Fargo (1996)

Film: Fargo
Release: 1996, theatrical
Starring: Frances McDormand, Steve Buscemi, William H. Macy
Directed by: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A man wanting to cheat his wealthy father-in-law out of a large sum of money plans a fake kidnapping scheme that goes horribly wrong.

Hans' thoughts:

Written, Directed, Produced and Edited by the phenomenal Coen Bros. we have Fargo, the story of what too much greed and do to you. Conman and car salesman Jerry Lundegaard finds out he needs a rather large sum of money and so he arranged a fake kidnapping of his wife so he could get money out of his wealthy father-in law. To do that he hires two crooks, Carl Showalter played by Steve Buscemi and Gaear Grimsrud by Peter Stormare. Everything seems to go fine, but when the psychopathic Gaear shoots and kills a traffic patrol officer followed by a likvidation of witnesses the two kidnappers are now at the receiving end of a manhunt. The officer in charge is the kindhearted, highly pregnant detective Marge Gunderson played by Frances McDormand. The film is a lonely one, while all the characters have people they interact with on a daily basis throughout the movie, they all ultimately end up alone in their key moment of the film. Marge Gunderson is a happily married woman, but when she finally catches up to the bad guys she does so completely alone. Jerry Lundegaard is also finally captured alone, and the two crooks that become the driving force behind the event of the film all ultimately meet their fates on their own in some regard. 

Gunderson, our main character, is almost a Christ or Maria character. Being kind and forgiving to everyone she meets she never displays anything that remotely looks like a dark side. She's a lover, not a killer and she simply cannot comprehend the kind of darkness that defines so many of the characters in the film. This could very well have been a very bland character, if not for the excellent performance by McDormand that makes this character seem infinitely believable - like the way a child would see their mother. Kind but firm. A lot of the shots of the film are done from very far away, in the infinite cold landscape of Middle-America where the film takes place. Large empty sceneries with singular characters walking through a very empty world. The snowy environment makes us focus directly on the action, while also providing a sad empty atmosphere. In stark contrast, you have most of the scenes with Marge Gunderson be in company with someone else, either questioning people for leads on her case or being home with her husband. All these shots, with the exception of when she's at the scenes of darkness like the chases or the crime scenes, have warm indoor colours. However all of the police character treat the murder much less dramatically than you usually see in these kinds of stories. Saddened by the loss but with a professional restraint and objectivity - they're at their workplace. It's a very nice change of pace from what you usually see in the genre where characters will become personally involved.

Completely polarizing from Marge you have the silent giant Gaear Grimsrud. Gaear is a taker of life instead of a giver and while Marge will likely make kind idle conversation with other characters Gaear is a man of ultimate materialism. He doesn't interact with others except when completely necessary and he clearly has a very cold darkness inside of him, comparable to the unkind snowy landscape that surrounds the movie. The one that suffers the ultimate punishment however is the movies tour de force, Jerry Lundegaard. He's almost comically tragic in how everything just goes wrong for him at every turn, the same can be said for Steve Buscemi who's in tip top shape doing what he does best in the role of Carl Showalter. He's a fast-talking unlucky man that like Grimsrud takes pleasure in materialism but doesn't stop at the little things. While Grimsrud finds pleasure in a TV-show and a small dinner, the despicable Showalter wants everything that's best in life, women food and alcohol. Some of the best moments in the movie comes from Buscemi as everything just falls apart around him in what should have been an easy bit of money. 

Fargo is not for everyone, the films main driving force is it's celebration of the simple things and it's intimidating atmosphere. It may feel too slow for audiences used to more actiondriven stories about remakable people. For the rest of us, here is a sweet story about a mother-to-be trying to comprehend the significantly darker world around her and her little family. 

Vertigo (1958)

Film: Vertigo
Release: 1958, Theatrical
Starring: James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window

Description: A newly retired police detective with a crippling fear of heights is talked into shadowing the wife of a wealthy shipbuilder for the sake of her safety - and falls in love with her in the process.

Hans' thoughts:

Dealing once again with his core traits, we have the Hitchcock film Vertigo. Possibly one of the strangest additions to his filmography, Vertigo maintains a very strange balance between your average romantic drama, and an odd crime/ghost story. I don't how much I actually "got" this film, at the surface it seems like a straight up crime drama starring John Stewart as the stand-in for your average person - as he has done in so many other Hitchcock pictures. However the story is about him being hired to follow a woman whom is believed to be possesed by a ghost, and we are quickly wrapped up in the city's local history and actually a pretty good story. Then, by the halfway point, the story makes a major tonal shift. It goes from being a "what's going on" mystery to being a romantic drama, and then once again by the final act of the film, we go through yet another tonal shift into something very dank and depressing. It kinda follows the three major steps of young love: The first discovery, followed by the period where they're wrapped up in being lovey dovey and then finally, the depression following the break-up. It's made a point from the get go that our main character has a crippling fear of heights. 

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

However that fact doesn't really come into play in the movie before the end of the first act. For a period, the audience is actually sort of "coaxed" into forgetting that it was a character point at all. Instead we're following the focus of our main character, whom besides his fear of heights is pretty much a blank slate. Of course as with all Hitchcock characters, he has a very fleshed out background, some would say perhaps unnecessarily so. We are given chunks of information in throwaway dialogue that has no bearance on the plot at all, but to it's credit it does make some of the lines seem a bit more natural (Why would anyone only talk about things that are extremely important?). James Stewart as well is, unfortunately, far from his best in this film. He seems either extremely typecasted or extremely bored with the movie, not straying too far from his performance in any other Hitchcock film I've reviewed for this site. I actually forgot which Hitchcock movie I was watching for a moment, thinking I had popped in "The Man Who Knew Too Much" by mistake. 

In this film we actually have two female leads, one is pretty well written and has some funny lines. The other is the one we spend most of the movie with. That sounds harsh, but it actually annoys me that we saw so little of the characters Majorie "Midge" Woods, played by Barbara Bel Geddes.  Of course as was custom for female characters written in the 50's, they both swoon over our main character. But whereas Geddes' character actually has grounds for doing so, the romantic sub-plot with our other female lead played by Kim Novak kind of comes out of nowhere. I sound bitter, but I had much preferred if this film had taken a completely different route than it ended up doing. There's not much to the love story element in the movie and yet it almost takes over the picture from the halfway point onwards. Leaving behind great potential for a mystery. It actually comes to the point that the final tonal shift of the final act comes completely out of left field. However, the devil is in the details and I admire how much work was put into each type of movie that's in the film. The tonal shift isn't just in the plot, no EVERYTHING about the film changes. From the way the movie is shot, to the use of sound. The First and latter halves of the film feels like two completely different films. That's to be heavily applauded.

I don't know why, and I feel terrible for saying this but I just didn't care all that much for this movie, it felt like a rushed version of what could've been a truly interesting examination of either one of these three major plot elements. Between the ghost mystery, the psychological aspect and the love story either one of these could probably have been good movies either on their own or only combined with one of the other parts. As it is, none of the parts really come into their own because of a lack of choosing to go down one particular road with the story and it turns out to be a case of "too many cooks spoil the broth". It's not a problem contained to this movie however, not knowing what to focus on in a movie is actually comparatively a very modern problem. Take, as an example, the third Sam Raimi Spider-Man movie that suffered highly because of the large number of major enemies and plotpoints that were scattered throughout the film to the point that it just didn't come together for a satisfying conclusion. The same can be said for this film, the ending came out of nowhere and it feels like the writer either didn't know where to go with the story next or realised he had hit the running time for the piece. 20 minutes of wrapping things up would've been a welcome addition to the film. There's just a lack of confrontation after the big reveal that leaves a giant gap in the film.

Miller's Crossing (1990)

Film: Miller's Crossing
Release: 1990, Theatrical
Starring: Gabriel Byrne, Marcia Gay Harden, John Turturro
Directed by: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
IMDB page: link opens in a new window
Description: The advisor to a prohibition-era crime lord becomes the only person holding back an all out war between the competing families.

Hans' thoughts:

1919-1933, the consumption and dealing of alcohol is prohibited throughout the United States of America. Ironically, the men and women who were involved in creating the now notorious underground bars and smuggling passages has since then become national folk heroes. Like so many other movies, there is "Miller's Crossing" - a straight up crime drama following men with more vices than can be counted on a hand. Our hero is Tom Reagan, a classic mobster with ties to an Irish crime family that runs the city he lives in. He's considered one of the top advisors, second only to the boss himself. It's said that he's "always got the angle" on what is going on around town. Of course that isn't as true as it would first seem. While our main character certainly seems self-confident and always on top of things (played excellently by Gabriel Byrne) it quickly becomes apparent to the audience that he might have bitten off more than he can chew. He's a character that's been seen before, reminiscent of main characters from detective noir films. He's very much a "man's man", keeping his stoic demeanor in the face of a life threatening situation and always with a quick line to throw at others. This is also where we see one of the main qualities of the Coen bros., if I had to pick only one thing they do well it would be their way with words. 

Now a short admission is in order, I have not seen all that many Coen Bros. movies. This is not because I dislike their movies or because they only dabble in genre's that fall outside my personal preference. No, instead it simply wasn't in the cards. Watching this movie, I can certainly see what I've been missing out on. Between memorable characters, funny lines and just plain beautifully done shots I cannot believe I didn't wise up to these guys sooner. Gangster movies set in this era is one of my favorite sub-genres. I love the way they talked, the look of most of these films with the pinstripe suits and the tommy guns, and I just love how folksy the silent respect between even notorious crime lords were - according to these kinds of movies at least. If you were hoping for a super realistic look at prohibition-era crime syndicates, this isn't the place to look. This very much rehashes the tropes of the genre. This isn't to say that that's necessarily a bad thing, in fact I'd say this is one of the best crime syndicate movies out there. Our main character of Tom Reagan is also a bit more relatable than that of The Godfathers' Michael Corleone. I say "main character" and not "hero", because while Tom certainly tries to prevent a war in the criminal underworld, there is not much in the way of good deeds in his repertoire. The man has a end game, and it seems like he may be a bit more ambitious than he first lets on. What exactly he's actually up to during all this is of course up to you to find out by watching the movie.

Our other characters are pretty good as well, there is no one in the film that I would characterize as the "main villain". None of these people are good guys and everybody is in for themselves in the end. The actors all do a terrific job, but I wouldn't feel right if I didn't mention the very minor but memorable appearance of Steve Buscemi as the nervous fast talking Mink. He talks so fast in the one scene he shows up in that it was actually kinda hard to follow what he was saying, though I am pretty sure I got the general idea. As for our female lead, I'm sad to say there is not much to her. She seems like your average 30's femme fatale who does bad things to get along in a man's world. This is not to say that she's not interesting at all but she does come off as a tad too generic and one-off, which is sad when you think about how good the writing is in almost all other areas.

Jon Polito as Johnny Caspar

Our two crime bosses in the movie are played by Jon Polito and Albert Finney. We don't get much face-time with Finney as most of the movie takes place in the Polito camp, but what we see is pretty good. Finney's character gets one of the movie's few action scenes and it is very well done, from the sound work to how well the events are strung together Finney really makes an impression, like Buscemi, in spite of how little we actually see of him. Polito plays a much larger role in the movie, and for what it's worth I found him funny as the character of the up and coming boss Johnny Caspar. Though I have to say for whatever reason, and this might be the comic guy in me speaking, I couldn't stop picturing him as a new take on the Batman villain The Penguin. His methods are very akin to the character and had it not been for Polito's character being a lot more dignified it would have been an almost perfect live-action adaptation. I very much doubt that the Coen bros. had the Gotham City crime boss in mind when they wrote the character, but I just feel I have to put it out there.

The plot of the movie is, unpredictable to say the least. Every time I thought I knew in what direction the movie was going a new event comes in and changes the goals of our main character, if only temporarily. One moment the movie seems like it heading in a Romeo & Juliet-esque direction and the next everything is about something completely different. Unlike the main character of Tom Reagan, the audience is never let in on him "knowing all the angles". He seems to be able to predict most of the events that are coming long before they do and when he's actually surprised - so is the audience right along with him. You never know what the characters are going to do because unlike so many other movies you are never let in on their secret plans or their actual motivations. Things happen just as they would in the real world and it seems at times like we are right there observing it from a safe distance. We're also left completely in the dark about certain things, what is the name of the city? What is the last name of one of our crime bosses? What exactly is the balance of power in the city? We're never told that because we don't need to - focus is kept quietly on following things from the eyes of our main character and nothing is mentioned without it sounding natural in dialogue. From the Fox logo, the very first sound we hear is that of ice cubes in a whisky glass and from then on we are shown a tale of a life in the criminal underworld during the prohibition. 

Casablanca (1942)

Film: Casablanca
Release: 1942, Theatrical
Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid
Directed by: Michael Curtiz
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In the early 1940's, hundreds of Europeans fled to North Africa to catch the plane to Lisbon, where they could fly to America and escape the horrors of the second world war. The last stop on the route to Lisbon is unoccupied French Morocco. Our story takes place in Casablanca, where a man's café plays host to neutral ground.

Hans' thoughts:

One of the most quoted movies of all time, the story of Casablanca is one of love, loss, and self-sacrifice for the greater good. We meet our reluctant hero in the city of Casablanca, in this time a place where money talks - and not much else. As large as the scope of the movie is, illustrating major points about the second world war, most of it takes place in a café not much bigger than a tv-set of today. Most of the score of the film is therefore diegetic, being played beautifully by an onscreen band and pianist. Historically, the movie presents the viewpoints of people who lived with hearing news about the war every day, and curiously in that regard, Casablanca was invaded around the time the movie was made and released.

Part of the appeal of Casablanca is the cozy center of Rick's Café, the main turning point of the movie. Outside in the rest of the world, everything is hell breaking loose but the café is like the little place where the people of it's day could find safe haven, regardless of politics. Our reluctant hero Rick, played by Humphrey Bogart, is the owner of the café. He has certain principles and he tries his best to be neutral in every regard - even women. As far as the hero's journey goes, Rick certainly seems to go through a couple of the steps. When he is given the opportunity to fix his crisis, it is with much reluctance and by the point of no return he has completely pulled up his roots from everything he once knew. It's not all dark though, as much as Rick is a struggling character he also has a certain charm about him, this is because of the writing style of the Epstein bros., who gave the movie a slight comedic angle making Rick and his peers masters of sarcasm.

The female lead of the story, played by the lovely Ingrid Bergman, is a woman who has had the naiveté of her youth stolen from her much too soon, and the complete mess that is the relationship between her and Rick is one of the major driving forces behind the tale. She's confused about every decision she takes, but loyalty is a major quality of hers to say the least. As for the way the movie is shot, it plays it safe. This was originally made as dime-a-dozen romance movie so it wasn't an ambitious project by anyone involved. However, somehow they have managed to make the back-drop shot method still work compared to modern movies. In case you're not aware, the back-drop method is the way of having actors in front of a projected video working as a backdrop. It's a simplistic method but it gets the job done and the lack of color certainly helps in terms of not making the change in quality too jarring.

Casablanca is a timeless tale, as much as it is based around the ongoing war few can not admit to relating to the drama in a good old fashioned triangle-romance. What makes it interesting is that it might as well have ended much differently, which would have made the story trivial and without much substance, however a mix between the nature of the age it was made, combined with changing the writers 4 times have made the movie more of a "best of all worlds" mixed bag. The movie has goofy recognizable characters, a simple plot, but at the same time it also allows itself to try and fully explore all the elements of the story. From the battle between two music numbers in the bar, to the ambitious flashback to the lovers' time in paris to the off-the-wall endning about sacrificing your own happiness for something much greater then yourself - this story tells a tale of a man who lost his way and found it again. Humphrey Bogart played the man Rick in such a way that he is today the prototype for the reluctant but good at it's core hero. Much like Han Solo or Indiana Jones would be in the 70's and 80's or Eddie Valiant would be in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.

While the movie was not shot very ambitiously, the same can not be said for the lighting. Throughout the movie, Director Mark Curtiz has chosen to play a lot on Shadows, making the movie a study in Negative space, much like the Noir genre and the Sin City comic books would be inspired by later. Indeed, one could make the argument that the lighting of Casablanca, combined with Rick's charm would be a prototype of modern iterations of superheroes. 

Drive (2011)

Film: Drive
Release: 2011, Theatrical
Starring:  Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston
Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A young man works as a stunt driver and a mechanic. On the side he makes extra money as a getaway driver for criminals.

Hans' thoughts:

This is one of those movies that I had to force myself to sit through, Not because it's bad but because this is a very slow movie. You get the atmosphere of driving home in the dark, the radio only playing low beat music and everyone in the car being way too tired to tired to strike a conversation. Or if you're on your way home alone from a night out with friends, sitting in a mostly empty bus. That kind of feeling. I really couldn't explain it better than that. 

Explanations are actually something this movie doesn't spend a lot of time on. If you don't pay attention, you might miss out on vital information. It takes the notion of show don't tell way too far in my opinion. It is indeed, not a movie for the masses. Relying heavily on it's soundtrack, on the lighting and the expressions on the characters. In that regard, this is actually a great movie. But alas, it is an art piece and not something I would recommend for the sake of mere entertainment. It would go well in a media classroom, or in front of someone who already has a vested interest in film.

There is something to be said for the plot though, it tries it best to go against conventions and be it's own thing. What at first seems like an artsy remake of Transporter turns out to have so much going for it. Again, if you're actually into movies as a vested interest instead of just idle entertainment. This I imagine, is a movie that's divided critics and the wide audience pretty clean cut. Of course, being more artsy than for general audiences isn't a failure. There a plenty of great movies that 'normal' people wouldn't give 5 minutes of their time. However, I feel that explaining away lack of entertainment value with "this is not for these certain types of people" would be me failing as a critic. Is it a good movie? Yes! It's great! Actually I would call it a modern masterpiece. But there is not much enjoyment to be found here, and that is a fault - intended audience be damned.

The Conspirator (2010)

Film: The Conspirator
Release: 2010, Theatrical
Starring: James McAvoy, Robin Wright, Kevin Kline
Directed by: Robert Redford
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In 1865, The young attorney Frederick Aiken is given his first case - defending one of the accused conspirators of the murder of Abraham Lincoln, and a plot to kill his vice-president and the secretary of state.

Hans' thoughts:

These last few years, the Civil War and every subject surrounding it has been a popular thing to put on the silver screen. Among others were three separate Lincoln biography movies (two of which were purely fantasy), a cowboy revenge movie about slavery, and this. This movie quickly sets a somber tone, the first ten minutes are the conspirators to kill the president being rounded up, and an reenactment of the death of John Wilkes Booth in a burning barn (yes, that actually happened). Our main characters are the young attorney Frederick Aiken, just returned from fighting in the civil war as a captain on the side of the Union and Mary Surratt, the only female accused.

In a way, this movie reminded me of The Exorcism of Emily Rose. It had the same basic premise, a critical attorney is made to defend an accused that seems guilty by any stretch of their imagination but becomes more and more turned to believe the client is innocent while both parties learn something about themselves in the process. The movie even had Tom Wilkinson running around, making the connection even harder to abstain from. Actually, recalling every movie I've seen about attorneys, this was pretty formulaic.

The tone of the movie, as well as the injustices the characters face makes it hard not to make the connection between the events of the movie and the aftermath of 9/11, with a lot of civil liberties being set aside for the sake of revenge in war times and the atmosphere that was in the air in the time. Indeed, the kind of atmosphere that shows up after every massive tragic event. People make up their minds about the ones involved, demonizing everything without knowing the complete picture. A subject matter the Danish movie The Hunt also tackled recently albeit in a much darker and emotionally draining way. This is of course, free association. But the connection definitely feels accurate.

However, by the standards of these types of movies this was executed perfectly. It presented the historical events that was the movie's subject matter in a simple but compelling way, teaching about the reality of the case. If a bit preachy at certain points. The movie is just historically accurate enough to not suck out the entertainment value of the film. I'd wager a lot of people could get curious about the events after watching this movie - so in that regard, it does it's job. As I said though, the movie can get a bit preachy at points, making the other side of the case seem almost cartoonishly evil at points. This movie has a message to tell, and at times it can get a bit desperate to make sure we get the point.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

Film: The Man Who Knew Too Much
Release: 1956, Theatrical
Starring: James Stewart, Doris Day, Daniel Gélin
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A small American family from Indianapolis is visiting Marrekesh, Morocco. By chance, they are thrown into international political intrigue, a kidnapping, and the knowledge to stop a murder.

Hans' thoughts:  

When you first watch this movie, it seems like a typical Hitchcock movie - A small unassuming family is vacationing in Morocco. Everything seems fairly simple - if a bit slow. However, do not get disheartened, because while the first part of the movie is slow - probably for the sake of character development, Everything suddenly picks up when our main character Doctor McKennan is relied the details of an international murder plot. Thus becoming, you guessed it, The Man Who Knew Too Much!  

This movie is actually quite suspenseful, although it knows when it needs to give the audience a break to catch their breaths. Littered with small humorous moments and red herrings to keep you guessing. On the road we learn more about our characters, as they at the same time might just learn a little about themselves. Our main character, played by James Stewart, starts out as an unassuming naive everyday man. He's on vacation, so he's more trustful than he would've been at home. Taking his wife's worries at a distance, reassuring her at every turn. At the same time, when the movie starts becoming more about the mystery he tries to deal with everything himself. Even keeping his wife out of the loop. Unfortunately, Stewart seems to be playing the same character he's played in other Hitchcock movies, which is becoming sort of Old Hat for me by now. He's good at what he's doing, but he seems very typecast. I miss energy in his performance. He was way too laid back, his eyes seeming empty in some scenes.

The wife is a famous singer, fittingly played by the real-life singer Doris Day. This incidentally is the movie where she sang the hit song: Que Sera, Sera (Whatever will be, will be) that won an Oscar for Best Original Song in 1957. The song is introduced in the beginning of the movie and returns later as a nice little break from the drama. She's also surprisingly good at acting, carrying one or two scenes in stride.

I'd like to tell you that the movie follows fit with being just as good as the song. Unfortunately, that's not the case. We have a lot of really nice twists, some funny moments, good musical arrangement and a few imaginative shots. Unfortunately, it just seems like this movie wasn't made with as much care as others. Falling just short of being great. I'd say my feelings about this movie are lukewarm at best, though I do not hate it or dislike it, it just didn't do anything for me. I miss some information from the main plot, why did they want this man killed? Who were they? Information was sparse at best. The movies representation of law enforcement officials weren't exactly flattering either, making them seem like someone that just stands in the corner, gently nudging the bad guys to stop what they're doing and giving up at the first bump on the road.

So yeah, this is one of those movies that will entertain you while you're watching it, but when you start thinking about it you start finding a lot of problems with it. So is it good? Well, considering it drives your suspension of disbelief enough to make you oversee all the problems, I'd say it does it's job. Which is all anyone can ask for.

Story-liners: Fallout 3 (2008)

War, war never changes.

Game: Fallout 3
Alternate version: Fallout 3 Game of the Year Edition
Release: 2008, retail
System: PC/Sony Playstation 3/Microsoft Xbox 360
Starring: Liam Neeson, Malcolm McDowell, Ron Perlman
Directed by: Ashley Cheng
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In the year 2077, the American people sealed themselves in bunkers called Vaults to escape the impending nuclear holocaust. In 2277, you are a citizen of Vault 101. The Vault has never been reopened, and probably never would be, if your father hadn't suddenly done so. You find yourself chased out of Vault 101 and into The Capital Wasteland trying to chase down your dad and find out why.

Hans' thoughts:

Before I get to the actual review, I'd like to state that since this is a open-world RPG, the game is absolutely HUMONGOUS. Therefore, I will keep to the main story arc of the game, disregarding the side-quests and downloadable content. Sit back tight, this one's gonna be a long one:

The Fallout series has always been a very politically oriented franchise. Set in a world where the paranoia of the Cold War endured and the popular culture always held a similar vein to 50's culture. To me, this series serves as a slap back to reality for those who dare speak of the 50's as "the good old days". Funnily enough, the series does lend a certain love to the era, making a lot of the positive parts of the game be derived from the 50's. Here I'm especially talking about the in-game radio playing music from the 30's/40's/50's. Seemingly the only music that survived the nuclear holocaust were by singers like Billie Holiday - who would have thought it?

After a short intro sequence, and a narrator bringing you up to speed on the state of the universe, the game starts off at your birth. Here you'll go through character creation, followed by certain moments from your childhood all the way until you've turned around 19 your first steps, your 10th birthday, your school finals). Here, the first thing you'll notice is probably this: your father is voiced by Liam Neeson. Now, if you haven't had the urge to check the cast of the game's voice actors, you probably will now. Ron Perlman? Malcolm McDowell? The game actually has quite a few big name actors attached to it, but somehow Fallout 3's atmosphere manages to pull you so far into the story that you forget the world around you. This is what happened to me at least, in any other case I had noticed Neeson right away, just as well with Perlman. However, the few seconds of an absolutely stunning intro-sequence made me forget about everything. Suddenly, I was in The Capital Wasteland.

Throughout the game, the player
 character is consistently referred to as
"The Lone Wanderer" and "That Kid from the Vault".

As for the other voice actors attached, they generally do a good job. However, it brought me out of the experience more than a few times on the sheer scope of how recycled certain voice actors were. You have 3 or 4 voice actors doing the voices for almost all the characters - important ones included. The only exceptions to this rule are your father (Liam Neeson), the narrator (Ron Perlman), President Eden (Malcolm McDowell), Three-Dog (Erik Pullum), Elder Lyons (William Bassett), the player character at age 1 (Jake Howard) and Amata (Odette Annable). The rest of the 50+ voiced characters in the game are done by Jeff Baker, Karen Carbone, Johnny Contino, Gregory Gorton, Peter Gil and Duncan Hood. Those are a LOT of characters for such a small crew of voice actors. Unfortunately, this also means that a lot of the work done by the 6 crowd voices are at times phoned in performances. While certainly not to the depths of some dubs I've heard, at times it is certainly a bit emotionless. This isn't helped by the fact that non-playable characters keep direct eye-contact with you during the entire conversation you have with each of them. You will notice the entire problem a lot more, when sound-files bundle up and a character speaks through 2 or 3 different voice actors because of the conversation choices you have made. A frail old man will suddenly speak with the voice of a 30-something and such.

On the right, a typical raider from Fallout. On the left, Wez from
Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior

Stylistically this game is beautiful, in spite of the destruction of the world around you. The 200 years following the nuclear holocaust has led to mutated animals, a heavy decline in the state of buildings - those that are left, anyway - and of course the unity of what's left of humanity leaves much to be desired. Speaking of humanity, while a lot of the positive input you get from the game (such as the aforementioned radio) take a lot of notes from the 50's, a lot of the antagonists you face are grounded firmly in the 60's and 70's. An immediate threat (besides the monsters) you'll face is that of the raiders, gangs running through the wastes in packs. They are all heavily inspired by 60's, 70's and 80's counter-culture, especially that of punk. They drink a lot, they yell a lot, they curse a lot, they take a lot of drugs and a big bulk of them have Mohawks (which, if you think about it doesn't make much sense in a world where resources are very limited). Though many of them are cannibals and takes slaves, if that somehow makes it make more sense. They also wear these sorts of strapped together metal armors, I imagine their initial designs were inspired by that of the Mad Max movies.

As for the actual looming villain in the distance, this is a case of a great setup, but not that much of a pay-off. Throughout the game you see these small robots flying around, transmitting a radio signal you can play from your "Pip-boy", a sort of all-in-one computer that's strapped to your wrist (the thing also serves as the game's menu system). The radio signal is transmitted by someone calling themselves "President Eden". Eden sounds like a kindly old man, living up to the all-American patriot stereotype. He speaks of a dog he had as a child, what it means to be an American and quotes famous Americans, seemingly oblivious of the extremely "survival-of-the-fittest" world around him. The music he plays on his radio station is also music you would describe as fiercely patriotic. These are songs such as "Stars and Stripes", "Yankee doodle" and "Dixie". 

I've been thinking quite a bit lately about something we can all relate to, something that is unquestionably, inescapably… American. I am referring, of course, to our great national pastime - baseball. - John Henry Eden 

As for the pay-off, while it is certainly surprising to find out who President Eden is, the final battle against the antagonists of the game could have been so much more than what it eventually amounts to. I'm not going to spoil what it is here - suffice to say that the build up is so much better than the actual pay-off.

That is actually a very accurate description of the entirety of the main story-line of the game as well. While the game itself has some great themes, pieces of dialogue and atmosphere, the main story-line ultimately falls flat. Many of the non-canon side-quests amount to much better told stories and in some cases more well-rounded characters. Especially the optional add-on content puts a lot more emphasis on character development and detail. The father (the only other character featured in the game from the beginning to the end) ends up being a very one-note character, ultimately becoming the "father was a saint" stereotype. Throughout the game, he constantly makes a point of quoting the deceased mother's favorite religious quote:

I am Alpha and Omega. The beginning... and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life, freely. - Revelation 21:6

To the quotes credit it does end up being a great narrative tool on the hows and whys of his actions. However, the father ends up being very bland, which is sad when considering the talent doing the voice. This is a classic example of the journey being better than the destination.

Wrapping things up, while Fallout 3 is a great game game play-wise, the story ultimately feels a bit flat and rushed compared to the rest of the content in the game. I wanna re-emphasize that I only looked at the main plot in the original version of the game. This game holds a lot of great content, loads of hours of worthy gameplay as well as an entirely new ending provided by the add-on content. If you are to play this game, I suggest you play that version instead.

(All quotes and additional information was and can be found on The Vault, the Fallout themed Wikipedia)

Argo (2012)

Film: Argo
Alternate title: Operation Argo
Release: 2012, theatrical
Starring: Ben Affleck, John Goodman, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin
Directed by: Ben Affleck
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When revolution stirs up in Iran, CIA and Canada conducts a fake film project to extract endangered American diplomats from the country

Hans' thoughts:

One of the dangers of adapting real stories for the screen is making one side look cartoonishly evil. Fortunately, just like the real world this movie is a lot of very grey areas. While the Iran government is still set up somewhat as the "bad guys" the movie constantly reminds you that America started the whole debacle themselves. The movie doesn't seem like it wants to show some kind of political agenda, rather it just tells what is a very good story. This movie is very straightforward in that aspect "here's what happened, with a bit of sprinkles to make it interesting" much in the same vein as Zero Dark Thirty from the same year. The most entertaining part of the movie is the middle part, with John Goodman and Alan Arkin almost paying tribute to The Producers in their performance. Especially Arkin is very fun to watch. However, they manage to lighten up their part of the movie without belittling the situation the movie is depicting. The climax is also very suspenseful and I was at the edge of my seat for most of it. I have to say, while Affleck may not be the most animated of actors, he definitely has his place in the directors chair.

First Blood (1982)

Film: First Blood
Release: 1982, theatrical
Starring: Richard Crenna, Sylvester Stallone, Brian Dennehy
Directed by: Ted Kotcheff
Next in the series: Rambo: First Blood Part II
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A Vietnam war veteran comes to a small town, but is quickly arrested for loitering by the local authorities. His arrest tricker his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and it quickly becomes a one-man battle against the world

Hans' thoughts:

This movie really has some pretty imagery to go for it, which is the first thing you'll notice when you watch it. Big scenic pictures of nature. Stallone also does a very good job, albeit he speaks a little low so I'm wondering how the movie felt to the theatrical audience in America back in the day. Then again, this might have been a problem with my television but I'm mentioning it anyway. Hurray for subtitles. Honestly I feel that Stallone was a better actor back in the day when he did this one and the first Rocky. The feel of the movie is also very quiet, a lot quieter than what you normally associate with a Rambo movie these days. The death count is also barely there (I counted 1). Looking back today with the knowledge that First Blood would spawn one of the most violent action movie franchises out there, it is almost surreal. This movie also gets it's message across clear and to the point, but without getting too preachy and shoving it in our faces. I feel they made the other sides make their own points, as invalid as they may seem.

Rear Window (1954)

Film: Rear Window
Release: 1954, Theatrical
Starring: James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Thelma Ritter
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: An adventurous photographer is put out of commission by a broken leg and kills time by looking at his neighbours through his rear window.

Hans' thoughts:

Like with other Hitchcock movies, the first thing that occurs to you is just how well-shot the movie is. Once again, Hitchcock uses extraordinary imagery and we as the audience dance from his strings like marionettes. The entire movie takes place - Like Rope - In a single apartment. But while Rope was only shot in the apartment and worked like a stage play, this one instead shows us one of the most elaborate sets in film. A fully recreated back alley of a normal group of apartment in Greenwich, New York. Every single apartment is fully created, and has people inside. Most of whom we learn a lot about, through almost no dialogue. Hitchcock turns his audience into peeping toms as we learn everything we need to know through the window of a one-bedroom apartment. While this certainly is a suspense piece like most of Hitchcocks movies, this one gives the audience breathing space by adding comedy through another Hitchcock staple: Well-written dialogue. Once again the dialogue really makes most of the movie, and the characters all seem well-thought out. While you get the main mystery plot, this movie also manages through it's imagery to put in 4 or 5 sub-plots and somehow they are easy to keep track of, and all well-written as well. This one was based on a short-story "It Had to Be Murder" by Cornell Woolrich. I haven't read the story, but I imagine any deviances doesn't take away from the film.

Rope (1948)

Film: Rope (1948)
Release: 1948, theatrical
Starring: James Stewart, John Dall, Farley Granger
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
IMDB: Link opens in a new window
Description: A seemingly normal party is held by two friends with a dark secret, can they manage to keep it secret from the party guests?

Hans' thoughts:

This movie was based on a play and it shows. The whole movie is done in as long takes as possible (10 minutes were the longest time on a roll back then) and only on one big set, making this entire movie feel like a stage-act. The set, which is three adjourned rooms is that of an apartment and that basically all you see (with the one exception of the street shot which makes up the intro credits sequence.) As always with these kinds of movies the characters are very archetypical but also fleshed out, in a single evening that makes up the movie the characters are able to provide us with personality traits and backstories - through dialogue alone. But not clumsy "screenwriter" dialogue either, everything is pretty much said naturally which is admirable in and off itself. The dialogue is pretty much what saves this movie, as what would've been a pretty good mystery is taken away from us in the first few seconds. That said, the Hitchcock suspense is still there and as enjoyable as ever. I'll probably revisit this movie soon for the dialogue alone.

Paranoia (2011)

Movie: Paranoia
Release: 2011, Video
Starring: Brad Jones, Brian Irving
Directed By: Ryan Mitchelle
IMDB page: link opens a new window
Description: The newly divorced Mark Bishop defends himself from what he believes is a robber - suddenly he is pulled into a mystery that he has no interest in being a part of.

Hans' thoughts:

This is a pretty by-the-book thriller. Not that it's unoriginal, but picture the genre "thriller" in your mind and this is somewhat close to what you'd probably come up with. Don't take that as a bad criticism, because while this IS very by-the-book it is also really well made. While the acting from our main actor is kinda wavy at first, it quickly picks up the pace as Brad Jones as "Mark Bishop" apparently settles into his character as the movie goes along and the movie quickly gets good. Unfortunately, at some points the sound can be a bit low, fortunately that's what volume buttons are for, so just turn up the sound when you feel you need to. Now it may seem that I'm bashing this movie, but it really is good and with a nice ending I won't give away here, give it a watch. I at least found it very worth it.

Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

Movie: Shadow of a Doubt
Release: 1943, theatrical
Starring: Teresa Wright, Joseph Cotten
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A normal small-town American family is paid a visit by their favorite uncle but something is wrong this time around.

Hans' thoughts: 

To me this movie was hard to get into. We get this all-American family suddenly exposed to something mysterious and to me it just felt off, like two entirely different movies were clashing. I do have this itch that this was what the audience were supposed to feel though and it certainly has some good moments. Halfway through the movie we have this big reveal and while the scene itself is good, as with the recurring theme of not knowing how to cope with the subject matter this movie just didn't do it for me. Once the big reveal was done, the movie was kinda just speeding along towards the inevitable and kinda predictable ending. It has some well-made and fleshed out characters, especially the ones played by the two main actors. But at the same time a lot of the characters (including the female lead) acts way too naive than what would seem realistic. Other than that the movie was kind of believable, the city is shot very anonymously, it could very well be in any part of the country, this was probably done to make it easier for the audience to identify themselves with the characters and the situation. I ended up enjoying this movie and I'm glad I saw it, but it is definitely very different from what I would normally put into the disc-player when I need to relax.

Saboteur (1942)

Movie: Saboteur

Release: 1942, theatrical

Starring: Priscilla Lane, Robert Cummings

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

IMDB page: link opens in a new window

Description: An innocent young man is framed of a horrible crime and must traverse the country to find the origin of his problems.

Hans' thoughts:

This is a BIG movie. It has loads of characters, locations, events.. It's just big. The movie starts of simple enough, but every time you think you have something pinned down it throws something at you. That's how I experienced it at least, it was pretty easy to see where the movie was going ultimately, well at least somewhat, but even so I was still surprised by some of twists in this movie (none of which I want to spoil of course!). This is one of those "The journey beats the destination" movies, because the middle part of the movie was definitely the part I enjoyed the most. In my mind I set it as a adventure flick with suspenseful moments, a sort of darker but still light-hearted cousin to the later Indiana Jones flicks and Flash Gordon serial. Although only darker in the sense of the subject manner, this was during World War II after all, and this movie must've hit hard with the masses of the day. I however enjoy it as an adventure with many colourful characters.