Monthly Archive for October, 2008

Page 2 of 2

Sigh

Published on October 13, 2008 in Uncategorized. 0 Comments

Well, “Body of Lies” came in third behind “Quarantine” and…”Beverly Hills Chihuahua,” in first place, yet again. I’m not even going to say anything, dear reader, but I hope my disappointment oozes from your screen.

Okay, I lied, I am going to say something.

In fairness, it’s not that I mind that this movie was obviously created for kids. The reason I object is that this wretched little thing is a monument to the idea that kids’ movies must be diminutive, and going to see it puts money in the pockets of people who say so. Has Pixar taught us nothing? Year after year, they pump out heartfelt, wholesome, elegantly made masterpieces that are fun for kids and adults alike, and they make bucket loads of money doing it. Someone go show the people who made “Beverly Hills Chihuahua” the buckets of money that Pixar has sitting around in their office being used as business cards. Then smack them upside the head and deliver a simple message: “You would be so rich right now if you took the time to make a good movie.”

In general, as a person who cares deeply about cinema (while admittedly understanding much less about it than more seasoned veterans), I’m religiously flummoxed by the learning curve major studios have. If you take a look at the top ten money makers in American or international sales, you’ll discover that only one or two of them got much less than rave reviews. “The Dark Knight,” which by any reasonable standard is a grim tragedy full of scarred vigilantes and ethical gray areas, has recently become the second most profitable film in American history. 

And yet, I guarantee you, they’re going to keep throwing neutered, inauthentic crap at us, waiting anxiously for it to stick to the lowest common denominator. At the same time, movie theaters keep jacking their ticket prices up through the ceiling, then pulling a Pontius Pilate and insisting that inflation gave them no choice. Don’t forget the ten solid minutes of commercials for the new Nissan Maxima you’re going to sit through before you even get to the “Coming Attractions,” either. This offends me intensely, by the way. I don’t mind commercials on television, because they’ve got to turn a profit, but when you put your money on the table, you should get what you paid for. It’s not like HBO or Showtime hammer you with ads. 

The sum of all of this is that you pay what used to be the price of two tickets for one, sit through a mountain of advertisements, then watch a crap movie that was designed to lure you out of the house, not entertain you once got there.

This is why I’m always on my friends and loved ones to be rigorous about the movies you will see. Check Rotten Tomatoes, it’s not infallible but it’s a great guideline. Find a critic you routinely agree with and let them steer you clear of crass pieces of junk. And if you know something is going to be crap, for heaven’s sake, take a stand and don’t see it! You don’t buy bad music on purpose, do you? 

I know you’re out there, dear reader, and you’re vulnerable. When they put yet another “Fast and the Furious” sequel out, I know you’re going to think about seeing it. You act innocent now, but you’re going to betray us all and go pat a very rich producer on the back, rewarding him for insulting our intelligence. You’re going to give me a line about, “I don’t care if it’s good, it was fun!” You’re lying to yourself, dear reader, and you know it. It could have been good too, and it would have been if you hadn’t made quality an unnecessary component. There’s nothing about “The Fast and the Furious” that demands shallow characters, underdeveloped plot lines, and shoddy storytelling; they’re just doing it because they know they can get away with it. You’re accepting garbage with a “thank you sir, may I have another?”

Cut it out, dear reader!

Truth be told, you have much to be proud of. “The Dark Knight” was an international sensation solely because it was just that good. “Juno” made a ton of money for being smart and heartwarming. “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy destroyed the Oscars. And let’s not forget that everyone told Warner Bros. that “The Matrix” would be too smart for the average audience. You laughed merrily in their stupid faces, dear reader. Well done.

Let’s keep it up, yes? From now on, let’s make sure Hollywood knows that bright colors, big explosions and overpaid stars are not enough. Not anymore.

  

 

Ridley Scott

Published on October 11, 2008 in Uncategorized. 0 Comments

I both love it and hate it when a movie that is panned by critics turns out to be good. I hate it because the sense of injustice is infuriating, but I love it because it gives me the chance to stand up and take that movie’s cause. Such is the case with Ridley Scott’s new Middle Eastern thriller, “Body of Lies.” I saw it last night because Ridley Scott made “Blade Runner,” and to those of us whose lives were permanently altered by that movie, ol’ Ridley has a sort of cart blanche. I’ll pay to go watch him grate cheese for two hours.

I don’t explain the plots of movies I like, that seems to me to be a ruinous course of action, but let me get you oriented so you know what you’re going into. “Lies” is the story of Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe) and Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio). The former is a top CIA man who works out of Langley, the latter his best field agent, neck-deep in the worst parts of the Middle East with only his wits about him. What transpires in the movie is a complicated web of spycraft and deceit that boils into a superb, nail-biting thriller.

But that’s not all that makes “Body of Lies” uniquely good. I was also impressed by how screenwriter William Monahan (whom we can thank for “The Departed”) wove deep, thought-provoking questions about America and the Middle East invisibly into the patchwork of a Hitchcockian suspense machine. This is not one of those films that demonizes the United States, in fact the movie scarcely preaches at all, but it does reflect very meaningfully on the nature of our conflict. Pay close attention to a speech Ed Hoffman gives in the beginning of the movie, trying to convince his superiors that American intelligence has to pound Islamic fundamentalists as hard as possible, without remorse or pity. His reasons are compelling, and they extend out of the movie and into our world.

Crowe is a method actor through and through, and his performance is utterly convincing. Same for DiCaprio, who has come so far from “Titanic,” and certainly earned the respect of movie-goers through brave career choices and utter commitment to hard roles. But the most impressive acting here comes from Mark Strong, who I believe is set to be the villain in the upcoming “Sherlock Holmes” movie. He portrays the head of Jordanian Intelligence, a man who is far wiser and more dangerous than Ferris, and Ferris knows it. Strong is tall, lean and fearsome, utterly captivating on screen because he makes us fear and respect him within two seconds of his appearance. Relatively speaking in the intelligence commuinty, he is not a brutal or unfair man, but there are consequences to crossing him, and crossing him is something Ferris continually finds himself doing.

Anyway, the point is that “Body of Lies” is a great thriller, taut and suspenseful with a brain behind the action. I love watching a movie that’s been commanded by an old-guard like Ridley Scott, because he’s so in control of every frame. It’s funny how different this picture, and most of his later work, is from his first few efforts. When Scott started out, his features were much more art-house, things like “The Duellists” and “Blade Runner” and even “Alien.” As he’s gotten older, his films have all had in common the highest possible production values and almost fanatic attention to detail, but he’s become more mainstream. I remember that “Alien” was always absent a score right when you wanted music the most, in order to make you feel cold and isolated. “Blade Runner” had pervasive music, but it was odd and off-putting, often making you feel even more alone in the wash of noise.

Now, even Scott’s best movies are thoroughly Spielberg in their “bum bada bum bum!” emotionality. While I don’t really mind this, since he’s done great films this way in the form of “Black Hawk Down,” “Gladiator” and now “Body of Lies,” I do quietly hope we’ll get a more artsy Ridley back before he retires (which can’t be that far off, he’s 70).

His next project is going to be “Nottingham,” a very poorly-titled update of Robin Hood with Russell Crowe starring either as the villain, the hero, or both (he made a weird comment to that effect recently). It’ll be interesting to see where that goes.

By the way, if any of you saw “Kingdom of Heaven” in theaters, which was also a Ridley Scott, and were somewhat disappointed, let me advise you to go scoop up the Director’s Cut. I’ve not seen it myself, but I can tell you that the critical response to this newer version of the film is euphoric across the board. The same people who panned it now love it. Apparently, poor Scott was forced by the studio to cut nearly an hour from the film, and that decision ended up biting them in the arse, since the movie failed on wings of bad press. Now, with the footage put back in, the movie is apparently drastically improved and very compelling.

Clarifications

Published on October 8, 2008 in Uncategorized. 0 Comments

So! The Presidential Debate was on last night, and I definitely want to talk about that, but right now I’d like to draw attention to Brady and Holly’s very detailed, hard-hitting return-fires to a lot of my points in my analysis of the VP debate. They’re really insightful, and completely free of BS, so I recommend everyone taking a look. I agree with a lot of what they said, but I think some of my comments were misconstrued, so I’m gonna try and clear some stuff up.

I also think I made some mistakes in my recent posts, which I will apologize for and correct.

1. Soccer Games. Yeah, I’ve actually been to plenty of soccer games in my life, albeit none in the past two years. Nonetheless, I concede that extremely well-qualified and intelligent individuals have children who play soccer, and they probably talk to each other about the current state of affairs. Re-reading my writing on that one, I think my description of people arguing about the Dow Jones as unlikely was quite wrong. My intention was to criticize using such discussions as the basis for economic strategy, but even that point isn’t great, and I overwhelmingly concede my argument as incorrect.

You guys win that one. And knowing that Brady and Holly are indeed people who attend soccer games, let me also say this: I’m very sorry if I accidentally implied anything about you. Call that my bad.

Now, to make sure the wound doesn’t heal sorely, let me clarify that what I was trying to get at was that I didn’t think soccer moms were relevant in that question. Palin was asked how she would deal with the economy. That is a hard, serious question, and in order to answer it intelligently, you either need to be an expert on the economy or talk to a lot of people who are. 

I like to think I’m a smart guy, but I don’t want any politician to take political action based on my layman’s opinion of the economy. Nor do I want Sarah Palin to tell me that she will make economic decisions based on discussion at a soccer game. Qualified experts, that’s who I want consulted on that issue. I felt that her bringing up junior sports athletics was an attempt to turn people’s attention away from the heart of the question.

2. Intelligence. I have definitely accused McCain of using tactics that insult the American intelligence, and I stand by that. I have watched the debates, read his campaign material, listened to interviews with him, and I just don’t like his tactics (more on that later).

I strongly disagree that by taking this position, I have called Republicans unintelligent. Quite the opposite, my point is that Americans are smart, so stop treating us as otherwise. I think reading anything else into that is not accurate. 

I did say that Barack thinking we as Americans would “think” instead of resorting to sound bytes was a “mistake.” But I said Americans. I didn’t say Democrats or Republicans, and I didn’t imply either one. My comment was against media-driven politics. I think I made very clear that my problem was with campaign tactics that are designed for short attention spans, which I felt McCain was using. In no way does that imply that people who disagree with me are stupid. Like I said, it implies that people who disagree with me are not stupid, because they don’t need everything put into sound bytes.

Now, you may think McCain has been running a great campaign, and therefore I’m somehow saying that, since his tactics are working on you, you’re not a smart person. 

That’s not what I’m saying. Let me explain.

I don’t think his tactics are working on you, that’s my point. It’s not working! People who support McCain have ample reason, he’s a bipartisan legend and a war hero, but are you really trying to tell me you got educated on his career through his campaign ads? Of course you didn’t, you did your own research, and you decided to back him.

What angers me is that people who have legitimate reason to support McCain are being ignored by a political strategy that favors sound bytes, vague emotional appeals, and intense condescending of Obama. I want McCain to discuss issues in a gentlemanly and direct form, like he did in 2000, and I think he’s failing to do it. I’ve never even implied that McCain was an unworthy candidate for presidency, but I have directly stated that he’s not running the kind of race that brings dignity to this election.

That’s my point.

 

 

 

Trailer School

Published on October 7, 2008 in Uncategorized. 0 Comments

“Beverly Hills Chihuahua” made a ton of money this weekend, and I blame YOU people. I sure as hell didn’t go see it. And don’t tell me your kids like it, not good enough. I think you all need to sit down and let daddy tell you how you can know, just from the trailer, that a movie is going to be awful. Maybe, with this knowledge in hand, you can avoid films like “Beverly”…no, you know, I won’t even say the name of that movie anymore.

I’m going to order the list below in rank of sureness. If you see tactic 3 employed, it is more certain that the movie is terrible than if you see tactic 6. Tactic 1, I swear to God, is reserved only for utter crap.

Here now are the TOP SIX BEHAVIORS OF A TRAILER FOR A MOVIE THAT SUCKS.

6. Vague Film Festival Awards. Don’t let them impress you with that stupid little golden twigs thing, read the text in between it. You’ll often find one of two things: it was the “Abilene County Fair Film Festival” instead of “Sundance,” or they won for something technical. The faster they flash the little award logos at you, and the more vague they are about where they won them or what for, the more you should be suspicious. And don’t put too much stock in Ebert’s “Two Thumbs Up,” either, because I love the man to death but he’s a bit of a softie. Plus, all it takes is a rating of 3 stars to earn Roger’s legendary affirmation, and he’s given that rating, by his own admission, to a lot of movies he wasn’t crazy about.

5. Testimonials. If a trailer shows you huge groups of morons outside a theater, espousing the virtues of the movie into a microphone held by an eerily invisible white man, just stay away. The marketing department is so scared of you, they don’t even want you to LOOK at the movie they’re hoping you’ll pay to see. That is not a good sign. Also, notice how no one is allowed to say a sentence longer than two words in these things: “so fun!” “I laughed!” “Wild!”

Sometimes, they’ll just get a group of people to holler the movie’s name all at the same time. If that happens, if that specific tactic is employed, you must permanently ban that movie from your knowledge. Think about it: they’re not even saying the movie is good, they’re simply pointing out that it exists. And don’t assume those people are satisfied customers, they don’t legally have to be, and lots of people are happy to do whatever some guy tells them to if they get to “be on TV.”

4. Big Brother Voice Over. If a deep, ominous voice keeps telling you how you’re going to feel during the movie, you probably won’t.

3. One-Word Quotes. Some are worse than others. First of all, can you read who they’re quoting? If you can’t, you’re not meant to, so bear that in mind. Secondly, some words are okay, but others could very well have been excavated from a largely negative review. Here are some examples: explosive, intense, dark, romantic, dazzling (often critics will concede that they loved the special effects in a movie they otherwise loathed, and this is the word they always use).

2. Tangent. “Beverly Hills Chi”…I’m sorry, I can’t say it. Ahem. “That movie about stupid little dogs” used this one. If the entire length of the trailer is some kind of dance number, or interview with the cast, or something that cannot possibly be in the actual film…you’ve got a problem. “Behind-the-scenes” features are one thing, but if they want you to come watch their movie and the best thing they can say about it is “it inspired us to shoot an unrelated dance number,” then you might want to take that as an omen.

AND NOW, THE NUMBER ONE SIGN OF A BAD MOVIE. IT NEVER FAILS, IT’S ALWAYS TRUE, YOU CAN TAKE IT TO THE BANK…

1. Advice. Ah, the mother load, the king of bad omens. When a movie trailer gives you some helpful suggestions on the manner in which you should acquire your ticket, that’s when you’ve got yourself a gigantic stinker.

There was a good example recently. Remember that movie with Meg Ryan, Eva Mendes, and like four other Hollywood starlets called “The Women”? Every time you saw any ad for it, whether printed or film, they always instructed you to “Gather your friends and come celebrate…the women!”

These people have the worst movie in history on their hands. They’re openly admitting to you that the only appeal their product can offer has NOTHING to do with its quality. Hell, you don’t even know what the thing is about. The only thing in their corner is that you might have some friends, and those friends might like to see a movie, and all movies cost the same amount to see.

The whole ad campaign is literally this: “You! You there! Are you our target demographic? Then come see this thing!” It’s not only desperate, it’s got a certain seedy laziness.

If you want proof, go check the Rotten Tomatoes rating for that particular cinematic gem. Nuff said, case closed.

The VP Debate

Published on October 4, 2008 in Uncategorized. 2 Comments

You know, Sarah Palin actually did okay, and I really didn’t think she would. She struggled at first, because Joe Biden is a tough opponent, and that was kind of expected.

But once the thing got underway, Palin fared far better than I expected. Her folksy “gosh darn” shtick was mildly unprofessional and annoying to me, but she’s a convincing orator and many of her points landed with impact. In general, she and Joe Biden held a much more thoughtful, engaged and professional debate than the presidential candidates did, largely because John McCain (who just keeps making me angrier) insisted on patronizing, interrupting, repeating meaningless arguments, and speaking as if Obama wasn’t in the room. Sarah practiced none of these tactics, she had no problem actually looking at her opponent, waiting her turn, and acting like a freaking professional.

She did, however, feel the need to regurgitate John McCain’s utterly ludicrous “sitting across the table” speech, almost verbatim. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, here’s the quick and dirty: John feels that Barack is too willing to have a conversation with nations whom we don’t like, and criticizes his eagerness for diplomacy as “legitimizing” inhuman dictators. He kept saying, “He wants to sit across the table from them without pre-conditions!”

Obama, of course, made the same mistake he always does: he kept assuming the American people would think about the issues, instead of just siding with whoever repeats the simplest words the most times. He politely at first, then vehemently later, retorted that actually having a conversation with people who might like to kill us is just the nature of peaceful foreign policy. God bless him, he actually had the guts to bitingly inform McCain on national television that this did not mean he was “having them over for tea.” He also pointed out that his opponent’s standards for “pre-conditions” are a ridiculous set of flaming hoops designed for jumping through, so much so that they prohibit having a conversation with (I kid you not) Spain. From my limited understanding, I think he was saying that McCain wants any nation to sign a piece of paper saying “I’m a poop face” before we’ll send a guy to talk to them. That sounds like a bad policy.

In general, I feel strongly that John McCain secretly knows Barack is right, he’s just trying to paint him in a corner by mincing words between “pre-conditions” and “preparations.” I mean, the kind of system that the Republican candidate is espousing right now is basically a long-winded way of saying that our foreign policy should be “talk to the hand.” McCain is too well-qualified as a bi-partisan team player to really think that’s a good idea.

Palin, no doubt in compliance with John’s political team, towed this line, but I sensed that she didn’t want to. In the spirit of cohesion, she put up the argument, but Biden cracked his knuckles and knocked it down, because the dude is not only a Senator, but the current chairman (that’s right, chairman) of the Foreign Relations Committee. In other words, telling this guy how to talk with other nations is like giving Michael Jordon a stern lecture on dribbling. I think Sarah knew that, so she just let it go.

In general, her political poise and confidence, and the validity of some of her arguments, has been a pleasant surprise. I’m not sure I think she’s ready to go to the White House, but I feel more and more like she could be one day. Still, Joe Biden commanded the debate without question. He’s a political heavyweight and his points were both intricate and direct, always precise but never cluttered. Several times the governor would accuse Obama of voting against something like troop funding, and Biden would fire back in an instant that McCain had voted exactly the same way, and then explain politely why that vote had been a good call. Ouch.

Still, Palin’s performance was a lot like Rocky staying alive against Apollo Creed; she didn’t win, but damned if she didn’t hang the hell on.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on that.

Hi Again

Published on October 3, 2008 in Uncategorized. 0 Comments

Hey, everybody. So I know it’s been a long time since I’ve updated, that’s my bad, I’ve just been kind of distracted for the past week.

Cor and I flew to Atlanta last weekend for Matt and Kelly’s wedding reception, which they wisely staged weeks after their actual wedding ceremony, which took place in Ocho Rios, Jamaica. My wife and I were among a select group of frustrated people who got their flights cancelled by weather and had to sit grumpily on our couches on the couple’s happy day. No worries, though, because the reception was great fun, and it was nice to see family again after the big move. A few standouts include an ice sculpture through which one is required to take shots of tequila, one of the better Jameson and Gingers I’ve ever tasted, and long conversations with many different parties about my new job. Looking over that list, I’ve concluded that I’m some sort of selfish alcoholic, but oh well. We had a good time, and thank God, because the travel there and back was a little grueling.

So they’re releasing a film called “Beverly Hills Chihuahua” this weekend, and I assure you that when Corelyn and I first encountered the trailers for this atrocity, we concluded within five seconds that it was some kind of practical joke. Ha ha, very funny Disney, okay now let the other shoe drop; it never did. They were serious. This thing was not only being made, it was in post production. Dozens upon dozens of grown adults were spending all day in an office, or on a set, so that they could birth a movie about talking lap dogs with strangely racist Mexican accents. That concept poorly sustained twenty seconds of a “Taco Bell” commercial, what idiot felt it was necessary to give it a hundred minutes?

Still, the movie horizon is actually surprisingly bright, I think.

Max Payne

First up on my “cautiously optimisic” list is “Max Payne,” another in the ill-begotten breed of video game adaptations, and the first one for which we as a gaming community hold out any hope. The director is a guy named John Moore, whom I admire for his straight-talking attitude, but am mildly hesitant about. A few years back, he did a re-make of “The Omen” which was technically proficient and slavishly loyal to the original, but in a crippling case of Gus Van Sant syndrome (check the bottom for the explanation of that joke), it all hit with a hollow thud and reminded us of how great the original was. The movie didn’t need to exist, it added nothing.

Now we have “Max Payne,” which appears to be (gasp) somewhat aware of the video game it’s transferring to the big screen, and that alone is promising. Hollywood, right now, continues to condescend the gaming community: yes, they will make silly cinematic trinkets for us on the hopes we will clap our hands and grasp at them, but the dismissive way in which they’re hammered out, and the stunning lack of quality that results, is evidence of their personal contempt for the genre. Fifteen years ago, these same morons would barely hear it when Dick Donner and Michael Uslan tried to explain the seriousness of comic books, and now superheroes are literally their bread and butter. You’d think they’d start looking down the road, hand above their brow, to try and see what’s coming, but no. Halo 3 and GTA IV can rake in more money than any form of human entertainment in history (which they did), and they still don’t get it.

So, will “Max Payne” be our first respectable attempt? Nah, probably not, but I think it’ll be a shaky step in the right direction. Mark Wahlberg is perfect casting, but Mila Kunis (Jackie from “That 70s Show”) as a deadly assassin is almost laughable on paper; maybe when I see it, she’ll convince me. The point is, it might be cynicism, but I just don’t think this movie is going to bring home the bacon. Nonetheless, there’s little question that it’s going to try, and that actually means something. It means someone is thinking.

W.

I know, I know, even most Democrats are probably wondering if they want to sit down and watch a director with an almost blinding liberal fanaticism burn an effigy of a President who, in his mind, is probably more of a canvas to project everything that has ever made him angry than something resembling a man. But for some stupid reason, I’m cautiously optimisitc here. Yes, Oliver Stone has talked a big game about how “fair” a portrayal this movie will be, but it’s not like Senator McCarthy’s blacklist was written with the express intent of “unfairness.” The Salem Witch Trials did not begin with a caveat stating that “unreasonableness” was expected. Saying you’ll be accurate is meaningless, few untrustworthy people will come out with that fact before asking you to give them your money and attention.

But all of that aside, the trailers look dynamite, and the casting is great, and “JFK” (Stone’s masterpiece) was so damned good; every time I watch that movie, I don’t care that I don’t buy it, it’s just arresting cinema, and that’s what I’m hoping for here. Stone has made many blunders in his day; I cannot fathom how the director of “Wall Street” also produced “Alexander,” then got all snotty when we told him it was crap (and it was). But like I said, I have hope. Besides, it’s amazing to live in a country where I can attend a public mockery of our most powerful leader in total safety. God Bless America.

Zak and Miri Make a Porno

Ah, see this one I’m just jazzed about. First of all, great trailer. More importantly, though, I think Kevin Smith (of “Clerks” and “Chasing Amy” fame) is just too gifted a writer to be pounding out trash like “Jersey Girl” like he has been lately, and it finally feels like he’s cracked his knuckles and gotten back to business. The concept for this movie is brilliant: two lifelong friends and roommates (boy and girl) on the verge of eviction decide to shoot an indie porno starring themselves, but realize in the process their feelings for one another. That’s just gold, it’s got balls and heart at the same time. It’s this kind of dirty-but-sweet comedy where Smith shines so far, because he understands it, and it’s good to have him back. It goes to show that sometimes sticking to what you’re good at actually makes you more creative than ever.

Moving On To Other Things…

As for the gaming world, the future is even brighter.

Gears of War 2

I love the original Gears, it was a masterpiece, but the multiplayer was hampered by a single, dominant playing strategy that neutered the experience. The designers envisioned gamers lodged in strategic gun fights, ducking for cover and flanking one another, but in reality the only way to win was to curl up, sprint right at your enemy, and shotgun them. I hate this tactic, so I always tried to draw down on them with my rifle as they approached me, but the automatic weapons were too weak to finish them; they always arrived with their 12-gauge fully loaded, just barely enough life left to finish me off in a single hit. Lame.

Now, in Gears 2, when I hit these punks with my Lancer Assault Rifle, they’re going to slow down, which is more realistic anyway. That alone has me hotly anticipating this one.

Fabl–

–No, don’t say “Fable 2,” let me stop you before you do. I don’t buy it. Peter Molyneux has got to be the biggest BS-talker in the gaming world. He more or less told us that the original “Fable” would cure cancer, and then it turned out to be a pretty standard dungeon-crawl that let you kiss dudes if you felt like it. Whoop-de-crap. Now he’s back with the sequel, and I’m supposed to believe, yet again, that we’re about to get smacked over our heads with greatness. When truly innovative games like “Bioshock” come along, they don’t have to talk a big game, because satisfied customers speak for them. Put your money where your mouth is, Peter.

Left 4 Dead

So pumped about this one. The immaculate Valve, givers of such gems as TF2 and “Portal,” are bestowing on us a co-op zombie survival game with variable campaign structure, so each play through is unique. If you’re telling me I can grab three friends, hop on line, and fight waves of zombies together in a subway station, and I think you are Valve, then I’m telling you that my sixty bucks is yours.

Mirror’s Edge

Parkour (free-running) is cool, but no one was more skeptical than I about its ability to become an effective virtual experience. From the in-game footage I’ve seen so far, color me corrected. The roughness and speed of the human body is really well-conveyed, even though they use first person perspective. I pride myself on a good eye, I can tell a good game from a bad one just by seeing it run, and I think this is going to be something special.

(Gus Van Sant, an otherwise able director, decided to remake “Psycho,” but was so terrified by Hitchcock’s shadow that he literally did a shot-by-shot copy. For some reason, he never wondered why the hell anyone wouldn’t just go watch the original, rather than pay 10 bucks for the same exact movie. It sucked, it tanked, it’s forgotten.)