Reviews

As an artist, it takes a great deal of courage to tell the stories you want to tell, especially when building off a world that has already been established to your audience. The temptation to fall into familiar patterns will always be present, because they are safe and desired. A bold and daring new direction may creatively fulfill you, but in turn may also alienate a portion of your audience who hoped for more of the same.

The Last of Us Part II is the contemporary face of this. It's emotionally riveting and ambitious. It's not interested in settling for "The Adventures of Joel and Ellie," which would be too easy and predictable, albeit desirable to many. The game is not perfect and there are a handful of aspects that could've been improved upon, but relative to the game's overall narrative achievements, these remain minor points.

Gameplay-wise, it's virtually the same as The Last of Us. A great deal of emphasis is placed on hoarding supplies, stealth, and economic use of your bullets. If you hated The Last of Us' gameplay, then this game will not be for you on that front. You're given skilltrees, handbooks for unlocking and developing new skills, which include upgrades for stealth, hand-to-hand combat and weapon stability. You do find yourself caught in many gunfights, but this is not an action game in the mold of Call of Duty.

The graphics are undeniably incredible and expand upon the world established in the first game. Last of Us Part II includes a more open-world type of setting that is ripe for exploration, with lighting textures that turn the apocalyptic ruins of America into some of the series' most beautiful imagery, while also being able to establish the dilapidated, tense interiors of a world that's been eaten from the inside.

But lets talk about the story. Games like The Last of Us series hang their hat on this story, and in this intense, have the power to provoke strong emotions about whether this game is a success or not. By virtue of my high rating and any superlatives towards to narrative, I anticipate negative sentiments are locked and loaded and ready to go. That's unfortunately the way it's going to go with this game. As someone who chose not to read any spoilers or consumer the opinions of those who did, I aimed to experience the game as intended, with a fresh, clean perspective unaffected by the surrounding noise. I believe my experience was personally better for having done that.

Joel is murdered in brutal fashion by a character named Abby (whom he has a hidden connection to), which sets Ellie off on a quest for revenge against Abby and her affiliates. Ellie is aided by her girlfriend Dina as they search for Abby, as well as Joel's brother Tommy who left Jackson prior to Ellie in search of Abby.

Yes, this is a revenge story, but it's far from one-dimensional. The Last of Us Part II has real interest in its character's inner lives, which is the primary element that drives the narrative forward. There are real-world actions to be taken as Ellie and Dina travel through Seattle, but we're constantly zeroing in on Ellie's emotions as she pushes forward toward her destination. We see her anguish, her guilt and her anger mutate as the story pushes forward, as killing Abby evolves from a mere goal into a pathological infection that changes her as a person. Ellie is aware this change is occurring as much as we are, and exhibits moments of vulnerability as she tries to hold on to the remaining glimmers of light in her life. Is this the same Ellie that we once knew? Has she irrevocably changed for the worse?

This idea is strengthened further when halfway through the game we switch from Ellie's perspective to Abby's. This is another controversial point for a lot of fans, but it's a switch that has thematic resonance that only enriches the story. Abby, up to this point, has been positioned as the game's main villain. From this point on the game takes us into her life and past, showing us why she was so set on killing Joel and what she sacrificed in this pursuit.

This isn't to say that the game is making an excuse for Abby while still painting her as the villain. In fact, the game at this point deliberately sets out to eradicate to notions of who and what makes a hero or a villain. The answer is surprising: it's our perspective. We were arbitrarily assigned the perspective of Ellie and asked to dive deep into her life and emotions, and for this she assumed the role of hero/protagonist, and yet we are asked to question if that's really who Ellie is. And who exactly is Abby? Are the two characters the same in the motivation? In pain? Suffering? Memory? Heartache?

In the same vein, who really was Joel as a character? Likewise our protagonist from the first game and at the beginning of this one, we were also arbitrarily assigned Joel's perspective in that same way. He lost Sara and we felt his pain. We saw his emotions develop over the course of the first game. We could understand his desire to save Ellie, and indeed in the first game it was our goal to do so, but it was ultimately a selfish act that was executed at the cost of many lives. It begs the question, what really does separate someone from being revered or reviled? The answer was us all along.

This is an idea that plays out throughout the entirety of this game, with past and present and memory intertwining as our characters figure out who they are from their actions. Are they falling deeper into these intense emotions, or can they eventually rise above it? How long can someone carry the infection of memory and pain with them, and at what point does it cost them everything?

We see this expressed additionally in the battle between rival factions: the WLF and the SCARS, both distant echoes of the Fireflies from the first game. There currently is no hope to restore humanity, and here we see the end result: fighting over a piece of land that in many ways is lost forever. Both factions hate each other intensely, as if any notion of familiarity ceases to exist. This idea is challenged in Abby's campaign, and serves to reemphasize the devolution of humanity through the tribal attitudes of both groups. Their war is intense and bleak, but Abby's evolving relationships offer a glimmer of hope that what we lost as humans can be rediscovered.

This game has a handful of controversies at its back, most of which are not even worth the time to argue over (decent human beings would understand this objection). The major controversy is in regards to Joel's death: was it too early? Should it have happened at all? It's a hard question to answer, as so much depends on how you connected with the game's narrative. Narratively speaking, it makes a lot of sense and serves the story completely, but I'm also someone who enjoyed the story immensely, so consider that before you dive in as it may affect your willingness to follow the story and connect with the characters.

On the whole, I believe The Last of Us Part II to be a remarkable narrative achievement. The narrative is the strength of this game and there features a lot of cut scenes that give the game a cinematic quality to it. It plays like a movie, and in a lot of ways is more affecting and engaging than what other stories could achieve outside of the video game medium.

I believe time will be exceptionally kind to this game. Whether user reviews were intended as a form of protest or an attempt to re-frame people's perception of the game is irrelevant. You can only deny a quality game for so long before its merits shine through.

In short, while the Last of Us Part II isn't a masterpiece, it is a strong, heart-wrenching exploration of pain and lost humanity. It's bold and intense, daring and thoughtful, and the closer you get to its characters, the more it will challenge you.

One of the great myths about Superman on film was that he was the baddest hero of them all. Obviously, the most casual of Superman fans know this isn't the case, but the fact remains is that for the longest time a lot of people were wondering whether his balls of steel would eventually show up in a movie. Thanks to this film, they're finally here.

Before getting into it, Man of Steel isn't just a showcase for Superman in action, but it's also an origin story. One of the key notes for most superhero origin films is that it's usually the pre-superhero origin that ends up working best, while the post-superhero badassery fails to lift off. Here, it's the exact opposite.

The origin is sloppily edited and lacks a good pace. From what I understand a good chunk of the film was cut, and given just how awkwardly cut the pre-Superman scenes are I have no doubt a good deal of what was cut was associated with these. The scenes on Krypton actually work the best out of all of these, but what was missing was that sense of discovery. One of the greatest aspects of origin movies like Superman: The Movie, Batman Begins and Spider-Man is that the audience is allowed to go on the journey with the hero and discover as they do, but here it feels very rushed, as if they couldn't wait to get to the action scenes. And, as exhilarating as Superman's first taste of flight was, it felt awkwardly placed, as if Clark's journey wasn't yet complete. I guess you could say, no matter how much I enjoyed this moment in the film, by this point I didn't feel like Clark had earned it.

Despite these issues, on some level I was able to connect with Clark, and while I felt the connection could've been greater, there was enough there to give the action some wait when it did get going. The last thing I want is for the action to get underway and find myself not caring about who's affected by what's going on. The film nearly drops the ball on this one because of the origin scenes, but recovers enough, especially in Clark's relationships with his Earth father and Lois, to give the action some weight.

And boy, is there a lot of action in this movie; more set pieces than fist fights, but most of it is pretty spectacular. I'm personally not a huge fan of an overabundance of CGI as the primary source of entertainment, as it rarely ever feels tangible to me, but out of all the CG heavy movies I've seen in the last handful of years, this is the most entertained I've been by a movie of this kind. I mentioned how the emotional connection played a part in my enjoyment of these scenes, but even if it wasn't there, it still remains that this is the most physical, most brutal action of any superhero film to date, bar none.

Better than The Avengers, better than Nolan's Batman films, the action completely engulfs the second half of the film. It isn't marked by singular moments here and there, it isn't just effects that are cool to look at, you really do feel them. For a film that uses a lot of CGI to make this impression on me is both startling and satisfying.

As for the acting, most of it was satisfying. Henry Cavill is really good as Superman, but as Clark I feel there's still room for him to grow. Michael Shannon isn't amazing as general Zod, but he isn't terrible. I would say he does a solid job with what he's given, and I liked the complexity to his character's motivations. Both Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner are great as Clark's fathers, as well as Diane Lane. Amy Adams didn't wow me as Lois, even though I was ecstatic about her casting initially, but she grew on me and is definitely an acceptable Lois Lane.

Overall, I guess I would say that this isn't the greatest of origin films. The editing and structure of those earlier scenes keep this part of the film from excelling, and for that the origin as told in Superman: The Movie remains the best telling of the pre-Superman story. Once Clark dons the suit, though, that's when the movie really took off for me. I honestly wasn't very sure I was going to like the rest of the movie once it got to this point, but the action held up and there was enough emotion there to keep me satisfied and give the action some weight.

It's not a great superhero movie, but it's one of the better entertainments out there, superhero or not, and my favorite entertainment of the year so far. It's a nice start to this rebirth of Superman on film, and I'm interested to see where they'll take the character in the next film.

***/****

I'm not going to lie, Spider-Man: the Animated Series was one of my favorite cartoons growing up. It was a delightful contrast to Batman: the Animated Series, and while I did enjoy the colorful animation and sarcastic humor, this is one cartoon in a long line of many that just doesn't hold up very well. Specifically, in the case of Spider-Man, it's nearly unwatchable.

To cut straight to the point, what ultimately does Spider-Man in for me is its excessive content and horrendous pacing. Every episode feels like it tries to pack too much into 20 minutes, and the pacing doesn't give anything room to breathe or settle. Each episode shifts between multiple scenes relentlessly, employing shoddy transitions that make everything feel like its running together. From the change of scenery it's obvious when a scene change has been made, but it doesn't feel that way, often coming across like one big scene that has trouble deciding when to end.

Another thing that really bothered me is how artificial the emotional side of the show could be. Whenever certain tragic moments would come up, their emotional impact would either be diminished because of the bad pacing, or would be devoted to for all of ten seconds in order to explain why a character decides to go from A to B.

For example, in the Man-Spider saga when Punisher is about to kill Peter, a doctor with the means to help cure him convinces the Punisher not to by literally summarizing his origins in a couple seconds, even complete with a split-second shot of a tear running down his face. It's a moment that exemplifies this aspect of the show for me, because A) it takes this emotional part of a character's life and reduces it to a simple plot point, and B) it shows just how intimate the show was willing get with its characters.

It's all of these factors together that really turn Spider-Man into a chore rather than enjoyment, and while I understand that the show's desire is to create silly, escapist entertainment for children, it just doesn't translate into a high quality product, and had the crew worked harder then the result might've been a show that would've been worth watching, at the least.

The Twilight Zone is one of my favourite series ever. I thought the episodes were imaginative, well-written, and strove to really be about something rather than just a collection of gimmicks and FX. The show has always worked as a series of episodic features that ran roughly 20 minutes long, and though the hour long episodes of Season 4 failed to make much of an impression on me, the notion of expanding The Twilight Zone feature film was intriguing. This wasn't because of the possibilities that would come with bigger budgets (namely the FX), but the kind of scope that accompanies movies, and the chance to really expand on the themes of the original show on a broader scale. What this movie turned out to be was just one, big love-letter with mostly mediocre results.

This really struck me when viewing the opening sequence, involving 2 guys in a car reminiscing about their favourite TV shows. To me, this summarized what this movie really was: a bunch of director's getting together and gushing about their love for the original show. It's no coincidence then that immediately following this sequence we are witnesses to the memorable intro to the original series (but with updated FX), the same voice over that Rod Serling once read (but with Burgess Meredith speaking), and then subsequently followed by 3 of the 4 segments being remade episodes from the original show.

I won't get into details about what the 4 major segments contain, but for the most part I was disappointed, particularly with the first 3. They weren't very interesting or tense. In fact, they were all kind of boring. Though the remake of "It's a Good Life" kind of had some good moments, it did nothing to really warrant a remake in the first place, and pales in comparison to the vastly superior original.

The one I did like, the remake of "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet", I legitimately thought was a good update on the original, and in some ways surpasses the original. That said, the question is is it worth it to watch the entire film just to get to the last segment? I'd say no, but if you're curious as to how the entire film turned out then there's really no stopping you.

All in all, I felt the filmmakers had a real opportunity to do something very interesting and special, but instead decided to safely tread water with a bunch of remakes. A feature film adaptation of The Twilight Zone calls for an ambitious filmmaker with ambitious ideas. I'm not sure if a director like Matt Reeves can do that with the next film version, but what I do know is that even with a talented, prolific director like Steven Spielberg on board, this film failed to prove why it needed to be made.