Remedy Reviews - Speed 2

For mine there are three types of sequels. The first is for movies that deserve a sequel and receive one worthy to follow the original. Aliens and Terminator 2 are good examples of this. The second type is a movie where a sequel is needed but the execution of that sequel leaves a lot to be desired. Think of the Transformers sequels to get an understanding of what I am talking about. The third type, and perhaps most wretched, is a sequel that is for a movie that never needed a sequel. The motive behind these sequels is normally a desperate cash grab by producers and directors trying to milk a great movie for all it is worth. Speed 2: Cruise Control is one of the best examples of this type of sequel. Based on this premise I want to make one thing perfectly clear before attempting to remedy this movie. I believe this movie should not exist. Speed is a fantastic action movie that deserves to stand on its own for originality and direction. So while I will be attempting to correct this abomination I want it well know that this is still not a good idea and some movies are better left alone. With that established lets dive right into Speed 2.

The biggest issue I have with this film is that it feels like a poor rehash of the original. Instead of an out of control bus it is an out of control ship. While the first is great because the premise is quite unique with the second I get a sense that I have seen it all of this before. While I believe that certain aspects of an original need to be maintained to keep the connection valid with the original this can be overdone. If I use a good action series, like Die Hard, the same theme is maintained i.e. John McClane needs to stop a group of thieves/terrorists; the method of crime and resolution vary from movie to movie. This keeps the premise fresh and makes the viewer want to see the next installment. If Die Hard 2 and 3 were about John McClane needing to clear the Empire State Building and London Tower of terrorists respectively we would lose interest pretty quickly. Therefore we would need to severe the strong connection between the first and second Speed movie. Keeping with Die Hard for a second there is a scene in the third movie that inspired me on this. There is a scene where McClane and Zeus Carver have to barrel through New York in a taxi to get to a pay phone on the other side of town to prevent a bomb from exploding. Expand this into a series of speed related obstacles and I think you have a good premise for Speed 2. I know this is not an entirely original idea. Not that I have seen it but I think 12 Rounds has the same premise, as well as some others I am sure. It’s more the idea of keeping the theme of fast moving decisions and quick paced action common between the two movies without having to flat out borrow the plot from the first movie. I think if Speed 2 was to take this approach it would be better for it.

This poster makes the movie seem way more intense than it actually is.

Casting also plays a big part in the success of a sequel and unfortunately I believe this is something that Speed 2 gets wrong. The returning character for this film is Sandra Bullock’s Annie. For it to work I believe they really needed to bring back Keanu Reeves’ Jack Traven. While Annie is a character who does play her role well and contribute a lot to the story in the end it is Jack Traven that we are truly cheering for. He is the one that is risking his life heroically to save the people on the bus and the one who is going up against Dennis Hopper. To therefore have the sequel focus on Annie and a new male protagonist (who I add is basically a more wooden Keanu Reeves) just seems a bit of a letdown. To again reference Die Hard it would be the same as making Die Hard 2 about Al Powell. Sure he’s an important part of the story but the story is about McClane. I also think that Keanu’s performance in Speed is one of his better ones. While he can be a bit stiff at times you do still buy into the character. Therefore I would have done everything in my power to make sure Jack Traven was in Speed 2, and considering Reeves did the Matrix sequels it would seem he does not have an aversion to doing poor sequels.

The next issue I believe needs addressing is that of genre. For all intents and purposes Speed 2 is not an action film. It is a romantic comedy with explosions. I’m not trying to over embellish this fact! To give you an idea of what I mean by this, discounting the opening motorcycle chase (which is no elevator scene I assure you) it takes 40 minutes for the next bit of action to take place!! During this pause in action we are treated to awkward scenes of Annie and Alex (Reeves Version 2.0) enjoying the festivities of the ship they are on and being introduced to characters who will be semi-important later on. After the fluid and continual action of Speed 1 this tawdry opening is not what is expected of a sequel. Speed wastes little time in getting to the overall plot of the movie, i.e. the bus that is going to explode, and develops character as the action is happening. Speed 2 believes that getting the audience emotionally invested in the characters is better to keep us involved with the action. While this sounds plausible in theory all this does is piss off the fans that came for an action movie and are treated to Notting Hill. In short, the action in this film should have been ironed out first before trying to flesh out what little of the characters there is.

Along this theme of genre is another key failing which is very much apparent throughout the movie. This is the fact that the comedy in this movie is anything but subtle. While I could go through many examples of this I think I’ll stick to the two most prominent issues that spring to mind to better explain this.

The first is the villain of Speed 2, Geiger, played by Willem Defoe. Before I start bashing on this character I do want to say that Willem Defoe is the only actor in this movie I feel does try his hardest to be menacing but unfortunately is bound to the material around him. Therefore while he starts as moderately creepy and conniving in the end he is reduced to a live action Looney Toon. That’s not an overreaction either because one of the traits of his character is as the movie progresses he incoherently laughs with greater frequency. Even as he is about to die at the end of the movie all he can do is cackle hysterically. While this sounds like a failing on Defoe’s part I do need to point out that movie becomes increasingly stupid around him. Really the character has little choice but to react to this. Compare this to Dennis Hopper’s Howard Payne (one of my favourite villain performances of all time) and you can see where Defoe simply becomes more ludicrous, Hopper becomes more evil and desperate. Very rarely does Hopper lose his sinister cool, until the point where he loses his head. It’s this stark contrast that points out where the comedy lies because whereas Hopper is subtle in his humour Defoe is as blatant as you can get. Let’s put a line from each character side by side just to prove the point.

Howard Payne: “The whim of a madman…… I like that”

Geiger: “Bwahahahahahahahahaha!”

Need I say more?

Visual representation of the point just discussed! This man was in Platoon for heaven's sake

The second point I want to make about the comedy lies in the movies show piece moment, when the ship crashes into the harbor city. This was the moment that made every trailer and was even on a few movie posters. Much like the bridge jump scene in the original this was to be the moment that defined the movie. Unfortunately instead of this being a quite harrowing and awe inspiring moment it is completely ruined by the over use of sight gags and over reactions. I watched this scene over again and there are eight different hammy performances in this five minute sequence. These range from simple double takes to the gag inducing final joke of the ship stopping just short of an expensive sports car only for the anchor to fall on it. Having this parade of juvenile humour only weakens the power of this scene. I sometimes feel the scene should be shown in black and white with a 20’s piano tune humming the background. This scene perfectly demonstrates the overriding humour of the entire film. In reality the ship crashing scene should have simply been the ship plowing into sizeable structures while people flee. How hard is that to get wrong?

I could go on and on about this, mentioning scenes like the smoke stripping scene, Annie’s driving test and the hammy returning cameo of Glenn Plummer but I won’t because I believe the point has been made. I will leave you one last addition to this point, in the final joke of the movie. After surviving the ship Annie re-sits her driver’s test (she started the movie taking one). Anyway, as she is about to pull out of the driveway a bus goes roaring past to which Annie explains “that bus is going way too fast’. Subtle humour….. End Point!

The last point I believe that needs to be examined and altered to make this a better movie is a very simple one. Despite its name Speed 2 has very little speed in it. While I will agree that the bus in Speed 1 had to only stay above 50mph, which isn’t overly fast, it was fast given the surroundings and situations. Put that up against the “speed” portion of Speed 2. To set the scene Geiger has messed with the ship’s navigation and is setting it on a collision course with an oil tanker. The ship is now hurtling towards the oil tanker at a brain melting 17 knots. This translated into road speed is 31.48 kilometers per hour (or 19.56 miles per hour for the imperials). I don’t care how you cut it that is not fast. I want to really put this in perspective so let me share this fact with you. Usain Bolt (the world’s fastest man) can do the 100 meters in 9.58 seconds. Assuming he can keep that momentum indefinitely this would equate to a speed of 37.56 kilometers per hour. Bolt is over 6 kilometers an hour faster than this out of control ship. I’m sorry but when a vehicle has the potential to lose a footrace it loses a lot of creditability. Now before the nautically inclined start hating on me yes I am aware that ships of this size would struggle to do anything higher than this and that therefore makes it more realistic. I believe however that this strengthens the argument further to have this movie not take place on a ship. I might also add that this crash scene takes around 20-25 minutes and loses all tension after 5. This movie had to take place in a vehicle that could accomplish a speed to be worthy of a title like Speed.

Perhaps Speed 2 should have taken place on Bolt's back.

In summation Speed 2 should have been a proper action movie, focusing on large set pieces rather than forced character development. It should have maintained the premise of a vehicle being commandeered to foil a terrorist plot at high speed while not having the vehicle directly involved. Willem Defoe should remain on as the villain to take on Keanu Reeves with witty banter and threatening conversations (opposed to needless sight gags). Mostly however Speed 2 should be fun. Much like the original it should be a chance for the audience to immerse themselves in, without wanting to sound to cliché, a true thrill ride. Living the twists and turns of the protagonist as we cheer for him to inevitably triumph over what seems like an insurmountable evil. Doesn’t sound that difficult does it? The mere fact however that they got it this wrong in the first place backs up my original point. Speed 2 should not exist. Do yourself a favor, go and watch Speed and enjoy it for its entire splendor. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go home and have some sex…. Or puke….. which will be fun too.

What Ever Happened To Good Video Game Endings?

I have just defeated Rage on PS3. Where I should be feeling triumph and self satisfaction all I can feel is a white hot, uh, rage. The reason for this is that Rage has one of the most appalling endings to be found in a video game. I’m not even talking about the ending cinematic, which in itself is uninspired, but the pinnacle of actual game play left much to be desired. As the credits rolled after my 20 second or so ending movie I was left cursing, posing such questions as “Are you fucking kidding me?” and “That was the best Id could do?” To try and distract myself from this outrage I thought back to all the great endings to games I had witnessed recently. Uncharted 3 – I found it disappointing, Assassin’s Creed 2 – Meh, Duke Nukem Forever – Oh God No!! Batman: Arkham City is the only game in recent memory where I quite liked the ending (although the final battle with Clayface kind of ruins it). This got me thinking, are good video game endings a thing of the past? Do game developers now put so much emphasis on getting you gripped by the story and game play that these are paramount over a decent conclusion? In short what ever happened to good video game endings?

Before I get into this question I feel I should justify my disgust at the ending of Rage. For those of you that are not familiar Rage is the latest first person shooter to be made by Id, the minds behind Doom and Quake. As an FPS fan I couldn’t wait to dive into the game and for what it is worth I quite enjoyed the game proper. It looks magnificent and although the game play can get slightly repetitive the controls and weapons available are quite impressive. This however is made null and void when you reach the climax of the game and yes I am going to reveal the ending so if you wish to avoid spoilers I suggest going and finishing the game so you can experience my point first hand. Ok, to give you a brief rundown on the plot you are an Ark survivor who joins a resistance to uproot a tyrannical post-apocalyptic regime. I know, Id get zero points for originality but I digress on that point. Anyway the climax of the game has you invading the headquarters of the evil regime (sorry I have already forgotten what they were called) to hack into their main frame to find the locations of other Arks in the world. As I wandered through the same silver halls fighting the same three soldier types over and over again I held in the back of my head that I would eventually reach my goal and a giant battle droid would be blocking my path, or some kind of enhanced cyber ninja akin to Raiden out of Metal Gear Solid 4. I ascend to the top of the tower I have been climbing to reach the mainframe. I flick the switch to boot up the mainframe and I am informed this will take time. All of a sudden my years of video game experience kick in. This is it, the final boss and I am fucking ready!! I am then attacked, one at a time, but what could only be described as Timesplitters. This procession of needless massacring occurs for about three-four minutes and then I am ready to flick the next switch to continue the boot up process. Once again I am attacked by Timesplitters. This process repeats two more times and then that is it. I have defeated the game. For a game that actually has end level bosses in other levels for this to be the ultimate battle is underwhelming. What made this worse was that I had been given an “Authority Minigun” for use in this assault. Thinking I would need this for the final boss I managed to get through the entire level with my regular weapons so as soon as a Timesplitter appeared I pink misted it’s ass with the most powerful weapon in the game! I will admit that I was playing on Normal but I seriously think even on Nightmare this wouldn’t be a massive challenge. With that I strapped myself in for the ending cinematic because I thought with that piss poor boss fight they must have put more thought into the actual conclusion of the game. What I got was the boot up sequence of the mainframe, a map of the Earth showing all of the Ark locations and then a transition to one of the Arks coming out of the ground and opening. Fin.

Decent Game. Shit Ending!!

For mine the ending of a video game consists of the two very aspects I mentioned above; the final boss fight and the ending cinematic. As I hope I made it abundantly clear above Rage failed dramatically on both counts. What seems to be the convention for this current generation of games is that they are so focused on cramming as much as humanly possibly into the game itself that the ending suffers. The best example I can give you of this is Bethesda Game Studios. Now before people start going ape shit I love Bethesda. I own almost every RPG they have released and have loved playing each one. However when it comes to the endings of those RPGs I think saying they’re shit is an understatement. I loved Fallout 3 and New Vegas so much I went out of my way to get the platinum trophy for both because the depth of game play was unbelievable. The problem I had was that the game moved you to play these additional bits because they were always far more interesting than the main story line. When you focus on additional bits to a story it is quite easy to lose focus on the main storyline. I am currently playing Skyrim and the having the same problem. The Dark Brotherhood storyline I thought was far more compelling than the main plot. I haven’t even finished Skyrim yet because I am afraid that the ending will not live up to the rest of the game.

The issue of having too many optional extras in a video game was not as prominent back in the 8 and 16 bit eras. This was mostly because the whole game was the main story line. There was no messing about with side quests or menial collection objectives to pad out the game. You simply busted your ass to get to the end of each section of the game laid in front of you. I already know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that endings of games in the 8 and 16 bit eras were hardly spectacular. With the exception of Bionic Commando were Hitler’s head explodes at the end you were normally greeted with a weak bit of text and some even weaker animation. I will concede that this is how most games ended in this era of gaming. However you were so chuffed that you defeated these games that you really didn’t give two shits about the ending. Ask anyone who has beaten Battletoads if they remember the ending. Guaranteed they won’t remember the ending but they will definitely remembering beating that game! It was this sense of pride that made it worth it, something which is also sadly lacking in the current generation of consoles. With the obvious exception of the Demon Souls series the difficulty seems to be somewhat removed from newer games. Sure you can ramp up the difficulty which will make it more challenging but it feels artificial. In the 8 and 16 bit eras you didn’t really have a choice of difficulty. You were simply saddled with how nut achingly difficult the game was and it was up to you to power through it. Now if you set the difficulty up on a game and reach the end, you will have some satisfaction at seeing the end but in the back of your mind you know some noob has seen the same ending playing on pissweak difficulty. Takes some of the gloss off doesn’t it?

Epic!!

Ok, so having identified that current generation video games have issues with too much content and a lessened sense of accomplishment detracting from the conclusion how do we go about fixing this. While this may sound over simplified this is the best I can come up with. Have more of an emphasis on narrative. Now while I’m not saying you have to go to the extremes that games like Heavy Rain do, being interactive dramas, I believe that if you start developing a game by properly planning a base narrative it would improve the ending vastly. To give you an example of what I mean one of the endings to a video game that has stuck with me was the ending to Final Fantasy: Crisis Core. Without going into too much detail this was the prequel to Final Fantasy VII (and the only reason to buy a PSP) that told the story of Zack. Now if you had already played Final Fantasy VII you knew a bit about Zack and you had an idea as to where the story was going (knowing that Zack is dead when Final Fantasy VII takes place). As you send Zack on the path that would ultimately lead to his demise you really start to feel involved with the story, wanting to overwrite the inevitable. The final fight of the game is Zack fighting an unrelenting wave of Shinra soldiers until you succumb to this never ending fight and watch Zack die. While the idea of an unwinnable fight is not unheard of to end a game on it I think was quite an ingenious idea. It is your will keeping Zack alive and your ultimate decision to let him fade away. I’m not saying this is the answer to every game but making the player feel more involved in the ending will go a long way to making a more memorable conclusion.

Perhaps they will re-release this on the PS Vita?

As I conclude this article I am starting to wonder, am I in the minority here? Is the rest of the gaming community fine with 50+ hours of game play surmised by 1 minute of rubbish? If that is the case then good luck to you all but for me I am still going to expect that a conclusion to a video game be parallel to those of their cinematic cousins. After all this the way that video games are heading so I don’t think it is unfair to ask. To not sound like a hypocrite I believe I should end this article well so I end it by revealing that the whole time writing this I have been…… a ghost…. From the future……. Who may also be Keyser Soze!! Oh well at least I tried.