I now hate everything: Journey 2: the Mysterious Island

This review can also be found at The Yorker, here.

Good god, I hated this movie. I have never had a piece of cinema just fill me with so much ire, so much frustration, so much... fremdschämen on behalf of the actors. My hate for it permeates every aspect of the film and my own being.

I hate how it's a sequel to a 2008 film that no one cared about. Journey to the Center of the Earthwarranted no sequel, and no one who had seen it would be expecting another one. At the showing I watched, I was accompanied by about ten 8 year olds, none of whom would even remember the existence of the original film. A bit of a waste, considering they're the intended audience.

©warner bros; Image Credit: wikipedia

I hate the cast. Dwayne Johnson may have given up one form of acting for another by entering film after his wrestling career, but I can't wait until he stops being cast for things. Josh Hutcherson being cast as the main character is a given, considering he was also in the original film, but his entire presence feels like he's trying to imitate Shia LeBoeuf (and that's not a good thing). We get treated to a Sean Anderson that's the 'rebel teen' all the kids want to be. He rides a motorcycle! He gets to go on adventures! He hates his mom and step-dad just like me! Groan.

And my loathing for the characters doesn't stop there. Sean's little escapade to the titular island doesn't just feature The Rock, but also an Objectified Female Lead (Vanessa Hudgens) and a Comedic Racist Caricature (Luiz Guzmán)! I just love it when the only woman in an adventure film is decked out in a belly top and short-shorts while everyone else gets to wear clothes that don't expose them to the elements. It gets even better when her father exists to make the kids laugh at 'the silly fat man falling down', coupled with one-liners in a meant-to-be-Polynesia accent (that funnily enough his daughter doesn't have. Don't want the love interest to be too foreign!)

Oh, and I really hate the writing. From the contrived circumstances that get them to the island (rapid solving of obtuse clues that wouldn't look out of place on The Crystal Maze); to the way the script absolutely refuses to show, not tell; to the scene at the end where Objectified Female Lead stops her father from taking a golden boulder back with him by saying "We already have the real treasure... we're together". And the line where The Rock sees a giant lizard and says "Why did it have to be lizards? Why couldn't it be snakes?" as if referencing Indiana Jones would suddenly make this trash comparable.

I hate the graphics of this movie. You know it's on the "In 3D!" bandwagon because there's a scene every 20 minutes where there's a slow motion pan and particle effects fly into the camera. It's so regular you could set your watch by it. What's worse is that none of it looks good - especially if you watch it in regular old 2D like I did. The CG effects are so conspicuous that the rest of the scenery props look defiantly fake. Plastic plants and Styrofoam rocks abound.

It positively boils my blood that people will say "It doesn't matter that this movie isn't good. It's for kids!" Children are impressionable people, and media in all forms - from film to television to games - will have an effect on how they see the world. Journey 2 doesn't have to be a masterpiece, but it doesn't need to be a cynical low-budget action film cashing in on the safe knowledge that parents are entirely willing to feed their kids junk if it will keep them quiet. It's taking locations from the works of Jules Verne! Imagine if a film encouraged children to actually read; it would be glorious.

And what I hate most is that this has already happened before in 2001 with Spy Kids. Everything from the graphics to the writing to the style of casting. I watched that film a bunch of times when I was a kid, and it just makes me want to shake my younger self and say "Dude! There are so many better movies out there!"

On the other hand, the kids in the cinema loved it; in amongst the throwing of popcorn and the shrieking. If you know someone you hate who has a child under 10, recommending them this film would be appropriate torment.

Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword - Zelda for the Modern Gentleman

The hype for the Wii's true Zelda game has been going on for a while; ever since the Electronic Entertainment Expo of last year. Twilight Princess, the Zelda title released at the start of the Wii's lifespan was actually a Gamecube title altered to work with the Wii's unique control scheme. Now we near the end of the Wii, with the WiiU on the horizon, and Nintendo has put all their knowledge of how to best use the format, steering Zelda in a direction away from its tried-and-tested staples.

And lo, Skyward Sword was born.

Okay, I'm being overly-dramatic here. Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword is a Zelda game for the current generation, taking design aspects from peers that themselves were based on older Zelda titles. It shrugs off some outmoded traditions and is all the better for it, but in doing so, some new bad habits have been acquired.

From the moment the game loads, Skyward Sword charms with its improved characterisation. Traditionally, Link is normally a blank slate in a green hat, and Zelda is normally a mysterious and distant damsel to be rescued. Here, they've been best of friends for years – Zelda is a lot more outspoken and pragmatic, Link is more boisterous and emotional - and they play off each other in a way that reminds me just a little of 90's high school sitcoms. It's a bit hackneyed, but comparatively refreshing. Giving you the time to actually care about a character before they're snatched away does so much more to make things personal for the player.

In another stark difference to previous Zelda titles, the game world is split up into isolated areas with a much smaller 'overworld'. It's an improvement - it never takes long to get where you need to go, and although the game flow follows the traditional pattern of finding and clearing a series of dungeons; the process of actually getting to the dungeon entrance is more involved - the game map itself is a set of puzzles and hurdles. It keeps the action constant, and feels a lot less claustrophobic than confining all the action to ancient tombs.

Link's movement abilities have also seen a change. A new stamina gauge means for a limited time Link can sprint, wall-run, and lift heavy objects. A lot of the game puzzles now revolve around using Link's stamina as an obstacle, rather than just physical barriers. It's a nice variation, but there are areas that overuse the idea, and risk tediousness.

Mechanically, the most outstanding element is the mandatory motion control. The Wii as a format has taken a lot of flack for introducing motion controls to gaming; and although the complaints have not always been justified - there's always the problem of having 'waggle' included just for the gimmick, which can often make a game imprecise and frustrating. Skyward Sword... largely avoids that problem.

Everything short of moving Link around requires some form of motion gesture - a great method of immersion. Waving your sword about and manipulating the many many tools at your disposal is satisfying for as long as the game wants to co-operate with you. It doesn't take much for the sensors to go slightly out of alignment, or to misinterpret what direction your sword swipes are in. It's not too much of an annoyance when you can take your time to solve a puzzle, but in the heat of battle the game is all too willing to punish you for not slashing in the (clearly shown) direction it asks of you. Seeing what you need to do laid out in front of you, but struggling to get Link to act it out is often jarring.

Also jarring is the game's hint system. Your sword has a guardian spirit named Fi, standing in for Navi or Midna from other Zelda games. In a contrast to the personality and characterisation of the rest of the cast, Fi has the literal personality of a computer program (her dialogue is filled with 'progress reports' and probability percentages). Not so terrible on paper, but in practice she bothers you frequently, often with information you already know about. If you're taking too much damage, or your remote batteries get too low, she'll notify you; and it's profoundly irritating. There is a difference between being able to ask for hints when you need them (which the game offers and does a very good job of pointing you in the right direction without solving puzzles for you), and stopping the game to tell you precisely what item you've just found on the ground.

While these setbacks are hard to ignore, they don't (or can't) ruin the great experiences that Skyward Sword has to offer. The characters are endearing, the locations are beautiful and distinct, and the game's villain, Ghirahim, has now become my favourite Zelda antagonist - he makes an incredibly cool first boss.

Nintendo have definitely shown that they can embrace modern game design sensibilities while still keeping the stylistic flair that makes them distinct. If Skyward Sword is a preview of the large-scale games Nintendo has in mind for the WiiU; consider me damn excited.

Batman: Arkham City - Skyscrapers and Shark Bait

 This article can also be found at the Yorker.

 

It's an easy sell to produce something 'for the fans'. More so than just milking a character or series within video games, games about other 'fandoms' brings in consumers who wouldn't otherwise be gaming enthusiasts. What better series to capitalise on that than Batman - a franchise existing since 1939 and with a dozen retellings and alternate universes.

 

Rocksteady's previous effort, Batman: Arkham Asylum was praised for making a title that paid honest attention to the source material - having new interpretations of Batman and his adversaries, while not going wildly off-base. The art style was suitably 'comic book' in nature, and there was a ton of trivia and minutiae to keep the hardcore nerds happy.

On the other hand, the play experience was repetitive, and although it took notes from Metroid and the modern Castlevanias (where progress is defined by finding new tools to unlock barricades seen earlier in the adventure), the implementations lacked charm. Arkham City, on the other hand, goes to lengths to fix the flaws of its predecessor, while still retaining the action and tone. For that goal, Arkham City definitely succeeds.

The main thing to notice is the change in setting - Batman is no longer limited to bouncing around a small prison complex - a whole section of Gotham City has been sectioned off to hold prison inmates and those from the asylum (justified in a lame and ultimately ignorable plot point - who cares why, you get to glide past skyscrapers dramatically). A handful of the main villains take the opportunity to start turf wars - taking in to account locations from the mythos that will mean little to anyone but die-hards.

Batman is initially imprisoned within the city as Bruce Wayne in a plot by Professor Strange to get rid of him for good. The narrative then flicks between Batman finding a way into Strange's headquarters, and dealing with the Joker in a sub-plot - genetics-altering steroids used by the Joker in the first game have taken their toll, and through a blood transfusion, forces Batman to find a cure before they both perish.

Mechanically, this means that the city acts as a 'hub world', connecting the buildings that Batman needs to visit to find items or beat up villains to progress the plot. It's within these buildings that the similarities to the first game are at their clearest, but as I played I became very strongly reminded of the Legend of Zelda games. Each building acts as a dungeon where Batman discovers a new item or skill, uses that new ability almost exclusively to finish the dungeon, with a boss fight at the end. To fit this formula, some of the tasks and boss fights become rather contrived, and ultimately don't seem to 'fit' in tone.

Indeed, while there are a lot of references to the Batman animated series I'd seen sporadically as a kid (many voice actors are the same, for a start), with some scrutiny, Arkham City felt more like the Nolan movies rather than the nostalgia they were hoping for. The way that Batman is entirely emotionless at all times (including in cutscenes, when being beaten up, and when being eaten by a shark); that the ridiculous and none-too-interesting plot is delivered entirely seriously; and the clinical, PDA-style interface made the whole package rather un-Batman to someone like me.

The main plotline is short - Roughly 25% of the game's completion count - and between (and during) dungeons there are a myriad of Riddler Trophies that unlock challenge missions, along with sidequests that are more demanding of your skills than the story, featuring and fleshing out villains that don't appear in the main plotline. I could live with the game being more linear if it meant that Riddler, Two-Face, and others could be directly worked into the story.
On top of that, there's additional content featuring Catwoman - her fighting style differs heavily to Batman's, but she gets very little play time. Then again, her presence is so skeezy (a character who's only dialogue consists of feline puns and innuendo is rather hard to put up with; saying nothing of how often the enemy dialogue gets... rape-y when you play as her), you won't mind seeing less of her.

The combat is where Arkham City improves the most over the prequel. Taking on the 'mash the attack and counter-attack buttons' system the first game had, Arkham City lets you use your gadgets during battle. Every item that you can use in the field has an effect in battle, an idea both actually Batman-esque and letting the battles become a bit more nuanced - later fights eventually force you to stop attacking blindly. A boss mid-way through the game (I won't spoil whom) revolves around using your arsenal and the scenery to get through the foe's defences, with no method working twice, and is by far the high-point of the game.

Arkham City achieves what it sets out to do - beat the pants off of its predecessor and gives the fans the callbacks and references they yearn for. If I was more of a Batman fan, my experience would be a lot more positive; but in my eyes Batman: Arkham City is a solidly built blockbuster title that's just a little too derivative and unfocused. I never though I could be not nerdy enough to appreciate something...

Batman: Arkham City is available on Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and PC (PS3 version reviewed)