Top 10 (+3) Tuesday - All-Time Favorite Games

In honor of BioShock: Infinite coming out today, I thought I'd do a very quick run-down of my Top 10 Favorite Games. Criteria is simple: Is it a game I've played several times and still talk about to this day and cannot be from the last couple of years (with one Honorable Mention excluded from that). I'm not saying these are by far the best games ever played, but I love them!

They're gonna be really quick because I need to play Infinite. And no particular order here because I think that would be too hard...

Greatest game of all time in my humble opinion. It was just perfectly balanced and done so well. I had enjoyed Zelda before, but this was the pinnacle. Played it in so many iterations including the new 3DS (hell, I have the Zelda 3DS). And LINK is the hero, Zelda is the PRINCESS...just saying.

A severely underrated title on the most underrated system of its generation (GameCube for those not in the know). So much imagination and style! Nothing before or since has captured Lovecraft in such a way. And the sanity system was ingenious!

Easily my favorite game of this generation. Not only was the gameplay pitch-perfect, the story was just jaw dropping. The twist is absolutely the best in gaming history.

Of course there was Mario before and Mario since, but as far as platformers go, this takes the cake. Nintendo really hit their stride with this one.

The most underrated game on the Original Xbox. I remember when it came out, I couldn't buy it at Best Buy, where I worked mind you, because we didn't carry it for 3 months which was too late. It was so critically acclaimed, but tanked. There's a following now, but it was such an original title and concept (by Tim Schaffer the MASTA!) that it might have been too out there for most people. The humor is just great and takes so much after the next game (which Schaffer worked on too).

I debated between this one and Maniac Mansion, but sometimes that one is a little unwieldy. DotT is pure magic. I still have the disc from when it first came out even though I can't play it on any computer now (although, I need to try a DOS emulator...hmmmm). I've played it through numerous times and would call it the best point and click adventure ever if it wasn't for Tim Schaffer's contribution to the genre... 

I love to play RPGs and I love Mario, so this one is a natural fit. I've played them all in the series and they are all good in their own way, but this one is head and shoulders above the rest. The areas are all so imaginative and FUN!!!

Easily runner-up for best video game twist, but I think how impactful the twist is was dependent on how you played. Definitely the best story that Star Wars has had since Empire.

Best RE game ever. It also marked the end of the survival horror genre. Once this one was successful, they continued to strip out the creepy horror elements in favor of run and gun action that just took all the mood and ambiance out of it. Sigh. Even funner on the Wii...

 

 The reason DotT isn't the best point and click ever. Tim Schaffer immersed you in a world that could only have come from his twisted mind: A film noir version of the land of the dead populated by calaveras. Colorful, inventive, and downright funny.

The Honorable Mentions:

These were very closely in the Top 10, but just missed. This was like Sophie's Choice...LOL.

 

Speaking of funny...this one made me laugh and laugh. Still does. It's potty humor, but intelligent potty humor (if that makes ANY sense).

Too recent to put in my Top 10, but great none-the-less. I like all the Elder Scrolls games, but here's where Bethesda got it mostly (with a few glitches that eventually got ironed out) right. With such a massive world and HOURS of quests to fill it with, it is just so amazing.

The last on my list is certainly not the least. A CD-Rom game that began the CD revolution but was quickly mostly forgotten. The company that made it is gone, but supposedly there is another follow-up in the works. Can't wait! I have the disc for this one too, but it doesn't run at all (and I've tried EVERYTHING...something to do with the video and audio card setups). I found it and "11th Hour" (sequel) that have been updated to work for newer computers for download, but I haven't done it yet. If you want a great puzzle game, here it is.

Freaky Friday - The Evil Dead Franchise

With the release of "Evil Dead" just two weeks away, I thought I'd give you guys a quick refresher on the films that began it all. This isn't really going to be a review, just a little bit of film history and a cultural lesson that maybe will get some people to not only see the "remake" (which seems vastly different, but I'll get to that later), but also to either see the originals for the first time or revisit them.

First off, though, if you say you are a "Horror Movie Buff" and have never seen these movies, then immediately stop calling yourself that. You're not. Simple as that. I know they're "old" and "outdated looking", but they are, without question, some of the greatest horror movies ever made (well, I & II are for sure, Army is good just not really Horror per se).

These were the start for a young filmmaker named Sam Raimi who went on to make the Spider-Man Trilogy and "Oz the Great and Powerful". He cut his teeth on these movies and learned from mistakes he made. He also built up his trademarks here (especially with the gallows humor of II) and made Bruce Campbell a "star" (at least an underground one).

For those of you that are casual movie goers and the like, lemme give you a quick run down of the movies:

The Evil Dead

Though not necessarily the first isolated cabin in the woods style horror movie, it is probably the defining film of the sub-genre. Made on the super cheap, it was more inventive and downright creepy than anything before it. No longer was it a slasher, it was actual demons possessing the young 'uns one by one. This meant that there was more of an emotional element to it. These people are having to deal with their friends, relatives, and lovers trying to mutilate and kill them via some unseen force. And tree rape...LOL.

This one is a straight-forward horror flick with very little humor and is done with entirely in-camera effects. If you've never seen it before, it can look a little dated in certain areas, but there's no CGI here. This is old-school makeup and prop effects.

Oh and here's where Joel Coen of Coen brother's fame got his start as an assistant editor. Cool huh!

Evil Dead II

Funny thing is, the film opening April 5th isn't the first remake of "The Evil Dead", "Evil Dead II" is. Not a sequel, but a re-telling of the first film, but with way more humor and gore. It also features a different set of characters except for Bruce Campbell's Ashley (or Ash) who was the central character in the first one. When most people think of Evil Dead, this one is the one that comes to mind. It's more polished and a little more flashy, even though it is WAY gorier. Here's where Bruce Campbell shows why he's the king of the witty one liners (and really amps it up for Army). Raimi had a bigger budget and a better handle on the film-making process and it shows. It still features no CGI, but definitely doesn't feel quite as dated as the first one, save a little Ray Harryhausen moment (look him up).

This began Raimi's most memorable style. Dark, twisted humor interspersed with gross-out gore. I was so glad to see it return in the very under-appreciated "Drag Me to Hell".

Army Of Darkness

This is the one that will often lose people. It picks up directly after the events of II. I don't want to give too much away if you haven't seen it, but it has mostly to do with the effects of a modern man with some modern tools in medieval times dealing with the same forces from the cabin. It becomes more of a slapstick comedy with funny as hell one liners throughout. It's fairly short, but in this case I think that's good because it could have gotten boring with the silliness. It's an intelligent silliness, but silliness none the less. There are a few little CGI moments, but again, it is mostly in-camera effects and a very loving homage to Harryhausen (seriously, look him up if you don't know who he is) in the 3rd act. A good ending to the "trilogy", just not as intriguing culturally and historically.


So what do these mean for current audiences? Well, first off, if you liked "The Cabin In the Woods," then thank these movies. Sure there were loads of elements from other movies, but the most glaring homages and nods were to "The Evil Dead" and there were LOTS of them.

What about the remake? I'll be there day one. From what I see and hear, it isn't a direct remake, so I plan on watching the trilogy once again leading up to seeing the movie on day one. That way I can see all the references and where they changed it. I just hope it is different enough without veering off the tone of the originals. Otherwise, why call it "Evil Dead" in the first place? I don't think that will be the case with Sam Raimi involved as a producer. Besides, look at these two pictures:

...and tell me they didn't nail it for a modern audience? BTW, the top picture is from the original LOL.

So go curl up on the couch and watch the old classics before seeing the new one so you can once again call yourself a "Horror Movie Buff" or "Junkie" or "Geek" or whatever...

What Makes a Bond Movie a Bond Movie or Why Daniel Craig Isn't Bond

Well, I'm back after a long hiatus and with an issue that is sure to stir up some love/hate amongst you readers. I've been pondering this one for months because when I tell someone that I haven't liked the last 3 (ok, really the last 4) Bond movies, I had a hard time articulating why. I have issues with Daniel Craig as Bond for reasons outside of the movie itself (comments he has made to the press concerning Bond), but that's not all it is. I feel it is the whole movie structure and the insistence that they "modernize" Bond.

Everything (well ALMOST everything) that is wrong with the franchise can been summed up in the cover of the colleciton:

I'll give you a moment to see what is the issue.

30 more seconds...

See it? And no it isn't that Craig is in the center or that Lazenby and Dalton are seen as the red-hheaded step childs of the franchise by putting them off in another color (although...).

Look closely at the guns and what they're wearing. A machine gun? A haphazard suit? This is BOND not Jason Bourne! Why don't they just have him say "Bourne, James Bourne" and get it over with? Since the series had started to wain at the box office during Brosnan's tenure as Bond, they desperately tried to find some way to make Bond fresh and new to a modern audience and with the success of the Bourne franchise, it was decided that aping some of the tropes of Bourne was the way for Bond to go. Problem is, Bourne aped from Bond to begin with so now we have a 2nd generation watered down Bond. Don't get me wrong, the movies are generally decent (and fairly entertaining) action movies, but action does not a Bond movie make. Here's what is missing:

Two things wrong in current Bond movies that are evident from the get go. The first is the gun barrel fade being moved to the end of the movie which has always STARTED the movie. Even if the movie didn't have a teaser opening sequence before the credits like "Dr. No" we've always had it start off the movie. The other thing is the theme song and opening credits itself. Now, the first two Bond movies didn't really have theme songs per se and the sequences had evolved greatly over the years, but there is a certain feel to them that had been missing in the past few, but made a glorious return in "Skyfall". The music hadn't been right since "The World Is Not Enough" (still one of my favorite themes) and "Casino Royale" completely dumped the style of the credits. I feel these kind of set you up for the movie. You know now what you're getting into.

Other things are more subtle, but they get me annoyed none the less. Bond rarely drinks his famous martini anymore. He drinks Heineken. The cars haven't been fun (with the exception of the Astin Martin returning for a cameo in "Skyfall"). The gadgets (and therefore "Q") have been gone. Basically most of the "spy" has been removed from the series. Watch "Archer" and you see what you should be seeing in the Bond movies, which boils my bottom.

So...if much of this is back into "Skyfall" with the exception of the fade, that should make the new one better right? Not really. Those are minor quibbles. What follows is the real meat and potatoes.

We'll start with where Bond was cheeky and would say things with a twinkle in his eye, there's a much more hard and arrogant tone to his words. Most of this one I place solely on Craig. I know they want a more emotional and darker edged Bond, but the lines that are supposed to add a little levity just make me dislike the character more. Speaking of "Dark Bond", it annoys me that they did the same thing with Timothy Dalton (who could still pull off the levity) and the public raked him over the coals! I thought Dalton was ten times the Bond Craig is. They've also made him TOO vulnerable and quote-unqote emotional. Part of the fun of Bond is that he's so calm, cool, and collected when things are getting out of control. The clothes shouldn't be all disheveled and nary a hair should be out of place. This is getting a little better, but still a problem.

Plot structure is a issue too. Like the Mission Impossible movies did for part 2 (though I LOVED Ghost Protocol FYI), they are starting to value the action sequences more than the spy elements (hence the machine gun up top). In previous Bond movies (prior to "Die Another Day") there were usually only 2 (or maybe 3) big action sequences (usually a vehicle chase and a big fire fight) with a fist fight here and there just to break things up. Now it just seems there is a setup, action sequence; setup, action sequence; setup, action sequence; rinse and repeat every 15 minutes until the movie is over. I guess it is because I don't have ADHD that I actually get bored with this structure. Especially when the last 30 minutes is just some long extended action sequence with very little pay off in the end.

I've gone on quite a long while, but stay with me for a couple more.

I know this is a little cliche, but bring back the damn Russians (or at least Communists) and SPECTRE. Very few "successful" Bond movies have strayed out of that concept. It works. And more and more writers are realizing that since they're creeping back in as the villains (well Communists).

And bring back the Bond girl. We throw that term around quite a bit, but what IS a Bond girl? I won't go into it much, but there should be 3 in the movie. The "throwaway" that really doesn't have much to do with plot, but is just there to prove just how suave he really is (I know that's a bit chauvinistic, but that's  kind of what the character is, but her character is usually balanced by the next two); the "damsel in distress" who usually ends up surprising Bond and the audience with her intelligence and "balls" before the end; and the "femme fatale" who generally cannot be trusted and ends up turning on him. Sure there may not be all three, but if there aren't, it usually means 2 and 3 are rolled into one (as one first then the other). I do have one question, though, where are the female villans? There have been several good female henchmen like Xenia Onatopp or Pussy Galore, but no main villains.

Speaking of the villain. This has been the biggest problem as of late. I think it very much has to do with the fact that with the exception of "Casino Royale", the movies are no longer based on Ian Flemming novels. They've run out of his material. Some of them have been based on other writer's works that are considered "cannon", but mostly it's some writer thinking they are making up a good Bond story and they aren't. There's supposed to be a henchman you think is the main villain who is usually very eccentric and cool, then you meet the man behind the scenes in the third act who is just so damn calm cool and collected. He rarely does any of the dirty work himself. He's the brains behind the operation and more often than not, the food chain even goes higher than him (generally to SPECTRE). In "Skyfall", Silva always seems like a henchman to me and never the true villain. He's a Jaws, Oddjob, or Baron Samendi not Goldfinger, Scaramanga, or Kananga. And save Le Chiffre, I'm sure you can't name a Bond villain probably back to "Goldeneye", but back to "The World Is Not Enough" at least. That, to me, is a problem.

I'm not saying I'm done with the franchise, but I think it is very telling that I didn't see "Skyfall" in the theater. I ALWAYS see a new Bond when it comes out, but the previous 3 had left me so disenfranchised that I didn't really care if I saw it immediately or not. Hire Tom Hardy and we'll talk again, Sony.