Godzilla Review (2014, Action/Adventure/Monster, Legendary Pictures)

 

This movie should remind you why Godzilla is king.

Should...

The movie mostly ends up checking the right points: Godzilla himself is badass as ever and isn't simply out to destroy us; he battles other Kaiju; we get to watch human characters that we care about; it's fun to watch.

But what this film does wrong is that it seems to undermine itself on almost all those fronts. Godzilla is badass, yes, in appearance and in how he handles his opposition. But you might be hard-pressed to actually see him in the first place, because he's only in the movie for about ten to fifteen minutes of the film's solid two-hour run time. Considering the film's title, I expected to see more of him. You don't have to inundate us with him in every single frame (build-up is always nice), but maybe grant the viewer, I dunno, a glimpse of the titular monster in half of the film's run time? Could that have been too much to ask for? The M.U.T.O.s that he battles, for instance, get significantly more screen-time than he does. In fact, they get even more development than he does.

Yet when he shows up, he's glorious to behold. He's got a great design, he towers over most buildings now, he resembles a fighting bear, and he's not a malevolent force that we must overcome somehow. And he shrugs off nukes, even eats them perhaps; it will take other kaiju of his power level in order to really bring him to his knees, and that's a definite plus to this version.

The human element has some stronger foundations, too. The effective Bryan Cranston has a role here as Joe Brody, who inadvertently discovers the presence of the M.U.T.O.s and kind of sets the plot in motion. Disaster and tragedy strikes, and we have to then fast forward to the present. He's determined to find out why the disaster occurred and why the government is running experiments where it happened. This gets him in the (non-hostile) crosshairs of his son Ford Brody, a military operator, who wants to bring him home. They reunite, investigate the disaster site, reconcile a bit, and discover that there's an immense danger present there. It's a dormant M.U.T.O., and it's about to wake up. This is where Bryan Cranston's character ends up getting killed, and the human element of the film suffers for it.

I don't have anything against Aaron-Taylor Johnson as an actor, but he doesn't exactly sell his role as Ford. He is certainly sympathetic and all, but he doesn't drive the plot forward until the very end when it makes a lot more sense for him to have any impact on it at all. Instead, Elizabeth Olsen as Ford's wife, who is a nurse who ends up right in the heat of Godzilla's battle with the M.U.T.O.s toward the end, does manage to elicit some interest, in spite of how brief her appearances. And then there's Ken Watanabe's character, a scientist who has been studying kaiju with the MONARCH project (they investigate things like this). The only notable thing about his character is that he's always in three modes in all of his scenes: looking surprised, looking shocked, and looking confused. He delivers his lines in monotone and really just serves to drive home the fact that this is very much, in fact, a Godzilla movie. 

The film does have some fun with its premise. Like in the good old days of the franchise, Godzilla has to meet a skyscraper-size match and do battle with it. In this movie's case, two (of the same species no doubt) adversaries that reportedly decimated Godzilla's species many eons ago. And the kaiju within these proceedings, especially his enemies, flat-out eat nukes for breakfast. They also deal untold destruction in trying to find a nesting ground so that they can replenish their numbers. Godzilla is tracking them and has a score to settle, and the only reason we know this at all is because the military somehow become privy to this inevitable showdown. And when the showdown does happen, it's pretty cool to watch. Our badass title character even unleashes not one, but two radioactive breath waves on his insectoid enemies.

And speaking of the M.U.T.O.s, and having previously mentioned how they actually do receive development throughout the film, they do come across as sympathetic antagonists. In one particular scene that will stand out with some viewers, the female and the male are clearly shown to be mating partners. They work together, look out for one another when they're in danger, and they even nuzzle. How cute. While their design leaves a little to be desired (they look rather unnatural), they at least come across as more interesting antagonists than otherwise, which is a plus. And then Ford Brody ends up destroying their egg-sacs, which puts the mother into flat-out berserk mode, all directed at him. You can't help but feel a bit of pity for her, given that all she's trying to do is help her species survive.

Then Godzilla, having dealt with the male (who, while significantly smaller in size than the female, has the advantage of flight) which was annoying our hero with hit & run tactics, sets his sights on the female. She's about to deal the killing blow against Ford when Godzilla grabs her and delivers a heavy dose of radioactive breath down her fucking throat. While you couldn't help but feel a bit sorry for the M.U.T.O.s, this triumph is nonetheless a glory to behold. He roars into the skies, signifying his place at the top of the world, and collapses in exhaustion. The next day, with the world watching, he awakens and heads back out to sea, with humanity cheering him on as the necessary but destructive force to save the world.

Now all of this may seem like they take place over a significant amount of time, but they in fact don't. Again, Godzilla hardly even shows up in this movie, which, I must remind everyone, is NAMED AFTER HIM. And when he finally does, the battle, while still fun to watch, doesn't exactly lift the film up from mediocrity all that much. It's certainly a plus to see him do battle, but considering all that preceded that segment of the film, it wasn't enough. However, knowing that Legendary wants to make this into a number of films, re-imagining his battles with his famous foes like Mothra & King Ghidorah, I think we can all rest assured that the franchise will go places that will satisfy what we want out of these types of films in the first place: sheer, monumentally-large fun.

Just give us more of the titular monster, please.

C+

The Good:

+ It's Godzilla

+ Godzilla has a really badass design. Some Japanese audiences didn't like it, but that's fine. I like him resembling an enormous bear. I like him having an ominous presence just because of how large he is. And I like how expressive he is now, such as showing that he, too, can feel pain and fear.

+   The M.U.T.O.s, while kind of off-putting in appearance (their eyes are evil looking, which is a nice touch), have a surprising depth to them. This takes them beyond the otherwise predictable role of "something for Godzilla to destroy."

+ It's not a depressing film.

+ Bryan Cranston delivers, as per usual.

The Bad: 

- For a film about Godzilla, he hardly even shows up. And by then it's another case of "too little, too late", or at least by some measure of the phrase.

- The human leads don't really warrant much interest.

- Bryan Cranston is only in the movie for about...15 to 20 minutes. And then he gets a bridge dropped almost literally right on top of him.

- Ken Watanabe's character & talent is rather wasted. He delivers his lines in a quiet monotone, like he just awoke from a coma that had left him weakened and confused.

- Feels a bit over-long.

- You don't get the best glimpse of Godzilla until he literally comes roaring into the picture, which further undermines his presence in the film.

- Seems to be more of a setup film than a confident, stand-alone film. It was meant to establish a shared universe, akin to the Marvel Cinematic Universe that Disney continues to put out. Unlike the MCU, which was carefully handled by Kevin Feige, this shared universe seems to be a bit forced from the word "go."

Tomb Raider Review (PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One, PC, Mac, 2013, Crystal Dynamics/Square Enix/Eidos Interactive/Feral Interactive)

Look at that headline. Oh and spoilers are ahead.

And forget about it, because survival is hardly the point of the game at all. You know what it really is? It's to get off the island with a sordid history with your guns blazing. If you have to route hundreds of desperate lunatics loaded for bear on the way to your escape, then so be it. Oh and, since Lara is conveniently an archaeology student, you'll find some artifacts in your journey. But that's really not the point of this entry in the series.

Not at all.

Already we're off to a great start with this review. And it's not to foreshadow a negative one, really, it is just a means of venting some of my frustrations with this game. I've been a fan of this series since the first game, and short of the Crystal Dynamics titles (which left fans divided), I've played them all. They certainly did suffer from sequelitis given that each title was released year after year, but you always got an all-new story and a whole slew of new challenges to come with them. Yes, they didn't all have tombs, and arguably the best entry in the series, the third game, didn't even have any, but if you're going to include tombs then at least make them worth your while. Also, the point of the old games wasn't to kill everything in sight over and over again, it was to explore obscure areas to obtain an artifact of great power. 

The essence of the series is virtually gone in this title. How so, you may ask?

There are tombs, sure, but they were most likely an afterthought. Each one follows the same exact formula: go through a brief walk wherein you can't draw any weapons (for whatever reason, given that nothing happens each time) and you hold a source of light, come across some kind of chamber with a puzzle (I previously used the plural, which is inaccurate), then solve the puzzle to access a chest full of...XP. I'm not kidding, all you get is XP when you beat these admittedly piss-easy 'tombs'. With almost no exception are there are pitfalls or traps to overcome in this game's tombs, so what the fuck is the point of including them at all when you just get some experience points out of them and nothing actually interesting, like artifacts?

Oh and, if you're a glutton for the saturated shooter market, then you'll love this title. In spite of the mysterious traits of the island, where you apparently cannot leave due to some magical forces, you're too busy gunning down hundreds of boring mooks through almost the entire game. They are nutty, desperate, and are effectively a small army. This game was compared quite often to Far Cry 3, and given some of the features shared between the two games, it's kind of apt. On another front, you'll think that this was a Michael Bay production, because explosions occur often inexplicably as if there are barrels of petroleum everywhere. Oh and there's a lot of blood; a hell of a lot. Even a god damn creek consists of seemingly none other than blood. And Lara swims through it.

And spills it a lot, too.

Lots of detractors of the series would complain about the old Lara's ridiculous chest proportions, calling it a sexist portrayal of women (they'd be about half-right). Where are those some detractors in regard to this game, where she becomes a gung-ho mass slaughterer with mood swings? First she was an oversexed but cold anti-hero, and now she's a blood knight on a killing spree. Poor Lara will never be a proper role model at this rate.

So another thing I'd like to complain about is the nature of the game world. It seems open world, and it kind of is in some regards. One way is that it allows you to travel from one save spot to another upon their discovery. Also, each major location has a number of collectibles and minor sub-quests to endure, requiring very little thought to complete. However, that's really where this aspect ends and where the sheer linearity, deceptively hidden from the casual player at that, becomes obvious. You're only allowed to explore so much before you're rendered unable to go where you feel like. This game relies on context-sensitive controls, such as Lara hoisting herself onto the top of ledges and grabbing onto the sides of cliffs to climb them. You can only do those actions, among others, wherever the developers wanted you to go. Because if you could go where you wanted to then the game's flaws would start to become readily apparent to you. That's what I assume, anyway.

I must say, though, that this game is fucking gorgeous. It may not possess the most striking level of detail seen in gaming, even for its release year, but it's definitely well designed. The single best looking aspect of the game is Lara herself, who looks so human that I thought I was dreaming. The sheer amount of work that went into her design, from her skin to the way dirt & blood smears her person, and then how the lighting and shadows bring out the best and the worst in her, is absolutely impressive. You won't leave all that impressed by anything else but when you're near the coastal areas of the island, you'll see some spectacular, yet chaotic vistas that are appropriate given the theme of the game.

In spite of my knocking of the excessive action sequences, they are not without a strength or two. If you dig this kind of non-stop action then this game won't disappoint. And it can get a little tense at times, which is always welcome. However, there's just not much depth to any of them because you don't have to worry about much in the face of battle. In the old games, you had non-regenerating health and had limited means of healing; here, you have much less health but it regenerates quickly if you hide, like almost all action games seem to do these days. 

Let's develop on that last bit there. One thing this game is missing from the old titles is an inventory system; it is non-existent here. Gone are the days of managing your limited resources, and cherishing each pickup that you'd find in the Tomb Raider games of yore. Here, you pick up so much ammo so often, and are given new weapons so easily that you really don't come to care much about any of them. They're simply a way of quickly neutralizing all the bad guys you face constantly. You can also use your ice pick to brutally kill foes from a short range. Oh and as mentioned above, don't worry about health kits, because if you're hurt then all you need to do is hide for a moment or two to heal. As a consequence of the lack of inventory, there are no meaningful secrets to discover, no hidden rewards for actually exploring the environment.

If anything else, the battles become tedious because there's no depth to beating them except for making sure she doesn't die. If you can aim your gun and pull the trigger, then that's really all there is to it. Sure, the old games weren't much better than this, but you had to account for your vulnerabilities as well. When you're close to death, the game grays out, so it's hard to die at all. Enemies are not strategically placed, and don't poise a challenge, but rather act as props to shoot at. They do take cover, and may have various abilities/equipment that will add variety to each encounter, but the old games had this too, in spades. 

Lara does control well, though. She's also well animated, given that there is motion capture at work. But she responds to your actions accordingly and with fluidity, which is a good touch.

In the games of old, Lara often keeled over and died; it was uncommon for her death to play out differently, unless she of course landed on spikes. In this game, however, her deaths are cruel and gruesome. She's even subjected to a near-fatal beatdown by two of the nutbars you have to kill in the game, and much earlier she's threatened with rape. At the get-go, Lara gets impaled and set on fire. Fail to match the on-screen prompts right and she'll get crushed beneath tonnes of rock, impaled on re-bar, get impaled through the head, and many other things. She endures multiple injuries throughout the course of the plot. This game is brutal as far as violence goes, because you can put your enemies through hell too, including jabbing an axe into your enemies' jugulars. It's a wonder none of the detractors towards the second and third Tomb Raider games were screaming bloody murder in regards to this one.

There are a lot of set pieces to go through in this game, so you'll have to come to live with it. Most of the time these set pieces are playable, to an extent, but where the old games would leave it completely up to you to overcome the challenges, this game just sends buttons prompts your way that are more trial & error based than skill-based. Also, reports from players of earlier versions of the PC port cited the inability to correctly complete some or all quick-time events, due to a few bugs. They're also highly numerous, often in excess, and it's a common criticism that must be emphasized. If you can't stand QTEs, then you're going to be annoyed to all hell when you play through this game.

After playing through the game completely the first time, I noticed a few game design choices that I would like to call 'condescending'. The aforementioned QTEs, which comes in such a quantity as to feed Africa were it a food source, are one of those things. Another condescending game design comes in the form of the Survival Instinct feature, that which can be abused as needed by the player. It highlights all interactive objects/items/terrain in your immediate vicinity, and even shows pillars of light for far away places of interest such as checkpoints. As indicated, it can be used ad nauseum; there is no limit as to how long or how often you can use it. So if you just want to plow through a "puzzle" section, of which there are few that are worth critical thought, just press the button to execute the Survival Instinct ability and have your hand held.

Another condescending game design is in how little the game expects you to master. Want to traverse a narrow length of wood requiring intense focus and balancing? Just jump at it and Lara clings to it, never at risk of falling off unless a cutscene demands it. Want to even try exploring your surroundings beyond the small hub sections? The game will outright refuse to acknowledge what you're doing as you plummet to your death. Want to learn on your own how to perform, and thus improve, the abilities you learn over the course of the game? Well fuck you, says Crystal Dynamics, because we're going to tell you how to do everything new and leave nothing to the imagination.

So let's get down to the story: Lara and a group of friends are on an expedition near Japan, and they get shipwrecked near an island. It becomes immediately apparent that previous ships have met the same fate, so something does seem off. Lara is separated from her group and has to find them whilst avoiding a number of pitfalls. As she gets further into the island, it is clear that a bunch of crazies inhabit the island. Soon after meeting up with the gang, they set out to escape from the island. Yet some force is preventing their exodus, and they have to deal with the army of crazy assholes with guns and all that.

That's pretty much the gist of the story. A rescue plane gets struck by lightning and crashes; there's ritual sacrifice to appease some spirit; an army of undead samurai sets their sights on Lara, and other crap. It's not terrible but it doesn't do anything remotely intriguing with its premise. In actuality, it is an excuse to kill more and more bad guys. After all, the focus of the game is not on the adventure & hunting of artifacts, but of trying to get off of the island and shooting everything in your way.

There's nothing wrong with innovation, of taking an old formula further than ever before. But this game took steps backward, and not forward. Somehow Crystal Dynamics took a series that had an identity of its own into territory that renders it generic & trite. Fantastic visuals and sometimes thrilling action sequences can't save this game from earning much of my displeasure. It may be somewhat unfair to compare it so heavily to previous entries in the franchise, but how could you fault me for doing so when I consider it one of my favorite game series of all time? 

The Rundown:

Positives 

+ Some of the best visuals you'll experience out of 2013

+ It is very story-driven, so if you're into that, then this will deliver.

+ To expand on the above, Lara Croft looks stunningly real. The detail on her is borderline crazy.

+ Has a few legitimately thrilling action sequences.

+ There is a tiny bit of exploration to do, so it's not a straight-up linear game.

+ Lara gets a lot of focus, and has a bit of character development too, which was admittedly in short supply in older games.

+ It does have tombs, but...

Negatives

- Why have tombs when you won't do anything exciting or challenging with them? It's pretty much pointless. Solve a simple puzzle, avoid no traps or pitfalls, and open up a chest at the end that rewards experience points. Rinse & repeat. Screw that shit.

- Way too many QTEs for my liking, and they're too finicky, so they often end up killing the player character because of somewhat shoddy programming.

- The story is kind of dull. Doesn't help that it takes a big backseat to the actual gameplay.

- No inventory or any kind of item management.

- Sometimes resembles a Michael Bay flick with the constant explosions.

- No survival gameplay to speak of, despite the "a survivor is born" tagline.

- Takes several steps backward and ends up being a generic third-person shooter with light adventure elements thrown in.

- Has one of the most condescending game mechanics ever programmed in the history of gaming: the survival instinct function, which highlights everything important in the game world. Say bye to actual exploration and/or honing of skills.

- None of the characters you deal with are intriguing and besides, this game is not about them, but about Lara. So why should we care?

- The undead samurai enemies you fight near the end are far easier to defeat than one would hope, so their eventual appearance in-game loses all menace.

- It's so violent and cynical yet I wonder why we, as gamers, are supposed to take all of it so seriously in spite of the series being heavily inspired by the Indiana Jones franchise.

C

Man of Steel review (2013, Action/Thriller/Fantasy, Zack Snyder)

 

A long-needed, by some measures, reboot on a hero that has outlasted time itself. The seminal, archetypal comic-book superhero has been graced, and disgraced, by film many times before this outing. Superman has seen his ups & downs on film, with the 1970's original holding up all these years while the disastrous third & fourth entries, not to mention the criminally boring "Returns" take in '06, have held him back for the crowds. 

We've got Clark Kent/Superman meeting up with Lois Lane, presumably before he's even landed a job at her newspaper, to deal with an incoming party of fellow Kryptonians. They're suggestively hostile from the get-go and Superman is forced to put himself front & center, as he usually is, to try and keep humanity safe. However, General Zod & friends mean to restore their homeworld (also Clark's) by any means necessary, even if it means that billions die. Clark, like the Transformers of Michael Bay's on-screen creation, chooses humanity over his own and battles them to save the world. The implications really do seem high on paper, but they aren't when you are made to watch over two hours of film. 

So, storyline aside, how does this film hold up?

Well, it's not the best, nor the worst, screen adaptation of the world's most famous superhero. It's really quite a mediocre film, in spite of the good intentions that were obviously put into its conception. Production values are the highest the franchise has ever seen, and the action sequences raise the bar for comic book films quite frankly. But, and this is a weakness I've always felt plagued the man in blue in all mediums, the story is lacking. The characters, the plot, and the narrative don't hold up to the technical aspects, as well as when the film is having so much fun. 

Since we're talking about a character of enormous, pretty much godlike abilities, his roster often sees him pitted against often similar foes. Thus, it must follow that the action should mesmerize viewers. What few action sequences there actually are in this overlong, two and a half hour jumble of lens flares and conspicuous high-definition trickery, are quite impressive to behold. With entire buildings being smashed like sandcastles, automobiles and even locomotives being flung like playthings, gravel and dirt being pulverized by the sheer brute force of the Kryptonians; it's hard not to have a "gay" old time when these sequences bless the screen.

Everything else, though, holds it back.

Just about anybody who is anybody knows about Superman, and really all that matters about him. He's THE superhero, he swears not to kill his foes (especially humankind), he manages to fool everybody with the most obvious disguise ever conceived, he's practically a god with his exaggerated strength & durability and all that, he bears a weakness to a rock, and Christopher Reeve is practically synonymous with the character. So growing him in this film not only ends up falling flat, but is kind of unnecessary given its approach. It's also kind of odd that at the get-go, he reveals his abilities to many people (albeit ones in grave danger) and seemingly no one recognizes him. But I digress, because no other character even warranted the same amount of depth, or attempt at such anyway.

Another problem I have with the film are the flashback sequences. They are the sole reason the film is overlong, and gets quite tedious. Each one fails to add substance to the plot, or add character to Superman and others whom we were theoretically supposed to care about. They really could have been omitted entirely, and nothing of value would have been lost. Who were they trying to kid with these? Like I mentioned in the previous paragraph, pretty much everybody knows about Superman, so why fixate so much on his past and the growth in his mastery over his natural Kryptonian abilities?  After all, the mixed bag that was Smallville provided all that these flashbacks portray just fine. Anyway, if you watch the film, you can safely skip them and you won't be confused by the milquetoast plot.

Like the plot, the soundtrack, which in a great film would elevate the experience, accomplishes nothing out of the ordinary. It's your typical series of forced "Boom, BOOM, BOOOOOM!!!" notes to suggest, almost beg, you to feel something according to the wishes of the designers. It didn't work with me. How the hell a nearly forty year-old film accomplishes a more memorable soundtrack, whereas this film, in spite of its sheer production value ended up with a run-of-the-mill Hans Zimmer-esque one, is beyond me.

The acting doesn't quite bode well, either. Henry Cavill is the lead, and as a result of his performance here with very few high notes (his emotional reaction after a pivotal death scene in the film is one of them), he is expendable. Amy Adams is Lois Lane, and in spite of her cheery screen presence, the romance plot between the two doesn't build logically. Kevin Costner played Superman's adoptive father a bit too stoically for my tastes, but Diane Lane does fine as a hard-as-nails & protective adoptive mother. The folks who play the Kryptonians are alright, but only two of them really have an actual identity of sorts, and then there's Chris Meloni who was a surprisingly decent Colonel Hardy who even stood up to direct confrontation with one of them -- twice!

One last thing to point out is the excess of run-time. The film lasts, before the credits roll, for roughly two hours and ten minutes, and it is overlong. This feeling sets in fairly quickly, truth be told, considering that most of the "plot" consists of flashbacks and another re-tread of Superman's origins. It's rather jarring when the film seemingly shifts gears to introduce an actual crisis about halfway through its duration, because it's almost as if this was an admission from the filmmakers that this film would set audiences asleep with all of its filler had they not bothered with the Kryptonians at all. So at least it's definitely not a Superman Returns.

It's still a film mostly filled with fluff, with very few (but effective) thrills. There's way too many unnecessary elements at play to recommend it, as I would personally urge viewers to skip to the halfway point of the film. You, as a viewer, lose nothing in doing so because the writing is so poor that you miss nothing important. We all know about what happened to Krypton; we all know that Clark ended up with a farming family who helped mentor & shelter him from the world; we all know that he falls in love with Lois Lane; and most of all, we know that he's fucking Superman! You don't have to waste roughly half of the film explaining all of this, especially when it amounts to nothing but rehashing. I guess that's how it boils down. Next up: Batman v Superman, maintaining the rather uncharismatic Cavill and introducing the tonedeaf acting hijinks of Ben Affleck as the caped crusader.

C-

The Good:
+ High production value ensures some pretty sights
+ Nerdgasm inducing fight sequences

The Bad:
- Henry Cavill is boring in the role of Superman
- Way too long, and wastes too much time on unnecessary origin stories
- The flashbacks. God damn it.
- Superman kills somebody, when he had so many other options to consider instead. He's supposed to be highly-intelligent as well, Zack Snyder!
- The fight sequences end, and are succeeded each time with the boring plot.
- Borderline non-existent plot, as indicated above. 
- Nothing memorable about the soundtrack.