Eurogamer Expo Game Impressions

Following are various impressions of some of the games I managed to get time with at the show, I tended to head for some of the smaller titles as well as a few of the known upcoming blockbusters to hopefully give a nice cross-section of what was available on the show floor, and hopefully provide some differing impressions from the others at the show.

First up was PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale, Sony’s, shall we politely say, homage to the Super Smash Brothers games featuring figures from all generations of Sony consoles. Gameplay wise it is very hard to get away from the Smash Bros. comparisons but it doesn’t stop it being fun and manic with four players on screen, and the morphing backgrounds that mix up the levels during the bouts are a nice addition. It looks good and the variety of characters (even if they struggle to be anywhere near as iconic as Nintendo’s equivalent) suggest a lot of varied gameplay styles. Sticking with the Sony booth next up was Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time, a new adventure very much with the past in mind, echoes of the original Sly Cooper were very evident in the demo level, but with the extra polish and sheen you would expect of a current generation game. Other than that all the familiar elements of the series were present and correct, it will be interesting to see if the game works outside of the nostalgia factor and actually implements any fundamental gameplay changes, or whether it plans on coasting by on past glories.

On the PC side of things I managed to get some time with Criterion’s latest entry in the Need for Speed series, Most Wanted. Compared to the console versions also on show (though all played with a controller) the PC version seemed notably smoother and sharper, gameplay wise it felt extremely similar to Burnout but with that extra layer of NFS sheen and in a more built up city area. The demo had street races which were followed by a police chase where the aim was to escape and lie low until the heat was off. Along the way there were billboards to be smashed, shortcuts to find and jumps aplenty, it felt fast and responsive and could be the racing game to own this holiday season. Moving onto the shooters and Crysis 3 was setup in Multiplayer mode, the level I played was set in the crumbling ruins of what seemed to be apartment buildings. The games had you playing either a soldier, or cloaked hunter, as the soldiers died they converted to hunters until the last one survived. The gameplay was familiar enough to anyone with experience with modern first person shooters, but the game looked very nice and played smoothly, hunting people down whilst cloaked with your big crossbow was a lot of fun, but it was a relatively thin slice of what is destined to be a much bigger game that I got to see, so class it under one to watch.

I also got some time with Hitman: Absolution, now I’ll cop to not having much experience with the franchise but I’ve heard a lot about it, thankfully after some of the recent controversies about the game of late it is good to see that at its core, this is still very much a Hitman game. The demo mission saw you stalking through a wonderfully rendered and populated market, your target heavily guarded in the middle. How you assassinate him is up to you, the option remains to shoot him straight away (though you might not last long once the SWAT team arrives). Alternatively if you hang around and explore you find he has a habit of wandering around, a turn down an ally is a suitable spot for a silent take down, or if you are adventurous you discover his favourite lunch spot with a bowl of food begging for tampering with. A quick shuffle into chef’s uniform (after disposing of the chef of course) and discovery of poisonous Fugu from a nearby market stall the missing ingredients. It was nice to see such an open ended framework right off the bat and if this level is representative of the game then this could be an excellent and deep entry into the series.

Devil May Cry is another franchise I don’t have much history with, but the demo for the upcoming reboot of sorts impressed me, the gameplay felt snappy and tight, the combos and moves easy to learn and quickly made me feel powerful and, I can’t deny, pretty badass. There seemed to be a fair amount of grappling to either pull yourself to high ledges or bring enemies down to your level, playing through a crumbling cityscape it seemed as if another dimension was spilling out with some wonderfully gruesome monsters to fight. This is a game that wasn’t really on my radar before the show but that I came away from having had a lot of fun and pretty excited about.

The biggest portion of my day though was spent checking out the Wii-U, a system I have been very curious about getting time with since its announcement. First up was Rayman Legends which has a  neat way of incorporating the Wii-U controller for co-op play, the main screen is controlled on a standard controller (the one I used looks very like a current Xbox pad) and in that respect the game plays very like last year’s wonderful Rayman Origins, the trick comes with the second player using the touch screen pad to interact with the level, be it cutting ropes to lower platforms, killing enemies or catapulting the player to different areas of the level. In one of the coolest moments the second player used the tilt functionality to rotate a dangerous maze for the first player to then navigate, it’s brilliantly implemented and forces real co-operation between players.

Overall this was one of the standout games of the show for me and a great demonstration of the different gameplay opportunities the console offers. With regards to the pad itself it felt surprisingly comfortable and light, but not cheap, the ergonomics have clearly been prioritised. Elsewhere I played some of NintendoLand, the latest mini-game collection designed to show of the system, which seemed somewhat slight but also like it would be a lot of fun with friends around. In fact the social nature of many of the games shown are really what sets the Wii-U apart, and for those who like to have friends over it makes a compelling case that the Xbox and PS3 can’t match at the moment, focused as they are primarily on online multiplayer.

I also got some eyes-on with Platinum games’ Wonderful 101 (formerly Project P-100) which seemed a lot of fun, if slightly crazy, with a very attractive and distinctive art style and neat use of the touch screen to order about and control your band of superheroes. Pikmin 3 was also on show, but not using the tablet controller for anything other than a visual map, further implementation is bound to be in place by the time the game comes out next year, but the demo itself was a strong enough reminder of how much I love the series and seeing it in HD made it look better than ever.

So overall I was generally impressed with the Wii-U’s showing, amongst a sea of familiarity it was invigorating to play something daring and new, who knows how it will perform in the current gaming market, and there are many questions including details of the online capabilities still to be satisfactorily answered, but I’m curious and cautiously optimistic which I’m not sure I would have been before the show, so on that count mark this down as a pleasant surprise. 

Eurogamer Expo 2012 - Part 1

Now in its third year at Earls Court the Eurogamer Expo fought back this year against the somewhat apathetic and stagnant feeling that the current games climate seems to be giving off of late. The long break between generations coupled with multiple recent studio closures and a lack of big titles through the summer left the show with, theoretically, a lot to prove, but a strong holiday line up of games and the advent of the first new console in nearly 5 years in the Wii-U gave patrons much to fawn over and judging by the crowds of eager gamers queuing up throughout the day across the exhibition floor, there was a definite feeling that good things are coming.

 As usual at such events it takes a while to get your bearings, greeted as you are at every turn by rows of flatscreen monitors, flashing LED lights and signs and a vast array of attention seeking detritus, manned by enthusiastic employees eager to get your attention. From the full sized Formula 1 car that greets you at the entrance, to the elevated Just Dance stage and the giant Sony symbols that lined their Vita section (itself pitched as an ideal place to rest up a while, bathed in soothing blue light) there is a moment where the absurdity of the situation makes you smile and somehow regress, with blockbuster title after blockbuster title laid out ahead of you think of how your 14 year old self would have felt, and try and keep hold of that feeling for as long as you can.

Therein lies the rub, the industry more powerful and culturally centred than ever, runs the risk of becoming all show and glamour, thankfully this is not the case, as you spend time and circulate, you see the focus really is the games, with all sorts of players brought together by the chance to see something new and share in the experience, the PR people genuinely looking to help you get the most from your time with each game. Sure the spectre of big business looms over the event on the surface, but underneath it still feels grounded in letting the games themselves do the talking.

Before detailing any of my experiences I feel it is worth sharing some of my general impressions of the show and the industry as a whole. The somewhat lacklustre feeling I mentioned in the opening still hang over the show, but in a way that is inevitable. There are many fantastic looking games, and ones I'm really looking forward to playing in the next few months, but as we enter the 6^th year of this generation there was little that truly looked new, or innovative. Triple A games have become so expensive, their genres and gameplay so refined and honed that it seems hard for people to break out of the box, at least until we see what the next generation can do. But what they may lack in true innovation games like Assassins Creed 3, God of War, Halo 4, Back Ops 2 and Tomb Raider make up for in polished and honed gameplay and cinematics, experiences that benefit from all that has come before to offer familiar tropes in ever more streamlined and impressive forms.

That is where the Wii-U would seemingly come in, and to be fair to Nintendo it definitely seems to be doing something new. The tech itself seems solid and comfortable, it also works and is surprisingly easy to pick up. The demos on hand did a reasonably good job of explaining the various gameplay possibilities the tablet controller and different input systems allow, but it still feels that they are missing the one big title, the Mario 64 or Wii Sports, that proves the potential out of the gate and makes the system a must-buy. The Wii-U still has a lot to prove, but it also seems exciting and risky, and judging by the general reaction and popularity of the booth it might be able to carve out a decent niche for itself. I wouldn’t say I’m fully convinced yet, but I know that there will be enough great Nintendo games, and unique experiences both solo and with friends to make the Wii-U a console worth checking out.

Why I love: Dark Souls

The tower looms in the distance. Your destination. You raise your rookie sword and shield and venture across the battlements that lay ahead, venturing from the safety of the bonfire you had just recently been so happy to discover. As you rise the ghostly figure of a fellow warrior sits beside you, another runs past, no more than an outline. A memory. The knowledge that you are not alone spurs you on. Your rusty armour clanks as you step into the light, attacks come quickly from both sides, you scrape through and press on. Fireballs reign down on a narrow bridge, more enemies await should you rush to the end. Grisly skeletons with wooden shields, but daggers that pack a punch. In a brief moment of respite you replenish some health from your finite supply and press on. Eventually you reach the tower, the boulder trap on the way up takes away most of your remaining health but still you survive. Up the steps an ominous white doorway lies ahead. You steel yourself, dwindled supplies and a reckless abandon. You enter. Death doesn't take long. The giant Taurus Demon makes short work of you.

You died.

You awaken at the bonfire again. The same but different. Your collected souls lie with your corpse, your health replenished. You peer out of the same doorway, onto the same battlement. Let’s try that again.

And so there comes a time when that castle, that cunningly designed labyrinth of death and surprise, becomes your domain. You neatly waltz across the bridge dispatching enemies with precision. You instinctively dodge an oncoming fireball, remembering the enemies on the roof. With careful timing (you must always be careful) you fight your way back to the stairs. At the last second you remember the boulder trap and dive to safety. With a wry grin you approach the fog-gate once more, this time with health. This time with a plan.

When the Tauraus falls he's gone for good. This is your victory, savour it. The way across the broken bridge lies open, you pause and look around. Below great forests carpet the landscape, in the distance a sprawling cathedral. Atop the distant cliff face a walled city looms. All these places you will visit. All these places you will die, and then conquer. Unbeknownst the depths lie below, through swamp, dungeon and into cavernous flame, the very depths of hell itself. A world seemingly without boundaries, that feels at once familiar and alien. Its denizens cryptic clues, its monsters cruel and unforgiving, but pure of purpose. Lordran cares not for you, and yet… and yet… glimmers of hope in the corners. Respite for weary travellers, words of encouragement from fellow players in the form of messages scorched into the very earth. The tolling of bells both high and low a reminder that victory is possible, urging you forward, careful step by careful step.

There is beauty here, and wonder and reward for those who seek it. But for now you have a bridge to cross, and a new challenge to face. You emerge onto a battlement, a giant drawbridge lies ahead, at its end the heart of the castle. With a cautious glance ahead you step out. Halfway across a dragon appears overhead blood red and steel clawed. Its breath makes short work of you.

You awaken again at the bonfire. That same bonfire, and can’t help but laugh. Here hubris will be your downfall. So you suit up, ghostly companions by your side, take a breath, and go again.

Lower Your Weapons

The following article was posted on D-Pad yesterday:

It happened gradually, now that I think back, but at the time the realisation hit me quite out the blue: I'm tired of shooting things in video games. Countless shooters, waves of enemies whether human, alien or other, weapon variety that bleeds into hegemony; the proliferation and standardisation of the shooter over the last decade or more has established it as the backbone of the gaming industry, but it is this uniformity of design and structure that has recently left me feeling disconnected from the sorts of games I used to enjoy.

Games have always been good at a few core things, and shooting has always been high up on this list. The natural feel of controlling a weapon, aiming and firing at targets mixes the interactivity and skill-based mechanics that separate games from other media, and the added adrenaline rush that comes from such visceral situations allows repetitive action to fill in the gaps in place of narrative and story. The fact is that shooting is what games do best, they work as power fantasy, as a way of engaging players with action and as immersion into situations most people are fortunate to never have to face in real life (believe me, when the alien invasion comes I’ll be down in the cellar, bravely protecting the food supplies). But whilst this experience was novel 20 years ago, the seemingly 3D hallways of Wolfenstein and Doom were such an advancement on the limitations of what had come before it was no wonder they grabbed so much attention, now technology within video games has reached such a peak that the notion of being able to walk around and interact with a virtual world no longer holds the same sort of inherent thrill.

Couple this with the fact that the genre has virtually fallen into stagnation in terms of basic gameplay design and you have vast swathes of the gaming landscape that no longer hold much appeal for me. But the issue goes deeper than just the modern military shooter, it extends to third person cover-based shooters and even action games. How many people does Nathan Drake kill over the course of the Uncharted games? As has been discussed before this not only leads to sections of the games feeling like a slog through bullet sponge enemies (and this is coming from a big fan of those games) but it also causes a fundamental disconnect between the character in the story Naughty Dog are trying to tell (flawed, charismatic and goofy adventure hero) with the mass murdering competent marksman who leaves a trail of bodies throughout the game.

This is but one of the problems that come with trying to tell more nuanced, human stories in modern games, whilst maintaining the gameplay template of what has come before. There are no easy answers though, if you aren't to spend your time shooting things, then what is it you would do for 10-15 hours in a strongly narrative driven game? One path is that of adventure games, where the emphasis is on exploration of environment, conversation and puzzle solving. But these games are often slow and unengaging for many used to the frantic pace of modern games. Rockstar’s flawed but ambition LA Noire looked to bridge this gap, similarly David Cage’s output from Fahrenheit to Heavy Rain and the upcoming Beyond: Two Souls have a heavy focus on character and story with little or no traditional gunplay.

Recently I played through Dear Esther, a very interesting piece of interactive fiction created using the Half Life 2 engine and set on a mysterious island. The game consists of randomised voice over clips playing as you explore the seemingly abandoned locale, there are no actions you can perform, but the combination of atmosphere, music and the ambiguous story that unveils itself to you as you play make it strangely compelling. It certainly stretches the boundaries of what you consider a game, having no real action or fail state, but it also works in a way not possible in a short film or art piece. It uses the medium of video games to create something new, and it got me excited by the possibility when developers look outside of the familiar.

Steve Gaynor, former Idle Thumbs contributor and designer responsible for the excellent Minerva’s Den DLC for Bioshock 2 recently left Irrational Games to form his own indie games studio where the focus is on smaller, story driven titles. The first of these announced is interesting games I have flagged for release in the coming year.Gone Home, a first person exploration game that already is one of the most Recently the Telltale Walking Dead games have provided me with some of the most intense and involving experiences I've had playing a game in years, all through crafting memorable, real characters, telling a compelling story and then tying that to simple gameplay that priorities choices and consequences in a way that no other medium can offer. It’s a compelling case for the kinds of games that I find engage me at the moment.

Not that all games should fit a specific mould, I'm merely advocating for a wider spectrum of experiences and for something new to be brought to the table. There is definitely a place for more traditional shooters, just as there is for tight gameplay-system driven games, but personally ever since Shenmue offered up a semblance of a realistic world to simply explore and live in, I have been enamoured with the possibility such games can offer. But even if you find yourself enjoying modern shooters, there is no reason why you still can’t look to innovate, or shake things up. Half Life did this magnificently back in 1997, fully immersing the player in a world and carefully setting up its story so that by the time the shooting started you were involved, you were fighting for your life.

Many have described the Call of Duty games and their ilk as rollercoasters, games that propel you through their narrative with tightly scripted events, bombast and a constant stream of shooting-gallery opponents. It’s a very distinctive, and at times effective style of game, but one that offers such restrictive freedom and such constrained gameplay systems (gunplay, turrets, vehicles) that it pulls me out completely. I enjoy these games on an immediate, visceral level, but nothing resonates, they provide a quick rush but nothing lasting, and I think as I grow up this is what has become important to me when I consider the time I want to spend consuming media, of all forms.

So yes, sometimes we just want to blow off steam, or save the world, or beat that high-score, but also if we ever want this wonderful, enthralling and frustrating art form of ours to grow we should demand more. We should want more challenging and engaging games that offer experiences we've never had before. It’s easier said than done I know, but what’s the point of aiming high, if you never take a shot?

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Finishing up his trilogy of Batman films with bombast and style The Dark Knight Rises is a juggernaut of a film, as massive in scale as the fan hype that has accompanied it to the big screen. For the most part it succeeds in bookending Nolan’s trilogy and tying up loose ends, whilst not slamming the door for possible future entries in the series. However it is also not a film without its issues, as much philosophical as they are structural, the films bloat exceeds that of the previous entries, and despite Tom Hardy’s best efforts it is a film grounded with a villain who is nowhere near as compelling as Heath Ledger’s joker. Its reach seems to almost escape its grasp at times, having so much ground to cover and a story told on such a scale that relating the small and human to the wider context is difficult, leaving plot machinations at the heart of what should be deeper and more personal.

Eight years have passed since the death of Harvey Dent, in that time Gotham has become a safer, virtually crime-free city. Bruce Wayne, meanwhile, has become something of a recluse, boarded up in the rebuilt Wayne manor mourning the death of Rachel and refusing to re-engage with the world. But there are stirrings of a gathering force beneath the city, led by the notorious Bane, a mercenary born and raised in the world’s toughest prison, and of a reckoning that will force Batman back into the spotlight.

Like the other films in the series the Dark Knight Rises starts slowly, re-introducing characters and new faces alike, of these newcomers Anne Hathaway and Joseph Gordon-Levitt are the standout. Hathaway’s Selina Kyle is never named as Catwoman but she imbues what could have been merely a foil for Batman with a conflicted morality that develops nicely throughout the film. Levitt has a somewhat tougher task playing a rookie cop, John Blake, who is drawn into the fight against Bane. It’s a tricky role, one that is largely reactive and set up with a clear purpose that is relatively obvious early on, but Levitt plays it well crafting a real character from someone who could have been much less. Michael Caine is wonderful once again as Alfred, but his character in this is reduced to heavy-lifting the film’s emotional beats, making them feel slightly perfunctory rather than truly earned. 


The lack of Batman himself though is a definite problem, throughout these films it has often felt like Nolan was never truly comfortable with the character himself, presented in the context of the grounded realism of Gotham this man in a costume never quite gels. Here when he is involved it works slightly better, perhaps because the film in general is bigger and less grounded than its predecessor, but it still left me reflecting on how little we actually see of the character in action and how this version of Bruce Wayne feels slightly muddled.

On the opposing side Bane makes a suitable imposing villain, his voice though, a sort of muffled British upper-class hybrid, takes some getting used to and despite clear work to clarify it in the edit (resulting in it often feeling dubbed over and not physically present) it can still be hard to make out at times, largely because there is no visual information to accompany it, Bane’s mask obscuring all but Tom Hardy’s eyes and leaving him the difficult job of conveying emotion with very little.

It may sound like I am being critical here, but only because Christopher Nolan sets the bar so high for himself, the film remains a very entertaining and well made Batman film, it has some great moments but has not resonated or stuck with me since watching it. Compared to Nolan’s other films it feels almost perfunctory in a way I am unused to, as if this was a film his heart was not truly in. It tries to cram so many elements together that it loses the great sense of thematic unity Nolan so often constructs, teasing it apart it is hard to discern much really going on under the hood, and where it does bring back motifs and ideas from the previous films it doesn’t do much to expand upon them and brings little new to the table. As such it remains a good film hampered by its history to an extent, whether or not this is a fair judgement to make is a valid question, but we cannot simply appreciate entertainment in a vacuum and as I’ve analysed my somewhat lack of engagement, this is the source as far as I can discern.

Technically as impressive as you would expect and capped with some great action scenes and character moments I would still struggle to call the Dark Knight rises a failure in any real sense, after all years ago I would have been crying out for a Batman film this good, this deep and this enjoyable, but it also feels that Nolan’s trilogy deserved a better send off, that the ending feels like a nod to the fans feels contrary to his approach to the films thus-far. To contextualise it in terms of the films themselves, it feels like Nolan gave the fans the film they wanted, but not necessarily the film they deserved.

D-Pad Reviews Archive

As well as blogging here I also contribute game reviews and features for D-Pad Magazine on occasion. This post will maintain a link to the articles I publish as and when they go up:
.
Papo & Yo review - 28/8/12
Feature: Lower Your Weapons - 11/8/12
Dragon's Dogma - 12/06/12
E3 2012 Thoughts and Predictions - 2/6/12
Twisted Metal - 28/3/12
Final Fantasy XIII-2 - 2/3/12
Professor Layton and the Spectre's Call - 9/1/12
Games of 2011 - 22/12/11
Carnival Island - 2/12/11
Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One - 1/11/11
Feature: Becoming the Storyteller - 24/10/11
Resistance 3 - 3/10/11
Deus Ex: Human Revolution - 12/9/11

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011)

A thriller with very few immediate thrills, and a psychological study without any real catharsis, Sean Durkin’s somewhat awkwardly titled Martha Marcy May Marlene is a difficult film to pin down, and an even more difficult one to shake after the credits have rolled. The film follows the titular Martha, a young woman who we see in the opening minutes fleeing a commune of sorts out in the country by way of the surrounding woodland. Panicked she breaks down upon reaching the nearest town and calls her sister, who takes her back to the isolated lake-house she shares with her new husband. From here we, the viewers, are treated to gradual flashbacks to Martha’s past, discovering how she found herself slowly being indoctrinated into an abusive cult, fronted by John Hawkes’ charismatic but menacing leader. This is not a film of big reveals or twists, it is obvious early on the nature of Martha’s absence (or Marcy May as she was christened in the commune) but in cross-cutting between the past the present, and by keeping Martha’s family out of the loop (Martha refuses to confide in them, her gradual breakdown symptomatic to them of instability without cause) it is only gradually, over the course of the film, that we discover exactly what it was that lead Martha to leave and understand the true impact her time away has had on her damaged psyche.

A film of great stillness and restraint Martha Marcy May Marlene takes in time in peeling back the layers, never over explaining and often only subtly presenting clues as to its intentions. Martha is no innocent victim and through Elizabeth Olsen’s mesmerising performance we see her run the slow realisation of what she has been through in tandem with glimpses of her impulse and rebellious nature, the same nature which caused a, hinted at but never explained, family rift in years previous. She is not afraid to make Martha unsympathetic, she lazes on the care of her sister and whilst physically she has left the commune the lessons the messages so persuasively fed to her during her time there have a way of regurgitating themselves as she clashes against the materialistic ambitions of her sister and brother-in-law, her time readjusting only seems to amplify her fears, there is no quick fix, but maybe she was always broken?

There are no easy answers here, and for those seeking true resolution will find it lacking in Durkin’s ambiguity. More than a psychological study though, the film’s true nature emerges, manifesting horror through tension and anxiety, even in its most mundane of moments. Thanks Daniel Bensi and Saunder Jurriaans' discordant, affecting score we never feel safe, or settled, despite the lake-house’s idyllic setting. As the flashbacks to the commune become more disturbing Martha’s paranoia infects the viewer, Durkin’s camera lingers on the edge of frames, daring something to happen to break the monotony and refusing to let the unsettling feel that pervades the film rescind. The revelations build as we see just what Patrick and the cult are capable of, the culmination confounding expectations again by leaving many questions still unanswered. For some this may be a step too far, and there is a certain tacit agreement implied in the viewer that all the answers will not be forthcoming, which may feel unsatisfying, but to me the refusal to break the sustained tension accumulated by the film instead helped it resonate after.

Throughout the film works thanks to a wonderful control of tone and emotion, it can drag a bit, especially in the middle, and those seeking something faster paced, or with more conventional elements may find it lacking, but I found it a distinctive piece, sympathetic but grounded and with its loudest statements made in its quietest moments.

Why I Love: Almost Famous

On the whole I’m not a big believer in having a single favourite film, at least not personally. Others may find it easier to raise a single example from the multitudes and hail it, but I find this much harder. Films come in so many shapes and sizes that direct comparisons often seem pointless, they are all designed for different purposes (other than the entertain I suppose but even that could be argued to be secondary in some cases) and as such will impact people differently, or something impact the same person differently over time. This is all a roundabout way of saying that sometimes when my mind does consider the question there are only ever a few films I consider for that top spot, and Almost Famous is always amongst them.

Cameron Crowe’s 2000 ode to childhood, music and the pangs of first love has spoken deeply to me since I first watched it, but it is only over time that I have really come to appreciate what a remarkable film it is and also why it feels so special to me, personally. For those unfamiliar with the film it is a semi-autobiographical story dealing with William Miller (Patrick Fugit), a 15 year old boy who manages to get a gig writing an article for Rolling Stone magazine, a task that requires him to go on tour with an up and coming (fictional) band called Stillwater, The film plays out as a coming of age road movie as William’s eyes are opened to the world, but also as a love letter to a particular time in musical history and to those whose devotion to the music and artists comes to define them. Crowe balances a very thin line between waxing nostalgic about the good times, but not shying away from the darker elements either, as such it becomes so much a celebration of everything rock and roll without feeling false. But the backing and setting only work so well in conjunction with the main story, the plot machinations of which could have derailed the film early on but are perfectly handled so that by the time William gets on the bus, much to the chagrin of his overbearing mother (the superb Francis McDormand), we know exactly who he is and where he is coming from.

As it plays out he meets Penny Lane, one of the ‘band-aids’ who tour with Stillwater, played by Kate Hudson with such depth of feeling and damaged emotion that it makes me consistently depressed to view the direction her career has taken since the film’s release. She is revelatory here (deservedly Oscar nominated) making Penny so much more than a love interest, and as William falls for her over the course of the film, so do we. And therein lies the magic. Crowe lets his film breathe, he creates such a vibrant cast of characters, each rich and deep and then lets us spend time with them on tour a William does. But it never feels aimless, there are always short-term goals – William’s ever-elusive interview with Russell Hammond (Billy Crudup in another brilliant performance), his Rolling Stone deadline – which propel the story forward but don’t overwhelm the film’s more subtle moments. In fact when the film was released on DVD and Blu-Ray Crowe released an extended ‘Untitled’ cut of the film, which added nearly 40 minutes of footage, pushing the film to over 2 and a half hours, and yet this remains my preferred version of the film. Everything added contributes to the film and I find it flows better as a result with more little character details sketched in.

Along with the performances Crowe’s deft touch with music again comes to the forefront here, perfectly accompanying and enhancing the visuals without feeling like a greatest hits of the 70s. There are some famous tracks here for sure, but it is often the smaller instrumental contributions from Nancy Wilson that stick in the mind. To my mind this crystalises in a scene late on in the film that simply involves William saying goodbye at the airport, but in that simplicity is such a range of emotion, wonderfully etched without veering into sentimentality. It’s perfect.

On a personal level the notion of coming of age is one I find myself returning to in the films that I find real connection with. I think it’s the sheer force of change and loss of innocence that resonates, there are few things as empathetic to a view as a lost character finding their place in the world, or anything as purely heartbreaking as someone’s naivety and optimism being crushed by the often harsh realities of life. Almost Famous definitely veers towards the former of these scenarios, and its optimism is a key weapon in its continued appeal. Many criticise Cameron Crowe for his positivity, but I find his movies heartfelt and while he is certainly prone to saccharine moments these always stem from genuine emotion and character, there is nothing false or cynical about the best of his work and to me Almost Famous walks this line perfectly, providing an enriching and life-affirming experience every time I watch it and as such will be a film I continue to treasure.

Horrible Bosses (2011)

Black comedies are a difficult genre to master, to balance out circumstances and situations which would normally have no place in a comedy, and to spin them enough that they remain entertaining but don’t lose their edge is not easy. In that vein Horrible Bosses is not a black comedy, though I think on one level it really wants to be, but the fingerprints of a nervous studio aware they are making a mainstream release are all over it, sanding down any potential sharp edges and as a result denying the film any real bite.

The film concerns itself with three friends, all stuck in work situations made untenable by their overbearing, bullying and sexually inappropriate bosses. Nick (Jason Bateman) has been slaving away for a promotion he has no chance of actually getting to the delight of his egomaniacal boss (Kevin Spacey in scenery chewing mood), Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) seems to have a great position at a successful haulage firm until the induction of the free-loading morally bankrupt new owner Colin Farrell, resplendent with balding wig and beer belly changes things. Finally we have dental assistant Dale (Charlie Day) who is tormented by the sexually aggressive Jennifer Aniston (his friends consternation of how much this constitutes an actual problem echoes that of the audience, he certainly seems to get the better deal of things). Joined by their shared work situations the three, jokingly, suggest one night that killing off their bosses would solve their problems, and this acorn soon grows into a plan of action.

The trouble with high-concept comedies such as this is keeping the audience with characters on such an extreme journey. The idea of these friends moving from average guys in unhappy jobs to murderers is a potentially interesting arc, but one that is never really dwelt on, the decision almost seems arbitrary once it is set in motion and whilst the film is fairly consistently entertaining it never drove home either the true awfulness of the bosses to get us on side with the leads, or highlight the psychotic nature of their plan, which could also have worked to make their instability the focus. As it is each of the bosses gets to have their moment, all three actors clearly enjoying the chance to let loose, Anniston in particular seems to relish the chance to play such a different character from usual, but the film has no teeth, no sting and falls easily into stock situations (a character accidentally inhales drugs!) whilst taking a copout ending rather than risk something a lot darker.

All this is a shame as much of the film itself is very enjoyable, the three leads are all very funny and work well together and a few of the set pieces are well constructed providing many great moments. There is an amusing cameo from Jamie Foxx as well, who is used sparingly but well, but the films insistence on keeping things (relatively) light and fun gets in the way of its core premise which could have dealt with the ideas of revenge, or entitlement in a darkly subversive way. Instead the film is happy to tread water in the mainstream comedy pool, as such it’s not a bad film at all, but it is a more forgettable and rote experience than it might have been, which is a shame.

Prometheus (2012)

Ridley Scott’s much anticipated return to the Alien universe, and the science fiction genre in general, has been a long time coming and sets out as if to please many masters, be it fans who just want more ‘Alien’, those who are interested in the back-story of the original film, or those looking for a smart, adult science fiction story about the origins of human life. Unfortunately as it stands neither group is likely to be completely satisfied with the end results, Prometheus as finished product is undeniably stunning to look at, but is constantly hobbled by a script that is, frankly, something of a mess.

The film starts strongly enough, a wordless and visually amazing opening sequence depicts a mysterious alien figure seemingly seeding life on Earth. From this we skip ahead to the year 2089 where a team of scientists make a discovery, a series of symbols found throughout Earth’s history that resembles a star map. An invitation to meet our makers.

And just like that we skip ahead again, another 5 years to join the crew en route to LV226, a small moon in a faraway galaxy, and in one of the films strongest sequences, as we see David (Michael Fassbender, the clear standout character and actor in the film) the ships android roaming the halls and occupying his time as his shipmates slumber.

Already you will probably sense the Alien parallels here and these continue throughout, the film is clearly designed to evoke that original film, from its design, structure and even character, but more often than not these echoes only act to distance the viewer and prevent the film from truly stepping into its own. It is also clear as the film progresses, and especially with the ending that this was never meant as a standalone story, it lays hooks and questions for further sequels, but this sort of franchise building is something of an insidious trait that is creeping into modern films. The nature of the business and safety that sequels can provide have perhaps made it inevitable, but when a film seeks to provide vague or nonexistent answers purely in the hope of drawing you back for more, it feels slightly unsettling.

Not that the lack of answers is what bothered me about Prometheus, indeed for most of the film I was engaged by the story and mysteries, but then frustrated by the leaps in logic and odd tonal shifts that constantly threaten to overwhelm the action. From scene to scene character behave erratically, reactions to events are either over the top or nonexistent, these feel like people (too many people at that, so most become a blur of background extras) whose every move and behaviour is being dictated by the plot, mere chess pieces. It leads to lazily written scenes of characters wandering off on their own because, well because the story needs them too, or other characters suddenly spouting detailed exposition that they can’t have known, purely because another character needs to hear it. It is a constantly frustrating experience to be pulled from the narrative so frequently by these moments and scenes that just ring hollow.

There was even one scene in the film (that ultimately leads to one of the best sequences in the film in isolation) that felt so tonally off, and strange that I was convinced for a few minutes it must be a dream sequence, but it wasn’t. Noomi Rapace does a decent enough job in effectively the lead role, but her character is paper-thin and never expanded on, a scientist with deep religious beliefs this potentially interesting juxtaposition is never really explored. The same can be said for many of the big ideas the film focuses on, the question of where we come from and why we are here is as old as time itself, and there are some interesting ideas hinted at in the film, but they never really gel and there is little internal consistency . This extends to the threat in the film, which seems to have no clear pattern or logic, as such it stands in stark contrast to the original Alien, which had such a pure premise and clear focus. It seems harsh to land so much of this at the feet of the script, but it really must, whether in trying to remain faithful, yet explore the new, or mix blockbuster thrills with more cerebral ideas, it seems to fall short at every turn, not excelling at any one facet and weakening the others in the process. Lost scribe Damon Lindelof is credited with the script (from a first draft by Jon Spaihts and with considerable input from Ridley Scott by all account) and it is a shame that, coming from a TV series with one of the greatest casts of memorable and interesting characters, we see a film emerge with hardly any.

I realise as I write that this seems a stream of negativity but the truth is that Prometheus is not a bad film, it is technically astonishing at times with a fantastic use of 3D, some good performances and has some big, interesting ideas. But the failures in execution serve as much to render the rest worthless. I felt disconnected from these characters that the events of the film held no impact. A damning sign of this was when the end credits rolled (and after a rather horribly misjudged final scene) I had very little desire to see the story progress, despite the clear intention to leave the door for a sequel wide open, a fact that, given how much I was anticipating the film, saddens me.

My issues with the film do not primarily come from a desire to see Alien remade, I was entirely behind the idea of Ridley Scott doing something new within the same basic boundaries, instead I lament a potentially smart and interesting blockbuster that frequently feel stupid and nonsensical.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Tomas Alfredson’s sombre and quietly thrilling adaptation of the classic John Le Carre novel not only works as a great spy film, delving into the nitty-gritty of the mundane, everyday paranoia that comes with the job, but also a wonderful throwback to classic 70s cinema. Its period stylings not so much an affectation as a key component in the mood of the piece, and so convincing that, were it not full of recognisable modern acting talent, this could have been passed off as a recently uncovered gem from the heyday of these sorts of quiet, political character-based thrillers like The Conversation or All the President’s Men (not that TTSS is especially concerned with politics, but it shares much of its DNA with films that typically skew that way).

Set in the upper echelons of the British intelligence services the film deals with the hunt for a supposed Russian mole amongst its top agents, a cause that drives George Smiley (a wonderfully restrained Gary Oldman) out of retirement and back into 'the Circus' to untangle the mess left since the departure of the head of the agency (aka Control played with John Hurt’s usual gravitas and world-weariness) and death of one of its agents (Mark Strong) in Budapest. It is not an especially complicated plot but the film approaches it with a cool efficiency, expecting you to keep up and barely wasting a word in exposition. As such it is a film that rewards a sort of fastidious attention to detail with every shot, action and word carrying extra weight. It is a true masterclass in execution, balancing out its minimalist ambitions with gorgeous cinematography and atmosphere, the score by Alberto Iglesias bubbles along, underscoring the tension and mood and enhancing the films oppressive feel.

The cast is superb throughout, from Oldman’s commanding central performance, his Smiley reveals nothing, he remains as inscrutable at the story’s conclusion as at its start and yet he remains compelling because he has so much going on behind his calm exterior. A rare animated moment sees him re-enact an encounter with Karla, one of the most renowned Russian agents and it’s a captivating scene, played solely against himself. He gets great support from Benedict Cumberbatch as his man on the inside and Tom Hardy as a rogue agent with important information who requires protection. The great work done by the cast help elevate what could be seen as a somewhat distant and dry story into something more urgent and human. These are not James Bond-esque spies but normal, flawed people trying to make a living, never sure of their actions or their information. The period setting helps it avoid much of the gadgetry that is so prevalent in modern spy tales and allowed the film to focus on the characters, and the whodunit aspect of the plot.

In fact if there is a complaint to be made it is that the final reveal is a touch too restrained, observing the aftermath of the confrontation with a detachment that for the first time feels like the wrong choice. But as a whole the film is less concerned with ‘who’ than it is looking at the lives of these people that deal in secrets and lies, and the toll the work takes on them.

This is a wonderful film, mature, confident and engaging and an excellent foray into the world of American cinema from Alfredson. Between this and Let the Right One In he has me very excited now to see what he does next.

Why I Love: Parks and Recreation

So I'm back again, though with less of an extended absence as in the past. Gotta have some straws to clutch at, right? Anyway the usual apologies aside I've been thinking again about the blog and whilst I really enjoyed the challenge of using it a review hub for my film viewing, I feel now is a good time to expand it out again to cover any and all areas of interest. This should give me more variety in types of post and also more scope for articles. I still want to use this as an outlet for my critical thought or analysis, but also as maybe a way of bringing things to peoples attention. As such I like the idea of a regular (reasonably at least, we'll see how it works) series of articles that simply try and explain, and give me an outlet to gush, about things that I love. Be they films old or new, TV shows, books, music, it doesn't matter. But I think there is value in looking at something that you really connect with and trying to understand why, and then wanting others to hopefully have that same experience as well. One of the main reasons why I feel this urge to create as well in my own life is the idea of impacting people, in the way I have been impacted by other peoples creations in the past. 
.
So without further ado I'll step aside and get on with the article proper, this time about what is arguably my favourite show currently on TV and sadly, if you live in the UK, one that you might never have heard of: Parks and Recreation.

Set in the fictional small town of Pawnee, Parks and Rec (as it is commonly known) focuses on the life and work of the employees of the Parks department. It initially started in a similar vein to the US Office (and was created by some of that show’s writers) with Leslie Knope, the head of the department played by Amy Poehler, portayed as a Michael Scott type character, disillusioned and with ambitions way above her abilities and station. The early laughs coming from the seriousness and venerability with which she approached small town problems, and whilst there was something there, the show did little to distinguish itself. As a figure of fun Leslie was not very sympathetic and the awkward laughs very much fitted into the mould of The Office. But as the show’s short first season progressed (it was only 6 episodes due to the writers’ strike) things improved, the supporting cast were sketched out in more detail and the writers seemed to have a clearer vision of the show’s true identity.

Looking back now I can’t think of an occasion when the jump in quality from the early episodes to the later had such a steep increase, and that’s not to say that the first season is bad, because it’s not, and I would absolutely recommend starting there if you have never seen the show before. It sets up the world and characters, and as it’s so short as well there isn’t long before you see the changes start to happen. So much so that by the time we got into the middle of the 24 episode season 2 the show was transformed. Whilst it kept the mock documentary aesthetic its slightly sneering tone had gone, to be replaced with the show’s secret weapon: heart. Real affection and love for these characters and an understanding that what makes Leslie Knope great, and interesting and one of my favourite TV characters, is not her dilusion, but her ability. By turned Leslie from a figure of fun into someone actually good at her job, very good in fact, yet maintaining her sense of naiveté and ability to get carried away, they made her feel so much more real and endearing. It can be so easy in comedy to fall back on incompetence as the joke, to mock and ridicule. What I love so much about Parks and Rec, and what it came to figure out, was that it is much harder, but much more rewarding to make a comedy about people who are actually good at their jobs (for the most part) and warm and likeable people. Which brings me neatly to the show’s second secret weapon, its world building.

As well as Leslie you have a wonderful cast of characters just within the Parks Department, including arguably another candidate for best TV character in the departments’s stalwart, government-hating, all-American Ron Swanson, played to perfection by Nick Offerman. Again a character that started as a bit of a joke, a Government manager who hates the idea of government, has been fleshed out into so much more and one of the consistently funniest people on TV. And the office is full of people like this, from Aziz Ansari’s wannabe entrepreneur Tom Haverford to Aubrey Plaza’s wonderfully deadpan April to another of the funniest characters on TV in Chris Pratt’s Andy, another character who underwent major changes from the start of the series to become a surprise favourite. It is remarkable how well the show not only figured out its message and tone, but also its characters. It treats them with respect and as well as being silly, absurd and very funny it makes you care about them too. It is common in sitcoms to have an ‘emotional’ bit at the end of an episode to round things off and add some weight to the proceedings, but here, as with Scrubs (the only other show to really do this as effectively), it always feels genuine and earned, and not just a template that has to be adhered to.

This attention to character even extends to the wider town of Pawnee as well, over the course of the show’s four seasons they have built up a fantastic cast of bit-characters and references that make it all feel bigger than just the Parks office. Some have compared it to the Simpsons in this regard and I can fully understand that comparison, and the fact that long time Simpsons vet Mike Scully has been heavily involved in the show is no coincidence I’m sure.

Ultimately though, none of these elements, on their own or together, are truly unique to Parks and Rec, and they don’t guarantee success either. But the show is more than the sum of its parts, it manages a tricky balancing act of all these elements whilst still remaining laugh out loud funny on such a consistent basis. It is a show that I can watch each week with a big stupid grin on my face and no other program I can think of at the moment, even Community or 30 Rock, can match Parks and Rec for the mix of heart, character and laughs. Those other shows may have bigger laughs sometimes, or stronger set-pieces, but ultimately if I was presented with a brand new episode of any show right now, it’s Parks and Rec I’d want to watch.

How well it works for you though is certainly a subjective thing, I have a real affection for anything that celebrates the good, and best in people and I think it’s this optimism that truly sets Parks and Rec aside, and what endears it to me in particular. It may have taken a little while to settle into its groove but it stands as a wonderful example of a show finding its voice and having the conviction to stick to it.

So that’s it for this entry, I thank you for indulging me, but as I mentioned I think it’s good sometimes to celebrate those things we love, and try to understand why they provoke the reaction they do. I have a few ideas about what I could next in this series so I hope to be back and posting again soon so I guess I’ll see you then.

The Long Goodbye (1973)

Robert Altman's take on the world of Raymond Chandlers's infamous detective Philip Marlowe is less an adaptation of his 1953 novel and more of a deconstruction of the genre as a whole, updating it to a (then) modern day setting and befitting it with Altman's typical disdain and derision of the wealthy and immoral, not to mention his shunning of typical Hollywood cliché.
.
Elliott Gould steps into the detective's shoes here, replacing the character's typically hard boiled edge with more of an affable detachment. He still drinks and smokes his way through the film, and is efficient enough to conduct his investigations into the apparent murder / suicide committed by one of his friends, but his laid back charm and bemusement ('it's alright with me' becomes something of a catchphrase of his directed at various people throughout the film) lend him distance in a very deliberate way.
.
As a piece of cinema the Long Goodbye is often very good, the problem though is that Altman can't help being Altman, he is seemingly unable to leave his stylistic tendencies to one side and just serve the story. He clearly here has little interest in the central mystery, instead devoted large portions of the film to slow moving conversational scenes, his love of dialogue and human behaviour here feels out of place at times and as such the film has no great sense of urgency. The detachment of Gould's Marlowe extends outwards as well, Altman's camera roams around the scenes, focusing on the details but languid, his trademark overlapping dialogue and use of diegetic sound take you out of the moment more often than they add to the film.
.
As a statement on the genre it might well work, snubbing its nose at the notions of honour and chivalry as usually portrayed. Here Marlowe is dogged and persistent, but there's little nobility about him especially at the end. As one of the police officers remarks early on, he's a wise-ass, but not the typically endearing kind. Here he exists to provoke and annoy, seemingly unflappable and desiring a quieter life that never quite finds him.
.
There is a lot of dissect and take away from The Long Goodbye, but it does also work on a surface level. It's just that a lot of the odd touches, the random acts of shocking violence, the cryptic dialogue and bizzare situations (a late film scene where a gangster forces all those in his office to strip, including a young and, at the time, unknown Arnold Schwarzenegger really stands out for this) detract from the story, rather than help it. Altman was a gifted film-maker with a very specific point of view and style, here it seems that this does more harm than good, by looking down on a genre he is simultaneously engaging in it rings as a hollow exercise and prevents the film from coming together as a coherent whole.

13 Assassins (2010)

Takashi Miike, best known for his prolific filmic output and over the top extreme violence (think Ichi the Killer or Audition) returns after a quiet few years with an unlikely venture, a classical and relatively sombre Samurai movie who’s poise and accomplished look are a reminder that under the gimmicks and gore Miike is a supremely talented director, here he tests his hands at an epic and largely succeeds.

.

Set in 1844 during a time of peace the film follows a disparate band of Samurai’s who find themselves with no real place in a world that is leaving behind the old ways and customs. They are drawn together in a mission to assassinate a high ranking official, the casually cruel and sadistic Lord Naritsugu (played with relish by Gorô Inagaki), a man who’s lack of conscience and desire for violence would doom Japan should he rise to power.

.

From this setup the film becomes a piece of two haves, the first slow and deliberate, putting the pieces of the plan together and spending some time with these characters, none of which are especially showy but who all feel honour bound by a common goal and shared spirit. The second half of the film in contrast is a bravado extended action sequence in a small village where the two sides have their showdown. It is as remarkably constructed and well paced an action scene as I’ve seen in a long time and is punctuated by creative choreography and character beats that stop it becoming tiring or repetitious.

.

Due to the number of character it is true that few are sketched all that clearly, one of the exceptions being Shinzaemon the leader of the assassins, a former royal guard who can no longer sit by in silence, the way he compiles his plans and executes on them reveal a man glad to have a purpose and give his life for a cause. A man reborn and it's a strong central performance that carries the film. Having a strong villain is another key reason why the film works so effectively, Lord Naritsugu's sadism is shown early on and he looms over the film as a force that must be stopped, adding urgency and weight to the assassins crusade.

.

The film is gorgeously shot throughout, Miike's camera is controlled and patient, the costumes, and sets are superb throughout effectively registering the time and place without drawing attention to it. In fact the film is noticeably restrained, especially at the start., Things do start to get pretty violent and gory late on, but again Miike isn't revelling in the violence and there is always a clear narrative through the action. It is really the final 45 minutes that pull the film together and help it stand out as one of the most enjoyable and well crafted Samurai films of recent years. There is a deeper emotional story here as well, but also a wonderfully entertaining series of set-pieces that really deliver on the film's slow build up. It is a film that should satisfy any fans of the genre, and also those who just want to see a historical epic told with sincerity and skill.

Arrietty (2010)

Studio Ghibli’s latest offering is another perfectly esoteric choice for the Japanese animation giants, an adaptation of Mary Norton’s the Borrowers, relocating the film but retaining much of its inherent conceits and characters whilst still allowing the studio’s prevalent themes to shine through. Miyazaki is only on script duty here, with former animator Hiromasa Yonebayashi in the directors chair, but Miyazaki’s fingerprints are all over the film from its environmentalist undercurrents to the small details that sell the world.

.

Story-wise we follow Arrietty the only daughter of a family of Borrowers living in a remote house in the countryside (the location remains ambiguous) where a sick boy is recuperating along with his aunt and her housekeeper. As usual with Studio Ghibli films the plot is less important than the characters and the ways in which they interact and grow. They are able to say so much with the smallest of gesture or detail that the miniature world of Arrietty and her parents is immediately understood and accepted. When they step outside into the wider world the sense of scale and sound design in particular is wonderful, with every practical detail considered as to how they must navigate the familiar but suddenly hostile and vertigo-inducing environments.

.

I have always appreciated how Miyazaki’s stories stray from the usual narrative conventions and this is true again here, later on a villain as such does appear (and played in a more threatening manner than often found in his films) but the threat never overwhelms the films themes and the poignant finale manages to be sweet without going where I expected it to.

.

So whilst it may lack some of the more inventive and fantastical elements of the best Studio Ghibli work Arrietty remains a wonderfully animated and highly enjoyable film. It is rich with character and style, its world both gentle and reassuring, a reminder once again that each film from this wonderful studio is a real gift to be treasured.