State Of Mind: "Final Fantasy XII"

State Of Mind: "Final Fantasy XII"

People who know me know that I make no secret that this might be my favorite in the "Final Fantasy" series of games. However, this seems to be among the most divisive entries for some reason. I'd like to examine why I love it when other hate it.

"Final Fantasy XII" follows the story of a rebellion attempting to put the proper princess, a young woman named Ashe, back into power during a major war between two large countries. There's a lot more to the story than that, including magical crystals (when aren't there magical crystals?), a war against the gods, and several plot twists and reveals. I never quite understood the story. It starts out simply enough, with the story being told from the perspective of street rat Vaan, who lives in the country in between the two warring ones. However, it quickly becomes tangled, as many more characters are introduced and plot elements begin piling up. You find out that this was never really Vaan's story, the bad guy isn't actually the bad guy (this actually happens several times), the war has more motives than originally thought, and something about the gods seeing the future and controlling minds. It all becomes really hard to follow, especially on a first play through.

In addition to the muddled story, the characters are also pretty forgettable. After X did such a great job of creating colorful and interesting characters, it was disappointing to see XII take a step backward in that regard. None of the characters really have any real personalities. They are all pretty much just serious, strong, goal-oriented blank slates that aren't given any defining characteristics apart from whatever goal it is that they are trying to achieve. There are two exceptions, though they are on opposite ends of the spectrum: Penelo, Vaan's childhoos friend, and Balthier, a sky pirate. Penelo, I can only assume, was supposed to be the perky young girl archetype, a role previously filled be characters like Yuffie In VII and Rikku in X. However, to match the game's atmopshere, her "perkiness" is severely toned down, so it ends up just coming off as a couple of random quips and stupid questions throughout the game. To make matters worse, she has absolutely nothing to do with the plot of the game. She is there for no other reason than to give you a sixth party member. It's even worse than the also superfluous Vaan, since he at least has the excuse of avenging his soldier brother. (The original lead character was supposed to be a soldier named Basch, who, while still a major character and party member, had the focus taken away from him when it was thought that a more relatable protagonist was needed.) Penelo is, by far, my least favorite character in the game, both for her "personality" and her complete irrelevance to the plot. On the other hand, there's Balthier. In a game with so few good characters, Balthier is so memorable that it almost makes up for the general lameness of the rest of the party. He is an arrogant, but secretly caring, sky pirate who insists that he is "the leading man" of this story. He's a funny, compelling, well-designed character with an interesting backstory. Plus, in a story where half of the party is along for the ride for no adequately explained reason, he is actually pretty deeply intertwined with the matters at hand (for reasons both obvious and secret). In addition to his countless comedic scenes, he also gets some good tearjerker scenes and some show-stealing moments of heroic badassery. He is easily one of my favorite "Final Fantasy" characters of all time.

So, why do I love the "Final Fantasy" with the confusing story and forgettable characters (Balthier aside)? It's all about the world and the gameplay for me. Ivalice is enormous. You can spend all day just adventuring to all of the corners of the world and still probably miss a ton of stuff. Every corner is teeming with life, both friendly and malicious. There is a well-defined government, environment, social system, and mythos. There are tons of places to go and things to see. You can go somewhere a hundred times, and there's still a chance that you haven't seen everything that there is to see there. I spent over 100 hours on this game, and I still wasn't nearly done with everything it had to offer. Ivalice is a textbook example of building a complete and vivid world.

I may be alone in this boat, but I also love the battle system. I was wary at first, since this was the first "Final Fantasy" I had played without a clear turn-based system. I also feel as though other people hate it because it's so far removed from any previous battle system that the series has used (except maybe XI, which I never played). It definitely took some getting used to, but I ended up finding the new MMORPG-like system very deep and interesting. I loved being able to run around, see enemies on the field, and kill them as they appeared. It helped add to the world that they were trying to build, and it made it feel slightly more real when battles weren't taking place in some random dimension apparently reserved only for stabbing things in the face. Granted, I've heard some people say the opposite, saying that running away wasn't as effective as it would be in reality and that things could hit you when you were obviously far outside of their attack range. I guess those were all just covered by willing suspension of disbelief for me, that and the understanding that that was necessary in order to create a more balanced and challenging battle system. By the end of the game, I loved just running through earlier areas and killing things in one hit, racking up tons of LP as I went. One surefire way of gauging my enjoyment of an RPG is by how much I enjoy grinding in it. By that standard, XII gets a huge thumbs up from me.

So, there you have it. That's why I love one of the most divisive and detested games in the "Final Fantasy" oeuvre. Mind you, I sometimes go back and forth between this, X, and VI, but this one ends up on top more often than not. I love the world, the hunts, the Balthier, and the battle system enough to vastly outweigh any negative thoughts I may have toward this game. So, go forth, and happy hunting!

The End...

Hey, everyone who follows this blog. I just wanted to thank the few of you who followed me consistently, threw some asks at me, and enjoyed my ramblings. I'm posting this to say that I got an internship writing reviews for a website called The Trendy Spoon. Because of that, my reviews and thought pieces here will probably be considerably less frequent, if not nonexistent. I won't take down the blog, just in case someone wanted to reread a review or something, but there probably won't be much new content. You are always welcome to continue asking me things and following me over at The Trendy Spoon. They're still my thoughts on things, just less rambly and formatted differently. Thanks again for your support. It was these articles that got me the job there in the first place!

State Of Mind: "Film Unoriginality"

I've begun to notice more and more that there are almost no truly original movies coming out right now. Everything is a sequel, remake, or just formulaic.

I understand that there are only so many concretely original storylines in existence and that everything we see as original is really just a riff on a previously done storyline. If that's the case, why are one movie great and another movie terrible if they are both riffs on the same basic story? There are a lot of factors in that, but the most important is presentation. For example, let's take the movies "Avatar" and "Pocahontas". People berated "Avatar" for being "Pocahontas" with blue aliens in space. That may be true, but there are tons of stories like that. Stories of one man entering a new culture and messing with their way of life have been around forever. People seem to immediately deem a somewhat unoriginal idea or storyline as automatically inferior to its predecessor. However, a quick trip to Rotten Tomatoes reveals that "Avatar" got significantly better reviews than "Pocahontas". This may be due, in part, to our nostalgia filters blinding us to the flaws in one of the movies of our childhood. We need to realize that similar doesn't automatically mean worse. Personally, I don't think the story was what "Avatar" was really meant to be about. It was meant to be an experience that brought you to a completely new world. In that respect, I think it succeeded. I saw the movie in 3D IMAX, and I was completely blown away the visuals. Yes, once you look past that the story is silly and the characters are pretty flat, but I still believe that the movie succeeded in what it set out to do. I'd also like to note that, when looked at in the right light, "Finding Nemo" and "Taken" can be viewed in a similar way.

My main issue lies with the remakes and sequels that are made as nothing more than cash-ins on certain properties. The films that continue or retell stories that were fine the first time. Did we really need a new Freddy Krueger or Jason Voorhees? Do we really need to see an old movie again in 3D? Do we really need another "Transformers" movie? And yet, we continue going to these movies for one reason or another. I don't really understand the attraction. I get excited when I see fresh and new ideas being explored on the big screen in new ways. That's one reason why I love Pixar. They can always be counted on to present an original idea in a fresh way. For example, "Up" is about an old man who uses a horde of balloons to fly himself, his house, and a boy scout to Venezuela in order to set the house in the exact spot where his deceased wife would have wanted it. There are also subplots involving the man's childhood hero and his talking dogs and a giant bird's attempts to escape capture. This movie covers themes such as loss, going on without loved ones, and life going on even in old age. These themes have all been done before, but never like this. Name one movie that has a plot synopsis similar to the one I just gave for this movie. The writing, characters, and animation are all beautiful. This movies shows exactly what a creative spin on an old idea can do. It wasn't the second animated film nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars for nothing.

What I'm trying to say is that unoriginality has its good and bad parts. We shouldn't snub a movie just because it's similar to one we've already seen. It's all in the presentation and execution. "Friends With Benefits" was way better than "No Strings Attached", and they're basically the same movie. It's incongruities like that that prove that movies made based on the same idea can have radically different results. I just think that we need to stop supporting all of the terrible sequels and remakes that are coming out that are trying to cash in on our childhoods and don't deserve our money.

After seeing the Hobbit, who is your favourite dwarf?

Thorin is kind of a given, considering that he's such a huge part of the story. The friend that I went with and I had a soft spot for Ori by the end, though. He can be so derpy sometimes that it's really endearing.

A Review: The 2012 "Les Miserables" Film

As a huge fan of musical theater, I think it goes without saying that I was extremely excited for the new "Les Miserables" movie. The closer the release date came, the more excited I got. Even if some of the reviews and production choices made me a bit wary, I was still hopeful that this movie would rock. So, did it?

"Les Miserables", based on the musical of the same name based on the Victor Hugo novel of the same name, follows Jean Valjean, a convict who reforms his ways to become a wealthy man and mayor of a town in France. He is followed by Inspector Javert, a policeman who believes that a criminal can never truly change their ways. The movie/musical/book follows their exploits, the people whose lives these two affect, and the growth (or lack thereof) that these men go through. This is all set against the backdrop of a student revolution occurring in France at the time.

One of the most eye-catching things about this movie is the huge cast made up almost completely of big name actors. Jean Valjean is played by Hugh Jackman. Valjean is a famously difficult role to play, both in terms of acting and singing. Jackman does fine in the film, but not quite as well as I was expecting. His singing is oddly annoying, though he does a good job of nailing the more difficult songs (I was impressed by his renditions of "Valjean's Soliloquy" and "Who Am I?"). His acting is very good, if a bit overwrought at times. He’ll probably get nominated for an Oscar (he does an obscene amount of crying in this role), but I don’t think he’ll win. He definitely wasn’t my favorite performance in this movie.

Anne Hathaway plays Fantine, the endlessly unlucky single mother of a girl that ends up being adopted by Valjean. She plays the part for all its worth, making the most of her rather meager screen time. Her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" is simultaneously heartbreaking and well-acted. Her singing is also very good (well, as good as possible considering that she's sobbing her way through every song). This will probably go down as one of the defining performances in this role, and I predict that an Oscar will soon be in the hands of Ms. Hathaway.

Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play the Thenardiers, the opportunistic couple that takes in Fantine’s daughter. These two are delightful. They are a joy to watch whenever they are onscreen. Most of their despicable antics are played for laughs, and it almost always works. Some may take issue with the fact that the Thenardiers are portrayed as villainously as they sometimes are in other productions. I, on the other hand, think that “Les Miserables” can use any comic relief it can get, as long as it works as well as it does here. I welcome the Thenardiers both as villains and as clowns.

Eddie Redmayne plays Marius, a rich schoolboy who renounces his wealth to join the revolutionaries. Marius isn’t the most interesting characters, defined mostly (if not entirely) by his renouncement of his wealth, his position as a revolutionary, and his love for Cosette. Redmayne does well with what he is given, however. He gives Marius a kind of wide-eyed idealism and naivete that at least begins to get at a bit of a characterization. His performance of “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables” is affecting and very well-performed. I was surprised by how well Redmayne sang. However, he does sometimes sound as though he’s trying to force an operatic voice that is only sometimes there. Other times, he ends up sounding a bit like Kermit the Frog. He also does this thing where he shakes his head when he vibratos. It’s probably just me, but it bugged me when he did that during songs like “Red and Black”. Overall, though, he takes a character that can very easily be flat and boring and makes him interesting and a pleasure to watch.

Amanda Seyfried plays Cosette. If Marius has a bland character, Cosette has no character at all. Serving as more of a symbol of love than a character, Cosette is defined almost completely by her love of Marius (and, to a much lesser extent, Valjean). Seyfriend does her best with the very little she is given to do. She acts the part fine, but she’s not onscreen for much longer than Hathaway, and she’s has much less to work with. She doesn’t quite have the voice for Cosette, either. This is one of the ultimate soprano roles in musical theater. Seyfried sounds fine, but she’s not powerful enough. She lightly chirps and trills her way through the score like a songbird, but she tends to get drowned out when other people are singing with her. It doesn’t sound bad, but it doesn’t sound great either. Seyfried does a fine job, but her limited screen time and character mean that she doesn’t really stand out.

Samantha Barks plays Eponine, the daughter of the Thenardiers who is hopelessly (and one-sidedly) in love with Marius. As one of the lesser known stars in the film, Barks was picked because she had played this role numerous times before. It shows. She has this role down. She perfectly portrays Eponine’s coy friendship with Marius and her hopeless and unrequited devotion to him. Her singing is pretty, and her acting is superb. She probably understands her character the most out of anyone in the film, and turns in great, layered work because of it. It may not be the showiest role in the film, but I personally enjoyed this performance the most.

Aaron Tveit plays Enjolras, the leader of the revolutionaries. In the right hands and in the right production, Enjolras can be a real scene stealer (for proof, see the 25th anniversary concert). However, he isn’t given a lot of screentime in this production. With more things to do, I think that Tveit could have been great in this role (I know he’s capable of great things), but this movie somewhat shortchanges Enjolras. He does fine with what he has, but he’s generally unmemorable. I understand that things had to be cut for time’s sake (especially with a story as long and packed as “Les Miserables”), but it’s still a shame.

Russell Crowe plays Javert. This was almost definitely the most divisive casting choice of them all. In the end, I didn’t hate him in the role. He’s definitely the weakest singer, always sounding as though his mouth is full of cotton balls. His acting is fine, I guess, but I’ve seen Javerts that imbue him with so much more emotion, presence, and power (once again, see the 25th anniversary concert) that I was disappointed. Personally, I didn’t think that he ruined the movie or anything, but I do think that there were better casting choices that could have been made. Honestly, I liked him more than I thought I would. It does bear mentioning, though, that his renditions of Javert’s two big solos (“Stars” and “Javert’s Suicide”) are quite weak, especially when compared to the other major solos in the movie.

This movie is great to look at. The film’s main aesthetic goal was obviously to combine grand and grimy. The film succeeds in its pursuit of planned ugliness, making its cast decidedly unappealing, as they sing covered in layers of filth, blood, tears, and, at one point, literal crap. It’s an effective device to hammer home the destitution, poverty, and hopelessness of these people. These aesthetic choices also extend to the singing, in which acting and emotion is valued over sounding pretty. Almost everyone sings while crying, so pitch and lyrics are sometimes sacrificed in favor of dramatic line readings and sobs. It doesn’t sound bad, and some of the actors still manage to sound fine, but it does make listening to the music without the visual of the person acting a bit awkward. I still think that that was the right choice to make, though, considering the needs of a film versus the needs of a stage musical.

Another thing that has been quite divisive was the direction of Tom Hooper. For this film, he seemed to have two shots in his repertoire: extremely long close-ups and extremely shorts and scattered shots. The long close-ups are reserved for major solos (“I Dreamed a Dream” and most of “Valjean’s Soliloquy” are done in one continuous shot), while the short and scattered shots are meant for crowd scenes (Hooper’s goal during “At the End of the Day” seemed to be to give each citizen of France their own two millisecond close-up). It’s not terrible, but it can be, at different times, both boring and distracting. The longer shots sometimes go on too long, and the staging for them can be awkward. The shorter shots tend to be all over the place, to the point that I was sometimes confused as to what was supposed to be going on in the 27 shots that occupied the last two seconds of screen time. Some shots are great (my personal favorite is the slow motion shot of furniture falling out of windows to form the barricade), but too many are redundant or distracting. I wish that we had just gotten a bit more room in some of the shots (the aerial and panoramic shots that we do get are great, particularly when it comes to the finale) and a bit more time to breathe (Fantine dies, and, a second later, Javert has teleported into the room to kill Valjean). I understand that, with this material, there’s a lot of ground to cover in not a lot of time, but I think a few more establishing shots and couple more seconds for emotional beats would’ve done this movie some good. Once again, the direction isn’t terrible, but it is very flawed. Good direction should inform and add to what happening onscreen, not distract from it.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It’s not a perfect adaptation (I don’t know if that’s possible with this material), but I think it’s worthy of the “Les Miserables” name and legacy. There are many flaws and perplexing choices, but the good very much outweighs the bad. It is almost guaranteed to be a big player at the Oscars this year and rightfully so. This movie is worth seeing if only for the great cast and outstanding performances. I say go see it, and don’t wait one day more. (Yay! Forced musical theater humor!)

P.S. My favorite numbers were the finale reprise of "Do You Hear the People Sing" and "At the End of the Day" (I really liked the group numbers in this movie).

P.P.S. I know that more casts exist than just the 25th anniversary concert cast, but I really liked their Enjolras and Javert. Also, it's easily used as a reference point because the entire thing is on YouTube. Their Valjean is amazing, too. 

P.P.P.S. I wasn't crazy about the new song. In a movie that already felt like it had a lot to get through, the new song felt unnecessary and obviously put there to give the movie a shot at the Best Original Song Oscar. 

Underappreciated Film: "Scott Pilgrim"

I absolutely adore this movie. It's basically exactly what I want from a video game movie. However, it's not actually based on a video game. It's based on a comic book series, which is itself underappreciated.

The story follows Scott Pilgrim as he tries to win the love of Ramona Flowers. In order to do so, he must defeat her seven evil exes. The world of "Scott Pilgrim" runs on video game logic, in which it is totally okay for people to have superpowers and in which people explode into coins when they die. I love both the movie and the comic series for different reasons. The movies is hilarious, and the special effects are top-notch. The performances are great, and the music is varied and memorable. The comic, on the other hand, is more thoughtful and focuses more on the characters and their development and growth. They are both exceptional in their own ways, but I think I like the comics just a bit more. They are both still very underappreciated though. I personally think that this had to do with an odd marketing campaign for the movie combined with its relatively small target market. The comic's performance and general obscurity can simply be chalked up to generally lackluster sales for comics in general in any demographic that's not nerds and geeks like myself. It doesn't help that, in order to get the most out of the movie and the comic, you also have to have a relatively deep knowledge of classic video games. This tightens the demographic even further. It's also not really meant for older audiences. For example, I went to see this movie with my mother and my younger brother and sister. While my siblings and I enjoyed it, my mother didn't quite understand the movie. The tinge of hipster and slacker mentality also slims down the target audience. At this point, the film and comics will appeal to young hipsters, slackers, and nerds who play video games and read comics. While the movie and comics obviously appeal to people outside of this demographic, it is still usually only liked by people who fall into at least one of those categories. That's enough to keep most people away. I'd say give them a try. I love "Scott Pilgrim", and I think more people should give it a look. Maybe you'll find something of yourself among the hipstery slacker nerds.

P.S. In case anyone is wondering, I also love "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game". It's a great throwback to old-fashioned beat-em-ups, and it's totally worth the price you pay to download it, especially if you can get a group of friends together to play with you.