Search
Search results
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated The Man Of Steel in Books
Nov 30, 2020
If you know me, you know that I have a strong dislike for the writing by Brian Michael Bendis. His last few years before his journey to DC Comics, the work he did on the X-titles, as well as GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, it was just rubbish! It was the end result of someone who clearly needed a change of scenery and a more focused editor! After reading this, I feel confident that what I just wrote, as well as feeling, is pretty close to the truth, as this, his first work for DC, was frikkin' A-MAZ-ING!
While I have a great love of Marvel (preferrably older stuff, as the new stuff is starting to stink like yesterday's diapers!), I also have a great love of DC (the comics, not the nation's capital, which stinks as well, but of ignorance, racism, and misogyny), especially Superman, a hero who has never been more needed than he is needed now! It is very apparent that BMB has a great love/admiration of the Big 'S'!
His Clark Kent is written different from Superman, making the <i>illusion</i> that much easier to swallow once the glasses and suit goes on over his costume. The character does not appear as "mild mannered" as he was originally conceived, but he also is not mean or off-putting. He is still an alien, but he embraced our customs, and the end result is quite pleasing, especially with the toxicity that exists with the US at this point in time!
Equally well written is BMB's handling of Lois Lane and Jon, her and Kal-El's son. Lois is both a successful, highly competent writer, but she is also a mother. Not an overbear, bitchy mom, but someone who cares for her son, as much as she cares for her husband. The boy, Jon, is written like a normal boy his age, but without that precociousness that seems to be given to young'uns his age on TV!
As I am so prone to do in my other reviews, I want to give credit to the art side of this tale. The artists (yes, artists, Plural.) on board is quite a top shelf gathering. Jim Lee handles the first issue, while Ivan Reis (BLACKEST NIGHT), Steve Rude (NEXUS), Jay Fabok (New 52 JUSTICE LEAGUE), and even Ryan Sook! What a heckuva good way to start your beginnings with DC!
While some are apt to disagree, Superman needs the red shorts! And, that, my friends, was Bendis' first order of business on taking on the Man of Steel! I look forward to seeing where he goes with Superman, as the character is one that many love, and many will expect something good! If this is the beginning, I can't wait to see where the rest of this ride takes us!
While I have a great love of Marvel (preferrably older stuff, as the new stuff is starting to stink like yesterday's diapers!), I also have a great love of DC (the comics, not the nation's capital, which stinks as well, but of ignorance, racism, and misogyny), especially Superman, a hero who has never been more needed than he is needed now! It is very apparent that BMB has a great love/admiration of the Big 'S'!
His Clark Kent is written different from Superman, making the <i>illusion</i> that much easier to swallow once the glasses and suit goes on over his costume. The character does not appear as "mild mannered" as he was originally conceived, but he also is not mean or off-putting. He is still an alien, but he embraced our customs, and the end result is quite pleasing, especially with the toxicity that exists with the US at this point in time!
Equally well written is BMB's handling of Lois Lane and Jon, her and Kal-El's son. Lois is both a successful, highly competent writer, but she is also a mother. Not an overbear, bitchy mom, but someone who cares for her son, as much as she cares for her husband. The boy, Jon, is written like a normal boy his age, but without that precociousness that seems to be given to young'uns his age on TV!
As I am so prone to do in my other reviews, I want to give credit to the art side of this tale. The artists (yes, artists, Plural.) on board is quite a top shelf gathering. Jim Lee handles the first issue, while Ivan Reis (BLACKEST NIGHT), Steve Rude (NEXUS), Jay Fabok (New 52 JUSTICE LEAGUE), and even Ryan Sook! What a heckuva good way to start your beginnings with DC!
While some are apt to disagree, Superman needs the red shorts! And, that, my friends, was Bendis' first order of business on taking on the Man of Steel! I look forward to seeing where he goes with Superman, as the character is one that many love, and many will expect something good! If this is the beginning, I can't wait to see where the rest of this ride takes us!
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Silent Patient in Books
Sep 2, 2019
Alicia Berenson is a well-known painter married to a famous photographer, Gabriel. They have a picture-perfect life, so-to-speak. But all that changes when Gabriel returns home from work one evening and Alicia shoots him five times. Then she goes silent, refusing to speak. Her silence makes her case even more famous, causing intense public speculation. Her paintings become coveted objects. Alicia, meanwhile, is sent to the Grove, a secluded psychiatric forensic unit, for treatment. There, Theo Faber, a psychotherapist, gains a job primarily just to work with Alicia, determined to be the one to help her speak again. But he becomes consumed with her case--something that may put his own health and safety into jeopardy.
This is a book that I read solely based on the recommendations of Goodreads and #bookstagram friends. It was quite hyped, and sometimes I shy away from all the hype, ha. I really did enjoy it, though I probably always feel a little let down by the crazily hyped books. It's just my nature. That being said, I do think this is a really good read and extremely captivating.
It's incredibly bizarre and puzzling--told via excerpts from Alicia's journal (pre-murder) and then Theo's viewpoints. We are left to wonder if, indeed, Alicia is truly crazy. The fact that she shot her husband, Gabriel, isn't really up for debate. But why? What led this talented artist to kill, and so violently? Reading her journal, we ponder, is she mentally ill? Is what she's telling us even really happening? Some of the narratives may or may not contradict each other, and the result is a fast-paced, twisty tale that keeps you guessing the entire time. I was sucked into both Alicia and Theo's minds. One of the best things about this book is that you may not always like Theo or Alicia, but you'll want to know about them. You'll find yourself completely engaged in their story--a sign of a good read, if you ask me.
"There's so much pain everywhere, and we just close our eyes to it. The truth is we're all scared. We're terrified of each other. I'm terrified of myself--and of my mother in me. Is her madness in my blood? Is it?"
I stayed up late to finish this one, as I absolutely had to know what happened. There are several twists and turns, and, as I mentioned, it keeps you guessing. The perspective in this book is unique, and I really welcomed how different it felt. It's a consuming, shocking read that basically absorbs you and as different parts of the story are revealed, it grows more and more intense.
Overall, this is a really excellent psychological thriller. It's nearly impossible to put down. It is different, with damaged characters that will draw you in from the start. 4+ stars!
This is a book that I read solely based on the recommendations of Goodreads and #bookstagram friends. It was quite hyped, and sometimes I shy away from all the hype, ha. I really did enjoy it, though I probably always feel a little let down by the crazily hyped books. It's just my nature. That being said, I do think this is a really good read and extremely captivating.
It's incredibly bizarre and puzzling--told via excerpts from Alicia's journal (pre-murder) and then Theo's viewpoints. We are left to wonder if, indeed, Alicia is truly crazy. The fact that she shot her husband, Gabriel, isn't really up for debate. But why? What led this talented artist to kill, and so violently? Reading her journal, we ponder, is she mentally ill? Is what she's telling us even really happening? Some of the narratives may or may not contradict each other, and the result is a fast-paced, twisty tale that keeps you guessing the entire time. I was sucked into both Alicia and Theo's minds. One of the best things about this book is that you may not always like Theo or Alicia, but you'll want to know about them. You'll find yourself completely engaged in their story--a sign of a good read, if you ask me.
"There's so much pain everywhere, and we just close our eyes to it. The truth is we're all scared. We're terrified of each other. I'm terrified of myself--and of my mother in me. Is her madness in my blood? Is it?"
I stayed up late to finish this one, as I absolutely had to know what happened. There are several twists and turns, and, as I mentioned, it keeps you guessing. The perspective in this book is unique, and I really welcomed how different it felt. It's a consuming, shocking read that basically absorbs you and as different parts of the story are revealed, it grows more and more intense.
Overall, this is a really excellent psychological thriller. It's nearly impossible to put down. It is different, with damaged characters that will draw you in from the start. 4+ stars!
30 Day Fitness Challenge Log
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
Are you ready for the 30 Day Fitness Challenge? Accept the challenge to see tangible results and get...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King of Comedy (1983) in Movies
Jun 2, 2020
While I vaguely knew the name of the film I'd never seen it and didn't really get the vibe that I wanted to, after seeing the Joker though I was hit by so many comments on it in reviews that I really needed to see it.
Rupert Pupkin dreams of a life as a stand-up comic. Almost every night he's outside the local studio to see his idol Jerry Langford to try and get the big break that will launch his career. Rupert's obsession for success starts to completely run his life and with his newfound "friendship" with Jerry he becomes even more unstable and crosses a line there's no coming back from.
Before I comment on anything specific I want to point out that the rating of the film isn't really anything to do with its quality, it's more to do with me. I absolutely hate awkward comedy and awkwardness in general on screen, it makes me uncomfortable and I would much rather just leave that awkward feeling to my everyday life than have it in my downtime too.
The story idea is a solid one (if it hadn't been then I'm sure Joke would have done more original thinking) and the idea of obsessive fan culture is something I think all generations can get along with. Because of that fact I can see it appealing to a variety of people if they can get past the dated feel to it.
Robert De Niro did a great job as Pupkin, and even in the short clip above you can see that in his behaviour changes to his environment. The dynamic with each individual character changes from confidence to anxious and irritated and you get a sense of what's going on in his head. His performance escalates nicely and when you combine his actions with those of Masha (Sandra Bernhard) you get quite an impact at the end.
I get the feeling it might be a little... bland... for modern audiences at times. That might not be quite the right way to describe it. It plods along at a good pace but there isn't any deviation from its focus on Pupkin and if that doesn't click with you then it might not be something that can keep you interested.
If this hadn't come up in my Twitter polls of films to watch then I probably wouldn't have reviewed it. It's a good film, with solid acting and everything is a perfect snapshot of its era, but it just isn't for me. If I'd watched it years ago and certainly if I'd watched it before Joker came out then I might have been able to engage more with it. I can see why so many people love it but it just isn't for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-king-of-comedy-movie-review.html
Rupert Pupkin dreams of a life as a stand-up comic. Almost every night he's outside the local studio to see his idol Jerry Langford to try and get the big break that will launch his career. Rupert's obsession for success starts to completely run his life and with his newfound "friendship" with Jerry he becomes even more unstable and crosses a line there's no coming back from.
Before I comment on anything specific I want to point out that the rating of the film isn't really anything to do with its quality, it's more to do with me. I absolutely hate awkward comedy and awkwardness in general on screen, it makes me uncomfortable and I would much rather just leave that awkward feeling to my everyday life than have it in my downtime too.
The story idea is a solid one (if it hadn't been then I'm sure Joke would have done more original thinking) and the idea of obsessive fan culture is something I think all generations can get along with. Because of that fact I can see it appealing to a variety of people if they can get past the dated feel to it.
Robert De Niro did a great job as Pupkin, and even in the short clip above you can see that in his behaviour changes to his environment. The dynamic with each individual character changes from confidence to anxious and irritated and you get a sense of what's going on in his head. His performance escalates nicely and when you combine his actions with those of Masha (Sandra Bernhard) you get quite an impact at the end.
I get the feeling it might be a little... bland... for modern audiences at times. That might not be quite the right way to describe it. It plods along at a good pace but there isn't any deviation from its focus on Pupkin and if that doesn't click with you then it might not be something that can keep you interested.
If this hadn't come up in my Twitter polls of films to watch then I probably wouldn't have reviewed it. It's a good film, with solid acting and everything is a perfect snapshot of its era, but it just isn't for me. If I'd watched it years ago and certainly if I'd watched it before Joker came out then I might have been able to engage more with it. I can see why so many people love it but it just isn't for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-king-of-comedy-movie-review.html
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Samurai Warriors 5 in Video Games
Sep 14, 2021 (Updated Sep 14, 2021)
Revamped art style and character designs (1 more)
All new weapon system
Character animations are a bit stiff in scenes with dialogue (1 more)
Battle music can be repetitive
Fantastic Return For The Warriors Series
Samurai Warriors 5 is a 2021 hack and slash, action, "Musou/Warriors" game developed by Omega Force and published by Koei Tecmo. It is available on PS4, Xbox One, Nintendo Switch and PC, with current gen consoles not featuring an upgraded version yet. The fifth installment in the series, it is a re-imagining as almost everything from art style to character designs has been revamped. The story has been redone as well, focusing mainly on Nobunaga Oda and Mitsuhide Akechi, up to the events of the Honno-ji incident.
Play as the legends of the Sengoku Era of Japanese history in this epic "Warriors" game. Samurai Warriors 5 has been revamped with a new art style and an all new weapon system allowing characters to utilize any weapon in a large arsenal as you mow down hundreds of soldiers from opposing armies. Every weapon has special moves to use in combat and can be upgraded in the blacksmith menu. Characters have a simplistic skill tree and some also have ultimate moves. A stable menu is available to upgrade and train horses you acquire as well. There are two game modes: Musou Mode, which is a mission based story mode and Citadel Mode, which is an extra game mode in which you defend a base while completing different objectives to get the highest score you can.
Utilizing new character designs and a new art style based on Japanese paintings, Samurai Warriors has never looked so good. Musou attacks look great with some ending in a character posing for a painting. Character animations are great in battle but a little stiff in scenes with dialogue, however, the cutscenes are well done.
Battle music can get repetitive but if you love the "Warriors" series it's what you've come to expect. Classic "Warriors" style music with epic rock/metal guitar riffs are mixed with the traditional Japanese style music, although with more emphasis on the latter. Overall the music is very enjoyable. The sound design for weapon combos gives you a good sense of impact too and really makes you feel like you're doing damage.
Samurai Warriors 5 is the tale of Nobunaga Oda, the legendary Japanese Daimyo (Lord) on his quest to unify all the lands of Japan and bring peace to it's people. This game is based off of historical records of Nobunaga's life and that of Mitsuhide Akechi with many liberties taken to romanticize real life historical accounts. The plot follows them through their lives, up to the incident at Honno-ji.
Verdict: [7/10]
A fantastic return to form for the "Warriors" series after the abysmal Dynasty Warriors 9. The new art style is a refreshing take and gameplay innovates while simultaneously not alienating lovers of past games in the series.
Play as the legends of the Sengoku Era of Japanese history in this epic "Warriors" game. Samurai Warriors 5 has been revamped with a new art style and an all new weapon system allowing characters to utilize any weapon in a large arsenal as you mow down hundreds of soldiers from opposing armies. Every weapon has special moves to use in combat and can be upgraded in the blacksmith menu. Characters have a simplistic skill tree and some also have ultimate moves. A stable menu is available to upgrade and train horses you acquire as well. There are two game modes: Musou Mode, which is a mission based story mode and Citadel Mode, which is an extra game mode in which you defend a base while completing different objectives to get the highest score you can.
Utilizing new character designs and a new art style based on Japanese paintings, Samurai Warriors has never looked so good. Musou attacks look great with some ending in a character posing for a painting. Character animations are great in battle but a little stiff in scenes with dialogue, however, the cutscenes are well done.
Battle music can get repetitive but if you love the "Warriors" series it's what you've come to expect. Classic "Warriors" style music with epic rock/metal guitar riffs are mixed with the traditional Japanese style music, although with more emphasis on the latter. Overall the music is very enjoyable. The sound design for weapon combos gives you a good sense of impact too and really makes you feel like you're doing damage.
Samurai Warriors 5 is the tale of Nobunaga Oda, the legendary Japanese Daimyo (Lord) on his quest to unify all the lands of Japan and bring peace to it's people. This game is based off of historical records of Nobunaga's life and that of Mitsuhide Akechi with many liberties taken to romanticize real life historical accounts. The plot follows them through their lives, up to the incident at Honno-ji.
Verdict: [7/10]
A fantastic return to form for the "Warriors" series after the abysmal Dynasty Warriors 9. The new art style is a refreshing take and gameplay innovates while simultaneously not alienating lovers of past games in the series.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trip To Spain (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Moore should be less.
“The Trip to Spain” is the third in the series of ‘culinery travelogue’ TV programmes by Steve Coogan (“Philomena“) and Rob Brydon (“Gavin and Stacey”). The pair travel by car through Spain sampling the local delicacies while constantly trying to self-salve their fragile egos and trying to out-do each other with comedy spiel. This is of course not a “documentary” as such, since the pair are playing up to their extreme alter-egos (presumably!) of what people expect them to be like. Actors playing their family, agents, etc. call them at various points on the trip to either pour oil on troubled waters or (more often) add fuel to the fire.
All ashore. The guys arrive in Santander.
The six original half hour TV episodes have been edited down into a feature length journey. And this is part of the problem. Repetition that can be forgiven and forgotten about when you see an episode every week, but can become tiresome when forced on you as a continuous stream.
Brydon drinks; Coogan doesn’t; both impersonate.
In this case the repetitive content delivered by Coogan and Brydon are their (normally very good) impersonations of famous stars (most of which it has to be said are British so won’t resonate with a non-UK audience). Roger Moore in particular gets trotted out INTERMINABLY and while some of it is extremely funny – an exchange between Moore as Bond and Scaramanga had me snorting tea out of my nose – it all gets too much by the end.
Coogan in mid-Jagger.
Appearing to recognise this need for more variety, additional characters from Steve’s team join them for a part of their trip – Emma (Clare Keelan) and Yolanda (Marta Barrio). Unfortunately, the additions are just plain dull: they just sit alongside Coogan and Brydon and laugh at their impressions, adding nothing. Now if they had been a couple of good female impersonators, like Ronni Ancona and Jan Ravens, that could act as a foil to the male duo, THAT would have been entertaining.
Coogan and Brydon strides the local streets.
The film also suffers from “Top Gear Challenge” disease. The problem with filming a car journey through Spain is that you know there are not twenty film crews deployed along the route to do the filming…. all of the cameras are carefully set up in advance with someone on a walkie-talkie saying “OK, Steve – coffee down, we’re ready for you to drive over the hill now”. So something that should feel natural and documentary-like feels 100% the opposite.
Tilting at windmills. Brydon and Coogan as Sancho Panza and Don Quixote.
So… if you like Coogan and Brydon, and especially if you liked their Northern England and Italy “trips”, then you will get more laughs out of this one. But I think the concoction needs to be put through the blender and re-heated before it comes out for a fourth outing.
All ashore. The guys arrive in Santander.
The six original half hour TV episodes have been edited down into a feature length journey. And this is part of the problem. Repetition that can be forgiven and forgotten about when you see an episode every week, but can become tiresome when forced on you as a continuous stream.
Brydon drinks; Coogan doesn’t; both impersonate.
In this case the repetitive content delivered by Coogan and Brydon are their (normally very good) impersonations of famous stars (most of which it has to be said are British so won’t resonate with a non-UK audience). Roger Moore in particular gets trotted out INTERMINABLY and while some of it is extremely funny – an exchange between Moore as Bond and Scaramanga had me snorting tea out of my nose – it all gets too much by the end.
Coogan in mid-Jagger.
Appearing to recognise this need for more variety, additional characters from Steve’s team join them for a part of their trip – Emma (Clare Keelan) and Yolanda (Marta Barrio). Unfortunately, the additions are just plain dull: they just sit alongside Coogan and Brydon and laugh at their impressions, adding nothing. Now if they had been a couple of good female impersonators, like Ronni Ancona and Jan Ravens, that could act as a foil to the male duo, THAT would have been entertaining.
Coogan and Brydon strides the local streets.
The film also suffers from “Top Gear Challenge” disease. The problem with filming a car journey through Spain is that you know there are not twenty film crews deployed along the route to do the filming…. all of the cameras are carefully set up in advance with someone on a walkie-talkie saying “OK, Steve – coffee down, we’re ready for you to drive over the hill now”. So something that should feel natural and documentary-like feels 100% the opposite.
Tilting at windmills. Brydon and Coogan as Sancho Panza and Don Quixote.
So… if you like Coogan and Brydon, and especially if you liked their Northern England and Italy “trips”, then you will get more laughs out of this one. But I think the concoction needs to be put through the blender and re-heated before it comes out for a fourth outing.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spiderhead (2022) in Movies
Jun 26, 2022
Weak Script Sinks This Flick
The history of cinema is littered with tales of the Mad Scientist who gets too caught up in their own experiments to the detriment of all. Once the human cost of the experiment is revealed to this seemingly sane inventor, he (it usually is a he) turns with a wild-eyed look and justifies the human expense in the name of science.
Such is the case with the Netflix Original movie SPIDERHEAD with Chris Hemsworth as the mad scientist in this scenario and Miles Teller and Jurnee Smollett as 2 of the prisoners who trade in their life sentences to be used as guinea pigs in his experiment.
It’s an interesting enough premise - one that is not new - so it is always the execution of this concept that makes (or breaks) this type of film.
Unfortunately for SPIDERHEAD, Writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick are unable to elevate the premise (based on a short story by George Saunders) into anything new, unique or interesting.
Director Joseph Kosinski (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) does a yeoman’s job trying to elevate this material to something better than it is. But…kind of like trying to get me to be a Prima Ballerina…Kosinski just cannot make something out of raw material that is fundamentally flawed. He uses a few interesting camera moves and draws out suspense in enough areas to catch the audience’s interests…but not much else.
He is helped by the casting of some top notch talent. Chris Hemsworth is engaging and charismatic (initially) as the Elon Musk/Steve Jobs-esque new age inventor who is trying out some new medical serums on prisoner/volunteers. The problem with Hemsworth - who I think is a pretty good actor - is that once you start seeing the cracks in his character’s façade (and those cracks appear early on), Hemsworth’s performance turns fairly one-dimensional and he becomes a caricature of the “crazed scientist”.
The surprises to me here are the performances of Miles Teller (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) and Jurnee Smollett (LOVECRAFT COUNTRY). These are 2 performers who I’ve always felt were good but not great, but they are intriguing to watch in this. They have strong chemistry with each other and they are 2 protagonists that are easy to root for against crazed antagonist Hemsworth.
In look and feel and tone, this film reminded my of the 2014 Alex Garland marvel EX MACHINA, but where that film easily was lifted by a tremendously strong script and ideas by Garland (check it out if you haven’t seen it - it is well worth your time), SPIDERHEAD, ultimately, sinks into the chasm of a weak script with no real strong ideas/themes behind it.
Letter Grade B+ (for the Direction of Kosinksi and the performances of Teller and Smollett)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the Netflix Original movie SPIDERHEAD with Chris Hemsworth as the mad scientist in this scenario and Miles Teller and Jurnee Smollett as 2 of the prisoners who trade in their life sentences to be used as guinea pigs in his experiment.
It’s an interesting enough premise - one that is not new - so it is always the execution of this concept that makes (or breaks) this type of film.
Unfortunately for SPIDERHEAD, Writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick are unable to elevate the premise (based on a short story by George Saunders) into anything new, unique or interesting.
Director Joseph Kosinski (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) does a yeoman’s job trying to elevate this material to something better than it is. But…kind of like trying to get me to be a Prima Ballerina…Kosinski just cannot make something out of raw material that is fundamentally flawed. He uses a few interesting camera moves and draws out suspense in enough areas to catch the audience’s interests…but not much else.
He is helped by the casting of some top notch talent. Chris Hemsworth is engaging and charismatic (initially) as the Elon Musk/Steve Jobs-esque new age inventor who is trying out some new medical serums on prisoner/volunteers. The problem with Hemsworth - who I think is a pretty good actor - is that once you start seeing the cracks in his character’s façade (and those cracks appear early on), Hemsworth’s performance turns fairly one-dimensional and he becomes a caricature of the “crazed scientist”.
The surprises to me here are the performances of Miles Teller (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) and Jurnee Smollett (LOVECRAFT COUNTRY). These are 2 performers who I’ve always felt were good but not great, but they are intriguing to watch in this. They have strong chemistry with each other and they are 2 protagonists that are easy to root for against crazed antagonist Hemsworth.
In look and feel and tone, this film reminded my of the 2014 Alex Garland marvel EX MACHINA, but where that film easily was lifted by a tremendously strong script and ideas by Garland (check it out if you haven’t seen it - it is well worth your time), SPIDERHEAD, ultimately, sinks into the chasm of a weak script with no real strong ideas/themes behind it.
Letter Grade B+ (for the Direction of Kosinksi and the performances of Teller and Smollett)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018 (Updated Sep 20, 2018)
Not Quite Ready
I saw this movie in the cinema back when it came out in March earlier this year and I honestly didn't feel ready to review it after a single viewing because of all of the references etc that there was to take in. After watching the movie a couple more times and watching a bunch of Easter Egg videos on Youtube, I feel more equipped to discuss the film.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017 (Updated Apr 16, 2021)
80's setting (2 more)
Quicksilver
Oscar Isaacs
Mutants Have Mankind Divided
This movie has had the most mixed reaction that I have seen since Batman V Superman, however I do objectively believe that X Men is a better movie and to be honest I don’t understand the mixed response Apocalypse has gotten. The year is 1983, 10 years after the last x men movie, Days Of Future Past (as in the kind of 10 years where no one ages a day,) and we know that it is 1983 because some of the young mutants go and see Return Of The Jedi in the cinema. The hairstyles and fashion statements are suitably 80’s, which is an appropriate motif to choose as it adds a more comic book feel to the movie and forces it to stick to a brighter colour pallet than some of the previous X men outings. Another positive is the return of Quicksilver, who has another awesome slow motion scene, which possibly isn’t as well choreographed as the one in DOFP, but is definitely grander in scale. While the design of Apocalypse in this movie has been heavily criticised, I didn’t feel that it took me out of the movie and I felt that Oscar Isaacs’ portrayal of the ancient mutant is another great turn by the actor and proves yet again how diverse and chameleon like he really is. The one downside of his character is that he has been significantly nerfed in terms of his powers here. He does feel powerful, but never overwhelmingly so and when the final confrontation does take place, it feels like he is holding back. This could be explained in a contrived manner by saying that he doesn’t want to kill mutants, because they are all his children, but if the success of his plan depends on it then he shouldn’t even hesitate, he should just wipe all the X Men out in an instant like we know he can.
The tone is another issue I have with the movie, it is fairly inconsistent throughout and never reaches the level of threat that it is aiming for. However, this is through no fault of the cast or the performances. MacAvoy and Fassbender stand out here as you would expect, their relationship also remains one of the most interesting parts of the plot. Isaacs’ performance is also suitably threatening and sinister, the only thing lacking in his character other than the odd design choice, is how short he is next to the other mutants. He doesn’t have to be huge like in the comics and cartoons, but making him a little bit more physically imposing with clever camera tricks would have went a long way in adding to the character. Jennifer Lawrence is fine here as usual and young Cyclops and Jean Grey are perfectly serviceable, although Sophie Turner’s American accent does come and go in certain scenes. Even Peters is typically brilliant as Quicksilver and the actress who plays Storm here is also pretty convincing, as is the young English actor who plays Angel. Nightcrawler is a welcome addition to the roster as I feel that he has been criminally underused since the second X Men movie and his power set is definitely one of the most interesting in all of the X Men movies, also the actor playing him here does a good job throughout the film. However the same can’t be said for Olivia Munn who plays Psylocke in this movie, I have disliked this actress in every role I have seen her in to date and the same goes for this one, she brings nothing to the movie and she constantly has a resting bitch face that suggests she doesn’t want to be there.
Like Civil War, X Men wasn’t anything like the comic it was based on and we didn’t get what we expected, but what we did end up getting was fresh and entertaining in it’s own right, so it’s okay that the film plots aren’t 100% faithful to the source material and that is something that Singer has been preaching since he made the first X Men movie back in 2001, which incidentally wasn’t based on any comic book and was a totally original plot. Also I love how because of the alternate timeline they are now free to do whatever they want in terms of the timing of certain events. For example, (and this is a slight spoiler, but the movie has been out for a while now so deal with it,) the Phoenix Force makes an appearance in this movie, which typically isn’t something that Jean Grey acquires until later in her life. Also the fact that we saw Wolverine escaping from Weapon X again, (again spoilers but this was in the trailers anyway so again, deal with it,) was awesome and this time we saw him being broken out by the young X Men and this time he had the comic book accurate electric headgear on while he escaped and I also loved how we saw him interact with young Jean Grey and regain some of his memories. This could also could be a change in the timeline caused by the butterfly effect as a result of the events of Days Of Future Past. This would also explain why the Magneto/Quicksilver, father/son relationship has never been discussed before, because if Apocalypse never awakened in the original X Men trilogy, then Quicksilver would have never went to the X Men mansion and therefore wouldn’t have come into contact with his dad during the final battle scene. Also Mystique looks like she is now a member and potential leader of the X Men team, rather than an enemy of the team like she was in the original movies when she was played by Rebecca Romjin. The other big change in the timeline is the death of Magneto’s family and even the fact that he had a wife and another child besides Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie, however I can also see why some people would take a disliking to it, as it does require a good amount of previous knowledge of the universe, but as an X Men fan, I loved it. Also another criticism I have read is that people aren’t happy with the length of the film, stating that it is too long and it drags in, but I actually thought the pacing was spot on. Anyway as an X Men fan, I loved my time would this movie and I look forward to seeing it again and I’d recommend it to anyone who is a mutant superhero fan.
The tone is another issue I have with the movie, it is fairly inconsistent throughout and never reaches the level of threat that it is aiming for. However, this is through no fault of the cast or the performances. MacAvoy and Fassbender stand out here as you would expect, their relationship also remains one of the most interesting parts of the plot. Isaacs’ performance is also suitably threatening and sinister, the only thing lacking in his character other than the odd design choice, is how short he is next to the other mutants. He doesn’t have to be huge like in the comics and cartoons, but making him a little bit more physically imposing with clever camera tricks would have went a long way in adding to the character. Jennifer Lawrence is fine here as usual and young Cyclops and Jean Grey are perfectly serviceable, although Sophie Turner’s American accent does come and go in certain scenes. Even Peters is typically brilliant as Quicksilver and the actress who plays Storm here is also pretty convincing, as is the young English actor who plays Angel. Nightcrawler is a welcome addition to the roster as I feel that he has been criminally underused since the second X Men movie and his power set is definitely one of the most interesting in all of the X Men movies, also the actor playing him here does a good job throughout the film. However the same can’t be said for Olivia Munn who plays Psylocke in this movie, I have disliked this actress in every role I have seen her in to date and the same goes for this one, she brings nothing to the movie and she constantly has a resting bitch face that suggests she doesn’t want to be there.
Like Civil War, X Men wasn’t anything like the comic it was based on and we didn’t get what we expected, but what we did end up getting was fresh and entertaining in it’s own right, so it’s okay that the film plots aren’t 100% faithful to the source material and that is something that Singer has been preaching since he made the first X Men movie back in 2001, which incidentally wasn’t based on any comic book and was a totally original plot. Also I love how because of the alternate timeline they are now free to do whatever they want in terms of the timing of certain events. For example, (and this is a slight spoiler, but the movie has been out for a while now so deal with it,) the Phoenix Force makes an appearance in this movie, which typically isn’t something that Jean Grey acquires until later in her life. Also the fact that we saw Wolverine escaping from Weapon X again, (again spoilers but this was in the trailers anyway so again, deal with it,) was awesome and this time we saw him being broken out by the young X Men and this time he had the comic book accurate electric headgear on while he escaped and I also loved how we saw him interact with young Jean Grey and regain some of his memories. This could also could be a change in the timeline caused by the butterfly effect as a result of the events of Days Of Future Past. This would also explain why the Magneto/Quicksilver, father/son relationship has never been discussed before, because if Apocalypse never awakened in the original X Men trilogy, then Quicksilver would have never went to the X Men mansion and therefore wouldn’t have come into contact with his dad during the final battle scene. Also Mystique looks like she is now a member and potential leader of the X Men team, rather than an enemy of the team like she was in the original movies when she was played by Rebecca Romjin. The other big change in the timeline is the death of Magneto’s family and even the fact that he had a wife and another child besides Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie, however I can also see why some people would take a disliking to it, as it does require a good amount of previous knowledge of the universe, but as an X Men fan, I loved it. Also another criticism I have read is that people aren’t happy with the length of the film, stating that it is too long and it drags in, but I actually thought the pacing was spot on. Anyway as an X Men fan, I loved my time would this movie and I look forward to seeing it again and I’d recommend it to anyone who is a mutant superhero fan.
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