Movie Review - Snowpiercer

Snowpiercer bursts onto the screen to showcase violence and brutality, sadly leaving character development buried under bloody bodies, outrageous action, a cliché plot, and exhausted social issues.

STORY:

Curtis (Captain America's Chris Evans) has a problem.  He's been stuck in a giant steel box, also known as a train car, for 17 years with other unlucky inhabitants.  The world as you know it has been frozen over because scientific idiots tried to stop the Global Warming farce and instead, plunged the world into an ice age.  Oops.  The only survivors happen to be aboard a contained ecosystem housed in a giant train that moves around the world constantly.  The back of the train harbors Curtis and the poor, while the front of the train entertains the rich.  But the most important spot is the engine car, where Wilford (Ed Harris), the train's creator and ruler lives.  Curtis has a mission: get to the engine and kill everyone that stands in his way.  Protein blocks, ugly women, knife wielding acrobats, fish-axe combatants, and disturbing nursery rhymes ensue.

"Just because you led the Avengers through a journey that ultimately saved the world, doesn't mean your

tough, okay?  I was in Jumper and that also had Samuel L. Jackson." 

THOUGHTS:

How do you like your Sci-Fi?  With a side of bloody violence and implausible action?  How about sautéed social issues or a cliché plot as an appetizer?  If those things appeal to you, then you'll love Snowpiercer.  Like the movie Dredd, where Karl Urban slowly makes his way up a tower until the final boss fight, Chris Evans pushes his way forward until he gets to the train's engine.  Is it farfetched and sometimes nonsensical?  You betcha.  Are there moments that will make you scratch your head and wonder—even in a Sci-Fi setting—does that seem possible?  There sure are.  Will that hurt your movie experience?  Only if you let it.  Snowpiercer is a brutal action-film first, where senseless deaths and ridiculous gun fights happen for no other reason than to look awesome.  If that lights a fire in your nether regions, than go ahead and feel safe hitting the play button.

"Psst...shouldn't you be squirting the toothpaste in his mouth?"

"Yeah, but who the hell cares?  This guy couldn't spell his name, let alone tell me where his teeth are."

DIALOGUE & ACTING:

Evans portrays Curtis exactly how he should be portrayed: a little reluctant, a little scared, a ton of repressed emotion, with a shot of anger to top it all off.  But he can only carry the acting as far as the dialogue will let him.  And the problem is the dialogue holds your hand throughout the film.  It's as if the character's actions are too hard to grasp and the viewers need to know exactly what everyone's thinking and exactly what they're next move will be.  Have you ever watched an anime where the lead character takes a sandwich out of the fridge, and then right after exclaims: "I'm taking a sandwich out of the fridge."  Yeah, it's like that.  Snowpiercer's dialogue can be ridiculously descriptive, telling the viewer the movie's plot and each and every character's motive.  But what happens when you're told how a character feels instead of indicated through actions?  You end up having a hard time relating to their quest and therefore couldn't give a rat's ass if they died.  And people do die…in abundance, yet, not one death feels even remotely meaningful.  Now…near the end, you do learn more about Curtis, though it may be too late to comprehend some of his previous actions as the movie ends minutes later.  But character development and the worn-out theme shouldn't be the reason why you're watching Snowpiercer.  It should be to soak in all the Sci-Fi fun, set originality, and whacked-out action.

"Sir?"

"Careful, Pal.  You come any closer with that shelled fowl...I'll stick it up your ass and then rip your

head off and use it as a bowling ball.  Do I make myself clear?"

Okay, but what about the rest of the cast?  Well…Kang-Ho Song plays Namgoong Minsoo, the only man who knows how to open each train gate, thus propelling Curtis further toward the engine.  Song’s drugged-out mechanical engineer adds much needed humor to an overly dark film.  Jamie Bell portrays Edgar, Curtis' second in command.  Aside from being sarcastic, his acting remains lost underneath his undeveloped character.  Tilda Swinton plays Mason, the ugly cartoonish tyrant.  Her bloated facial expressions and absurd, over-the-top evil can only be out done by John Hurt's character, Gilliam, who walks around like a six foot tall broken toy with an umbrella hand and a peg leg (not joking).  Ed Harris showcases why he's the best actor in the film and Allison Pill stops by to sing children's nursery rhymes.  Most of the other characters are forgettable and are only included to help push the social inequality theme, while also trying to make the violence seem like a necessity.

"I'm telling you, this is my wife."

"Shut it, buddy.  We know a man when we see one.  Now, please move aside so we can help 

the women and children."

WHERE DOES THE MOVIE SHINE?

In its design originality.  The train is a fantastic set piece.  The first hour of the film is filled with a lot of fighting and a lot of grime, but once Curtis gets beyond the water car and starts to go through each different area, sheer creativeness begins to burst out of the story.  As unique as some of the different train cars are, they are just as equally absurd and required to sustain life.  Is there a car full of engineers and technicians in cages?  Yep.  Well how about sharks?  Or raves?  Or saunas?  Well, you'll just have to watch to find out, but the originality definitely helps the crazier parts of the movie go down easier.

"This shoe will be your dinner tonight, boiled to perfection.  Served with a side of sock."

CONCLUSION:

With outlandish bloodbaths in some scenes, ridiculously descriptive dialogue in others, and then almost dead stops with explanations, Snowpiercer can feel a little uneven when examining the whole story.  But if you're looking for a decent Sci-Fi film and don't mind implausible action or a car full of axe-wielding maniacs, then this is your type of movie.  If you prefer your Sci-Fi a tad more grounded, then you've truly come to the wrong place.  Either way, Snowpiercer still remains a solid Sci-Fi rental.  And gentlemen, if you're looking for the perfect date movie...this is definitely not it, but you could always fib and say it's a romantic love story between the dreamy Chris Evans and the aged Ed Harris.  Just be prepared for any repercussions after the first arm is chopped off.

3.25 out of 5 Stars (minus a star for cliché plot and ¾ star for flat, descriptive dialogue)

DVD Movie Review - Dom Hemingway

Jude Law screams, laughs, drinks, and punches his way into the title role of Dom Hemingway.  A movie that will leave you wondering just how many days Jude lost his voice after filming.

STORY:

Dom Hemingway (Jude Law) has spent twelve very long years in the slammer.  During that time he has done nothing but wait to return to society, to his family, to his ridiculous criminal behavior, and most importantly…to his money.  That's right, out of everything tough-guy Hemingway wants, it's his money that's makes him the most eager to be free.  After his release, big Dom and his thick sideburns head to France to collect his dough.  But his behavior is so vulgar and so reckless that his money and future may quickly disappear, leaving him broke and desperate.  So Dom does the only thing a man in his situation can do…he gets piss drunk and collapses on his estranged daughter's doorstep.  Terrible street-crossing ethics, rude behavior, vulgar language, serious monkey art, safe shagging, and topless ping pong players ensue.

"I'm taking this with me, so shut your mouth."

"Just be careful Dom, the expiration date on that package expired four STD's ago."

THOUGHTS:

Dom Hemingway is the type of movie that is easy to pin down in the first five minutes.  In that meager span of time, there are more curses, more hip thrusts, and more talk of Renoir than the average person might be able to handle.  But if you get past that scene without blinking, then you'll have no problem swallowing the rest of Dom Hemingway's over-the-top raunchy behavior.  Now, if after the first five minutes you feel violated, then this probably isn't your type of film.  And don't let the mushy trailer showing Dom and his daughter, fool you.  This film's first hour is a massive party containing witty banter, brief nudity, terrible language, cocaine snorting, binge drinking, and fully-clothed swimming.  The next 30 minutes or so is a man making mistakes and humping safes.  And then the last few minutes of movie forcefully comes full circle and may even contain a bit of redemption.

"Why, God?!  Why have you done this to me?  Why take the clothes off my back?"

"God didn't take your clothes, Dom.  You took them off right before you got drunk and decided to 

frolic through the woods."

THE ACTING:

After years of playing the quiet character in the background, Jude Law finally obtained a role that allowed him to yell as much as he wanted before passing out from asphyxiation.  If nothing else, this role will probably land him a few more gigs as an enforcer, which he plays very well.  And the director must have loved him, because the camera spends most of the time just below Law's chin, making you really feel the spit flinging out of his mouth and onto the camera lens.  Dom's banter with his best friend Dickie (Richard E. Grant) is the film's bread and butter humor.  Some of the jokes run a tad too long, making the punch lines hard to enjoy, but there are still hilarious moments that will catch you off guard.  It's just a shame Richard E. Grant doesn't really have much to do besides attempt to be Dom's somewhat good criminal conscience.

There are other people floating around in the movie like Emilia Clarke, but this is basically a one-man show of total destruction and bad decisions, so liking Law is a must.  Hold up…Did you just say Emilia Clarke?  Yep.  Wait…like the Emilia Clarke from Game of Thrones?  That's the one.  So is she like naked and running around with dragons and stuff?  All a person has to read is Game of Thrones and their mind goes straight into the gutter.  No, you'll be unhappy to know there's no Clarke nudity and she definitely isn't raising dragons.  In fact, her screen time doesn't extend past five minutes.  She's in front of the camera just enough to exhibit her singing ability and to tell her father, Dom, how much she hates him.  So if you're expecting GoT type acting or scenes, you're in for a depressing revelation.  Demian Bichir shows up to play Mr. Fontaine, the man who holds all of Dom's money and Kerry Condon (Rome HBO series) sneaks in just to point out to the viewer that Dom is changing throughout the story...even if his character development doesn't back it up.

"Boy, is she good."

"You ain't seen nothing yet.  Wait until the encore, when she brings two wyverns on stage for a 

cover of Tutti Frutti."

SO IT'S A FILM ABOUT FAMILY?

Nope.  Dom Hemingway is a dark comedy, focusing on genital jokes, obsessive behavior, and unrealistic consequences.  The terrible language seems to be in there for more shock value than hilarity, but thankfully witty lines are peppered throughout the excessive swearing.  So is there an actual plot happening?  If you count partying, sex, cocaine, and bad choices as plot…then yes, something like that is happening.  Wait…what the hell does that mean?  Well, follow along: towards the end, when the movie wants you to understand it's a story about one man's redemption, you'll find yourself thinking more about the plot lines that were completely dropped along the way.  Then with about a half hour left, you'll wonder whether or not "Dom heading back into the criminal life" is the start of a story.  But then that scene also turns out to be ridiculous and twenty minutes later, you'll be wondering if a plot will happen at all…and then it ends.  But there's the kicker.  The very last few minutes brings the movie full circle, leaving you with a partial feel-good vibe, instead of a what-the-hell-did-I-just-watch vibe. 

"Hey, sweetheart.  No more PTA meetings for me...okay?"

CONCLUSION:

Jude Law's acting range is the only real shining light of the film.  If you don't like vulgar language, or nudity, or a bipolar character that can't seem to make the right choices—even though they're staring him in the face—then you might want find something else to do…like flying a kite.  That seems like fun doesn't it?  With a supporting cast included just to push the film's almost nonexistent redemption theme, Dom Hemingway, despite its laughs, still needed more character development to become an actual story.  Instead, the film feels more like a hilarious conversation between friends about an idiot who just can't seem to get his life together.

3 out of 5 Stars (add 2 stars for Law’s acting and 1 star for the occasional laughs)

Book Review - Bite Me

SPOILER NOTE:

This is the third book of Moore's vampire love story and it's recommended that you read the first two books (Bloodsucking Fiends and You Suck) before reading this review, as spoilers will be elegantly excreted along the way.  But you already knew that, didn't you?  Alright, relax…no need to be patting your own ass.  Your competence will be documented.  So go ahead and read the review at your own risk.

Christopher Moore's Bite Me wraps up his vampiric love story by removing Tommy as the protagonist and offering up someone fresh, Goth and ridiculous, to take over the reins.

"Now you listen.  I have about twenty minutes before the sun comes up, so you better head over to my 

car and replace the flat tire that you caused.  Because I am not in the mood."

STORY:

Chet, the huge shaved cat from You Suck, becomes a huge stalking vampiric fiend that can't seem to decide whether to eat his victims, suck their blood, or hump the holy hell out of them.  He (Chet) is not only growing in size and brain function, but he's also making quite the kitty army.  The vampiric feline pack starts to run amuck in San Francisco, devouring the homeless and then—*gulp*—moving on to the middle class.  Is there anyone in the city that can stop Chet and his army before San Francisco is nothing more than a giant litter box?  Why...yes.  There does seem to be one person.  Abigail Von Normal: emergency backup Mistress of the Greater Bay Area.  Oh, and she does get a little help from her sexy manga boyfriend, Foo Dog.  So technically, there's like two people.  Well, there are also the Animals, and those goofy cops, and some old vampires, and this old Japanese guy, and the Emperor of San Francisco, and let's not forget Tommy and Jody either...so really, there's like a gaggle of idiots running around making poor decisions and attempting to hunt the bloodcurdling Chet monster.  Killer humping cats, vampiric rats, artistic samurai, and douche waffles ensue.

"Are you saying that if I became a vampire cat, I'd live forever AND gain intelligence...but would

have to drink nothing but blood for eternity?"

"Yep."

"Not interested."

THOUGHTS:

They say a novel's protagonist is the person who the story begins and ends with.  And if that's to be believed, then Abby Normal (a cross between Wednesday Addams and Lydia Deetz) becomes this story's lead.  She was everything that was hilarious about the second book, You Suck.  And if you enjoyed her rambling in that story, then you'll love her here.  Her journal entries—once again—turn what could have been a slightly slow and safe story, into a roll in the hay with Goth humor.

In the second book, the story left us with Tommy and Jody discussing whether or not to stay vampires (Foo Dog has discovered a cure).  And since Abby didn't want to see them fight about it, when they pass out at dawn, she and her manga-haired sex-slave, cast the two lovers in bronze, essentially keeping them together forever…as statues.  But if you know anything about how Moore writes, you already know that anything he deems as "forever" is really just the start of a humorous blunder.

"You know, we could turn around and not have to fight all these vampires."

"Dude, they have my girlfriend.  You've seen what she looks like right?"

"Fair enough."

SHOULD YOU READ THE THIRD BOOK?

The actual question you're probably asking is: "I've read the first book and liked it, but the second left a whole lot to be desired in the story, but it was funny…so should I spend my time reading this one?"  Well, if you enjoyed Abby in the second book and were actually able to read all the way through it and still enjoy Moore's humor—regardless of the nonexistent plot—then you'll enjoy the third installment.  Since the story is "mostly" seen through Abby's eyes, there's a lot more silliness going on and more laughs.  In terms of the story, the plot is organized and stuff does seem to be happening, but some of the story lines end somewhat quick and safe without many twists, as if Moore decided the book was too long and it needed trimming in the resolution department.

Now, when you read the story synopsis above, you're probably thinking Chet has a humongous part in the novel.  Well, he does in about the first third of the book.  But then Moore needs to wrap up the series by the last page and poor Chet and his vampiric felines take a back seat to the many story lines that need concluding.

"Large vampiric cats you say..."

"Yes."

"Eating the homeless..."

"Yes!  Yes!"

"I'm sorry, I fail to see the problem."

JUST HOW MANY STORY LINES ARE THERE?

Each chapter has a different character's point-of-view and each character has a different story line that needs to be told.  So the book will have you bouncing around like a three year old, hopped up on Pixy Stix.  You'll start with Abby, but then you’ll switch over to the Animals, Jody, Tommy, Cavuto and Rivera, the Emperor of San Francisco and his men, Foo Dog, the Old Ones, the samurai Okata, and even Chet (who gets his own chapters where you'll read his thoughts and desires), until finally arriving back to Abby.  Is it a mess?  You betcha.  Could some of the story lines have been dropped altogether?  Sure.  The Emperor's chapters seem unnecessary, along with Chet and his thoughts, but then you'll be losing all the hilarity that goes along with them.  Just like in the other two books, you're reading Moore, not for the education in storytelling, but because of all the wonderful laughs along the way.  And there are plenty of them.  The story gets so ridiculous at one point you'll wonder how a grown man (Moore) can invent crap like sucking dead rats up in a vacuum without spending most of his time in therapy.  Then again, maybe he does...

"Don't worry mom, he can't come in unless we invite him."

"Yeah, well then you owe me money for all the Pogonias he's out there eating." 

CONCLUSION:

Bite Me reads more like a newspaper within the city of San Francisco.  Each chapter is a new headline, accompanied by the silliest story you can imagine.  Will it become a literary masterpiece?  Probably not.  But who really cares?  Its main purpose is to deliver unexpected hilarity, and Moore never fails in that department.  Is this trilogy better than some of his other works?  No.  But if you've already read the first two books, don't you want to find out how this terrific mess ends?  Of course you do.  And that is one thing you can look forward to: a resolution in every story line…and a couple might even surprise you.

3 1/2 out of 5 stars (minus a star for character bouncing and ½ star for safe story line endings)

Watch Dogs: What Went Wrong?

SPOILER ALERT:

The following article will dive deep inside Watch Dogs and uncover hidden blunders.  As such, major plot spoilers will be dropped along the way.  If you don't want to spoil your gaming experience, it is highly recommended you complete the game first, before reading on.  Or you could just throw caution to the wind and become a vigilante like Aiden Pearce.  The choice is yours.

"So what you're saying is that poles and street lamps will collapse like twigs, but having the player drive into 

a tree or bush, will be like driving into a brick wall?"

"Makes sense, right?"

"Yep.  Let's get programming." 

Watch Dogs, the newest franchise in Ubisoft's arsenal, allows players to take control of Aiden Pearce and drive over pixelated pedestrians in virtual Chicago.  You're also granted the ability to kick anyone's ass with a nightstick; hack into people's bank accounts; jump into the water to avoid the police; hack other player's games; and most importantly, tap into a NPC's computer and catch them spanking it to virtual porn.  What more could you ask for in a video game?  Obviously, a little more, because although all the above is damn fun, Watch Dogs still averaged around a 7.5 in reviews.  Well, maybe it had something to do with Aiden's appearance?

AIDEN'S RACE AND OTHER RANDOM SILLINESS:

Aiden Pearce has been the discussion of many gaming podcasts and articles.  And most of the time you read or hear something along these lines: "Maybe it's because he's just some typical white dude that makes him so boring."  Or, "They shouldn't have made him a white dude in a hat and coat.  He needs to be different to be interesting."

Alright, stop reading and picture Aiden.  Yep, he definitely is a white dude in a hat and a very long and wavy coat.  That's probably why he's boring.  So let's make him more interesting.  Keep picturing Aiden, but now make his skin as green as Kermit the Frog.  Or, let's even go one step further and add a character creator to Watch Dogs like Saint's Row.  The game's now the perfect ten, right?  Nope.  Those changes may offer some added fun and humor, but it won't raise Watch Dogs to perfection no matter how naked your character is or how many points you garner streaking passed unsuspecting NPC's.  It doesn't matter if Aiden is blue, black, purple, yellow with red polka dots, or an alien Xenomorph.  The problem isn't in his looks, it's in his story.

"You wanna tell me what you're laughing at?"

"Sorry, sorry.  It's just...I went to a clothing store to buy clothes, but all they had were these ugly hat 

and coat sets, and well--look at what you're wearing."

WHAT ABOUT THE STORY?

Aiden tries to steal money.  He fails.  His niece dies when they try to kill him.  He seeks revenge.  With so many other things going on in Watch Dogs, it's easy to understand why the story was so simple.  So safe.  So frigging boring.  There are a ton of other fun things that Watch Dogs did right in the game (gang hideouts, hacking, digital trips, giant death-dealing-machine-spider-tanks, multiplayer), but they are all just distractions from the core story.  The first priority Ubisoft should have worried about is Aiden.  So why is Aiden "boring" according to reviewers?

AIDEN THE PIXELATED DOUCHEBAG:

No, it has nothing to do with his goofy looking hats or overly anxious coat or even the way he acts at college parties.  He's a douche because the story's theme (revenge) is his own fault.  Oops.  If he didn't attempt to rob a bank in the beginning of the game, or attempt anything illegal in the first place, none of his woes would have taken place.  And it seems he just can't keep anyone safe.  Even Clara, the pseudo girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo love interest, ends up resembling Swiss cheese.  Why?  Because Aiden can't make any good decisions.  Once a douche, always a douche.  And that's a shame.

So how do you fix this bank robbing douchebag?  Well, the game proclaims him a vigilante, but why?  Why was he robbing a bank—something illegal—in the first place?  Is he a freedom fighter and the money was going to a small country to release them from tyranny?  Maybe he was hacking the bank to show the world how they illegally obtained their own funds.  Maybe his dog was sick and needed a new lung, liver, heart, stomach, and fur.  Or maybe he's stealing money from banks because he wants fame, fortune, women, power, and a tiger…just like Tony Montana.  Either way, Ubisoft failed to show Aiden as a vigilante or even as a person with desires.

"Dammit, lady, I said no autographs.  Crap, now the trunk is going to need a little touch-up paint."

WHAT DOES AIDEN TRULY DESIRE?

No…really, what does he desire, because after playing the game it seems he just wanted to find his sister and kill the niece's murderer.  But after he does both, the game keeps going until he kills the ex-partner.  Why?  If Aiden is a good person—Watch Dogs makes it seem as though his actions are for good—then why kill the ex-partner?  Why not frame him or have him arrested?  Why does Aiden run around in the game killing anyone, including cops?  His only option should be to use his nightstick to harm (not kill) throughout gameplay.  Rampage killing doesn't make sense with "loss" as the theme, because every death that occurs lessens the impact of the next.  If losing his niece was so hurtful, then death shouldn't come easy to him.  It should be a tough decision to wipe people out, but instead he's gunning down anyone that's gets in his way.  He's a hacker, right?  Wouldn't that mean he doesn't like being in the middle of a firefight, surrounded by 80 cops, a dozen helicopters, and hundreds of gang members (some of which are dressed in riot gear)? 

For gamers to relate with or have empathy toward a protagonist, the protagonist has to have an internal struggle.  This was shown expertly in The Last of Us, as Joel's internal struggle was with love.  Could he love again in a world so full of death and hate?  This creates a strong bond to the character.  Aiden, on the other hand, seems to desire just finding his sister and his niece's murderer.  Both problems he caused.  And in terms of story, this is an External Struggle: just a problem that needs fixing through actions.  For example: even though watching Rambo cut down hundreds of enemies with a mounted machine gun is awesome (external struggle), you're not bonding through his actions.  Aiden's internal struggle should have been: is searching and killing other people—performing evil—worth revenge.  He should have struggled with each and every death, making you relate to his desire to do what's right for his family, but is just going about it the wrong way.  And then Aiden could have grown as a character by learning that his family is more important than revenge and that murdering others won't bring back his niece.  Instead, Watch Dogs' story underwhelms and after a few hours in, most gamers forget about the protagonist because they're having too much fun playing pixelated poker.  That leads to two more problems: concern for the main character and story escalation, both of which Ubisoft decided to throw under a bus.

"Mr. Pearce, you want to tell us just what exactly is going on in this photo?"

"Uh, as you can clearly see Officer, my windshield has sprung a leak.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I'd like 

to get it fixed before it becomes a problem."

CREATING CONCERN:

Aiden can hack cameras and ATM's like a boss, but did you give a crap about what happened to him or his sister or even his hacking associates?  (In a humongous plot hole, Aiden's sister even tells him that her captors are treating her fine.  Say what?)  The easiest way to create concern and worry for a character is showing them with everything they desire, and then taking it away.  Then all you have to do is show the character's struggle of trying to get it back.  Aiden lost his niece, but what was his relationship with her before the accident?  Again, The Last of Us did this perfectly, by starting the game as Joel's daughter.  In other words, TLoU showed their perfect relationship, and then sadly and emotionally, took Joel’s daughter away.  You quickly understand why Joel lost faith in society.  Watch Dogs needed to convey the relationship between Aiden and his niece, and then snatch it all away.  Make "loss" the reason he becomes a vigilante…because he's lost faith in the system.  And then have Aiden try to piece that "perfect family love" back together throughout the rest of the game.

"OMG, this guy is in like the perfect angle for an Instagram pic.  I can't believe there aren't 

people lining up to get a shot of this." 

ESCALATION:

When moving toward a story's climax, you don't want to just add more action or obstacles for the protagonist.  You want to raise the intensity.  Having Aiden find his sister without any resolve in the revenge department is called deflation.  The story flatlined.  Who cares if he goes on?  He rescued his sister and took his remaining family to safety.  Great, so who cares if he dies on his next mission or if the world ends?  The initial worry (if you had any in the first place) has been erased, so there's no need to game on.  Instead Watch Dogs just throws more cop chases and bad guys in Aiden's way, until he reaches the antagonist and puts a bullet in his head. 

But what if the bad guys not only caught his sister, but then took the nephew hostage and threatened both their lives at the end?  And the real climax was Aiden coming to terms with his hacking lifestyle mistakes, the death of the antagonist, his family's safety, and maybe realizing he should stop being such a douche.  Escalation.  Intensify the struggle at climax.  Don't compound it with more obstacles.  On top of everything, you come find out that the hit put out on Aiden was just a misunderstanding.  Talk about making all prior events throughout the entire story seem worthless.

There was one thing at the end that did add a little twist and a little drama, and that was finding out Clara was the one placing the flowers on the niece's grave.  This instantly added more depth to her character and created empathy by giving her desires.  But Ubisoft realized they accidentally made her more interesting than the main character.  So how did they solve that problem?  By killing Clara two seconds after this marvelous twist.  They couldn't have her outshining Aiden now could they?  Oops, too late.

"Well...so I guess that's over.  Oh look, someone re-tweeted my retweet.  Cool."

CONCLUSION:

In the end, Watch Dogs was an entertaining game.  And whether you like it or not, a Watch Dogs 2 is inevitable.  But erasing Aiden as the main character won't help the franchise, unless you have a great story to go along with a new protagonist.  Hopefully, Ubisoft learns their lesson and proceeds to show the protagonist's actual needs, desires, and frigging backstory.  If they're smart, they'll keep Aiden, and then Watch Dogs 2 can be the story of how Aiden Pearce became a vigilante.  It'll help establish the crap story in the first one.  And then gamers everywhere will rejoice, because they can play the games backwards and the story will finally make some sense.

If you like this article, check out:
The Last of Us: Is Joel a bad guy?