Gravity Review: Slipping the Surly Bonds of Hype

I want call this a science fiction epic, but I'm not sure that applies. I mean it technically is fiction, and about science, but there's nothing remotely fantastical about it. This could happen, we have the technology. In that sense a movie about a mining disaster is sci-fi. But enough abut that crap, I'm here to shout what you've already heard everywhere else, that gravity is amazing. That somewhere between 2001 and Die Hard is a masterpiece of dramatic tension and Newtonian physics. That you should choose to eat dinner afterwards, and that all the technical Oscars this year belong to it.

You will believe you're trapped in space. There wasn't a single moment I doubted where I was. The fact this movie used so much green screen you could make the argument it was an animated film is astonishing. You need to see it in IMAX, but if that's too rich for your blood, the 2D theater experience is almost just as good. That's right, I've seen it twice, it's that unique. That's the best part about Gravity, you've never truly seen anything like it. It's slavish commitment to the awkward physics of anti-gravity is absolute. You feel just as helpless as Dr. Stone, which reminds me of the other surprising thing about the film.

I would have bet money years ago that I'd never see an award caliber performance form Sandra Bullock. Don't get me wrong, I love her to pieces, and I've paid good money for her films good and bad. But I see her getting another Oscar for this. Her character progression is phenomenal. A realistic reaction to the petrifying death sentence of her situation with a bad-ass streak that only get's stronger with time. Gravity's "all is lost" moment is hard to get a bead on at first because it seems like every other scene is an "all is lost" moment. But you'll know it when you see it, it's a performance so quietly heartbreaking, it earns floating anti-gravity tears. That's amazing, because that's ridiculous.

But I do have a bone to pick with wardrobe. I know this was an expensive movie to make and I don't want to wade into the gender politics required to make an $80 million movie with a female lead. I just don't think Bullock pulling a "Ripley" was necessary. Sure Cuaron does his damnedest to make it a visually metaphorical scene, but a panty shot is a panty shot and it's on the wrong side of voyeuristic.

You just want to reach through the screen and give her a hug.

That's a nit pick, I'll admit it, I'm usually the last person to complain about Sandra Bullock's legs. But even so, it's an easy scene to put out of your mind for the rest of the roller coaster ride. And buddy? It's intense. Even if you groan through all the banter and character development (Stone's back story is pretty clunky) the action beats and oxygen based ticking clocks are the new high water marks of dramatic tension on film. I've never heard an entire audience collectively gasp for breath before... it was priceless. If you're sick of the deafening cacophony of modern action scenes, know that the best bits of gravity take place in almost total silence. It's terrifying.

So do yourself a favor and dig your fingernails into an armrest for 90 minutes. This is the kind of film making that makes the tide rise. The kind of movie that makes everyone in the business try a little harder. It may not have the ponderous atmosphere of Kubrick's masterpiece, but I assure you he's beaming in his grave all the same.

Damon Lindelof's Mea Culpa.

I actively hate the last 10 years of M. Night Shyamalan's career. A shocking stance for a film critic to take, I know, but bear with me. He's just so aggressively set in his ways, so intrenched into his most irritating shortcomings as an artist. He cannot, and will not, take criticism. When the tide first started to turn against him after The Village (the last film of his I actually liked) what does he turn around and do? He casts himself in his next film as a prophet, whose critic is mauled by wolves.

It's crap like that which frustrate me the most. He's not a William Castle type, reveling in the shlock he makes with a knowing wink. No, he's a deluded hack who refuses to even address his issues, let alone attempt to fix them. Which brings me to Damon Lindelof. I think he's a talented writer who's earned his place at the table without being too mainstream. Aside from Prometheus, I think his career has been rock solid. But like M., he's got problems. He can get a story off the ground like a champ, but his landings are rocky at best. I didn't actively hate the Lost finale... but I could have waited a whole year for them to make a TV movie to get it right. Now that I think about it, that whole last season was a non starter. As soon as the temple showed up I crossed my arms and said "Sh*t. They're not wrapping up a damn thing." And they didn't. It wasn't the disaster many have claimed (did you see the crap they pulled on Dexter?!) But there was a ton of room for improvement.

The last couple years has shown a more defensive and bitter Damon who got increasingly irritable about answering, over and over, why he made the Lost ending suck. That would make any of us bitter "You know that business you helped start 8 years ago? Why did you suck at it so much?" Come on guys, we would all punch that dick in the face. So when Breaking Bad ended softly and satisfyingly (review inbound) Damon got this tweet: "Did you see that, Lindelof? That's how you end a show."

How did he respond? Brilliantly:


"I agreed to write this piece because I am deeply and unhealthily obsessed with finding ways to revisit the Lost finale and the maddening hurricane of s*** that has followed it, I am Walter White. Arrogant. Conceited. Selfish. Entitled. Looking for ways to blame everything and everyone but myself, even though it is perfectly clear the situation I find myself in is of my own making. And here's the worst part: I'm still naive enough to believe I can attain some level of redemption." 

"I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it. And I was really...I was alive."


Bravo, sir. And thank you for your humility. We did not deserve it, but you gave it anyway. I hope you grow as an artist from this, and that others will follow... I really liked Into Darkness, too. So there's that.

What I've been watchin'

Derek.

I, like most of you I'm assuming, cringed when you heard Ricky Gervais would be playing a mentally retarded man in a nursing home. I felt like his heart was in the right place, but I put it on the back burner for a week or two. That was a shame, because it's a soberingly honest show with nothing but love for the handicapped. Mentally or otherwise.

It doesn't make the character of Derek precious or anything. Like the criminally underrated "The Ringer"it shows the handicapped as they are. Not too dim, not too likable, just human. My biggest mistake was thinking it was a comedy, but like Orange is the New Black before it, I adjusted to how bleak it was going to be. The first five minutes felt like an entire episode, that's how draining it is. This is not a "curl up with a cup of tea before bed" kind of a deal, you gotta be ready to feel for the twilight years of your fellow man. Derek's sh*t is real, I guess we have Netlix to thank for that.

But that's not to say it isn't funny, hamster on a piano is gonna be stuck in my head for weeks, but it is more of a character piece. Karl Pilkington plays along as the caretaker the best he can. If you don't know the back story on the guy you may have no idea what I'm talking about. But watching the look behind his eyes that scream "I can't believe Ricky talked me into this" adds another extra layer that makes him even more strangely endearing. 

So... yeah, it's pretty damn good. Somber, but poignant. It's worth a shot.

GTA V Review: City of Anger.

What was the first thing that popped into my head when I saw the credits roll on the most lucrative intellectual property in history? "That was special." I did not think it lightly. Even after all the hype, all the money, and all the controversy, I still walked away with my jaw trailing on the ground behind me. Just a few hours in, I could see myself calling it one of the greatest games of all time. If you had told me someone had switched out a ps4 with my ps3 I would have believed you. It's the same feeling I had with Resident Evil 4 on my ol' ps2 back in the day, the feeling that this old console should not be able to pull off something so smooth and so gorgeous.

Technically it's the most impressive game I've ever played. The framerate is solid and even when it dips, it's never unplayable. The shadows are stark as well as refined and the draw distance is massive. As far as I'm concerned, 2K has a voodoo priest in residence. I mean, for a game that's actually bigger than most major cities, I don't think I ever noticed a single re-used asset. It seems like every street corner in Los Santos is unique and lovingly crafted. I got scared after a while. Because I thought to myself, "What if this is it? What if this never happens again? What if this is the tipping point!?" I was so impressed by GTA V I feared I'd never be that impressed again. In case you're wondering, that is the most positive compliment I have ever paid a video game and one I have seldom given to other art forms (HINT: I'm writing this hours away from the Breaking Bad finale).

But who or what is it all about? That's a good question, and after finishing the whole 35 hour affair, I'd say it's personally become an even better question. The game is centered around three playable career bank robbers from different sides of the track. Michael (who is the de facto lead because he gets the most screen time and development by far), pulled the "one last job" 9 years ago and is stewing miserably in his shmacy Beverly Hills mansion with his vacuous and resentful family. Franklin is sick of working in a two-bit car insurance repo scam and wants to get out of the Los Santos hood in every sense of the word. Trevor... Trevor is something else. The raging id of the GTA player made flesh, I don't want to ruin any more than that. He does not disappoint.

"These shoes... match right?"

The lead performances are phenomenal. From the monologue grandstanding to the ambient driving conversations. Just listening to Mike thanking a taxi service over the phone is somehow impressive. I believed he was really talking to someone. Mike, Frank, and Trevor will go down as three of the greatest characters in video game history. That's a guarantee at this point, but what is it you spend time with them doing?

I could type 3000 words solely explaining what you can do in this game. From bar hopping, to letter scrap collecting, to big foot hunting, to contract assassinations, to playing the stock market with the fallout of aforementioned assassinations... It's too much. It's literally too much. The side stuff is at least just as meaty as the 30 hour story. Bravo Rockstar, you pat yourself on the back, now.

"I can see the curvature of the earth form here!"  

Seriously, you can see the curvature of the earth in this game.

So the characters are great, the world is convincing, the bonus features are the size of most games, what's the story all about? If I had to pick the major themes, I'd say pride and masculinity. I'd like to go deeper than that, but on the whole there's not much in the character arc department. Not that it's a huge problem, it's just something you notice after putting the thing down for a few days. Moment to moment the story is interesting at worst, and riveting at best. The gossamer web of hubris and profanity that leads you through mass amounts of murder, theft, and terrorism is something you'll have a hard time looking away from.

This is, by a wide margin, the most entertaining GTA since we last left Los Santos in 2004. The mission variety and the four act breaking heists are evidence of a triple A dev at the top of their game. At first you think, "hmm, a yacht chase on the freeway... they'll totally run out of steam in 10 missions, you watch." And I did watch. For 50 more missions, they still had plenty of gas in the tank.

But the one thing you shouldn't do is pick at the story too much. Character motivation is often sacrificed at the alter of gameplay, and personally I'd rather have it that way. For (spoiler free) instance: there's a late game mission involving a car chase with a buttoned down accountant and a stolen macgufin. I'm not going to try to explain why said accountant is suddenly imbued with the skills of a career stunt driver; (this is friggn' GTA) but as soon as you're finished, the mission giver calls up and says "Sike! I had a copy of the macguffin the whole time!" Mike is fine with it. Even after all the grand heists and random Trevor-esque goofiness, I called bullsh*t out loud. So know that going in. Spectacular high water mark of open world gameplay this is, air tight crime fiction it ain't.

You need this for a heist. That's worth 60 bones right there, as far as I'm concerned.

It's worth mentioning I also had a bit of a drinking game going on during the cut scenes, every time someone starts yelling for no reason, crack a beer. I stopped at six beers and finished the game with a total score of almost 40. There is a metric ton of yelling in GTA V. I'm not sure what it means exactly, but know it's cup run'eth over with expletives and outdoor voices. For the sake of your health, do not take a shot every time you hear the N word. You will die halfway through the damn thing.

So anyway, the game is a steal at $100, but it's not all chocolate and rainbows. I had heard about how it was "appallingly sexist" going in, so I steeled myself for that. Even prepared, GTA V felt like a huge step backwards from IV. What happened to women like Michele or Torres? Hell, even Carl's sister from San Andreas! We know GTA is capable of better than the likes of Mike's wife, Franklin's aunt, or *shutter* Mary-Ann. It's troubling to think that when given all the time and money in the world, the writers barely came up with any women who acted like people. Except for Trevor's romance with an older woman... that was pretty great.

But seriously, my biggest problem isn't simply that Mike's daughter is a vapid nympho or that is his wife is a cuckolding shrew. Well, it's not just that. There are ways of making characters like Stacy Suxx entertaining and compelling, like this:

        


See? That was funny and it wasn't irritating at all. Stacy made my skin crawl every time she spoke. But with just a little more effort into her character, she could have been a highlight. It's when I see more forethought put into a shopping plaza that the player may never see, than into any of the single digit speaking female roles do I pull out the "S" word. The sexism word. The writing isn't malicious, this isn't Postal or anything, it's benign. It just doesn't care. They made compelling woman before, why do they need to do it again? It really, really, bothered me through the whole game.

Ahem. Sorry I got all ranty, but that had been bubbling up for a while. GTA V is a masterpiece, the likes of which we may never see again (for at least 4 years). This is a long, strange, trip everyone who plays video games needs to take at least once. This is now required reading, something that will be studied decades from now by anthropologists. A satirical snapshot of our zeitgeist frozen for future generations. They may not like everything they see, but they are going to have a fu**ing amazing time.

"...and you, chop, I'll miss you most of all."

Nope, nevermind. This is the Steam Controller:

What does it mean?!

Look at those thumb pads. Seems naked doesn't it? Like sub-woofers for your calluses. Just what are they trying to pull here? Hold on...


Oh! This is what they're trying to pull here:

 " A new generation of super-precise haptic feedback, employing dual linear resonant actuators. These small, strong, weighted electro-magnets are attached to each of the dual trackpads. They are capable of delivering a wide range of force and vibration, allowing precise control over frequency, amplitude, and direction of movement... 

...a vital channel of information to the player - delivering in-game information about speed, boundaries, thresholds, textures, action confirmations, or any other events about which game designers want players to be aware. It is a higher-bandwidth haptic information channel than exists in any other consumer product that we know of. As a parlour trick they can even play audio waveforms and function as speakers."  - Valve


See? I told you they looked like speakers. So this is what the linux of consoles will look like. As the OUYA goes down in flames (did anyone really think it had a chance?) Valve has the opportunity to swoop in and try to mop up anyone yet undecided or initially uninterested.

Besides, if it all goes belly up, it's not like the Steam store doesn't make a billion dollars annually. Here's some more pics in case your interest is at fever pique*. Mine certainly is.

God... when was the last time I played portal 2?

YBXA? That seems eerily familiar somehow.

 *Did you think that was cute? ...I thought it was cute.

The Steam Machine and You!

Three sentences. A metric frick-ton of questions.

So just what is Valve's new console and why should you care? I don't know, but I'm hoping by the time I stop typing I'll have a handle on it. You can watch if you want.


1.The Steam operating system, and Steam itself, is free. This is clearly a shot across Xbox Live's, with it's $60 yearly membership, bow.


2. Odds are it will be cheaper than either the PS4 or Xbox One. Think about it, I certainly will. Infamous 3 will weigh heavily on my conscience though...


3. It's controllers may be fabulously bonkers:

This is a patented prototype for a customizable controller by valve and I just love it so damn much. The first thing to go on my pad is that the sticks start to loose their accuracy. That might be a dick joke... I'm not sure. I'm also not sure if anyone knows that this is definitively the controller for the Steam Machine. Which is actually a perfect segway for number four.


4. Nobody knows what the hell this is going to be. But we do know 300 lucky listeners, uh... or applicants will get a free one if they promise to talk about it. Loudly, I'm assuming. I'll be interested to see if most of those go to the press. Scratch that, if any actually go to the press. That would be the kind of Willy Wonka moxie we've come to love from those folks.

So no, I'm still not sure what to tell you and your Steam Machine. But I am curious and I'm sure we'll know more than speculation soon enough.

If GTA V was Whiskey and I was a Duck...

Almost... there...

Sorry, that's a pretty esoteric blues reference, but it's the right one. The point is, I've been really busy with work and with play. GTA V has got me deep in it's clutches, more than any Rockstar game before it. I tried to get into IV (thought it was pretentious and boring) Red Dead (respected the hell out of it, couldn't like it as much as I wanted to) L.A. Noire (Los Angeles was almost entirely pointless), and now V.

It's every bit the masterpiece it's cracked up to be. I mean, from the medal awards for passing missions the right way, to the trio of spectacularly well acted leads, and the shockingly smooth frame rate... this ain't yo' grandpappie's Grand Theft Auto.

I've tasted the sights and sounds of Los Santo's 2013 face lift; as well as the seriously messed up gender politics of it's strip clubs, and now I'm shotgunning the main story so I can get a review up as quick as possible.
 
*Gulp*  I can do this.