Ten Reasons Why Michael Fassbender is The Man

It’s hard to name a young working actor in Hollywood with more credibility than Michael Fassbender. The Irish/German thesp has shot up the Hollywood ladder of late thanks to a series of carefully chosen roles appealing to cinephiles and comic fans alike – and with the recent announcement of his role in the upcoming Assassin’s Creed movie, he’s gaining new attention from legions of gamers. Whether you’re a new or an established Fass Fan, here are ten reasons why Michael Fassbender is The Man.

Minor spoilers ahead.

He's Got Style

One can’t deny Fassbender’s almost insistent suaveness. X-Men: First Class showed us the guy can rock a vintage leather jacket, and his subsequent turn as a wealthy New Yorker in 2011 drama Shame proved he can turn any look into instant cool. For a franchise drenched in as much lavish style as Assassin's Creed, the recent GQ Magazine cover boy couldn't be more suited to don the hood.

He Stood Out in a Tarantino Cast

Fassbender's performance as the extremely British Lt. Archie Hicox in Quentin Tarantino's 2009 Inglorious Basterds is a stand-out amongst a stand-out cast. It's true that Tarantino traditionally enjoys lengthy speeches from his characters, sometimes to a fault, but Fassbender's wordy French tavern scene is so perfectly executed it comes close to stealing the entire movie. Here was an actor teetering on the edge of stardom, and having a hell of a lot of fun while doing it.

He Survived
Jonah Hex

One of Fassbender’s rare career missteps was as a secondary villain opposite Josh Brolin’s hero in the 2010 Western Jonah Hex. After the film was released to fairly terrible reviews, Fassbender shrugged off his involvement in an interview, quipping “Pretty awful, was it? I haven’t seen it myself.” He followed Jonah up with a performance in 2011’s critical darling Jane Eyre, for which he won numerous awards.

Even Charlize Theron Loves Him

In an infamous - brilliantly infamous - case of foot in mouth, Charlize Theron couldn’t help but reference Fassbender’s, uh, assets in Shame at the 2012 Human Rights Campaign Gala. “I have to say that I was truly impressed that you chose to play it big,” said Theron, after accepting an award from Fassbender. “Most other actors would have gone small, trust me. No, I know, because I've worked with them."

He was the Best Part of
Prometheus

Starring in what was, no doubt, the most highly anticipated sci-fi of the year, Michael Fassbender managed to steal the show under the noses of the rest of Prometheus' considerable cast. His android David is a multi-faceted creation, swinging between cool detachment and voracious curiosity like a sinister child, his mimicry of Peter O’ Toole unsettling in its ‘not quite rightness.’ While the unfulfilled ambitions of Prometheus disappointed many, few can argue that Fassbender’s turn wasn’t utterly spellbinding.

He’s Versatile

Fassbender’s starring roles to date have included a sex-addict (Shame), a super-villain (X-Men: First Class), an Irish hunger striker (Hunger) and an android (Prometheus). He's the king of reinvention, in part thanks to an ear for accents, a curiously malleable face and, like contemporary Christian Bale, a commitment to changing his body drastically for a part (he undertook the infamous 300 training regimen, for example, and dropped 40 pounds for his role in Hunger.)  But it’s his ability to turn these roles into something unexpected every time, which makes The Fass more than the sum of his parts.

He’s Unafraid to Tackle Tricky Subjects

Fassbender’s turn as a sex-addicted New Yorker in Shame is one of the more courageous performances by a mainstream actor in recent memory. This is a film where Fassbender (literally) bares everything, his horror-stricken grimaces in some of Shame’s, ahem, more climactic moments painfully intimate. His performance is so accomplished that director Steve McQueen publicly determined America was ‘too scared of sex,’ after Fassbender failed to be nominated for an Academy Award.

He Was a Great Magneto

Fassbender brought just the right amount of steely intensity to Magneto in X-Men: First Class. His Magneto is unassuming and chilling; a man who draws steel fillings out of teeth with a debonair air more evocative of Connery’s Bond than a super-villain. It’s testament to his performance that he beat out Lord Voldemort and Loki in the Favorite Villain category in IGN’s 2011 Summer Movie Awards, described at the time as stealing scenes with ‘savvy understatement, physical grace and brooding menace.’

He’s Got Cred

At the announcement that Fassbender was donning the Assassin’s Hood, the Internet went wild on a familiar theme: ‘WILL FASSBENDER KILL THE VIDEO GAME TO MOVIE CURSE?” The hysteria is somewhat understandable; Fassbender is an actor of a caliber one rarely sees in video game adaptations. That said, Bob Hoskins starred in Super Mario Bros., and look where that got everyone.

He's Co-producing Assassin’s Creed

While his starring role in Ubisoft’s upcoming Assassin’s Creed movie is an exciting prospect, his investment as a co-producer through his own DMC Film label is more intriguing. Little of the history behind the decision has been made public, but the move suggests a confidence in both the franchise and the creative control behind the film one rarely sees in usual ‘gamer-for-pay’ star turns.

What do you guys think of Michael Fassbender's casting in the Assassin's Creed Movie? Let us know in the comments. 

Lucy O'Brien is Assistant Editor at IGN AU. You should talk to her about games, horror movies and the TV show Freaks & Geeks on IGN here or find her and the rest of the Australian team by joining the IGN Australia Facebook community.

Source : ign[dot]com

Battleship Review

Battleship Review:


Somehow, the big-budget Hollywood adaptation of Battleship – an aesthetically sterile board game with little plastic pegs – ended up looking a whole lot like the Transformers films, albeit without generating the same kind of audience interest (as evidenced by the comparatively wimpy box office returns). Activision's multiplatform title of the same name actually pulls from both bits of source material, oscillating between first-person shooter segments and a tactical grid that lets you align ships to battle alien carriers and provide occasional ground support from afar.
Much as it's pleasing to see a movie game that isn't another generic hack-and-slash affair, Battleship opts to enter an even more competitive space with a generic shooter, which packs only a startlingly short single-player campaign with not a lick of multiplayer action in sight. And as is often the case with such film tie-ins, the game feels very much like a surface read on the genres it pulls from, offering little in the way of depth or variation from a rigid routine.

Ship or Shore

Battleship stars Cole Mathis, a U.S. Navy demolitions expert who must wander the islands of Hawaii detonating enemy turrets and communications hubs, all while taking down scads of aliens using a paltry selection of firearms. He's not the lead in the film, as the game's storyline purportedly takes place alongside that of the film, though you wouldn't know it from piecing together the dull dialogue snippets and cut-scenes. If the inanity of the plot wasn't assumed from its board game-to-film origins, the game actually prompts you to skip every cinematic on first viewing. So don't worry about missing anything – you're encouraged to dodge the narrative!

To some extent, Battleship is a tale of two very different games: the core first-person shooter campaign that dominates the experience and ultimately starts and ends each mission, and the map-based ship maneuvering that plays a strong role in many objectives, and cannot be safely ignored or marginalized. While the disparate elements are nicely intertwined, Battleship is limited by its narrow scope. Neither side of the equation feels particularly fleshed-out or expansive, and pairing them together in the seven single-player campaign levels doesn't make them feel any less shallow. And even within those elements, there's so little depth or variety to the action.

On foot, Battleship generally proves competent, though uninspired. Each stage charts a very straightforward path to its goals, so much so that the game enacts false barriers at times – like an unmovable ally blocking a pathway – to keep you on the intended path. And though they shake up the order and terrain, all seven missions follow the same routine, mixing stop-and-pop encounters with detonation tasks, which means simply holding a button near an object and then watching it blow. Occasionally, you'll protect an ally or installation for a brief period of time, but these moments do little more than trigger light enemy waves to attack.

Beyond the simplistic goals, a lack of diversity within the combat keeps the campaign from picking up steam. Just a few distinct enemy types – common bipedal foes, railgun-toting snipers, explosive rolling balls, and big brutes that take a few shotgun blasts to fell – pepper the stages, and the five firearms (plus standard grenades) encompass traditional fare, from the common pistol and machine gun to a chain gun and the aforementioned railgun. Battleship's on-foot combat has about as much kick and personality as a mobile touchscreen shooter, and doesn't look much better, either, thanks to simplistic models and effects plus some rough texture work.

Fire at Will

But wandering the islands and leaving alien guts in your wake isn't the entirety of the Battleship experience, as you'll often swap to the grid map to reposition ships and subs to engage in nautical combat or assist with the on-foot action (like calling in a volley of missiles on a target). Left to their own devices, the ships will attack nearby enemy cruisers, though you can focus their attacks as needed and move them around to any available opening. As they lumber about in the water – assuming you're near the shore while on-foot – you can actually see them move in the distance, which is a nice touch.

You'll take a more active role at times thanks to the wild card power-ups, which often scatter along the battlefield when you take down foes – another example of the strong link between the two aspects. While many of these simply enhance your ships' offensive or defensive capabilities, one wild card lets you take control of the cannons for a 20-second shootout, in which your ship earns a 200% boost to its firepower. Expectedly, these moments pass in a heartbeat as you completely overpower the opposition, and there's nothing more to each than aiming at a large target and hammering the triggers and a shoulder button.

That's a symptom of a larger issue with Battleship: every bit of the experience is so rudimentary and superficial that it doesn't add up to much. On the shore, the combat and objectives alike lack both variety and originality, while at sea, the ship positioning requires little tactical planning and the skirmishes are damn near automated. And the game lacks serious design consideration at times, such as absurdly long gaps between checkpoints, plus I experienced a scenario in which a checkpoint triggered right as an essential ship sank, leaving me stranded to restart the entire mission. Battleship lacks not only ambition, but also at times care towards what little is included.

Hardly Sunken Treasure

And it truly isn't much. Battleship is easily conquered within just four hours, with no semblance of bonus missions or even a whiff of multiplayer. All for $60 – the same price this publisher attaches to its annual military blockbuster, which sports a bigger and bolder campaign, much better production values, and a multiplayer experience that keeps on giving. Battleship is little more than a checkmark on a to-do list; a completed contractual obligation. Just a handful of red pegs on a board, signifying a failed effort.

Want more information on how we score reviews? Read the "How G4 Reviews Work" article here. 
Editor's Note: Battleship was reviewed using an Xbox 360 copy of the game; however, we also played the PS3 version, and found no differences. If further investigation reveals any differences between the 360 edition and the PS3 edition of the game, this review will be updated to reflect those differences. 



Source : http://www.g4tv.com