Tag: Reviews

WB Top 100: The Life of Emile Zola (1937)

During the 2017 holiday season, I got a great deal on the Best of Warner Bros. 100 Film Collection. Diane and I haven’t seen most of these movies, but we are committed to watching one a week and writing a short review.

This week, we have something of a double-feature since Diane and I were a week behind. First up: 1937’s “The Life of Emile Zola”.

Emile Zola was a famous French writer in the late 1800’s. I had no prior knowledge of him before seeing this movie, but he is the origin of a line you may have heard before in political discourse, “J’accuse!” This phrase was the headline Zola used in a newspaper article about the falsely accused army officer, Alfred Dreyfus.

“The Life of Emile Zola” was not the worst movie I’ve seen on this list, but it was one of the more boring. I had no expectations going in and the first quarter or so of the film seemed to be setting up a biopic for an interesting historical figure. It soon fell flat though as the movie quickly glossed over much of Zola’s life to skip past his early social justice days to his fat and lazy socialite days. After his best friend Paul (the best character in the entire movie) leaves him, the movie jumps over to the at first completely unrelated, Alfred Dreyfus.

Zola - 4.png

Dreyfus. The actor won an award for his supporting role. I didn’t much notice.

Dreyfus is a Jewish army captain who gets falsely accused of treason. The entire military complex of France at the time is out to get him, and news of his crimes quickly become the talk of Paris. Zola first hears of this news while out shopping for lobsters and we get an “excellent” scene about how he finds the freshest ones.

There were bits and pieces of this film that were good, but it seemed like it wanted to both be a biopic and a court procedural without doing either any justice (pardon the pun). I might’ve been more interested in the Dreyfus bits, especially with the obvious corruption the court proceedings showed, but since the first quarter of the movie had been spent on developing Zola’s character, I didn’t care about Dreyfus or his plot. Similarly, with so much of the movie about Dreyfus, Zola became a reoccurring reaction shot in the courtroom and little more.

Zola - 2.png

The movie needed more Paul. I liked Paul.

At the time, this movie was heralded as a great biopic. I feel like prior movies have done it better. The first frame of the movie even states that it has changed names, locations, and events thus making it “fictitious” (the movie’s word)! All the same, I can’t wait to get out of this era. Every other movie is a rapid series of cliff notes about some great man I have never heard of and know nothing about.

There are probably better ways to learn about the life of Emile Zola or Alfred Dreyfus. I learned more from Wikipedia, for instance. Try that instead.

For other reviews, make sure to check out the Warner Brother’s Top 100 Film’s page.

WB Top 100: The Great Ziegfeld (1936)

During the 2017 holiday season, I got a great deal on the Best of Warner Bros. 100 Film Collection. Diane and I haven’t seen most of these movies, but we are committed to watching one a week and writing a short review.


“The Great Ziegfeld” is yet another long-winded biopic and musical from the ‘30s. In it, we follow the many rises and falls of Florenz Ziegfeld Jr, a Broadway producer best known for the Ziegfeld Follies: elaborately choreographed and staged Broadway products that had elements of Vaudeville. But this is not a modern-style biopic that seeks to teach you about the life of someone you may or may not know. “The Great Ziegfeld” is more a celebration in which you will learn nothing but you will be entertained.

Though a biopic, “The Great Ziegfeld” does little to humanize its subject. Rather than being portrayed as a flawed human, Ziegfeld is shown as an impossible charmer and dreamer. Modern films tend to gloss over the worst of a person to celebrate their best, but anytime “The Great Ziegfeld” comes close to a human moment (with one or two exceptions), time skips ahead or cuts away to one of Ziegfeld’s productions. Outside of his inability to save any money he earns or his chronic indebtedness, this film did nothing to explain Ziegfeld the man.

Ziegfeld - 2.png

My favorite character was Frank Morgan as Billings. He and Ziegfeld had a delightful rivalry throughout the film. His scenes were often the ones that got the most laughs from me.

And that’s a shame. For all intents and purposes, Florenz Ziegfeld Jr was an interesting person. The rights to this movie were sold by his wife to help pay his debts, and it was released only four years after he passed away at age 65. While my research hasn’t painted Ziegfeld as a particularly terrible person, he did seem to be a constant philanderer with the women he hired, and though the movie alludes to his indiscretions, it ultimately turns a blind eye by looking away every time.

One of my favorite things about several of the movies we’ve watched thus far is their willingness to cover large spans of time. “The Great Ziegfeld” is no exception. However, I do wish this were a modern movie, if only so I could learn more of the history of his life and career. Since the film spans nearly 30 years of his life, it comes off as the cliff notes version. Even the shows he helped produced are under explained despite their elaborate portrayal.

Ziegfeld - 3

Imagine something like this shot in HD and color. ALL THE SPARKLES!

If anything does hold up for this movie, then its lavish portrayal of the Ziegfeld Follies that defined so much of the man’s career. According to Wikipedia, the movie’s budget was $2.183 million (with a $4.5 million plus box office) and it shows. From the film’s opening to all of its stage productions, “The Great Ziegfeld” remains a great spectacle. The “Wedding Cake” sequence in particular is phenomenal, over the top, and absolutely insane by any time’s standards. If you have never seen it, then you absolutely must whether you like this kind of thing or not.

There were a couple of instances of blackface which obviously do not hold up. The longer of the two featured an actor performing a song called “If You Knew Susie”. The scene stood out to Diane and I not because of the blackface itself but because we couldn’t figure out why it was used. There was nothing racist or racial about the performance or the actor’s dancing. We were both laughing in how silly and pointless it felt.

Beyond its glossing over the facts or its elaborate productions, “The Great Ziegfeld” suffers from its length. Neither Diane nor I ever felt bored because of the visuals, humor, or acting, but this movie could’ve been half as long and still be twice as fun. At 177 minutes, complete with an intermission, it is just too much movie to say so little, especially when some of its key players were the actual performers involved in the real Ziegfeld’s productions.

Ziegfeld - 4

William Powell did okay as the charming Ziegfeld, but he didn’t have a lot of material to work with.

“The Great Ziegfeld” is an enigma. We both enjoyed it, though I’d hesitate to put it at the top of the list for its many flaws. Still, I’d hate to tell anyone not to watch it, as the movie is both entertaining and funny. Also, despite its length, it left me wanting so much more. I’d love to see a remake of this movie with a more true-to-life story and depiction of the subject while replicating its spectacular recreations of what were likely some of the most beautiful, coordinated, and weirdest things ever set on a stage.

For other reviews, make sure to check out the Warner Brother’s Top 100 Film’s page.

WB Top 100: A Night at the Opera (1935)

During the 2017 holiday season, I got a great deal on the Best of Warner Bros. 100 Film Collection. Diane and I haven’t seen most of these movies, but we are committed to watching one a week and writing a short review.

In a huge departure from last week’s film “Mutiny on the Bounty”, this week we return to New York (yawn) for an attempt to make it big in show business (yawn) with another romantic subplot (yawn) and the antics of the Marx Bros (huh?).

This week’s movie is 1935’s “A Night at the Opera”.

This was my first Marx Bros. movie though not the first time I’ve been exposed to their comedy styles. Why I was naked in front of them, I am not sure. Speaking of comedy styles, did you ever get a look at the Marx Bros. Woof! Literally, they look like dogs returning from a bad groomer. So anyway, I was exposed to them first (specifically Harpo) through I Love Lucy. I was standing naked in front of it on a projector playing the scene where Lucy kept yelling ‘le crayon’. That’s no way of talking about a man’s penis!

I could go on forever, much like this movie, but I won’t. Frankly, for the few jokes and bits that did land, there was a seemingly endless supply of misses. The romantic subplots and characters didn’t keep my attention either. I loved the opera singing, but even it went on longer than necessary. All in all, for me, this felt closer to “Scary Movie” or some other “throw everything at a wall and see what sticks” type comedy.

Night Opera - 1.png

Yes, I am sure some of you move/comedy/Marx Bros. buffs are upset I didn’t enjoy this movie.

That’s a shame because when it worked, the collective talent of the Marx Bros. was apparent even for someone like me who has only heard of them through pop culture history. At times it felt like a slightly funnier Three Stooges (which I have never liked), but my generation is so far removed from Vaudeville that I really didn’t get much of the appeal and I am not sure I should have.

Some bits did land for us both. I loved the scene where they stuffed as many people as they could in Groucho’s room on the ship going to New York City. It went on until it stopped being funny, like most of the jokes in “A Night at the Opera”, but unlike those attempts it kept going until it was funny again.

Night Opera - 2.png

This scene was genuinely funny and fantastic physical comedy on the part of everyone involved.

Diane was also partial to the hotel scene where they kept switching beds in adjoining rooms to hide the other stowaways from the police. I didn’t care for it.

I hate writing a review this negative. I don’t think “A Night at the Opera” bests “The Broadway Melody” for my worst yet, but it is close. I wanted to enjoy it, but this isn’t my kind of comedy and the attempts at plot and character development were just piss breaks for the main attraction.

And I wasn’t attracted to it at all.

Night Opera - 3.png

I don’t recall noticing this when I first watched it, but Harpo pouring a drink with his foot is also great. I would watch more Harpo Marx, but his brothers I could do without.

For other reviews, make sure to check out the Warner Brother’s Top 100 Film’s page.


WB Top 100: Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

During the 2017 holiday season, I got a great deal on the Best of Warner Bros. 100 Film Collection. Diane and I haven’t seen most of these movies, but we are committed to watching one a week and writing a short review.

Sorry for the delay! Diane and I were busy last week with her sister’s birthday plans. We watched the movie on time, but I kept getting sidetracked from doing this write. Please don’t mutiny!

Speaking of which, last week’s movie was “Mutiny on the Bounty” from 1935 starring Clark Gable. More importantly, the movie featured Charles Laughton, an actor I have never heard of before, but who was more impressive than the entire rest of the cast. And – spoiler alert – I actually really enjoyed this movie.

“Mutiny on the Bounty” was based on a novel based on actual history. As such, it seems fairly removed from anything that may have actually happened. The story follows the shipmates of the HMS Bounty under the leadership – some may call it abuse – of Captain Bligh (Charles Laughton) and Fletcher Christian (Clark Gable). What follows is easily the goriest and more disturbing of any movie we’ve seen thus far plus or minus some of the racism in previous films.

Mutiny - 2

Clark Gable gets by mostly on his charm. Here he’s leading a “press gang” which historically were men who forced other men into the military/navy with or without notice. Kind of like the draft, but they come and grab you at your favorite bar instead of just expecting you to show up.

From the outset of the movie, when men in a tavern are compelled into the Navy to serve on the HMS Bounty, when they find they’ll be captained by Captain Bligh, they immediately try to escape. Bligh’s reputation as a tyrant far proceeds him and, as easily my favorite character in the whole movie, he lives up to it.

Captain Bligh is an effective heel because he doesn’t hold back. His first real introduction is in regards to a man who has been held prisoner for “punching his captain”. Bligh calls the entire ship on deck to witness the prisoner being flogged for his discretion. When the taskmaster announces he is dead from the inhumane treatment he received even before being whipped, Captain Bligh commands the flogging proceed since that’s the punishment he has already decreed for the man, dead or alive.

Mutiny - 3.png

Here’s Captain Bligh. Do not punch him or he will have you beaten until you are dead and beat your dead body for the trouble.

Captain Bligh also has a great line when one of his men speak out of line against him and he asks another man to rat him out. He refuses to rat out his friend, but before Captain Bligh has him flogged in place of whomever may of spoke, the man who did speak against him came forward so his friend wouldn’t be beat in his place. Captain Bligh has him whipped and he has the friend whipped as well since, “When I ask questions, I expect answers.”

Charles Laughton’s performance is outstanding. His face emits glowing rays of hatred at all times. He scowls and scorns his way through the entire movie. Even after a large portion of his crew mutinies and casts him and those loyal to him off in a small sail boat, he refuses to allow his only comeuppance in the movie to change his expression. Even as they are set adrift, Bligh dares the sea to swallow him up with just a look.

Mutiny - 4.png

One thing I do miss about men in Old Hollywood is they had believable bodies. Everyone these days is chiseled!

The rest of the movie’s characters were okay. Clark Gable plays the handsome good guy, but I felt like there was a disconnect between his beginning the mutiny and everything leading up to it. Sure, he tries to stick up for the men under Captain Bligh’s horrifying punishments, but he doesn’t really snap until after Captain Bligh accuses him of stealing coconuts.

The morality of the mutinying is also undercut by Roger Byam, a blue blood sailing newbie who disagrees with Captain Bligh’s practices, but wants to follow the captain’s orders at sea and would likely try and bring charges against him once they return to England. Think a Lawful Good character in D&D. He ends up getting stuck on the HMS Bounty with the mutineers and lives in Tahiti with Fletcher Christian and the others somewhat against his will.

Mutiny - 5.png

The Tahitians greeting the men of the HMS Bounty was quite a site. I loved seeing all the boats and the excitement of a bunch of men who haven’t seen land or woman in months.

Speaking of Tahiti, I loved the depiction. I imagine it wasn’t very accurate, but there wasn’t any “these people are stupid savages”. If anything, the movie leaned too hard on the ‘noble savage’ trope since the island was idyllic and peaceful. The movie also featured two female love interests for Christian and Byam to marry. Diane and I could thought one of the women was a straight up white girl, but it turns out she was Hawaiian born and the other actress was Mexican-American. Even if they had no character development and did little more than titillate, it was nice to see some women of color in a prominent role.

Our biggest downside for “Mutiny on the Bounty” was its run time. At 132 minutes, much of the Tahiti stuff could’ve been cut or streamlined. They also spend a ton of time on Captain Bligh’s miracle return to civilization after being left at sea which felt unnecessary. The movie ends with a few days of court proceedings as well, which seem to drag on, especially when compared to the bigger action sequences earlier in the film that still hold up well.

Mutiny - 6.png

The young man on the and his wife (and mother of his child) was pressed into service at the beginning of the film. He spends the entire time getting flogged until he decides to mutiny. Afterward, he intentionally gets captured just so he can return to England in hopes of seeing his child before being executed. He’s a happy character.

“Mutiny …” also ends with a “happy ending”. Byam lives, despite being found guilty of mutiny and sentenced to die, but he is saved because his family is rich and can get an audience with the king. His fellow shipmates, all of which were destitute to begin with, are executed. Yay for rich white people?

“Mutiny on the Bounty” is still a good film and my personal favorite of this series thus far. I edge out “Cimarron” if only because Charles Laughton’s performance as Captain Bligh was so memorable for me. Whereas most pirate/naval movies tell you their Captain is a grizzled bad ass, Captain Bligh looks like he could chew you up, spit you out, and still have time to munch on a cheese wheel he stole. With everything else still holding up (give or take a script that overstays its welcome), I’d say give this one a shot.

For other reviews, make sure to check out the Warner Brother’s Top 100 Film’s page.


WB Top 100: 42nd Street (1933)

During the 2017 holiday season, I got a great deal on the Best of Warner Bros. 100 Film Collection. Diane and I haven’t seen most of these movies, but we are committed to watching one a week and writing a short review.

Next up, we return to New York City for “42nd Street”, a comedy musical from 1933. Well, that was the implication at least. The movie takes place almost entirely in rehearsal for the upcoming in-movie musical, Pretty Lady, before the show opens up in … Pennsylvania. Yeah, we didn’t get it either.

42nd - 2.png

It’ll take you most of the movie to get to the “shrimp dip” of women.

We won’t bore you as much as this movie did us. The first two-thirds of the film is a vaguely humorous exploration of practicing for a big musical. There’s some broken hearts and star-crossed lovers, a Harvey Weinstein-esque producer who uses his money/power to force the show’s lead to go out with him, a gangster named Slim Murphy, and dancing.

The acting was pretty good. Warner Baxter plays a soon-to-retire director named Julian Marsh. He lost all his money in the stock market crash and this show is his last chance to make enough money to quit show business for good. He was easily the most convincing of all the actors, from his yelling at the dancers to how worn out he looked in several scenes.

42nd - 3.png

There is a subplot about the director dying that never goes anywhere. Still, great job acting.

The rest of the cast has their charms. The focus of most of the story is on Peggy Sawyer (played by Ruby Keeler). She’s a fresh face and this is her first show. She manages to straddle that line of ignorant amateur and doe-eyed girl next door without teetering too far toward being annoying. That said, she’s hardly an underdog with everyone rooting for her by the film’s climax.

Though “42nd Street” was mostly a waste of our time, the last twenty minutes were a big hit for both of us. The musical Pretty Lady didn’t make any damn sense, but the choreography, staging, how it was shot, and the music itself were all great. It all stands the test of time too, especially the folding train scene, the stairway to the New York skyline, and of course the forest of legs.

42nd - 4.png

This speaks for itself…

If you are a sucker for Broadway and you want to see Old Hollywood’s take on it, “42nd Street” is okay. Diane and I both struggled to say much more about the movie than this if that tells you anything. Still, if you are a sucker for Broadway and you don’t want to waste your time, skip to ~1h9m mark and enjoy the only show that really entertained.

Here – I’ll save you some of the trouble:

For other reviews, make sure to check out the Warner Brother’s Top 100 Film’s page.

WB Top 100: Grand Hotel (1932)

During the 2017 holiday season, I got a great deal on the Best of Warner Bros. 100 Film Collection. Diane and I haven’t seen most of these movies, but we are committed to watching one a week and writing a short review.


Source Wikipedia.

1932’s “Grand Hotel” is the first movie on this list to have more than one name that Diane and I had heard before. It stars John Barrymore (the grandfather of actress Drew Barrymore), Greta Garbo, and Joan Crawford. The movie, originally adapted from a play, takes place entirely in the Grand Hotel of Berlin and follows in the lives of some of its guests as their stories slowly interconnect.

Grand Hotel - 2.png

The lobby does a great job of establishing most of the characters early on, well before they’ve formally met one another.

For a movie where, to quote the Doctor who permanently lives in the hotel “nothing ever happens”, enough did happen through its nearly two hour runtime to convince us both to put it at/near the top of the list of the movies we’ve watched for this series thus far. Compared to my favorite so far “Cimarron”, “Grand Hotel” is wonderfully subdued – give or take any scene with Greta Garbo – and incredibly small. The movie takes place entirely in the Grand Hotel, shifting from the lobby to various hotel rooms, never leaving the premises or the actors’ sides.

Despite its smallness, “Grand Hotel” feels large and all-encompassing. All of the characters are interesting. We owe the acting for that. The plot too kept us engaged as it blended just enough mystery, drama, and humor as each character moved from vignette to vignette, crossing over, never crossing at all, or double-crossing one another.


Grand Hotel - 3.png

Joan Crawford was fantastic in this film. I really loved her wit. She oozed, “Woman who doesn’t give a fuck.”

Not to give too much away, but the movie ends with both a death and a birth. In a sense, the Grand Hotel is the cosmos itself as it lets in and lets off its passengers. It may seem slow moving at first, but “Grand Hotel” picks up speed without you realizing it. Whether its Joan Crawford’s tart secretary or John Barrymore’s friendless baron, there’s a lot of reasons to watch this movie. By focusing on these characters and others all at once, “Grand Hotel” manages to captures a series of stories all unfolding in the middle of their arcs simultaneously and pulls it off spectacularly.

I imagine its interwoven story comes from the movie being based off a play. Still, it’s cinematography and set design keeps it from ever feeling boring or two dimensional. The Grand Hotel is no Overlook Hotel like in “The Shining” with its own personality and importance, but the 360 degree desk in the lobby makes the “Grand Hotel”’s setting feel like its own place.

The opening of the movie begins with a series of shots in a phone booth as each character takes a turn introducing themselves and alluding to their background directly to the audience through an ingenious use of a phone. It almost predicts the more modern “confession booths” of reality television.

Grand Hotel - 4.png

Lionel Barrymore, the older brother of John Barrymore, did a fantastic job with the dying accountant Otto Kringelein. Though, at least in this scene, his accent was more Southern (US) than German.

From there, as each character is introduced as they live and breathe within the Grand Hotel, we also eventually see all of their rooms. Most of the characters are having extended stays in the hotel, so rather than cookie cutter rooms each reveals more insight into the character.

For example, Greta Garbo plays a depressed ballerina whose room is a maze of fine clothes with a clear path to the bed where she spends most of her time. Contrast that with the dying accountant whose savings are being spent entirely on enjoying luxury in his final days.

Grand Hotel - 5.png

Everyone else in this hotel seems to live here, but the accountant hasn’t even unpacked his one suitcase yet.

After begging for a larger room, the one we eventually see him in is massive, luxurious, and empty save for the dresser that holds his hat and umbrella. By dressing the rooms much as the actors wear costumes, the hotel comes to life in the kind of way that only a movie excels at.

And for once on this list, this movie holds up almost entirely to a modern eye’s scrutiny. There’s no racism to point to and the boss who wants to have sex with the secretary (Joan Crawford) he just hired for his business trip is sadly a still familiar and relevant plot line. Even more relevant is the importance placed on money, especially in how the dying accountant whose former boss (the same one with the secretary) is also staying at the hotel though as part of him running his business.

Grand Hotel - 6.png

Oh Greta …

Diane and I did share one weakness for the film: Greta Garbo. While researching the movie after watching it, I saw several reviewers praise her acting, but for us it was over-the-top and silly. It didn’t help that the camera kept zooming in on her face whenever she spoke. Also, the romance plot she was involved in didn’t make much sense to me. Greta Garbo fans or people who watched this movie when it first came out in the 30’s might’ve been able to fall in love with her after only one real look, but I couldn’t.

For some, “Grand Hotel” may be a boring movie where nothing truly happens, but for us it was a treat. The cinematography still holds up, as does the acting. The plot is nothing revolutionary, but so well executed that I felt engaged for most of the movie. We both recommend “Grand Hotel” to anyone who wants a film that likely deserved its Best Picture Academy Award.

For other reviews, make sure to check out the Warner Brother’s Top 100 Film’s page.

Final Fantasy XII: The Zodiac Age (PS4, 2017)

During my blogging hiatus, I revisited Final Fantasy XII with its Playstation 4 remaster.

For the longest time, FFXII was my least favorite in the series, much to the chagrin of my sister-in-law who is a huge fangirl for the game. Anytime I brought up my hatred, I’d get a side eye from her, whereas most of my other friends who happened to be Final Fantasy fans never even touched XII when it originally came out on the Playstation 2. After playing it again, I can safely say that Final Fantasy XII is pretty okay.


My history with the original goes back to Blitz: The League, an arcade-style football game that has absolutely nothing to do with Final Fantasy or Square Enix. “Back in the day”, my friends and I would meet after school to play Blitz. On one occasion, a friend who I eventually served as Best Man at his wedding, got so excited in a Blitz win that he jumped up. In so doing, he ended up pulling the console down onto the hardwood floor by a connected controller cord (praise be to wireless). Thus ended our time playing Blitz and my time being a Playstation 2 owner.

A year later when Final Fantasy XII came out, I couldn’t afford to purchase a new Playstation 2. By then, I had mostly moved onto being an Xbox fanboy. Still, as Final Fantasy X and X-2 faded into memory, my need to play the latest and greatest Final Fantasy game increased. Plus, it was set in the same world as Final Fantasy Tactics, my absolute favorite Final Fantasy game.

Through shame and guilt, I made my friend loan me his Playstation 2 until I could finish Final Fantasy XII, which contributed to the first reason why I disliked the game: I rushed it.

Final Fantasy XII is not a game you should rush. With its open world setting, a real contrast to Final Fantasy X, it had an exploratory quality that the series had been missing for some time. Plus, the extra boss fights are both easy to miss and fun to do, so a large part of the game can be ignored if you aren’t looking beyond the plot.

As I previously mentioned, Final Fantasy Tactics was and is my favorite Final Fantasy game. Final Fantasy XII shares the setting of Ivalice, but is set in a different time, in a different part of the world, and all of its callbacks to Tactics are done through flavor text. In other words, it was not a successor, spiritual or otherwise, to Final Fantasy Tactics. This was the second reason I disliked the game.

Despite not being another Tactics, FFXII does have better characters. Sure, the plot was terrible in comparison, but that’s true of 99% of video games because FFT really was that damn good. I didn’t even mind Vaan, though I was pretty tired of the teenage boy shtick for Final Fantasy leads and would’ve much preferred any of the game’s more mature characters to be the sole focus.

For my final reason, I point to the combat. Final Fantasy XII was a huge departure since you only control one party member at a time, though you can switch around. Combat is still turn based, but it takes place out in the open world, and the game promotes automating most of it to the Gambit system. Gambits work as a sort-of customizable AI mini-game that allows you to set conditions for how the AI should play your party mates.

In 2006, I hated gambits, so much so that I refused to use them. Instead, I micromanaged everything in combat, rapidly switching from character to character, queuing actions and hoping for the best. This made Final Fantasy XII harder, but when compared to my more recent play through, far less enjoyable.

Part of the beauty of Final Fantasy XII, much like Bravely Default, comes from powering up your party, creating unique combinations, and finding ways to automate things for efficiency. By skipping over that entirely in 2006, I really missed out. Playing the game as intended and using gambits to their fullest is so much more fun. I loved farming and grinding so much that I did every achievement but kill the secret boss Yiazmat because fuck a boss that takes hours (not hyperbole) to defeat.

I loved Final Fantasy XII this last time around. It is a great example of marrying classic Final Fantasy with a then-modern twist (MMORPG-esque open world, revamped approach to combat, etc.). I hate that the series has only moved further away from its roots, but FFXII was a happy compromise if only I had recognized that fact then rather than last year.

Why then do I say it is only okay?

Because the plot sucks, most of the characters would be better off in a narrative that wasn’t “crappy Star Wars”, and it wasn’t Final Fantasy Tactics 2.

Sorry! Some things don’t change.

%d bloggers like this: