Edge of Darkness

Edge of Darkness is another movie that I went into with negative expectations and came out pleasantly surprised. What were those negative expectations, you ask? Well, first off, we have Mel Gibson. Mel Gibson, while a brilliant actor in the past, hasn't really been in much of note recently and has acquired a rather nasty reputation in his daily life activities. Perhaps it is bad to judge an actor by what they do outside of acting, but we all do it just the same. However, that would make me a hypocrite because I love Tom Cruise and John Travolta, and both of them have acquired controversial reputations due to their belief in that which is most bizarre: Scientology.

Anyways, another thing which gave me doubts is that this, on the surface, just looks like yet another movie about some older guy going on the rampage when his family member gets killed/kidnapped. For some reason, this has been a recurrent trend recently, with the movie Taken leading the pack. The concept isn't inherently bad for a story, but when it has that appearance of being everywhere then it swiftly loses its luster. Speaking of which, I'll be watching the movie Harry Brown soon which has Michael Caine in what looks like virtually the same role. Having similar movies released one after another causes one to doubt and look down upon the ones that one watches after the first. I think that this is a big reason why I preferred The Prestige over The Illusionist. But I digress.

.

Mel Gibson as the Subtle Badass

This movie restored a lot of respect with me for Mel Gibson. While this is hardly his best role ("Freeeedooom!"), he carries the tragic character excellently. He is suitably aggrieved by his daughter's death, yet you can't help but respect the man for his unyielding determination in trying to discover what caused it. His character has a lot going on: he occasionally hallucinates his daughter's presence yet maintains the wherewithal to act completely professional (most of the time); he is able to overcome the emotional instability that her death causes with surprising ease yet clearly lets his anguish bleed through from time to time. Long story short, Mel Gibson manages to give his character incredible depth, so much so that I'm still not quite sure whether to think of him as a solid, professional grade-A badass or a man with severe issues concealed extraordinarily well.

One interesting thing in particular that I liked about his character that seemed unique and special to the film was the fact that, unlike all those other older vigilantes in other movies, Mel Gibson's character always seems to avoid violence or confrontation unless absolutely necessary. This isn't out of cowardice, but more out of him being very smart and dedicated to, as much as possible, following the law. This spirals out of control later in the film, but I can't say why exactly without spoiling it. I can only say that there are points in the movie where Mel Gibson has no other choice but to act outside of the law, and it was great to see a protagonist act as intelligently as he does. I really found myself rooting for his character.

.

The Big Picture

Another thing that made this movie especially appealing was the fact that the villains weren't small-time crooks or obvious criminals. This isn't just a gang killing here. Instead, it quickly becomes clear that the antagonist of Edge of Darkness is a corporation involved in classified nuclear operations with fingers dipped into the highest echelons of the United States government, a corporation that Mel Gibson's daughter worked for before her death. Finding what exactly is wrong with the corporation and what it does, and the daughter's role in it, was really interesting to watch.

Additionally, unlike many of the other one-man-out-for-revenge type flicks, Mel Gibson's character does not operate independently from his police force. Despite the dubious nature of the case, Mel Gibson works directly with his fellow cops to investigate his daughter's death, and he uses the police force a number of times for support and to bail himself out of tricky situations. I thought I'd point this out simply because it felt so rare for a character in this situation to do this. Again, it was interesting to see Mel Gibson's character try to work with the law despite the ambiguity of the task facing him.

.

Conclusion

In the end, I really liked Edge of Darkness, which surprised me. Mel Gibson wasn't annoying, the plot was very interesting to watch, the antagonist was amorphous and difficult to pin down, Mel tried to work with the law instead of just abandoning it from the start, Ray Winstone provided a really interesting side character who I almost forgot to mention... The movie did a lot to subvert my expectations of the vigilante movie. And, for a movie called Edge of Darkness, I thought there were a lot of rather funny moments.

My only complaint would be that I found the scenes where he hallucinated/dwelled upon the memories of his daughter to be distracting. But those scenes were absolutely necessary considering that, otherwise, we would have assumed Mel Gibson's character to be a heartless bastard. It just speaks to the strength of the rest of the film that I found myself tapping my foot waiting for the main plot to continue. Definitely worth seeing.

Unstoppable

Unstoppable was a movie that I went into with both good and bad feelings. On the bad side, I looked at it and a trailer of it and thought to myself, "Damn. This looks like a stereotypical action movie with trains." On the good side, I saw that Denzel Washington was in it and thought to myself, "That badass never disappoints." Confronted with this conflicted mix of revulsion and attraction, I did what any brave soul would do; I shut my eyes and jumped headfirst into the yawning abyss of potentially shitty films.

.

I Will Carry Denzel's Babies... Somehow

My impression of all that is good in the world held true in the form of Denzel Washington. Like in pretty much every role this brilliant actor takes, Denzel turns his character into a proud yet humble train operator who takes control of a crisis in order to do the right thing. The movie can can be simply described as thus: shit happens; unmanned train goes out of control. But despite the simple premise, Denzel Washington and that-one-dude-from-Star-Trek (Chris Pine) play roles that make you get really into the action and genuinely concerned when they get into serious trouble.

Well, at least Denzel does. As for Chris Pine, he didn't seem to be as interesting to me. Fact of the matter is that he spends most of the movie moping and whining about like a little ass, as if throwing a temper tantrum over how driving trains isn't nearly as cool as commanding a space cruiser (again, Star Trek). Yet, despite this, Denzel somehow manages to prod him out of it, and the two end up sharing some genuine chemistry together instead of being two guys who simply have to get along for plot purposes.

.

Trains are Dangerous

I was also pleasantly surprised by how this movie transcended my fears of it being "just some action movie with trains." While at its most basic level that is still what it is, the film overcomes that through some pretty good acting and excellent directing that shows us just how insane and terrifying it would be if an unmanned train randomly took off. Trains are enormous, and it is easy to forget that as childhood-implanted images of Thomas the Tank cascade through your head. As a consequence, I actually was on the edge of my seat for a good deal of the movie. After all, how do you stop a giant train?

There are a number of attempts and, as this is based on a true story, it was very intriguing to see that this is actually how people would react if a train went out of control. Many attempts are made, and it is interesting to see how they develop, from a man lowered onto the train via helicopter to intentional derailing of the monstrous locomotive. Some ideas are good, some awful, but I feel it accurately reflects what would occur if something like this actually happened (which it apparently did).

.

Conclusion

So, in the end, despite my misgivings, I found this movie to be pretty entertaining and interesting. Definitely worth seeing. But it is hard to say that there is much more to this movie outside of a bunch of guys stopping a train. Nothing about it is Oscar-worthy-of-mention, and the characters themselves are obviously constructed so they have enough depth to bring on empathy but not much beyond that. But, sometimes, that isn't a failing. Just like how Titanic showed us the step-by-step process of how a giant ship hitting an iceberg can go titanically wrong (hehe), Unstoppable shows us the interesting procedure of how people would deal with an out-of-control train. And, in this case, that's good enough for me.

Snakes On A Plane

Written by Joe the Revelator

I don’t know how to accurately describe the greatness of this movie, except to endlessly gush over it, so bear with me. To call Snakes on a Plane better than Citizen Kane would be like comparing a high-torque muscle car hot off the tracks, to one of the original steam cars. Citizen Kane was clunky and plodding by comparison, a weak predecessor as far as movie phenomena are concerned, and not nearly as poignant to the ills of today as Snakes.

Samuel L. Jackson stars in this movie epic, in what I believe is his hardest hitting, most edgy role yet. His every move on camera sends chills down the spine and his rages reach out to the viewer like an electric current. His every scream reverberate the dangers of the movie, the pulse-pounding anxiety of being locked in a confined space with the evil serpents. Jackson’s work in Pulp Fiction, Deep Blue Sea, and Black Snake Moan, are overshadowed by his stunning performance in this movie. It’s truly unfortunate that he was passed over for an Oscar.

Snakes!

What more can I say about this thrill ride? The score is fantastic, moving seamlessly with the scenes better than anything John Williams ever did for Star Wars. The roll of the drums and the orchestra crescendos will shock you with every venomous fang bite. You’ll literally attempt to suck the venom out of your wounds halfway through this movie. And the directing couldn’t have been better. The palpable tension of each scene rivals that of American History X.

The words “Cult Classic” come to mind, but I don’t think it can be a cult classic with such a large, devoted fan following. Dune was a cult classic. Snakes on a Plane is simply a classic, too young yet to be given its due. In time I hope to see a novel adaptation, maybe even woven into high school curriculums across the nation.

Conclusion:

April fool’s everybody! Snakes on a Plane is a terrible movie, and should be avoided like the plague.

High Noon

High Noon is not your typical Western. Gunfights are kept to a minimum. Vigilantes and vagabonds, while certainly present, do not dominate the film. There are no robberies, no chases on horseback. In fact, a shot isn't fired for 90% of the movie. So what is High Noon then?

.

The Hardest Road

High Noon is about holding to what you believe and know is right, no matter what other people may tell you. More than just about any other movie, High Noon illustrates how difficult it is to follow the path that you believe is true and moral. It follows the character of Will Kane, a recently retired marshal of a typical dusty old western town. Just married, Kane is informed as he is about to leave that one of the men that he put away has been released and is taking a train back to town to exact vengeance upon him. Though encouraged to leave, to enjoy his marriage, and to put this problem behind him, Kane recognizes that the right thing to do is to stay and defend the town once again.

However, this is nowhere near as easy as it may seem. It swiftly becomes clear that not everyone wants to back him on this. His wife struggles to convince him to forget about it because it is no longer his problem. His former deputy wants to hold the position of marshal himself and is jealous that Kane has returned, even though it is to do the right thing. As for the townspeople, they run the gamut of opinions on the matter. Some are cynical and believe that one can never successfully fight crime, making the whole effort to face the outlaw and his men pointless and suicidal. Some are pragmatic and suggest that, if Kane left, that there would be no confrontation and that town life would go on peacefully. Others are optimistic and determined to help, but hesitate when it becomes clear that nobody else is going to back Kane. Thus Kane's belief that he must face up to the outlaws is challenged at every turn. He is faced with the choice: when nobody else will help, do I give in or do I stand up for what I believe in, no matter the cost.

.

Reading Between the Lines

Aside from the gripping tale of one man trying to hold true to what he believes in, High Noon also has a history of controversy and argument over what the movie means on a metafictional basis. I, myself, first saw this movie in my senior thesis class years ago; my professor explained to the class how the differing attitudes and perspectives of the townsfolk were comparable to the different attitudes of appeasement that faced men like Churchill (Will Kane) who sought to wake people up to the threat of Adolf Hitler (the outlaw) before World War II. Upon further investigation, I also found that the screenplay was written as an allegory of the failure of intellectuals to fight McCarthyism, the Red Scare that arose over Soviet Communism during the 1950s.

On top of this, people have independently come up with ideas that the events of the film are applicable to the events of the Cold War, the Korean War, the blacklisting of members of Hollywood during the 1950s, and much more. High Noon has been requested for viewing by American presidents more than any other film. These facts should speak to how powerful and intriguing the film is. Do not be turned off by its black and white, old school depiction. High Noon is well worth seeing.

.

Conclusion

If you can appreciate an older film with a pacing and depiction that is slower than what we are used to, then you should check this out. Even if you doubt your ability to stay interested, you should try it regardless. The film is only 85 minutes long.

Needless to say, I was very much impressed with High Noon. Figures like Will Kane help to give us something to aspire to. In his character we can see the difficulty and resolve it takes to do the right thing when all else seems lost. And everyone can empathize with that and take strength from it. But even aside from this observation, I would point out that the movie is brilliantly acted and the story very interesting. On all points, High Noon is a great one. And conveniently available on Netflix Watch Instantly.

Royal Assassin

Royal Assassin is the second book in the Farseer trilogy written by Robin Hobb. A continuation of the plot started in Assassin's Apprentice (which I reviewed a month or so ago), Royal Assassin further highlights the nasty war between the Red Ship raiders and the Six Duchies, the internal politicking and strife amongst successors to the throne, and a whole lot of crap about the main character and his ability to talk to animals that gets really annoying.

As this is my review of the second book of a trilogy, I will not hold back with spoilers. Be forewarned, in case you plan on reading this trilogy at some point.

.

Fitz = Emo Pansy

While this is not true for the entire novel, I would say that the one thing about this book that I hated the most was Fitz-Chivalry and his obsession with bitching and moaning over anything and everything to happen to him. Common sense is obviously not something that this kid grew up with, which is odd considering his surrogate father, Burrich, whose codename might as well be Burrich Badass, and his surrogate grandfather, Chade, who seems to be the physical embodiment of supremely awesome spy/assassins everywhere. Oh, and we can't forget Verity, who puts almost everyone to shame by being insanely committed to his kingdom when every other person around him doesn't seem to give a shit.

Long story short, I found that the supporting characters were the ones I loved the most in this book. I could excuse Fitz's whining back in the first book when he was a child, but in this book it just bugged me a lot how much time he spent complaining about things that seem extraordinarily easy to fix.

However, Fitz makes a turn toward being more interesting in the latter half/third of the novel when he finally seems to grow a spine and actually takes an active role in the events that surround him. I shivered with glee as he conspired with the Coastal duchies and agreed to take control of the kingdom until Verity's return. Sure, it didn't end well and he screwed that one up too, but it showed impressive backbone. In fact, much of his diplomatic shenanigans in trying to keep the kingdom intact/protect Verity and Kettricken reminded me of Varys from A Game of Thrones, which speaks to the complexity of the political situations that arose in this novel.

.

Impressive Depth amongst Supporting Characters

I can say definitively that Kettricken is currently my favorite character in the series. A noble princess of a foreign culture thrust into a harsh political situation where princes seek to take advantage of her... I was awestruck by her quiet nobility and absolute determination in the face of some of the nastiest political skulduggery I've ever seen. In Kettricken, Robin Hobb created a woman who you can't help but admire. I loved every scene that she featured in, and felt as heartbroken as her as Verity was unable to realize for the longest time how amazing she was. That depth of feeling is only brought about in me by very well-written characters, so it speaks to the quality of writing in this book that it was able to happen at all.

Molly and Patience also impressed me to this level. Robin Hobb clearly has a gift for writing women, which makes sense given that she is a woman herself. And, on top of this, she manages to make Verity into one of the more complex and interesting rulers that I've seen in fiction. I would say that her only failing with characters is that she can't seem to help but make villains truly villainous. Regal and his coterie are still complete assholes with no redeeming qualities, and that has not yet changed. Depth in villains could help make the story have even more resonance, but maybe I'll need to wait for the third book for that.

.

Conclusion

In the end, I did love this book. For a story as detailed as this one, it has continued to hold my interest. The only parts that I disliked (at first) were the scenes expanding on Fitz's use of the "Wit" power which allows him to bond with animals. I've never felt that the Wit is something that has truly fit in with the overall story, so whenever Fitz would go off to dick around with his wolf, I would get irritated and impatient for him to return to Buckkeep where the real action was happening. It was only when the wolf, Nighteyes, actually got involved in the action that I began to forgive and become more tolerant of this ("WE ARE PACK!"). By the end of the story, I was totally okay with Nighteyes, and I look forward to seeing more of him in the final book of the trilogy.

One thing that has been bugging me though is that I really hope that Robin Hobb explains Regal's motivations a bit more. He has to be a complete and total idiot to intentionally abandon the Coastal Duchies like he has without some yet unrevealed plan; it makes zero sense to do such a thing what with the enormous threat of the Red Ships out there. I'm hoping that Hobb goes into this in the next book. I'm hoping that there is some gambit that I'm unaware of here and I'm hoping that it isn't complete idiocy that is making Regal do the things he is doing. If it is idiocy and if he doesn't have some sort of hidden motivation to everything he has done thus far, then I'd be willing to point to him as being the worst villain ever. We'll see about this.

But, in the end, I would still highly recommend this trilogy to anyone interested by a tale of political intrigue and incredibly detailed characters all set within a fantasy setting. These books are fantastic and well worth checking out if you are.

Dragon Age II

Written by Joe the Revelator



Like many new RPG’s, Dragon Age II sits atop a totem pole of DLC’s (downloadable content), expansions, and original content. From Dragon Age Origins to DAII, Bioware has kept up momentum the same way the Mass Effect and Fallout series have, which are more episodic than RPG predecessors who relied solely on peddling expansions every year until they lost support and petered out. DAII even goes so far as to reward players with items for downloading the demo, spewing in-game weapons at loyal followers like a piñata full of knives.

As far as gameplay is concerned, Dragon Age II is sleeker, cleaner, and better executed than Origins. The skill trees have been arranged into brainstorming maps, bubbles with connective lines and descriptions, so you can see exactly what skills you’ll need to get the Deathblow move you saw in the teaser. And instead of buying several rows worth of useless skills just to upgrade pyromancer or duel-weapon, you upgrade only the skills you plan on keeping, by using mini-tabs in each tree. This keeps your skillbar uncluttered, and early-level skills can still be kept effective during the later levels.

The Cleanest Gutters You’ll Ever Sleep In

Aesthetically I find DAII to be more stylized, but also more sterile than the first game, without as much clutter, stains, or gray skies. Even the poorer districts look relatively clean, like the walls have been plastered with brown wallpaper. The brightness of the character’s eyes are a new distraction. Even the dull dwarf merchant and his lackwit son have developed a severe case of spice addiction, with piercing blue or steely gray eyes that follow you around the room, even if you walk away from the monitor.

The combat system looks incredible. We may have Force Unleashed to thank for the trend in throwing henchmen around the map like a squad of armed puppets. Playing a warrior with a sword the size of a canoe is still gratifying even after the hundredth time you turn a darkspawn into strawberry jam, exploding them against a wave of steel. Rogues actually move during a fight. They dive into people knife-first, duck around enemies, and tumble through the air as they disappear behind smoke bombs. Battle is simply more kinetic; less halting when you jam special attack buttons. Instead of running up against enemies and sticking on them like gum, you bowl through them. Even mages are more energetic; using karate Kata's to propel projectiles and spells from their staffs.

Why Can’t We Be Friends?

The best way to deal with companions is to ignore them completely, or pick a party and stick with it. Companions are infuriating to win friendship points, and picking sides during their arguments leads to huge rivalries. Some of the male companions don't seem to trust you unless you make sexual advances toward them, regardless of your gender, and conferring with one ally during a tough decision can cause others to pout. Dialogues shared between them while traveling are entertaining and sometimes downright cruel. I eventually changed my party after the guard captain in my group took to outright calling the pirate woman a whore. While funny, it was far from conducive to a good working relationship. Anders specifically is a pain in the ass. His hate for Templars is so great that vengeful spirits surface within him, filling him with murderous rage and power, at the mere thought of their holy order. This wouldn't be a problem if half your early quests weren't given by Templars.

With the defeat of the last blight came a wondrous innovation: breast augmentation.

When The Dragons Come Home To Roost:

Without the narrator (the storytelling dwarf) and his foreshadowing of great and terrible things, the struggle would feel too slight. In Origins you were saving the world, rallying rival nations to defeat the archdemon, and working to overthrow a tyrant. For the lion’s share of DAII you’re a refugee and a street-tough doing errands in the city, buying bigger mansions and status for your family. I could almost hear the ‘mission completed’ music from GTA whenever I turned in a quest.

Aside from a sprinkling of dragons and darkspawn, and the piles of codex entries insisting they’re from Ferelden, DAII could have been written as its own fantasy entity. It’s a fun game to play, and it sets a new standard for skillbar/skilltree combat. But it could have been called Thug Age or Codex Age.

The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order - 1964-1980

The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order is one of the more unusual history books that I've read in my time. The first of two giant volumes, the book follows the general history of the United States from 1964-1980. The strange part of this focus is how Ronald Reagan, the American president from 1980-1988, is only part of this sprawling epic as a sort of supporting actor who shows up now and again to remind you that he exists.

Reagan and the 1964-1980 Time Period

For a book that is supposed to be about Reagan, the author spends maybe 1/5^th of the book actually talking about the man. Stephen Hayward explains that, without this knowledge of the events that came before, one can't truly understand and appreciate Reagan's two terms in office. As I have yet to start the second volume (I need a break!), I can't yet attest to the validity of this approach. But having just finished the first volume I can say that I still doubt that this was a good move. Fact of the matter is that Reagan, while having a modicum of influence every now and then during this time period, really did not matter much. And insisting on covering every event in the 16 years before his presidency came off as excessive and seemingly irrelevant. I found it akin to the idea of starting a book about World War II by reading a prequel volume about World War I. Certainly, the first war and the Treaty of Versailles caused the other, but can't we just summarize that instead of having to read 800+ pages to get to what you are really reading the books for?

However, for a book that is only occasionally about Reagan, I found it extremely engrossing. Stephen Hayward writes in a way that makes the book a page-turner, and that is exceedingly rare for a bulky historical door-stopper. He does an excellent job of pulling you into the crises of the times, from the riots of the Civil Rights era to the oil emergency during Carter's administration. On top of that, his grasp and explanation of the United States' foreign policy and the maneuverings of the Cold War is top notch; every move that the United States made during that time is assessed along with its effects on its allies and enemies. The only parts of the book which I found to be slower/less interesting were the sections where Hayward describes the various primaries and campaigns for President as they occurred. It was hard for me to get past all the painfully cutthroat and cynical politicking without getting very irritated; I often found myself wishing that these sections would end so that I could get to the more interesting domestic and world events and their effects on the United States.

Holy Bias Alert

But, more than anything, what made the book exciting, unbelievable, and jaw-dropping to read was the author's clear bias in favor of the Republican side of things. For the record, I've nothing against biases in biographies or histories; it is truly impossible to avoid getting attached to your subject, so to be unbiased is often the rarer occurrence. But damn... I don't think I've ever seen a bias like this.

It is difficult to explain, but essentially Hayward let his own impressions of events color the way they are presented in the book. At its worst, I was beginning to feel like I was reading an alternate history of America as presented in some sort of odd parallel universe. Some examples:

• Hayward spends a paragraph or so about what made the Civil Rights Act a good thing, then spends at least thirty pages explaining how it was the worst thing to ever happen to America and how we are still trying to recover from it today.
• Every single Democratic president he spends time on comes off as incompetent, opportunistic, vain, and often actively working against the interests of the United States. By contrast, Nixon and Ford come off as well-meaning and comparatively honorable and decent men. Considering that everything I've learned previous to this suggests that Nixon and Ford were both pretty awful presidents, I was understandably surprised.
• He spends a paragraph on how the Three Mile Island incident was terrible, but then pages on how it really wasn't that bad and that we always blow it completely out of proportion.

Martin Luther King Jr. is depicted as vacillating and fairly unimportant. Lyndon Johnson in particular is portrayed as the worst president ever to hold the office (Carter being the second worst). I found this to be very odd, especially when, after a hundred or so pages of explaining how Lyndon Johnson's time as president was one awful, horrendous crisis after another, Hayward then explains that the U.S. economy was actually pretty good during LBJ's terms of office.

Lastly, I noticed that Hayward had a habit of focusing on the actions and influences of (almost always leftist) extremists in a fashion that made it seem like they were the main voice of the people when they were actually less than 5% of the public. Hayward points this out himself a couple times in the book and then goes on to seemingly write exclusively of what these extremists did in a way that makes it seem like they were the central catalyst of events, which is almost certainly incorrect. But this focus on the crazies and the crises helped to make the book an incredible page turner, so there's that at least.

Conclusion

All in all, I came pretty quickly to the conclusion that pretty much every part of the history in this book had to come with a grain of salt. It was certainly eye-opening and I'm sure that most of it is historically correct, but the fact that he would generally only present one side of things made it feel like I was being brainwashed at times. For example, I can't remember a single instance where he pointed out something good that LBJ had done, and he also never explained any beneficial motivations to the man; Hayward always would point out how the decision to intervene in Vietnam or create a government agency to fight poverty was a cynical and cold-hearted bid for votes. And I refuse to believe that. While that factor is always present in any decision the president makes, that is hardly the only system by which the president makes his choices.

Anyways, I did really enjoy reading this book as an entertaining, if painfully biased, history of the United States from 1964-1980. Reagan himself was always interesting when he showed up, but that was fairly rare until near the end of the book. I will be interested to see how Reagan is depicted during his years in office; up to this point, Hayward has portrayed Reagan as a golden, kindhearted crusader of the people and the embodiment of American optimism. It will be intriguing to see if Hayward will be levelheaded and fair in pointing out Reagan's mistakes when he was in office (Iran-Contra Affair, I'm looking at you!).