Ultimate Game

The movie was fairly good. Even though slayers should have been more defined, it did explain the basics of it (make it to the save point alive). The movie being "abstract" worked very well for everything besides the slayers sequences, but those were surprisingly short. Something that I thought they did very well though is showing how the user interacts with their character. In MMO's today, you have a-holes who will screw up other people's fun and during one of the society scenes, there is an example of this with the roller blading. Its made even more powerful by people laughing at other people 's injuries, disgracing of dead bodies, etc. because its the icons (avatars) getting abused, not the users.

From an academic standpoint, this movie is great since it shows off how sick and uncaring people can be when its not their bodies being abused or shot at.

Anyways, if you want to see this movie, I warn you that there it is rated R for good reasons. It made me think that they should separate the R-rating into R1 and R2 or R and RR. This is because many R movies are lite-R's (some swearing, some nudity, some blood, but nothing out-of-control so to speak) and many other R movies are heavy-R's (i.e. saw, many cheesy horror flicks, and this movie)

My movie philosophy: don't blame a movie for not being what it's not meant to be.

To enjoy a movie, you don't need the movie to be amazing, great, or even good (sometimes). You just need to know what you should expect.

So what do you expect from gamer? If you want gore, violence, blood, nudity...go ahead and see it. If you want Gerald Butler running around shooting people, fighting people, baring his muscles and looking tough like action heroes do, go ahead and see it. If you want Michael C. Hall playing an evil guy trying to take over the world, and baring his muscles, and even showing off his Broadway background a little bit, go ahead and see it. (but you'd be a little disappointed since he shows up less than you'd expect as this is quite a short movie, only 1.5 hours). Even if you want to see some hot lesbian actions probably imagined by very non-lesbian people, or a cute teenage boy who probably isn't supposed to do anything other than being a cute teenage boy...go ahead and see it.

But If you want go in and find some surprise- and twist-filled plot, some complicated multi-layer character development, or some brilliant insight into society or even humanity, then no, don't go see Gamer.

The problem is, if you are really expecting the later things I mentioned, I think it's partially you fault that you are going to spend one and a half hour of your precious time sitting in a theater suffering from this movie and then hate it with a passion. Because really, those aren't what Gamer is meant to be, even though some people may actually believe that they are.

The reality is that while not what many would call a great (or even good) movie, Gamer could be thoroughly enjoyed, as long as you know what it should be. Because I think it's everything it set out to be. You just need to (maybe grudgingly) accept what it's supposed to be and either enjoy it for what it is, or realize that it's not a movie for your high level of intelligence and ignore it completely.

Gamer stars Gerald Butler and Michael C. Hall and Gerald Butler has to survive thirty rounds of a virtual reality game called Slayers in order to see his wife and daughter again. From what I described about the plot there wasn't much to it other than you have your typical movement who's looking to bring Michael C. Hall to justice that's it. This is weird I mean really weird like imagine the writers and the director did a bunch of bath salts and crystal meth. They did have an idea of what this would be about, but then thy forgot they were making a movie and said you know what lest make this as trippy as possible and the story well half-ass it. To me what interested me was the twisted version of Sims world then Gerald Butler being in your typical Halo and Call of Duty video game simulator. Everyone involved making this seemed to put a lot of effort in the Sims world then the rest of the movie they read half of Brave New World and 1984, and now we have this mess. Nothing is concrete the characters are one dimensional, typical, and your average stereotype. The only one who does a good job of holding this together is Michael C. Hall, the eccentric, crazy, over the top performance who is the creator of Slayers and Society (the twisted version of Sims I mentioned). As I mentioned before if they focused on Society more, then I would be down to see how this plays out, but they went for the ladder and that's what made this tumble to the ground. So overall, the movie is interesting to look at, but don't expect too much.

I saw a work-in-progress screening of GAME last night. It blew me away. The premise is intriguing, the action is outstanding - not a boring minute in the film. I am not a fan of Gerard Butler in general, I find his acting terribly limited, but he was fine. Logan Lerman and Michael C. Hall were great and there is a musical number in the film that is pure genius. Made me want to stand up and cheer. The whole film is like an explosion right in your face. Everything is over the top - the style, the violence, the story. It is a real fun ride while being incredible edgy and dark. There is also quite a bit of social criticism layered in there, dealing with voyeurism, cocooning, the culture of video games. Leaving the theater I didn't know if I wanted to rush home and get my XBox going or never play a video game again. Great job, Neveldine/Taylor! Can't wait to see it again with all the special effects done!

At one point during this film my girlfriend commented that it "looked just like Modern Warfare 2" – a game she has seen me play all too much and all too frequently. Indeed it does look very much like a FPS at times and this is the point of what is essentially the concept of The Running Man updated for the modern world of online gaming and living other lives out via the internet. Although the idea is far-fetched in terms of controlling people and indeed killing them, it is not a huge step for a fantasy film and it stays close to the world of Second Life, The Sims and the Call of Duty online shooter franchise. So, to my mind, this film had potential to be relevant, interesting, insightful or at least have loads of good action.

The problem is that, while it does a very small amount of all those things, it doesn't really do anything particularly well. The makers/writers clearly know the world they are entering here (witness a fat man "playing" a hot woman online, or a soldier tea-bagging a fallen enemy in the middle of all the action) but they don't seem to have an opinion on it all or, if they do, then it doesn't come across very well in the writing. I say this because the social commentary here is minimal. OK there are certain things shown that are exaggerated versions of where we now are but that in itself is not enough to count – there is no opinion behind it, nothing for the viewer to think about either then or later on that evening. This leaves the action to carry the film.

On this front the film is "OK" as it has noise and a sort of plot for us to follow. Problem is that the way both are delivered actually detracts rather than enhances. I get the idea – the rapid editing and regular "static" touches to the footage meant to suggest the world of broadcast and online media. Problem is that it is all too frantic and too excessive to really engage. The "Second Life" sections are just too OTT to not seem daft and it doesn't feel like an established online game but rather everyone enjoying the novelty of it (which is not where this part of the film is). Again the hot pants, regular nudity and general female sexuality is all part of the gaming world but done to excess like it is here it spoils things a bit rather than being a fair observation – it feels the film is overdoing it on purpose to play to these viewers. Similarly the action is hampered by two things. Firstly the same frantic editing makes it all too chaotic and too hard to get into in terms of being an action movie. The second thing to note is that by being so close to a FPS in terms of look it forgets that generally video games are best when played and actually make for pretty dull viewing when you're waiting for your turn. The action scenes are mostly "so-so" where really these should have been the place where the viewer is "gotten into the film". Perhaps the style worked with Crank because the whole film was nonsense but here the concept doesn't suit it.

The cast were maybe attracted by the concept hoping for more intelligence but nobody has much to do. Butler remains to be nothing more than a solid presence to me – not sure why he is seen as a big star lead all of a sudden but here we are. He is OK I guess but his performance cannot find the humanity or comment that is lacking from the script. More irritating is the way Hall is wasted. So great in Six Feet Under and Dexter, he has very little to work with here – although he still works with it well. Sedgwick is equally wasted while Ludicrous appears to have done all his stuff in about two days and has no character to speak of. Crews is a physical presence but again his part in the film is so poorly thought out that he might as well not be there. Nobody really excels here and it is all about the delivery – which sadly isn't great either.

Overall Gamer is a distraction that works on that level but never gets close to the potential it has. At moments it seems like it will be excessive craziness like Crank was – but it doesn't ever follow through on that (even if it does produce a great moment for Pysch fans). It has a concept that suggests social commentary but doesn't have anything to say. Finally it sells itself as an action movie but is put together in such a way that the action doesn't have a flow to it that draws the viewer in. For all it offers Gamer is sadly average at best – distracting and short but that's about the height of the praise I can offer it.