originally on boards.ie…

Both Microsoft and Sony made big noises prior to the move to this generation of consoles of how gaming was going to move from the bedroom to the living room. Gaming is undoubtedly becoming more and more mainstream, and the new consoles would reflect that, by being the centre of your entertainment world.

Both consoles, to differing degrees, got one part right. They both boast HDMI outputs to connect up to your living room telly, and (in theory, at least) you can stream all your music, movies and photos to your living room. How contemporary, how social, how very grown up.

Of course, the main appeal of these consoles is still their software line-up, and it’s that that’s going to make or break their transition to the living room.

And, to be perfectly blunt, I would be embarressed to play games like Gears of War, Oblivion and Halo. If these videogames have cinemetical parallels, they would be Rambo or Red Sonja. They are creatively bankrupt, showing no innovation in terms of art direction, astethic, characterision, plot - these are the same games we’ve been playing since Doom and Venture, just given a fresh lick of paint, a few tacked on USPs for the back of the box, and presented as the pinnacle of the artform.

And sadly, due to their popularity, it is games like these that luddites like Jack Thompson, lawmakers, politicians, film critics and so on think of when they think of videogames, and so any merit the medium has is completely dismissed.

It’s a daming indictment of the creativity of the industry, and the tastes of the consumer, that seemingly the only games that seem to get onto shop shelves are Space-Marine-Versus-Aliens, Knights-On-A-Magical-Quest or Missile-Launching-Flame-Throwing-Cars. Or Saints Row.

Who’s doing anything about it? Looking at Microsoft’s upcoming line-up, after the potentially progressive Alan Wake, I’m left with immature, derivative titles like Ninja Gaiden 2, Too Human and Halo Wars. I understand that many are counting the days to their release, but in all honesty, we’ve all played them before, under the guise of a thousand other identical games. For me, the brightest light on Microsoft’s line-up is a rerelease of Rez - because though I’ve played it before, playing it again will be more of a breath of fresh air than the afformentioned titles.

But then there’s Sony. Their line-up has all the usual suspects too. Killzone ticks the Space-Marine-Versus-Aliens, there’s more Knights-On-A-Magical-Quest cookie-cutter games than I care to count, and plenty of Shiny-Cars-Racing games to boot. And you know, meh.

But Sony’s line-up looks like it’s gonna take the path less trodden. They’re pushing games like Singstar and Buzz, which I won’t be mortified to play in front of (or, heaven forbid, with) my girlfriend, friends, or guests to my house. It’s social games like these that will truly win the living room for videogames.

And not only does their line-up pitch itself at the mainstream, but they seem keen to create new, artistically and creatively relevant games for the rest of us. We’re seeing it on the Playstation Store with stuff like PixelJunk Racers and Loco Roco, and we’ll hopefully be seeing it next year with stuff like LittleBigPlanet, Afrika, Aqua, Echochrome and more.

Sure, those gamers that see Halo3 and Gears of War as the pinnacle of the medium may easily dismiss them as unknown quantities. Me? I’ll embrace them, precisely because they are unknown quantities.

Continued from part one, commenting on the films I’m most looking forward to.

I Am Legend (14/12/07)

The third attempt at a film adaptation of the classic horror novel. Will Smith already butchered sci-fi masterpiece I, Robot, but will he make it two in a row? The teaser trailer suggests a film that takes liberty with the events of the book, but that may be no bad thing. The premise holds up, how will the execution?

Iron Man (02/05/07)

Firmly in the camp that believes Jon Favreau’s take on Daredevil was hugely underrated, I’m hopeful that Iron Man will deliver him the credit he deserves. Robert Downey Jr. was born to play Tony Stark, and provided they can sort out the villain of the piece, it should be a hit.

1-18-08 (18/01/08)

I’m not a fan of all this new-fangled viral marketing, nor was I keen on the Abrams-helmed Mission Impossible III, but I can’t say no to a good old monster movie, especially if this one is as innovative as people believe it will be. We’ll see.

10,000 B.C. (07/03/08)

Creationist undertones aside, it’s great to see a Roland Emmerich blockbuster. Godzilla may have been misguided, and The Day After Tomorrow was utter dross, but in Independence Day, they crafted one of the most arresting blockbusters of recent times. Here’s hoping for a return to form.

More soon!

There’s no denying that 2007 has been a pretty lackluster year for cinema - especially when compared to the exceptionally strong year it followed. However, as a film fan, I’m always looking forward to the next big release, and here’s what I’m keeping my eye on:

American Gangster (02/11/07)

Ridley Scott directs Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe in a 1970s cop drama. Denzel’s collaborations with Tony Scott have been hit and miss, but the gritty tone of this film should suit the two leads perfectly.

We Own The Night(12/10/07)

A film unknown to be until about a week ago when I laid eyes on the trailer. Joaquin Phoenix stars alongside Mark Wahlberg as two brothers on opposite sides of the tracks. Again, it’s gritty New York setting may bring the best out of the two actors. Pre-release buzz has been terrific, so it could end up being a pleasant surprise.

Bee Movie (14/12/07)

Jerry Seinfeld is undeniably a funny guy. He’s also not a man short on cash, thanks to a windfall due to Seinfeld’s worldwide syndication. As such, he can pick and choose what work he does. Bee Movie looks like being a project of passion for him, and I’m keen to see how it turns out. Computer-animated children’s films have rapidly become stale, so hopefully this one can give the genre a shot in the arm.

30 Days Of Night(19/10/07)

I’ve not read the graphic novel that the film is based on, but I am a fan of Steve Niles’ other work, and that he had a hand in the screenplay is welcome news. A promising premise, a promising trailer, and so my hopes are high for this one.

Check back tomorrow for more!

Again, based on the stand-alone Japanese cut, presumably the same as the stand-alone European cut.

Grindhouse was something of a cinematic conjoined-twin. Upon release, the film struggled at the box-office, and so, with the two parts of the film’s interests in mind, they were seperated, and released separately.

Tarantino’s Death Proof still had difficulty maintaining a steady pulse, but what of the other half - Robert Rodriguez’ Planet Terror?

The prospects were undoubtedly stronger for this one. Rodriguez had undoubted genre credentials, having helmed From Dusk Till Dawn. His El Mariachi Trilogy proved no slouch in the over-the-top action stakes either.

However, whereas the above films had plenty of neat characterisation and style going for them, Planet Terror is unashamedly crude, in-your-face an outright stupid.

The plot, what little there is, sees a small town in Texas overrun by mutants as a result of a leak of chemical weapons at a nearby army base. A motley band of survivors are formed, charged with cleaning up the whole mess.

And that, essentially, is it. Unlike Death Proof, the trailer succinctly captures the film. It’s a film comprised of gruff men, victimized women and lots of gory, tongue-in-cheek action. Rodriguez is clearly in his element, stuffing the film with gratuitous head-shots and corny lines (You killed Bin Laden? I put two in his heart, one in his computer…) and it accomplishes what it set out to do very well. Fans of the genre won’t be disappointed.

However, the film is by no means a classic, nor up there with some of Rodriguez’ other works. No amount of knowing winks and nods to the audience can elevate the silliness to a higher station. It’s shallow stuff, and probably won’t leave a lasting mark on the audience.

So, to return to the awkward analogy: it is definitely the stronger twin, but the long-term outlook isn’t very good. (groan.)

Based on the Japanese theatrical cut, which is presumably the same as the stand-alone European cut.

Tarantino is a pretty divisive film maker these days. In one camp, there are people who accredit him for creating some of the most important movies of our age, of re-invigorating independent cinema, and presenting off-beat, niche cinema to the mainstream like few others have done before.

The other camp is an increasingly vocal one. They say he’s a hack, not so much as a revolutionary auteur as a plagarising copy & paste merchant, who owes his success to the films he pays homage to in his own works.

Generally, I fall into the former category. Tarantino’s films may be derivative, but there is no doubting his flair for writing and directing captivating dialogue. He makes no bones about the fact that his films frequently reference other works, and once the audience is aware of that, I’ve no problems with his unoriginality.

So, anyway, Death Proof. Death Proof was originally released as one half of Grindhouse. It supposedly came about as the result of a bet between Tarantino and long-time friend and collaborator Robert Rodriguez, with the challenge being to create the best homage to grindhouse cinema. However, when Grindhouse was released in the States, it was something of a flop, and so both halves of the film (Rodriguez’ Planet Terror and Tarantino’s Death Proof) were re-cut and re-released around the world as seperate, longer films.

Death Proof, then, tells the story of a stuntman who goes by the name of Stuntman Mike, played by the under-used Kurt Russell. Stuntman Mike travels the land looking for young women who he can torment and/or kill with the help of his trusty Hollywood-rigged car.

The above, coupled with the pre-release Grindhouse hype, might lead the audience to believe they’re in store for a no-holes-barred, dirty, low-budget horror/thriller.

Tarantino, clearly, had other ideas. The finished, re-cut film clocks in at a solid two hours, and, perhaps somewhat ironic for a director so often accused of plagiarism, this film references Tarantino’s previous works more so than grindhouse films. The film is essentially composed of long, meandering, irrelevant talking heads scenes between the female leads, bookended by literally a couple of thrilling scenes with Kurt Russell.

For fans of Tarantino, the thought of a film chocked full of his dialogue is perhaps a welcome one. And yet, the dialogue struggles to hold the audience’s attention. Tarantino’s most memorable dialogue has always come from male characters - the gangsters arguing over tipping a waitress, discussing European burgers and so on - and so it comes as no surprise when the banter between the female characters in Death Proof variously completely fails to captivate or sounds like it was written for Samuel L. Jackson or Harvey Keitel.

And so, what are we left with? A scenery-chewing Kurt Russell, a thrilling chase scene, and not a lot else. It is, as was originally planned, one half of a film.