The Last FAILbender

For my RAW thoughts on The Last Airbender, you may read them via Twitter @:

 

#thelastfailbender

Here we are fellow movie goers, we've done the impossible. The Last Airbender has set the bar for the new lowest point in movie adaptations. A title where the torch is not easily passed, reserved for only the shittiest of cinematic abortions, a title that was formerly held by the movie Ultraviolet. Yeah, you read it right. The Last Airbender is worse than Ultraviolet, never thought I would utter those words, at least not so soon anyway. It was inevitable that one day, a movie would come along and usurp the epic fail that is Ultraviolet, but why The Last Airbender?

So what about The Last Airbender makes it worthy of the shame once held by Ultraviolet? Pretty much everything having to do with this film. The characters are about as interesting as sticks, with the acting talent of rocks, including the main character Aang(pronounced Un-g in the film and not the proper An-g that we've come to know and love). In fact, the only character who manages to walk away with any kind of dignity is Zuko(we'll get to all of that later). The plot goes no where, or at least makes little to no sense what-so-ever. We randomly end up skipping around the time-line every 5 minutes in order to tell a "(poorly contrived)cliff-notes" version of the story. The source material(being the show)aside from names, and places were pretty much non-existent, cutting out integral parts of the story which would have given all the much more deeper meaning to the events surrounding this world. Even the important things they decided to keep were executed rather poorly, I'm not at all sure how anyone thought this project was going to succeed.

One of the first things I mentioned were how excruciatingly bland the characters were.  This is where The Last Airbender lost most of its audience, how can you expect people to give-a-damn about characters whose ability to evoke emotion is comparable to that of paint drying? The biggest disappointment of course being Aang, the main protagonist/hero of the story. Aang is suppose to be happy/carefree, and easily relate to a broad audience. In the film however, Aang seems detached from everything around him, and comes off as quiet and cold. The Avatar is suppose to be a being of great power and inspiration, serving as an example of good and balance, the adaptation's Aang couldn't inspire me to toast bread. However it seems as though this movie wasn't meant to be a spectacle of fun at all, even the character of Sokka(pronounced Saa-ka)who provides some much needed comic relief in between the seriousness of the mission-at-hand doesn't even crack a joke, sarcastic remark, or any semblance of humor at all. Why would you rid an important trait from a character whose very existence revolves around that very thing? The same thing can be said for Katara, the main female lead who's known for being strong, determined, very emotional, and preachy/nagging. The adaptation pretty much has her devoid of much of her emotional spectrum, somewhere between stone-faced and poorly faking an orgasm. Don't even get me started on Aasif Mandvi, you sir should stick to comedy because I couldn't take you seriously as a villain. I believe it was AngryJoe who said(which I'm paraphrasing): "it was like you where waiting for the punchline of a joke that never came." The rest of the cast I found hard to care about, since the main characters didn't stand out, how are the any of the support characters suppose to?  They seemed much like a part of the background that did something every once-in-a-while, like watching a tumbleweed pass by for a couple of seconds and forgetting about it near immediately after-wards.

All around it seemed as though The Last Airbender has been heavily miscast, with the exception of Dev Patal(known for his success in Slumdog Millionaire)as Prince Zuko.  While not being an idealistic choice for Zuko, Patal brings some much needed REALISM in his approach to the character and closely evokes his personality. With that being said, I still found his Zuko to be a bit boring, perhaps it could be chalked up to poor writing or something. Either way, he delivered it as best he could, and actually walked away with his dignity intact.

Adding to the list of fail is a poor attempt to adapt a 20 episode season, and condense it into a 90 minute film(which is impossible). First of all, 90 minutes...that's it? Why? Given the level of detail that is the story of Avatar: The Last Airbender, one would dictate that you can't really skip anything and would probably be best given an extension to at least 120 minutes minimum, while also breaking up the film into more parts. Speaking of skipping things, where are the Kyoshi(pronounced Ki-yo-shi)Warriors? They do play an integral part in the mythology and yet are no where to be found. Also, I really don't like the idea of meshing 2 completely separate events together for plot convenience, It's lazy writing/story-telling. If you aren't going to even attempt to tell me a cohesive story then just drop it and go, I don't entertain the idea of having various forms of media blatantly presenting to me as if I were the dumbest form of intelligent life in the world. The already established time-line of events dictates a specific order in the events to follow, so don't mess with it. The reason most adaptations fail is because more often than not, some director turns it into their "artsy post-modern take" on the subject, instead of adapting an accurate portrayal of an already established medium! 

Lastly the effects for the film while being pretty where highly unnecessary. Most of the time they didn't really even have a purpose aside from making an already unnecessary flourish look that much worse. All flourishes in each bending form has a purpose, all movements amount to something, at least they're suppose to. On screen it just looks like a bunch of people dancing around, looking rather foolish, and for what? "Look at me, I'm going to do a complicated 500 move dance, which in turn will make a [plot device] go 10 feet in your general direction." What happened in post? Why does everything move so slow? If I can throw a rock faster, more accurately, and more powerfully than you can bend it, what's the point in bending anything?

Honestly at this point, I don't know if I have anything left to say about this film. The Last Airbender was such a giant let-down for me, originally I had thought that with all of the bad reception its been getting, my expectations were so low that it would at least be okay. But no, it wasn't even that. In fact, it wasn't even bad to the point of it being a hilarious unintentional comedy like the remake of The Wicker Man, it was just atrocious as a film in general and also as an adaptation. That being said, I very rarely give movies a terrible rating because there's usually something redeeming to be said for them. Sadly Dev Patal wasn't enough to save this one, I even fell asleep during the climax of the film and had to watch that entire sequence over again. My final recommendation for The Last Airbender is to watch it once, if only to see what truly terrible cinema is


After-thought: The Fire Nation is suppose to be this ruthless, unstoppable, and undeniably intimidating force to be reckoned with. They're only trying to take over the world[insert M.Bison joke here]. Going back to the acting, why did everyone in the Fire Nation display the aggression of card-board? Geez, your talent is so bad they can't even portray anger correctly, is it really that challenging?

Other Reviews(My Inspiration)for The Last Airbender:

These guys inspire me to do what I do, and have also inspired this very review. If you could show them some love, and support them by watching their respective reviews and other material. Well it would just mean a lot!

AngryJoeShow
The Cinema Snob

Gamers can't seem to realize that Dante's Inferno isn't God of War apparently...

Before we start this fiasco, let me state that I originally wanted to just make a simple review about this game. However after reading through numerous reviews about this game, and my own experiences/conclusions thrown into the mix. I feel as though I have to address this growing epidemic of bull-shit, centered around this title.

This is really just a long rant, but in light of that I'd like to consider this part one of the now, two-part Dante's Inferno review. So why so much trouble/controversy over a title such as this? Let's find out!


Dante's Inferno, a game that only I seemed I care about, much like Tatsunoko vs. Capcom. Did you know that on the release date of the latter aforementioned game, that I was one of two people to actually pre-order the title? Much of that scenario was replayed when I strolled into GameStop on Tuesday morning. Needless to say I felt like something was wrong, but I guess that's what happens when the sequel to BioShock is released on the same day. -_-

Getting into the thick of it, let's take a gander at one of the major factors surrounding/asphyxiating Dante's Inferno which doesn't give this game It's fair dues. If you haven't figured it out from oh...nearly(there's probably only one that seems fair)all of the reviews out there since I last checked, all anyone seems to do is compare it to God of War. Now I know similar play styles, and certain game mechanics will garner comparison to something that did it before and what not, but in light of a fair critical analysis, most reviewers and reviewies tend to stick with(and I paraphrase): "_______________________________________________________________________________"(insert any and or random comment/comparison about God of War because that's what this game was apparently suppose to have been, but because this wasn't God of War it was terrible.)You know, that's so funny because last time I checked, this game was titled: "Dante's Inferno" and not God of War right? I mean when I pre-ordered/bought the "title" it was under the name, Dante's Inferno right? Hmm...



...well according to the box cover, I have indeed purchased Dante's Inferno and not God of War, I guess the majority of people on the web with an apparent lack of any sort of free will(you know, that thing that lets you decide for yourself about something)at all can't be right all the time huh?

Adding more insult to injury is the overly restated fact that it "emulates the style of God of War poorly." Alright, what game in the action genre doesn't have some form of quick-time events? For that matter, what action game whose main focus on close-quarters combat doesn't have a "button-mashing-combo" system? Do I need to go on? Seriously, do I?

I suppose the point of all this if you haven't been able to put the picture together yet, is that in every single pro/con about Dante's Inferno whether It's mentioned or not is in some way/shape/form the bastard child of It's "parent," God of War. Having little to no mention about the actual game and story that It's based around(pretty much because It's weighed down by a ton of bull-shit), Dante's Inferno quite literally lives in the shadow of the parent it never had, and until people get over it, it will never truly shine and once and for all be recognized as a title all on It's own.

Stick around for part two, which will be posted later in the day. Or when I get around to it...

Nintendo Wii and Wi-Fi...

Dear Nintendo,

If you're going to enable wi-fi play in your games, namely the fighting genre. Perhaps it would do you some good to have more of, and better optimized dedicated servers. Mostly so that the many players around the world who choose to play in a competitive fashion, can do so in a manner which involves little to no lag(enabling the most competitive, streamlined, and fun style of play...you know, the way that it was meant to be played). Also it would be nice to not have to sit in front of my television for 15 minutes trying to connect to someone on a worldwide scale, only to not find anyone yet for some reason there are leader-boards with data on them...meaning that someone probably left their system on for god knows how long.

Thanks...oh wait, not really Douche-Bags!

P.S. Since the Wi-Fi option is a giant joke, you might as well rename it to "Well, we needed to fill space on this Game, so we just threw some shit together and called it Wi-Fi...but It's actually just shit." And you could actually make it It's own interactive gallery having nothing to do with the game, at least then you're being honest and sincere with your customers.




So how many of you own a Nintendo Wii? *Cricket chirp* Alright...I only needed one hand to count that, j/k I was talking to an empty room! Moving on.

Why is it that Nintendo just doesn't give two shits about the community that backs them? They say that they're not competing with Sony or Microsoft, yet there are basic and yet simple things that a console made in this generation should have but seems to be not much of an issue to the company.

The main problem I and I'm sure many others have seen is the lack of good Wi-Fi capability. Naturally this should be something that is quite the standard in the current state of technology, and the Wii does in fact have Wi-Fi, but let's be honest, out of all the current generation of consoles It's sadly the worst. Hell It's worse than the PSP, a hand-held at that! At least on the PSP I can find people and have a competitive, and also a relatively stream-lined experience which usually amounts to fun because it just is.

So why even enable the players to have this Wi-Fi option? It doesn't do anything but add to the frustration of the day. You're lucky enough to get a connection to someone within 10-15 minutes, which is pretty absurd. Having established a connection luckily, and more often than not an extremely poor one. I remember playing Smash Brothers Brawl over Wi-Fi in my house, trying to have a game with my room-mate in the room next to me and it was god awful...we're talking ridiculous frame rate drops, hell any input on screen was delayed by at least 5-10 seconds. It's this bad trying to connect to someone 10 feet to the right of me, how is it going to get any better when trying to connect with someone miles away from me? Well it just doesn't, plain and simple.

Bottom line being that I care less and less about Nintendo every waking moment of my life. First they alienate the community by focusing solely on the "casual" market. Then try to make up for it by releasing games under their flag-ship titles which more often than not just aren't that good. Finally they try to appeal to the "hard-coresque" competitive audience(which if by competitive you mean Mario Party or Wii Sports just shut the hell up right now...went off on a tangent there, sorry)by stepping up and trying to release games with "Wi-Fi" capability, "play against your friends or challenge anyone in the world in competitive tournament style play...about 5 years from now when we finally connect to that guy in the house next door, with connectivity so slow that in between button inputs you could do things like: the laundry, walk your dog, or take the kids to school. Maybe when you get back, you'll be able to queue up more moves, man this 90 second battle has been going on for 5 hours already and I can't even manipulate time, amazing!" Really Nintendo? REALLY?!?!

At this point there are no excuses. But it's Nintendo, they don't care so why should I or anyone? The fact of the matter is that they should care, they have the resources for such an effort and I don't think we're asking for much. It's not expected that you get it right the first time but it's been what, 3-4 years since the release of the Wii, and still nothing? If you're going to offer something, don't give us some half-assed attempt to poorly emulate your competition, if you aren't going to be serious about it then don't even offer it up as a viable option, stop wasting our time with unnecessary bull-shit!

Rant: The "Shallow" end of the pool

Earlier today I went through my normal routine of cruising Joystiq, Kotaku and a myriad of other gaming sites for my daily fix on the up-and-coming for video games. Another place that I frequent Gametrailers for their videos, more notably their trailers(hence the name).

Just another day browsing through when I saw something familiar, the latest installment into the Naruto: Clash of Ninja Revolution Series, the 3rd entry to be exact. They featured demoed gameplay by none other than the folks over at Willvolution, which by the way are a very talented and just overall awesome group of gamers that I've had the privilage to compete against.

So I was just minding my own business while watching an exhibition match between Sakura/Kabuto and decided to read some of the initial comments. This was the first mis-taken step into a battle that I had no idea was upon me. Now, before I start getting into this I'd like to say that I try to respect everyone's opinions and give people the benefit of the doubt when I hear them speak out on a topic, even more so on topics/things that I personally enjoy...

Also here is the particular video that all of this occured about, and I will admit that if you're not into this particular kind of game that it probably would seem uninteresting, but hear me out on this one:

Video Games | Naruto: Clash of Ninja Revolution 3 | Exclusive Sakura vs Kabuto Exhibition Gameplay

XBox 360 | Playstation 3 | Nintendo Wii

...I was skimming through the most recent comments and ran into some interesting(or not so interesting, nor critical feedback about it)things:

-Yanahana: "god that was sooooo boring"
-DotZero1: "That fight made this game look boring as hell."
-Raidel007: "well the fight kind of sucked...... "



But that still begs the question, why is it boring? I really don't like it when people have a really "boring" opinion about a particular thing/subject. It doesn't offer anything relative to shift the argument to either side, nor does it keep the argument neutral. All it does is waste space, and time(more so the latter), if there's nothing constructive to say/add then please, just shut the fuck up! There are better things to do than to waste my time, let alone everyone else who stopped to read your comment.


The next comment that I took notice of was a step up from the previous two(not a very large step, but one none the less):

-Soladrin: "wow so boring, all the standard attacks are the same."

Alright, that's fair in the sense that It's kind of constructive, but lets look at this for a second:

1) This is a game of the Fighting genre, so immediately we should at the very least expect things to get repetitive.

2) You can believe all you want that "all" video games need to be unique in every single aspect of game-play and control. But come on now, who are you even beginning to kid around with that kind of statement. While the games of today continue to evolve and offer many new innovations, there's isn't a single game out there where the player doesn't have to repeat something over and over again. Sure, maybe they can mask it, or do something to make it so that you don't take notice to doing something repetitively which is great, but take that at face value. It's just a mask, and if you can accept that then you shouldn't have any problems with "things being the same."

3) With fighting games every fighter has a set standard of basic moves: punches, kicks, throws, blocks, movements, specials, etc. The point of this being, that this is a standard, you know that thing that you need to unify a specific aspect of a game, in this case your moves/commands. However each character has their own unique style to fit their different personalities, so while they all function the same internally, what makes it different is how each one reacts to the inputs. It's about all the unique little tweaks/quirks that each one possess that sets them apart despite being of a simplistic style.


Then all hell broke loose when I saw these next ones in particular:

-DenHond: "shit players or shit game? Only time will tell...?"
-ThatGuy: "these players suck...oh i get it they are american players arnt they."

And the gauntlet comes down...correct me if I'm wrong but you(DenHond)are under the current assumption that these two particular individuals are of the coveted(sarcasm folks, if you aren't use to it by now, then step it up) "shit" caliber of gamers. First off, back the fuck down right now, having an opinion is all good, but never under any pretense just out right shoot down a particular person's style of play, we're all different and use different means to reach the same goal...in short don't be a fucking asshole. Second, what exactly makes this a "shit" kind of game? Going back to an earlier argument, why is this particular game a "shit" game? You've once again managed to not offer anything constructive to the mix, and wasted more of my time, next!

If there was anyone in there that I would not want to ever meet outside of video games, ThatGuy *sigh* you take the cake. Why would you, let alone anyone ever have such a damned shallow opinion about a specified affiliation of gamers with such a stupid blanket statement? You've put it out in the open now that YOU have this belief that not specific american gamers suck, but that all american gamers suck. Who the fuck do you think you are? It's probably safe to argue that YOU may have had experiences where certain individuals may have been of a lesser skill level than yourself that happened to be american, or maybe had someone behave in a very unsportsman-like conduct to you that also happened to be american, however that does not garner you absolution to verbally decimate anyone under the title of "american." You have not, and probably will not ever compete with every single one of us, even under the pretense of just fun. So shut the fuck up or get the fuck out! Either way you need a serious shift in perspective, no one should have to tolerate the shit that just dribbled out of your mouth ever.

We(the gaming community)have individuals like ThatGuy, and many other useless contributers to the trolling movement to thank, for continuing to make a conscious effort in lowering the bar for us. Most gamers, especially the really competitive bunch seem like a group of assholes, and to other gamers no less(shocking isn't it?). What happened to being friendly in the face of competition, or just being friendly? Is it really alright to let this grow and continue? I personally don't think so. Also, if I happen to meet any of you(individuals much like the above descripted)and you wonder maybe why we aren't getting along so well...take a look in the mirror and if you have enough insight, then maybe you'll realize that you're just going about it all wrong.

Rant: Why are video games "easy" these days

Lets take a trip back in time if you will, back to the early days of my generation of video games. Remember when NES and SNES games were $60-$70 a game? Yeah, they were that expensive, hard to believe right? As a kid that was a lot of money...that you didn't have. You did all of these chores and behaved yourself so that maybe over the summer you'd end up saving enough money to buy it, or have your parents pick it up for you. Remember when you played that game for months on end? You played it with friends, family or even alone just for fun. Then you would set the game down for a little while, come back to it later and still have that same sense of joy and excitement years later. Those were the days...

So why is it now, that most(and I use that term loosely)video games of today's generation seem "easy"? As mentioned in a way above, back then you could buy a game, play it for quite a while, set it down and then come back and have fun all over again as if you've never played it before. The replay value on games and the difficulty has gone near completely downhill. Today you can purchase a game for $40-60(depending on the system, basing this on a new game price)and be done with it in a matter of hours or days, and then just be done with it all, never to pick it up again.

The question remains, why? The fact that the quality of rendering graphics have definitely gone way up in scale, but as a trade off the game-play time is reduced to the point of where replay-ability is near non-existent. Today games are more about just earning some stupid number(achievements/trophies...which I suppose can be quite rewarding at times), but at the same time is kind of stupid. While it does make someone work towards a goal, the overall course of action eventually becomes all about just getting every "achievement/trophy," and it usually amounts to not having fun, because this is something that you absolutely need to have in order to validate yourself as a gamer. When does working hard to obtain something you don't care about ever sound fun? Now I understand that some gamers are "Completists" which is fine, to each their own. You don't need a panel with squares and witty text to be as such, in fact It's robotic and boring.

The reason you pick up and play a game in the first place is because you think it may be interesting/and or fun. Everything else can fall into place as you go along, it should be about the adventure and the experience that should count in the end. Imagine back to a time where your group of friends all played one game, separately of course but all at the same time. Not everyone plays in the exact same style, you'd have all of these different stories and experiences, all from the same game. The goal would be the same, but that path leading up to it would be different for each and everyone of you. Usually that would be how you end up finding all of these random secrets, and it would only drive you to further explore the game again in another play-through. It made you work hard on your own merit, and gave you a sense of great fulfillment when you obtained it.

So what happened to that magic? Does it still exist? Absolutely, however very faintly the light still burns. Video Games should be about enjoyment, if they're fun then nothing else will matter. I want to remember a character because a part of them I can see reflects on myself, I want to remember a story because It's the kind of adventure that I would want to go on, or have been though. I want to remember this game because I couldn't see myself wanting to forget this moment, feeling the way that I do right now...ever.