Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
The final curtain.
So… thanks again to work and family commitments, I’ve spent 7 days dodging social media to arrive at my showing of “Endgame” spoiler free… and was successful in doing so! It is of course impossible to write just about anything on this film without dropping spoilers. So I will keep this first part of the review short, but add some footnotes (indexed with <#> symbols) to a “spoiler section” below the trailer video. Proceed at your peril if you haven’t yet seen it!
The Plot
The MCU has delivered an impressively well-connected movie series. In the case of Thanos, this is a story-arc that started in the mid-credit “monkey” at the end of 2012’s “The Avengers” and, at the conclusion of “Avengers: Infinity War”, saw half the universe’s population drift away – Voldemort-style – into grey ash. This, of course, also wiped out half of our heroes (good trivia question for future years: who was the first we saw drift away? Answer below* ). This included Spider-Man (Tom Holland); Dr Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch); Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman); Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson); half of the remaining Guardians; The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) and Dr Pym (Michael Douglas). Oblivious to all of this is Ant Man (Paul Rudd), still stranded in the ‘quantum realm’ following the demise of his colleagues, and with no one to flick the ‘return’ switch.
After some early action, Endgame’s story revolves around a desperate attempt by the remaining Avengers, led by Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and a ‘retired’ Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jnr) to undo the undoable. Can they succeed against all the odds? (With a new Spider-Man film due out in the summer, I’ll give you a guess!). Of more relevance perhaps is whether the team can stay unscathed from their encounter with the scheming and massively powerful Thanos (Josh Brolin)?
Thoughtful
The film will not be to every fan’s taste. After the virtually non-stop rip-roaring action of “Infinity War”, “Endgame” takes a far more contemplative approach to its first hour.
The film starts with a devastating prologue, and a great lesson in statistics: that you need a decent sized population to guarantee getting a 50:50 split! There is also a very surprising twist in the first 15 minutes or so that I didn’t see coming AT ALL.
But then things settle down into a far more sombre section of the film: short on action; long on character development. The world is grieving for its loss, unable to move on past the non-stop counselling sessions that everyone is getting. This first hour was, for me, by far, my favourite part of the film. Seeing how the characters we know and love have been impacted – some for better rather than for worse – was terrific. Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk (with a rather glib plot-point) takes on an hilarious new aspect; and Chris Hemsworth adds hugely comedic value as Thor, setting up in Scotland a “New Asgard” settlement in uncharacteristically laid-back fashion.
Cast
As an ensemble cast, everyone plays their parts extremely well. But it is just the breadth of the cast that astounds in this film: just about everyone who is anyone in the Marvel Universe – at least, those who are still alive (alive!) and not dead (dead!) – pop up for an appearance! This is great fun with, in one particular case, the opportunity to try some more rejuvenation of an old timer as previously done with Samuel L. Jackson in “Captain Marvel”.
Inevitably, some of these appearances are overly brief, and characters that I wanted to see developed more in this film (particularly Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel) get very little screen time. Drax (Dave Bautista) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff) barely get a single line each. So it will depend on where your loyalties lie as to whether you are satisfied with the coverage or not. (I personally find Chris Evans‘ Captain America a bit of a po-faced bore, so I wasn’t keen on the amount of screen time he had).
Stan Lee again gets another cameo in the bag before his demise: will this actually be his last live one?
Overall view
I enjoyed this movie. It could obviously NEVER live up to the over-hyped expectations of the fan base. But as a cinematic spectacle, for me, it delivered on its billing as a blockbuster finale, but one filled with a degree of nuance I was not expecting. The problem with the way that the plot have been structured (no spoilers – <#>) is that it is easy to pick holes in the storyline. Indeed, some dramatic options (that to me seemed obvious ones to ‘mine’) were left ‘unmined’ <##>; others were left inexplicably hanging <###>.
I suspect the reason for some of this is that the initial cut of this film probably ran to 5 hours rather than the – still bladder-testing – 3 hours as released. There were probably a bunch of scenes left on the cutting room floor that might allow things to make more sense in the extended BluRay release.
It’s at times slow, but for me never dull. It does suffer from one significant flaw though: the “Return of the King” disease. It doesn’t know when to quit. There was a natural MCU arc to follow and a perfect time at which to end it: but the directors (the Russo Brothers, Anthony Russo and Joe Russo) kept adding additional scenes that detracted from the natural ending <####>.
Above all, unlike I think all but one film in MCU history, there is NO “MONKEY” in the end credits: either mid-credit or end-credit! So, after the long title crawl (and some rather odd choices for end-title music by Alan Silvestri), if you are not to look bloody stupid as the lights come up, and face a storm of derision from your partner, then leave after the dramatic roll-call sequence of the film’s stars!
(*BTW, the answer to the trivia question is, I believe, Bucky.)
So… thanks again to work and family commitments, I’ve spent 7 days dodging social media to arrive at my showing of “Endgame” spoiler free… and was successful in doing so! It is of course impossible to write just about anything on this film without dropping spoilers. So I will keep this first part of the review short, but add some footnotes (indexed with <#> symbols) to a “spoiler section” below the trailer video. Proceed at your peril if you haven’t yet seen it!
The Plot
The MCU has delivered an impressively well-connected movie series. In the case of Thanos, this is a story-arc that started in the mid-credit “monkey” at the end of 2012’s “The Avengers” and, at the conclusion of “Avengers: Infinity War”, saw half the universe’s population drift away – Voldemort-style – into grey ash. This, of course, also wiped out half of our heroes (good trivia question for future years: who was the first we saw drift away? Answer below* ). This included Spider-Man (Tom Holland); Dr Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch); Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman); Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson); half of the remaining Guardians; The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) and Dr Pym (Michael Douglas). Oblivious to all of this is Ant Man (Paul Rudd), still stranded in the ‘quantum realm’ following the demise of his colleagues, and with no one to flick the ‘return’ switch.
After some early action, Endgame’s story revolves around a desperate attempt by the remaining Avengers, led by Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and a ‘retired’ Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jnr) to undo the undoable. Can they succeed against all the odds? (With a new Spider-Man film due out in the summer, I’ll give you a guess!). Of more relevance perhaps is whether the team can stay unscathed from their encounter with the scheming and massively powerful Thanos (Josh Brolin)?
Thoughtful
The film will not be to every fan’s taste. After the virtually non-stop rip-roaring action of “Infinity War”, “Endgame” takes a far more contemplative approach to its first hour.
The film starts with a devastating prologue, and a great lesson in statistics: that you need a decent sized population to guarantee getting a 50:50 split! There is also a very surprising twist in the first 15 minutes or so that I didn’t see coming AT ALL.
But then things settle down into a far more sombre section of the film: short on action; long on character development. The world is grieving for its loss, unable to move on past the non-stop counselling sessions that everyone is getting. This first hour was, for me, by far, my favourite part of the film. Seeing how the characters we know and love have been impacted – some for better rather than for worse – was terrific. Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk (with a rather glib plot-point) takes on an hilarious new aspect; and Chris Hemsworth adds hugely comedic value as Thor, setting up in Scotland a “New Asgard” settlement in uncharacteristically laid-back fashion.
Cast
As an ensemble cast, everyone plays their parts extremely well. But it is just the breadth of the cast that astounds in this film: just about everyone who is anyone in the Marvel Universe – at least, those who are still alive (alive!) and not dead (dead!) – pop up for an appearance! This is great fun with, in one particular case, the opportunity to try some more rejuvenation of an old timer as previously done with Samuel L. Jackson in “Captain Marvel”.
Inevitably, some of these appearances are overly brief, and characters that I wanted to see developed more in this film (particularly Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel) get very little screen time. Drax (Dave Bautista) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff) barely get a single line each. So it will depend on where your loyalties lie as to whether you are satisfied with the coverage or not. (I personally find Chris Evans‘ Captain America a bit of a po-faced bore, so I wasn’t keen on the amount of screen time he had).
Stan Lee again gets another cameo in the bag before his demise: will this actually be his last live one?
Overall view
I enjoyed this movie. It could obviously NEVER live up to the over-hyped expectations of the fan base. But as a cinematic spectacle, for me, it delivered on its billing as a blockbuster finale, but one filled with a degree of nuance I was not expecting. The problem with the way that the plot have been structured (no spoilers – <#>) is that it is easy to pick holes in the storyline. Indeed, some dramatic options (that to me seemed obvious ones to ‘mine’) were left ‘unmined’ <##>; others were left inexplicably hanging <###>.
I suspect the reason for some of this is that the initial cut of this film probably ran to 5 hours rather than the – still bladder-testing – 3 hours as released. There were probably a bunch of scenes left on the cutting room floor that might allow things to make more sense in the extended BluRay release.
It’s at times slow, but for me never dull. It does suffer from one significant flaw though: the “Return of the King” disease. It doesn’t know when to quit. There was a natural MCU arc to follow and a perfect time at which to end it: but the directors (the Russo Brothers, Anthony Russo and Joe Russo) kept adding additional scenes that detracted from the natural ending <####>.
Above all, unlike I think all but one film in MCU history, there is NO “MONKEY” in the end credits: either mid-credit or end-credit! So, after the long title crawl (and some rather odd choices for end-title music by Alan Silvestri), if you are not to look bloody stupid as the lights come up, and face a storm of derision from your partner, then leave after the dramatic roll-call sequence of the film’s stars!
(*BTW, the answer to the trivia question is, I believe, Bucky.)
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Mar 6, 2022
Paul Dano and Colin Farrell's Performances (2 more)
The Batmobile car chase with Oz
The different/damaged take on Bruce Wayne
Entirely too long - too much detective work (2 more)
Little to no chemistry between The Bat and The Cat
The raspy adventures of Batsy and Jimbo
When is a Bat Not Quite a Bat?
Matt Reeves’ The Batman isn’t an origin story. Instead Bruce Wayne (Robert Pattinson) treats every villain and every thug as if they were the ones to take his parents away from him. This is a version of Bruce Wayne that hates being Bruce Wayne; Batman is his legacy. The tragedy of losing his parents is his most defining characteristic. Bruce is a social hermit and the world’s biggest introvert in The Batman.
The Riddler (Paul Dano) kills Gotham’s mayor on Halloween night and he continues to target key political figures throughout the film. A cryptic riddle is left for Batman at every crime scene revealing just a big enough clue to keep Batman and Jim Gordon (Jeffrey Wright) entangled in Riddler’s enigmatic bloodbath. As Batman crosses paths with a cat-loving thief named Selina Kyle (Zoe Kravitz) and the magnificently sleazy Iceberg Lounge owner Oswald Cobblepot (Colin Farrell), he soon realizes that the Wayne family may be a bigger piece of the puzzle than he originally imagined.
Paul Dano is essentially the highlight of the film. Matt Reeves stated that his inspiration for his version of the character was The Zodiac Killer and it shows. Riddler’s costume is basically a camouflage gimp outfit with tactical advantages and a fetish for duct tape. Dano’s performance is haunting. His riddles are more akin to Jigsaw’s games from the Saw franchise. The character is at his best when he’s showcased in grainy cell phone videos where his shouting and heavy breathing are even more distorted than if he was standing right in front of you. The intriguing aspect is that Dano seems to be even more mesmerizing as the character once he’s unmasked. He’s able to tap into this lunacy, this dread, and this hypnotic terror that defines the character whether he’s hiding his face or not.
Featured less prominently is Colin Farrell as Oswald Cobblepot, who also delivers a fantastic performance. Farrell is so unrecognizable thanks to the facial prosthetics and fat suit that he’s wearing. Some of the aspects of The Penguin that makes him so dangerous is that he’s incredibly resourceful and he can talk his way into and out of just about anything. Farrell’s best moments as the character come during the Batmobile chase featured in the trailer followed by the conversation Batman and Gordon have with him immediately afterwards. You never knew how much you needed a Spanish lesson from Oz until Matt Reeves came along.
The Batmobile car chase is the best sequence of the film. It’s absolutely explosive and worth seeing in a theater. Michael Giacchino’s score is also bold and thrilling; it helps define the Batman character for a new generation with an undeniably epic theme. Matt Reeves compared Bruce Wayne to Kurt Cobain in this film. Bruce’s relationship with the spotlight and how he’d rather stay away from it is a lot like how Cobain viewed being famous. “Something in the Way” by Nirvana fits the Batman universe so well and it’s surprising nobody has ever thought of utilizing it until now.
This unusual version of Bruce Wayne in The Batman makes it feel unlike any other Batman film. Bruce Wayne is typically a playboy that is consistently showcased at public events that flaunts his fortune and bounces from woman to woman on a nightly basis. In The Batman, we see the smudged black eye makeup as Bruce takes off his cowl. Robert Pattinson didn’t bulk up for the role, so he has this pale and gaunt appearance. He has no interest in the business his father left him in charge of. Vengeance is his only purpose.
The Batman is also the first Batman film to actually feel like a detective story. So much time is devoted to the investigation aspect of the film; maybe too much time. The film is five minutes shy of being three hours long and The Batman feels like a three hour film. Some of these sequences feel like they could have been trimmed (did we really need to see Batman or Bruce Wayne go to the Iceberg Lounge so many times?) or cut entirely, but everything feels like it’s part of the bigger picture of capturing The Riddler. Every little stop along the way leads to the next clue or next big encounter. Unfortunately, it feels like a chore listening to Batman answer riddles for the sixth time in the midst of three hours.
Robert Pattinson is a seriously talented actor outside of the Twilight franchise and Zoe Kravitz chooses interesting projects to be a part of, but their chemistry in The Batman feels forced. Batman tracks down Selina Kyle almost like a stalker as he starts inserting himself into her life after a random encounter at The Iceberg Lounge. Despite being friends in real life, the two actors seem stiff and awkward when they’re around each other. These are two versions of the characters that don’t have the history the comics or the movies laid out for them after decades of publication and on screen appearances. This is supposed to be the first time they’ve met and they go from being bumbling partners to nearly leaving Gotham together after being shot at a few times and finding a dead girl in a trunk; it doesn’t make sense.
Matt Reeves was capable of taking The Batman into a different direction for both the Batman universe and superhero films alike. The action sequences are almost earned here as there’s much more down time while following a lead or doing research. You actually see that Bruce documents his inner monologues and his nightly outings as Batman in handwritten journals. There’s a ton of interesting concepts in The Batman that ultimately don’t pay off.
Paul Dano and Colin Farrell are extraordinary, but The Batman is a three hour slog through Gotham that culminates with an over exaggerated riddle that isn’t worth solving. Having Batman and Jim Gordon both speak in raspy, whispery grunts feels excessive as does Gordon’s insistence on calling Batman, “Chief,” every time that they’re together. The film deserves credit for prominently shining the spotlight on the underbelly of crime in Gotham, but the storytelling in The Batman is a lot like Bugs Bunny meaning to have taken that left turn at Albuquerque; a meandering foray down a dark rabbit hole that isn’t entirely necessary.
The Riddler (Paul Dano) kills Gotham’s mayor on Halloween night and he continues to target key political figures throughout the film. A cryptic riddle is left for Batman at every crime scene revealing just a big enough clue to keep Batman and Jim Gordon (Jeffrey Wright) entangled in Riddler’s enigmatic bloodbath. As Batman crosses paths with a cat-loving thief named Selina Kyle (Zoe Kravitz) and the magnificently sleazy Iceberg Lounge owner Oswald Cobblepot (Colin Farrell), he soon realizes that the Wayne family may be a bigger piece of the puzzle than he originally imagined.
Paul Dano is essentially the highlight of the film. Matt Reeves stated that his inspiration for his version of the character was The Zodiac Killer and it shows. Riddler’s costume is basically a camouflage gimp outfit with tactical advantages and a fetish for duct tape. Dano’s performance is haunting. His riddles are more akin to Jigsaw’s games from the Saw franchise. The character is at his best when he’s showcased in grainy cell phone videos where his shouting and heavy breathing are even more distorted than if he was standing right in front of you. The intriguing aspect is that Dano seems to be even more mesmerizing as the character once he’s unmasked. He’s able to tap into this lunacy, this dread, and this hypnotic terror that defines the character whether he’s hiding his face or not.
Featured less prominently is Colin Farrell as Oswald Cobblepot, who also delivers a fantastic performance. Farrell is so unrecognizable thanks to the facial prosthetics and fat suit that he’s wearing. Some of the aspects of The Penguin that makes him so dangerous is that he’s incredibly resourceful and he can talk his way into and out of just about anything. Farrell’s best moments as the character come during the Batmobile chase featured in the trailer followed by the conversation Batman and Gordon have with him immediately afterwards. You never knew how much you needed a Spanish lesson from Oz until Matt Reeves came along.
The Batmobile car chase is the best sequence of the film. It’s absolutely explosive and worth seeing in a theater. Michael Giacchino’s score is also bold and thrilling; it helps define the Batman character for a new generation with an undeniably epic theme. Matt Reeves compared Bruce Wayne to Kurt Cobain in this film. Bruce’s relationship with the spotlight and how he’d rather stay away from it is a lot like how Cobain viewed being famous. “Something in the Way” by Nirvana fits the Batman universe so well and it’s surprising nobody has ever thought of utilizing it until now.
This unusual version of Bruce Wayne in The Batman makes it feel unlike any other Batman film. Bruce Wayne is typically a playboy that is consistently showcased at public events that flaunts his fortune and bounces from woman to woman on a nightly basis. In The Batman, we see the smudged black eye makeup as Bruce takes off his cowl. Robert Pattinson didn’t bulk up for the role, so he has this pale and gaunt appearance. He has no interest in the business his father left him in charge of. Vengeance is his only purpose.
The Batman is also the first Batman film to actually feel like a detective story. So much time is devoted to the investigation aspect of the film; maybe too much time. The film is five minutes shy of being three hours long and The Batman feels like a three hour film. Some of these sequences feel like they could have been trimmed (did we really need to see Batman or Bruce Wayne go to the Iceberg Lounge so many times?) or cut entirely, but everything feels like it’s part of the bigger picture of capturing The Riddler. Every little stop along the way leads to the next clue or next big encounter. Unfortunately, it feels like a chore listening to Batman answer riddles for the sixth time in the midst of three hours.
Robert Pattinson is a seriously talented actor outside of the Twilight franchise and Zoe Kravitz chooses interesting projects to be a part of, but their chemistry in The Batman feels forced. Batman tracks down Selina Kyle almost like a stalker as he starts inserting himself into her life after a random encounter at The Iceberg Lounge. Despite being friends in real life, the two actors seem stiff and awkward when they’re around each other. These are two versions of the characters that don’t have the history the comics or the movies laid out for them after decades of publication and on screen appearances. This is supposed to be the first time they’ve met and they go from being bumbling partners to nearly leaving Gotham together after being shot at a few times and finding a dead girl in a trunk; it doesn’t make sense.
Matt Reeves was capable of taking The Batman into a different direction for both the Batman universe and superhero films alike. The action sequences are almost earned here as there’s much more down time while following a lead or doing research. You actually see that Bruce documents his inner monologues and his nightly outings as Batman in handwritten journals. There’s a ton of interesting concepts in The Batman that ultimately don’t pay off.
Paul Dano and Colin Farrell are extraordinary, but The Batman is a three hour slog through Gotham that culminates with an over exaggerated riddle that isn’t worth solving. Having Batman and Jim Gordon both speak in raspy, whispery grunts feels excessive as does Gordon’s insistence on calling Batman, “Chief,” every time that they’re together. The film deserves credit for prominently shining the spotlight on the underbelly of crime in Gotham, but the storytelling in The Batman is a lot like Bugs Bunny meaning to have taken that left turn at Albuquerque; a meandering foray down a dark rabbit hole that isn’t entirely necessary.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Curiosity Quills: Chronology
Richard Roberts, Tony Healey, Piers Anthony, J.R. Rain, Jordan Elizabeth Mierek, James Wymore, Stan Swanson, Darin Kennedy , Julie Frost , Andrew Buckley , J.P. Moynahan, B. C. Johnson, J. P. Sloan, Andrew J. Rausch, Katie Young , Scott Nicholson, Wilbert Stanton, Tara Tyler, Mark W. Woodring, J. E. Anckorn, Nathan L. Yocum, G. Miki Hayden, Matthew S. Cox and Matthew Graybosch
6.0
Rate It
Book
It's time... for time! Embark on a literary journey through the ages with Curiosity Quills Press in...
Mothergamer (1521 KP) rated the PC version of Assassin's Creed: Odyssey in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
I love the Assassin's Creed series as past Mother Gamer blogs have shown. While there were a couple I wasn't so thrilled with, I have always enjoyed the stories and exploration the games have offered. The recent Origins definitely captured my heart with all the incredible ancient Egypt history and lore. When Odyssey was announced I was pretty excited because it was going to be set in ancient Greece and I could not wait to play it.
Odyssey is a bit different from its predecessors. The story is set at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war; an ongoing struggle between Sparta and Athens for dominion over Greece. This opens up a lot of interesting places to explore and dialogue options. At the beginning of the game you can choose which Misthios (mercenary) you want to play as; Alexios or his sister Kassandra. It really doesn't matter who you choose because the story is essentially the same for both so it's just a matter of whether or not you prefer to play as a man or a woman. For my first playthrough I went with Kassandra.
Kassandra starts her adventure.
Right from the start, Odyssey hooks you in with an action filled introduction and sets the scene for the story. After that you meet the character you chose; in my case Kassandra and you get a brief tutorial on how the gaming controls work. You also get a mount with this and those controls are pretty easy to navigate. Once you have the hang of it, you can get started on your journey with the main story and the vast amount of side quests.
This is where Odyssey differs a bit. There is more of a role playing aspect to the game with you being able to select different dialogue options while talking to people. You can choose to be cutthroat, a mercenary with a conscience, or ridiculously flirty. Yes, with some of the NPC characters be they men or women Kassandra could have flings with them. Don't worry, nothing overly graphic is shown, but it is definitely heavily implied. Your weapons are different as well. There is no assassin's blade here. You have a precursor artifact weapon in the form of a spear and the options of daggers and swords. You also have a bow and arrows which are quite useful for fighting at a distance.
Have a horse for your travels!
As you level up, you gain ability points which you can use to unlock certain skills to enhance your fighting and stealth from the following three categories in the skills menu: Hunter, Warrior, and Assassin. It is beneficial to unlock these because they are incredibly useful in battles against your enemies. There are also ship battles which bring back memories of Black Flag. The ship battles are challenging, but they are so much fun. You can upgrade your ship to make it a force to be reckoned with. Upgrading the hull is definitely a must so you can ram the heck out of other ships and take little to no damage. You need a crew also of course and Odyssey has an ability where rather than assassinating targets, you can knock them out and recruit them to join your crew.
Unlock abilities in the skills menu.
The running theme for your protagonist is all about family. This is where you are introduced to the mysterious villains, The Cult Of Kosmos who have a hand in much of the conflict in Greece all for power. You have to travel all over the world map to find clues about each cult member in order to reveal their true identity and the location of their main hideout. Once you have those, you can find them and take them out. Be wary however, some cult members are heavily guarded and quite the challenge to fight. This is where Odyssey's notoriety system comes in. The more crimes you commit i.e. murder (come on, you know that's what assassination is), the more likely it is that someone will put a bounty on your head. Then you find yourself relentlessly hunted by bounty hunters with very colorful names. The bounty hunters are no joke and if you do not plan out your strategy and tactics, they will end you. There were some who had lions and they would tag team the crap out of me which could be more than a little frustrating, but that's part of the challenge. Two ways around this are offing the person who put the bounty on your head or paying off the bounty. If you have the coin, you can pay the money and the bounty will go away.
Besides the main story, there are a ton of side quests and conquest missions to do. Sneaking around and taking out guards in a fort can be difficult, but rewarding as you take everyone out and diminish that nation's power. Looting the treasures, burning the supplies, and taking out the captains completes that area and will show you a meter with their power depleting. Once you have completely drained their influence, you get a conquest battle option. You get an epic battle between Spartans and Athenians and you have to take out all the captains during this battle in order to win the conquest. There were times where I totally screwed up and a guard saw me and then I had to brawl my way out among five or six of them. That was a whole other adventure in itself. It definitely raises the stakes when that happens and makes Odyssey feel like a whole new game.
Getting caught by guards sucks. Time to brawl my way out!
My favorite thing to do in Odyssey was exploring. I loved discovering new areas and hanging out in ancient Greece. Climbing up to the tops of high buildings, cliffs, and statues just to synchronize the map and see the view from a high vantage point was pretty fantastic. No two areas were alike and there was always something new to see. Some of the small side quests were hit or miss at times, but I was never bored at all. There was always something to see or do.
An eagle's eye view of ancient Greece.
There are a variety of armor and weapons choices in Odyssey. As you progress, you can upgrade to better armor, weapons, and crafting materials. If you have a favorite armor set, when you upgrade you can glamour the armor to look like the favorite set. Again, this adds a role playing aspect where you can actually gather materials and craft weapons and armor in the game. This is also true for your ship. You can choose a variety of sails, ship designs, and even tailor your crew with characters from past Assassin's Creed games as your lieutenants.
If you're looking for more challenge with your challenge, there are legendary beast and mythological monster fights you can do. The locations of each legendary beast is marked on your world map. With the monsters, you happen upon some of them doing certain quests. This was how I accidentally discovered the fight with Medusa. These fights are insanely hard and Medusa seemed to be the hardest one of all. I got my ass handed to me quite a few times before I finally won. It is vindicating when you do win because they are so difficult and you have to be constantly thinking about your tactics and theirs. The fights absolutely keep you on your toes, but man what a thrill!
Medusa fight is crazy!
When you see the world map, it can be a little overwhelming with how vast it is. Areas you have already explored will be highlighted and areas that are not unlocked are grayed out. The map will also show you what level each area is so you can level grind and plan accordingly. I had fun unlocking the areas and receiving contract quests and bounties which offered lots of drachmae and sometimes item rewards such as armor.
The world map is huge. Get out there and explore!
While I loved Odyssey, there were issues with the game. One of the big things was I was one of the unlucky people who got the game breaking bug of the game dropping frames and freezing completely in enemy fort areas. I had wondered if it was just me so I looked up the issue and found that many others had this issue with the game also. The solution Ubisoft offered was to close the game completely and restart the game. That's more than a little irritating. While the voice acting is good, there were strange audio issues with the voices being off sync and delaying at times. In spite of those issues, I still had fun with Odyssey and loved the game. Even after the main crux of the story is finished, there's still so much left to do with legendary hunts and searching for precursor relics and the upcoming DLC. Odyssey is slightly different from the games before it, but it is lots of fun. Now, I'm going to get out there and do more exploring. See you at the next adventure!
Odyssey is a bit different from its predecessors. The story is set at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war; an ongoing struggle between Sparta and Athens for dominion over Greece. This opens up a lot of interesting places to explore and dialogue options. At the beginning of the game you can choose which Misthios (mercenary) you want to play as; Alexios or his sister Kassandra. It really doesn't matter who you choose because the story is essentially the same for both so it's just a matter of whether or not you prefer to play as a man or a woman. For my first playthrough I went with Kassandra.
Kassandra starts her adventure.
Right from the start, Odyssey hooks you in with an action filled introduction and sets the scene for the story. After that you meet the character you chose; in my case Kassandra and you get a brief tutorial on how the gaming controls work. You also get a mount with this and those controls are pretty easy to navigate. Once you have the hang of it, you can get started on your journey with the main story and the vast amount of side quests.
This is where Odyssey differs a bit. There is more of a role playing aspect to the game with you being able to select different dialogue options while talking to people. You can choose to be cutthroat, a mercenary with a conscience, or ridiculously flirty. Yes, with some of the NPC characters be they men or women Kassandra could have flings with them. Don't worry, nothing overly graphic is shown, but it is definitely heavily implied. Your weapons are different as well. There is no assassin's blade here. You have a precursor artifact weapon in the form of a spear and the options of daggers and swords. You also have a bow and arrows which are quite useful for fighting at a distance.
Have a horse for your travels!
As you level up, you gain ability points which you can use to unlock certain skills to enhance your fighting and stealth from the following three categories in the skills menu: Hunter, Warrior, and Assassin. It is beneficial to unlock these because they are incredibly useful in battles against your enemies. There are also ship battles which bring back memories of Black Flag. The ship battles are challenging, but they are so much fun. You can upgrade your ship to make it a force to be reckoned with. Upgrading the hull is definitely a must so you can ram the heck out of other ships and take little to no damage. You need a crew also of course and Odyssey has an ability where rather than assassinating targets, you can knock them out and recruit them to join your crew.
Unlock abilities in the skills menu.
The running theme for your protagonist is all about family. This is where you are introduced to the mysterious villains, The Cult Of Kosmos who have a hand in much of the conflict in Greece all for power. You have to travel all over the world map to find clues about each cult member in order to reveal their true identity and the location of their main hideout. Once you have those, you can find them and take them out. Be wary however, some cult members are heavily guarded and quite the challenge to fight. This is where Odyssey's notoriety system comes in. The more crimes you commit i.e. murder (come on, you know that's what assassination is), the more likely it is that someone will put a bounty on your head. Then you find yourself relentlessly hunted by bounty hunters with very colorful names. The bounty hunters are no joke and if you do not plan out your strategy and tactics, they will end you. There were some who had lions and they would tag team the crap out of me which could be more than a little frustrating, but that's part of the challenge. Two ways around this are offing the person who put the bounty on your head or paying off the bounty. If you have the coin, you can pay the money and the bounty will go away.
Besides the main story, there are a ton of side quests and conquest missions to do. Sneaking around and taking out guards in a fort can be difficult, but rewarding as you take everyone out and diminish that nation's power. Looting the treasures, burning the supplies, and taking out the captains completes that area and will show you a meter with their power depleting. Once you have completely drained their influence, you get a conquest battle option. You get an epic battle between Spartans and Athenians and you have to take out all the captains during this battle in order to win the conquest. There were times where I totally screwed up and a guard saw me and then I had to brawl my way out among five or six of them. That was a whole other adventure in itself. It definitely raises the stakes when that happens and makes Odyssey feel like a whole new game.
Getting caught by guards sucks. Time to brawl my way out!
My favorite thing to do in Odyssey was exploring. I loved discovering new areas and hanging out in ancient Greece. Climbing up to the tops of high buildings, cliffs, and statues just to synchronize the map and see the view from a high vantage point was pretty fantastic. No two areas were alike and there was always something new to see. Some of the small side quests were hit or miss at times, but I was never bored at all. There was always something to see or do.
An eagle's eye view of ancient Greece.
There are a variety of armor and weapons choices in Odyssey. As you progress, you can upgrade to better armor, weapons, and crafting materials. If you have a favorite armor set, when you upgrade you can glamour the armor to look like the favorite set. Again, this adds a role playing aspect where you can actually gather materials and craft weapons and armor in the game. This is also true for your ship. You can choose a variety of sails, ship designs, and even tailor your crew with characters from past Assassin's Creed games as your lieutenants.
If you're looking for more challenge with your challenge, there are legendary beast and mythological monster fights you can do. The locations of each legendary beast is marked on your world map. With the monsters, you happen upon some of them doing certain quests. This was how I accidentally discovered the fight with Medusa. These fights are insanely hard and Medusa seemed to be the hardest one of all. I got my ass handed to me quite a few times before I finally won. It is vindicating when you do win because they are so difficult and you have to be constantly thinking about your tactics and theirs. The fights absolutely keep you on your toes, but man what a thrill!
Medusa fight is crazy!
When you see the world map, it can be a little overwhelming with how vast it is. Areas you have already explored will be highlighted and areas that are not unlocked are grayed out. The map will also show you what level each area is so you can level grind and plan accordingly. I had fun unlocking the areas and receiving contract quests and bounties which offered lots of drachmae and sometimes item rewards such as armor.
The world map is huge. Get out there and explore!
While I loved Odyssey, there were issues with the game. One of the big things was I was one of the unlucky people who got the game breaking bug of the game dropping frames and freezing completely in enemy fort areas. I had wondered if it was just me so I looked up the issue and found that many others had this issue with the game also. The solution Ubisoft offered was to close the game completely and restart the game. That's more than a little irritating. While the voice acting is good, there were strange audio issues with the voices being off sync and delaying at times. In spite of those issues, I still had fun with Odyssey and loved the game. Even after the main crux of the story is finished, there's still so much left to do with legendary hunts and searching for precursor relics and the upcoming DLC. Odyssey is slightly different from the games before it, but it is lots of fun. Now, I'm going to get out there and do more exploring. See you at the next adventure!
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Scythe (Arc of a Scythe #1) in Books
Jan 27, 2020
Well written (3 more)
Unique plot
Less YA tropes
No teen angst and romance
Not your typical YA
I approached this book with little expectation. I saw it cluttering up my feed on Instagram and being posted by everyone. I liked the cover (I'm a sucker for good covers and any YA without a photo manipulated monstrosity catches my eye). However every time I picked it up in the store and read the back and I just wasn't interested.
So in a New year new me moment, I forced myself to pick up two popular books that I was not interested in. Since they were both YA, they'd be quick reads and my expectations could below. I also forced my picks to not be hard SciFi, as I need to step out of my comfort zone. I picked this up, and developed more concern when I noticed how divided the reviews were, I noticed people were either firmly in the "this is my most favorite book ever" or in the "this is the most boring book ever I hated it" camps. I rarely rate books 1 or 5, so I wanted to see how I felt.
Honestly, I was very pleasantly surprised. This book is YA, and obviously has some YA aspects, but it doesn't follow the tropes unless stripped down to bullet points and is surprisingly well written. This well written aspect, with no intentions of making people mad, I think is why so many found it boring. If you primarily read YA, and are used to it's over the top writing, it's over the top dialogue and relationships and emotions, then yes, this book was probably horribly boring.
We do open with the standard tropes of uninteresting, normal girl and boy get thrown into something extraordinary. But that's where the stereotypes ended for me. The author quickly throws us into the world and the events of the story. We're in the future, who knows how far past the present, where society has overcome death. AI has evolved and "The Cloud" is now "The Thunderhead" a massive AI database that has solved most of the world's problems, eliminated poverty, war, government, created jobs for everyone, and even defeated death. We all have healing nanites that prevent illness and repair injury, and even in the case of death, we can be revived at a revival center and be greeted with some tasty ice cream. If we start feeling our age, we can just "turn a corner" resetting ourselves to a younger version of ourselves while retaining our memories.
Now, in a world without death, but babies are still being born, some form of population control is in order, the balance must be restored. So the world created the Scythedom. An organization outside the authority of "The Thunderhead" because death has and always should be a responsibility of the living. Those who become Scythes, must "Glean" (permanently kill) a quota of people every year to maintain population control. How they do so is up to them, but there are rules, a Scythe cannot show bias or malice in their choices, they cannot marry or have a family, they cannot kill another Scythe (but they can glean themselves) or someone with immunity, They may grant immunity to those they feel worthy, they must kill the families of those who resist, and they are above all other laws. The vagueness of these laws worked when the Scythedom was first created, but the world has become complicated, and some people have decided to find joy in what they do, even if it's killing.
Our story follows two teenagers who recently encountered the Honorable Scythe Faraday, Citra, and Rowan. Citra showed gumption and sass and moral balance, and Rowan held the hand of a boy that was not his friend as he was gleaned. Faraday is considered old school and chooses all that is gleaned by old school, age of mortality statistics. If a percentage of teenagers died in alcohol-related car accidents, he found a teenager with a penchant for drinking, who just got a car, and gleaned them. He believes the job is necessary, but should never be enjoyed, you need to be moral and compassionate and hurt every time. He is granted permission to take on an apprentice, and he takes on two, Rowan and Citra. Neither want it, nor should they, but should they become a Scythe, their families will receive immunity as long as they shall live, which in this day in age could be forever. So, reluctantly they both take it. There is a glamour to Scythedom as well, they'll wat for nothing, people will bend over backward to provide them with their desires in the hopes of immunity. If these two follow the teachings of Faraday, they won't be tempted by this, they won't abuse it, but not everyone feels the same way.
Citra and Rowan begin training (it gets a bit YAish here) studying history, poisons, combat, weapons. The goal to make them perfect, moral, compassionate, killing machines. Everything is going as well as it can, and luckily the book doesn't do what every other YA author would do and give us pages upon pages of the two falling in love, awkward encounters, stolen kisses. We have none of that thankfully. The dialogue is all purposeful and helps propel the plot, not flowery passages talking about teenage angst and feelings. But, it is a book, after all, so everything starts falling apart when a group of "New Age" Scythes, Scythes that believe they should enjoy their jobs, who take pleasure in mass killings (entire flights, festivals, food courts) stir things up at a Scythe Conclave meeting. They question if having two apprentices hurts whether or not the Conclave can judge the worthiness of either, or if them being friends will result in them always helping each other. How can they truly judge their ability if they always have each other's support? So they propose, since no law prevents it, that whichever apprentice should be chosen (remember Faraday was given permission to have ONE apprentice) will have to Glean the other. The Lead Scythe allows it, and honestly, this is one aspect of the book I struggled with, but I think was supposed to express the corruption of the Scythedom, at times when things aren't in writing they say "welp can't do it" and other times they say "welp nothing says we can't do it". Faraday attempts to free our two protagonists from their apprenticeships, but instead, they are separated, one going to a respected Old School Scythe, one going to the very modern group that started this whole problem, thrusting them into a world excess, deprivation, and honestly psychotic murdering. They now train, separately, knowing that one will die unless they can figure out a way to change things.
Even writing that sounds so Yaish, but it doesn't feel that way because it's so well written. The author doesn't give us Romeo and Juliet, no pining, no romance, just two kids trying to be that, good. Even when surrounded by something very bad. So, if you want to star crossed lovers, you won't like this book. If you like character development and struggle, you might like this book. We arguably see more of Rowan's development, Citra for me felt less focused on or given fewer opportunities for growth, and she had a bit of an attitude that made me no like her much, but given her circumstances, I UNDERSTOOD why she was the way she is, and I can't say I wouldn't be just as grumpy. If anything her response to the corruption and the situation felt very real, even if it sacrificed having a manic pixie daydream mary sue to project myself into. While appearances weren't really given for the two, setting them up to be good old fashioned Mary Sue and Gary Stu, they were very much their own people, with little room for the reader to pretend to be them. So another star in the breaking the YA mold category. We watch them struggle with where they are, and how to come to terms with their inevitable future, either being takers of life or having their life taken.
Overall this was refreshing, while it was an easy read and was a good "palette cleanser" and m boyfriend calls my YA marathons in between books that actually linger in my soul. It felt elevated, sure it was still very much YA, but it was more thought out than the standard, it focused on the story and not the romance, it focused on important things, and it never lost sight of its story. I started at 11am on a Sunday and Finished by noon on Monday, eager for the next. It was an unexpected, refreshing read, with a unique concept that has room for more. The sequel doesn't feel forced, and if I never got it, this story is finished, but the world and situation created to allow for more, without feeling like a forced trilogy. I wanted to know how this story was going to play out, and now that it has, I want to know how the next story in this set up plays out.
So in a New year new me moment, I forced myself to pick up two popular books that I was not interested in. Since they were both YA, they'd be quick reads and my expectations could below. I also forced my picks to not be hard SciFi, as I need to step out of my comfort zone. I picked this up, and developed more concern when I noticed how divided the reviews were, I noticed people were either firmly in the "this is my most favorite book ever" or in the "this is the most boring book ever I hated it" camps. I rarely rate books 1 or 5, so I wanted to see how I felt.
Honestly, I was very pleasantly surprised. This book is YA, and obviously has some YA aspects, but it doesn't follow the tropes unless stripped down to bullet points and is surprisingly well written. This well written aspect, with no intentions of making people mad, I think is why so many found it boring. If you primarily read YA, and are used to it's over the top writing, it's over the top dialogue and relationships and emotions, then yes, this book was probably horribly boring.
We do open with the standard tropes of uninteresting, normal girl and boy get thrown into something extraordinary. But that's where the stereotypes ended for me. The author quickly throws us into the world and the events of the story. We're in the future, who knows how far past the present, where society has overcome death. AI has evolved and "The Cloud" is now "The Thunderhead" a massive AI database that has solved most of the world's problems, eliminated poverty, war, government, created jobs for everyone, and even defeated death. We all have healing nanites that prevent illness and repair injury, and even in the case of death, we can be revived at a revival center and be greeted with some tasty ice cream. If we start feeling our age, we can just "turn a corner" resetting ourselves to a younger version of ourselves while retaining our memories.
Now, in a world without death, but babies are still being born, some form of population control is in order, the balance must be restored. So the world created the Scythedom. An organization outside the authority of "The Thunderhead" because death has and always should be a responsibility of the living. Those who become Scythes, must "Glean" (permanently kill) a quota of people every year to maintain population control. How they do so is up to them, but there are rules, a Scythe cannot show bias or malice in their choices, they cannot marry or have a family, they cannot kill another Scythe (but they can glean themselves) or someone with immunity, They may grant immunity to those they feel worthy, they must kill the families of those who resist, and they are above all other laws. The vagueness of these laws worked when the Scythedom was first created, but the world has become complicated, and some people have decided to find joy in what they do, even if it's killing.
Our story follows two teenagers who recently encountered the Honorable Scythe Faraday, Citra, and Rowan. Citra showed gumption and sass and moral balance, and Rowan held the hand of a boy that was not his friend as he was gleaned. Faraday is considered old school and chooses all that is gleaned by old school, age of mortality statistics. If a percentage of teenagers died in alcohol-related car accidents, he found a teenager with a penchant for drinking, who just got a car, and gleaned them. He believes the job is necessary, but should never be enjoyed, you need to be moral and compassionate and hurt every time. He is granted permission to take on an apprentice, and he takes on two, Rowan and Citra. Neither want it, nor should they, but should they become a Scythe, their families will receive immunity as long as they shall live, which in this day in age could be forever. So, reluctantly they both take it. There is a glamour to Scythedom as well, they'll wat for nothing, people will bend over backward to provide them with their desires in the hopes of immunity. If these two follow the teachings of Faraday, they won't be tempted by this, they won't abuse it, but not everyone feels the same way.
Citra and Rowan begin training (it gets a bit YAish here) studying history, poisons, combat, weapons. The goal to make them perfect, moral, compassionate, killing machines. Everything is going as well as it can, and luckily the book doesn't do what every other YA author would do and give us pages upon pages of the two falling in love, awkward encounters, stolen kisses. We have none of that thankfully. The dialogue is all purposeful and helps propel the plot, not flowery passages talking about teenage angst and feelings. But, it is a book, after all, so everything starts falling apart when a group of "New Age" Scythes, Scythes that believe they should enjoy their jobs, who take pleasure in mass killings (entire flights, festivals, food courts) stir things up at a Scythe Conclave meeting. They question if having two apprentices hurts whether or not the Conclave can judge the worthiness of either, or if them being friends will result in them always helping each other. How can they truly judge their ability if they always have each other's support? So they propose, since no law prevents it, that whichever apprentice should be chosen (remember Faraday was given permission to have ONE apprentice) will have to Glean the other. The Lead Scythe allows it, and honestly, this is one aspect of the book I struggled with, but I think was supposed to express the corruption of the Scythedom, at times when things aren't in writing they say "welp can't do it" and other times they say "welp nothing says we can't do it". Faraday attempts to free our two protagonists from their apprenticeships, but instead, they are separated, one going to a respected Old School Scythe, one going to the very modern group that started this whole problem, thrusting them into a world excess, deprivation, and honestly psychotic murdering. They now train, separately, knowing that one will die unless they can figure out a way to change things.
Even writing that sounds so Yaish, but it doesn't feel that way because it's so well written. The author doesn't give us Romeo and Juliet, no pining, no romance, just two kids trying to be that, good. Even when surrounded by something very bad. So, if you want to star crossed lovers, you won't like this book. If you like character development and struggle, you might like this book. We arguably see more of Rowan's development, Citra for me felt less focused on or given fewer opportunities for growth, and she had a bit of an attitude that made me no like her much, but given her circumstances, I UNDERSTOOD why she was the way she is, and I can't say I wouldn't be just as grumpy. If anything her response to the corruption and the situation felt very real, even if it sacrificed having a manic pixie daydream mary sue to project myself into. While appearances weren't really given for the two, setting them up to be good old fashioned Mary Sue and Gary Stu, they were very much their own people, with little room for the reader to pretend to be them. So another star in the breaking the YA mold category. We watch them struggle with where they are, and how to come to terms with their inevitable future, either being takers of life or having their life taken.
Overall this was refreshing, while it was an easy read and was a good "palette cleanser" and m boyfriend calls my YA marathons in between books that actually linger in my soul. It felt elevated, sure it was still very much YA, but it was more thought out than the standard, it focused on the story and not the romance, it focused on important things, and it never lost sight of its story. I started at 11am on a Sunday and Finished by noon on Monday, eager for the next. It was an unexpected, refreshing read, with a unique concept that has room for more. The sequel doesn't feel forced, and if I never got it, this story is finished, but the world and situation created to allow for more, without feeling like a forced trilogy. I wanted to know how this story was going to play out, and now that it has, I want to know how the next story in this set up plays out.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 30, 2020 (Updated Jul 1, 2020)
Gameplay (2 more)
Graphics
Sound
I'm Not Mad, I'm Just Disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's been a while since I've written anything, but I couldn't let this one go by without saying anything about it.
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10