper, part monster movie, and part sci-fi yarn. It all comes together nicely, and I credit that to the writing team of James Rolfe and Kevin Finn. They also do a nice job of throwing out references to other films (“They found me. I don’t know how, but they found me.”) and paying homage to old 1950’s B movies.

The special effects are purposely simple; and, in some cases, downright ridiculous. But even though it’s self-aware, there is never once a wink at the camera. Nobody cries out, “It’s a miniature!” or “That’s a spaceship?” While the Nerd references his own trailer (“I only said that for the trailer!”) there isn’t much more of that self-referential humor bogging the film down.

Really, the only two problems I had with the film were the first fifteen minutes; and I thought the character of Cooper should’ve been more well developed. While I get that the in-joke is that he’s a sidekick and they’re mostly useless, he could’ve been stronger as an adversary–or, someone who is the complete opposite of the Nerd. It just creates more possibility of tension, and in some ways Rolfe takes the easy way out of any character conflicts.

There’s another character named McButter (Helena Barrett) who is amusing as well, and gets involved in a predictable catfight later in the film. Most of the cast, actually, is quite charming. And the film does have some really big laughs.

I’d say that I enjoyed the final third of the film the best. And that would be when it becomes a monster movie. Knowing that Rolfe had trademark limits, I liked his clever little ways around any copywritten material or names (Vegas casinos, for example). Again, this film knows it’s low budget. But it’s not trying to be low budget, if that makes sense. While I know Rolfe prefers practical effects to CG, he also knows its constrictions when you don’t have millions of dollars to spend on them.

The film works overall because you can tell how much fun they’re all having with the material, without it being too self indulgent. It walks that line throughout, especially in the beginning; but it never crosses into anything too groan-inducing.

There are some fun cameos in the film, too, which I won’t give away. But a certain bad bird movie heroine has a sighting. OK maybe that was a giveaway. But I didn’t give away the biggest ones.

And stick around at the end, and you will finally see AVGN’s review of “E.T.”

My rating: :-)

Tron Legacy

December 29, 2010 by  
Filed under Featured Content, Movies

In 1982 we were introduced to a different kind of science fiction action film: a computer action film. These days, that may sound either common or at least, somewhat exciting. But back in 1982, computers were fairly unknown and computer games were extremely rare. But Disney was willing to shell out for a film called “Tron”, which was about computers and computer hackers and computer games. It revolved around very basic colors and designs, but make them look very unique even if the story seemed lethargic and 4-bit. The film gathered some good reviews at the time, and eventually became somewhat of a cult classic.

Now, 28 years later, we have a sequel. It’s been a long time coming, I suppose. But whatever originality and creativity went into the first one…it was drained by the sequel. “Tron Legacy” not only has a slow moving plot but it also contains nothing but a series of hackneyed dialog scenes accompanied by action sequences that have been taken from every sci-fi action flick in the last 20 years.

The plot centers around Kevin Flynn’s (Jeff Bridges) son Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund) who has broken into the ENCOM system like his dad did, and finds that his father has sent him a “page” to get back to the arcade and find him. What Sam finds, however, is that he’s been tricked by his father’s nemesis in the program, Clu. Flynn is sent to “Games”, in which he partakes in disc throwing fights until he is identified by Clu has Flynn’s son. From there, the story is extremely familiar and the cliches just keep on coming.

Everything from the mysterious “savior” in the Games realm for Sam turns out to be a beautiful female with all the moves (I think I last saw this device used in “Nine” but I guess “Avatar” could count as well) to the guy who is supposed to save them but turns out to be a double crosser…this film offers very little in the department of surprise or even wonder. Bridges returns in the dual role of Kevin Flynn and Clu. He is much more interesting as Flynn, sometimes invoking The Dude a few times. But the film is so formulaic that it doesn’t even seem worth it to follow the formula to the final resolution.

I guess what would keep anyone watching are the special effects. They are, at times, very impressive. At other times, however, they are just stealing from other sci-fi action films such as “The Matrix” or “Star Wars” or even “The Dark Knight”. The 3-D used is worthless. Nothing seems to come right out at you. You could experience 3-D and 2-D with this film and get the identical experience either way. But apart from its generic plot and plot devices, the colors are rather bland, too. The light blue is rather dull compared to the more embracing cyan that was used in the original. It comes off as very pale; and so does the movie. It’s either extremely dark, or extremely bright. The contrasts never seem to come together.

And neither does this film. There’s nothing to really get excited about or have fun with because the movie doesn’t seem have fun with itself, either. There are a few nods to the 80’s, but that hardly makes up for the utterly brooding look the film has. Even in the quieter, more conversational scenes, nothing is learned about the characters because they are all drawn so superficially that there’s nothing to actually learn about them whatsoever.

While the first film may have been formulaic and possibly devoid of character development as well, it at least had an interesting and unique look to it. This film just borrows from that and not only doesn’t make an improvement, but takes a few steps back. If you were a fan of the first one, you’ll see this and possibly be entertained. Maybe that’s another thing that frustrating: this film had a built-in fanbase that was already going to like it for what it was. I was looking for something more; and all I got was more of the same.

My rating: :?

Iron Man 2

May 17, 2010 by  
Filed under Featured Content, Movies

Comic book movie sequels can be a conundrum. While you already have the pressure of being a sequel already, most of the time you’re given the chance to flesh out your hero a little more and give them another villain to work with. You do, however, have the advantage of a lot more material to work with. Marvel is the most prominent icon in comic book movies today, with the successes of The “Spiderman” series, the “X-Men” series, a revamped “Hulk” series, and of course the first “Iron Man”. But the “Iron Man” series has a different kind of approach to its sequel because the function of its hero, Tony Stark, isn’t a tortured soul like Peter Parker or Bruce Banner. He’s actually a charismatic billionaire who loves life and loves his money. So the angle here isn’t about morphing into a monster or using super hero strength to counter a nerdy teenage existence. Quite simply, “Iron Man” is about one thing:

Toys. Tony Stark loves his main toy, the Iron Man suit with all its bells and whistles and impossible awesomeness. He doesn’t believe it should go to the military to be used in some liberal agenda. He also believes he’s the only one who can be trusted enough to use it. Copycats have tried and failed; except for an ex-con in Russian whose father used to work with Tony’s father and was exiled from the project. The Russian, played by Mickey Rourke in a very underused role, creates a suit that can rival Iron Man’s power and ability. It also happens to look pretty cool.

Meanwhile, Tony is tangled up in a plot with a group called S.H.I.E.L.D. that knows Tony’s suit can be useful; but Tony himself is useless. Scarlett Johansson plays Black Widow (though she’s never referred to that code name in the fim; she’s Natasha or Natalie), part of the organization, and Samuel L. Jackson plays Nick Fury.

Also, Ivan (Rourke) is lured into a scheme by a rival gun maker named Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) to build a better Iron Man suit so he can upstage Tony Stark.

This is all well and good, and I think the movie tries to show off how cool it is a little too much. The thing I liked so much about the first film was that it was surprisingly charming and interesting as well as being pretty good to look at. The final battle scene was as hokey as they come; but by that time, the film was already likable enough to where I didn’t care.

But a sequel was not going to really be surprising. We knew what we were getting, ultimately. This wasn’t going to be like “Superman II” or “Spider-man II” or even “X-Men 2”. There was no real growth for Tony. Tony is Tony. He has a bit of a problem with his ticker, but it doesn’t really change who he is. This one’s just louder and more stuff gets blowed up. In a somewhat self-serving and indulgent scene, Tony and his long time pal Rhodey (played this time by Don Cheadle instead of Terrence Howard) get into a big macho fight that leaves Tony’s pad really busted up. And of course their friendship is kind of hurt at that point.

The movie is very predictable and not as enjoyable as the first. There’s a freshness missing; and while Downey, Jr. and Rourkey provide entertaining characters and some nice moments, the movie still is what it is: it’s just an action film. Sure, that’s fine. I still enjoyed that part of it. Perhaps this series is a bit doomed in that regard. Tony will never NOT be Tony, nor will he have room to grow to be more mature. He’s fun and charming, but there’s not anything flawed enough in him to make a real change. In other words, there’s not as much at stake. Not for his character or what will happen to his life. He puts on a suit that’s able to be pulverized by an electronic whip and still survive. He’s still insanely rich; and the future’s bright. I’m not sure where else this story needs to go.

But if there is going to be an “Iron Man 3”, which I feel there will, I think it’s a mistake. The next project for this would be a “S.H.I.E.L.D.” film, or the Avengers. I think the last bit at the end of the film credits reveals that’s probably inevitable. I think that may be a lot more fun than seeing a guy fly around in a metal suit blowing stuff up for two hours for a third time.

My rating: : :|

Avatar

December 28, 2009 by  
Filed under Featured Content, Movies

James Cameron had this film in his mind for over 15 years, and it had been in the making for about 4. He wanted to create a world, a race of people, all designed through CGI. In 1994, this would have been considered groundbreaking. Indeed, when he was on “60 Minutes” this past fall, he kept using that word. But it wasn’t just the CGI. He invented his own camera to do the 3-D work. 3-D is something that I’ve always been very reluctant to sit through in a movie theatre. It can be overhyped and overrated, and sometimes it is just bad. But this entire movie was going to be filmed in 3-D, and that was going to be quite an accomplishment. Cameron even waited throughout the years, claiming that he wanted the technology to be ready for him when he made it.

I guess the wait was worth it. “Avatar” is one of the best visual achievements I’ve ever seen. The 3-D, while taxing on the eyes due to its 160 minute running length, is exhilarating and breathtaking at certain sequences when you actually feel like you’re on the planet with these creatures. The depth of the world is incredible, nearly on par with “The Lord of the Rings”–although some of the species of creatures are just a little too familiar and uninspired.

And speaking of that, the plot of the film can be criticized for being that as well. While the visuals will impress enough to get you through the film, it’s a shame that the narrative is drawn out and somewhat boring because the characters are extremely bland. Cameron brought a world to life, but he didn’t include a cast of characters to help it along. It is also needlessly complex. Cameron had said he wanted to make a film of “every science fiction story he ever saw growing up”. I guess he pulled that off, but there has to be a point where the creative process takes over. This has “Dances With Wolves”, “Last of the Mohicans”, “Pocahontas”, written all over it.

Although the characters are uninteresting, I do have to say that the performance by Sam Worthington, as Jake Sully, was exceptional. I think that at times the CGI took away from an emotional connection as well. Yes, we do see some impressive things–but we do still see that it’s CGI. And because some of the animation is just too computer generated, something is lost.

Cameron sometimes can really benefit, however, with some script doctoring; it’s a shame he doesn’t have a co-writer. Even George Lucas sought the help of people like Tom Stoppard when he hit a wall. Cameron’s dialog is on par with throwback comic book writing of the 50’s and 60’s. It’s just painful sometimes to listen to. This plagued “Titanic” at times as well. The main villain in this film is about as bad and one dimensional as I’ve seen Cameron create. He made Bennett in “Commando” look more realistic.

I will say that Cameron deserves credit for delivering where it mattered most, and that’s visually. But the film is still a film, and a film needs a great narrative in order to be considered a great film. It’s a great spectacle, but not a great movie. It is wonderful to look at, which makes it a worthwhile film to watch.

But it could have been one of our great epics with a great storyline and characters to aid it. It’d be interesting to see what a person thinks of this film while watching it on the small screen, with no 3-D. I think it’s pretty easy to determine that this film loses a lot of luster that way. And a great film is not something that should depend on what kind of technology in which you watch it.

My rating: :-)

The Day the Earth Stood Still

December 17, 2008 by  
Filed under Movies

You would think a big budget spectacle like this remake of the 1951 classic would be more fitting to be released in the summer time, when popcorn sci-fi cinema permeates the movie theatres; but I suppose that because this one’s supposed to be “thought-provoking”, it was more suitable at the “thought-provoking” time of year, the winter. I guess we have more time to think now that we can’t go outside and do anything, than we do in the summertime. Unfortunately for this movie, there’s not much thought that’s really being provoked. It’s more like it’s being threatened to stay away.

In the original “The Day the Earth Stood Still”, there is almost a Serling-esque feel to the way the story unravels, and obviously the way it ends, with the choice being left to us whether we want to save ourselves or be destroyed. It’s the misconception of humans that we think that anyone who says “You’re going to be destroyed” by a foreign presence means THEY are the ones who are going to destroy us. It was a very interesting plot–and for its time, it was convincingly executed, special effects wise.

In this modern day remake, we have the gaudy special effects, and the big budget, big screen feel. And this movie fails on every level that the original succeeds on. Well now, that RARELY happens in remakes, huh? What is it about that? Is it just the natural dilution of a remake? Is it just inherent that the remake MUST be devoid of what made the original so good? I didn’t feel that way with the 1978 “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”, or “The Thing”, or “Father of the Bridge”, or even Zombie’s “Halloween” (don’t give me that look!). A remake should be an opportunity to take the original and either see it from a different angle, or improve on what may have made the original…dated. I suppose in the case of “The Day the Earth Stood Still”, the special effects. And they didn’t even really do THAT good a job on this remake, either.

The story resembles the original in a way; but it makes a few fatal changes that completely miss the point of the original. Where it gets the story right is in one of the best scenes in the film with John Cleese, playing a Nobel prize winning scientist, Professor Barnhardt, in which he has an engaging dialog with Klaatu about the fact that “it’s only on the precipice of disaster that we change”. That is very true, and it’s something that, had this remake expanded upon, would have made it a slam dunk. Unfortunately the movie gets so caught up in military action, stuff blowing up, and a very melodramatic and tired story between Helen (played as eloquently as possible by Jennifer Connelly) and her stepson Jacob (played by Jaden Smith, son of Will Smith, who seemed more confused by his own presence than anything else) and their struggles to get along. Since Jacob seems to blame her for his dad’s death, whom she’d only married a year or so prior to, this becomes a principle conflict throughout the film. Like in the original, Jacob’s father died in a war. But unlike the original, this movie fails to bring home the point about war and destruction.

If you have seen the original, there are many mentions about wars and the destruction humanity imposes on itself. In this version, it seems like this is more just about Americans, which is questionable since this was a plot that was supposed to be about “mankind”, not just American “mankind”. There are a few shots of “footage” from other countries that are going nuts over the “Alien Invasion”–but it looks like…there’s America, then there’s third world countries. I think Klaatu would be disturbed by the filmmakers of this movie, that we are so conceited.

There’s also more of an environmental angle to this film which doesn’t seem to work. Are we destroying our earth by killing each other in wars, or are we destroying our earth because we’re polluting it? In the first case, what difference does it make whether YOU kill us or WE kill us. In the latter, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHETHER YOU KILL US OR WE KILL US?! It would have nothing to do with us, you would just eradicate us!

Because the movie didn’t work in the big picture, a lot of other things fall apart. What do we know about the father of Jacob, for one thing? What kind of dad was he? What kind of husband was he? If it’s so important, and vital in getting Jacob to trust Helen, shouldn’t we know more about their relationship too? No, instead the movie would rather show military operations and Secretary of Defense shenanigans (Kathy Bates who is the overpowering SOD that again shows our arrogance and whatnot). And some of the movie looked like it was borrowing from “Transformers”.
Another thing that got to me was the product placement. Now I know Hollywood does this often, but man ALIVE this is outrageous. Guess where Klaatu has to meet another “visitor” that’s been living on earth for decades?

No, really, guess.

I’ll give you a hint.

Ba-da-bap-bap-ba.

Oh, and you will definitely know they use LG cell phones; Windows Vista apparently utilizes Star Trek technology; and there is a thirty second sequence that is one big silent car commercial.

It’s just disappointing that this movie did NOT need to be remade, and again, it is frustrating that they missed it by doing exactly what drove Klaatu’s journey in the first place: it’s more about greed and profit than anything else. Now, do I think the original WASN’T made for money? No, but they at least trusted the writers enough to come up with something that would be marketable AND still retained intelligence.

It’s pretty sad when the BEST thing about this movie was Keanu Reeve’s performance. Unfortunately for him, who also worked on screenplay rewrites, the end result was less than stellar.

My rating: :???: