007 Game Rankings: Number 13. "Tomorrow Never Dies" (Ps1)

                                                                            

With "EA" given the rights to create Bond games after the legendary successful "Goldeneye 64" by "Rare," how do they top it? Making it a third-person shooter, having only half the levels that its predecessor had, and not providing a multiplayer experience. It's a downgrade. Now I personally (retrospectively speaking) don't mind changing the game from a first-person shooter to a third person; I find it quite as ambitious as 007 Racing. A change with potential, and games like Everything or Nothing and From Russia With Love are pure examples of how to make a third-person shooter Bond game. But like 007 Racing, it fails for the same reasons. Trying to move Bond is just as much of a chore as steering the vehicles in 007 Racing. Whether I'm using the D-pad or an analog stick, I could barely keep Bond in a straight line, as I would find myself walking into walls or directly in the line of enemy fire. And instead of being pushed back by a bullet or still moving when being shot, he freezes for a second making it difficult to avoid further gunfire, especially if there's more than one opponent. There's a cool stealth feature of sneaking up behind a guard and punching him out, except half of the time, my gun will fire instead, so clearly Bond has to be at a particular spot, which is difficult to achieve. In half the levels, I'm usually stuck with the challenge of trying to spot the enemy before being fired upon. That reason is thanks to having graphics looking as bad as the ones in 007 Racing. But I have to give the worst game on the list a little credit because at least I could see everything when in this game, enemies are either camouflaged with the background, or they're already firing before the other side of the level can fully load. And if it's not the graphics, then it's the difficulty of keeping the camera from running away when pursuing a target. I was about to give up on the game right from experiencing all these problems during the first level but pushed through the mission for the franchise (and the help of cheats).

I should note that this game wasn't originally going to follow the Tomorrow Never Dies storyline. Initially, it would function as a sequel titled Tomorrow Never Dies: The Mission Continues until focus groups demanded it should be like the movie. The change shouldn't bother a casual player or even a Bond fan since it follows the story with a few tweaks. The only time the game completely derails from the story of the film are missions 6 and 7. However, knowing what the game could have been based on its promo featuring Q's actor Desmond Llewelyn, it sounds more exciting than telling the same story. Plus, the graphics looked better, and has cool missions that are not featured in the game (including an additional driving level). That said, the story can still be garbage. The new levels and mechanics could be near unplayable (an underwater level with these controls, I think not). And as good as the graphics may seem, EA did have a tendency of making the graphics in their promos look better than the actual product. I'm just saying; we could have had a better, if not as good as Goldeneye Bond game. 

Despite having most of the same problems as the previous game I ranked, I did have more fun and interest in it by comparison. The graphics may be as bad, but it still has more personality through its vibrant colors and level design. I enjoy visiting the snowy mountains of Russia, sneaking into Carver's lairs, checking out of Hotel Atlantic, and firing through the night streets of Saigon. The game's soundtrack isn't half bad either. It's not as memorable as its predecessor, none the less it still puts me in the right mood when playing each level, adding to the atmosphere when the soundtrack in 007 Racing was just noise. And for all my complaining about the mechanics, I'm at least happy the game spares the pain of having no auto-aim. I kind of like how the game gives the player ability to lock on to a target in third person and aim in first-person, making me wish the game made it optional to play in either setting. 

Unlike the poor attempt at storytelling in 007 Racing, this game does very well take it a step further from Goldeneye. All the game's cinematic cutscenes are mission briefings, this time making the player feel like M is directly telling him or her what to do with the use of visual aid, as opposed to just reading instructions and comments from the characters. Since the game doesn't have the budget to produce cinematic cutscenes, heavily edited clips of the movie can be shown at the end of certain levels to either conclude it or set up the next one (including the film's title sequence with the game's credits replacing the film's). Admittedly, there are two things 007 Racing did do better with telling its story. It was the first Bond game to feature cinematic cut scenes of Bond in action, and it used one to end the game. This game ends so abruptly that there's no real sense of accomplishment. Bond jumps on a getaway boat with Wai Lin; it says Mission Complete like all the other missions, and that's it. I understand a harder difficulty unlocks a montage of the game, that's a little better, but it doesn't feel any different from watching the mini trailer played at the very start.

I know what I'm about to say may sound a little blasphemous, and I'm not saying this to put a gaming legend down, but the game does have a little bit more variety than Goldeneye.  I have no problem walking around blasting enemies and using different means to complete an objective. But really think about what the game offers in comparison. There's skiing, a fighter jet a player can activate to cause mindless destruction, an infrared snipper, a chance to play as a character other than Bond in the story Wai Lin, and hey, did I mention about a driving level in my last post? How does none of this sound just a tad more exciting? They are spoiled by the problems that hold the game back from fully succeeding, but even so, I can still happily say I had some amusement. The times when I had to ski, for instance, was fun, where I felt the weight of going down the mountains performing stunts while leading enemies into trees. What ruins half of the fun is the lousy controls for steering Bond, and the chase coming to a bit of a halt for when I need to fight off opponents with ski poles.

Tomorrow Never Dies suffers from what 007 Racing had. The game had promising potential that the franchise would improve that's ruined by inadequate controls, low-quality graphics, playing the story safe, and ignoring everything that made Goldeneye a hit. But unlike how I most likely would rather watch someone else play 007 Racing on YouTube before even thinking about playing it again, Tomorrow Never Dies is one I wouldn't mind as much re-experiencing. Despite what it does wrong, it offers new and exciting ways of playing as Bond in its crude stages but can still be enjoyable, making the experience less of a pain.

                                             Least Favorite Mission: Ski Ridge

Ski Ridge is one of the few levels that has nothing to do with the film's story at all. I don't mind additions to the story, except this level is the same as the first one. I'm once again up in the snowcap mountains skiing and penetrating into enemy territory. The only significant difference is Bond gets into a boss battle with the criminal, who was only briefly seen at the beginning of the movie Satoshi Isagura. Now that I think about it, this mission could serve as a hint to what the game's original story would be about. Since Isagura's fate is unknown in the film, it is possible that he was going to be the game's main villain with the motivation to unleash nerve gas on Yokohama as his main plan. It's by far the only clue of the game's original story; that goes without saying the mystery of it is more fascinating than the level itself.

                                            Favorite Mission: Hotel Atlantic

When I was looking up clips of the game before buying it, this level is what made me interested in giving the game a chance after hearing so many negative reviews. I love exploring the many different rooms as I am firing upon the assassins, especially the bar. And though it's evident from the start that all these staff workers will become your enemies since each of them is casually wielding guns, it's great that the level doesn't start right away with the action, allowing the atmosphere to sync-in. The level's highlight is the game's first boss battle with one of the best throwaway henchmen ever in the film franchise Dr. Kaufman. The only criticism I have is the game's handling of Bond's former lover Paris, who you have to protect on the way out of the hotel and doesn't die. On the one hand, I'm happy to protect Paris in the game and see her live because I did grow a fondness for the character in the film. But on the other hand, when the level is over, she's never seen or heard from again, making it pointless for the game to keep her alive.

007 Game Rankings: Number 14. "007 Racing" (Ps1)

 

Yes, a Bond game that strictly focuses' on driving does exist, and I was shocked to find out as well. The idea of a racing game involving the Bond vehicles sounds fun for a multiplayer mode, but to carry on an entire game sounds boring and ridiculous. Well, after buying a copy of the game and popping it in to give it a try, though it was still bad, it wasn't as terrible or stupid as I anticipated. Instead of getting a cheap "Mario Kart" knock-off as the title and tie-in may suggest, I was pleased to see more variety to the missions. They'll be times where a player would have to race to an objective before time runs out or before another villain gets there. But then there would be tasks involving destruction such as destroying a certain number of enemy cars, demolishing a base, and of course, recusing a Bond girl. And the best part is, despite having similar objectives, the missions don't all feel the same; there's always something new added to keep them from feeling repetitive. For instance, while one mission involves Bond to plant detonators' to destroy a base and rescue an ally, another level with a similar objective has Bond controlling the car through the perspective of a faulty security camera in night-vision that unexpectedly changes angles and glitches. There are plenty of missions where the player has to chase down a villain and damage the vehicles to apprehend them, but different methods are used for each level, such as lasers, ramming the car at a weak spot of a vehicle, or gathering ammo for a rocket launcher before giving the enemy the final blow. While on the topic of picking up ammo, there are also missions where Bond has to collect a certain number of items while also making a deadline. Some of those missions include collecting homing beacons while racing against a female assassin or collecting antidotes while escaping an underwater facticity during an explosion and making it out the blast doors before they close. The mission that always stands out to me regarding this type of objective is the one that rips-off the film "Speed" where Bond is forced to drive a rental car at a certain speed or else the bomb attached to it will explode. As a second mission, this could easily involve Bond driving fast until the player reaches the destination to dump the car, except the bomb is on a timer that will still eliminate Bond. Therefore, the gamer must locate transmitters to delay the bomb's set time to explode before dropping it in the ocean. It's a little much to throw in so many obstacles so early in the game (the level following the limos towards the end of the game would have made for a better swap), but still an intriguing challenge none the less. 

Unlike the past Bond games based on the Brosnan films released at the time, this game marks as the first Bond video game with an original story with new characters. However, the game's story does feature characters from other Bond films, including JAWS, Jack Wade, Xenia Onatopp, Zukovsky, Sheriff J.W. Pepper and Whisper. It's a cool concept of creating a new story while still incorporating classic foes and allies in the franchise to throw in some nostalgia. And above all, this game gives fans the chance to explore the world of Bond in video game format in a completely different way.  The only way to drive one of Bond's cars before this game was the BMW 7 in the video game "Tomorrow Never Dies," which was the only driving level in the game. This game allows fans to control various Bond vehicles they can only dream of driving, such as the Aston Martin DB5, the BMW Z3, and the Lotus Esprit. And instead of just firing missiles and machine guns, the game features other devices to stop an enemy, including oil slick, and an emp. 

In theory, this sounds like a fantastic game, but it's overall quite dull and frustrating in practice. The plot of the game itself is not bad, it just needed a better way of telling the story. There are only three cutscenes in the game's story mode, as two are shown at the very beginning, while the other is shown at the end. And aside from a mission briefing cutscene, the other two focus on driving that don't add much to the plot. The game's usual way of telling its story is through mission texts. That's fine, but unlike how "Goldeneye N64" would have a non-diegetic mission briefing, a diegetic mission briefing from M, and advice from Q and Miss Moneypenny to capture the feel of being in Bond's shoes, most of the texts in this game read like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book. Occasionally a general mission briefing from M would appear, other than that the actions that Bond does off-screen are read, where the word "You" replaces any mention of Bond's name or number. And for the lack of visuals, the new characters become forgettable quickly after playing. Their voices are heard, a picture of them can appear occasionally, and two of the girl's Bond meets are featured in the first and last cutscene of the game. But because these characters are hardly shown in the game, it's hard for them to leave an impression. I remember the characters from other Bond movies that appear in this game than any of the new ones. And even the characters from the franchise that do appear here (with the exception of R and M) all feel like they're just thrown in for cheap fan service for how little their importance to the story is. 

If the gameplay and graphics were good, having lousy storytelling wouldn't be that much of a distraction, except the game doesn't offer that either. Now I'm not an expert when judging a video game by its graphics or mechanics, but these are pretty terrible. The cutscenes are visually good (with the exception of the faces), while the rest of the game appears so blocky and blurry that it's bland. The game features exotic locations like New York City, Mexico, Louisiana, and Eastern Europe, and they all look so empty and glitchy with such a lack of personality in design to make them appealing. The only memorable location that comes to mind, is the science lab with a giant laser, and that's only one room out of an entire level. But it doesn't matter how unappealing these locations look because since you're always on a timer or chasing after someone, there's very little time to explore or play around with the weapons. When activating the cars for each mission, I never felt like I was in full control compared to other games (including "Tomorrow Never Dies"). Usually, I find myself crashing for how unreliable the steering is, and when trying to break the car at certain locations where the mission wants me to carry out an objective, I still have to reverse or move forward to get the car to the right spot. Using weapons isn't much fun either. It seemed promising in the first level until I played the third level to discover that using any explosive weapons will most likely damage my health whenever I use them, even if I'm distances away from the blast. I could use the submachine guns instead, but they take longer than they should to destroy an enemy car. I honestly can't remember if I ever succeeded in blowing up a car with the sub-machine guns; all I know is it works perfectly on henchmen firing outside of their vehicles. And while I lose health from terrible steering mechanics and weapons that are either inefficient or will do me as much damage as the thugs I have to fight, I'm forced to listen to R yelling at me constantly. It's usually hilarious hearing Q or R beg Bond not to damage the cars he's given, and I was thrilled to hear John Cleese's voice badgering me to be careful. But after the fifth time when replaying a mission listening to him aggressively giving the same useless instructions as before, he becomes irritatingly fast to the point where I had to turn off the character voice option. 

The game has a ton of potential, which can be seen as a rough prototype for future Bond games when establishing driving levels and pushing for the games to have original stories. As much as I appreciate what it was trying to do and what it will inspire for future Bond games, it's still overall a very aggravating experience to an ugly looking game that's typically overlooked for a good reason. From the Ps1 era of Bond games, I find myself having more of a blast playing the driving level in "Tomorrow Never Dies" than I do with any of the levels in "007 Racing." 

                                                              Worst Mission 

                                                                "Ambush" 

All the problems I have with the game's mechanics can all be summed up in this level. Destroying all eight dodging cars had me realize how terrible the weapons are, as I have already used up all health packets after finishing them off. Then I find out I have to disable two forklifts that are nearly invincible and could take ages to destroy if I don't lure them to boxes filled with explosives if I'm lucky enough not to blow-up myself because of the steering. And by the way, R doesn't tell Bond to lure them to those crates, I had look up this information for myself. Out of telling me to "return fire" knowing it would risk my health 99% percent of the time, and to "pick up a health kit" when I have used them all at that point, it would be more helpful to tell me what I could do to weaken an unnecessary powerful forklift?! And just when I thought that the nightmare was over, I have to crash into a lab and carefully park my car towards each of the ten computers to disable them with an emp (that always needs charging) before time runs out. It just never ends for how needlessly long it is!  

                                                             Favorite Mission 

                                                                 "Escape"

If I have to pick a favorite, I will say racing against Xenia Onatopp with Valentine Zukovsky in the passenger seat, concluding with activating a Union Jack parachute attached to the car off a cliff is pretty awesome. Thankfully for each replay I don't always hear Zukovsky making the same sarcastic comments over and over, therefore coming across as genuinely funny for when he unexpectedly does say something.   

Ranking 007 Video Games: Introduction

Regarding video games, I'm not much of a diehard gamer. I just don't keep up with the medium like others due to how expensive and time-consuming it is. Above all, I am not as critical of games as I am of movies or shows. I don't pay too much attention to judging the graphics, gameplay, or story unless these problems stand out. For me, as long as I am having fun playing the games with a story that keeps me invested, graphics that look decently appealing, and an environment I can get lost in, the game has served its purpose. I simply don't think as deeply about games as I do with other mediums. While I'm not a big gamer or critical of video games compared to others, I still love playing like Grand Theft Auto, Crash Bandicoot, Super Mario, Red Dead Redemption, Kingdom Hearts, Mafia, Sly Cooper, and many more. I certainly value the medium, not just for its playability but for how it helped expand my love for films. I wouldn't have been big into Lord of the Rings without the games based on the last two movies. I'm glad that my introduction to The Warriors was through the PS2 game. And The Godfather games help cemented my love for the franchise and its lore. What's even better about video games is that I can play as my favorite characters. I could swing endlessly around the city as Spider-Man. I am thrilled when I get to cause mayhem while saving Springfield as the characters from The Simpsons. And to play as Tony Montana, taking back what he lost, though goes against the message of the film is an exciting alternative experience. You know what you're looking at is not real, but interacting in environments and with the characters makes you feel you traveled into the world in the shoes of the protagonist, almost forgetting you're just watching a screen and pushing buttons. That's part of the charm and unique experience of a game that a film doesn't capture since you cannot control how a character performs their actions when watching a film or exploring every angle of a location. 

To further prove and celebrate how much video games have played a significant role in my love for films, I am not only going to review a game series based on a popular franchise but also write about them in the order in which I rank them based on my personal enjoyment for them. Picking a franchise was not hard at all; in fact, I knew what to pick from the very beginning without a second thought. That franchise is...

                                                        The 007 Game Franchise

The Godfather is my favorite franchise, but my favorite franchise that is always in progress goes to Bond. If it wasn't for playing the 007 games back when I was a kid, I would not be as obsessed with the franchise as I am today. At the time, nothing was more remarkable than playing as a well-known secret agent using gadgets, visiting exotic locations, driving cool cars, wooing the ladies, and fighting against some of the most tremendous forces of evil to save the world. Before I start, I have to mention a few essential things, which I will list below. 

1. I am Not a Gaming Critic: After explaining how lightly I look at video games, expect these reviews to not be based on the mindset of an expert on games but more from the perspective of a casual gamer who is judging the games on playability and capturing the spirit of the franchise.
2. Expect Me to Talk About my Relationship with Some of the Games: If I sounded vague about how much the games mean to me, I will indeed discuss my nostalgia with them, since part of the reason for this list is to express my relationship with the games that helped me become a Bond fan.
3. I'm Only Talking About Bond Games for Certain Systems: As much as I would love to play every single Bond game, I am only sticking with the games for the PlayStation, GameCube, and Nintendo 64. This means I will not be including Bond games for systems such as the Gameboy, Atari, or PC. Not only do I not have the resources to play the games, but looking at them, with the exception of NightFire for the PC, there's hardly anything for me to talk about because of how dull and lacking theatricality they are. 
4. I Will Not be Reviewing Online Multiplayer: While I plan to review most of the multiplayer modes in the games, I will not be reviewing online multiplayer. Barely anybody plays the online campaign (One of the reasons I'm not a fan of multiplayer games made for strictly online only), and I do not have the resources to take part in online mode at the current time. 
5. Bonus Section: As a special treat, at the end of each review, I will have a bonus section talking about my favorite and least favorite mission.

Now that I have filled you in, get ready for my review series as I rank 14 of the 007 Games, that will start in a few days. 

What is Film Noir?

 James Naremore claims that it "has always been easier to recognize a film noir than to define the term." Naremore further states, "There is, in fact, no completely satisfactory way to organize the category; despite scores of books and essays that have been written about it, nobody is sure whether the films in question constitute a period, a genre, a cycle, a style, or simply a phenomenon." People's typical perception of film noir contains the following. The main characters are either anti-heroes wronged by the law or are working outside the law. To narrow down the main characters further, they would usually qualify as a hard-boiled, fedora -and trench coat-wearing detectives or wrongfully convicted men who wander into trouble at the wrong place, at the wrong time. The female characters are femme fatales, women who are cold, seductive, and selfish. In short, they are beautifully shallow monsters. The antagonists in film noirs are either corrupt officials or murderous criminals with little to no charm. Film noirs were ideally shot in black and white with heavy low-key lighting to create an ominous shadowy atmosphere, usually on empty foggy city streets, and in shabby apartments, smoky bars and diners. The question is, is it true that there are films that are considered noir that challenge people's ideas of the style? 

Looking into the more obscure side of the style, two films that fit the category yet challenge the general perception of it are The Great Flamarion (1945) and Fear in the Night (1947). The best way to start when analyzing the two films is the beginning. It is not uncommon for a film noir to tell a chronologic story, yet it is seen as a staple of the style for the film to present itself through flashbacks. Typically, what leads to this narrative is an opening designed to get audiences immediately hooked with an action, leaving them with questions of how the protagonist made it to where he is now. The Great Flamarion uses this traditional approach. The film opens in Mexico inside a theatre as the camera slowly approaches the stage, catching an end of a performance and the beginning of another. The camera halts at a medium shot of a clown performing, only to have the performance interrupted by a gunshot heard off-screen. During the chaos, glimpses of the suspected crook are revealed as he climbs the ladder in an overhead shot. His face appears as he is walking on the scaffold above the stage, looking wounded as he hides from the authorities. Shortly after the chaos, we discover a woman was murdered, and her husband is falsely arrested for the crime. While finding out this info, part of it is seen through the P.O.V. of the man hiding up in the scaffolding viewing the conversation from above. With everybody gone, except for the clown, the man hiding falls onto the stage, where he is then comforted by the actor. The clown recognizes him as the film's title character, The Great Flamarion. Flamarion reveals he was the one who murdered the actress and that she shot him in self-defense. With no hope for survival from his wounds, Flamarion confesses the reason for the murder before dying, leading to a flashback officially beginning the film's story. With film noirs, a murder usually happens on the dark city streets. While the murder does take place inside the theater, the painted backdrop behind him resembles a city street.

Despite the unconventional setting, everything in The Great Flamarion's opening scene plays out as a typical film-noir. Fear in the Night's opening is utterly different. The film itself does not look like a film noir, more so a low-budget combination of a Hitchcockian thriller with cheesy spooky visuals that William Castle would be proud to exhibit in his gimmicky horror films. The background for the opening credits has blurry kaleidoscope imagery as loud dramatic music plays with a title as dramatic as if we were watching a teaser trailer for a low-budget old horror film or the midnight spook shows (before they were even a thing). The first image that does appear looks just as spooky and hokey, with a woman's head floating toward the screen over melancholy narration that sounds strangely distant. What follows is a murder scene played out as intense with the same surreal kaleidoscope-like imagery as the title sequence, this time adding blurry ripples, mirrors, dramatic close-up shots, heavy low-key lighting, and an overhead shot of the character spinning into a vortex. Vivian Sobchack mentions "that back projection is to film-noir space what flashbacks are to film-noir time. Not merely a tacky effect of a low-budget production, back projection is an aesthetic element that well serves noir's philosophical worldview, transforming it not only into something literal and materially realized but also producing a subtle yet significant effect on the viewer's sensual comprehension of cinematic meaning." The same can be said about the low budget aesthetics of the sequence. It looks fake yet creates an image straight out of a nightmare. While the sequence looks other worldly, the inner monologuing and the imagery of a man murdering a woman ground this surreal sequence making it appear we are gazing into someone's haunting memory. 

The scene dissolves into an image of the protagonist Vince Grayson (played by a young DeForest Kelley) waking up in bed, believing it was all a dream hence the unusual imagery. Surprisingly, the character wakes up to find two thumbprints on his neck, a key, and a button from the nightmare. As in The Great Flamarion, there is a hook involving murder and a mystery that escalated quickly. Still, there are no flashbacks in the narrative, nor are the actual events supposedly happening. At least, that is not what the film wants audiences to think at first. The film is almost like an episode from The Twilight Zone, with a mystery that appears set in a supernatural realm. We, the audience, are wondering like the protagonist if what he envisioned was a dream or not. And if not, then how and why? It is not until the climax that it is made clear that everything that was shown in the film's opening did indeed happen. What audiences are witnessing is a flashback only shown from the delusions Vince was under, further creating a literal nightmare that is subtle with the meaning of what the viewer is seeing. In short, the film opens with a flashback without stating that it is one until the end. 

A popular trope in film noir that the two films do not have is a protagonist who is a tough detective working outside the law. What the two films do share, however, is a doomed protagonist. Fear in the Night, despite its horror-thriller-like concept, does involve a character in trouble with the law all throughout. However, Vince does not have trouble with the law directly. He did not cause an accidental death that he knows he is responsible for, like Al Roberts in Detour. Vince is unsure if what he dreamed was real or not, based on the places, people, and things he sees relating to the dream he has never encountered until that moment. And he does not keep his suspected crime a secret from the authorities either. On the contrary, he has a brother-in-law in the police force to whom he confesses his crimes, who of course, shrugs it off as nothing more than a nightmare. It is not often that a protagonist in film noir confesses to a crime they did not commit. 

Flamarion, character-wise, is the opposite of Vince. While Vince functions as the everyday social individual with a steady job, Flamarion is a successful antisocial showman with no likable qualities due to his arrogant and cold personality. The only thing he is devoted to is his work as a vaudeville marksman, spending many lonely hours in the dark perfecting his craft. He is so unlikable that without his mournful introduction any audience member could take him as a villain for his menacing appearance, brutish attitude, and a profession that can easily get him a job as a hitman. In fact, he does become a hitman at one point in the film by killing one of his stage actors during his act to make it seem like an accident. Usually, a protagonist committing murder would feel the guilt of some sort after or paranoia about the law finding out. But he does not show any of the two. He legally gets away with murder by convincing people it was an accident, and he thinks nothing of killing a man, not because he intended to be a cold-blooded murderer, it is because he was corrupted by something more dangerous than a gangster or thug: a femme fatale. 

The woman corrupting Flamarion is his beautiful assistant, Connie (Mary Beth Hughes), who works with her alcoholic husband, Al (Dan Duryea), during the act. Connie is a maneater- a woman who never settles down with one man. She will marry a man or date him for a while until she gets bored and goes for the next man, she finds attractive. Just abandoning a man for another is not always easy for her, especially in the bonds of holy matrimony; that's where Flamarion comes to play in her little plan. She has no love or physical attraction for him, nor is he the person she seeks to gold-dig from. Connie uses Flamarion so she can wed a bicyclist in the show Eddie (Stephen Barclay). As the femme fatales in noirs like to use and manipulate men to achieve selfish desires, Connie seduces Flamarion with more than just sex appeal. She plays into Flamarion's sentimental weaknesses by looking through his items to find out about his ex-wife, who has broken him. Mentioning her angers Flamarion, but Connie creates a false, helplessly innocent personality to give Flamarion hope for new true love and, in return, help her leave her abusive husband. By penetrating Flamarion's past and using a facade, he has contacted his sensitive side that he has hidden for so long and is on his knees to do anything she says. And like almost any seductive femme fatale, if it is not stealing or blackmail, it is murder she manipulates him to do. People like to remember criminals such as Vince Stone in The Big Heat, the Stranger in Stranger on the Third Floor, or Harry Lime in The Third Man as the typical main baddies in film noir. However, femme fatales often at times serve as the main villain as well. Notable examples include Vera in Detour, Kitty in Scarlet Street, and Ellen in (the debated color noir) Leave her to Heaven.

Fear in the Night reverses the typical film noir tropes in The Great Flamarion. The film has no femme fatale, or at the very least, one that does not meet any of the conventions. The female characters in the movie exist more as moral support or a victim than seductive villainesses or innocent heroines that attempt to take control of the situation (like Jane in Stranger on the Third Floor or Debby in The Big Heat). They are the Susan Vargas from Touch of Evil and Katie Bannion from The Big Heat of their time. The antagonist is not the typical criminal people would generally think of when contemplating film noir. The criminal, Mr. Belknap, is a hypnotist who rarely gets his hands dirty-not too different from the crime bosses or manipulative femme fatales who use their power or charms in order to persuade people to do their dirty work. In The Great Flamarion, the first time Flamarion starts developing some feelings for Connie is as he is doing routine target practice for his act. As Connie starts sweet-talking him, the reflective light from the pendulums Flamarion shoots move back and forth on the wall as the sound of ticking is played on the soundtrack. The image symbolizes Flamarion becoming hypnotized by Connie's beauty and claims about him. Fear in the Night uses hypnotism in a literal sense. No desires attract Vince, he is instead forced to do Belknap's bidding without free will. 

Paul Schrader states "Film noir is not a genre, as Raymond Durgnat has helpfully pointed out over the objections of Higham and Greenberg’s Hollywood in the Forties. It is not defined, as are the western and gangster genres, by conventions of setting and conflict but rather by the more subtle qualities of tone and mood." Both films partially follow the conventions of the film noir style. Both films have a startling and puzzling beginning, but each has a different narrative. Flamarion and Vince are doomed protagonists, except one commit murder to achieve a desire while the other is in an uncontrollable trance, willing to admit a crime. And both films either do not share a femme fatale character or a vicious criminal. As different as the two films are in so many ways, the film noir style can still be felt and seen, not just in character and story, but also in terms of atmosphere. The grim abstract imagery visually presents the viewers with a constant sense of danger. A slow pace to build up a sense of urgency. Music that can be mournful, intense, or deceptive to emphasize the environment and characters. The clothing style subtly emphasizes the characters' personalities as the backgrounds do. These technical elements, familiar dramatic character tropes, and a suspenseful story relating to crime create film noir. It is difficult to pinpoint what film qualifies as film noir or not (noir infuses other genres, including westerns, heist films, and melodrama), as it has been debated for an extended period. However, there is something that can be felt within its tone and visuals that cannot be felt or found in classic crime films like The Public Enemy, Little Caesar, and The Petrified Forest. If there is one thing for sure about the appeal of film noir it is the ominous transgressive escapism. As Corey K. Creekmur nicely put it. "Loving film noir is thus somewhat analogous to the doomed hero of a classic film noir such as Out of the Past (Jacques Tourneur, 1947) directing his passion to the dangerous but exciting femme fatale and away from the safe but dull nice girl: our attraction and our reason, or our passion and our morality, are pulled in opposite directions. Whether we identify with the flawed hero or the femme fatale (there’s little desire to identify with the good girl), we want to be bad. The love of film noir is similarly transgressive, if only in fantasy."

Do the Right Thing: The Most Unconventional and Honest Film About Racism

When the social problem films began in the late 40s, they shed light on the topic of racism while launching the careers of black actors (notably Sidney Poitier). However, as well-intended as the films were, they still refused to go all the way to show the brutality or complexity of racism to challenge white audiences. They were dramatic films but usually left audiences with a feel-good message at the end as if these films knew how to combat racism rather than leaving them to think about the issues. And they were not just a product of their time; they were still made throughout film history, where their formula usually stayed safe. There were still some notable films that defied the traditional storytelling narrative Hollywood would teach about racism. One of the essentials in that category is Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing. 

Most films tackling issues of race would usually have a white director in charge of the picture rather than a person of color. Of course, just because a black person directs a film does not automatically mean the movie will be more authentic than a white director in charge. The film industry is primarily controlled by white men who still have the final say in the film's approval and can make changes if necessary. But when having a black director who is also the writer, producer, and founder of the production company (40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks) the film was made under, there is a more substantial chance that the raw authenticity is going to come through, which the film unquestionably delivers.

Spike Lee also stars as the film's protagonist Mookie, a young black man working at an Italian Pizzeria in a primarily black neighborhood in Brooklyn on the hottest summer day imaginable. Most films about racism typically had a white protagonist to connect to white audiences, but there were still a few films with black people as the focus such as "Shaft," or "No Way Out". While commendable, many of the black protagonists were a little too perfect. The typical black protagonists would suffer from racial prejudices but usually keep their cool, remain headstrong and come on top in the end, serving as an ideal a black person should be as opposed to a relatable character for black people to identify with. Mookie is not a perfect character. He is loyal to his job, but he always slacks off. He loves his girlfriend and kid but is not dependable as a father or lover. Mookie is not made to look as classy as Sidney Poitier, but he is not a one-dimensional stereotype of a man in poverty living in a poor neighborhood. He is portrayed as the everyman. A character striving to do well in life, figuring out where his loyalty lies. His boss Sal sees him like a son for his commitment, except he is still viewed as a black punk by Sal's son Pino. He disapproves of his black friends' stirring up trouble for their black skin, however, he cannot pretend he is not struggling because of his race. And as the film progresses, Mookie's anger because of his struggling loyalty to both sides continue to rise like the summer heat. Mookie's imperfections, vulnerability, and uncertainty make him a fascinating and relatable character who is more complex than most black protagonists in films about racism.

The film's racist white antagonist Sal is not portrayed as a one-dimensional savage racist like so many others in films. Sal is well-liked in the neighborhood for his place of business and cares for the customers. As Sal explains to his son Pino, he has a nostalgic spot for the people in the neighborhood because he watched them grow up on his food. Sal does not live in the area where his establishment is but is still willing to work a little past closing time to serve the latecomers a slice. Sal still has a bossy attitude and a heated temper, but usually when he catches his employees slacking off or when a customer is acting out of line, either when overusing the parmesan cheese or inappropriately blasting music. Sal seems like a nice guy who is just trying to run a business his way. For the character not acting like the racist antagonists usually depicted in media, a good half of moviegoers (typically white) do not see him as a racist. The actor portraying Sal, Danny Aiello did not think he was racist either when portraying him. 

On the surface, his racism is not blatant, but it is still there. The central conflict of the film is Sal's refusal to add pictures of African Americans on his wall of fame after hearing a customer's complaint. Sal explains it is his establishment therefore he is free to put whatever he wants on the wall. And as an Italian proud of his heritage, he would instead fill the walls with famous Italians. The customer Buggin' Out retorts Sal's claim with the fact there are mostly black people in the neighborhood, and since they are the ones who fill Sal's pocket with cash, it would not hurt his business if he put some black people on the wall. If Sal did care about his customers, he would consider the option of including a few pictures of black people in his restaurant. Sal could easily purchase a photo of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X together from Smiley on the street for a small fee. But a little later after his feud with Buggin’ Out he politely brushes Smiley off when granted the opportunity. During his feud with Buggin' Out, Sal starts acting violently and hostile towards him after hearing his reasons yet holds back. His refusal to do so is not because he does not want to hurt Buggin' Out but because he knows it will give his business a bad name. 

Sal's refusal to put pictures of black people up is not the only indication of his racism. When describing to his son Pino why he does not move his business, he refers to the community as "these people," indicating he does not see them as equal despite not sounding mean. To Sal, friends are people who put money in his pocket, but he never considers the community as his friends. He claims Mookie is like a son to him though never treats him like his sons because of his race. The only scene when Sal is fatherly towards his staff is with Pino, who, out of his two legitimate sons, is the one who is openly racist. It is not until the end of the film when Sal's racism is as direct as Pino's when Buggin' Out, and Radio Raheem confront him again. Sal, having enough of the two resorts to calling them racial slurs, lashes out in violence, and when Radio Raheem dies in the chaos, he shows no remorse. Sal is not a non-racist man who said and did the wrong things irrationally in the heat of passion because the film indicates multiple times that he is racist, just not directly as shown in other films. And Lee's portrayal of Sal as an ordinary man makes his racism more real. As Hollywood would like to make racists clear-cut villains, they tend to overlook that racism is not just from the extremist but could be from your friendly neighbor, vendor, or relative you know.

Surprisingly, while Buggin' Out and Radio Raheem have some valid points against Sal's establishment, they are not exactly innocent; they are both self-righteous troublemakers. It is not the first time Sal and Buggin' Out met each other. Buggin' Out has been to Sal's pizzeria three times a day and always does something intentionally to stir Sal up. Radio Raheem walks around the neighborhood, blasting his stereo and harassing people who are not black with his music. Raheem also has little patience for Koreans' lack of English speaking, having no issues insulting them. Of course, Buggin' Out and Radio Raheem are not the only black characters who are racist. The three elderly black men sitting around the neighborhood corner hate the Koreans in their community too. And to complicate the racial matters further, the black characters are disliked by another oppressed minority the Latinos. Lee does not cater to conventional themes or formulas when diving into racism; he investigates multiple layers of the subject to explore its complexity. 

If there is one thing Spike Lee makes clear about racism in his film, racism is not all about the individual. Hollywood tends to have a narrative where racism exists from the individuals who make it a big problem, when racism is more systemic and nowhere is that made clear than in the film's climax. Once the police intervene during the fight at Sal's Pizzeria, they only worsen matters. The fight is broken up at the expense of murder by one of the officers, who chokes Radio Raheem to death with a nightstick. Raheem's death was far from any accident as the officer refused to listen to the pleas from the civilians and fellow officers. Before this scene, the police officers who patrol the neighborhood hardly do a thing when there is trouble, and when everything is at peace, they cruise around glaring at the black inhabitants looking for an excuse to bust them. Those scenes are small, but they establish the neighborhood is under corrupt white police authority, just as non-black folks own the successful businesses in the area.

Systemic racism is why Mookie throws a garbage can into his boss' window to start the destruction of Sal's Pizzeria. Sal's racist colors are fully revealed, and the police murder a defenseless man in front of the pizzeria. From seeing everybody go at each other in the neighborhood all day in the burning heat and seeing Sal and the police get away with their crimes while his friends take all the blame, Mookie has had enough of the injustices. Mookie does the right thing, and Sal's place is in ashes, which should end the film either with a celebration or with Sal reforming after seeing the error of his ways, but the film does not end happily. Mookie did the right thing at the expense of losing his job. Sal's business is destroyed, but he will receive insurance money to start over. The riot did not end racism in the neighborhood as long as systemic racism still exists to keep everyone divided.

 In the article Remote Control: How Mass Media Delegitimize Rioting as Social Protest, it is suggested when commenting on the L.A. riots for Rodney King (two years after the film was released) "rioting as a legitimate form of social protest continues to be delegitimized by mainstream media." The response that Spike Lee's film received supports that claim.  Before letting the film roll the end credits, Lee uses a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. and an excerpt from Malcolm X asking the viewers when we should use love or violence "to fight the power." Lee informs the viewers that racism is not a thing of the past and that it is our time to decide what method we should use to fight it after seeing what Mookie did, leaving white audiences uneasy with its message. White audiences were scared that the film would promote riots and violence when ironically, the violence was not caused by this film or even happened when it came out. The violence and rioting came from the injustices a few years after the film was made from the police brutality that Rodney King suffered. 

When white audiences usually want to see a film about racism, they want reassurance that they are not racist, that times are better, and expect answers about how to end it, which usually means "love thy neighbor." Spike Lee does not have the answers to end racism, nor is he concerned with creating characters who are viciously racist and morally perfect to distinguish the good from the bad. Lee's film is less about the individuals and more about the complexities of bigotry and systemic racism. Lee's goal is to create a movie to entertain and challenge viewers to start a discussion and debate on the topic. The Academy did not take too kindly to the film's unconventional narrative, message, and controversy, consequently nominating and giving the Oscar for Best Picture Driving Miss Daisy, a film that follows Hollywood guidelines. And to this very day, this overused and safe narrative still wins that award through the movie Green Book in 2018, proving nothing has changed. These are not necessarily badly made films, nor should films celebrating acceptance and love for others in an injustice society be not seen as unimportant. But it is not the only way to combat or teach about racism. It is a more significant and more complicated problem than audiences think and does not deserve to be sanitized or presented as a simplistic matter. We still have an incredibly long way to go with difficult choices, and we need more films like Do the Right Thing representing the matter, which means making white audiences as uncomfortable as the black audiences watching the movie.

Run Lola Run

When American film scholars think of German films, a few of the following pop into their minds. There is German Expressionism from the silent era for having sets that appear nightmarish or otherworldly, as these films would handle dark themes like corruption, horror, and psychology. The Nazi propaganda films that looked stunning yet had dark purposes underneath their beautiful imagery that would further influence American propaganda films (the Why We Fight series directed by Frank Capra is a prime example). And the experimental and grittiness of Germany captured in New German Cinema by filmmakers like Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Werner Herzog, and Wim Wenders. Each German cinema era has its unique, unforgettable style that has continued to influence other countries as time progressed. A particular film from the country released in 1998 that would carry on the country's innovative film techniques is the experimental thriller...

The first image takes place in a dark abyss with a cuckoo clock covered with gargoyles ticking as the pendulum swings, appearing like an opening to a horror movie. Shortly after, the camera enters inside the gargoyle's mouth, and it is daylight where the footage is now sped up as the camera rushes through a crowd of people, occasionally slowing down to give focus to some of the people. Throughout this sequence, a narrator's voice questions our place in the game of life. The last person the camera focuses on during the sequence is an authority figure breaking the fourth wall by addressing the audience with the rules of a ball game, takes out a ball, and an aerial shot shows him kicking the ball up to the sky where the crowd below form the letters for the film's title. From the beginning, the film makes itself clear that it is visually and tonally not going to be a conventional action thriller. The film is instead going to go crazy with its surreal direction expecting the audience to have fun with it, as opposed to creating a gritty, realistic action suspense film that is supposed to keep audiences fearfully on the edge of their seat.

That is not to say the film is not based on thrills either. The film's premise revolves around the title character Lola (Franka Potente), the girlfriend of the criminal bagman Manni (Moritz Bleibtreu). After losing a bag full of 100,000 Deutschmarks, he desperately calls Lola for help, informing her his boss will kill him if he does not receive the money. The only solution Manni can think of to get back the money is to rob a nearby supermarket. Lola tells Manni to wait for her, but Manni only gives her 20 minutes to produce the money before he resorts to robbery. It is up to Lola to race to the rescue of her boyfriend while figuring out how to replace the money Manni lost. A story as intense as this with a limited runtime regarding the stakes would easily fill a film's third act, making for a riveting climax. However, this is how the film's plot begins after the prologue, without any apparent warning, placing the audience in Lola's position. Except for getting visual exposition, the action immediately kicks off.  

Little is described about Lola and Manni's characters to get the audience emotionally invested in their personalities. One would think as Lola runs to save her lover; the film would take a break from the action a few times to show flashbacks of Lola's past with Manni to build an emotional interest in them. But aside from the flashback in the opening scene and two flashbacks of them in bed together asking each other about their feelings, the film does not dwell long in the past for audiences to connect to the characters. The emotional intrigue for the characters and what we learn about them is focused on the present and probable future. Through each encounter, something is learned about the characters, especially Lola, whether it is a dramatic scene of Lola talking to her father, encountering a pedestrian, or her eagerness to help her boyfriend as she runs. Given the film's intense premise and bizarre direction, the audience's attachment and understanding of the characters are mainly described through actions rather than dialogue.

Just like the prologue, the film does not at all hold back from exploiting various film styles and techniques. Some scenes are shot with a 35 mm camera to make Lola's journey appear big and intense. In contrast, some scenes are shot with a video camera to create a documentary feel for certain scenes, like when a homeless man finds the bag of money as if we are watching footage from a security camera. The film is primarily shot in color, with the colors red and yellow popping out, connecting to the film's primary leads (such as Lola's hair and the various locations where Manni waits). But the film has certain scenes shot in black and white, used explicitly for the flashback sequence regarding Manni's mistake to present old grainy memories of the past, like watching an old film. The film even briefly tells its narrative in other forms of media. When Lola runs down a spiral stairwell in her apartment, avoiding a tenant's dog, the scene is depicted in hand-drawn animation. Another instance involves photographic montage. These montages usually happen for a few people Lola briefly encounters, showing their future.

The film's decision to constantly change its style may come across as obnoxiously pretentious, but it is the exact opposite. As random as the techniques are, it does not distract from the overall focus nor change the film's tone. And by the time the film reaches its second act, the experimental nature of the film starts to feel more like the film's norm. In many ways, the film's style is reminiscent of the American film Natural Born Killers (1994) by telling a crime drama with dark humor as the style keeps changing. Natural Born Killers experimental nature was to criticize how the media glorifies crime stories; in this film's case, it represents trial and error when dealing with the unpredictable in the game of life.

If Natural Born Killers is supposed to resemble a product of the problematic media the film attacks, Run Lola Run resembles a video game for its commentary on life. Lola's dyed red hair and wardrobe resembles a video game avatar like Lara Croft from Tomb Raider if she were designed as a fighter for a Japanese style fighting game. The actions of watching Lola run as she dodges one obstacle after another, stopping to gain help, and make it to her destination before time runs out plays out similar to the style and objectives in games like Super Mario Bros. or Crash Bandicoot. The soundtrack itself is an energetic electronic score sounding urgent yet excitingly playful at the same time, that would not sound out of place in games like Sonic the Hedgehog, or Tekken. Without giving too much away to further on the film's attempt to resemble a video game, for every time Lola fails, the way Lola finds another way is similar to how gamers figure out how to finish objective in a level they struggle finishing. 

The film is not only a filmmaking spectacle, but is highly entertaining, well-acted, fast- paced, action-packed, has intriguing characters, and a unique way of visual storytelling. The film’s plot has a clear end goal, with characters who are easily identifiable, but leaves more than plenty of room open for interpretation and theories with small blink and miss details in every frame. It may also be one of the best video game movies in existence without serving as a film adaptation of one. Run Lola Run is not the first of its kind in German film to use a range of styles and film techniques to have a deeper meaning under a simple story, but it is regardless one of the best films of that type, making it one of the most ambitiously innovative films from the country.