Trans-2 Reviews

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

please help me

[6/10 · 1 September 2001]

Just saw Jeepers Creepers this evening. Could somebody answer these questions? (***SPOILERS O MANIA***)

How did the Creeper grow those huge wings ? Guess he ate some large bats?

Why (or how) did the corpses' flesh stay 'alive' ?

Why did the Creeper cause trouble whenever that song was played?

How did the psychic get her powers and what the heck good did it do?

How could the two main characters be hip to scary movie conventions yet

do so many stupid things?

Thanks for any answers

Ghouls 'n Ghosts (1988 Video Game)

great design, extraordinary execution

[10/10 · 12 August 2001]

This platform arcade game is the lesser-known sequel to the fairly popular 1985 arcade game Ghosts'n Goblins. While the first in the series captured my imagination, this one blew it away and then some, and to this day remains my favorite platform-style game of all time and gets a rare 10/10 from me.

The music is great and eerie and the effects suit the mood well. Better yet, the graphics are stunning for its time and look much more organic than most other platformers, with elements like hills and inclines and things that generally don't look at all like repeated tiles or flat platforms. Even the color schemes are expertly chosen; one particular area featured a beautiful combination of tundra-colored grass flowing on faint violet rocky ground that was simply beautiful to look at.

The stage design is extraordinarily well conceived, with the player having to face quicksand, wind, icy slopes and the like as part of the landscape, and often being pitted against his or her own instincts in order to survive. One particular stage features earthquakes that change the shape of the ground as you walk on it, with the ground threatening to go at any time. Another stage puts you on a gigantic platform that continuously scrolls upwards while you dodge flying minions and descending platforms. The monsters themselves are cleverly designed as well, such as the multi-jointed 'blood vines' that grow out of the ground and flay wildly around, the 'skeletal dragons' whose indestructible bodies slither around and block your line of fire, and the bouncing rock turtles that randomly stop bouncing when you least expect it forcing you to slam on the brakes or die. Many monsters are nicely integrated with the environment, such as the immobile statues whose tongues slither in and out of their gigantic mouths and threaten to suck you in, and the falling plant-like platforms that you must jump off at the last minute before they swallow you whole. The weapon arsenal is creatively designed; you can obtain a discus-type of weapon that hovers up and down slopes, a torch that sets fire to the patch of ground wherever it lands; fairly standard 'linear' weapons round up the arsenal. Every weapon can be powered-up if the knight finds the special golden armor, and every weapon can even be fired upwards or downwards for more control than previously possible. The standard armor, as in this game's precursor, falls off the knight when it takes a hit, leaving him running around in his skivvies.

The game is just the right length, maintaining it's creativity all the way through. I found the game quite challenging but at just the right level for great replayability, although it is generally quite difficult and was too much of a coin-chomper for most people in the arcades. The only way I personally ever finished the game was using an emulator. My main gripe (**** SPOILER ****) of the game is that when you first reach the last stage in the game, you are told that you must return to the beginning of the game in order to pick up a special weapon that will help you defeat the final boss. This basically forces the player to finish the entire game twice, although the special weapon (looking quite like a psychedelic ice cream cone) kicks a** and makes it easier to finish the game the second time around.

Æon Flux (1991–1995)

abstract

[23 July 2001]

I remember watching this series late at night about 5 years ago on MuchMusic (Canada's MTV equivalent). It was (and probably still is) the most innovative animated series I've had the chance to lay my eyes on (and wrap my brain around). Definitely not for kids, definitely not straightforward, this series fluctuates between abstract narratives, warped motives, and unconventional characters to tell us the stories of a futuristic communist society ruled by Trevor Goodchild and clashed with by the ever-present iconoclast known as Aeon Flux, a society that is both a distortion and a reflection of our own. Nothing in this series is clear-cut and the writing definitely lets you think your way through instead of being spoon-fed. Thank you, mister Chung, for the great work.

The Score (2001)

great pacing

[22 July 2001]

The main thing I liked about this movie, besides the considerable displays of acting talent, was the pacing of the movie. Unlike many movies cranked out nowadays which use (or abuse) hyperkinetic editing, superfluous subplots, special effects and other devices to keep you distracted while the movie plods along to it's inevitable conclusion, this one doesn't pull any tricks. Instead, it keeps itself focused on the meat of the movie, cutting scenes only as necessary, resulting in a very enjoyable pace that lets you absorb the textures of the movie more thoroughly, and lets the tensions of the movie surface nicely without the unnecessary distractions. On the down side, the writing is only slightly above par. Overall, a solid 8/10.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001)

go for the graphics

[14 July 2001]

I went to see Final Fantasy for the graphics, not the story. Therefore, I walked out with my expectations quite satisfied because the story was lacking, the characters were underdeveloped, the movie was too long and its momentum was often sluggish. But the graphics man, the graphics! This movie features the most photo-realistic CG human characters I've (and I suspect anyone) has ever seen before. The skin textures, the musculature, the hair, the clothing texture and swaying, etc. But for all their qualities, the characters were still lacking; specifically, the facial expressions and body language were too stilted to convey a full range of human expressions. I cringed whenever Aki was supposed to be 'crying' because the 'vibes' I was getting from her face were all wrong. I suppose the body language could easily be corrected by using motion capture more carefully and more often (I suspect that sometimes programmed interpolated motions were used instead of motion capture, especially when characters were mostly standing still, which is a no-no since the body language is always important). However, the facial expressions will be a bit trickier since there are a lot of muscles involved. But then again, one can only presume that given another 10 or 20 years, most of these glitches will have been rectified and we'll be one step closer to not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality...

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

I prefer robots, do you?

[11 July 2001]

Allow me to deposit these two pennies into the Global Opinion Bank…

PENNY ONE: The essence of this film, for me, was about exploring if AI's would eventually surpass humans in every possible aspect that defines the human condition. Sure, it's more than likely that AI's will eventually be able to solve problems faster, play sports better, be the ultimate sexual partners, and ultimately outlast us. But what about creativity and emotionality? Can AI's eventually go beyond the meager capabilities of human beings in these aspects? This movie deals mainly with the emotional abilities of machines; specifically, can robots love better than humans? This movie appears to say yes: David's love was never-ending and all encompassing; compare that to today's roughly 50% divorce rate. Also, the `aliens' at the end (which almost certainly where AI's) were an enlightened race living in peace and harmony, and only wanted David to feel happiness, if only for one day; contrast this with the sorry state of our world. The humans in the movie, on the other hand, didn't inspire much sympathy: the evil son, the family rejecting David, the jealous wife-murderer, the hypocrisy of the people at the Flesh Fair who ‘killed' endless amounts of AI's but wouldn't kill David because he was `cute', etc. Regarding the creative abilities of AI's, it would certainly seem that this movie also states that AI's will surpass us in that respect, considering that the creators of the enlightened AI's featured in the ending were most likely AI's themselves. So, in all aspects, we seem destined for the scrap heap of evolution.

PENNY TWO: I see this movie as a flawed classic. It definitely contained a large amount of thought-provoking ideas and issues, although sometimes these were lacking subtlety (for instance, I felt hammered by the question `can a person love a robot?' raised by Hurt's character; I think you have the answer to his question if you felt a little more than sympathetic towards any of the AI's in the movie). The first half of the movie, up to the quest for the Blue Fairy, was meaty and I thoroughly enjoyed it; I give it a 9/10. The second half (not including the ending) seemed drained of ideas and developments; I gave it a 6/10. The ending, although not lacking in Spielberg-brand fromage, reinforced what I thought was the main message of this parable: AI's have the potential to surpass humans emotionally; I gave the ending a 7/10. Overall rating: 7.5/10.

Quantum Project (2000)

Nice try but no cigar

[4/10 · 15 May 2000]

Well, there was nothing wrong with the concept of distributing a movie directly to the consumer over the internet. Unfortunately, the movie is boring and its attempt at philosophic symbolism falls flat on its face. I didn't mind the film's relatively low budget, or 'short' length (32 minutes or so), but what it needed was a major kick in the butt. Like a script which is interesting, or funny, or creative or emotionally engaging. Or a director who can make a meandering pointless mess of a script at least come across half-decently (somehow, if thats possible at all). The actors had nothing to work with so you can't blame them.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

Objective, comprehensive review of The Blair Witch Project

[8/10 · 8 August 1999]

Let me start by saying I've seen this movie twice and read at least one hundred user reviews to give me a perspective through other people's eyes. Quickly put, the idea of this movie is a low budget film where the three actors portray student film makers which also substitute as the camerapersons, while the two writer-directors are off eating lunch at Chi-Chi's (its a tough life). The dialog was all improvised with no real script, except for the two writer-directors leaving general instructions in film canisters at strategic locations in the woods. The acting was very good, although I don't know if you would call it "acting" per se (where everything is predetermined) as opposed to "guided improvised method acting" where the actors were more or less living the movie as it was happening (for instance, the writer-directors deliberately diminished their food supplies and made the scary noises at night, for the sake of realism). For those who were distressed by the lack of a plot, consider that if you ever get lost in the woods, you will probably not have a plot either.

I can see how people would view the acting as either fake or authentic; sometimes the characters seemed to be considerably more horrified of things than they should've been; however, the actual *manner* in which they acted horrified was quite authentic. This is most true of Heather, the narrator and main protagonist of the film. I believe the trick to enjoying this movie is to either A) believe the movie really happened, B) believe it is a mockumentary but see the acting as totally believable, or C) believe it is a mockumentary and forgive over-reactions when they occur. If you fall into categories A or B, you're off to a running start. If on the other hand you are a C person, to fully appreciate this movie you must willingly suspend your disbelief when Heather over-reacts, and assume that there was something really scary there instead of something not so scary. I believe this flaw could've been corrected by using, say, blood splattered on the trees or something else which would've more strongly implied imminent violence without actually portraying it; however this would have forsaken the movie's "no-gore" concept. The first time I watched it, I fell into the B category, but the second time I watched it I leaned towards C. Nevertheless, the movie had even more of an effect on me the second time around. Without my realizing it, my heart was pounding at the end, and that night my mind was irrationally convinced that the coat-hanger next to my bedroom door was a floating witch guarding the only exit so that I would not be able to escape. This movie flicked a switch somewhere in the back of my mind, convincing me despite my best rational efforts that evil things lurked in the dark recesses of my home.

Another thing that might put unsuspecting viewers off is its differences in production values and approach to horror. The most obvious are the ones afflicting all low budget movies: no money means unpolished lighting and camera work, cheap sets or costumes, no effects, etc. One main difference I was pleased with is no score. We had no music to take us by the hand and tell us when to feel what for who; our reactions to the events were thus more natural, a refreshing change. The acting was improvised in a mostly relaxed manner, so we were spared the often- excessive melodrama of Hollywood-type productions. The approach to horror was that of gradually increasing creepiness that gets under your skin, as opposed to "Look!! I'm a scary monster!!" and blood-and-guts scares.

Heather bears the most responsibility and delivers the most dialog, sometimes becoming overly talkative as she tries to fill in all silences with narrative commentary. I was also mildly annoyed at her occasional screech- screaming, but it was realistic and I would've been annoyed if I was there too. There is also one scene where I really, really, really wanted to hand her a Kleenex. As for comments about the level of swearing; I'm absolutely sure that neither of the three actors were even aware of their language until prudes pointed it out, since swearing profusely (especially in tense situations) is only natural for people this age.

All in all, I was quite pleased. I have heard that there are other similar indie productions (Cannibal Holocaust, The Last Broadcast, etc) that were made before this one, which are probably quite envious of this movie's success (this movie as it turns out is making thousands of times its cost in profit). Despite its qualities and successes, I hope there are no sequels or prequels. There is speculation as to if it will ignite a "new" style of horror film making. PS: After reading all those other reviews, I have started to wonder... why is it that the entire theater always either "laughs at the whole movie" or "come out scared sh**less".

Silent Hill (1999 Video Game)

Creepy, visually stunning

[8/10 · 4 July 1999]

Visually, Silent Hill by far surpasses most of the competition. True, since its play-area graphics are rendered in real-time, the visual result is less refined than pre-rendered-graphic games like Resident Evil I or II; however, rendering the graphics in real-time allows your view to smoothly travel through an entire village and the interiors of buildings, allowing for a much stronger feeling of "being there". The use of effects such as fog and light sourcing effectively enhance the mood of the game, which is stuck at "creepy" from beginning to end. The cut-scenes contained some of the best CG motion-capture and facial expressions I had ever seen, and for the first time I actually felt a "human presence" in a CG character -- just watch the intro to see what I mean. As for stage design, consistent attention to detail makes them a pleasure to navigate and just plain stare at, and the quality auto-camera does not deter from this experience.

Sonically, the game was above-par; the music was good, although most of it was distinctly ambient, and the sound effects were few but effective. Use of a radio which emits static louder as monsters get nearer adds to the suspense (where *is* that monster??), and the use of music containing static sounds make you think monsters abound where there are none.

On the down side, the story is patchy and left mostly unexplained (at least the first time you finish the game), leaving you wanting closure. The voice acting was so-so (a trend in these types of games), but it was the script that stunk the most. You will often feel strongly compelled to somehow change it (how could you *say* that, ugh!!).

Overall, the mood was consistently creepy, and while I found myself getting more and more accustomed to it due to its consistency., I still very much enjoyed this game. My Rating: 8 out of 10.