What World War Z got right and very, very wrong

I saw World War Z last night in the theaters and yes, you can add me to the list of people who did not like it. But rather than just throw out the blanket "The book was better," I've decided to break it down. Because I feel the need to stress that the movie did do a couple of things rather well. Rather well, that is, if the movie had been called "Brad Pitt Makes a Zombie Cash-In." (*** Spoiler warning in advance ***)

Right 1: Defending the PG-13 rating: Yup. I'll defend this. If you recall the "source material" (I use that term with massive air quotes) the focus isn't really on the zombies or the carnage they're inflicting. It's more about people's reactions to, and dealing with them. Very little page space is given to actual gore. I feel as though in recent years, zombies have become a campaign for directors to out-gore one another and that takes away a lot of the horror from them. Zombies' roots are purely in psychological horror and you don't need an R rating for that if you do it right. 

Right 2: Panic, sheer, bloody panic. One of the things that makes Max Brooks' novel so successful is that he accurately displays the panic of this unknown enemy. The beginning sequence captures this rather well. Children are still rare in post-apocalyptic fantasies, and it's nice to see a movie tackle that head-on, even if the younger daughter displayed touches of Carl Syndrome.

Right 3: The airplane sequence. As far as the worst, possible place to be in event of a zombie outbreak, a plane is near the top of the list. This sequence, while woefully predictable, had the right amount of tension and panic. Also, Pitt's solution was smart, and the director handled it correctly. That is to say, he didn't have zombies still making their way toward him, despite the tremendous winds/depressurization.

Okay now that's out of the way, onto the bad. The oh, so very bad.

Bad 1: The Reluctant Hero. Oh, how I loathe this plot device. Actually loathe. Upon discovering he's the best man suited to fight the zombie plague (yeah, more on this in a bit), Pitt's first reaction is to play the "No, I'm a family man," card. Stop. Now. This is unacceptable. The fate of the entire world, which, for the record, you are currently inhabiting, rests in your hands, and you want to play the "it's not my problem" card?

This is problematic because not only does it make the hero look short-sighted, it also makes him appear selfish and, frankly, petulant. Worse yet is when the director then shows the wife, crying saying "No, I can't let you do this." Oh good, we have two foolish people. We're off to a good start!

Bad 2: Chechnya and zombies have a lot in common. He investigated war crimes in Chechnya for the UN, so this makes him the perfect man for this job. Really. This doesn't even make sense. At no point in the movie are we shown a single skill that proves he is the man for this job. He doesn't appear to be a great combatant, he doesn't appear to be a leader, and he doesn't even appear to be that great of an investigator (he trips into all of his "clues"). His only marketable skill appears in Jerusalem, where he is shown to have 20/20 vision while everyone surrounding him is Mr. Magoo.

Bad 3: Mother nature is a serial killer: Worst. Speech. Ever.

Behold a pale sweater, and the name that said on it was Death.

Bad 4: Brad Pitt is the Angel of Doom: Another plot device I'm sick of: everywhere the hero goes, he brings death with him.  Like a regular Jessica Fletcher, everywhere Brad Pitt goes in this movie, immediately after arrival, people are going to get killed for some unbelievably dumb reason, like, say, a phone call. Please don't try the "the wife had no way of knowing" defense with me. Her husband is on an exceptionally dangerous, covert mission. I would expect her to have the common sense to know to wait for a damn phone call.(More on the Jerusalem bit later)

Bad 5: CGI zombies. Whether or not you like fast zombies may be a personal preference thing. Personally, I don't mind them when they're done well. For instance, in 28 Days Later, which popularized the fast zombie, they're often seen in fast moving hordes of extras. Extras. That means real people. Not only did the movie change Brooks' traditional, shambling zombie into the fast variety, they employ an embarrassing amount of CGI. Look at the Jerusalem sequence. Rather than looking like a realistic, fast-moving crowd of undead, it looks like a ridiculous tidal wave of, well, water. In these shots they don't move like people or animals but rather an amorphous, fluid being which just isn't scary. On their own, they were handled well. In a group, they become unmanageable and fuzzy. I relate this to any time a horror movie relegates all of its ghostly horror in an end sequence with a giant, black, smoke monster.

Bad 6: Jerusalem. In the novel, there are bastions of civilization which were prepared for the plague, or handled it in a brutally efficient way. I liked this concept. Watching Jerusalem fall because of both a dumb plot device and a tidal wave of CGI zombies was just disappointing.

Bad 7: The "Cure." Oh, naturally there will just be a miraculous cure (in this case, camouflage) in the movie so that Brad Pitt can be the messiah character. Needless to say, this doesn't appear in the book. No, the book went for something far more dramatic and, dare I use the word, "edgy." There is a delicious irony, well-crafted and expertly executed by Brooks, in having the "savior" of mankind being an old racist member of apartheid Africa. He presents us with this despicable character who created an unthinkable plan for dealing with a native African uprising, its sole purpose to save the white population.

Terrible, right? And this is the plan which will prove to turn the tide in the war of mankind vs. the undead. There was a subtle, necessary evil to this plan that makes it so effective in Brooks' hands. Instead, the movie went for a safe, deus ex machina, or in this case, virus ex machina. But more about that in:

From Pitt's Jump to Conclusions Mat, Tom's safe!

Bad 8: Jump to conclusions mat: So Brad Pitt sees a soldier with an injured leg, an elderly man and a scrawny kid avoided by zombies and from this, he is able to conclude that a potent virus is what will cure mankind. Let's break this slippery slope down, shall we?

A soldier with a bum leg. We don't know why he has a bum leg, but let's assume it's some type of muscular- or bone-related injury which probably occurred on-duty. With a limp that noticeable, I find it hard to believe he would get through boot camp. That is not terminal. He's a professional soldier meaning that he's probably in better health than 70% of the population that we watch the zombies tear through. But the bum leg prevents them from attacking him. By this logic, shouldn't the Israeli soldier with Pitt be totally safe because she's missing her hand?  Zombies are able to run on broken legs, I wouldn't think a limp would stop them.

An elderly man. From looking at this old man, what possible illness would Pitt's character be able to determine, other than old age? Okay, so do the zombies avoid old people because they're going to die soon? So from this, we should conclude that all old people should be okay, right? No, because we saw a few elderly zombies. Oh boy...

An unhealthily thin child. Calling him unhealthily thin is a stretch, but I'm giving the movie the benefit of the doubt here. What ailment would Pitt be able to determine from this boy's frame other than, possibly, malnourishment? So they don't like malnourished people. Wouldn't this mean that a large portion of the world would be safe? Kate Moss must be relieved (har har, I'm here all week)! 

None of these people have anything in common -- old age, thinness and a bum leg. From this random mix of evidence, Pitt's conclusion should be that they don't like people who aren't 100% healthy. Instead, he makes a massive leap of logic and assumes they have a terminal illness. (Boy, I'd love to see how he investigated war crimes... "I'll just assume this is irrefutable proof!") Truth be told, this is almost identical to Jeff Goldblums "give the aliens a virus" plan. Congratulations, WWZ, you just matched wits with Independence Day.

Bad #8: The budget called, it's leaving. After displaying large, flashy set pieces, that the movie ends on such an anticlimactic note wreaks of budget problems. Which is a shame given that the movie didn't need most of what we saw. Instead it just feels like a big budget action movie which is cut short in the name of wrapping it up with a bow.

I think what bothers me the most about this is that it's clearly an example of wanting to cash-in on a popular, well-liked name. World War Z the book is (in my opinion) a modern classic and has earned its place in the hallows of zombie canon. The name alone undoubtedly did half the work for them. Which is disgraceful.

Try to imagine if someone decided to make a movie called The Catcher in the Rye. It stars a young, dejected man with a hat, unsure of his place in the world as he battles Mexican drug cartels through Jack Ryan-style political espionage (SPLOSIONS!) with not so subtle commentary on evil pharmaceutical companies. Oh, did I mention the hat is CGI?

Ayup.

Get over here!!

It's official Kombateers: Mortal Kombat has an official release date of 04/19/11. It's okay to do a dance, this one looks good.

If rumors are to be believed, NetherRealm Studios (see what they did there?) are determined to reboot the series. Gone are the obnoxiously silly finisher moves, and the even sillier character designs.* From screens popping up around the web, it looks slick and full of promise.

I've always been a die-hard MK fan. I can honestly say that Mortal Kombat has played a prominent role in most phases of my life. As a young teen I remember rigging the MK2 cabinet in a hotel in Macau with a Aussie boy named Tom. As a high schooler I can remember hanging out in an orange shag carpeted basement, determined to see every MK3's character's finisher. As a young woman, newly dating my future husband, I can remember house sitting for his mother, unlocking the entirety of the Krypt in MK: Deadly Alliance. And, as a side note, let's face it: Scorpion is the hotness.

I mention this because it seems that most old school gamers of my generation also have a fond memory associated with the franchise. While not one of the first fighting games, Mortal Kombat definitely brought something new to the table, and that may be why so many people look back upon the franchise with such nostalgia.

Which may be why Deception and Armageddon were so woefully disappointing. As a person who never sells video games or books because I feel they are "old friends," I fully admit to ridding myself of both games not 72 hours after purchase. Which is also a nice way of saying, to me, the series was dead ... until the screens and teasers for Mortal Kombat started surfacing.

From what I've seen, and what has been promised, I'm comfortable admitting that I am very, very excited and so too should you be.

*sigh. The female characters look obnoxious as always but I long ago came to terms with Mortal Kombat refusing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, women play their games.

Closure. It's not just for bad relationships.

Yes, it's true: Duke Nukem Forever finally has a release date. Oh frabulous day! Now we can rush right out to purchase what appears to be ... a generic ... Fallout-esque, shooter... thing. I know what you're saying "Ain't no way I'm payin' $59.99 for this!" Well, you're wrong. You might not pay $60 for it, but you're going to play it. I don't care if every game reviewer from here to Illium gives it a resounding 'F' (they won't, but more on that later), you're going to play it. Why? Because you have to.

If you're looking at this post, or if the the release date for Duke Nukem was even a blip on your radar, chances are you were a fan of the proto-wise-cracking hero from days of yore. Which brings me to reason number one why you are going to play this game:

Do you remember Duke Nukem? I mean actually remember the games, not your nostalgia-tainted fond memories of parts of the game. Nothing about Duke Nukem was ever innovative or ground-breaking.* They were all generic "like-this-game-but" sorts of ordeals punctuated by testosterone-fueled, chauvinistic quips and puns. Don't forget the game was initially built on the Quake engine (see below), and then the Unreal engine. This series does not have an original bone in its body! Duke Nukem is not the Phantom Menace. It cannot be as large of a disappointment as your inner-self is whispering to you as you read this, because there's not a mammoth foundation of awesome to destroy. So what I'm saying boils down to: really, other than $$, what do you have to lose?

Reason two you will play this game, is the same reason you've tried Twinkie wiener sandwiches or Sippin' Syrup: you know it's going to be bad, but you must sample it for yourself. No one can describe Battlefield Earth; it must be experienced.


Reason three you will play this game is, above all else: closure. Again, if you're reading this, chances are you remember the original announcement for Duke Nukem Forever, back when it was going to be built on the Quake engine. Wait... Quake? Wasn't that that Doom-clone from, like, 1997 ( look it up, kids)? Holy crap! Have we be waiting 14 years for this?! Shouldn't this game descend from the heavens on a fiery chariot and bring peace to the Middle East? Yeah, that's right. It should. So you're going to play it just so you can marvel in the banality that will come from a game this long in development.

And then you'll drink a few beers, find the fun parts, the funny lines and the token good boss fight, and in 10 years you'll look back at it with the same fondness on which you look back at the original Duke Nukem.

*Gentlemen, start your flamers. I stand by this statement, wrapped in asbestos.

An adult retrospect on Dead Space 2's advertising campaign

First: let it be known that I was a fan of the original Dead Space. Yes, it was a direct rip-off of Event Horizon, and not terribly frightening, but it was an all-around good game. And I do still plan on buying Dead Space 2 when it releases next month.

Having said that, I have to say their ad campaign has officially irked me. Being one of the frou-frou "games are art" type of people, I find myself constantly arguing that video games are no longer the teen boy's entertainment of choice, and are, in fact, the playground of adults. Often times have I made the argument that not only are video games one of the best values in the entertainment industry, they are, quite literally, the future of adult entertainment.

Then I received a link for yourmomhatesdeadspace2.com . My first thought was "this must be a joke." I quickly realized it was a very real ad campaign. Wow. So that I do no seem to be some suburbanite soccer mom with zero sense of humor, let me explain why this ad campaign irks me so:

1) I am an adult. As such, I have not cared whether my mom did or did not like something in about, oh, 15 years. (Yikes! Age reveal!) Personally, once you can smoke cigarettes, stay out late and have to pay your own rent check ... shocking your parents by engaging in an activity the do not approve of is, well, juvenile.

2) Have you met my mom? My mom would hate Dead Space 2. She also hates Ford Tauruses, inflation and R-rated movies. This is a woman who thought Silence of the Lambs was the scariest film ever made. Ever. Her radar is not what I would consider "accurate." Nor is she particularly hard to shock and scare. Nor were the "moms" in the ads.

3) Why can't my dad hate it? Here's a secret, guys: my dad would hate Dead Space 2 as much as my mom. As a D&D-rolling, LAN-party hosting, M:TG-trading girl, I have always accepted that female gamers are a largely ignored entity. Game developers have long treated us like the red-headed stepchild, assuming our game play consists of Cooking Mama, Final Fantasy X-2, and yelling at our boyfriends for playing games. Why can't old people in general hate Dead Space 2? Why is just moms? Because moms are female, and we all know the gentler sex just can't handle that game-stuff.

Same infection, different mall...

So after playing "Dead Rising 2" for a few days, I have to say that your opinion of the game will depend largely on how much you liked the first game.

The first "Dead Rising" did a few things well, namely: zombie carnage. To date, I have yet to play a more fun game for sheer zombie death. Pitting you against hundreds of zombies with quite literally any weapon at your disposal fulfilled the zombie hunter fantasy within me on many, many levels. There are few things more satisfying than beating to death a walking dead monstrosity with a golf club, or even better, the samurai sword.

Another thing they did well was a time limit. As anyone who knows me knows, I am nothing if not anal retentive when it comes to games. I explore every nook and cranny and open every box (it could be filled with chocolate, okay?) in attempt to get 100% completion/exploration bonuses. However, on the other hand, I also hate a false sense of urgency. "Mass Effect 2" comes to mind most readily as the "omg, we have to get out here, we're going to die!!! ... as soon as you trigger the quick time event. You know, whenever." If it's going to be urgent, make it friggin' urgent. Give me a challenge, people!

"Dead Rising" did just that. Giving everything a time limit, along with a time limit for the entire game (x-hours before the gov't comes to bust you out of hock), really tested your RPG seek-and-loot skills to the max.

Things "Dead Rising" did not do so well were story, plot, dialog and voice acting. The entire game wreaked of a Japanese game trying to cater to Western players. And let's face it, Japanese players and Western players have very different standards (aka "The MGS Raiden Phenomenon") . When not massacring zombies en masse, the game felt, at best, like a dull movie you're watching because nothing else is on, and at worst, like nails on a blackboard.

"Dead Rising 2" is back and suffers from the same drawbacks: kickass game play hampered by awful dialog, characters, acting and story. In fact, it's not only similar to "Dead Rising," it's practically the same game. There are some improvements, such as the save system and the awesome new "combo" feature that allows you to combine two weapons into a new killing machine, but really, it plays like it should have been a DLC rather than a whole new game.

Having said that, the combo system really is awesome. Combine a bucket with drills to make a zombie-eating, well, bucket, and the tired and true "nails + baseball bat." The only problem with combos is that you break to a blessedly-short (but quickly annoying) cut scene of Chuck intensely working to combine two items. Now this works for, say, the lawnmower, or fire extinguisher, but nails and a baseball bat? No, I don't think so.

Overall, I recommend the game for die-hard fans of the first who want to relive the joy of killing your way through throngs of zombies, but personally, I'd wait to buy it used. In fact, I plan on selling back my copy as soon as I finish it; and I never sell back games.

Why I am done with WoW

Cataclysm is around the corner and with the promise of worgen and Deathwing, I once again find myself really, really, really considering running out and buying the damn xpac. BUT, I'd also have to buy Wrath and that does give me pause. Fortunately I have come to my senses and here is why:

We started playing WoW in November of '04. We hooked up with a friend in January of '05 and threw ourselves in 100%. We played until November of '08, at which point, it was time to quit. I found myself shaking my staff at newbies who did not know who Nef was. I found myself pining for the good ol' days of actual rep grinding. And fishing, my most beloved of past times, was now popular. Egads!

I remember when Scholo was a friggin' PITA. Before the original nerf patch, when the instance was at least a 2 hour venture. To anyone who remembers these days, all I should have to say is the zombie room and have you cringe. I remember when UBRS required an actual strategy. I can remember wiping at the end, and having to sneak back in cat form to rez a damn priest or pally.

I remember when Vael was referred to as "The Guild Breaker." Longest 4% of health EVER. I remember spending hours upon hours of grinding, killing, gathering and collecting to get 3 pts. of rep. I can remember farming for hours to trade for dark iron ore to get the damn +22 enchant.

I remember AQ40 and the first time you encountered Hulu. I can remember spending hours looking for a damn group to go fight a world dragon. But most importantly, I remember being the one of the first druids on our server to have full Stormrage, the diamond ring from Nef and the pineapple staff from the world dragons.

And then Burning Crusade came and my epic, pimped out gear was suddenly gimped and I had to do the level grind again. Okay, I guess. Why not? Wait ... the friggin' draenei? Wth?! Gah, nvm, the raging fanboy is trying to digress.

The game was suddenly filled with n00bs who thought the rep grind was a PITA. Who would never see Nef. Who would never farm for Wildheart. Raiding was lame, PvP was lame... I was just over it.

Now people with whom I work want me to get back in the game on a "casual" basis. The problem being that I am not a casual player. I want to raid, and raid it right. I am a farmer. I will log on 4 hours before a raid and craft, enchant and cook to prepare. I will be at the instance 30 minutes before and help summon. And God help us if someone is late or if we have to PuG. Because 4 years of a world where PuGs were embedded in the 7th level of hell, have ingrained within me that I do not party with people I do not know. If I'm logging on to go party with strangers, what's the point?

I miss joking on Vent and hearing Med yell for more Dots, more DPS! I miss cursing Sheyla for drawing aggro. I miss Pally tank healing. I miss the good old days. And no amount of bells and whistles can bring that back.

And really, the people with whom I work think I'm strange enough as it is. I don't need them seeing that I'm a friggin' hardcore, old school MMORPGer, too. :)

Awaiting "New Vegas."

While I've had very little game time as of late (work is insane), I have to say I am genuinely happy for "New Vegas." (I will be at the midnight release, come hell or high water)

It may come as a surprise to those who know me that "Fallout 3" appealed to me in the least. While I vastly prefer Warhammer 40,000 to Warhammer, and am not a huge fantasy book fan in general, I do prefer my RPGs to be fantasy rather than sci-fi. "Dragon Age" was far and away better than "Mass Effect" to me, and I must preferred "Morrowind" to "Fallout 2."

But for some strange reason, "Fallout 3" really struck a chord with me. The plot was "okay," and the difficulty curve was definitely on the shallow end (as someone pointed out, I was wallpapering my house with money, health and ammo), but there's something about the ginormous, "eh, do what you want..." feeling to a game that I really like.

"Oblivion" annoyed the pants off of me because of the damn Oblivion gates. The gates were little more than plot-driven cliff racers, though there wasn't a patch to get rid of them. And, as a devout Morag Tong supported, it galled me to join the Dark Brotherhood. But I digress.

"Fallout 3" sucked away more hours of my life than I care to admit to and I genuinely enjoyed every aspect. It was one of the few games that I did not want to beat because I didn't want it to be over. But eventually all things must end and after a few DLCs, I beat the game and retired it to the game-case.

"New Vegas" looks like the equivalent of "Bloodmoon," the expansion pack that, as anyone who knows me knows, I revere above all other x-packs. As I griped here (seemingly) an age ago, "Dragon Age: Awakening" was one of my biggest disappointments in x-packs. It had substance, but no purpose. "New Vegas" (like "Bloodmoon") looks to have both.

Hopefully I'll see y'all at midnight. Now, it's back to drooling over Tyson Rios in "AoT: 4oth Day," because there's something wrong with my head. :)