Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Crudblud

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 37  Next >
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Cyberpunk 2077 E3
« on: June 23, 2020, 09:33:40 AM »
That's some nice thinking there buddy.

Apologies, I forgot about generic fantasy games that span multiple genres, as well as PUBG and its clones...

Unironically, though, can you suggest some actual decent PC titles? I generally respect your opinion and all I have done with this overpowered PC I purchased is play a broken, unfinished (never-to-be finished) spaceshit simulator, the 69th iteration of D O O M, and a 16-bit clone meme game.

Since Cybermeme 2069 isn't ever going to be released we may as well do something useful with this thread.

It's true that PC has traditionally lent itself to FPS, online games, strategy games, RPGs etc., and a lot of the games that are developed first for PC now do end up being ported to consoles, but it's worth noting that a great many games will run far better on PC (especially if you have a meme machine) than on any console currently available. So apart from console exclusives and bad ports of console originals (including multi-platform releases where PC was an afterthought like newer Elder Scrolls/Fallout titles, although in the case of those games you can mod them to make them slightly less garbage), most of the time you're getting a better deal playing on PC, especially since it's so easy to set up a controller now.

The big strength of PC as a platform today, and also one of its weaknesses, is ease of access for small independent developers. It means that you get a lot of lazy clones and meme 8-bit/16-bit style games, true, although quite a few of the latter are good if you can look past the retro art style, which has become cliché. Here are some good games that are either PC exclusives or were developed for PC first, came out in the last ten years, and don't necessarily conform to what you'd expect from a PC title:
  • Baba Is You is a pixel art logic operator puzzle game in which you screw with every aspect of the level to get the solution. Using the rabbit Baba, you push words around to affect the properties of world objects, allowing you to, for example, walk through walls, walk on lava, or even change the win condition.
  • Less retro styled but on a similar-ish theme, Hack 'n' Slash is a 2D Zelda type game that lets you edit scripts on objects (including enemies) to change their properties/behaviours and basically break the game however you want, while also potentially making it impossible to beat.
  • Lastly on the hacking theme, Hacknet is a text-based game which may scratch your cyberpunk itch, at least for style. The writing is a little memey for my taste, but if you want to hack into some servers and steal some data it's a good time.
  • Superhot is a tactical FPS in which time passes only when you move. Each level is pretty short and intense and very very easy to screw up.
  • Hotline Miami is a top-down shooter with great presentation and level design based around working out the optimal path through each stage.
  • Subnautica is a first person survival game. I don't normally enjoy survival mechanics, but this game has a beautiful ocean world to explore and great atmosphere, and looking for crafting materials and stuff feels more like an adventure than a chore.
  • Hollow Knight is a metroidvania style game which takes some inspiration from Dark Souls with its death mechanics. For the record I only played a couple of hours of this one, but it has a nice art style and atmosphere, and the movement/combat feels good.
None of those are going to push your PC, so if you're looking for master race games that will justify the amount of money you spent unfortunately it's either Scam Shitizen or AAA multi-platform releases like Control—you should also definitely get Sekiro btw. Because I am poor I haven't played a whole lot of new stuff, so I can't say what's good that came out this year, but PC also has a great library of older games, many of which have been updated for compatibility with newer versions of Windows. If you've never played oldschool Command & Conquer, the original Fallout games, or Diablo II, to name just a few, they're all worth checking out.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: June 22, 2020, 09:14:25 PM »
Joel Schumacher has died at the age of 80 following a long battle with cancer. He already apologised for (or rather quasi-disowned) his Batman movies, pretty much, so I won't feel bad for shit-talking Batman & Robin in my upcoming review, which I'm pretty much guaranteed to do, but the coincidence struck me. Luckily(?) I'm not superstitious.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Cyberpunk 2077 E3
« on: June 22, 2020, 07:31:59 AM »
any genre you can think of

MMOs and FPS games

That's some nice thinking there buddy.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Cyberpunk 2077 E3
« on: June 21, 2020, 08:39:10 AM »
Apparently its nothing to do with not being ready, but more to do with launching at the same time as next gen consoles like the PS5. Apparently console peasants wouldn't be able to bear it if the PC master race got a title 6 months earlier than them. Meanwhile PC gamers had to wait forever for red dead.

You know the top 5 PS4 games blow anything PC has out of the water, right? I mean, yeah it is great you can play at 4K/144Hz if you spend enough money, but who gives a shit if the games are junk?

PC has an enduring library of great games spanning any genre you can think of over literal decades, and that's more true than ever these days thanks to industry efforts to bring older titles into compatibility with newer operating systems through services like GOG. PS4 has Bloodborne (of which I am admittedly gelatinous, but apparently it can't even run at 60fps thanks to that weak PS4 hardware lmao) and a bunch of nice looking but mediocre story games that were made by people who wish they were making movies in Hollywood instead.

All well-made cross-platform releases run better on PC, and even if you don't have a great rig you can tune the settings to suit your spec perfectly. PC also doesn't leave you at the mercy of suboptimal hardware, you can upgrade any part at any time to improve your gaming experience, whereas consoles leave you waiting for at least seven years between generations, and the best they can offer in terms of intragenerational upgrades is swappable storage, or worse, new versions of the console you already bought sold to you again at full price.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: June 05, 2020, 07:05:12 AM »
And this is incredibly minor, but the acting of the guy playing the security guard at the start is so, so bad. "OH NO, IT'S BOILING ACID!" It's so weirdly amateurish, like he's a kid in a school play trying to make sure his parents notice him. I was surprised to discover when I looked him up that he's a veteran actor and way older than he looks. Must have been really weird direction.

This is one of many little details that I wanted to talk about but couldn't find a way to fit them into the review. There's also the part where the vault being put back in place is just the shot of it being taken out played backwards, which both comes off incredibly cheap but also highlights how confused the whole thing is. In an Adam West context that would have read as tongue-in-cheek, but here, because the film doesn't establish that (or any) kind of identity, it just looks like shit. Sure, some scenes do have a similar tone, but there's no consistency so all you have are a bunch of Batman-themed jigsaw pieces that don't fit together.

Also, Commissioner Gordon was something I forgot about until after I published the review, but yes, he is there, unfortunately for him.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: May 31, 2020, 12:39:11 PM »
The Vessel (dir. Julio Quintana)

Religious (or is it?) drama about an island whose inhabitants live in perpetual mourning for the children who were swept away into the ocean when a wave hit the local school. The story picks up when Leo, whose brother was lost in the tragedy, awakens after drowning during a drunken farewell to his best friend, who does not survive. Leo is compelled for some reason to build the titular vessel out of old tables, chairs, and other wooden debris left behind at the ruined school. The island's priest, at first confused by it, sees the vessel as a symbol of hope and renewal, and helps Leo to complete his project, but the superstitious locals are disturbed by the thought that Leo may be a messenger from God, and a violent energy begins to grow among them.

Pretty much every scene is littered with arresting images, and in that sense it is a successful film, but its wonky script wants on the one hand to be naturalistic while on the other being resplendent with grandiose profundity, so you end up with a pretend everyday speech that feels off. Its unwillingness to embrace a more purposefully artificial style of dialogue in the post-Shakespearian vein of (for example) Herman Melville seems to me to keep it from ever really reaching the heights that it achieves in its visuals. This is no more apparent than whenever the priest, played by Martin Sheen, is on screen. Sheen, who can deliver reverberant thunder in his performances, has a commanding presence befitting his central role among the islanders, but the script subdues him, and when he does get raw it rings untrue because the words sit so ungainly on his tongue.

So, a mixed bag. At under 90 minutes and with visual beauty to spare, it's worth a watch, but I can't ignore that the characters and their words felt largely hollow and weightless, no match for the images they inhabit. Terence Malick, whose films I tend to feel similarly towards, lent his name to the film as executive producer, and I think that just about sums it up.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: May 30, 2020, 07:08:47 AM »
Wildlife (dir. Paul Dano)

Quietly earthbound and uncomfortable drama set in 1960 in Montana. A young boy's family life disintegrates as his father, out of work, prideful and desperate, decides to leave home and join his fellow unemployed in fighting forest fires for a pittance. While Carey Mulligan and Jake Gyllenhaal both turn in fine work as a married couple set to split on diverging paths, Ed Oxenbould's understated performance as fourteen year old Joe (the actor himself was around sixteen at the time of filming) is what holds the film together, its quiet innocence gradually poisoned by tensions between the adults in his life. Dano's direction is a confident and consistent blending of naturalistic photography with cinematic artifice, but may yet lack identity, it is after all his first feature behind the camera—what is clear is that he has learned much from working with Paul Thomas Anderson. Nonetheless, this quiet—I keep using that word, I assure you with good reason—and unflashy debut is a convincing and promising piece of filmmaking.

Conspiracy theories are folk tales of the information age, offering the reassurance that things are connected and that someone is in control, as well as a sense of purpose and the warmth of community (whatever form it may take) to disaffected and frightened people in a detached, atomised, Godless global society. It doesn't matter whether there actually is a plot to test biological agents on the populace using aircraft, to flood the Western nations with dark-skinned foreigners who will outbreed and replace the white majority, or even to hide the shape of our planet, the belief that such plots exist offers comfort through the idea that the world is a controlled and personally fathomable system rather than an ultimately purposeless layering of en masse self-interested decision making and incompetence atop more or less random events. In effect they are a bastion against nihilism for people who have precious little else.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: May 23, 2020, 04:52:23 PM »
I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore (dir. Macon Blair)

It's not bad, but it reads like a checklist of lighter David Lynch and Coen brothers tropes mashed together without the respective authorial voices that make them work. Or rather, Macon Blair doesn't have the maturity as a filmmaker to channel the stuff he likes into a genuine expression of his own authorial voice. The film is saved somewhat by the central character, Ruth, being quite ordinary and relatable. They did a good job of building a down to earth character to centre the film around, but the pulpy aspects of the film are played too light to really feel like they impact on her world. Christian and his gang of creeps feel throwaway given how central they are to the story. It's not that they need to be deep characters to be threatening villains, but they are all wardrobe and not much else.

An okay film with some good performances of barebones material.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Cazazza Dan
« on: May 23, 2020, 09:15:28 AM »

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Cazazza Dan
« on: May 22, 2020, 03:48:12 PM »
I am still here, and, verily, you may still be here also, brothers and sisters. For, yea, the titular fool hath composed once more a substantial work of musical (the next word is questionable) magnificence.

And indeed, if it interest thee, there be an mp3 and a FLAC, both replete with liner notes featuring an essay one might think a mite superfluous, yet such is the presumptuousness of the fool's generosity.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion?
« on: February 18, 2020, 09:07:18 AM »
Presumably there are more important things a presidential candidate can offer than the truth about the shape of our planet.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: February 16, 2020, 01:18:01 PM »
I'm a little more hopeful because of the lengthy negotiations between Reeves and WB, so we know that this won't be a rushed director-for-hire job. And Reeves has been doing pretty well for himself lately.
Reeves strikes me as a middle-of-the-road sort of efficient but mediocre filmmaker, but maybe that's what DC needs after Snyder's abyssal onanism. Or maybe I'm wrong and he's spent all this time negotiating to make sure that he really gets to make this movie his own, as opposed to the by the numbers blockbuster stuff he normally does. I will say the casting seems quite good, I'm especially intrigued by the idea of Paul Dano playing a villain.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bernie 2020
« on: February 16, 2020, 07:36:00 AM »
Were I eligible to vote I would unironically support Bernie now that my boy Yang is out.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: February 15, 2020, 12:49:54 PM »
why is there another batman movie? does it really need to be rebooted so soon?
I think they want to make people forget about the Snyder Batman stuff as soon as possible. They're probably going to end up with a sort of Batman Forever situation where they're so desperate to do that that they forget how to actually make a movie.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)
« on: January 22, 2020, 07:56:47 AM »
Sekiro is brutal, but you've inspired me to give it another shot. Despite being superficially a Soulslike, you don't have nearly the same number of options to building a character and fighting that you would in those games. You really have to master the system of split-second parries and counterattacks. You can't level yourself up, you can't switch out your equipment, you can only git gud.

I mean, coming to this one in the middle of my second playthrough of Dark Souls, it's a very different kind of challenge. I've been playing a relatively "naked" dex build for that playthrough, not once levelling vitality, and pretty much only putting points into endurance and dexterity, but in Sekiro I already feel way more exposed even in the Ashina Outskirts area. Also the deflection mechanic is way harder than parrying ever was.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)
« on: January 21, 2020, 09:25:08 PM »
Well, today I bought Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice on Steam and I am already hooked. Currently getting my arse kicked repeatedly by the boss past the third bonfire (sorry, old habits die twice hard) but it's the kind of Souls-y arse kicking that encourages you to keep on coming back for more. There's even a resurrection mechanic so you can just stand back up and get your arse kicked again immediately instead of running back from the bonfire. It's a winner!

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)
« on: January 14, 2020, 08:13:34 AM »
Some disorganised thoughts on Darksiders: Warmastered Edition.

Competent but incredibly boring mindless grindfest in which various voice actors attempt to out-gruff each other in a post-apocalyptic setting. Maybe I'm misremembering the state of gaming in the good old days of 2010 but this is just a bunch of nice-looking but empty areas stuffed in which you fight the same five enemies over and over and clear occasional barrages of arena time trials and I'm kind of surprised it got a sequel, let alone being revived more recently with a third instalment. Mark Hamill voices your Navi-type character, which I guess is neat, but his script is just kind of "I'm sassy and I have a slightly dark sense of humour". I only played a couple of hours so I don't know if the game somehow opens up later, but those two hours were quite a snore/chore to get through.

Also, at least Darksiders II: Deathinitive Edition makes use of a pun that kind of works, even if it is terrible.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: January 04, 2020, 09:04:13 AM »
The Death of Stalin (dir. Armando Iannucci)

Hilarious yet unflinchingly bleak farce depicting a loosely historically accurate version of the internecine struggles at the very top of the Soviet Union following Stalin's death. While the film is obviously set in Russia and the characters are all Russian, the cast is mostly British and American, and the actors all use their regular (or close to regular) voices, so you get for example Nikita Khrushchev with a Brooklyn accent courtesy of Steve Buscemi. While the film features too many excellent performances both large and small to list without succumbing to fatigue, Simon Russell Beale absolutely fucking kills it in his role as Lavrentiy Beria, one of the most shockingly vile figures of the Stalin era. Really just a brilliant film from start to finish.

Also, shout out to the original music by Chris Willis, who does a very good job of capturing the feel of Soviet era classical music, particularly Shostakovich, whose music has always sounded to me like a soundtrack in need of a movie.

You Were Never Really Here (dir. Lynne Ramsay)

Sort of a psychological anti-thriller in which Joaquin Phoenix plays a hired killer contracted to rescue a politician's daughter from an underground sex trafficking ring. It's very atmospheric and well paced, and the subtly rich portrayal of the central character is compelling. The child sex abuse theme might be difficult for some viewers to stomach, but the strong central performance and uncompromising direction makes the film very much worth a watch.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: January 01, 2020, 02:35:09 PM »
Batman Forever (dir. Joel Schumacher)

Let's begin by being as clear as possible. This film sucks. It really sucks. I'm aware that people might think Batman & Robin a more memorably bad film, and it probably is, since I must admit that, in the time between my father taking me to see it in the cinema and the viewing I undertook for this review, I had pretty much forgotten everything about Forever except for one or two things, but make no mistake: this is a diabolically confused mess of no small magnitude. Initially it may have shown some promise, as Joel Schumacher wanted it to be an adaptation of Frank Miller's much lauded Batman: Year One, one of the comics of the late 1980s that defined the modern idea of Batman, but the project was gradually transformed into something that was most decidedly not that. Batman Forever is sometimes described as a throwback to the Batmania of the 1960s, but in making that comparison people seem to forget that while that version of Batman was very silly, it knew what it was doing and carried itself with a warmth and affability that made it very fun to watch. What we have here is a charmless, directionless, oddly cold and synthetic vision of a Batman without purpose.
So, what happened? How the hell should I know. Tim Burton and Michael Keaton were originally attached for a third and probably final entry in their Batman series, with the working title “Batman Continues”, and then they ceased to be so. It seems that from the start Warner Bros. execs were actively pushing Burton to go lighter in response to the (in my view wrongly) perceived “darkness” of Batman Returns, so it's likely that at least some of the nigh unutterable stupidity that goes on in the finished product was there from near the beginning of its production. At the very least we know the character of Chase Meridian was there in the early stages, since Burton had already cast Rene Russo in the role. So while Joel Schumacher often gets the blame for this movie and its sequel, it seems that here at least he was simply the chump they brought on board to clean up whatever mess had been left behind in the wake of Burton's departure, and was later left fumbling even more blindly as Keaton followed suit and walked away. Of course, we know Burton later signed back on with the project as producer, since his name is pretty much the first thing you see in the opening credits, and while the question “why?” might be intriguing, I'll leave that where it is in favour of simply discussing the mess that is the film itself rather than the mess surrounding it.
With a film as confused and scrappy as Batman Forever, it's hard to know exactly where to begin. Normally a plot synopsis would suffice, but the plot itself may be the least remarkable thing about the film, not just because the rest of it is so misguided on pretty much every level, but also because it barely even registers as a story told. The stakes are clear-ish, but none of them has any weight. We are told for example that Riddler's machine will suck all the intelligence out of Gotham's citizens and pump it straight into his brain, yet at no point does this ever actually seem to happen. I mean, we see the machine working, allegedly, yet the Riddler's level of intelligence never seems to rise above that of a small child thrown into a bathtub full of sugar at any point during the film. It's easy enough to joke that the writers weren't smart enough to write the Riddler as a super genius, especially since, as we shall see, they were hardly capable of writing the Riddler at all, but when you realise that they weren't even able to write an accurate if fairly shallow elaboration on the phrase “idiot box”, that's when you start to consider just how much of this particular iceberg's mass is hidden below the water line.
While the film pays a little lip service to its villains' defining traits every now and then, neither of Batman's foes really maintains more than a passing resemblance to his namesake from the source material; Two-Face is basically “Joker with a Coin”, while Riddler is “Jim Carrey Funny Moments 10 Hour Compilation SO RANDOM!!! xD”. So when the two get together you're essentially left with a pair of failed Joker auditions sandwiched together into a sort of villainous near non-entity, a duo of (in the sincerest mode of charity) embryonic personalities crushed under the weight of conflicting and unrealistic expectations: don't recall Burton, but also play bigger than Nicholson. For Batman Returns, both Danny DeVito and Michelle Pfeiffer understood well enough that their characters could not simply be sartorially differentiated retreads of Nicholson's Joker, that to step out from under his shadow they would have to find their own voices, their own physicalities. Whatever you think of them, they cannot reasonably be accused of copying their predecessor, and I suppose in their results neither Tommy Lee Jones nor Jim Carrey could be accused of resembling Nicholson's Joker either, but it is clear enough to me from what they seem to intend to be doing on screen that they were being pushed in that direction. Indeed, I get the feeling that the goal of this film from the studio's perspective was to spiritually retcon Batman Returns.

Perhaps the worst thing about these rather horrible portrayals is that it's very difficult to tell who is at fault, since at least in the case of Jones I want someone else to blame. Carrey I could probably leave to the wolves, but as we see from later performances in his career, much as with Robin Williams, a good director can rein him in and channel his naturally extreme energy in the service of pathos, which on some level is a state to which most Batman villains can aspire. So there at least we might blame screenplay or direction, although it is possible that Carrey, whose star was arcing very high in the Hollywood sky at that time, was granted executive carte blanche to “Carrify” his performance as much as he liked. One thing is certain: something went very, very wrong. Whether it is the character's totally unbelievable claim to being a genius scientist, his terrible one liners which seem to come out of some deep recess of juvenile tastelessness, so deep that I can hardly believe real grown adults actually came up with them, or his mediocre attempts at being anything remotely resembling a threat to anyone whatsoever, the Riddler is simply bad in this film. Sure, he's supposed to be insufferable, his whole shtick by and large is that he envies Batman's intellect and wants to outdo him by the most spectacular means possible, in one of the comics he even goes to extremes in an attempt to drive Batman insane, but the insufferability of Carrey's Riddler seems to be almost entirely directed at the audience, so many of his cringe-worthy verbal eruptions are made when no one else is around that it is hard to believe I am not being personally targeted when he screams “joygasm!!!” after blowing up the batmobile.
With Jones, you might be tempted to exclaim “who the fuck knows”. It may be that an actor used to playing fairly down to earth dramatic roles might struggle to walk a mile in the larger than life shoes of a comic book villain, but really his delivery matches the garbled lines he has to work with, so in that sense at least he did a good job. Indeed, short of walking off the set while telling the writers to shove their dialogue up their arses in whatever form should prove least comfortable, Jones could probably not have done any better. Two-Face is a complicated character, on the one hand he is still Harvey Dent, a former District Attorney, much closer to the kinds of roles Jones had usually played up to this point; on the other he has succumbed to a sort of scarring of the mind equal to the scarring of his face, such that the ideal of blind justice is taken to extremes with the aid of a defaced coin, pure chance, a fifty-fifty split. The character is then dramatically compelling fare for a film, a dark mirror of Batman's own dual nature to match Returns' Catwoman, yet here he is, as I said before, treated as “Joker with a Coin”. Jones is not really given the basis of Harvey Dent to expand from, and any sense of Two-Face's actual character is subsumed into a shambolic medley of cackles, mumbles, and circus ringmaster pomp, yet the gravest crime committed is not that he barely resembles himself, but that for all his gun-waving, coin-flipping antics he is about as threatening, about as compelling, and about as tragic as a slightly misshapen Werther's Original.
Now might be the time to mention that this film, and indeed its sequel, are intended as continuations of the Burton films. The only real on-screen confirmation of this is the presence of Michael Gough as Alfred Pennyworth, the stalwart and stately butler of Wayne Manor. Of course, he too has not survived the transition from Burtmania to whatever the hell this is. He is reduced to playing a doddering old man who is easily fooled by the buffoonery of fake trick or treaters that couldn't have been less convincing even if they had been dressed up as the titular villains from Killer Klownz from Outer Space. He is at his best in his few scenes with Dick Grayson, here played by Chris O'Donnell, forming perhaps the only relationship in the film that comes close to resembling genuine human interaction. O'Donnell is probably the most likeable major screen presence in the film, and while his Robin is more akin to the wayward Jason Todd than your typical Dick Grayson, he doesn't do too badly with the fairly shoddy material he has to work with. But the inclusion of Robin at the halfway point of the film immediately comes across as an unnecessary addition to a stage that is already overcrowded, albeit by a bunch of cardboard cut-outs and other non-entities, and it is through this perpetual narrative greed that the film's confused identity is matched by its confused focus. There's a reason Two-Face essentially retreats behind Riddler later on in the film, this being that the writers, or perhaps meddlers from the darker recesses of the studio system, began to realise that the film was trying to contain too much stuff and basically jamming it in any which way it could, such that the audience is left trying to navigate a room where two thirds of the doorway are blocked by furniture and the floor itself is totally covered with stacked chairs, tables, and garishly upholstered sofas, none of which can be sat upon or at with any comfort. Forever lacks any of the sense of proportion, balance, tonal continuity, or purposeful storytelling that grounded and propelled the action of its predecessors.

Possibly the most notable difference when comparing this film to the previous two is the near total absence of Gotham City itself. In the Burton films we are often treated to shots of its bustling streets, political and social events, alleyway robberies and so forth. Batman feels for all his high-tech gadgetry like a street level crime fighter; he has amassed his formidable arsenal essentially to save people who, just like his own parents, take a wrong turn on their way home from the theatre, to fight the rot that festers in the dark corners of the city, and to instil fear in the hearts of the cowardly and superstitious lot that lie in wait in the long shadows. Because we see almost nothing of Gotham except for some rather unappealing CG cityscapes devoid of so much as even Lowry-esque stick-figure crowds, Batman's crusade is made to feel like a vanity project, this sense not being helped by his ludicrously flashy vehicles and, yes, his overly sculpted suit, replete with injection moulded nipples and “dummy thicc” rear end. Bruce Wayne of course first donned the cowl for personal reasons, but Batman do what he do with a view to upholding values that actual human beings tend to hold as universal: justice, crime and punishment, rehabilitation, mercy. Here the entire world seems to exist for a handful of characters, anyone else who might happen to appear in frame is so much ephemeral, almost accidental decoration, you might even take them for ghosts from the previous films still haunting select interior spaces of a now largely abandoned Gotham. Along with the art design, this feeling would be surreal were it not so eminently forgettable.
Also notable for its absence, the brooding neo-Wagnerian score that Danny Elfman provided for the two Burton films. Elliot Goldenthal was brought in to try and unify through music the fecklessly assembled budget caterer's buffet of half-baked characters with some of that good ol' leitmotivic special sauce. Goldenthal sort of apes Elfman here and there, but his themes are not as memorable, and we are at no point given the impression of a Batman, a crusader who roams the night seeking justice, but rather being told “look, it's Batman, there he goes, being Batman”. It has the slimy wool-over-the-eyes quality of a carpetbagger. We can never really quite believe that what we're hearing is the soundtrack to Batman, and like the film itself the soundtrack reads like a knock-off competitor hastily rolled out to make a buck. Things do not get better when we look at the attempts to lend weight to the villains through scoring. Two-Face's music, which Goldenthal has rather bafflingly claimed was inspired by Prokofiev and Shostakovich, fails to ground Tommy Lee Jones's messy performance with thematic stability because it is itself a complete mess of noisy effects, only serving to heighten the incoherence of the portrayal. Meanwhile, the Riddler is mismatched with a theremin heavy throwback to old science fiction scores, attempting to play up the intended mad scientist character, but instead hammering home just how little Carrey's performance matches anything of that description.
But what of Batman himself? This is after all a Batman film. Well, sad to say, this iteration of the caped crusader, played by Val Kilmer, is neither equal to the task of succeeding Michael Keaton nor recalling the light-hearted straightman act of Adam West. I bring up West because, by all accounts, Forever is supposed to be the return of Batmania. As I said in my review of Batman Returns, Burton was already doing Batmania, especially in that film, but apparently cheesy rhymes about mistletoe and DJ scratching CDs are just too dark for kids. Pouty-lips Kilmer is not dark, but he is hardly light either, being at best a neutral earth tone, inoffensive at the side of his garish counterparts. It is only when you see him away from the obscuring presence of these paltry interlocutors that you realise he might as well be a potted plant, for that is basically the level of expressivity he manages to reach in any given scene. He's cracking a joke with Alfred, he's bashing down a door to try to save a life, he's in a bank vault that is suspended from a helicopter and inexplicably filling up with acid; his plain and immutable foliage of an expression is not so much a reassuring anchor of calm and stability as it is the face of a man who is trying not to show how bewildered he is by the fact that he is in Batman Forever. This makes the scene in which he turns to camera and smiles quite surprising, but probably not in the way the director intended. It is surprising not just because Kilmer's face has been in a single and completely different configuration the entire film up to that point, but because the change occurs over the non-person that is Chase Meridian.
Meridian, played by Nicole Kidman, is a woman what gets kidnapped, and that's basically the entirety of who she is. Meridian succeeds only in making me nostalgic for Vicki Vale, who was easily the weakest part of the 1989 Batman, but there are some interesting points to consider when comparing the two love interests. Vale is essentially a bystander who is rescued by Batman, and their relationship deepens as the Joker begins to take a perverse interest in her. Vale is a fairly typical damsel in distress, but there is a developmental line that is established and followed over the course of the film, and it begins with her resisting her colleague's fascination with the Batman myth. Meridian is the opposite, she is already possessed of a consuming obsession with Batman, and she thrusts herself into his path as often as possible. She makes herself the damsel in distress, but at no point in the film is this questioned, critiqued, or even so much as addressed in passing. Unlike the villains, I can't even criticise Kidman for turning in a bad performance, she has almost no character to portray, and the most consistently surprising thing about Meridian's relationship with Batman and Bruce Wayne is that he continues to fall harder and harder for what can at best be described as a cardboard cut-out of a woman. While it is a lazy criticism, the entire “why” of the romance subplot may be best explained as follows: because it's in the script.
So that's Batman Forever, two hours of people you're never given a reason to care about doing things that make no sense because Warner Bros. wanted a kid friendly Batman movie, or rather because they desperately didn't want another Tim Burton Batman movie. The film has the sense of having been guided so much by what it was to avoid, rather than by what it was to aim for, that it spends most of its duration in the violent throes of an identity crisis that is only resolved in the end by the realisation and acceptance that it in fact has no identity at all. Its synthetic, contrived narrative, character portrayals, and locations all combine into an offensively bland mush, and even the most refined of gourmands would be hard pressed to identify even one flavour in this broth spoiled not by too many cooks but by a disorganised kitchen led by a head chef who didn't even know the recipe. It is not in thrall to the crass commercialism that permeates its infamous sequel, but its lack of even this as some kind of defining characteristic leaves it shambling in a pile of its own mess, miserable and forgotten down in the shadowy sewers where lie yesteryear's most fleeting of pop cultural dalliances.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 37  Next >