GoSale.com :: Reviews by A3VIHZUSNOGWFY

Reviews Written By: A3VIHZUSNOGWFY

provided by Amazon.com


	Breakdown
	"A pleasant surprise"	2009-08-13
A brisk and dark 3D action game: part shooter, part beat-em-up and all pretty enjoyable. Things to like: The T'lan enemies are downright intimidating early in the game (less so later on as your powers expand). It's big (it took me 20 hours just to get through it -- not counting all the replays) and not over when you think it is. And it's a solid story; I always understood what was going on -- in no small part because clipboards and vocieovers fill in details throughout. My one complaint is that the game's too linear -- just one path -- and, apart from the boss battles at the very end, pretty easy for a game with a checkpoint system.(If you fail in a sequence, it reloads with a healthier character.) But, that said, I bought into Breakdown's world and premise quickly an they stuck with me until the end.
	Aliens Versus Predator Extinction
	"Not much of a game."	2009-08-10
The three campaigns in this real-time strategy game are set on similar-looking maps, the objectives (even the discover-able optional ones) are predictable, the actual strategies are basic, the AI mediocre (pathfinding in particular is a significant issue), there's very little in the way of presentational touches (not even cinematics at the end of each campaign) and the play, while outwardly difficult at medium level, becomes far easier once you discover the upgrades ... at which time your over-powered crew can take on pretty much all comers. I enjoyed the Alien campaign best -- there's something corruptly fun about running a hive -- but the elaborate alien-creation process aside, it's cut from the same cheap cloth as its Marine and Predator counterparts. Try Goblin Commander instead. :)
	The Mummy Returns
	"A travesty"	2009-08-10
The Mummy Returns is pretty much a disaster on every front. Unlike the first picture, which made generous but sensible use of computer-generated animations, this one seems dominated and finally over-powered by its effects. As a result, while the first movie was always anchored in the real world, this one feels strangely adrift. It also has too many expendable characters--none of them with the goofy appeal of cowardly bad guy Benny from the first movie--and, critically, it lacks any clear exposition to explain the whys and wherefores. I often had trouble keeping track of who was doing what and why. We have no sense of why the O'Connells are exploring the ruins at the outset. (They should have started the story at home with one of the wife's dreams). The movie backs into its story. The principals have acquired a roughly 10-year-old son, but O'Connell looks exactly as he did in the first movie and Evie actually looks more movie-star-ish and glamorous. There's also NO sense of attachment to the little boy, except when the script forces it down our throats. I never got the sense that they were part of the same family. And, very often, there is no sense of moment in this movie. As often happens in movies these days, the fillmmakers seem to know what they want to do in individual scenes but not how to fit it all together. For instance, Evie has a huge past-life fight in her head while aboard the balloon in the movie's later stages, and then matter of factly lets the rest of the party in on it. Their blithe acceptance works to negate the entire prior scene. The Mummy's lover's spirit enters its reincarnated body--an otherwordly scene in the first movie--and the Mummy here reacts as though she'd just turned up late for a date.
	The Mummy Returns (Widescreen Collector's Edition)
	"A travesty"	2009-08-10
The Mummy Returns is pretty much a disaster on every front. Unlike the first picture, which made generous but sensible use of computer-generated animations, this one seems dominated and finally over-powered by its effects. As a result, while the first movie was always anchored in the real world, this one feels strangely adrift. It also has too many expendable characters--none of them with the goofy appeal of cowardly bad guy Benny from the first movie--and, critically, it lacks any clear exposition to explain the whys and wherefores. I often had trouble keeping track of who was doing what and why. We have no sense of why the O'Connells are exploring the ruins at the outset. (They should have started the story at home with one of the wife's dreams). The movie backs into its story. The principals have acquired a roughly 10-year-old son, but O'Connell looks exactly as he did in the first movie and Evie actually looks more movie-star-ish and glamorous. There's also NO sense of attachment to the little boy, except when the script forces it down our throats. I never got the sense that they were part of the same family. And, very often, there is no sense of moment in this movie. As often happens in movies these days, the fillmmakers seem to know what they want to do in individual scenes but not how to fit it all together. For instance, Evie has a huge past-life fight in her head while aboard the balloon in the movie's later stages, and then matter of factly lets the rest of the party in on it. Their blithe acceptance works to negate the entire prior scene. The Mummy's lover's spirit enters its reincarnated body--an otherwordly scene in the first movie--and the Mummy here reacts as though she'd just turned up late for a date.
	The Mummy Returns [Blu-ray]
	"A travesty"	2009-08-10
The Mummy Returns is pretty much a disaster on every front. Unlike the first picture, which made generous but sensible use of computer-generated animations, this one seems dominated and finally over-powered by its effects. As a result, while the first movie was always anchored in the real world, this one feels strangely adrift. It also has too many expendable characters--none of them with the goofy appeal of cowardly bad guy Benny from the first movie--and, critically, it lacks any clear exposition to explain the whys and wherefores. I often had trouble keeping track of who was doing what and why. We have no sense of why the O'Connells are exploring the ruins at the outset. (They should have started the story at home with one of the wife's dreams). The movie backs into its story. The principals have acquired a roughly 10-year-old son, but O'Connell looks exactly as he did in the first movie and Evie actually looks more movie-star-ish and glamorous. There's also NO sense of attachment to the little boy, except when the script forces it down our throats. I never got the sense that they were part of the same family. And, very often, there is no sense of moment in this movie. As often happens in movies these days, the fillmmakers seem to know what they want to do in individual scenes but not how to fit it all together. For instance, Evie has a huge past-life fight in her head while aboard the balloon in the movie's later stages, and then matter of factly lets the rest of the party in on it. Their blithe acceptance works to negate the entire prior scene. The Mummy's lover's spirit enters its reincarnated body--an otherwordly scene in the first movie--and the Mummy here reacts as though she'd just turned up late for a date.
	The Mummy Returns
	"A travesty"	2009-08-10
The Mummy Returns is pretty much a disaster on every front. Unlike the first picture, which made generous but sensible use of computer-generated animations, this one seems dominated and finally over-powered by its effects. As a result, while the first movie was always anchored in the real world, this one feels strangely adrift. It also has too many expendable characters--none of them with the goofy appeal of cowardly bad guy Benny from the first movie--and, critically, it lacks any clear exposition to explain the whys and wherefores. I often had trouble keeping track of who was doing what and why. We have no sense of why the O'Connells are exploring the ruins at the outset. (They should have started the story at home with one of the wife's dreams). The movie backs into its story. The principals have acquired a roughly 10-year-old son, but O'Connell looks exactly as he did in the first movie and Evie actually looks more movie-star-ish and glamorous. There's also NO sense of attachment to the little boy, except when the script forces it down our throats. I never got the sense that they were part of the same family. And, very often, there is no sense of moment in this movie. As often happens in movies these days, the fillmmakers seem to know what they want to do in individual scenes but not how to fit it all together. For instance, Evie has a huge past-life fight in her head while aboard the balloon in the movie's later stages, and then matter of factly lets the rest of the party in on it. Their blithe acceptance works to negate the entire prior scene. The Mummy's lover's spirit enters its reincarnated body--an otherwordly scene in the first movie--and the Mummy here reacts as though she'd just turned up late for a date.
	The Muse
	"Life imitates art."	2007-03-16
The first half-hour is fine. Brooks is always at his best when his character is downtrodden or neurotic, and it's easy to sympathize with the screenwriter he plays here--one who's told repeatedly that he's "lost his edge." But Brooks lets go of his character's misery too quickly ... and the movie never picks up steam from there. The rest of this story--his writer seeks inspiration from a high-maintenance muse played by Sharon Stone--fails to be in any way funny or revealing. It's simply dull, and we sit there waiting for director Brooks to recognize it, too, and turn this dog around. The problem's pretty basic: Brooks's real-world acts Two and Three have no pop. The summer-blockbuster idea the muse inspires needs to be funny. But it isn't. It sounds dreadful, and increasingly, Brooks's character's problems become Brooks's real-life issues: how to put sizzle into an dry, workmanlike script perked up only by a spirited Stone. (Cameos from James Cameron and Martin Scorcese don't really help; they just highlight the barrenness of the terrain around them.) Indeed, after that first half-hour, very little works here ... until the ending, which exhibits the flash of inspiration missing from the picture as a whole.
	The Muse
	"Life imitates art."	2007-03-16
The first half-hour is fine. Brooks is always at his best when his character is downtrodden or neurotic, and it's easy to sympathize with the screenwriter he plays here--one who's told repeatedly that he's "lost his edge." But Brooks lets go of his character's misery too quickly ... and the movie never picks up steam from there. The rest of this story--his writer seeks inspiration from a high-maintenance muse played by Sharon Stone--fails to be in any way funny or revealing. It's simply dull, and we sit there waiting for director Brooks to recognize it, too, and turn this dog around. The problem's pretty basic: Brooks's real-world acts Two and Three have no pop. The summer-blockbuster idea the muse inspires needs to be funny. But it isn't. It sounds dreadful, and increasingly, Brooks's character's problems become Brooks's real-life issues: how to put sizzle into an dry, workmanlike script perked up only by a spirited Stone. (Cameos from James Cameron and Martin Scorcese don't really help; they just highlight the barrenness of the terrain around them.) Indeed, after that first half-hour, very little works here ... until the ending, which exhibits the flash of inspiration missing from the picture as a whole.