Quick Review: The Man With the Iron Fists

Review: I was very excited when this movie came out. It looked like it was right up my alley with it's over the top kung-fu action that was promised in the trailer. I meant to see it right away but didn't get around to it until now via redbox.

Well I think I raised my expectations a little too high. From what I could tell this was going to be an insane, over the top, non-stop action flick based around grindhouse era kung fu. I was partially right. The beginning opened with a bang. It is a huge, bloody fight with some great organic effects for the most part. Sadly this was one of the most exciting parts of the movie. Once this was done there was surprisingly little action for a movie billed as an action movie. Now one cannot expect these to literally be non-stop action ala Crank. But I felt that a bit too much story was shoved down your throat. It felt more like a Chinese historical period piece at times, actually, but with some urban attitude from RZA.
Now I wouldn't consider the story bad, just a bit lost. I like these Chinese war stories of battling kingdoms and clan, I think they're exciting and they take me into a different culture that I'm not used to (makes me wonder why I've never gotten into the Romance of the Three Kingdoms games), in other words it's not WWII from an American perspective AGAIN! But I think the main problem was that RZA may have been trying a little too hard in his writing. It states on the movie's IMDB trivia page that he and Eli Roth worked on this story over the course of two years. That on top of hearing the rough cut of the movie was 4 hours long and at one time considered to be two movies means there's a lot of information missing. I even watched the extended cut so I can only wonder how butchered the original, theatrical version was. If you're gonna have story in an action movie that's okay, just make it more engaging and less crammed, that will make the action sequences even more satisfying cause they are fighting for something you actually care about.
Which of course brings me to the action sequences. The scene in the beginning and at the end were pretty balls to the wall amazing in their stunts. Blood and guts everywhere with awesome choreography and use of many types of blades and other weapons. But the problem is that a lot of the best material was either at the start of the movie or the end of the movie. There were a few things here and there in-between but it was very brief. And again it's not a big deal if a movie like this doesn't have a ton of action as long as the little of it is effective, but the way this was advertised gave off a bit of an unrealistic expectation. A little like Immortals a couple years back. Both this and that should have been more awesome than they were, but they depended too much focus of little elements that make up the movie as a whole.
Then the last thing I wanted to talk about were the performances, which weren't really there. Everything felt bland and forced. Probably one of the better performances was from Russell Crowe but I felt he was just acting like himself throughout anyway. Not to mention his character felt really out of place and didn't belong. Also, I felt it was very narcissistic for RZA to play the lead role as the blacksmith. He should have put more of a focus on his directing and to get someone who can carry a fight scene better. Watching him fighting was... really awkward. It was just... so... I can't quite put my finger on it but it felt weird. Everyone else was pretty much forgettable with the exception of Lucy Liu who is typically pretty awesome at what she does. Definitely not an acting power house here.

I was just really disappointed with something that should have been better. In the end it should have been longer to flesh out it's rushed and un-identifiable story. And the idea of making it two movies would have been pretty sweet and could have been another Kill Bill type scenario, but with a new ip from a director who doesn't exactly have a lot of credit as a director doesn't give a lot of hope in the business for it to be released that way. Hence why Kill Bill DID get to do that right off the bat and this didn't.
It certainly wasn't all bad. Like I did say earlier there was some pretty amazing fight sequences here. Also a lot of the ideas with the characters and the story were really neat. The contrast of elements between the man made of brass and the man with the iron fists for example. Also how he got to the point of iron fists isn't what I was expecting, but in a good way. Then lastly the story of how RZA got to China by fleeing the slave driven south in early America was also really cool. I did enjoy that. It's just a shame these elements weren't fleshed out more or given better attention to make it all a better movie as a whole.
In the end it's another case of somewhat false advertising. That and trying to cram too much movie into too little time, even in the extended cut. That may not even be RZA's fault though, that could be Universal talking. However what was put out there was not as good as it could have been potentially. I could talk more on it but it would just be more repetitious than anything. Maybe I need to see it again to appreciate what it is instead of harping on why it wasn't what I wanted it to be. But forcing myself to like it won't make me like it any more. Maybe again eventually down the line when I'm up to it. Until then I'll just live with the disappointment I had for what this could have been.

Review: Evil Dead

Version I Watched: Only one available right now, went to see it in theatres.

History: This is something that was in the works for quite some time. An idea of a remake was going on for years but it was somewhat abandoned around 2009 because it wasn't really going anywhere. However two years later Bruce Campbell himself confirmed that it was up and running. This is the first not to be directed by Sam Raimi. Instead it was written and directed by Fede Alvarez with Diablo Cody working on revisions of the script. While seen mostly as a remake there is some ambiguity about it's connection to the original based on comments from the director. It has already spawned theories about it actually being Evil Dead 4. Bruce Campbell was offered to have a cameo but he declined. Just this last weekend for it's opening it brought in $26 million dollars which is pretty good since the budget for this was approx. $17 million. It has been receiving some mixed reviews but mostly positive. A sequel is already in the works.

Personal History: Seen the movie this is based on quite a few times. But I saw this the Saturday after it opened so I can't say I have any history with this. This was my first (but far from last) viewing.

Review: I told myself just before I sat down to write this that I was going to try my best to not make comparisons to the original. And while I'm not going to make direct comparisons, there were some things in that realm that I wanted to talk about. Kinda hard to not think of the old version when a remake of a classic like The Evil Dead comes around.

Going into this I wouldn't say I had high expectations. With almost every movie I wouldn't say I have high expectations, mostly because I can feel out whether I'll like something or not without knowing a whole lot about it. However I was fiercely pumped to see this one. This is the type of pumped I get only every once in a while for something. Maybe only once or twice a year to be completely honest. But to keep my excitement high I didn't want to risk having things potentially jaded or spoiled for me. All I ever saw for this remake before buying my ticket was the awesome poster (with a tagline that raises your expectations quite a bit, a lot like the Saw V poster) and a few screenshots. A buddy of mine told me to watch the red band trailer, but I honestly don't watch trailers anymore unless it's for something I'm unfamiliar with and need something to tell me if I'll like it or not. So I didn't know what to expect outside of new visions of old tricks from the original movie.
Speaking of trailers, I was surprised to see that there were none before my screening. It didn't even have the "Welcome to our theatre" video play before the show. Not sure why, maybe they had a schedule or something. In a way it made the experience more unique. Also the location of the screen I saw it on. Depending on the size of the theatre you usually go to you may not know what I mean but bear with me. Some of the bigger theatres tend to have varying sizes in screens and seats. Lots of times in the main lobby there will be a larger screen in a room with many more seats, usually reserved for the big blockbusters when they first come out. Then sometimes you'll have screens at the end of a long hallway with a slightly smaller screen and less seats where sometimes older movies will play because the concern of having enough seats isn't as present. Now I'm not sure why Evil Dead was playing on one of these smaller screens but it was at the showing I went to. In a way I appreciate this more along with the lack of trailers because of the experience I feel it should have. With horror it makes more sense to watch it in an out of the way and isolated area instead of on the big main screen where everyone is crunching on their popcorn and playing with their phones while the 15 year old girls who snuck in are screaming every five minutes because of a jump scare. You know what I mean? No? Well, fuck it, let's move onto the actual review.

Over the past couple days I've been revisiting some older horror movies, and by older I mean the late 70s. One night I watched Dawn of the Dead and the next night I watched Zombie (or Zombi 2, or Zombie Flesh Eaters, or whatever the hell it's called in your region). Certainly a different perspective and style of horror than kids these days are used to. And while Dawn of the Dead drops you right into the action and keeps things exciting, Zombie on the other hand is pretty slow in the beginning. The first zombie shows up quickly but the rest of the zombies take quite a while to get there. There are tons of examples from many eras of horror where it just takes way too long to get to the horror. And I don't mean get's to the blood and guts. I'm talking about the 30+ minutes of partying in movies like Wolf Creek and Hostel (and those are more recent examples) before it gets to anything resembling a sense of terror in the tone. So when Evil Dead starts off with a possession and ritual it was clear that they weren't intending on burying the lead. After that all that needed to be done was to establish the characters and the reason they're at the cabin and BOOM off and running. One thing I was glad to not be disappointed in is what would come over the next hour plus.

There were some unique and clever approaches to the plot and how the story handled itself this time around. This version of the story revolves around five friends, one of which is a recovering dope addict and her friends hope to help cure her while they're away at this cabin. One thing you may not notice unless your told is this. The characters names are David, Eric, Mia, Olivia, and Natalie... in other words... D.E.M.O.N. Although that's more of an Easter egg than anything else. Basically Mia is David's sister and she is the drug addict (and most of the bad stuff happens to her as you'll be able to predict easily). Now what I liked about this approach is not only did it get away from the cliche of a bunch of teens going away for the weekend to party, but also it brought something of a medical approach to it. Olivia is a registered nurse. So when shit starts to go down and Mia starts acting strange there is naturally a medical explanation for her behavior. She is, after all, going through an insanely tough withdrawal. It wouldn't be odd for her to have freak outs and do crazy shit. So of course you'll have plenty of freak out moments almost literally screaming at the screen from their ignorance. It's expected for this genre. There would be no horror genre if it weren't for bad decisions. Outside of those three peeps Eric is the dickwad who reads the book that brings the demon out. And then Natalie is David's girlfriend but she barely has a presence outside of a big scene later in the movie. Feels like she's there to serve as a blonde to look at and then a potential kill.
Now what I REALLY liked about this approach was the new approach to the book of the dead. I haven't watched the original in some time but I remember that after the stupid kids read from the book it brought forth the demon and then all hell broke loose. Pretty simple. In this one on the other hand it expanded on the book of the dead, presenting a ritual that lasted throughout the entire movie. This is previewed in the beginning when a ritual is done to cleanse the soul of another demon possessed girl (by burning her to death). So over time we're presented with new drawings from the book to expand on why Mia is doing the things she's doing. It's a part of the ritual that gives the demon more power over their host. Although some of it is a bit bizarre and frankly quite convenient if you ask me. I'm also thinking of when the book was originally written an eternity ago. I wonder how it was originally used because it feels like this ritual is self inflicting. But I can see how it could be done against someone by force. Now I'm diving too far into something that has no bearing on the story at hand. Basically once the initial possession happens Mia has lost control of herself. The demon pretty much takes over right away with little to no control from Mia herself.
Which brings me to something that some of you readers may be wondering. This is going to sound sadistic but I bet you're wondering if the infamous tree rape scene is in this version of the story. Well... yes. It was of course approached a bit differently because of the new interpretation. Basically Mia slips and falls into a big pile of spiky tree branches that grab her arms and legs, holding her tight. Then a bizarre, horrific looking woman appears in front of her and a long black vine comes dripping out of her mouth. The black vine slithers it's way up Mia's skirt, basically getting the demon in via rape. It felt more intense than the original rape I remember, making it a bit more unsettling.
Then for the last bits of new interpretations was the way the demon traveled from person to person. It didn't just simply jump. It traveled more like the plague in a zombie story. Not long after Mia gets full blown possessed she tackles Olivia and vomits a fire hose's worth of blood all over her. This caused the demon "disease" to spread via a bacteria approach. Similar things happen at different points of the film. When I thought about it initially it did seem odd since this involves a being from the other side. But it does make more sense since there's already worldly limitations to the demon's power and abilities based on the ritual that goes along with it. At the early point of the ritual it would seem odd for the demon to be so overpowered already. None the less it was a new way to meld two types of horror elements together making for a nice blend. I was a fan of it. Better than just having the demon jump from person to person. Something like that always seems to make the demon seem so powerful only doesn't choose to use their power when they could.

Now if I had to describe this movie in one word it would be wet. It seems like it almost every scene something looks or feels moist. In the opening scene alone there is a very thick fog. Then it seems like in half the scenes it is raining outside. Because of this the characters are running around without grabbing a towel to dry off and they all just look wet. Then the cabin is old and damp because it's seen much better days. A bunch of the wood that makes the cabin is falling apart because of the moisture over the years. This is on top of all the blood that is shooting everywhere constantly which adds another element to wetness to it. Not an actual complaint, but it was a similar effect to wanting to go home and shave after seeing the piss colored beard Markie Mark and George Clooney have in The Perfect Storm. Although I will say there was one part in particular that I appreciated the rain. But that's in the last scene and I don't want to spoil that. Did not see it coming, though. And it did add an element of insanity to the movie as a whole. It certainly made it look good.
And speaking of looking good, the effects in this were incredible. I was excited more than anything else knowing there was going to be as many organic effects as possible. Online there are claims that computers were only used for touch ups but I highly doubt that. The opening scene when a possessed girl is burned alive does not look very natural. It looks very computery. Everything else on the other hand looked great. Just about everything was done with props or really well done makeup. I'm specifically thinking of the scenes with dismemberings. It all looks amazing. They are not clean cuts, either. You see bone, veins, everything. It's all a rough looking thing for them to do and it is heightened by the effects used. It's all very cringe worthy and honestly looks about as real as it can be (in a stylized way for a horror movie of this type).

I can say for sure that I adored this movie. Sadly horror tends to be a genre that has a greater rarity of actual quality over other genres. It's way easier to name, let's say, five awesome comedies in any given year than it is to name five awesome horror movies in any given year. I feel lucky that a few years ago we got the incredible Paranormal Activity, and then a few years later came Cabin in the Woods, but other than that there wasn't a whole lot to write home about. This was easily not only one of the better horror movies in recent memory but also one of the better horror remakes. It can be somewhat compared to when Dawn of the Dead was remade. A horror classic got a modern redo, and you know what, it was surprisingly awesome. And this is another case. It had a lot of the elements of the original but adapted for a modern audience. Also it was a lot more serious than the original. But the original was unintentionally hilarious at parts so it's good that it didn't have that present. But best of all it was no holds barred. The filmmakers weren't afraid to take it to the level it needed to go to. It wasn't tainted, it wasn't watered down, it was full blown hardcore hard R horror. It was gore-tastic! This one is really not for the faint of heart. There is stabbing, slicing, beating, the use of an electric turkey carver and a chainsaw, there's fire, boiling hot water, and enough dismembering to keep the prosthetic limbs business going for quite some time. Guts and gore everywhere. What a ride!
One thing I couldn't help thinking about during all this gore was perspective. The original movie was pretty intense for it's time. It was released without a rating but in recent years it was formally given a rating of NC-17. It had a ton of violence and of course the infamous tree rape scene. There have been multiple versions released with different cuts, usually depending what region you find it in (in the states the most common version is uncut so don't worry). Lastly it was one of many horror titles to make the UK's video nasty list in the early 80s. Keeping that in mind, this interpretation of the story did initially get rated NC-17 causing for some cuts to achieve an R (which means an unrated DVD is on the way!), but the amount of blood and violence overall is easily far more intense than the original movie yet this is only an R. Matter of perspective of course. Just a bit bizarre. A modern perspective will do that I guess.

And speaking of modernizing, sadly there were elements of it being modernized that didn't work out so well for it. The main problem I'm talking about is the cinematography and the editing. I was disappointed to see but shouldn't have been disappointed when the more intense scenes had the MTV/Michael Bay look to them. This was first present in the scene when Olivia is attacking Eric just after she was possessed. There were so many closeups, shaky cams, and quick cuts that they may as well have been in a butcher's kitchen throwing wet and bloody meat around while the camera was zoomed in as far as it would go. I know this has been done in recent years to make things more exciting, but instead it makes it more confusing. Also it doesn't make it scarier. It just makes it messier. It would have been way more unsettling to set it pulled farther back. Seeing each strike as it actually happens in real time instead of going from one angle to another to another to another really quickly. Not much else to say on this subject. If you've seen just about any movie that has action in it over the last few years you already know what I'm talking about.
Then there were some story and style directions they took that I was not a fan of as well. One of these things was the cliches throughout the story. I realize this was based on an 80s slasher flick but if other parts can be updated then why not update the plot? So many stupid horror cliches are present here, such as being withing reach of ending everything but one little thing happens that causes the hero to not go through with the kill. But ironically on top of this some of those stupid choices were done forcibly for the purpose of the proposed story moving forward. There were so many times when someone could have ended it all without an issue but then nothing that happened after it would be able to happen. It does take me out of it because it felt more like the story was going in the direction it think it needs to go instead of how it should go. Granted I loved what happened at the end of the movie, I just wish they had a better route of getting there.
Also, could there be just one demon possession movie these days where the demon isn't a variation of what the demon sounded like in The Exorcist? C'mon, be more original than the deep raspy voice, it's not even scary anymore.

All in all this was an awesome flick despite the downsides. It was very intense, very violent, and a good homage to the original it was based on. A good way to give a modern perspective on it is that it's a more serious toned Cabin in the Woods but without the secret society and giant gods threatening to destroy earth. I highly recommend this one for horror fans. But keep in mind it is far from being for everyone. With how much gore is in this it'll be mostly appealing to those who can stomach this. I can imagine quite a few people having trouble getting through it because of it's insanely intense violence. So approach with caution. But otherwise if you can take it then I say go for it. And if it helps this movie has no sex and surprisingly very little swearing. Just something I noticed. In the end it's well worth your money. And when you do go you can think over how this could potentially be a loose sequel and that it could be the same cabin as in the original story. You can hypothesize with all the other fans on how it's connected.

Review: Mafia!

Version I Watched: Recently upgraded from the VHS edition I've had for years to a blu-ray copy. Picked it up for a good deal paired with The Crew, another comedic mobster movie.

History: With a budget of $10 Million it was able to earn back triple that at just over $30 Million worldwide. It was met with mostly negative reception upon it's released. The movie's original, full title is Jane Austen's Mafia! It's kept in the title card at the beginning of the movie but for the most part it's been removed from the movie's home video box art. This was, strangely enough, because of confusion and the audience just not getting the joke. While this is technically Llyod Bridge's last movie, the movie he made just before this one (Meeting Daddy) was released two years later.

Personal History: I have seen this one a lot. Not as many times as other titles like this one (Naked Gun for example), but one I appreciate and still laugh at.

Review: The age of a good spoof comedy is pretty much behind us. Either that or we're waiting for a new advent of quality in the spoofs that come up. There was something special that happened to comedic films between the late 70s and early 90s. These comedies came out that were not just a parody but took their comedy in a completely different direction than comedies that came before. And I think the best way to describe it is "realism." Most comedies, while not realistic in every sense, are still grounded in reality. The spoofs I'm referencing that were made famous by Jim Abrahams, the Zucker Brothers, and Mel Brooks are hilarious not just because they deliver their jokes straight faced but also because they sacrifice realism for a gut bursting laugh. Let me go even farther into what I mean. I mean jokes like in Airplane II when a character says, "You're putting those people up there in Jeopardy!" And cut to a shot in the plane and the passengers are literally playing Jeopardy. No attention brought to it before or after, it's just there for the sake of a joke. These are some of my favorite types of movies but there hasn't been a good one in years. The last one that came close was one of the earlier Scary Movies and even looking back on those they are not as good as I remember. Somewhere in the 90s was when this type of movie lost it's charm. There were still some good ones released but you could tell it was on it's way out. One of them was Wrongfully Accused, and another was Mafia.

In case you haven't noticed up to this point this movie is specifically a spoof of The Godfather. It has jokes rooted from or referencing other titles as well but for the most part it's in with the Italian gangster movies. This is seen right off the bat with Jay Mohr doing his best Italian impersonation giving the opening narration just as he starts up a car that explodes. As the story continues it jumps between the past and the present in a way like The Godfather Part II. The movie opens with Vincenzo Cortino (Lloyd Bridges) as a child and coming to America. It's a great parody of the childhood scenes from the Godfather and it also makes me think of Johnny Dangerously, another fantastic gangster comedy flick. This section has one of my favorite, small, visual jokes. When Vincenzo tries to make it to the boat that will take him to America, and he eventually jumps in to swim after it, you'll see that the boat is named Il Pacino. Love it. This beginning portion does have it's hits and misses and I don't feel is as strong as the rest of the movie's jokes, but there still are some here that I adore and it does make for at least a good beginning. Abrahams even had a joke as a throwback to Airplane! at the immigration office, "The white zone is for white people only."
And that's what I love about these types of movies. The level of wackiness. They have a great combination of wacky humor but telling it with a straight face. Rarely in this do I feel someone is "trying" to be funny. And that's not just something that's strong with just these types of comedies but comedy in general. Think about some of the straight jokes told in this lesser spoof comedy and how much funnier they are than a supposedly wonderful Adam Sandler movie where he is making goofy noises and faces left and right. Not to mention that this movie also uses their making fun of as a jumping off point. Then they make a lot of their own jokes with certain references mixed in. Unlike stuff like Date Movie which is essentially 90 minutes of references and surprisingly next to no jokes. Take the scene when we're first introduced to the casino inside and out. We're given the usual games like blackjack, etc, but we're also given the joke ones. They had craps where the dice literally turned to crap when the player rolled craps. And then there's the Guess the Number game. "Sorry, I was thinking of 3." Groans all around.
I don't want to just make this a listing of the jokes I thought were funny. But outside of that I'm trying to think what all to talk about. Since this is a comedy (and a niche comedy at that) it's all so subjective. Normally these movies don't have the highest production quality, but that's easily forgiven if the filmmakers make you laugh. Then the performances tend to not be award worthy, passable at best, but that's again not a big deal as long as it makes you laugh. However I will say that I greatly enjoyed Lloyd Bridges performance. In a way during this era of comedies he could be seen in a similar manner as Leslie Neilson. After years of serious work they both decide in old age to get into comedies. What they then do is bring their dramatic experience to their performance and let the dialogue/story do the work. Lloyd Bridges was just as funny as he was in Hot Shots! and Airplane!. He brings that educated performance to something that is downright silly. It enhances the experience as a whole. Also as a side note, this was his final film and it was dedicated to him. Some may consider that a bummer that this was the last thing he did, I like to look at it as he went out laughing.

Now onto the bad. Like I said earlier this was when this type of comedy was on a downfall. This just didn't have what some of the earlier titles of the same nature had. Even the National Lampoon's attempt at spoofing Lethal Weapon was a stronger candidate as a whole and that was a weaker title in the midst of some of the classics from the 80s. The signs that this type of comedy was on it's way out is seen in bits and pieces here and there. In the past when next to all the comedy was done in a very "matter of fact" type way. Meaning it didn't feel the need to present it in a way that will stop the movie to focus on the joke (i.e. The red and white zone bit at the beginning of Airplane! Nobody is reacting to it and there's music in the background. It's all done very straight.) Sadly Mafia had a few instances of really "trying" to be funny and makes groaner references to other movies. Most obvious example is a Forrest Gump reference that is so forced it almost hurts. A similar feeling came from a Scarface joke where a man says the famous line, "Say hello to my little friend." and a midget comes out with a gun and starts firing. The forced jokes are more than just references but there were enough to make the audience cringe with how forced the jokes feel.
My next complaint is something I don't feel I should have an issue with but I do is the overall plot. Since The Godfather films were long and complicated and this one is making a parody of that plot there are elements of it here. However it tells a story in 80+ minutes instead of three, 3 hour movies. Since it jumps back and forth in time things can get surprisingly confusing. But it's not because the story is actually complicated, it just isn't presented very well. It winds up feeling more like a sketch movie with all the same characters and themes. I'm not looking for something artsy, just a bit more coherent. Other comedies like this had more straight forward plots than this one. Just one of those things I noticed more than ever on this most recent viewing.

Despite the bad I still recommend you check this one out. I can guarantee it's better than the more recent comedies of this style, like A Haunted House or Scary Movie 5. Not as strong of a spoof comedy as the Naked Gun movies or Airplane! But it's certainly a hell of a lot better a Godfather parody than The Godson was. What a joke of a comedy was that (pun slightly intended). Besides, with Mafia! you get to see a horse projectile vomit.

Review: The Burning

Version I Watched: Much older VHS copy. I think telling you it is in full screen goes without saying.

History: This was actually the first film produced by Bob and Harvey Weinstein who now run The Weinstein Company, as one would figure. The film did cause a bit of controversy when it was first released because of its violence. Depending on which version you get from what region it may or may not be slightly cut. Although if you pick it up in the states you're pretty safe with getting the uncut edition. However in the UK it's a different story because this was a part of the Video Nasty list back in the 80s (Working on a stand alone post for that subject). This was also an early piece of work for the famous makeup artist Tom Savini, as well as early work for the now famous Jason Alexander and Holly Hunter. The film was produced for $1.5 million and is now considered a classic and a bit of a cult hit.

Personal History: This is my first viewing. I have only read about this one before.

Review: This title was actually one of the first ones I intended to review way back when I first started this whole blog thing. Well, the draft has been collecting dust for too long so it's time I get cracking on this! I have been for a while putting aside and trying to watch all the movies I haven't watched since buying them. Whether I've seen the before or not I've been putting together a pile to go through. It makes it pretty clear that I buy more often than I actually have time to watch. Probably should slow down for a little while. Anyway, getting to the movie.

I think kids and teens in the early 80s were going to summer camp a lot. This is one of multiple slasher flicks that takes place at a summer camp along with Friday the 13th and Sleepaway Camp, both of which were made within a couple years of another. But the number one questions is, what sets this apart from the other summer camp slashers? Honestly not a whole lot. It should come as no surprise that I found this to be very by the numbers. Unsuspecting victim gets accidentally hurt, recovers, is out for revenge on those who did it, finds a group similar to the people who did it, starts taking them out one by one, a lone survivor finds the strength to defeat this evil, everyone goes home, but is it really the end? I basically told you everything that happened in that one sentence. But these types of movies usually aren't made to stand out. They're cheap thrills are a fun way to spend 90 minutes. It's the same reason sports fans buy the new version of Madden every year. It's essentially the same game only slightly changed, but it still provides hours of fun because sometimes more of the same is just fine.

I will say that one of the best parts of the movie was used up within the opening scene. What opens the story is a group of young guys in the middle of the night go off to play a prank on a man who they seem to hate. It's never made 100% clear to why they have a beef against him outside of that he appears to be a bit of a dweeb, but you can tell they are annoyed enough by him to play a prank on him for their own sick pleasure. Basically they go to his one person cabin, sneak into place and places right next to his bed a decaying skull with flames lit in the eye holes. The man freaks out naturally but then it lights the entire cabin on fire, including the man inside. He then bursts out completely engulfed in flames and then falls down a hill. It's a pretty brutal what appears to be death but the next scene takes place in the hospital. How he lived through that I don't know but you really need to set logic aside in movies like these. Now what made this one of the best parts is because the effect was amazing. Since this was the early 80s computer effects were far from the norm. So when the man bursts out of the cabin engulfed in flames you know it's real. Well, real in the sense that a man put on a special suit, lit himself on fire for real, and then acted out the damage. It looks incredible and is a perfect example of why organic effects look way better than computer. I love it so much I want to show you myself so here's a clip! (The part I'm talking about starts at 4:30).

Unlike some of the other slashers out there this one doesn't rely on the supernatural, just the unlikely. The intensity of this man's injury did put him in the hospital for five years. Yet as soon as he gets out he's pretty agile and can be a serial killer with no problem at all. As a matter of fact he lets out his killer rage on what appears to be his first night out of the hospital. Our burnt boy picks himself up a hooker only to viciously kill her when he gets her alone. That, and then the set up and quick scenes at the hospital all happened over the course of ten minutes, maybe fifteen at best. What comes next is my biggest beef with slashers of this era. There isn't a single kill or sign of the killer for approx the next thirty to forty minutes. I just get so deathly bored by so many of these movies because there's way too much time spent on a group of teenagers we just wanna see killed anyway. I realize if they didn't do this then these movies would be half the length, and that's a bit underwhelming. So I guess I shouldn't complain since it does make me more grateful for the kills when they do happen.
One thing they did have that some of the other summer camp slashers didn't have, and this was a surprise to me, was kids. There were actually kids there and the camp was actually in session. Usually it's about the counselors getting the camp ready while they screw and drink the entire time. This time there's actually kids. Not that it makes much of a difference in the end anyway. Things still play out as you would expect them to.

One thing I'm always interested in is the weapon of choice for the killer. I like it when they're more creative with their kills instead of the traditional knife. Freddy's got that glove with the blades on the fingers, Leatherface uses a chainsaw, the puppets in Puppet Master have a whole arsenal of stuff, all adding creativity to different slashers. In The Burning the weapon of choice was certainly a unique one. He used a hedge trimmer. I actually kinda dug this. The variety of what can be done with it is a bit limited, but has enough creativity to make you wonder. For example it could just be a simple stab with the blade open or closed. Or as you may be looking for is body parts to be chopped off. One scene in particular was pretty vicious a little bit past the halfway point was when he massacred an entire group of kids on a small boat. He didn't just stab them all, though. He was cutting off fingers, blood was flying everywhere, it was pretty hardcore. It also is one of the reasons this was on the video nasty list in the UK. I don't know if what I watched was the uncut version. Since it's such an obscure VHS copy it's hard to say. Probably was uncut since it appears to be an American copy.
Otherwise the kills weren't too out of the ordinary. This was before Friday the 13th had it's seventh sequel when things were going really crazy. Back then the slashers still had a typical route to take so everything that happened I basically expected.

One thing I did like was that there was more of a sense of closure to this one than other slashers. At least I felt that way. How it all ends was ironic for the killer. Initially he is literally stabbed in the back and appears to be dead. But this is an 80s slasher so that's not going to be the end. As the two remaining survivors are leaving they are suddenly attacked by the killer for the obligatory one last scare tactic in these movies. The survivors retaliate immediately by first slamming an axe directly into his face and then they light him on fire. He is killed by the same way he was initially damaged. Some may see it as lazy or uncreative, I at least saw it as ironic.
But what felt so close ended on it was the fact that you don't see him twitch or move or anything after that. He seemed to be very mortal a man. There wasn't even a dream-like event where he comes back to life and attack ala the pull into the water at the end of Friday the 13th. It all ends with a campfire story of the legend of the killer. No real suggestion of a potential return. Just simply a story of how he still lurks in the woods. But it sounds more like he just went down in legend than anything. There was never a sequel so I like to think he was killed for good at the end for the sake of closure. We don't need to have all of our slasher killers live forever.

There's really not much else to say about this movie. A very typical, not very stand out horror from the early 80s. Not like a lot of the other ones are as notable. If it weren't for all the sequels I'm sure Friday the 13th would have easily fallen into obscurity. One thing that is fun about this title is that it was a first for a couple of now more popular actors. This was the first movie for both Jason Alexander and Holly Hunter. So that's fun. Otherwise it's hard for me to recommend this. It was fun for what it was, but I didn't feel it stood out in any major respect. Maybe it warrants a second viewing? I don't know. I just didn't find it to be anything too special. Pretty passable in the grand scheme of things. But still that opening with him being lit on fire does look incredible.

Ignorant American Gaming: Nights into Dreams

Availability: Was originally released for the Sega Saturn in 1996. It was re-released on the Playstation 2 in 2008 exclusive to Japan but is now available with an HD face-lift on PSN, XBLA, and Steam.

Version I played: Digital download PS3 port off the PSN.

Review: Despite poor reception in the states I actually have a lot of very fond memories of the Sega Saturn. I got it not too terribly long after it launched and attribute a lot of my best gaming memories of the mid 90s to it. I played countless hours of Virtua Fighter, Sonic Jam, Panzer Dragoon, and also the game I want to touch on in this post, Nights into Dreams. The Saturn is another one of those consoles I wish I never got rid of. I do wish I still had it but if I ever want to achieve my goal of getting a complete Dreamcast collection I need to remain focused. Maybe I can use the credits I earn from making purchases on Game of Japan over time to purchase a Japanese one. That way I can get the best out of the system with the best products released on it. Gotta use the credits for something, right? Sadly I won't be reviewing the Sega Saturn version. However this isn't entirely a disappointment. What I will be reviewing is the port that I got for the PS3. One of those things that I immediately purchased without thinking after seeing it available. So this review will be part review of the game itself, and part review of the port.

One thing that is unfortunate is that the Sega Saturn was really hard to program for. This is due to the way the hardware was put together. A modern example of this is the Playstation 3. This means that there were plenty of dropped deals and games because it was too much of a hassle to port over or to program from scratch for third party developers. And when the transfer did happen sometimes the Saturn version was considered the lesser. Sadly this has transitioned to porting Saturn games over to modern consoles for re-releases. Transitioning from the Saturn is just as difficult because of the bizarre programming. Because of this Saturn fans like myself have gotten very few re-releases of Saturn games over the years. And plenty of times it is ported over from the PC version of said game because it's less of a hassle. I have a feeling if there wasn't this technical roadblock we would have more Saturn re-releases these days (like Panzer Dragoon Saga, aka one of the rarest games for the Saturn, at least the American copy). But I am glad to see they've been able to get out some of the essentials. Obviously I'll be talking about Nights. But also they've re-released Daytona USA, Virtua Fighter, Fighting Vipers, and Panzer Dragoon just to name a few. Here's hoping that one day we'll get a port of Fighters Megamix. That's my favorite fighting game of all time.

So they were able to bring over Nights. Pretty freaking awesome. This was one of the most popular games for the Saturn back in the day. It was released both on it's own and with a special controller that was designed so you could play through this game with ease instead of being rigid to the d-pad. It looked like a shitty first attempt at a Dreamcast controller but it wasn't bad for the time. Just wouldn't want to use it now. Basically the "joystick" which is more of an inverted nipple gives you the ability to free-flow around and around as you're flying through each level. Since this game scored you not only on time to complete but in how you do it. So things like flips and swirls were essential to beating the game proper. Also since it can get really fast paced it's good to know that you could fly away pretty easily if needed. In the end the game got a ton of praise and also had a special Christmas version of the game (more like DLC if you look at it in a modern perspective, it was sold on a separate disc but didn't contain all the levels). The original Saturn version is a classic and if I were to ever get a Saturn again it would easily be one of the first games I would get.
Now there is a port of it available making it much easier to pick up. The version I played as previously stated is the Playstation 3 version. Since this is a game that didn't originate on a Playstation console it isn't just a straight port. It's been reprogrammed as it's own application and has a new menu and features built in. The most noticeable addition is the option to choose between the original version of the game and a graphically updated version of the game. Being the purist that I am I went directly for the original version. I knew from the start that I wouldn't play the updated version unless I had to.

But before we get to the game let's get to the story. The story and how it plays out it both simple and vague. There is no dialogue whether spoken or written in a dialogue box. The story presented is about a boy and a girl, both with something of their own hurdles to get over. The girl Claris is having trouble building the courage to go into an audition without it completely falling apart. And the boy Elliot is having trouble being any good at Basketball against the big kids. These are communicated through dreams each of them are having that quickly turn into nightmares. This is the basic setup of the game. And while nothing is communicated to you outside of visuals the rest of the plot is left to you interpreting it. But basically what can be taken from the rest of the game is that in your dreams you take form of Nights and try and restore the dream world from the nightmare it is becoming. So essentially the cliche that it was all a dream isn't a twist or punchline in this, it's the actual story.
This is then executed through four stages for each character. All are different with the exception of one, the final level. Both Claris and Elliot play out the same last stage and fight the same final boss, but there's a reason for that and it involves them fighting together in the dream (Inception?). Otherwise every level is different and unique and every boss is also unique. However, fighting is something you actually do very little of in this game. The main objective in each level is pretty simplistic. Basically four of these diamond-like bubble things have been stolen from you and you need to get them back. They're being held in these giant contraptions that can be destroyed by collecting these blue pearl-looking items and then planting them in the contraption to get back your diamond thingy. Deliver the diamond bubble back to the start of the stage and then move onto gathering the next one. You do this four times a level and then you fight a boss. Now that I think about it saying what you do in the game sounds nowhere near as exciting as the real thing is. Watch this clip from the game to see what I'm talking about.
The game is actually very fun and exciting. One of the big thing that makes it so fun is the way your character flies around and how smooth the controls are. As I'm sure you can imagine I would only suggest playing with the joystick for this game. Using the d-pad will not be as good of an experience. Once you get going you will discover how easy and fun it is to cruise through each level. It's one of those games where you could have no idea what you're doing but it looks like it because the game handles itself just so well. Then during the boss fights, while simplistic, feels so graceful as you battle. And even though the boss fights are not hard they are still very satisfying when you finish. Seeing that boss literally explode while this peaceful music plays is just delightful. All in all it's such a wonderful experience. And an emotionally positive experience. You really can't help but smile when playing. This is because of the colorful imagery and fantastic music. Here's a link to the theme so you can hear what I mean. I don't even know how else to express how I feel about this game besides saying how much of a delight it is. And with the way I'm talking I should probably start ring shopping.

Although something I've come to notice that I didn't notice as a kid is how long it takes to complete some of these games from the past. The answer is not that long. If you tried to blaze through Nights just to see the endings it could easily be done in around an hour. This is attributed to a few factors. One is that there's only eight levels, one of which is a duplicate that you play through as each character. Another thing is that there is a time limit to each of these levels. Any level you select won't take longer than a few minutes even if you beat it by the skin of your teeth. Then the boss is another couple minutes at the longest as well. In a way it makes you wonder how a first party company could get away with such a short game and even bill it as one of their system seller games. Well, part of it is context of the time. This was released in the mid-90s before every other game had a promised 80 hours of content with another 40 hours of DLC to come out later. So it was more common to have a shorter game because the focus was more on re-playablity than releasing additional content later. Not to mention games in this era had a harder difficulty generally speaking instead of there being standout games as actually being difficult whereas many handhold through the whole game (a rant for another day). So to get the full experience from games you had to really work for it. This is why chances are some of your friends beat Sonic the Hedgehog 2 back on the Genesis but you know nobody who has gotten all seven emeralds. This is a similar thing with Nights.
Despite there being only eight levels and that it doesn't take too long to get through them it is still a challenge to get the full experience. Simply finishing the three levels for each character doesn't grant you immediate access to the final level. You actually need to get a grade of at least a C on each level before it to unlock it. Believe it or not that's harder said than done. It's not something you'll sweat over for hours but it still is tough. You'll really need to make sure you're going through each section pretty quickly while racking up a bunch of points in the process and get plenty of additional pearls. Then even when you think you've done it as well as anyone could you'll only wind up with a C rating. But whatever because that gets you another step forward. As a matter of fact the highest grade I've gotten on any of the levels was a B. And I worked my ass off for that! I can only imagine what it takes to get an A. This was and still is a fairly common thing in games developed by Sega. They have this grading system that is insanely strict on what you have to do to get a high grade. This isn't like Angry Birds rankings that are inconsistent, this is just outright difficult. I had an easier time playing through God of War III on hard than I did just trying to get an A in some of these levels.
What this challenge of needing to actually achieve something in this game to finish it off is what does provide it with some longevity with so little. Again if you're really trying it doesn't take long to get there but you will feel satisfied when you do. And that's something that this game provides that some games simply don't. Satisfaction. That's because it's quality over quantity. There isn't a lot packed in this game but it's so great in the time you're playing. It's unique, colorful, fast paced, easy to play, difficult to master, just so many great things about this game. So what that means in the end is that since it provides such a wonderful experience the first time around people wouldn't be opposed to playing through it again. It doesn't take very long so it's not a huge commitment. As usual with the modern examples this can be somewhat comparable to Portal. That game only takes a couple hours to complete. However it was wildly praised despite the length. That's because everything that needed to be there was there in one small package. And that's the thing, quality in small portions instead of bland in large portions. I know any day of the week I'd rather have a 6 pack of any New Glarus brew over a 24 pack of Busch Light despite they fact they wouldn't cost much different. It makes the re-playability of Nights into Dreams so much higher over other games. And I think that's one of the reasons I like to play it over so much. It has that appeal. It's the same reason you may play the old Sonic or Mario games so much. If you really concentrate on getting through the game it won't take that terribly long. But I can guarantee you've played through them a countless number of times. And why is that? Because they pack so much in so little that makes you want to revisit it.

Now getting to the port of the game. Easily one of the best features of the port is that the original version of the game was included. Something that's been happening since the HD age began is to do HD revamps of old games. These tend to have very mixed results, though. I know the 3D HD revamp of TMNT: Turtles in Time was not received well despite being damn near the same thing only with new visuals (I only played the demo and hated it. Something about it just felt off). But I have heard positive things about Bionic Commando: Rearmed and a few others. Now in terms of Nights into Dreams there is an option to play a visually revamped version of the game. It smooths out the graphics, adds more details, makes it much more crisp and clean. Fuck that. I want the original experience. I do understand why this was included. Graphics from this era of gaming does not age well. Come to think of it, it seems like polygon visuals don't age well at all no matter what. 2D seems timeless. But 3D? Good for about five years and then it looks stupid apparently. So if anything it was smart to include this feature for people who want something new and revamped even though it's the exact same game. But the inclusion of the original is excellent. It's even presented in it's original aspect ratio. However the rest of the screen was filled for those who don't like black bars on the left and right. Basically it's a purple border with some stars. Thankfully not a distracting image like some other ports release. As much as I like playing the original there is one part of the game that does require me to play through on the revamped graphics. And that's in a piece of bonus content.
One thing I was really happy to see included as a bonus for beating the game was Christmas Nights. This was something that was released in December of 1996. It wasn't a whole new game but rather only one level/boss from the previous game but changed to have a Christmas theme. However since the level is the first level of Claris' dream, when you play as Elliot the level is slightly altered for the change. But it's not the most noticeable. Essentially it was a little bonus for the holiday season. Also it wasn't a full price, stand alone game. It was given away in magazines and was also a bonus if you bought select Saturn games, such as Daytona USA Championship Circuit Edition. At least this is how it was in Japan. I'm not sure how far it extended in America but I do know it was available at Blockbuster. And then the UK didn't get it until Christmas 1997 a year later. Anyway, this previously exclusive disc is now available in this port. However it's only available in the revamped graphics. Something I wasn't too happy about but whatever. This is where I was able to confirm that it was simply a visual revamp. They did nothing to change the gameplay. It is still the same as I remembered it in the original game. So essentially this was a previously played stage that is now Christmas themed. I'm only bummed out that they didn't include an option to play the original version as it was released back in 1996.
In terms of other bonus content the rest is media related. A ton of different images including concept art, videos of all the cutscenes and other supplemental material, etc etc. Some pretty cool stuff I must say. Neat stuff for fans of the series. And as a matter of fact the whole thing feels like a few cards short of a full deck. But there are enough cards to make it a very satisfying package. For $10 you get everything the original game offered and more. Plenty cheaper than buying a Saturn and getting the disc version. If you were ever a fan of this game or a fan of Sega in general I highly, highly, HIGHLY recommend picking this one up. It's a great deal for a great game.

Review: Men Behind the Sun

My Edition: Single disc, widescreen version (Additional details in the review itself)

History: This film has had it's share of controversy and censorship over the years. Looking at the wikipedia page alone you'll see that different regions have different run times because of cutting chunks of violence out. It has been released with a run time from 90 minutes all the way up to the full 105 minute cut. The original intent was to make the film as realistic as possible, but because of how exploitative the violence was he has been accused of it not having any sort of historical or educational value. In China it was considered to be so violent that it was the first film to receive a III rating (equal to an NC-17 here in the states). This film had three sequels but have little to nothing to do with the first one outside of general theme.

Personal History: This is my first viewing. I knew very little about this title, or the franchise as a whole going into it.

Review: Before I start talking about the movie itself I want to talk about the edition that I got in the mail. Looks like the US audience got pretty shafted with this movie because the only version I could find outside of a more expensive import is really shitty. First off, the transfer is horrendous. It looks like a transfer straight from a VHS copy with basically no remastering. Seriously, it looks really bad. Then while it does have multiple language tracks, including it's original Chinese track, it has no subtitles whatsoever. So either you can watch it the way it was originally conceived but not know what they're saying, or you can watch the English dub and be annoyed but know what's going on. Lastly, it is in widescreen but it's non-anamorphic. To those of you who don't know what I mean by that, the widescreen image doesn't fill the screen. It's presented in a square "full screen" type format and then the image is letter boxed. This was the least of my concerns cause I don't mind having to use the zoom feature on my TV. Still it doesn't help when looking at the terrible image quality of the transfer. Also, I'm pretty sure the version I bought was partially cut. It's shorter than the original run time as it shows on IMDB and Wikipedia at 105 minutes. Whereas mine is 100 minutes, and on the case it stated 95 minutes. So I give the DVD I received a very low score. On a school grading scale this is easily a D. It only passes because the movie played from beginning to end without any problems. This is a really poor excuse of a DVD release.

So, the actual movie. I've got to say this one was a tough watch. It is really no holds barred. Also, I've got to say that with how low the budget was on this movie it looks great and is very effective. The movie doesn't bury the lead, either. The way it was promoted also touches big time on how intense it is. Even on the box art to the shitty version I found states a warning about the content and how it is certain to offend anyone. Talk about potentially over-selling. But it's good to warn cause some may pick this up thinking it's more along the lines of Schindler's List in terms of historical dramas. Something that is hard to watch but people would put up with the difficulties cause it's interesting. It's history after all. Well Men Behind the Sun is closer to a horror movie if you ask me. Nothing supernatural or haunted or anything like that, and it does claim to document the tortures that happened during the war, but so much of it feels to be intensified and put together in a way that felt more horror-like than straight up drama. I feel like if it wanted to be more like a drama then it wouldn't feel the need to be so intense. At least a bit more realistically intense. Well and here's the thing. Maybe the reason why I found this to be more along the lines of horror is not really in it's execution in acting and cinematography, but just the overall feel of the story and the realism in the visual effects.
To expand on this I'll reference a documentary I once saw. It's a short film about the holocaust called Night and Fog. I remember toward the end of the movie there was one shot in particular that showed dead people being tossed into a giant hole to be buried. It was nothing more than a drop but the way the dead body dropped and fell down the hold curled my stomach in ways that regular movies do. Something about it was different enough, well, realistic enough that it was really unsettling. Again, just a body dropping. Not being ripped apart, not in the process of actual murder, just a dead body dropping. Now the reason why I told you that is because of this. The movie's budget was really low and China (at least at the time) didn't have a special effects industry for the filmmakers to turn to. So for the brutal killings in this movie they did something I've never seen before. The director had connections where he was able to obtain real dead bodies and body parts. So in the scenes I'm about to describe to you, just imagine. Imagine it being done in a way that is the closest to realistic you will ever see. The next step above this is actually doing these things to a person in real life and not just on dead bodies. I think it's safe to say you've been warned...

Well now that I've built it up like I read about I hope you aren't disappointed when I get into it. Usually when I watch movies like this I think I get a little overly excited about how crazy it will get and so the entire time I'm really focusing in on anything that could be intense. This always leads to the same process every time. The beginning is tame/not so intense. My expectations lower as the film goes on. And then something hits me out of left field that I did not see coming. So with that said the beginning didn't quite hit me with the intensity right away. It does take some time. There are a couple deaths early on but one of them is a far away shot of a man being electrocuted to death on an electric fence. Otherwise nothing too terribly noteworthy. But much like in Salo, it's when the torture, or in this case experiments start that things really get insane and earn it's reputation.
One noteworthy experiment that seems to be pretty popular in this movie is the scene when they leave a woman outside, repeatedly pour cold water over her hands and forearms, allowing them to freeze. It goes on for quite a while and is really tough to watch. Interesting piece of trivia on this scene, the girl that is the guinea pig is the director's niece. She was the only one willing to play the long and torturous role and even nearly got frostbite in the process. So what happens is after they've frozen her hand enough they bring her back inside. Then they dip her hand in boiling hot water to heath them back up. Then to finish it all off the skin gets pulled off clean by the man doing the experiment. All that is left is the bones. Keep in mind what I said earlier about the visual effects. It really makes your stomach turn just seeing it.
What follows really is a series of vicious experiments and other violent imagery. On the cover of the (TERRIBLE) edition I have it states that it's in the tradition of Faces of Death. While this is a completely different style of movie as Faces of Death I can see where they make the connection. The images in this are terribly realistic. And if they're not realistic then they're still quite horrifying to look at. There are really two other specific images that come to mind. One is when they throw a man into this chamber and lock him in. Then in this chamber is some sort of machine and when they switch it on the sound of a piercing high pitch noise comes out. The man slowly finds it more difficult to tolerate it and appears to fall over dead. That's not the end, though. What happens next is the man's body swells up. Then it appears he starts to soil himself from the back end (by the way, he's naked), but then you quickly realize that was his intestine as it literally explodes out of the back end of him. Pretty gross, and don't forget these are real human parts. The other scene that comes to mind is when the people running the experiments bring in a young boy to operate on him. They proceed to perform an autopsy on him while he's still alive. It includes closeups and everything. Although the closeups of the still beating heart and stuff were the crew dissecting a pig. Still really rough to watch because it looks so real (BECAUSE SO MUCH IS REAL... in a way).

Describing those scenes does not to the film justice. It really is a case of "seeing is believing." Much like other shock films like Cannibal Holocaust. One scene I didn't even mention in great detail was the scene when a cat was killed by literally a full room of rats. Between that and the other scenes I described it is pretty clear that this title isn't for everybody. But the movie isn't entirely about death. There's also something of a side story about some of the inmates escaping so they aren't killed in one of these bizarre experiments. Also there are multiple scenes that touch on the politics of what's going on at this time done in the fashion of all the officers gathering around for these different meetings. Oh yeah, and there's an attempted rape scene. The only reason the man stopped is because he got distracted, too.
So at the end of movies like this I can never really tell if I liked it. Since the purpose of a movie like this is to shock, if it succeeds does that means it's a good movie? But then again was the shock necessary to create this type of movie? It's titles like this that make it hard to define as entertainment. It's not exactly the type of movie you'd throw in on a Friday night when you have a bunch of friends over. So is it art? Probably closer to that than entertainment. But what kind of art? In short this is really complicated to classify and even harder to recommend. But did I like it? Did I enjoy it? I can't say cause I watched a shitty version of it. I feel I can't actually appreciate it or attempt to appreciate it proper until I see a subtitled version with the original language. Dubs rarely work in live action so I didn't feel I got the proper experience. But I am into taboo in film, seeing different titles push the envelope from different eras. Cause I've always been fascinated by controversy and censorship. So titles like this are up my alley in a way. Not in a pleasurable way, mind you, in the same way some of you may watch a summer blockbuster. I'm fascinated by the subject matter. Seeing just how far the content will go whether it's violence, sexuality, or dialogue. I am working on a post right now regarding taboo in film so I'll definitely touch on it in more detail there.

There were multiple sequels to this movie made but I can't imagine they have the same impact. Also they're probably just about the same thing, too, much like other horror sequels. I'm still curious to check them out cause I like when I'm proven wrong when I have low expectations. If you're interested in controversy and/or pushing the envelope of what can be done in a film then this is definitely one to keep an eye open for. I didn't feel it was as well done as other titles like Cannibal Holocaust and I'm sure A Serbian Film is better than this, too, but still worth checking out. While it's nothing too special it's still pretty unique in it's own right. I'm glad I picked it up but can't imagine watching it a whole lot. It's pretty touch to get through. Don't exactly feel like a million bucks at the end. Still, pretty glad I picked it up. Just looking forward to finally viewing it properly. But I will have to pay out more for it then. May as well go all out and pick up the complete box set if I'm gonna shell out the cash.

PS4 First Impression & The Future of Gaming

On Wednesday February 20th Sony officially announced the Playstation 4. I think it came as no surprise since so much talk had been going on about it, especially since they previously stated "Big announcement on February 20th!" What else would it be? The Move 2 or something? Anyway, so it has been announced but my feelings are mixed. Not because of the hardware itself (looks like it'll do some pretty cool stuff) but where I am in my life and what I already have with gaming, not to mention where gaming seems to be going.

Growing up I was far more interested in the future of gaming more than the present and past of gaming. Slowly over the years that interest has transitioned and now I'm far more interested in catching up on what I missed out on over the years. Actually, right now a lot of my focus is on the Sega Dreamcast cause it is my all time favorite console and am disappointed in myself that I once got rid of it. I am now not only catching up with the many many games I missed out on there but also rebuilding my previous collection I had on that console among other consoles. Also with the introduction of digital downloads on classic titles through PSN, Virtual Console, and GOG I am rebuilding and building a collection I used to have and now will have through these services. Recently PSN had a sale on Final Fantasy games. I walked away from that sale purchasing Final Fantasy I, II, V, VI, and VIII. On top of the fact that I already have VII and IX, which alone could cover me for the rest of the year for gaming. But those aren't the only cases. I got a PSN gift card for Christmas and bought other classics such as Silent Hill, Arc the Lad I and II, and Xenogears. On top of this I've got a couple of Wii games I'm yet to finish up. But lastly the biggest one is PC gaming. Since getting a new laptop a little over a year ago that can actually play games (I used to have a mac) I took advantage of the services available. Since then I have used these services to pick up some older games I want to re-visit, such as the Myst franchise, and Duke Nukem 1, 2, and 3D. And then to pick up some older games I never got to before, such as Phantasmagoria and Theme Hospital. Also the Steam outlet has given me an affordable passage into the modern age of PC gaming. Through that I've picked up titles like Portal 1 and 2, Alice Madness Returns, Borderlands, Bioshock 1 and 2, and the list goes on. Frankly if I listed all of my games I currently own that would be quite a list so I'll get a move on.
That previous paragraph is enough for me to not worry about the Playstation 4 for at least quite some time. If I wanted to (or had the will power) I could make a promise to myself to play through all the games I currently own or any of the games I get in the future before I can pick up a Playstation 4. Essentially literally running out of games to play because I've done everything. Now by that time there will probably already be a new version with all the kinks worked out and at a lowered price, too! Or Playstation 5 will be on the horizon considering how many games I currently have and how long some of them are (I'm somewhat scared of the day I dedicate myself to The Witcher). But I think a part of it is age. I'm not saying I've grown out of video games (I don't know if I ever will). I still play video games almost every day if I have the time. That's the key word, if. If I don't have enough time to play what I've already invested my money in why would I buy a whole new console to add onto that pile? I at least need to lower the number of games I have left to finish. Not only that but I'm at a time in my life where I can't easily afford to drop anywhere from $400-$600 at launch on a new console plus a game or two. Don't get me wrong, I am definitely interested. Playstation is the only company I truly follow anymore in the console wars (I could care less about Wii-U but would still buy it before the XBox 720 or whatever the hell they're going to call it). I just don't have as much time as I used to like the rest of you to get excited about and enjoy a new console like this one. Now time and money isn't the only factor. I definitely have some commentary on the direction gaming is going, too, and in a way it is making me less excited about the future than anything else.

I really hope I don't come off as a bitter old man where all he thinks about is, "Back in my day you see we had [insert something old here] and we liked it that way." I am still very interested in new games that came out and are coming out. When the God of War Ascension demo came out I played through that and I was blown away by it. Not only that but I am very excited to see what Watch Dogs has going for it cause it looks like it may be really innovative. Really the only difference between the gamer in me now and the gamer in me back in the day is time and money. I ironically have more money I could spend on games if I wished but I don't have the time to play them. The exact opposite of when I was a kid of course. This is not a unique problem with this hobby as you can figure. My interest is still very much there, however I have chosen to not involve myself as much because I know I can't afford a lot of them and won't have the time, either, so I try and concentrate on specific titles instead. Did you see the word try in there? This is why I rarely buy anything on day 1 anymore. Actually, I think the last game I did buy on day 1 was Star Wars The Force Unleashed back in late 2008. This is also why I cancelled my Playstation Magazine subscription a couple years ago after 10+ years of subscribing. No sense getting excited and tempted for games I can't always afford or have the time to play. If I don't have the time I may as well wait for the price drop so I can get the same game, only later, but for anywhere from half to a quarter the original price. I pinch many pennies and it has worked out for me. It's how I obtained a movie collection of around 700 on a super tight budget. I know where to look and how to shop for these things.
I also seem to enjoy video games somewhat more than even when I was younger. Cause you see, in many senses video games have gotten so much better. They're bigger than ever, they look better than ever, there is so much variety these days, and there is a better chance that obscure imports will be coming our way. Back in the day I would have never imagined getting titles like Catherine or Tokyo Jungle or Katamari Damacy if it weren't for the direction the market has gone, and download services are only helping in that respect. Also we'll probably never have to worry about something similar that happened with Final Fantasy when the games were first being released. To the few of you that made it this far and don't know what I'm talking about, Square released Final Fantasy 1, 4, and 6 initially but labelled them as 1, 2, and 3. We wouldn't get 2, 3, and 5 until years later after 7 was released in the late 90s. Now I'm sure things like this may still be happening but not on as huge of a franchise. Also with the internet I'm sure fans of said franchise would make it very, VERY aware to the publishers.
Outside of the marketing side of things since games are bigger than ever and look better than ever. We don't have to deal with clunky visuals as much anymore. 3D is now well polished and doesn't require trick 3D ala Duke 3D or Doom by using sprites. Also with polygons the characters no longer look like a hunk of square blocks put together (Virtua Fighter) or sausage links (Metal Gear Solid). Granted a lot of these problems were somewhat fixed by the early 2000s, but it still keeps on looking and feeling better year by year, giving bigger and better variety.
Another thing I love about modern gaming is the console itself. I love the fact that on my PS3 I can play my games, movies, do streaming, and even store photos and music if I wanted to. And this is all in one box. Honestly the only time I ever use anything other than my PS3 for movies or games is if I want to play a Wii or Dreamcast game, or watch a movie in the bedroom where we have a separate DVD player. Game consoles have essentially because home computers but with specific limited purposes. All I can say is that I love this because of everything they do now. As much as I love having a physical copy of a game, it is so convenient (and sometimes cheaper) to have a bunch of digital download games on my PS3 hard drive instead of my shelf so I can make more room for my DVDs (Those I always get the physical copy of). I can just throw on the system, click on the game in the specific folder it's organized under, and boom I'm off an running. Also no worries about the disc not playing, too! Then in terms of price that's where the real charm is. With the Final Fantasy games I picked up recently, granted they were on sale, but even at their original prices it is less than tracking down the original discs. An even better deal came up not too long ago on an old PS1 game, Persona 2. The price for the digital copy is $10, the original disc is very rare and can go as high as $50, $60, or maybe even higher in value (In some instances as high as $100!). So buying it this way is a steal. A game I do plan on picking up eventually (probably will pretty soon).
Frankly I think in many respects that gaming is better than ever and in time I imagine the Playstation 3 will go down as one of my favorite consoles of all time.

However as expected I definitely have some concerns over the direction of gaming in the near future. One of my first thoughts is the social networking and other related online aspects and how it seems to be forced upon instead of made an option.
Being someone that only really uses the internet on his PS3 to download games and stream movies I know I'm not the best person to talk to about this. Based on what I've heard the PS3 does have a pretty terrible online setup when it comes to tracking down friends or pulling together games. The closest experience I have to this is playing through many games of Warhawk and even that was all me jumping in on games in progress. I never hosted one. On the flipside I've heard that XBox Live is pretty incredible in what it does for online, but again since I don't really do online it's hard for me to care. But what I keep noticing is more and more games having a much more present online experience. Is this good? I would say so to those who are interested in it. However I feel like it's presenting itself is in games where it doesn't need to be present. At least as a default.
One game that comes to mind is Tokyo Jungle. A game I've talked about a few times including my full on review from a few months back. That game somewhere along the way decided that it needed to be connected to the internet at all times despite the fact that it's a single player game. Every time I boot up the game I need to scroll through a terms of agreement thing to say yes to. Not a big deal, only takes a few extra seconds. But then whenever I play through survival mode it does something that's an even bigger pain. Whenever I die in survival mode it goes to another screen to count up my score. First off it takes a bit too long for it to go through this process, then when I continue to the next screen it feels the need to connect me to the leaderboard to see that my score is in 17,000th place that day/week, which follows up with me needed to exit out of that screen before I can start up another game. I guess I just don't know why it automatically has the leaderboard come up and forces you to go to it whenever you lose in survival mode. Why not just have an extra menu that you can go to when you want to see how you've done? You know, for the people that actually care! I know I don't because no matter how good I am at a game there will always be someone who is ten thousand times better than I am.
A minor problem compared to other things. And by other things I mean a big problem. I think you might be able to see where this is going. That's right, Diablo III. I've never been a fan of the franchise but I know it's story as of late fairly well. You see, Blizzard is one of the biggest PC gaming developers on the freaking planet. They have roughly the same number of franchises as Nintendo does where they keep on cranking out more into those over and over again and they still seem to shit into a golden toiled and eat breakfast with a diamond spoon. Also it had been over a decade not counting expansions since the last Diablo came out so this has been highly anticipated. Now despite all this, on the night it was released, Diablo III had so much activity going on online that the servers crashed and many people couldn't even play the game for some time (in gamer time a few hours may as well be a few weeks). But beyond that initial crash there was still a lot of trouble with handling everyone who was going online to play. You wanna know why this was such a huge issue and why not everyone could play even by themselves? The game required you to be connected to the internet even to play the single player game. I've heard there's some social aspect to the single player mode but I just find it a bit odd to the need to be online no matter what. It seems like there should at least be a function where they don't need to be online since stuff like this can happen. Why is it so necessary? What's the point? Why not make a mode that IS single player? For more information on this in a more recent example look up the newest Sim City.
I guess that's one of the biggest beefs I have with current and the future of gaming. The social aspect. I have no problems with it being present but I feel like it's being pushed onto gamers all over the board when they may not necessarily want it. I don't know about you but I tend to play video games as an escape. It's where my introverted side comes alive. I can't really say I even play two player games with people in the same room much anymore, and if I do it's something like Wii Sports or the occasional bout in Marvel vs Capcom 2 when I have a friend over. And again, I'm not against multi-player or social networking in games. I just wish that there was an easier option to avoid them for a better experience for the loners in gaming. This is why I don't play MMORPGs (and yes I have tried a couple, they're not for me). I prefer taking on the adventure by myself. It brings the scope into my experience and makes me really feel like the hero. When I anywhere from a few other adventurers all the way up to a whole city's worth of adventurers along with me I don't really feel like I'm the hero, I feel like a sidekick. It kills the sense of excitement and adventure to someone like me. In those games I feel like I'm trying to be the life of the party at a party I wasn't invited to where I don't know anybody. So that's pretty much the reason I don't play MMOs, that and because I don't feel a strong sense of story with them. Just feels like a series of fetch quests and grinding upon grinding with no closure. I like closure. That's why I wasn't exactly excited when I found out there will be more Metal Gear Solid games. Just doesn't feel necessary. But maybe I'll pull that rant up in a future post.
No there is a partial element of this MMO feel in an excellent PS3 exclusive, Demon's Souls, a single player action RPG. The game connects to the network because there is a small element of social networking within the game. There isn't multiplayer or anything like that. What this game has is more along the lines of tips and warnings. Players can drop messages in areas that may prove to be a bit difficult for someone who doesn't know what's coming up. This can be helpful but the game is so difficult you'll probably just learn on your own anyway. Also, when you get to an area where another player died it shows their death animation. Again suggesting what is coming. These hints and warnings help to a point but I never felt that it was enough of a game changer that I couldn't live without it. I would actually prefer they weren't there or I had more of an option against them because it goes back to the MMO reasons for not enjoying parts of a game. It gives me that sense that I'm not the one in power here. I love that game but I can't stand the online elements. It feels so unnecessary. If I want tips I'll go to the internet. My laptop is usually near me when playing games.
Now I know not every gaming company is jumping on board with social interactions, or feel as strongly about it. Nintendo seems to enjoy it to a point but from what I've heard makes it incredibly difficult to use on the Wii, Wii-U, and the DS and 3DS. Something with friend codes or what not? I don't know. The only online I've done is checking out their online shop for digital downloads. It just feels that everything is slowly migrating toward online. Just don't think it is something that is necessary to be required.

Okay, this is going to sound like I'm a bitter old man but remember when a game console was just a game console? Sounds like I'm contradicting myself because I was just singing a lot of praise for what the PS3 does and how much I like to make out with it because of it. But there's a sense of enjoyment and simplicity when I put in a cartridge or disc, pop on the power button, and there's the game. No long startup, no updates, no dashboard to deal with initially (unless you want/need to for some consoles), no need to get connected online, and especially no DLC to get the full experience! The game was all there and it was ready for you right off the bat. The last console I believe was true blue to this method was the Sega Dreamcast. It had no extra bells and whistles outside a pretty badass memory card. It played games and the games it had, had it's features right there on the disc. Nothing else to it other than that. Yes it did have online but that was mostly for Phantasy Star Online and other select games.
Maybe I'm just tired of going through long processes just to play a game. Whenever I want to play something on my PS3, whether it's a modern or retro game, there's a process. First I need to power on the console. I wait for it to load up. Then I navigate over to the game I want to play and hit start. But that's not always it. If I'm playing a modern game I may need to log in online first. Then the unskippable screens with the names of the 18 developers and distributors have to come up for you to see. Then the game loads up to the menu unless there's an unskippable opening video for the game. Now I realize that was a bit of an exaggeration but there are games out there that do have similar experiences. One game in particular that comes to mind is Metal Gear Solid 4. One of the best games on the PS3 but it has it's issues with loading and getting to the gameplay. It's far from "pick up and play." As a matter of fact you'll be waiting for a while when you first start playing the game. First there's the initial startup of the PS3 followed by selecting the game in the XMB. Then you may encounter an update for the game so that could take anywhere from a couple minutes to quite a few depending on your connection or the size of the update. After that the game does the initial installment (never mind the full install or the installment at the beginning of each chapter, depending on how you proceed) and that takes around 8-10 minutes. Then you start up the game. The opening is pretty long as with the other cutscenes in this game. There is minor interactivity in the opening but basically from the time you put in the disc for the first time to the moment you start actually playing the game as it is supposed to be presented is around 30 minutes or more (all estimated times).
Again I am obviously exaggerating some of this but as a whole this is true. The games that are the quickest and easiest to boot up are the actual retro games, meaning either the original discs of, or the roms of Playstation games from back in the day. That's because these are unchanged unlike some of the "proper" re-released that are optimized for playback specifically on an HDTV. Lots of times there are specific developers that will re-work it. Whereas the rom are just that. Roms. Sony went back into their archives and released those roms back onto the network allowing for download. When I boot up my digital copy of Jet Moto it is literally the same thing if I had the original disc that came out back in 1995. On the flipside when I boot up a game on my Dreamcast I pop in the disc, hit the power button, I can choose to sit through or skip the opening logo, and then it's maybe a few skipable developer/publisher screens and then I'm pretty much right at the main menu. It's a quick and easy process and it's something I've got to say I miss. Is it nostalgia? Probably, yeah. But gaming was like this for three decades before consoles became a combination of things instead of just a gaming console.

One thing I realized recently that has me less excited than usual has to do with how the new consoles are being put together. It always seemed from generation to generation there was some sort of big upgrade or big reason to get excited for a new console. Granted for many years that was something as simple as better graphics and sound, but there was usually enough of a difference to set the previous one apart. Take the Playstation for example. First console is a pretty standard console. It plays disc based games in 2D and 3D environments and it also plays regular music CDs. Not much else to say about it besides the actual games that were released for it. Then came the Playstation 2. The PS2 had far superior graphics (if you were still counting bits then it had 4 times as many), better sound, and new technologies that go beyond what was previously not possible within a game such as expanded worlds. Also the console itself had a better user interface, would play old PS1 games with a smoothing feature to make them look better, and the console would also play DVDs. Then the PS3 came along. The PS3 offered graphics and sound beyond anything the gaming world has seen before. It also expanded what it can do because not only it can play PS3 games but also PS1, PS2 (for the early models), and a library of downloadable games from the PSN. It also offered a blu-ray player, multi-media options that include storing music, photos, movies, and even a download and rental service for movies among many other apps that would come along later that I would never use except Netflix and Amazon Instant Video. Basically each generation offered something leaps and bounds new when compared to the previous generation. Each time we thought "What else could they possibly do?" there was something else added. Granted those things weren't always gaming related but they were features none the less. As I stated before I primarily use my PS3 for most of my entertainment needs. But when I look at the new consoles that have come out or are coming out I can't help but feel underwhelmed.
The reason why I feel underwhelmed is because I feel like a lot of the new consoles are selling based entirely on a single gimmick added into essentially the same/similar console as before. Take Nintendo for example. They are pretty notorious for re-releasing the same console in multiple version. How many versions of the DS have there been? Standard, XL, DSi, etc. But when they released the 3DS it was marketed as a whole new console. But when I look at it, it feels more like the jump that was made from Game Boy to Game Boy Color. In other words I feel like the 3DS is more of a DS 1.5 (Now with 3D!) in the same way the Game Boy Color felt like Game Boy 1.5 (Now with color!). Yes there are new games that are exclusives to this new version, but I feel like it's not enough to really call it a new console, just a new version of the same thing with some tweaks. Staying on track with Nintendo I feel this is pretty similar with the Wii-U. When I look at that console I pretty much see the Wii with HD outputs and an iPad attachment. I'm sure there will be elements that will effect the gaming experience because of their new gimmick, but that's what it feels like, a gimmick. It's like a new console is banking on a peripheral. Granted it always takes time for a console to get on it's feet and utilize their updates to the best of their abilities, but again the new consoles don't feel that new at least from what I've seen and played. Just new boxes that support new controllers or gimmicks.
I guess it's no surprise that it went in this direction where the new releases felt more like new computers being released. Technically speaking there's all kinds of new chips and bits under the hood, but the overall execution feels very similar to most of the world and very recognizable to what they've seen before minus the new controller or 33333DDDDD! I came to realize something similar to this when I was asked what the best choice would be for a person to buy a home gaming console (not portable. I don't know much about those). My reaction was always to suggest a Wii if they wanted to get something on a budget or the person I spoke to had kids. But then when it came to a "hardcore" gaming console it was a matter of which exclusives said person would want more. I'm of course biased toward Sony but when it came down to it the question would be, "Do you like Halo or Uncharted more?" "Gears of War or God of War?" "Kinect or Move?" And even then they may still look so similar to the average gamer so it's hard to tell from person to person outside of telling them what my personal preference is and why.

I think that's why I'm still waiting for the PS4 to have something come out that really impresses me. From what I can tell it feels like another PS3 upgrade and this was pretty well backed up when I saw the first screenshots of the user interface. It looked very similar in style and execution of what is currently on the PS3. Don't fix what isn't broken I guess. But if the investment of a new console is being proposed I want it to have something that will sell me on spending that much all at once outside of backwards compatibility and exclusive titles. I've got more than enough games to last me for a long time so I don't see any reason to get a PS4 right away outside of keeping up with the Joneses. And if they are trying to sell me on exclusive games they'll really have to sell me. I've already got my favorite gaming console of all time, the Sega Dreamcast, and am working on building up my library for that console. Something that isn't nearly as expensive (for the most part). Also I'm not strong into the online experience nor do I feel it's necessary to share my experiences online when I'm playing single player outside of my reviews in this. Outside of trophies of course, I'm addicted to collecting those little fuckers. Currently working on getting the platinum trophy in God of War III! I also don't find it hard to live without certain games. The reason why is because either I know I'll be able to get it later for cheaper (Assassin's Creed 3, God of War Ascension) or I don't find the investment into the console just to get said game is worth it in the end. Someone can put a lot of money into something just so they can play both Halo and Killzone.
Now I have watched the press conference to announce the PS4. I admit when I first started working on this post I had not seen it yet. But I downloaded it so I could see it and judge everything properly. I will admit a lot of what I heard and saw was pretty cool. I think it's really neat that there's going to be cross-play between the PS4 and the Vita for (they claim) every PS4 game. I think it's cool that there's a hibernation feature where you can essentially pause your game when powering down the console, and then start back up where you left off when you come back to it later (all without having to keep the console on the entire time). That would be really convenient if something came up last second and I don't have to say "Let me get to the next save point first" (Although that's rarely said anymore with the auto-save feature in place.) I also think it's really cool that they're improving on the move controller cause it did have a bumpy start and I would like to see that peripheral succeed. I once intended to get it but after it was released I saw little reason to. But if they can keep some of these promises for the Move I may have to reconsider. Then lastly I will say that the visuals are pretty incredible. They showed that closeup of the old man's face and I couldn't believe how good it looked. Also a couple of the other trailers did have that look and feel that a CG movie has. It was really impressive. But of course... I have some beef.
I've come to realize that game companies and politicians have a lot in common. They're both campaigning for you to choose them. In order to make that decision they're making a lot of promises to you on what their game console/term in office will be like. Now since we're not living in a time where it's actually present we can't say for sure. It's all a matter of taking their word for it. Too many times have I been disappointed by details of these promises for a new game or console that it really is hard for me to spend a ton of money on it before I get a proper assessment. There have been and still are games I would buy day 1 if I had the money. God of War Ascension is one that comes to mind. If I had the additional cash I would have no problem buying that game, full price, right now, cause I know it can keep it's promises and the demo lived up to a lot of good promises and then some. I also would consider doing the same with The Last of Us or Deadly Premonition: Director's Cut. On one hand The Last of Us looks like something pretty incredible, and then Deadly Premonition is technically a re-release but from what I've heard it's so bizarre and out there that it would be right up my alley. However many many many games are promised every year and many of them bring disappointment in the end. Most recent example of this is Aliens: Colonel Marines. Apparently it had been a long time coming of a game and people were really anticipating it. Then when it came out it had nothing but scathing reviews. Was I surprised? Not really. From an outsider's perspective who knew hardly anything on it looked at it and didn't feel like it would live up to the supposed amazing promises it was making.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is this. Sony can and has been making plenty of promises for their future that frankly look pretty amazing. There are some inherit problems, though. One being that launches are never that smooth. Each console usually has a clunky start because the market has limited choices in games and many of those games may have/were issued out quickly to make the launch so they're not as well put together as they could be. Lots of times there's only one or two go to games right off the bat. I know the PS3 launch was a bit rough because the games they had available weren't all that stellar. A couple of the first games I had for my PS3 (I got it the February following launch, it had been out 4 months) included Def Jam Icon and Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire. While both looked really good at the time and had a handfull of good ideas but their execution was mediocre at best. What I should have picked up was Resistance but I didn't get that til later on. Basically when the PS3 launched the few good titles in my personal opinion included Resistance (as I previously stated), Marvel Ultimate Alliance and Tony Hawk's Project 8. Everything else was either garbage or not noteworthy enough. But even with these "top 3" I didn't feel any of them were exceptional titles. I always felt Resistance was overrated, Marvel Ultimate Alliance was fun enough and the same goes with Tony Hawk's Project 8. However the last two weren't really made to optimize the console because it was also created with ports for last gen consoles as well. I distinctly remember seein both PS2 and PS3 copies of some of the same games.
Now in terms of launches it wasn't just Playstation who was cured with a rough launch. For example, outside of Halo do you even remember what games launched with the original XBox? And of those how many of them were any good? Chances are very few and even less on that second question. In that same era the PS2 basically had The Bouncer, Fatavision, and SSX. Going back a generation or two then it's not much different. Yes the N64 had Super Mario 64 but other than that they had very very few titles available. The Dreamcast on the other hand had a pretty strong list of launch titles including Sonic Adventure, Marvel VS Capcom, Soul Caliber, and House of the Dead 2, but that's an exception to the fad. All in all I can guarantee you no matter what console you look up will have a pretty weak set of titles available on day 1. This is what makes day 1 so underwhelming and why I'm choosing to wait around a little longer. I truly believe the PS4 will do great things like the PS3 did. I just think it'll take some time. You know, like every other console that has ever been released (minus the Dreamcast. That Sommbitch was incredible right out the door and only got better!).

Again I think part of this is age but also lack of interest in some of the tech advancements as of late. As I'm sure many people can agree, we've come about as far as we can with graphics for the time being. All the advancements of that have been pretty subtle as of the last 5-6 years. So having new consoles or games that feature something we've never seen before isn't as present as I feel it used to be. Biggest example from the past would be the transition from a strictly 2D sprite world to 3D polygon gaming. That completely changed everything because it gave the gaming industry a whole new world to work with that was far less limited. Then as 3D grew it just kept looking better and better. But that's because it was so drastically different it was noticeable, making it more impact-full  But these days graphics don't seem to matter as much as they used to (not that they ever should have because it's all in the gameplay). Part of this is due to independent developers and Nintendo's game plan. Games from every level of expertise seems to be coming out these days from your neighbors garage all the way up to mega AAA games. So many games will have less impressive visuals and other tech but may still be entertaining enough to hit the market and make money. And heck, some of the most popular and most played games in the world have not so top level visuals (Angry Birds and Minecraft for example). Then when Nintendo chose to stick with a much simpler visual style and tech for the Wii for the purposes of making it a cheaper console that made many people forget about graphics as they just enjoyed the games that came out. Visuals haven't mattered in a long time and I can't imagine it being much of a concern over the coming years.
In terms of other tech advancements I am very uninterested. I've played around with a 3DS a few times and whenever I put the 3D on I would barely play before turning it off. I can see how it would benefit for certain parts of certain games, otherwise it just feels like a way to sell more consoles. 3D is something that hasn't excited me since I was a kid. And even then it wore off fast. I also don't like how it's recently been a thing in movies, too, but that's a whole other rant. Although I would probably get crucified because I would be making an argument against 3D in film but I still haven't seen what is apparently the holy grail of 3D, Avatar.
Another tech advancement that I have had little to no interest lately is touch screens. I realize it is very futuristic in concept as we've all seen them in sci-fi movies growing up. However I still feel it is a very flawed technology. Before I continue I would like to point out that I do have an iPhone. I love the living hell outta it but it is not without it's problems. But the only games I play for it are ones fit for it. The most "hardcore" game I've played on it and enjoyed is Final Fantasy II. I've tried other "hardcore" games on it and thought they were shit. And the port of GTA3, while fun in concept, was poor in execution. Anyway, touch screens. Maybe this is one reason why I never got into the DS. I like my controllers to be like my games, movies, etc, compact into one definite package that gives you everything you need and no extra bullshit that frustrates you along the way. So the idea of playing through a DS game where I know at some point I'm gonna have to jumble with a stylis to play the game properly is a pain to me. I get annoyed enough when I have to keep tossing around my wiimote when I play Cooking Mama and Super Paper Mario. This is also why I was pretty underwhelmed by the PS Vita. I'm always up for supporting Sony but I felt they tried to focus in on the touch screen way too much. But they took a step forward by having touch technology on the front AND the back. Just seems way too excessive use of the tech and make games more jumbled than intuitive.
But that brings me to the most recent example, the Wii-U. Now I haven't played much of the Wii-U outside of an in-store demo and that was Rayman Origins so it wasn't a fair assessment of the technology. I guess the part that gets me is the fact that people are now essentially willing to play games with a controller the size of an iPad in their lap (heck, it pretty much is an iPad with the Nintendo logo. I'm pretty sure if Apple and Nintendo paired up they'd conquer the world). This blows my mind because in the past the idea of a large controller was a big pain. I don't know if you remember this or not but the XBox released a smaller version of their controller after the first one was found to be too big by the mass markets. And it was, it was HUGE by comparison. I guess it was a good pairing with their 90 ton gaming console. So since large controllers have been a problem in the past I just wonder how well this one will do. I realize there's room for innovation (whether it is necessary or worthwhile is left up to question) but I feel it is a hard sell. Also, I wonder how much Nintendo is banking on the same families that bought and have been playing around with the Wii and DS over the years. I mean, yeah, everyone and their grandmother (literally) has a Wii and DS these days. But I just don't see the Wii-U having as much of a wide appeal. I don't even see it having a ton of appeal with the actual gamers in the gaming market, either, outside of Nintendo fan boys. I don't see it as something that will sell the console to a new market, either. A lot of people would just rather play on their iPads that they already have instead of buying a whole new console that is hooked up to their TV, as opposed to on the go. Besides, many people who bought the Wii have treated it like a $200 virtual bowling game. Cause outside of that there were still plenty of games that didn't make big sales despite the number of consoles out there. Besides that I look at the console and it seems like just such a cumbersome experience. Not to mention you'd probably get whiplash by going up and down between screens or get confused because of what is happening between the two.

There are two primary reasons why I only think of touch screen as a novelty for a home console controller and how I will (probably) never get into it outside of my iPhone:

1. No matter what you're doing you're obstructing the screen.
Now I don't know how much your hands are but mine are pretty big. When I'm playing a game on my iPhone the screen is already pretty small so sometimes I have to pinch and expand to take a closer look. But then when I start touching the screen here's a big glimpse of my hand getting in the way of everything that's happening in the game. Granted the games I play on my iPhone aren't terribly intense but in some instances it can be a problem. When I play Angry Birds it's not an issue because that game you can take your time with. But I also have Tapper (a remake of Root Beer Tapper essentially). If you haven't played it here's a clip of the original game it is based on. For the iPhone version just imagine it with updated graphics and exotic locations. It's an old school style arcade game where the game never really ends. It just keeps getting harder and harder until you die (Just like real life, harde-har-har, sick of that joke). Now the iPhone version does have a definite end because there are different levels at different bars, but the intense difficulty still builds with each level. When I'm trying so serve drinks to all these people rushing in it only makes it more difficult when I have to navigate around my hand as I'm trying to get to the right line at the right bar. It gets less fun and more annoying. Still wish I had my own cabinet of the original game. Been searching for that for a long time. This isn't the only example, though. I had some similar difficulties while playing through Duke Nukem 3D on my phone. But come to think of it that was a clunky transfer (THAT DIDN'T INCLUDE ALL THE LEVELS!) anyway so part of that game's problem was with how it played.
I get why a touch screen is handy because you don't have to worry about using the cursor or joystick on the controller to get to a certain area, or even a mouse. You can just move your hand over and tap. Nice, quick, simple, easy to do. But I feel this brings more problems than it solves. In the end touch screen is a novelty that makes us think of the sci-fi movies we watched as a kid. Pretty sure one of the main reason touch screen even exists is because of this novelty. I don't feel it provides much of an advancement in technology outside of something really cool to play around with. Okay, before I start getting a tech speech I will say this. It is handy having one screen account for multiple buttons that don't need to be installed making for a sleeker device. Recently the church I go to replaced their boiler. I got to see it up close and what was previously a machine covered in buttons and a minimal screen has been upgraded to one screen that is a touch screen. It does provide convenience to what would otherwise be very clunky to work with, so I do find benefit in touch screen that way. Still I feel a machine would work so much easier with something like an arrow key or a mouse. So much more definite especially since, as I've stated, you can't always see what you're doing because your hand is covering it and to add onto that because it isn't always the most responsive.

2. You have to be actually looking at the touch screen to see what you're doing.
This one primarily applies to gaming on a home console with a touch screen as a controller. One thing that makes a person good with their hand eye coordination is muscle memory. So using this skill that makes a person good at a game and ready to do quick reflexes at the drop of a hat is knowing what buttons to push and when. Now to get there you need to know what to do without looking. How do you know this? You can feel where they are. This is my biggest problem with introducing touch screens into modern gaming that isn't portable. I guess with portable since it's all there in your hands you can take it or leave it, but when you bring it to a medium that requires you to concentrate on the screen and not the controller visually then there's a problem. You can't actually feel what button you're pushing and every game would have a potentially different set up. Like a more futuristic version of the Jaguar controller (I love obscure references). The first example that comes to mind for potential trouble is obviously on the Wii-U. I remember hearing that there's a port of Tekken Tag Tournament 2 on the console. Now the game pad does have actual buttons which can be used for moves but I also remember hearing there will be touch screen options for moves as well. What a cheat and what a problem is what I thought to myself. A cheat because I heard it was a quick button to perform special moves, eliminating any sort of skill in the process. And a problem because a game like that can incredibly heated in battle where every step can count. If you've got people fumbling with their U-Pad to hit that special move when you're fighting Heihachi even on an easier difficulty I can imagine that will cause some losses in battle. Modern games have made it easier and easier to win in video games whether that was by lowering the difficulty, holding your hand the entire way, or by literally allowing you to buy your way to the end. But now we've got fighting games fighting for us. One of the last truly skill based games that didn't hold your hand and now it's being made easier, well, unless you want to play with a controller 3 times the size of a normal one (Yes I know that is just one example but it could be a start).
Now if the trend of touch screen controllers continues with gaming this definitely will be a problem. Imagine not having a sense of touch in your fingers and every time you wanted Mario to jump you had to look down to make sure you were hitting A. Or in a more intense situation imagine you're Kratos and you accidentally hit the jump button when you needed to hit attack or grab against a tough boss. It can make all the difference. Because of things like this I don't truly believe there will ever be a 100% full touch screen controller outside of the portable market. Just keep that in mind. But this is another one of those gimmicks that I guarantee will catch on only to create more annoyances with controllers, and therefore forcing features that use it or else it's a waste of space and time. This is why almost every Wii game requires some sort of motion control no matter the type of game. That will now be replaced with/put along side with touch screen controls. It just seems like such a hassle to be constantly looking up and down between the screen and the controller. And since they're not solid buttons you can't always rely on it being the most responsive or you may not always have the best aim in a panic hitting potentially the wrong button more likely than a regular button. It just seems odd that gaming controllers are moving this way since it by nature doesn't respond the way it should. The only way I could see this working is if the screen could provide you with bumps on where to press. But if that were to develop then what would the point be? I just don't get it and think we should stick with standard controllers. Touch screen just feel so fragile and unreliable.

So what does this mean for the PS4? After everything I've said it seems like I don't have hopes at all for the future of gaming. Well I'm always interested in what it will bring out next. If it weren't for that open mind I would have never experienced games like Heavy Rain. I'm also the type that enjoys wacky and out there imports so I think it would be pretty clear I have an open mind for what's to come no matter how different it may be. This is why I keep my eyes on games like Journey and The Last of Us because they set out to do something different. Unlike the COD games that come out every year that basically feel the same. But I still look forward to a certain level of "same" in the new generation because that's comforting. That's why I can't wait to get my hands on God of War Ascension. I've played the demo and yes it is very similar to the previous games. But I can't think of a God of War game I didn't like. I really liked even the PSP games. They were brilliant for what they were. Why wouldn't I enjoy the new one? Sometimes you just know what you like and it's good to stick with that. So I guess I should apologize to the COD fans. If that's what you like then that's cool. It's just not for me. But I guess to sell me on a PS4 there will have to be a good balance of the different and the same to keep me interested.It's just hard to say because there's only so much that we know right now. But from what we do know it's either things I don't care about or can't afford to do.
The social networking aspect where people can jump in my game to help me out is something I wouldn't want. I wouldn't feel like that's me playing the game proper, essentially "cheating" in a way. I'm the type of person who likes to complete it entirely on my own. I do look up walkthroughs if I'm having trouble but then I actually do it myself instead of having someone else do it for me. Then I do think the cross play looks fantastic jumping from console to portable, but I don't have the extra cash to pick up a PS Vita. I'd rather have my PS3 (or 4 one day), build that collection, then also build the collection of my Dreamcast and bring in the occasional title to the Wii as well. I don't necessarily need the on the go gaming cause usually when I'm on the go I'm too preoccupied. Lastly it's not really worth the price to buy a Vita just so I can keep playing when my wife wants to use the big TV to watch Star Trek. I'd rather drop that 250 on something else (Still wouldn't say no to a Vita if someone wants to send it my way, though). Then lastly there are the visuals and the overall use of the hardware. I'm sure some of the tech junkies reading this were going nuts because I barely touched on the actual tech of the console. Here's the thing, that stuff is pretty Greek to me. I just look at what it looks, sounds, and plays like when the disc is spinning and a controller is in my hands. I understand that the hardware appears to yet again be very state of the art. The evidence shows in the game videos presented at the conference. However utilizing that power is something that someone actually needs to be skilled at. Just because a console has the power doesn't mean the games themselves will. I mean, take God of War III for example. I feel this is one of the best looking games on the console. The developers did just about everything they could to make it look great and I still think it does. On that same console is a game called White Knight Chronicles. Not nearly as AAA a game title but when you see the finished product the visuals and feel to the game are very last-gen-like. It just doesn't feel like the game utilized enough power of the console and as a result brought out a lackluster, un-visually appealing game. I still enjoy the game, I'm just trying to point out that just because the game is on the console doesn't mean it's using the power it should be.
In the end it's all a crap shoot. Personally I'm going to take it easy with this one. I'll sit back and see what happens at launch and where the console goes after that. I know for a fact there will be a better edition of the console to come out later and at a lower price. That's the edition I will more than likely be getting. I have already started putting money aside for that and eventually a new, bigger TV to play it on. It'll be some time before I experience this console in my home. Until then I look forward to seeing what it does and can't wait to play the in-store kiosk for a good sampling.