Militia2 Released

[|tRunKs|]

-=fish=- wrote..

trunx man get a life no1 said this was gonna be a realistic movie - how many r? u want realism go join swat. in the mean time ill stick 2 cs.

i'm sorry but i am not only refering to real life, but also ingame Counter-Strike... unless ur a noob pubber who runs around like an idiot, then u'd probably understand. i dont know about how u play but i sure dont bait my teammates and do stupid things that get me killed. not to mention clans use something called "strats" and "positioning" to pull off objectives etc.



and yes i do have a life for a matter of fact. if u dont like my opinion and critiqueing then u can go shove it.

[Curve]

My opinion:

Editing - Done very well. The scenes flowed well and the flashback was done nicely too.



Camera work - Didn't care for it. Like Rze said, most of the time it was just the camera moving forward, it got really annoying and didn't really add any cinematic intensity.



Music - I liked it :)



Voice acting - The main actors were very good at what they did. They read their lines well. The scottish guy and the southerner were pretty bad though. You could definatly tell their accents were forced.



Special effects - roxor. Loved the fighting scenes. I thought they were thrown together nicely.



Visual effects - Eh, not horrible, but not great. For how much time was put into it; you could have gotten different skins to make the CT's look like they weren't having their knives out, and it was just fists.



Script - Suxor. A lot of what was going on was pretty unbelievable. *spoilers ahead* Ok so first of all the Ct manages to get to the vent by the T garage. He's even ducking into it staring at the 2 CTs that have been captured. Yet the two guys that are down there can't walk up the stairs and go out the vent? Yea, not very thought through. Secondly, when Mr. Scottish dies in front of the shooting range, claiming he was the Squad leader. When the 2 terrorists stupidly turn away from the actual squad leader, what exactly is stopping him from shooting the 2 terrorists? And last thing I will mention. When they are all out front and such. Why the holy hell does the guy drop his awp and charge at them with a pistol? Why didn't he jsut pick them off? *end spoiler* That was my thing. The script seems like it was an after thought and it seems the dialogue was really cheesy. The main voice actors did a good job speaking the parts, but they weren't given the best stuff to speak.



Unfortunatly good music and nice effects doesn't complete a movie. My rating: 5/10

[^.j()$h.^]

Curve wrote..

My opinion:

Editing - Done very well. The scenes flowed well and the flashback was done nicely too.



Camera work - Didn't care for it. Like Rze said, most of the time it was just the camera moving forward, it got really annoying and didn't really add any cinematic intensity.



Music - I liked it :)



Voice acting - The main actors were very good at what they did. They read their lines well. The scottish guy and the southerner were pretty bad though. You could definatly tell their accents were forced.



Special effects - roxor. Loved the fighting scenes. I thought they were thrown together nicely.



Visual effects - Eh, not horrible, but not great. For how much time was put into it; you could have gotten different skins to make the CT's look like they weren't having their knives out, and it was just fists.



Script - Suxor. A lot of what was going on was pretty unbelievable. *spoilers ahead* Ok so first of all the Ct manages to get to the vent by the T garage. He's even ducking into it staring at the 2 CTs that have been captured. Yet the two guys that are down there can't walk up the stairs and go out the vent? Yea, not very thought through. Secondly, when Mr. Scottish dies in front of the shooting range, claiming he was the Squad leader. When the 2 terrorists stupidly turn away from the actual squad leader, what exactly is stopping him from shooting the 2 terrorists? And last thing I will mention. When they are all out front and such. Why the holy hell does the guy drop his awp and charge at them with a pistol? Why didn't he jsut pick them off? *end spoiler* That was my thing. The script seems like it was an after thought and it seems the dialogue was really cheesy. The main voice actors did a good job speaking the parts, but they weren't given the best stuff to speak.



Unfortunatly good music and nice effects doesn't complete a movie. My rating: 5/10

I agree with the last thing before your rating that you said. But welcome to the world of a movie.

<A New Mirror Has Arrived>I will e-mail rizzuh it :P

[robo_zuul]

Uh, I'm not sure what you mean by "visual effects" but there were none. It was movie made with the half-life (aka modified quake 2) engine. Were you expecting real explosions? Perhaps we could have made a CGI helicopter and inserted it? Nah, that would cheat the counter-strike fans. This was a CS movie first and a film second. It exists in the layer of reality that concearns itself with cheesy action flims and the online gaming world.

It meets those two things somewhere in the middle. If you are the kind of person who watches Commando and says "well, that's just not realistic" or picks up Rambo II and says "but it's just a grass hut, how could it explode twice?" Then you sir are watching the wrong movies. Pick up some SWAT documentaries or watch Worlds Scariest Police Chases on Fox, you'll never have to question the reality or logistical viability of that.

If you are going to make a career out of recomending films, or even publishing reviews in any form, keep a few things in mind: 1) the strength of a script is not depedant on it's believability, some of the best films are completly unbelievable [Waking Life, Naked Lunch, or any David Lynch film]. 2) You may not what to exclusivly focus on which way the camera was moving, consider what the director does or does not show you, how does that add to the drama or comedy occuring? How does it take away? 3) In the film world "visual effects" and "special effects" are near exclusively interchangable. We don't have an Oscar for visual effects and a seperate one for special effects.

In response to your "why drop an AWP and go after some guy with pistols" inquiery. In the film Aliens [spoilers for those who haven't seen it ahead] when the Marines arrive at the planet why not just send someone around the complex and look for Aliens and then nuke it? Ok, not a perfect example, but you know what I mean: it's more interesting to explore the faults of characters than the strengths. If Militia 2 was simply just: SWAT team shows up in tank, SWAT team rushes door, SWAT team kills all the terrorists with flawless perfection, SWAT goes home to wife and kids... how interesting a film would that be? Hamlet had plenty of chances to kill Claudius and he didn't, most of the english speaking world calls that brilliant writing, but when Russ decides not to pick off Brad with his AWP it's not even half decent?



Since I am a voice actor, I think I need to defend it, on a personal level. Most of the voice acting was done in one night, due to time restraints. The character of "Evan the Terrorist hick" came out of a combination of the insidental voice work of a southern game actor, mu bizzare improving, and the brainstorming of lines with TFG and myself. The "scottish character" (played by Brian, same guy who played Russ) was intended to be a distinct background character, the accent came only from a need to make his voice sound apart from Russ. We didn't have a professional voice coach, we didn't train for weeks on end. Evan was meant to sound funny and cheesy, and he did. Scottish guy barely said more than "fully loaded sir". This hardly drags down the work of the rest of the actors, especially that handsome devil that played SWAT 4.



The final point is this: we worked within the restraints we were given, all of us, TFG with counter-strike, the actors with the short schedual... but at the end of the day I can proudly and clearly say we did the best job we could have possibly done with what we had, and you know what? I think it was a pretty damn good job at that. Not one other CS movie even holds a candle to it, heck, no in game movie I've seen comes anywhere near it.



Then again, I'm biased.

[Curve]

Before I continue, the only reason it may seem I am getting defensive is because you are trying to make me out to look like an idiot because I commented on your movie.

robo_zuul wrote..

Uh, I'm not sure what you mean by "visual effects" but there were none. It was movie made with the half-life (aka modified quake 2) engine. Were you expecting real explosions? Perhaps we could have made a CGI helicopter and inserted it? Nah, that would cheat the counter-strike fans. This was a CS movie first and a film second. It exists in the layer of reality that concearns itself with cheesy action flims and the online gaming world.

I meant visual effects to say just that, visual effects. I even gave an example if you care to read on. Changing the skin to make the captured CT's not have a knife. Now if you are going to say that you stuck true to the CS skins, then you are wrong. There is a reskinned AWP in there, why not go the extra bit. That would be "visual effects" and not "special effects". As I said, I liked the special effects, and I'm not debating whether or not there is an Oscar for either.

If you are going to make a career out of recomending films, or even publishing reviews in any form, keep a few things in mind: 1) the strength of a script is not depedant on it's believability, some of the best films are completly unbelievable [Waking Life, Naked Lunch, or any David Lynch film].

And those films are the best based on your opinion, correct? That's right, YOUR opinion. As you can see by the first sentence of the original post I wrote, everything I wrote was MY OPINION.

2) You may not what to exclusivly focus on which way the camera was moving, consider what the director does or does not show you, how does that add to the drama or comedy occuring? How does it take away?

Hard NOT to focus on that when it's right there every scence, so sorry but that's like saying, don't focus on the big zit on someone's head, it's right there.

3) In the film world "visual effects" and "special effects" are near exclusively interchangable. We don't have an Oscar for visual effects and a seperate one for special effects.

Great, I'm not arguing that, but it's good knowledge to know I suppose.

In response to your "why drop an AWP and go after some guy with pistols" inquiery. it's more interesting to explore the faults of characters than the strengths. If Militia 2 was simply just: SWAT team shows up in tank, SWAT team rushes door, SWAT team kills all the terrorists with flawless perfection, SWAT goes home to wife and kids... how interesting a film would that be? Hamlet had plenty of chances to kill Claudius and he didn't, most of the english speaking world calls that brilliant writing, but when Russ decides not to pick off Brad with his AWP it's not even half decent?

Ok, I see your point, let the SWAT leader die and just sit there, my bad. Now, if it were made out to show that 'Russ' didn't have a means to shoot Brad, or didn't have a clear shot. Great! All the better. But you are trying to bring Russ' character as a truly good guy that cares abotu his job and his people. You stray way beyond that in that scene. But guess what, still my opinion.

Since I am a voice actor, I think I need to defend it, on a personal level.

You act like I put down everyone who ever voice acted.

Most of the voice acting was done in one night, due to time restraints.

Simple solution: Don't do it.

Then again, I'm biased.

[robo_zuul]

Ok, the obnoxcious "visual effects/special effects" thing. No, reskinning would not be a visual effect, it would be costuming or art direction, just like how mapping would be the same as set design. Calling it "visual effects", something that is popularly defined as something quite differnt, and applying your own definition to it is just confusing and ill-communicative. Such is the can of worms you open when you publicize your work. The closests Militia ever gets to special effects is the helicopter and the flash from the first movie, both of which required a lot of "special effort" to accomplish. The point is: how can you critituqe special and or visual effects when you can't define the words and you have no know knowledge of what is and what is not a special/visual effect in the film.



I am aware that you are discussing YOUR opinion, I certainly didn't think it was fact. I assume that whenever one discusses something as vague and indescribable as art they are using their own opinion. The reason why I listed the films that I did was to suggest to you that there is a world of film outside that of stringent reality: not every film should be or has to be Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan. If you exclusively love reality I question whether you like films at all.



With the camera work: I agree. Some people don't like dynamic cameras (ie cameras that move a lot). I liked the camera work in the Blair Witch Poject for example, some people found it disorienting. I really like Guy Ritchies fluid sense of momentum he gains from quick zooms and rapid inward pans, but that is only 1/10th of film photography. You CAN discuss things like framing as well (ie in addition to).



Is anyone here an actual member of a SWAT team? I see a lot of arguements that apply a lot of absolutes of the internal logistics of Militia 2. For example: no SWAT team member would EVER do that, or Spec. Ops. would ALWAYS fire back.



The reality is, we are not these people, we don't know what they are thinking. Who can say what runs through Russ' head when he whips out his pistol and decides to "be a hero". We know Russ "cares about his people", he makes that clear, but Russ is more complex than that. He's got a bit of a yellow streak, he's a bit of a whimp. He ran away in the first film because he was scared and his friend was captured. This time he decides that he will do anything to rescue Mark, his pal. You see it's a film about how friendship overcomes adversity. Russ didn't shoot Brad because he didn't have a clear shot, Russ didn't shoot Brad because he was afraid of what was going to happen.



Russ isn't a cold methodical killer, he isn't a robot (though that would be cool), he's a human being with emotions... his actions are determined by more than just his circumstances and the logical outcome.



Thus the Hamlet reference. Hamlet didn't kill Claudius when he had the chance until the very end, because he was scared, he was frightened of the consiquences. And hey! This is my opinion. The difference: I discussed both sides of the coin and then made my position clear. You never discussed the hubris or pathos of any of the characters, not once did you mention catharsis.



There are reasons why reviewers use certain language, conventions, and display certain types of information in a certain order and that's because it is something that is meant to be consumed by the public. If you are publicizing something and you want your point to be brought across clearly thene you should be reviewing these conventions. When you published your review of Militia 2 you had an obligation to the public to make a fair review that clearly discussed all the points of the film, so that whether or not your audience agreed with your opinion they could still determine if the 21 hours spent downloading the insane version would be worth it. I don't think you did that, but then again, that's just my...opinion.



I would suggest reading Roger Eberts books Questions for the Movie Answer Man and The Great Movies as well as going to Rotten Tomatoes critics forum and seeing what types of things they discuss and how.

[Curve]

Edited by [user="24533"] @ [time="1029742014"]

Right, costuming.

Again, you bring up the difference in the words like it really matters. I gave a description of what *I* meant by visual effects. Guess what.. I'm not handing out an Oscar, so I don't have to fit it to the criteria. I separatied Visual and Special effects. Again, you went off on a tangent on how the only thing close to "visual effects" was the helicopter scene. Well I fit that under special effects. Oh god, don't sue me.



The Russ thing, great.. grand.. So again, what exactly stopped them from leaving the house again through the vent? The vent that he (Russ) was clearly in and looking at them through... Oh wait, I'm sure the cts taken hostage inside felt as though they couldn't leave, as though they had a certain bond to the house. Oh but we don't know what they are feeling, so I shouldn't assume that. I'm sure you can find a lot of different ways to counteract my statements, but it still fits under poor scripting. And guess what, in my opinion... (I like how you are somehow trying to mock me for saying that btw, nice one).



Why are you trying to mix me up with a real movie critic? I gave my review. I didn't download a template and go from there. Why aren't we criticizing the good reviews? They didn't go in proper format. I see a couple "It roxorz!" in some posts. What would Roger Ebert say?!?!?!



Listen, get over it, I didn't like it.



Oh and I just thought of something else: I love how the cts and ts are on a first name basis. Nice touch.

[robo_zuul]

Here's the condesed version of what I said.

robo_zuul wrote..

[your method] is just confusing and ill-communicative. Such is the can of worms you open when you publicize your work.



...I discussed both sides of the coin and then made my position clear. You never discussed the hubris or pathos of any of the characters, not once did you mention catharsis.



...reviewers use certain language, conventions, and display certain types of information in a certain order and that's because it is something that is meant to be consumed by the public. If you are publicizing something and you want your point to be brought across clearly then you should be reviewing (ie reading and consuming) these conventions.



When you published your review of Militia 2 you had an obligation to the public to make a fair review that clearly discussed all the points of the film, so that whether or not your audience agreed with your opinion they could still determine if [they would enjoy it].

Why not critique positive reviews? Because I have no problem with people downloading the film based on a poorly written positive review, whereas I do have a problem with people NOT downloading the film based on poorly written negative review.

[Gatorade]

Edited by [user="224"] @ [time="1029808259"]

|tRunKs| wrote..

The camera angles and special effects in the movie were very nicely put together.



The story line, acting (voice lines), were rather weak. All the hero action and going in by themselves was a lot of bull that wasn't really needed and really annoyed me.



I'm not a realism freak but damn i thought TFG would be a little bit more realistic with the story and everything.

Loved the... Action scenes, Atmosphere thanks to the music, the sound effects and cinematography.



But that story was just weak as you said. They could of thought of something at least a little more realistic... It pretty much shows what people dislike about CS, the lack of team work. I don't think you'd ever see an entire SWAT team walk solo into hostile territory with such little organization.



The voice acting was okay, but it was made silly by the attitudes from the ct's, bad attitude counter terrorism officers and refusal to back each other up? How did they get the job to become a counter-terrorists in the first place? they should be in the detention hall for talking back to their physics teacher.



It was a great movie from an action-cinematography point of view, but the bad story and attitude problem ct's are major pitfalls for what could have been a great all-round action movie.



And please: Don't take criticism badly, it's there for a reason, an improvement for next time no need for useless flaming.

[robo_zuul]

I don't understand the "realism" concearns. How does one make a movie made in a computer game more realistic than the computer game upon which it is based. Better yet, why make it more realistic? No one has complained about the CSs using the AWP (aka the arctic warefare magnum) when they are clearly not in the arctic. It seems nit-picky to me.



And am I flaming? It's been so long now, I've forgotten what trolling and flaming really are <jk>.

[Gatorade]

So you're telling me it's impossible for the story to be any more realistic than a bunch of solo Ct's running around trying be be heroes sacrificing themselves overand over and yelling at each other with the attitude of a 12 year old?

[Curve]

Man, you just can't take it can you? I love how you aren't touching the subject I have brought up twice now either.

[robo_zuul]

I'm not sure what you're hinting at Curve? What am I missing? And I will keep coming back, yes, I find debating on boards fun and entertaining.



Gatorade: not impossible, no. It's not a matter of COULD we, it's SHOULD we? Yes the movie could be more realistic, but why does it HAVE to be?

[Gatorade]

Edited by [user="224"] @ [time="1029878959"]

It doesnt have to be, I am entitled to my opinion. Why are you even arguing bout this, it's not going to cahnge my opinion. If I wanted to watch a soap opera Days of Our Lives is on at 11AM.



And why shouldn't it be more realistic? Ask questions both ways. I'm not saying that the story is unrealisitc, I'm just calling it plain stupid.



The ct's in the movie are lacking common sense, running into a hostile building getting themselves caught, if they waited for backup and went in as a larger group in the first place there wouldnt have been 8+ unnecessary deaths. The people the solos ct's were trying to save were going to end up dead anyways so why waste another life.

[robo_zuul]

You certainly are entitled to your opinion Gatorade, I'm not trying to sensor you, I'm just hoping that maybe what I have to say will help you think about things a little differntly. I'm not hoping for an about-face here, I don't expect that. And your right, if you wanted to watch Days, you could, but you don't go on the internet and complain that it's "not realistic" do you?



And you're still arguing about the "logic" of the characters in the film, I don't get it. Your applying your own personal standards to the people in the movie. Would you watch a video about people trying to survive on a desert island and say "woah, they're eating coconuts, that's stupid, this show sucks."



Why shouldn't be more realistic? Because it's based on a videogame. How's that for an argument in support of the "non-realism" of M2.



I'll refer you to something my 11th grade english teacher told me when I read McBeth for the first time: "suspend your disbelief"