Don't feel like making a new movie? Copy some old ones...

I finally caught a couple of films now on DVD or pay-per-view that I've been meaning to see and I noticed a running theme: non-originality. As my good friend Derrick Goulet likes to say, "Let's not REMAKE movies people, lets MAKE movies."

Oh, how he hits the nail on the head.

Flying back from Michigan recently on a four and a half hour flight, I passed the time watching the film "21." As I work in the casino business, of course I've seen plenty of films regarding the subject of casinos and gambling, and I intimately know the subject matter.

Before I go any further, I'd like to point out that I love Kevin Spacey. "Swimming with Sharks," the 1994 masterpiece also starring Benicio Del Toro and Frank Whaley is one of my all time favorites, and my introduction to Spacey's inimitable style of acting.

This film, however, seemed like little more than a paycheck for him, as he was able to mimick any of a dozen other performances he's done in similar films as a former card cheat turned MIT professor who wrangles a group of mathematically inclined students to act as his own personal card counting crew, subsequently earning him and them hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Las Vegas strip.

All the film cliches are here. There's the poor kid who can't afford to go to the expensive college (think "Goodwill Hunting"), the smart kid who becomes the prodigy of the professor who uses him for his own ill gains (think "Real Genius"), the unobtainable hottest chick in school who somehow ends up romantically entangled with the geek (think several other movies, most notably "Can't Buy Me Love").

At least a half dozen film titles are gleaned of their most notable plot points in "21." The Matt Damon/Edward Norton film "Rounders" is robbed as well, with the hero of the film making money, forsaking his geeky friends, seeing that there is more to life than a minimum wage job and taking the safe route, betrayal, redemption, and revenge. Sounds great, but like I said, we've seen it all before, and done much better.

I know this film did relatively well at the box office and critics were warm to it, but I have to give it a single star, frowny face, and thumbs neutral (sorry Roger, I know you own the copyright to that - I hope you'll forgive me.)

The 35+ video gamer reviews two new ones

I just finished "Conan" for the XBOX 360. And if you're curious, no, I didn't kill the end boss. I just gave up. It took so long and it was so excruciating to execute the quick time button mashing at the appropriate times during the final showdone that I got bored and started a different game.

It's a pity, since I thouroughly enjoyed the gameplay and the number of cool moves you could execute and master in this interesting and engaging hack and slasher. I'd still recommend it for someone who has more time to mess with finishing the ending than I did -- or more interest in beating the game. This title does get some extra points for the voluptuous half naked vixens you get to save while playing. Just make sure the kids aren't in the room...

I also just finished "Prey" -- in which I did kill the end boss. This easy to play game is based on the "DOOM 3" engine and has the look and for obvious reasons has the look and feel of previous Doom and Quake titles. In Prey, you're a Native American fed up with the reservation who is abducted by aliens and must fight to try and save your girlfriend and escape the alien ship. You have an array of interesting weapons which are a mix of tech and biology, with none of them really feeling like they pack that much of a punch.

The levels are easy and move quickly; and once you get into the game, you want to see it through to the end. Along the way there are some interesting level bosses, none of which are difficult to defeat since in Prey you cannot really die. If you do run out of health you're merely transported to the spirit world where you can use your bow to shoot targets which will restore you to health. The game's autosaving feature is also very generous in dropping you right where you left off so you won't have to repeat any of the gameplay.

While being in general a pretty basic first person shooter, the game has a few interesting features like gravity powered walkways and panels which when shot will flip you upside down or sideways in space. Strange portals also allow you to travel between sections of the ship through some type of interdimensional gateways. A few puzzle-like situations are also solved by entering spirit form where you can walk through force fields and across unseen spirit bridges.

For the 35+ gamer, this game is a good distraction from the everyday doldrums of work and family life, while still leaving some time for, well, work and family. Don't expect to be blown away, though. Do expect to feel like a stud for being able to finish it in a relatively short amount of time, say 10 hours or less.

RAMBO - familiar face, new story, good film-making

Growing up in the 70s and 80s allowed me to enjoy some classic eras for cinema. One that I'm thinking of in particular is the well-loved genre of the "80s action movie," which includes films like "The Terminator," "Lethal Weapon," "Die Hard," and of course the series of "Rambo" films.

You'd have to be living in a shack somewhere in Thailand to have missed the release of the most recent of this series -- titled simply "Rambo" -- which is now on pay per view but soon to be in wide-release on DVD. The first film in the franchise, 1982s "First Blood" introduced us to John Rambo, a former Vietnam Vet who has returned to the States to find that he is not welcomed as a hero. Dissillusioned, he becomes a drifter, hitchiking from town to town, visiting his former war buddies and living a simple existence.

Brian Denney, the sheriff of one particular town in Oregon (ironically named "Hope") runs our hero out of his little berg figuring him a trouble maker. Rambo of course rebels, is jailed, abused by the deputies, escapes into the dense northwestern forest, and proceeds to take out every member of the sheriff's department (and later the national guard) who they send against him.

Not just a blood and gore shoot 'em up, "First Blood" carries the underlying theme of the forgotten Vietnam War Vet -- a segment of the American population who never received the credit they deserved nor the treatment for the physical and mental wounds which they carried off the battlefields of Southeastern Asia.

Due to the popularity of "First Blood," we were treated to the sequel "Rambo: First Blood Part II," also penned in part by Stallone, focusing on his return to Vietnam in order to save some left-behind POW's. Released in 1985, the idea of missing Vietnam Vets forgotten by the U.S. government and unacknowledged by communist North Vietnam and their allies the Soviet Union was fresh in the minds of many, and made for yet another underlying theme in which to set the distruction and mayhem that Rambo laid upon the evil "commies."

Even more violent than the original, but still packed with plenty of drama and male bravado, this was the best in the original three films, and 80s audiences (including myself) ate it all up and asked for more. This was the height of the 80s action movie era and fans knew that a second sequel was a foregone conclusion. Notable in other key roles in the film are Richard Crenna, who returned as Rambo's commanding officer Colonel Trautman, and Martin Kove, who many will remember as the leader of the Cobra Kai's in 1984s "Karate Kid."

The third film, while not as good as the second, still held plenty of action, drama, explosions, cool kill scenes, and lots of delicious cold war tension. In this installment Rambo takes the Russians straight on in Afghanistan where they have taken his former commanding officer Colonel Trautman hostage. Released in 1988, in the waning years of the Cold War, it's ironic to note that the Soviets would withdraw from Afghanistan less than a year after the release of "Rambo III."

Twenty years would pass before the simply named "Rambo" came out in theatres, not only partially written by, but also directed by Sylvester Stallone. Although he looks a little more ragged and a few years older, our hero is now resigned to a life of capturing deadly snakes for a seedy backwater tourist trap in Thailand when a group of Christian missionaries persuade him to take them up the river in his boat to do some missionary work in Burma. What could go wrong?

Of course everything does, and who else can save the day but John J. Rambo? Shot with a dark and realistic sensitivity, this film didn't try to do too much and kept the action and the story simple but tight. Coming in at about 90 minutes, the film moved quickly and hit all of the right notes as Rambo faces the fact that he was born to wage war and to him it comes "as easy as breathing."

The message of this film -- that there are still war-torn hell holes in the world where unthinkable atrocities occur daily -- are strong but not preachy, poignant but not too political. Most astonishing of all, this film accomplishes what I never thought it could: it is the most violent of the four films; with realistic, barbaric, and sometimes unbelievable scenes of death, distruction, and dismemberment that leave a viewer saying "I can't believe they just did that."

Scenes like these in "Rambo" don't feel gratuitous as much as they serve to drive home the realism of a barbaric world that we as Americans living in the most free democratic society in the world cannot even fathom. "Rambo" is not only a perfect vehicle for Stallone and company to bring back this beloved character forever etched in the collective moviegoing mind of the last quarter century, but is also a fantastic vehicle for laying the franchise to bed in a dignified and appropriate manner. Seeing our man in action one last time brought nostalgia and closure at the same time for this penultimate child of the 80s. *****

I hate end bosses

Yeah, I'm just going to come out and say it: I hate end bosses. Level bosses, I don't have such a problem with, but those super villains you have to fight at the very end of the game can be rather irritating at times.

Let me give you an example. I played the excellent, well-conceived and executed title, "Gears of War" for the XBOX 360. I cruised through the levels, sometimes having to take multiple tries to get through some of the rougher spots or to beat a particularly difficult level boss. That's great. It's all part of playing a good game. You get your money's worth if you have to put in some time to complete all the missions and win.

The only problem is that the end boss General Raam is just one heck of a hard guy to beat. I tried several dozen times, and even watched a tutorial video on XBOX Live in an attempt to beat him, but still couldn't land the hits to kill him. I'm not what you'd call an "elite" gamer, but I'd like to think I can hold my own. I just don't have the time to invest to beat some of these uber-hard end bosses.

I think that the last guy (or girl I suppose) that you have to beat in order to complete a game should be tough, but not so tough that you get bored of trying to finish him off. Don't get me wrong, I loved "Gears of War" and I'll probably buy the second edition coming out later this year. The gameplay is interesting, fun, and the story moves along well. I just got tired of trying to take down Raam and eventually moved on to another one of my new games.

Now some of you will call me a wimp or a quitter, and if I kept trying I'm sure I would have beat him. I just plain lost interest. It was no longer worth the achievement points or bragging rights.

Currently, I'm at the final boss for the game "Conan." "Conan" is the first "hack and slash" game I've ever played and I was a little concerned that I wouldn't like it. I do like it, though, and would recommend this game to anyone who likes a good swordplay adventure. I've tried to beat the final villain a few times now, and I haven't gotten discouraged yet. I looked him up on the walkthrough, though, and I'm told that there are seven stages required to beat him.

Seven stages!

And if you fail any one of them, you drop back and have to try again. That's fine, but your game doesn't save your progress, so you either have to beat all seven stages in one sitting or keep dropping back all the way to the start of the level each time. I've got three kids and a demanding job. I don't have that much time all in one block to spend playing a video game.

I wish I did, believe me.

I'm determined to complete "Conan," though, and get those coveted achievements that make the XBOX 360 so much fun. Maybe my wife will take the kids away for the weekend so I can go back and complete some of the titles gathering dust on my shelf, waiting for me to tackle those end-bosses I loathe so much.

If not, there's always the trade-in option at Gamestop.

Video games you might want to check out

Okay, as a 35+ gamer, I'm into those titles for my XBOX 360 which are fun, different, and not too tough for an old guy to conquer. I don't actually think I'm that old, I just don't have the patience and time that a 14-year-old has to try and beat a really difficult level boss for two hours straight. As a gamer since the days of the Atari 2600, I'll go head-to-head with any 14-year-old, any day.

With such limited time, I like to get my gaming fix in small bursts, where I can advance in the game without too much trouble, and put it aside until the next day when the kids are tucked in bed again and my wife is occupied with something else.

I've almost finished Grand Theft Auto IV, which I was addicted to for several weeks, playing whenever I could fit it in, much to my spouses dismay. The storyline is rich and interesting, with a few places where the gamer can choose which story branch to take, and there are plenty of side missions and other interesting achievements which keep a gamer engaged right up until the very end.

Unfortunately, I made it to a point where I had only two missions left and one of my son's nine-year-old friends accidentally karate kicked my XBOX, causing the disk to scratch to the point where it no longer will load the game. I sent an angry email to Microsoft, as this is not the first time I've scratched a game by bumping the console, but they don't feel that they have any fault in the matter, so I'm out 60 bucks and the 50-100 achievement points I'd earn by finishing the game. Maybe I can rent the title for a night from Blockbuster just to finish it off -- but I digress.

GTA IV, despite the controversy and hype, is violent, fun, and engaging. It should only be played when the kiddies are in the other room since the characters drop the "F-Bomb" like it's going out of style, though, and I definitely wouldn't recommend it for immature players. The game is just good, (not clean) adult fun.

Another game which I just sold back to GameStop (God I love that place) is Dead Rising. It's a zombie hack and slash game with a free-play design. Like many other free-play titles, there are time limits and missions to accomplish. It is inventive, creative, and often fun to play, but where the game fails is in its saving system. I stopped playing the game because I got to a certain point and hadn't left myself enough time to complete a particular mission that was absolutely necessary in order to advance in the game.

Since there isn't an autosave feature, and it isn't always easy to reach a save point as often as you'd like, my only option would have been to revert to a save point so far back that I'd have to fight two difficult level bosses all over again and hopefully leave myself enough time to complete the necessary mission. I still think it's a good game, but if you buy it, be extra conscious of finding those places to save the game and save often, but be careful, because you run the risk of eating up valuable mission time trying to make it to a place in the game which allows you to save. One way around this would be to switch back and forth between saving on your hard drive and saving on an MU.

For a busy dad like me, though, this one was too time consuming, so I turned it in to buy a few new games like Prey, Conan, and Viking, which I'll review in the coming months.

What not to watch

With three children in our household, my wife and I have little time to enjoy watching a movie together. Somehow, amid the chaos of temper tantrums, bottle feedings, and diaper changes, we actually sat down and watched TWO movies over the weekend, one on DVD and the other on pay-per-view.

After viewing both, I was left wondering what exactly, I felt I was missing.

The first film we watched was "National Treasure 2," which I thought would be fun for us to see since my wife doesn't like action or horror movies, and this was pretty clean fun the first go-around in the franchise.

Let's just say she didn't thank me for renting it. Nicolas Cage, who I've loved in past films, looks gaunt and tired these days, and his conspicuous lack of sideburns and strange hair color are distracting. Not distracting enough, however, to deter us from the fact that the entire film was hokey, predictable, and unsatisfying. Jon Voight walks through his role, as he does in so many roles these days, and the remainder of the supporing cast were stereotypes in a film filled with hackneyed movie cliches such as:

- A character gets millions of dollars, invests it poorly, and then has trouble with the IRS.
- The husband and wife are having problems but, after living through an adrenaline filled adventure, get back together.
- The sidekick who never seems to get enough credit finally receives his due when a tip from his book helps to propel the plot forward.
- The main character does something outrageous (like kidnap the President) and gets away with it scot-free.
- A character must go to his ex-wife because she's "the only one who can help him" after being estranged from her for 30 years. Their bickering is then supposed to be great movie fun!

The cliches went on and on and on like this and it felt like a film that was written by a couple of film students by using a dozen other popular films as templates. It's too bad, too, because the first "National Treasure" was hokey but in a fun and interesting way. Unless you're bored and there's nothing else on the hotel pay-per-view, skip this one.

That same fateful weekend, we watched "Fools Gold" on pay-per-view. My wife enjoys a good romantic comedy, and she enjoyed that other fine piece of cinematic art that Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson made - "How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days."

Well, as I said, she enjoys a "good" romantic comedy, and neither of us cared for whatever this was supposed to be. Think of "Romancing the Stone" meets "Into the Blue" meets...hell, meets "How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days."

But the only thing it shared with the great Kathleen Turner/Michael Douglas film mentioned above was the fact that there was a male and a female lead who end up in bed together. Other than that, it fell FAR short. It was so close in fact, actually to 2005's "Into the Blue" that it could almost have been the same script with a little light comedy added. Unfortunatley it was even worse than that horrible Jessica Alba film.

The only reasons I could see for these two to even make this movie was an attempt to capture the magic of their previous film together, and also the film's tropical setting where McConaughey could spend most of his screen time with his shirt off (which he LOVES to do in this one, folks.) You can also tell he REALLY enjoys the constant dialogue eschewed about his sexual abilities. This was truly a vanity piece for Mathhew to indulge himself in, and oh yeah, I'm sure the paycheck didn't hurt either of the main stars, either.

One other thing bothered me, and that was the presence of the great Donald Sutherland. Not to take anything away from him, because I think he's great, but he was completely wasted in this one. I think he was bored, too, because he chose to do the entire film with a British accent. Maybe he was able to immerse himself into the film by creating such a layered character that he could forget what a ludicrous plot and horrible execution of it he was involved with.

Again, please skip this one unless you're stuck on an airplane and its the only thing showing. If you must watch it, at least you'll get to see Kate Hudson in a bikini for part of the picture, and of course a mostly shirtless Matthew McConaughey, if that's the sort of thing you're into.

Hulk improves on the original

I got to see the "The Incredible Hulk" in a media preview screeing in Sacramento with my son this week, going into the film with low to medium expectations, especially after what I consider to be a disaster with the 2003 Ang Lee version starring Eric Bana.

As the new lead, Academy Award nominee Edward Norton struck the proper sensibility for the character of Bruce Banner, the tortured scientist who is struck with gamma rays, leaving him with a Jekyl and Hyde condition which has him alternating between himself and his alter ego "The Hulk" whenever someone makes him mad. Fans of the comic book and multiple animated series, as well as the live action version starring Bill Bixby will enjoy the little touches put into the film paying homage to those other incarnations of the franchise.

Where the 2003 version waited far too long to introduce a good view of the title character, this newest entry gives us a healthy taste of the Hulk right in the opening credits, followed up with the full body views within the first 25 minutes. There were far too few action sequences in the first film, but this one made up for that defecit with good action scenes in the beginning and final fight sequences, and only a bit of a slowdown in the middle, which still did little to detract from the overall fun of the film.

While it would be hard to take down the mega-hit of early summer "Ironman," I would place "The Incredible Hulk" firmly in third place at this point in the summer movie enjoyability scale, with the fourth installment in the Indiana Jones franchise in second place. I recommend this film to anyone with older grade school children, and thirty-somethings like myself who grew up appreciating comic books, super heroes, and the accompanying animated programs which made growing up in the 70s and 80s so much fun. I'm calling this "the summer of Marvel," and wish the new movie studio lots of luck as they move on to other projects such as "Captain America," "Hulk" and "Ironman" sequels, and "The Avengers."

I look forward to all of them with the same glee I had when peeling open the cover of a new comic book back in the days before cable TV, next generation video game consoles, and computer generated movie effects.