Thursday 29 October 2009

Film Review: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

London, the 21st century, and a ragtag show troupe is trying to enlighten people to the power of the imagination. They aren't doing well, and Doctor Parnassus himself is blighted by a seriously bad gambling habit. Into their lives comes the amnesiac Tony, who may just turn their fortunes around - if he can be trusted...

'The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus' can be reviewed in one simple phrase: it's a Terry Gilliam film. In translation, it's thoroughly surreal, and is seemingly more concerned with wild flights of fancy than such boring things as plot coherence.

That's actually a little unfair. For the majority of the film, the plot does make sense, within it's own bizarre terms. It's just the final third or so where everything goes insane, and you're left wondering "So, that character's dead, that one's in Hell... or maybe not... And that character's done that because... Why? What?" I went to see this with a friend, and we spent nearly an hour afterwards discussing the plot, and what precisely had happened, and whether some characters had survived or died. It was more than a little confusing. That's before you factor in the fact that Tony is played by four different actors, owing to Ledger's untimely death.

However, the vast majority of the film is, I'm happy to say, really rather good. Most praise must go to the cast, who are uniformly excellent. The standouts, for me, were Christopher Plummer and Tom Waits, as Parnassus and the Devil respectively. Plummer manages the nifty trick of being pitiable, loveable, and rather unpleasant, often in the same scene, while Waits is possibly the sleaziest interpretation of Lucifer I've ever seen.
Ledger's performance will likely attract the most attention, due to it being his final role, but in reality, he isn't the focus of the film, just one of a group. It's a fine performance - I've never seen him do a bad one - but it won't replace his career defining roles in 'Brokeback Mountain' and 'The Dark Knight'. On the subject, his three replacements - Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell - do well. Depp and Law, particuarly, capture the spirit of Ledger's performance superbly, while still making their own mark. Farrell loses some of Ledger's tone, but has a longer sequence than Depp or Law, so it balances out; it also helps that he's portraying a very different side of Tony (the real Tony?), so he doesn't need to be as similar as Depp or Law do. It's canny casting by Gilliam, and he is to be applauded for managing to fill the role in a way that makes sense while also managing to be respectable.
Equally worthy of comment are Lily Cole, as Parnassus' daughter Valentina, and Andrew Garfield as Anton, an actor in the Imaginarium, and the man in love with Valentina. Both relative unknowns (Cole is, primarily, a model), they deliver sensitive performances; Garfield's Anton can occasionally seem petulant and unlikeable, which seems strange in one of our heroes and romantic leads, but as a young man in love with a woman who seems to barely notice him, it works rather well. Verne Troyer, as the final member of the troupe, steals most of his scenes, and gets most of the best lines - he's much more than Mini-Me here.

However, it is the scenes inside the Imaginarium itself that both make and break the film. For the first two acts, they are wondeful, magnificent playgrounds that practically bleed magic and gleeful flights of fancy, and surreal inventiveness - imagine the storyboards Gilliam created for Monty Python, but done with a Hollywood budget and CGI company, and you're probably about halfway there. However, by the time Farrell gets his crack at the Imaginarium, the plot has fully kicked in, and life is no longer quite so safe and fun. This leads to much less imagination, before leaking into an overload of surrealism that brings about the utter derailment of sense. It is at this point that you lose track of which characters are alive or dead, in hell or out, trustworthy or not, and the film never really recovers it's balance, despite largely consisting of Plummer's fine performance.

In defence, anyone who knows anything about Gilliam's films will not be surprised - see 'Brazil', or 'Time Bandits', for evidence. And you could argue that the film isn't as concerned with the plot as it is with sending a message of support for the importance of imagination: "Without stories, we wouldn't be here." Nevertheless, if you prefer your films to be fairly cut and dried, then this perhaps isn't for you, but you'll be missing out. If you don't mind something a little more abstract, then go for it. You may be puzzled, but I can guarentee you'll enjoy it.

Saturday 17 October 2009

Book Review: Unseen Academicals

An urgent discovery in the records of Unseen University results in the faculty being forced to form a football team - or risk losing their cheeseboard... Fortunately, this coincides nicely with the Patrician's plans to regulate and control the ancient 'sport', so that's ok then! Complete with supporting cast of supermodels, cooks, dribblers and goblins.



Actually, that's not entirely accurate. In reality, the supporting cast are the main players in the book, despite the title and cover art. It's probably for the best; much though I love characters like Rincewind and the Patrician, a novel solely about football would try my patience, even one written by Pratchett. I'm not a football fan in the slightest - there's two teams of 11, and they kick a ball about, and that's about all my expertise. I'm aware that there is an off-side rule, but it may as well be written in Klingon for all that I can understand it! So Pratchett gets a massive boost in my rating for his latest, simply for managing to keep me engrossed throughout a novel that is, largely, about a sport that I'm indifferent to at best.



The key question for any Discworld review, to my mind, is not whether it is well written and plotted, but how it compares against previous installments. Pratchett seems to be incapable of writing a bad book - even his weakest, 'Eric', can only be fairly criticised as being a bit closer to average than he usually gets. And his most recent books, 'Making Money' and 'Nation', have definitely been at the lesser end of the scale. Not bad books by any stretch of the imagination - indeed, they're very good. Just not quite as good as Pratchett usually is. Specifically, 'Making Money', while well-written and funny, felt like filler, existing to add a little more expansion to the Discworld universe, without really affecting any of the characters in it. The fact that, plotwise, it was essentially a retread of 'Going Postal' didn't help matters. 'Nation' suffered from a few passages that I felt to be a tad smug and patronising. Nevertheless, as I say, Pratchett's weaker efforts are still better than many authors at their best.



'Unseen Academicals' continues this tradition. The writing is traditionally excellent, with no excess passages that I can recall - even if they aren't strictly necessary, every passage seems to have a joke that made me snigger. In fact, throughout the book I ranged from sniggering to uncontrollable laughter that left me incapable of holding the book. In terms of humour, it's a welcome return to the earlier books in the series; more recent entries have been no less funny, but in a more 'knowing chuckle' fashion than real belly laughs. 'U.A' strikes a nice balance between the two.



As stated above, there are several new characters introduced throughout the book, and some old faces get new leases of life (if you're a Pratchett fan, you'll love what's happened to the Dean...). I can't fault any of the character moments, bar Death's solitary appearance, which feels a little token. Rincewind gets the funniest moment in the book, and Ridcully and the Patrican are joys to read, as ever. But it's the new characters who shine, particularly the weirdly erudite Mr Nutt and Pepe the fashionista. Pepe, especially, feels like Pratchett met someone, and simply shoved them into the manuscript straight away. Totally true to life, while simultanously being a massive caricature. The plot, while obvious in the broad details, still manages to wring tension and interest out of every scene, even when you're sure of the final result - the final match being a perfect example.



However, no book is without it's faults, not even one by Terry Pratchett. The opening scene sets up a plot strand which is subsequently vaguely referred to, and equally vaguely resolved, but the resolution does not feel satisfactory, to my mind. The villain of the piece is one of Pratchett's weakest, not because of any fault in the writing, but simply because he's just a thug from the streets. Given that half the cast is made up of some of the biggest movers and shakers in Ankh-Morpork, he never really feels like a serious threat to the ultimate plot, although in fairness, he's a suitable personal threat. As I've said, the basic thread of the plot is fairly predictable, but the details and world building balance that (yes, 37 books in, and Pratchett still hasn't perfected his vision - you have to admire someone so dedicated to making their world work).



But taken as a whole, these are minor flaws, and it's probably Pratchett's best book since 'Thud', although not quite up there with his best works ('Small Gods', 'Night Watch' and 'Carpe Jugulum', for me). It likely won't win over any new readers, but seriously, if you're going to start reading a series 37 books in... While the flaws may seem nitpicky, for a novelist of Pratchett's stature and ability, that's the level of criticism I have to operate on. When you take into account his Alzheimer's, maintaining this level of quality is just astonishing. Thoroughly recommended.

Friday 16 October 2009

And this is journalism?

Inspired by this 'article' from the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html

First of all, I'd like to make something clear. I'm not a fan of Stephen Gately (I had to be told who he was when the news broke), so I'm not writing this out of personal bias. This is a response to the shameful 'journalism' displayed by Jan Moir.

"Through the recent travails and sad ends of Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger and many others, fans know to expect the unexpected of their heroes - particularly if those idols live a life that is shadowed by dark appetites or fractured by private vice."

As far as I'm aware, certainly in the case of Heath Ledger, there were no "dark appetites" or "private vices" that contributed to his death - he'd been having trouble sleeping, was given prescription medicine by his doctor, and accidentally took too many. I didn't follow the story diligently, so feel free to correct me, but what's suspicious about that? Tragic, yes, but nothing more. So she gets off to a wonderful start, making inaccuarate insinuations about people who have no relevance to her actual topic. Nice one Jan!

We move on to her comments about celebrities who do have known vices:

"Robbie, Amy, Kate, Whitney, Britney; we all know who they are. And we are not being ghoulish to anticipate, or to be mentally braced for, their bad end: a long night, a mysterious stranger, an odd set of circumstances that herald a sudden death."

Well actually Jan yes, it is a little ghoulish to anticipate a bad end. It smacks of vultures circling in the desert. Maybe Britney will pull herself together, and live a long and happy life raising her kids. Maybe she'll die in a car crash. Yes, maybe she'll die because of her current lifestyle - but it is ghoulish, and frankly a little weird to be anticipating her death.

She then moves on to discuss the circumstances surrounding Gately's death (yes, finally reaching the point of her article, rather than background gossip - who says a journalist should get straight to the point?)

"All the official reports point to a natural death, with no suspicious circumstances. The Gately family are - perhaps understandably - keen to register their boy's demise on the national consciousness as nothing more than a tragic accident."

I'll skate over the comment about the Gately family... Actually no, I won't, because re-reading it makes me annoyed. The wording implies that the Gately family are involving themselves in a conspiracy to cover up the truth about the death. Really? Is she really suggesting that the family of a former popstar has enough leverage with the authorities to get them to falsify the postmortem? The police and the pathologist have said that there was nothing suspicious about the death. Call me old fashioned, but in such matters I do tend to trust the police. There is no evidence to suggest that there was anything suspicious about Gately's death, so speculation is offensive and demeaning. Of course, Moir then goes on to add ignorance to the list:

"Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again."

Well yes, actually. They do. Leaving aside the specifics of Gately's death for a moment, Moir has apparently never heard of Cardiac Arrhythmia, or Sudden Adult Death Syndrome, which covers a whole variety of medical conditions which, as the name might imply, causes people to drop dead suddenly and without warning. Essentially, it's an irregular rhythm in your heart. Postmortems will often reveal that there was an underlying cause - a particularly common one being coronary artery disease, for instance. Moving back to Gately, he apparently inherited a heart disorder... Does that sound familiar? Hmm? Jan Moir is a journalist, not a doctor; if a medical professional tells me that there is something suspicious about Gately's death, I'll listen. Until then, stick to what you know Jan, how about that? She goes on to remind us that Gately had been smoking cannabis. Well ok, I'm never going to approve of drug use - but it wasn't what killed him, so why do we need to know this?

After this come the comments about Gately's personal life:

"And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy.
After a night of clubbing, Cowles and Gately took a young Bulgarian man back to their apartment. It is not disrespectful to assume that a game of canasta with 25-year-old Georgi Dochev was not what was on the cards."

Dochev was, apparently, an old friend. I'm a student. I've been out clubbing. I've ended up back at my friends flats afterwards. Guess what? I've never had sex after such incidents. Why should we assume that this was the case here? If they had met Dochev that night, then I could maybe see her point - although I would still disagree with this being sleazy. So long as it's all consensual, who cares? What I object to here is the ignorance (or worse, wilful obscuring of the facts). As I've said, Dochev was a friend. They knew him. Under the circumstances, I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that there was an innocent reason for his visit. But I repeat: even if he did go back for a threesome, who cares?

But the final, and most offensive part of the article is undoubtedly the bombardment of bile she shows towards those in civil partnerships:

"Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships."

I'm sorry, what? What does someone dying of fluid on the lungs have to do with the fact that he was in a civil partnership? She seems to be spinning the story to promote an agenda against civil partnership - and while yes, she is entitled to her opinion that such unions are wrong, suggesting that they are all bound to end in disaster is not just wildly inaccurate, but offensive. How many 'traditional' marriages end in disaster? She cites the union between Matt Lucas and his ex-partner as well:

"Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael. Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened."

Lucas and McGee divorced, and McGee killed himself. That happens in heterosexual marriages as well - I know a couple where it did happen. The implication that this, and Gately's death, were a result of the fact that they were in gay marriages is staggeringly offensive.

Voltaire was attributed the remark "I do not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to express it." It is a noble sentiment, and one I agree with. However, there is a difference between expressing an opinion, however controversial, and spreading malicious gossip. Moir's article is packed with inaccuracies, and opinion presented as fact. Even if you agree with the basic sentiment, it is a poor excuse for journalism.

Wednesday 14 October 2009

Film Review: Up

Pixar have done it again. To a certain extent, this isn't surprising; I've seen all the Pixar films, bar 'Cars', and they've never made a bad film. Even their off days (to my mind, 'A Bug's Life' and 'Monsters Inc.') are better than most of the stuff Hollywood churns out. Many people seem to feel roughly the same - Pixar are collective geniuses, and just get better with with each film they make.

However, I have to admit that I didn't feel as enthused about 'Up' as I had about, say, 'WALL:E' (and having seen the trailer, I'm already excited about 'Toy Story 3'!). This is probably largely to do with not having seen any trailers for it, but I love Pixar, and I'd normally seek out the trailers if I wasn't exposed to them anyway. 'Up' didn't inspire me to do that. I think it's something to do with the concept. It's easily the wackiest one in the Pixar ouvre, with the possible exception of 'Ratatouille'. Yes, they've had crazy superhero films, films about talking cars, an ant colony, and a largely wordless film about the relationship between two robots - but those all made sense within the universe of the film. 'Up' is ostensibly set in the 'real' world, but features a 78 year old man pulling a house around on his back with his garden hose, on a quest to get to the jungle. In addition, the two main characters are a grumpy old man and a kid, who slowly develop a (grand)father/son relationship. It's a tad formulaic.

Formulaic but wonderful. The first twenty minutes or so are some of the finest Pixar have done, a lovingly done montage sequence showing Carl (our hero) meeting the love of his life, Ellie, and their relationship through marriage, getting their dream house, infertility/miscarriage [it is all silent, and thus unclear what is happening at this point] and, eventually, Ellie's death. It's a kids cartoon... With a twenty minute montage about life, love and death, that didn't quite reduce me to tears, but definitely left a lump in my throat.

The montage is probably the high point of the film, although not necessarily the most memorable (that honour goes to the dogs. I'm saying nothing else...) From this point, 'Up' takes a more fantastical approach, with Carl floating his house away on hundreds of helium balloons. He wishes to fulfil Ellie's lifelong dream of moving to Paradise Falls, a jungle - well, paradise. Unfortunately, a young boy named Russell, desperate to get his 'Assisting the Elderly' scout badge, has stowed away on the porch, and they're a long way from home... The rest of the film takes in a colourful exotic bird (the Roadrunner on acid), the aforementioned dogs, zeppelins, and a character study of the grieving process, mixed in with a brief meditation on the relationship between children and their fathers.

This half of the film is easily the funniest, there not being much scope for jokes in the aforementioned silent montage (although make no mistake, you will laugh at it). However, it is also the weakest half - although I say that on the same basis as I label 'Monsters Inc' a weaker Pixar offering; it's still far, far better than many other films. But it doesn't have the same emotional impact, or storytelling quality, as the scenes leading up to Ellie's death. At the risk of sounding pretentious, it becomes a bit safer, replacing the daring scenes with a rather traditional story arc, and relying on slapstick and funny voices for much of the humour. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Like I said, it's Pixar. The humour might be traditional, but I was laughing loudly throughout, and that's all that really matters. The tale might be simple, but it is well written, acted and told, so who cares? There's no point in having a clever plot if you can't tell it right, and that's Pixar's main quality. They may get lauded for audacious stories and the quality of their animation, but they tell stories that pack an emotional punch, and they do it well. The superb animation and inventive worlds are just icing on the cake.

I feel like I've been a bit down on 'Up' (sorry...), but it really is a wonderful film. But if I commented on all the good stuff, then I'd spoil the film for you. And never actually finish writing the review, of course. I have the same problem with Discworld books. There are only so many ways that you can say it's a wonderful book. It's easier and quicker to say what you don't like. And when all you can really say negatively is that 'Up' isn't quite as ambitious as it could have been, I think that's something for Pixar to be proud of. Ultimately, I laughed so hard it hurt at a lot of it, and in moments I was almost crying.

Five stars, pure and simple. One of the best films of the year.

Friday 9 October 2009

Batman 3 (does this qualify as a trend yet?)

Largely inspired by 'Batman: Arkham Asylum' (see previous post), and this article on TotalFilm.com (http://www.totalfilm.com/features/why-christopher-nolan-must-recast-batman), I'm offering my thoughts on potential ideas for the film. Yes, I know, it was all done after the release of The Dark Knight, so I'm probably retreading ground that has been crushed under foot already, but hey, the internet can never have too many fanboys geeking out, can it?

I disagree with the article I linked to, but I'll take part in the game: who would be a good replacement for Christian Bale? I'd personally shoot for Matt Damon. The Bourne films have shown that he's got the action man credentials for the role, although I'm not sure how well he'd play the part of Bruce Wayne. He's been in the Ocean films, playing, if I recall correctly, a fairly similar kind of character, but I could well be wrong on that score. You could of course go the Superman Returns route, and get a total unknown, but I can't see that happening... Of course, this part of the debate is largely moot, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

My real basis for this blog is a potential villain. Obviously, they aren't going to recast the Joker anytime soon; it's too soon after Heath Ledger's death, and his take on the character still too fresh. They can't do Two-Face, because he's dead. If they follow comic continuity, they could bring Ra's al Ghul back, but Lazarus Pits probably wouldn't fit with the more realistic tone of the film.

So, assuming they go for a main villain, rather than one of the more obscure ones, who to have? They could bring Scarecrow back - his quick cameo in The Dark Knight suggests an affection for the character, and he is a potent villain, but is he enough to carry the film by himself? There certainly isn't the scope for massive action scenes with him. What about other villains from the comics?
The Penguin? He is essentially a mob boss with a bird fixation, but that's hardly a good fit for the tone of the films so far. Take away the birds, and you've just got a mob boss, and there are plenty of those in the films anyway.
The Riddler? Possible - he's been played as a private detective obsessed with Batman before, so that could work here. But the essential quirkiness of the character might place him too close to the Joker.
Catwoman seems obvious, but as a thief, is not really enough of a villain to carry the film on her own. She would be a good secondary villain though, as well as a replacement for Rachel as love interest.
Bane? He's probably done the most physical damge to Batman, breaking his back - but could they introduce him, have him cause chaos, then have Batman recover in time to beat him, in a decent running time? He is also, essentially, a super strong brawler. His original tactic was to destroy half of Arkham Asylum to let other supervillains free, but this would, again, be problematic in a film.
The Mad Hatter wouldn't fit with the tone of the film universe, unless they played up the paedophilic overtones that some writers have incorporated - but again, that's not really a Batman film villain. There isn't much of a threat with that, creepy and wrong though it is.
Clayface? Well, he can be lumped in with Killer Croc, Man-Bat, Mr Freeze and the Ventroloquist as not fitting the tone of the movies. They would never use him. Harley Quinn can also be thrown into this group, with the added disadvantage that she is rarely seen without the Joker.
Poison Ivy could be done, if they used the template from the animated series: an eco-terrorist who uses plants to make poisons, rather than a woman who is half plant. I actually think there's a lot of potential here, given her gift for making airborne toxins.
And that's all of the big names, although the central villain list on wikipedia gives several more entries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Batman_enemies) Many of them simply wouldn't fit the tone of the films though - one of the big problems with Christopher Nolan's films is that they try to make Batman as realistic as possible. It's worked so far, but we're talking about a character who dresses like a bat, and his villains reflect that.

However, I think there are a few possibilites. The first is Mr Zsasz, an exceptionally skilled, knife-wielding serial killer. While he might not be enough to prop up the film by himself, I think there's a lot of milage in such a character - he's certainly a psychopath, dangerous, and enough of a physical threat to supply good action scenes.
Black Mask is another possibility - another mob boss, but hideously burned, and much more sociopathic than the gangsters we've seen so far.
Firefly could work, although potentially under a different name. A pyromaniac, armed with a flamethrower, would be a good brawn to another criminals brain.
But my main choice from the second tier? Thomas Elliott, aka Hush. The man who came very close to breaking Batman, who beat the Joker to a pulp, and who cut out Catwoman's heart, before surgically altering himself to look like Bruce Wayne. He may be a little complex for one film to portray successfully, but I think they could pull it off well.

What do you think? Am I right? Am I wrong? Am I in fact insane?

Review: Batman: Arkham Asylum

Not just another night on the job for the Caped Crusader, as he takes on an island full of thugs and psychos - and that's before he gets to the Joker...

As I slipped the disc into my xbox, I have to confess, I was feeling both excited and nervous. Batman has a chequered history with videogames, as do most superheros. I'm reliably informed that there were enjoyable games back in the days of the SNES, but I was about two years old then, so not really up to the job of playing them. In recent years, we've had LEGO Batman, which was fun but hardly an immersive experience.

Can Arkham Asylum do any better? Well, it has good grounding: the script is by Paul Dini, one of the writers from the excellent animated series, and writer of some of the best Batman comics of the last few years, in my opinion. In addition, voice work was provided by some of the cast members from said animated series, specifically Kevin Conroy as Batman and Mark Hamill as the Joker. However, this is not based on the cartoon; while the game isn't set within any specific Batman continuity, it could easily be slotted into the universe of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. The Joker here is a psychopath, not the Clown Prince of Crime. I should also point out that Mark Hamill is one of the best parts of the game, as he takes over the asylum's radio system, broadcasting throughout the game to you and his troops - his 'encouraging' asides are hilarious, yet also chilling, capturing the essence of the character perfectly.

We get off to an atmospheric start that owes much to Half-Life - controlling Batman as he escorts the Joker (strapped to a trolley, Hannibal Lector style) through the halls of Arkham Asylum, complete with sinister commentary from Joker. However, it isn't long before all hell breaks lose...

The first thing to say? The game looks fantastic. Minor characters such as the goons that you spend most of the game beating senseless look largely the same, with maybe five different character models, but each major character is brought chillingly to life. Batman is superbly realised, right down to the rivets on his armour, and the stubble that forms on his chin the further into the game you get - even more impressive when you take into account that you spent most of the game looking at his back; the detail is hardly necessary. Similarly, we don't *need* to see his costume getting torn, or his cape shredded, but it's an impressive level of detail, and it is applied to the game as a whole. The various locations of the asylum all look real, and very, very grimy. Arkham would be closed down, were it a real hospital, but it makes a fantastic game world - especially when you get outside, and aren't restricted to running around corridors. One of the best moments in the game, for me, was grappelling up a clock tower, before swooping off the top and gliding hundreds of yards across the island. It looked magnificent. There are a few odd stylistic choices - many of the main rooms in the game have gargoyles in, which is odd even for a lunatic asylum, but they are a useful game device (of which more later), so I'll give that a pass.

The next aspect to comment on is the combat, as not only does it make up a large portion of the game, but it is the first 'proper' aspect of the game that you will play. At first, it seems simple. You have three buttons: attack, counter, and stun (sweep with your cape). To succeed in combat, you simply have to work your way through the attackers with combinations of these buttons. However, this simplicity is deceptive. Combat earns you experience, and you earn more experience with more varied combat. For instance, you could punch one guy, run away, hit another, run away, rinse and repeat. Or, you could focus several attacks on one guy until his friend runs up behind you to hit you over the head with a lead pipe. You could then hit the counter button, causing Batman to rip the pipe from the thug's hands, smack the thug with it, before cracking his head down into the ground, before seamlessly whirling back to kick the other thug in the face for a finisher. Later in the game, you can upgrade gadgets, so that you can use Batarangs in combos, and your grapple gun to yank people towards you. At times like this, you really feel like the Dark Knight, and a real force to be reckoned with.
That sensation is only heightened in the 'Predator' rooms. That's right, the combat system is varied! You get traditional combat, and you get stealth play. These rooms play like Sam Fisher or Solid Snake in dress up and with cooler toys. You pop into a room, and find that there are (generally) six or so thugs, all heavily armed. Because this is a 'realistic' take on Batman - or as close as you can get - there is no way you can take them on face to face. You have to hide in the shadows... So, to take an example: swoop up onto a gargoyle, waiting for a patrolling goon to wander past. Dangle from the gargoyle, and yank him up to the roof, before dropping him away, suspended from the gargoyle by his feet. While his comrades are investigating his screams of panic, spray explosive gel on a wall. When they return to their patrols - now nervous, and looking into the shadows - wait for one to walk past before blowing the wall down on top of him. As they run to the latest disturbance, swoop down from another gargoyle, feet first into someones neck, before slamming his face into the ground. Once again, you really feel like Batman, and not just a generic video game character. There's an extra twist to this system from the 'Detective Vision', which allows you to moniter peoples heart rates. There's a certain sadistic pleasure to be had from watching your foes go from calm, to nervous, to terrifed - eventually, instead of shooting you on sight, they will drop their weapons and cower away from you!

However, while it does add something to the 'Predator' rooms, detective vision is probably the worst part of the game. It baths everything in x-ray vision, allowing you to see thugs through walls, track fingerprints and traces of cigarette smoke through the level, and generally give you a vital edge. But basically, it's a way to give you signposts to your next objective. It isn't quite as blatent as putting an arrow at the top of the screen (Bioshock, I'm looking at you), but you switch to detective vision, look for a sign post, and follow the trail. It works, within the game's world, and it's certainly the sort of thing Batman might conceivably have, but... It just feels a bit cheap, somehow. On a similar note, many of the boss fights are essentially the same, with the final fight being a little bit of an anticlimax.

And, essentially, that's the core of the game. Beat people up/stealthily take them down, interspersed with finding the right thing to follow, and then heading to your next objectives. It is only rarely that the game deviates from this formula, and to say more about those would be to reveal spoilers. Rest assured though, that the three appearances by one of Batman's iconic foes are some of the most memorable parts of the game. Replay value is added through the wealth of collectibles to be found - the Riddler starts contacting you, leaving you riddles and secrets to find, and some of them are inspired. However, once you've found everything, there isn't an overwhelming urge to dive straight back into the main game.

Where the game truly succeeds though is the note-perfect recreation of the Batman universe. This isn't an action/adventure game with Batman trappings; this is a Batman simulator.

8/10: Some minor flaws and a potential lack of replay value stop this being a perfect game, but this is an essential purchase for any Batman fan. Highly recommended.

Monday 5 October 2009

Blog Primus.

It's probably horrible Latin, but c'est la vie. You all know what I mean.

Anyway, hello there! This will be my third attempt at a blog; my first is still technically running, but that's a more specific journal, and I rarely use it. My second started well, but then after three days, I logged myself out of Google, and promptly found myself unable to get back in... I think I must have duplicated a mistake in the password when I set it up, because I know which password I used, it just won't work. Ah well. There wasn't anything in there that I can't duplicate (except one topical post, which is horribly outdated now anyway, so who cares?)

Hopefully, there will be a large selection of things to put up on here. I write book and film reviews periodically, so those will go up here (I have a selection I may put up to kick things off). I write, so I may put highlights up, and I'll probably post a few rants about things - I'd like to pretend that the subjects will be important and cultured, but realistically they're more likely to be comments on Doctor Who, or similar. I promise though, this will not turn into an angst filled online diary. If you read this, and you feel that I'm heading in that direction, please, please, slap me round the head. Thank you.

Here's to a wonderful blog!