7 posts tagged “review”

Here's an old game review I wrote for a Shadowrun RPG supplement circa 2002ish:

   Title Dragons of the Sixth World
   Game Type Shadowrun RPG supplement
   Author Eleanor Holmes, Robyn King-Nitschke, Steve Kenson, James Maliszewski, Rob Boyle & many more
   Publisher Wizkids / Fanpro
   Medium 8x10 perfect-bound softcover
   Price $24.99
   Reviewer Logan L. Masterson

   It becomes a little eerie after awhile, reading this book.  One feels watched, as though ten pair of gargantuan reptilian eyes are peering silently out of the pages.  Or maybe that’s just because I love dragons so much.

   Well, these characters are quite a lot less than likeable, but they are mighty, intelligent and awe-inspiring.

   The Dragons of the Sixth World supplement for SR3 is far and away the most detailed source of it’s kind in the game’s history.  The hard copy, real world edition of sysop Captain Chaos’s studies will enlighten and terrify you.  The book is a respectable 200 pages, plus index, and is organized so that it provides an overview of dragon life and culture at the front, rules details in the back and the best parts in the middle. 

   That middle bit contains detailed information on Aden, Celedyr, Ghostwalker, Hestaby, Hualpa, Lofwyr, Lung, Masaru, Rhonabwy and several others.  It discusses their stats, their plots and their personalities in an excellent manner, weaving fact and mystery together to create a font of data both tasteful and useful.

   The last section provides some very interesting rules covering the types of dragons, their powers and magic, their campaign roles and some rather interesting material about drakes, a new, weaker type of dragon that could, under odd circumstances, make great player characters!  After that, you’ll find detailed game data covering each of the previously mentioned dragons for the game master, including the each serpent’s power structure, defenses and goals.

   The history of dragons in the world of Shadowrun has been rich and intricate, and this book does nothing but add and embellish, providing excellent theme, valuable data, and a metric ton of exciting ideas.

   This is a great read, well organized and richly illustrated, and highly valuable to any Shadowrun group whose runners have tired of the old routine or are simply ready to take it to the next level.  Chip in to this wizworm sourcebook and don’t get left in the dark, wakarimasu-ka, chummer?

    Ratings
   Playability  5
   Game Mechanics 4
   Magic/Tech System 4
   Character Creation & Advancement 5
   Setting 5
   Presentation 4

X-Men Forever #1

Having just received (via subscription) and devoured Chris Claremont and Tom Grummett’s X-Men Forever #1, I have no choice but to review it.

Let’s start with my initial reaction to the cover: It’s gorgeous.  It’s classic.  It’s Claremont all the way.  Mr. Grummett’s obvious familiarity with Claremont’s previous run on the X-Men property has already served this title well.  Naturally, as with any of Claremont’s work, even the cover raises questions.  For example, why is Sabretooth on the cover and why must I always suffer through the existence of the world’s most pathetic mutant, Gambit?  Ah well.

Inside the book? Even better.  Even more classic, even more iconic and even more X-Men.  After more than fifteen years writing the X-Men followed by more than fifteen years NOT writing the X-Men, Claremont is still on the mutant ball.  The splash page offers everything you want.  It’s a glorious and thought-provoking image not seen since the team first donned piped blue-gray pleather thanks to enormous ticket sales in the theater.  It makes one ask “What the @#&*?!?”  One immediately realizes that this is a classic Marvel comics move—the semiredux.  Let me just say, I couldn’t be happier about that.

If you remember Giant Sized X-Men #1, you’ll find this book nostalgic and exciting.  It revisits the themes of that amazing story and sets the stage for the classic Claremont-esque style beautifully.

“What’s this Claremont-esque style?” some may ask?  It’s a perfect fusion of conflicts.  The action reflects the tension within the team which mirrors the struggle between the team and its foes, both mutant and societal.  This layering is sure to leave those readers more interested in the character than their powers waiting breathlessly for the next issue.  Every comic is sure to resolve on issue and raise a dozen new questions.

Where’s the tenacious love triangle going now?  Where has Wolverine disappeared to, and whose trail is he on?  Will the ever-moral Nightcrawler resolve the good with the fight? Can Xavier rebuild the family and hold it together?  What is Nick Fury really up to?
 
Of course, I’m not your average reader.  I’m the kind of reader who has been dying to see Claremont X-Men for as long as there hasn’t been any.  I was born in 73, and grew up reading these comics.  I remember Chris Claremont’s run on the X-Men as the golden years, a time when character drove the story and powers supported those characters rather than defined them.

Which brings me back to Tom Grummett’s terrific art.  It’s just as classic, just as appropriate and just as illustrative as any of the incredible artists who worked with Claremont in the 80s and 90s.

With all due respect to Fraction and the Land/Leisten team, this book is so much better than the current Uncanny stuff it isn’t even funny.  The story is richer, denser (another Claremont trait: you get a lot of story and character development in your 32 pages) more visually supported and, frankly, more interesting to the adult reader’s mind.

The only things this book leaves me wanting are a time-travel machine (to skip two weeks to #2) and more money (to buy all the other titles that are now looking more interesting in a “phoenix rising” Marvel Comics era).

Buy it.  Twice.

I give X-Men Forever #1 4 out of 4 colors, 5 out of 5 stars and 100% on the Great Comics of Our Time Scale.

Welcome back, Chris.  It’s good to have you home.

It hardly comes as a surprise, but Neil Gaiman has done it again!  With the help of screenwriter/director Henry Selick and Laika, Coraline has become a major success.

For good reason.

The star power of Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, and arguably They Might Be Giants add a lot to the film's success, as do their talents, but this is far and away a writer's movie.

Don't mistake me, the movie's a visual feast.  The modelers, "costumers" and animators at Laika are best in class.  The cinematography is astounding. The 3D can sometimes be jarring, but no more so than in any other production using the technology.  Many of those effects are just tremendous, however.  The organic pixelizations, animated gardens and looms (of all kinds) add a great deal to a feel of enchantment viewers of all ages can really enjoy.

As I said, this is a writer's movie, and that's one of the esteemed Mr. Gaiman's great talents; breaking the age barrier.  It's a tradition in animation, of course, layering adult humor into child-friendly themes, but this is a writer who doesn't need animation, or even illustration, to accomplish the feat. 

I haven't read the book.  Sorry, Neil.  But rest assured I shall!  In fact, I may just order it now.  While I was tremendously disappointed with the screen treatment of Stardust (2007), I expect less was changed here.  It would certainly make sense as Mr. Gaiman's Hollywood clout continues to grow.  It's good to see genius and persistence rewarded in such a big way.  The merit is clearly visible in Coraline.

This movie is so charming I can hardly stand it.  There are scenes that melt the heart, and few that make it skip a beat.  The imagery is eternal, as are the well-stated themes of love, disaffection and fear.  Layer into that timeless story the aforementioned visuals, an excellent musical score, great voice acting and Burton-beating production values and what do you get?  A film like the perfect layer cake.  A cake with creamy frosting, and the words "Welcome home" ringed in candles.  Or a deep forgotten well surrounded by a faerie ring.  Either is good.  Better than good: superlative.

You must not miss this film!  I give it 9 of 10 points!

   Director Pierre Morel has given us a solid winter movie experience with Taken (2009), an action/thriller with plenty of character.  I went into this film expecting lots of action.  I got that action, and more.

   The opening frames of this film are, unquestionably, canned sentiment. This theme continues throughout the beginning of the movie, but it isn’t the generic stuff.  It’s the satisfying, nostalgic kind, a sort of cinematic Chef Boyardee, if you will, and not the cold, straight-out-of-the-can collegiate sustenance, but the lovingly warmed kind your mother always made you. 

   Our hero, Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson), is the kind of guy a lot of us thirty-somethings can really identify with.  He ekes out a retiree’s life in a cheap apartment, to be close to his teenage daughter, a lovely young thing who lives with the ex-wife and her new, rich, husband.  The relationship is strained, since the ex, Lenore (Famke Janssen) hardly approves of Bryan’s way of life, even though he’s given up the spy game.

   So here’s a man who gets emasculated at every turn, but willingly suffers it to build a relationship with daughter Kim (Maggie Grace).  Her businessman stepfather, more present in his white collar than Bryan could ever be in his CIA issue, offers up an Arabian horse to compete with Bryan’s karaoke machine.

   But when young Kim is abducted by slave traders in Paris, Bryan earns his keep.  As the tension builds, we see an agent-turned-father in his real element.  It isn’t long before his buddies in the trade get him enough info to start the hunt, and it’s here that the pace really starts moving.

   Before long, Bryan’s in France, dealing out one erg after another of brutal justice as he tracks down his daughter.  Now, don’t get me wrong, it’s not all chases and fights.  Well, no, that’s a lie.  It is all chases and fights, but not only are they perfectly filmed, timed, and acted, but they do a terrific job of portraying the character.  Now, Bryan Mills isn’t your usual good guy.  He’s not your usual antihero either.  Hell, he’s not even your usual Jason Bourne.  He’s a father with years of combat and espionage experience, and he holds nothing back in retrieving his daughter.  Every scumbag who gets in his way pays an unmerciful, but suitable, price.  Beautiful, vicious martial arts, not entirely unrealistic gunfights, and a breakneck pace reveal a man willing to do anything for his daughter.

   Any father should be able to enjoy the seeing the beastly side of parental urges played out so artfully.  But there’s more to it than that. 

   This is a movie that’s also topical in a few ways.  The slave trade is very much alive in the modern world, and could use some attention.  In Taken, it gets that exposure.  Furthermore, there are themes revolving around the broken family, the general disdain of Americans abroad and government corruption.

   The acting in this film was, on all counts, even with the writing.  That is to say, it was incredible. 

   Only a single grammatical error and a fairly dull musical score detracted from my enjoyment. 

   I am pleased to give Taken 8 of 10 points.

Let me open this review by saying that as I made my way to the bathroom following the film, my initial description evolved from schizophrenic to ultradian bipolar manic. 

There are a lot of great things about this movie.  There are also rather a lot of negative aspects.  These dichotomies make themselves rather apparent as the focus shifts from one to the other at a rate of about twice a minute.

Now, I like a rock opera.  Tommy and The Rocky Horror Picture Show are my favorites.  Otherwise, I despise musicals, and I do not use the word lightly.  I find the lyrics horrible, the compositions rarely even passable and the pacing painful.  Repo! is a bit different in this regard, as the lyrics are only mostly horrible, the compositions are actually excellent and the pacing is so frenetic there’s a crescendo for every breath.

In the opening, and dispersed throughout as ill-advised segues are comic panels.  This confuses me, as I can find absolutely no reference to any sort of comic book relation in the history of the show, which to my knowledge began as a stage musical, The Necromerchant’s Debt.

The film exposes viewers to a post-bio-apocalyptic world that is presented with exacting precision.  With very few exceptions, the sets and backgrounds are gorgeous.  The lighting is very well-done, adding a level of visual complexity often lacking in this post-production world.  There are a few obviously cheap elements, and while these were likely intentional, I did find them distracting.

The plot is, well, expected.  I was led to understand by the website that the pivotal character was also a main character, but this proved to be rather misleading, and I found myself wanting much more of Blind Mag, and a lot less of Paris Hilton and the GraveRobber, a reasonable facsimile of whom can be found in virtually every 24hour coffee pit in America and Europe.  Paris’ face did fall off, which was a saving grace.

Ogre of Skinny Puppy did a great job in the film, his marionette posing adding a lot to his character.  Anthony Stewart Head and Paul Sorvino also presented their characters well, and used their vocalizations to good effect.

Alexa Vega, who turned out to have the main role in Shilo Wallace also did a good job with what we was given.  Unfortunately, I guess I’m just too old to empathize with a seventeen year old girl who somehow has the power to go from solitary shut-in to mistress of her universe in the time it take for her father to bleed out.

Most of the character treatments are trite, which is to be expected, and the setting is fascinating but under-developed. 

Musically, the film is off and on.  While the composition and production are top notch, I just don’t like techno very much.  Add to that lyrics that gave me lock-jaw and sometimes jarring transitions in vocalization, and you have a soundtrack that reads like a arrhythmic’s heart monitor.  This is further compounded by the fact that there are something like 55 individual songs, a chorus of slutty nurses and not one single line delivered atonally. 

I think, at the end of the day, that had this film been presented more seriously, without the insistence on music, it might well have been a major release with some real success.  The writers certainly show promise, and Director Bousman (Saw series) is one of my favorites.

All in all, it was acceptable.  I left the theatre thinking about whether I liked it or not, which at least means I didn’t totally waste my time and money.  The theme, which apparently was that individuals have the power to overcome the limitations of their genetics, may be only arguably true, but does need further popular exploration.  If only it hadn’t been couched in gore and subgenre, some of those who most need exposure might have gotten it.

And was that Shilo or Frankenfurter leaving at the end?  One still wonders.

I remain of two very different and not at all friendly minds about this film, which is why it scores 5 out of 10 points.

RATING: 7 of 10

    What an awesome little movie!  I was much pleased by both its graphic quality and philosophical content.  Granted, it is a kid's movie, so don't run in expecting to see Aristotle's physics or Freudian breakdowns, but do expect to be pleasantly surprised by the story and it's implication for eight year old minds.
    The visuals were truly astonishing, as one has come to expect with Pixar.  The designs are terrific and well utilized for comedy.  The story itself is touching in a pre-adolescent way, and the limited dialogue is a welcome escape form the Pokemonery I had expected. 

    In short, I recommend it to anyone, including adults.
    I just wonder about the sequel.  Will it work out?  After all, he's a p.c., she's a mac; what do they really have in common?

The Incredible Hulk (2008)
Rating: 8 of 10

    Ok, so I thought the Hulk (2003) was pretty good.  It used comic panels for scene cuts and montages.  It co-starred Jennifer Connelly, my all-time favorite actress ever since Labyrinth.  It was cheesy, sure, but so are the comics, at least in the main.   The rewrite of the Hulk's origin was pretty flimsy, what with the atomic dad and all.  The special effects were great, in spite of a few minor flubs.  The design philosophy of the Hulk himself was just bad, though.  He was too slow, which was obviously a failed effort to portray his enormity.  Overall, the whole thing came across like an old-school comic film: poorly.  Mind you, I do own the DVD.

    The remake was justified.  Miss Connelly was sadly replaced by the over-rated Liv Tyler, which is just a damn shame.  Betsy was given a much better role this time around, and deserved more art than little Liv has to offer.  Good Dr. Banner, played in the last film by Eric Bana, was this time portrayed with some actual character by dear old Ed Norton.  He looks much more the scrawny scientist part and brought some direly needed pathos to the role, as is his wont.  I've heard some people declare with ill-deserved authority that the Hulk shouldn't have pathos, to which I can only reply, "Read more comics."

    The visual effects are stunning, the character design of both the Hulk and arch-foe Abomination actually worked, and the combats were orchestrated with expert technique.  Ang Lee totally flubbed that on the previous incarnation, which was rather a surprise.   This Hulk is smaller, more like the  raging greenskin of the seventies and eighties, which I frankly prefer.  One of the great points about the Hulk was always his ability to conquer larger, seemingly stronger enemies with brutal will alone.  Sure, he's big and strong, but biggest and strongest is frankly Superman territory.

    While the plot and character development are much as one would expect, it really shouldn't be any other way.  Hulk, after all, smash.  I'm not one to throw a spoiler, but there's a bit at the end that's exciting to those of us who watch Marvel Studios with ever-growing anticipation, and this time it slipped in before the credits.  There's also a lovely little scene in the wrap-up that should really thrill old-school Hulk readers who understand the unending search for mastery.

    And I should also point out that Lou Ferrigno is looking good!

    All in all, I would certainly recommend this one be seen in the theater.  After all, it's no good to shrink the Incredible Hulk down to your little TV, even if it is a 70" Bravia.

    For the points breakdown, I have to admit one star was lost with Jennifer Connelly.  Yes, I like her that much.  The other point was dropped for ambiguity.  While it didn't bother me much, it seemed like more distinction was needed in the origin.  Many viewers will wonder whether this is a remake or a sequel.  Call it a remake.  Please.  The 2003 version was passable, but it has no place on the same continent as this one.  Just dump it in the bin with X3 and Daredevil.  

    'Nuff said.