Captain America: The Winter Soldier Review (Part 2)

...continued from May 6

Action!

Captain America: The Winter Soldier's action is fantastic. From elaborate military operations to car chases to massive explosions and the expected “boss battle,” the film goes all out. You could even argue that the scale of battle compares with that of The Avengers.

Action in CA2 is well thought out and spatially aware. I greatly appreciate it when action uses the environment to enhance the scene. There are many examples of this in CA2. The first is a memorable scene where Steve has to battle over ten men in a small elevator. The next sees Captain America and company attacked by the Winter Soldier while in their car on a highway overpass, only to have the action descend on to the street below. I like these sequences because they don’t cop out and let the particular special abilities of the characters dominate how the action plays out. If you wonder what I mean, this was a problem in Iron Man 2. At the end of that film, Stark is surrounded by several automatons that he must take down with the help of Col. Rhodes. The action that follows is boring and just simply a highlight reel of what makes Iron Man cool: powerful lasers, good armor, some guns firing, and that’s it. There is no real danger and the situation is not unique. This scene, which was supposed to be climactic, was no more enthralling to me than when Iron Man blew up a tank in his first movie. However, these particular moments in CA2 go against that tendency. The elevator scene is especially well done because it is exactly the opposite of a situation where a large shield would be useful. The action is intense and I actually felt a bit on edge. And yet, occasionally, you’ve got to be cool too. The scene that sees Captain America take down a S.H.I.E.L.D. gunship from a motorcycle still gives me chills.

A Great Villain...

Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy will go down as one of the greatest movie trilogies ever made. Many factors contribute to this, but one of the best things Nolan did in making that series was to write and cast a memorable villain. In a superhero movie, it makes sense that the villain should be larger than life, especially if he is to challenge someone like the protagonist and give the audience a true sense of peril. While Batman Begins didn’t have the best of villains, Liam Neeson’s portrayal of a determined Ras al’ Ghul set a precedent. What followed in the next two films were bad guys of the highest caliber. Probably no villain, except for Darth Vader, has become more iconic in pop culture than Heath Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight. And Tom Hardy’s brilliant performance as Bane in The Dark Knight Rises cannot be overlooked either. Both of these villains made these movies. Take away any part of their performance and the movie would just not be the same.

The Winter Soldier had a killer introduction.

Unfortunately, Marvel has not been able to follow suit in most of its movies but for one major exception – Loki. Although seemingly impossible to topple the Joker in villain stardom, Tom Hiddleston’s Loki was perfect for the story Joss Whedon and Marvel established in The Avengers. Witty, over-confident and cunning, Loki made that film. Just like Nolan’s trilogy, The Avengers would not have been the same without a memorable bad guy.

In The Winter Soldier, I wanted this trend to continue. The film is named after the villain, for goodness sake, so I wanted the villain to be a lot better than the Red Skull from The First Avenger. I got what I wanted and, just like in Nolan’s films, the Winter Soldier got two excellent introductions – one to Nick Fury and one to Captain America. The first time the audience sees the Winter Soldier is after Nick Fury narrowly escapes a dangerous assassination attempt. Just when I started to breathe again, the Winter Soldier arrives, standing alone and silent and with one shot destroys Fury’s vehicle and nearly kills Fury himself had it not been for a cheap screenwriting cop-out that let Fury burn his way through the asphalt to escape below the street. Very soon afterward, Fury makes his way to Rogers’ apartment only to be shot through the window by the Winter Soldier. Rogers gives chase and it ends in the most brilliant villain introduction Marvel has done yet. In an action that exactly mirrors the plot of the film, Captain America throws his shield at the Winter Soldier only to have him catch it without difficulty and hurl it back at Steve, sending him skidding backwards. This scene is so perfectly executed and telling of what the entire plot would be that now, after seeing the film, I would say it almost made the whole movie for me.

In addition to The Winter Soldier, I thought the crew did an excellent job in the casting of Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce. I enjoyed Redford tremendously in Spy Game alongside Brad Pitt, and ever since then he has been brilliant in roles that have him “explain the way things work.” He can be warm and inviting but also rough around the edges in just the right way and when he flips the switch from questionable to contemptible, the result is haunting. Because it is easy to hate the strong brutal bad guy, Redford’s role as a white-collar mastermind gives the antagonists balance. I found I was in more fear of Redford’s character at times precisely because of his gentle demeanor. A bad guy who acts good can be the most dangerous of all.  

... But A Villain We Know Nothing About

Okay, I’ve been giving a lot of praise, so I guess I have to say something bad about the film. The Winter Soldier was marred by several lost opportunities, or at least some elements that I think would have made the story more captivating.

Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce

The first and most obvious missed opportunity is CA2’s failure to provide a compelling back-story on the Winter Soldier. When your film is named after your primary villain, maybe we should know a few things about him, such as what kind of things Hydra did to break his mind, how he was able to survive the fall, etc. There’s a line in the movie where Black Widow says that the Winter Soldier has been behind assassinations and political espionage for over 50 years. Yet Bucky doesn’t look a day older. I buy that Hydra can keep his mind set to what they want it to be, but I can’t buy that Bucky has been doing missions for 50 years and doesn’t at least look a little aged.

Everything about the Winter Soldier is only briefly mentioned or skimmed over in some side note and not extrapolated on. Even when the film tries to dive into the emotional bond Rogers has with Bucky, it cuts it short. Suddenly we’re seeing a scene that flashes back to the 1930s as Bucky and younger (pre-serum) Rogers make a commitment to each other. But this scene is so rushed and confusing that it loses all emotional impact. And when Rogers refers to this memory later in a final confrontation with Bucky, its impact falls flat because there was no foundation for me to feel moved by this encounter. For all the great things about the presence of the Winter Soldier, such as in his introductions to Fury and Captain America, the character or even the nature of the Winter Soldier is extremely lacking. And that’s disappointing. This movie should have been called Captain America: The Enemy Within or something, because as much as the name sounds cool, The Winter Soldier is not really about Bucky. He’s just a pawn that has great action scenes. I really figure all the raw, gritty emotion from the Winter Soldier finding out who he is will come in Captain America 3. Maybe that one should have been called The Winter Soldier and not this one.

Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes/The Winter Soldier

Physics and Cop Outs

Another glaring problem with The Winter Soldier is the inconsistency in just how capable Captain America is. It seemed to me that in the first Captain America movie, it was established that Steve Rogers was stronger, faster and more qualified in combat than most people, but he certainly didn’t seem to acquire any “superpower” of any kind. His shield lets him match up against stronger foes, but ultimately he is vulnerable to someone slightly stronger than him without it. This is displayed perfectly in The Avengers, where the only way Steve can really compete with Iron Man and Thor in their “friendly” feud is to whip out the shield. I guess this is a comic book character, so I should relax about the consistency right?

And yet, am I really supposed to believe that Steve can survive a fall from over 20 stories up onto a concrete floor simply by putting his shield under him to brace his fall? And am I also supposed to believe that he can lift a beam that weighs several tons after being beat up, stabbed and shot over three times? Am I also supposed to believe that Steve can survive a grenade going off in his face that sends him over a highway overpass and through a bus? I mean, if he had fallen off the overpass and fell on the bus it would have been one thing (like the grenade in The Avengers that sends him flying out of a building onto a car), but this thing sends him flying so violently that he bounces like a ragdoll. Then he gets up, relatively unshaken, and runs out of the bus as literally MILLIONS of bullets are flying by from three automatic rifles and a Gatling gun. Am I really supposed to believe that one bullet didn’t hit him? And who are these morons who fight with the Winter Soldier that shoot at Captain America’s shield? I mean, I’m no villain, but at least I would know to shoot at the guy’s feet. Or at least flank him. I mean, Call of Duty taught me that! Come on people. Oh, and Falcon could not survive the fall he takes either. A parachute will not stop your fall if it opens only a second before you hit the ground…

For all the clever action scenes in this movie, there are also a lot of cheap cop-outs too. I already mentioned that Fury inexplicably escapes the Winter Soldier’s first appearance by DRILLING A HOLE THROUGH THE ASPHALT with a torch of some kind. Like, where did he go? Is there a sewer under there? Did he just keep going until he got to China? And what kind of handheld stick could do that? Even Qui-Gon’s lightsaber took more than a minute to get through the blast doors in The Phantom Menace. Yet Nick Fury took all of ten seconds to drill a hole big enough to fit through and long enough to escape through. Come on, screenwriters. Give me a break. Oh but wait! They do it AGAIN! And this time it is even more hilarious because they drill the hole in a truck WHILE ITS MOVING. That got more than a chuckle from me in the theatre.

The Showdowns that Could Have Been Better

Halfway through CA2, Steve Rogers and Natasha Romanoff discover that Hydra has been secretly growing within S.H.I.E.L.D., using its resources to expand and quietly gain control over the world through strategic initiatives. This realization catapults Rogers and his team toward a multi-pronged showdown that has huge implications. Fury and Romanoff have to stop Alexander Pierce from succeeding in his plan, all while Captain America and Falcon must take down the heli-carriers that are essential to it. But in one of the best moments of the film, Rogers delivers a message through the PA system at S.H.I.E.L.D., informing employees that Hydra has duped them. What follows is an intense standoff, as Captain America-loyal agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. take a stand against the now-revealed Hydra operatives in the same building.

An especially exciting scene takes place as a computer operator refuses an order given by a Hydra soldier. The soldier threatens the operator’s life and a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent steps in, leading to a frantic battle. While a few more of these moments are briefly shown, this whole important part of the climax to CA2 is left out in the cold. The opportunity for more intense and thrilling moments as employees come to realizations and turn on each other is fantastic for a movie chalked full of attempted depth. But just like the moment between Captain America and the Winter Soldier I mentioned earlier, this is cut short. Again I found myself jumping on board to the idea initially but then ended up feeling disappointed.

And strangely this is exactly how I felt about most of the final confrontations in this film. Sam Wilson alludes to the idea that Rogers might be faced with the difficult choice of killing Bucky or sparing him. And yet this moment doesn’t really happen. Rogers fights and cripples Bucky briefly but there is no key moment where he decides that he will spare Bucky instead of killing him. All the potential and buildup to that moment is lost. In fact, the climax ends up being the opposite – Bucky decides to spare Rogers, which is even more confusing because just a minute before he was shooting at him. Was I supposed to gather that Bucky all of a sudden remembered? But didn’t they wipe his memory before this battle? Is the line that Steve says to Bucky as he is being choked the one from the flashback? Oh, I guess it is.  So Bucky did remember. But… but why, screenwriters?! There was so much more potential here!!

Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson/Falcon

Right when that is happening, a great fight between Falcon and Hydra’s Agent Rumlow begins with an awesome start. But then we barely see the fight when it is cut short by the special effects department who decided that a massive ship crashing into the building was more exciting. Again, so much potential, but no delivery!

Conclusion

CA2’s story has a particular poetry to it. Rogers begins as a fish out of water – new to the modern world and confused as to where his path is leading him. But unlike in The Avengers, this more personal journey takes him from confusion to betrayal to, finally, confidence. Probably the most important line for Steve is after he discovers that S.H.I.E.L.D. has been a Hydra front all along. He says, “I guess I just like to know who I’m fighting.” Afterwards he dons the original Captain America outfit, a symbol of his clear conscience and resolve.

Why didn't we get more information on the Winter Soldier?

And yet, once again, the whole story seems to be merely a setup for the next film. I am disappointed that I will have to wait until probably Captain America 3 to see anything more on the Winter Soldier. For a movie that was supposed to be about him, I was disappointed that all we saw of the Winter Soldier was a brief moment of clarity (when he recognizes Steve) followed only by a ton of fight scenes between the two. Additionally, Rogers may have developed as a character, but so much more could have been done with him once he realized that he was fighting Bucky. This realization should have instilled more doubt in Steve’s mind, but this is not built upon very much at all. Then the story weakly crashes Steve and Bucky together in an action-packed climax that left me with more questions than answers. Did Steve actually reach Bucky at the end? Is the Winter Soldier a good guy now? Why is Fury suddenly okay with S.H.I.E.L.D. being gone? If it was such a big deal that Black Widow put her “dirty secrets” online, then why does she not seem to be worried about it? And while I’m fine with questions being left open for another film to answer, these questions were vital to the climax of this one. The confrontation between Steve and Bucky was supposed to be big and it wasn’t. Fury’s resignation to the destruction of S.H.I.E.L.D. was supposed to be dramatic, but it wasn’t. Black Widow’s past was supposed to be a difficult thing to expose but it doesn’t seem to have been. Everything is wrapped up in a nice neat little bow. For all the individual moments of depth and loss that were done so well in this movie (such as the scene with Peggy, Fury’s "death" and the revelation that Pierce is a monster), an ending with a little more edge I think would have been fine. But instead the film concludes in lukewarm mire, unsure of its own demeanor – triumphant or anticipatory?

 

This scene, where Captain America takes down a gunship from his motorcycle, was just fantastic.

All deeper thoughts aside, I had a blast at this movie. Captain America: The Winter Soldier was just plain fun. It had a menacing villain, a more vulnerable hero, great action and actors that put it all together quite well. Seeing it in IMAX, I enjoyed myself a ton and walked out of the theatre thinking I liked it even more than The Avengers. I can probably chalk that assessment up to my low expectations going in and my initial reactions are always just that: initial. But sometimes I’m spot on. I liked Gravity after the first time and that still holds true two hundred viewings later. I would recommend this film to anyone who just wants to have a fun time at the movies… or anyone who wants to get caught up on Marvel’s universe before Avengers: Age of Ultron comes out.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier – a 7.5 out of 10.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier Review (Part 1)

Hey Russ,

I know, I know. It’s been a while. Moving to a new city, starting a new job has its stresses so I can’t do everything at once. But hey! I’m back and excited to review a ton of new movies!

Introduction 

The Marvel Universe has been busy. It seems I can’t go one month without a new blockbuster Marvel film coming out. I know Marvel has a well thought out franchise in progress and I am a huge fan of it. But at some point, I’m gonna grow weary of it, right? I mean, in the Avengers world, we have had three Iron Man movies, two Thor movies, a Hulk movie and now two Captain America movies. We also had an Avengers movie, soon to be followed by another (my excitement is already holding steady an alarming level). I can’t even escape Marvel before the movie begins. Marvel had its name on three of the five previews I saw before seeing Captain America: The Winter Soldier. First was the upcoming Amazing Spiderman sequel, followed by the highly-anticipated X-Men: Days of Future Past and finally Guardians of the Galaxy. Of course, the rights to Spiderman are still owned by Sony and X-Men is owned by 20^th Century Fox not Disney, so we’ll never see the friendly neighbor take down a couple bad guys with Iron Man or Wolverine go toe-to-toe with Loki. Shame. My goodness, imagine how awesome those additions to the Avengers would be!

The truth is, though, I have not grown weary of the Marvel universe yet. Super heroes make excellent action flick material and, when done well, they have the capacity to enthrall me more than I would care to admit a character from a comic book could. I will say though, after The Avengers, I grew more skeptical of the Marvel universe continuing, for two reasons.

The first problem is one that my friend brought up recently: if all these guys came together to defeat Loki in The Avengers, why are they not coming together again when there are major threats in the non-Avengers movies? I mean a little help from the Hulk might have been really nice for Tony Stark in Iron Man 3. At the end of Avengers, we see Stark and Banner get into a super awesome car and ride away into the sunset together as if they are now the best of friends. So why is Banner (or any other Avenger for that matter) strangely absent in the following films? Wouldn’t the Avengers have determined that the threat from Malekith in Thor: The Dark World was worthy of a reunion? I mean, the guy wanted to literally destroy the universe and he chose the Avengers’ backyard to do it. Yeah, yeah, there are probably contract issues with Evans, Downey Jr, Hemsworth and others, but Marvel set this up. If you choose to be ambitious enough to bring the guys together, you’ve got to keep them together.

Marvel will have to work hard to top the Avengers

The second reason why I’m skeptical of post-Avengers movies is a concern over content. For one, you can’t have all the movies after The Avengers too dependent on what happened in that movie. So far, each succeeding movie has merely referred to the events of The Avengers briefly and then, I think, tastefully moved on. So props to you, writers! The second problem is the same one that every sequel faces: whether or not you’re beating a dead horse. For example, Transformers was a bad movie in almost every critic’s eyes, but I still loved it. It was new, interesting and introduced a lot of unique elements to an action movie. But the second and third movies got boring quickly. Megatron transforming was not interesting anymore. Explosions in Egypt and Chicago are still explosions. Ultimately the concept was the same every time, with just a few tweaks to characters and the threat. Not that I didn’t enjoy those movies, but it just wasn’t cause for any anticipation or excitement. I knew what was coming. This is what I fear for Marvel. So far, that has not been the case so I’m still on board!

Continuity

Enough with the introduction. You’ve already been reading for ten minutes and I haven’t even gotten to the review part. I’m sorry. So here we go. And be warned; there are spoilers ahead.

With all this in mind, I settled in to see Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Right off the bat, I have to give some credit to the studio. Even before seeing the film I knew that I would like a couple of things. First, I liked that the story would keep elements from The Avengers in play. S.H.I.E.L.D.’s Nick Fury and Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow would be making a return with Steve Rogers and I was pleased by this news, especially since Nick Fury was Rogers’ very first contact after his defrosting at the end of Captain America: The First Avenger. It makes sense that Fury would be a part of Rogers’ life after Loki so quickly (and violently) initiated him into the modern world. Secondly, I like that the previews did not commit the mortal sin of giving big reveals away. Thank you, thank you, and thank you for not telling us who The Winter Soldier actually is in the previews, Marvel.

While I just said that sequels to The Avengers can not depend on the events of that movie, I do like that Captain America: The Winter Soldier expands on elements of that movie not yet explored. S.H.I.E.L.D., the World Security Council and the heli-carrier that were the source of so much good in The Avengers are back and central to the plot of this film. The Avengers established the danger of nuclear deterrents and swapping freedom for security. This was actually a large part of what made that film so rewarding. Instead of proliferating and creating weapons, an imperfect team of “lost souls” works together to save the world. But what happened to all that stuff that S.H.I.E.L.D. was doing to secure the planet? Well, Captain America: The Winter Soldier was going to address that. I’m a fan!

Captain America reunites with Black Widow in CA2

Is Steve Rogers Still Boring?

I didn’t know what to expect going into Captain America: The Winter Soldier, which I will refer to as CA2 from now on, for the sake of my carpal tunnel syndrome. I guess I went in with low expectations. The first film was not the best Marvel movie at all, and it seemed to be thrown together simply to get Captain America to the 21^st century for The Avengers. Plus, Steve Rogers isn’t exactly the most interesting character when considering the other people in the Marvel Universe. It would be easy to say that Robert Downey Jr.’s Iron Man is by far the most captivating character and the one Marvel has chosen to develop the most so far. After that, when considering all of the Avengers, even based only on their roles in the Avengers movie, I would put Steve as second-to-last in terms of “interesting,” only ahead of Hawkeye. Stark is the leader, Banner is central to the story, Thor has a relationship with Loki and, let’s face it, Black Widow is hot and Nick Fury is Samuel L. Jackson. Even Agent Colson had his own unique humor and was a connecting factor for many of the characters. Rogers is just too… perfect. He is the model American: strong, determined, sacrificial and morally unshakeable. And therefore he’s boring. Unfortunately the first movie didn’t really do much with him and The Avengers didn’t have a ton of character development in order to have me change my mind. So if the second film was going to be any good, I wanted to see more on Steve.

I was not disappointed. CA2 addresses Rogers’ incomplete development right away. The film’s first half hour or so, besides an action-packed boat hostage rescue mission, is dedicated to Rogers’ acclimation to his new life and shows this in tastefully dramatic, emotional and occasionally humorous ways. Towards the beginning of the movie, after meeting Sam Wilson for the first time, Rogers pulls out a notebook with a list of maybe fifteen things he is getting caught up on that have happened since the 1940s, including Star Wars/Trek, the moon landing and disco. This is a clever scene that instantly draws the audience to Rogers. Suddenly I felt like I wanted to add things to the list for him too, and I instantly connected with Rogers in the same way I connect with someone who is genuinely interested in my opinion. I recently read that this list of things is actually different from country to country. For example, if I had seen CA2 in Great Britain, the 1996 World Cup would be on the list along with Sean Connery; Australia’s list includes Steve Irwin and Russia’s includes Yuri Gagarin. That is just cool.

Captain America's list of things to catch up on

Throughout the first act of CA2, we catch glimpses into Rogers’ state of mind. He is clearly lost in his new world. He expresses frustration with Fury that the hostage rescue mission was not carried out like a proper military operation and further clashes with him over his methods. Later, Rogers goes to the Smithsonian, where he walks through an exhibit dedicated to Captain America, clearly in an attempt to reach out and return to the world he used to know, which now only exists as an assemblage of replicas and displays. He lingers in front of a television interview of Peggy Carter. The scene transitions quietly to Steve beside a hospital bed and what follows is my favorite scene of the movie. Steve has the chance to talk with Peggy as an old woman. She has lived a long life, married and had children while Rogers was frozen in the ice. Now Rogers has awoken only to remain stuck with S.H.I.E.L.D., moving from conflict to conflict, stuck in the only life that even closely resembles his old one. He expresses this frustration with Peggy. He questions himself and what is right, revealing a desire for at least a sense of purpose in a new world that he doesn’t recognize. Carter sympathizes, saying, “I have lived a life. My only regret is that you could not live yours.” An emotional moment is shared between the two as Rogers consoles Carter, reminding her “I couldn’t leave my best girl. Not when she owes me a dance.” Beautiful and revealing, this scene connects the first film with the second and gives depth to Rogers. As an audience we know he is lost and not sure what to do. The Rogers who always had a clear mission before him is gone. What remains is an uprooted legend living in a world he not only doesn’t understand but also fears. He considers quitting but doesn’t even know what he would do outside of the life he’s in. He is still the model American but now struggles with doubt, guilt and uncertainty. And in keeping with the message the movie attempts to address - that of security vs. freedom – these concerns of Rogers’ mirror those of the audience as well. We value and defend freedom but often struggle and debate the lengths we are willing to go to defend it. At this point in the movie I was totally behind Steve Rogers because I sympathized with him. Instead of an overly heroic, dutiful soldier proudly carrying the flag, I saw a troubled man, wondering where to go in life.

Seeing Steve Rogers grow and develop was crucial for my satisfaction with Captain America: The Winter Soldier

To Be Continued...

A Great Scene from a Great Film (Heat)

My main man Russ!

I know, I know. It has been a little while since my last review. I understand your impatience and boredom. So here's what we'll do.

Occasionally during the breaks in the action, I'll post some great scenes from my favorite films and maybe try to give just a brief rundown of why I like it so much. Does that seem reasonable? Alright. 

Well, then. I guess we'll start with a clip from my favorite film: Heat (1995)

First of all, I love DeNiro in this film from start to finish. He portrays Neil perfectly. Neil is a hard and extremely professional thief who occupies the difficult situation of needing to be independent enough to walk out the door "if he starts to feel the heat around the corner," yet, contradictory to this necessity, demonstrates genuine care for those around him. In this scene we see Neil let his guard down with Edie, someone who breaks through to him after meeting him in a diner. 

I like this scene for several reasons. 

1) First we establish that Neil and Edie are opposites. In talking about her family, we get the sense that Edie is set where she is and with who she is. Her family settled down a long time ago and are "tight." On the other hand, Neil doesn't know who he is. He talks about Fiji like he's been there, but he hasn't been. He talks about his home but doesn't know where his family is. All Neil is is where he is going, but his destination eludes him. He is a man on the run. Constantly. 

2) We start to see Neil's character develop and change. Despite Neil's assurances that he is fine on his own, he lingers with Edie, an action that he himself would warn against and has warned against previously in the film. This is the beginning of a change in Neil. For the first time he has a reason to stay somewhere. Such a simple conversation at first glance, yet Neil is fighting a battle with himself just underneath the surface.

3) Art Direction and Screenplay. Neil and Edie are standing on a balcony overlooking Los Angeles, a city with lights constantly shining through the heat waves. This represents two things. Firstly, the lights demonstrate that Neil is constantly being pursued. He is never completely safe and the heat is a constant reminder of those who are chasing him. Yet secondly, in this scene, he seems to have risen above it. As Edie and Neil talk, the light and heat remain below and Neil's reference to heat (the tropical island of Fiji) is a positive thing. Edie seems to be Neil's hope of an escape.

All of these things together, in combination with an ethereal soundtrack and that distinct Michael Mann look make this scene one of my favorites. Enjoy!

DCon

Bioshock: Infinite Review (Part 2)

...continued from February 3

The Setting

The original Bioshock was loosely based on the philosophy and writings of Ayn Rand and George Orwell. The idea was not just to create an interesting world for a plot to play out but rather to have an idea shape the entire game, from the gameplay to the characters to the story. Bioshock massively succeeded in this endeavor. The LA Times said “Sure, it's fun to play, looks spectacular and is easy to control. But it also does something no other game has done to date: It really makes you feel.” And just like its prequels, Infinite dazzles in the “feels” department.

The first level of emotional involvement, for me, came in the setting. For those who played the original Bioshock, you will remember that details made the game. The game threw you into a strange and unfamiliar world but it wasn’t that way because you were told so. Everything about Rapture, from the décor to the dialogue, pointed one direction. Game locales and interactions made sense with the world and there was never any inconsistency between what occurred in the game and what the story was ultimately about. This remains true in Infinite, as the locations you encounter are not directed by the gameplay but rather the gameplay is directed by the places you go.

A painting in the "Order of the Raven," an example of Columbia's unique culture

The art direction in Infinite is beautiful and poignant as well. The environments you inhabit are haunting not necessarily because of any particular action you take, but because of the ideas that are represented in each. Two such examples really struck my eye. The first moment that really struck me was a scene where DeWitt comes across a Comstock-endorsed cult called the “Order of the Raven.” The order worships the Founding Fathers like the rest of Columbia, but also adores John Wilkes Booth, a hero for assassinating Lincoln. To them, “lower” races have no part to play in civilized life. This cult is revealed as DeWitt makes his way through their building, viewing paintings and statues, listening to recordings and stumbling upon an induction ceremony. Another scene includes a stage-like reenactment of two brutal moments in Columbia’s history, including animatronics, statues, and the like. But make a wrong turn and you end up backstage, where they store the extra materials to keep the display running. The level of detail and prime placement within the storyline of these scenes are not necessary to the “fun” of the video game, but it is central to the reason why the Bioshock series is so engaging. These two scenes generate sub-plots, reveal motivations and develop the characters as they engage and react to their surroundings. This is where the genius of the developer comes through: most video games have filler – something to get you from one moment in the action to the next – but Infinite simply does not have filler. Every square inch of the world and every second of play existed for a reason. The sheer amount of intricate detail in this game cannot be covered in this review, but certainly let me know if you want to hear more. It is a bottomless pit of immersion.

The Story

Okay Russ, I’ve finally gotten around to the story. And oh my goodness I could write a book about how good this story was. I already discussed DeWitt and Elizabeth and how their relationship evolves as the game goes on. That relationship alone is enough for me to say how good this story was, but that only scratches the surface. Bioshock: Infinite is a game of revelations. From a first-person standpoint, I was confused from the start. I knew that DeWitt had to rescue Elizabeth and return her to New York to pay off a debt, but I didn’t know what the details were. These are revealed slowly from the moment DeWitt arrives in Columbia via two storylines.

The first plays out in the game. DeWitt attempts to rescue Elizabeth and get her out of the city. But strange things begin to happen that Booker does not fully understand. Elizabeth has strange powers that seem to be able to transport them into different universes. Comstock seems to know more about DeWitt’s situation than even he does. DeWitt copes with this mostly through a dedication to his mission, which eventually transforms into a simple devotion to Elizabeth. But by the time the story’s climax is reached, DeWitt is lost, and so is the player.

The second part of the plot is the backstory, revealed gradually by voice recordings collected as the game goes on. A genius move by Irrational was not to throw the entire backstory in your face at once, either by showing you a cinematic or putting the backstory in the manual. Instead, by listening to voice recordings from key characters as you travel through Columbia, the backstory is revealed slowly in a way that has a direct bearing on your current situation. By the end of the game you know the entire backstory, but the most haunting or significant pieces of information are saved until the climax, making the game that much more thrilling. Another great side effect of this strategy is that it makes you think. Everything isn’t obvious; in fact quite the opposite is true. Truths are revealed slowly and indirectly. And both the backstory and the gameplay throw you toward a conclusion that you are excited to discover. This is true storytelling mastery – not only is more information revealed over time, but with every revelation comes an even more intense desire to see how things pan out. Not since Lost have I found myself developing so many theories about how the story would end. But unlike Lost’s controversial and disappointing conclusion, the end of Infinite is exquisite, its cerebral audacity and literary unanimity matched only by its emotional impact. It’s a stunner that left me breathless and desiring to play the whole thing over again.

Conclusion

DeWitt's evolving relationship with Elizabeth is one of Infinite's triumphs

I want to apologize to those who hoped I would discuss the ending on here. To be honest, the end is too deep, beautiful and mind-blowing to try to cover it all, not to mention it would take me six pages just to cover what it all means. My best advice: go play the game and find out for yourself.

Irrational went to the extreme again. I remember first hearing that there would be a game called Bioshock: Infinite in 2009 when they revealed some gameplay elements in a gameplay video. I was pissed that it took them three years from that point to finally release it, but boy was it worth the wait. It isn’t just that Bioshock: Infinite is fun. It is stepping into a whole new universe (no pun intended). Many game and movie previews will use that phrase, but Infinite really makes that happen. From cinematography and art direction to character development and a meticulously scripted plot, Bioshock: Infinite totally redefines the potential of video games as a storytelling tool. Add in the ability to throw fireballs at enemies after flying through the air, and you have one amazing entertainment experience.

“Bring us the girl, and wipe away the debt.” Not since “Rosebud” has a single phrase given me so much reason to get excited.

Bioshock: Infinite. A 9.5 out of 10.

Yours truly,

DCon

Bioshock: Infinite Review (Part 1)

Greetings Russ,

Game review! My top 10 movies from 2013 will be coming soon. It is just too difficult a decision to rank them, so I figured I would dispel some of the boredom on this blog with a game review. And we start out with one of the best.

I was incredibly excited to review Bioshock: Infinite because there is just so much to talk about: the gameplay, the characters, the story, the details and that ending!! I have to say, if the endings of Bioshock: Infinite and The Last of Us are any indication of where video games are headed for their capacity to be a meaningful and compelling storytelling medium, than I am truly excited for the future.

I like to review games because in many ways they are similar to movies. They are entertaining, immersive and push the limits of the imagination. They have the power to educate, thrill and move audiences both to the edge of their seat and to tears. Yes, video games can do that, and oftentimes can be even more impactful than movies because, by their very nature, games place us in the story. Our actions dictate the course of events. Of course, the main motivation for game developers is to create fun. But just because video games are a different art medium than movies and have this preconceived notion to be fun, doesn’t mean they lose narrative impact. In many ways, games remain the same as the days of old; they provide a brief break from the world in mindless fun. But if 2013 was any indication, “mindless” is no longer the standard.

This leads us to Bioshock: Infinite, the third game in the Bioshock series from Irrational Games. Set in 1912, the game follows the journey of Booker DeWitt, a troubled army veteran and former Pinkerton agent who has fallen into debt with the wrong people. In the midst of his troubles, DeWitt is offered a chance to pay off his debts; he must find and bring a girl named Elizabeth to New York City. DeWitt agrees to the job not knowing who Elizabeth is and arrives in Maine to begin his assignment. DeWitt is given a pistol and Elizabeth’s location: Columbia, a city that floats over fifteen thousand feet above the ground, held aloft by what is described as “quantum levitation” along with gigantic balloons and blimps. Columbia was launched in 1893 by Zachary Comstock, a self-declared prophet who rules over the city by calling for allegiance to himself and the philosophy he follows, a type of pseudo-Christianity that includes elements of American ultra-nationalism and exceptionalism based on the worship of the Founding Fathers of the United States. DeWitt discovers upon arrival that Comstock is holding Elizabeth in a tower and that the prophet was expecting him. With the forces of Columbia bearing down on him, it is up to DeWitt to rescue Elizabeth and get her out of the city. But as he gets closer to his goal, DeWitt soon realizes that there is much more to this floating city than meets the eye and a revolution is brewing in the shadows. Who is Comstock? What is in store for this city in the clouds? But even more importantly, who is this girl and is she worth the risk?

Design and Gameplay

Booker using the "Bucking Bronco" vigor

Bioshock: Infinite clearly meant to do one thing in its design: immerse the player. The first step of this was to choose a first-person viewpoint. Even though the Bioshock series had already established itself as a first-person shooter (FPS) well before Infinite, I still have to compliment the choice. The first-person view isn’t just there to assist the gameplay but it is essential to it, drawing you in close enough that you feel involved – that you feel you are Booker DeWitt. In a game that thrives on a world full of detail and a story that takes exciting and unexpected turns, first-person captures the story more personally. Immersion is also achieved through the presence of no cinematics. While it is generally the trend of most modern day blockbuster games to include cinematics to provide relevance and drama to the story, Bioshock: Infinite is able to capture the same elements but through clever cinematography that can be viewed completely through the eyes of Booker DeWitt. It is for this I have to applaud the game developers, who didn’t sacrifice the unique style of Bioshock despite the complexity of the game universe and the depth of its characters.

All the familiar elements of the Bioshock series make a return. Firearms and plasmids are back (now called vigors), and the occasionally tedious money/item scavenging system also remains, along with the familiar vending machines. DeWitt can also collect gear along his journey, four items of which can be active at one time. Similar to the original game’s tonics, gear helps DeWitt by adding perks such as setting enemies on fire with a melee attack or increasing your damage dealt when low on health.

Unlike the original Bioshock, DeWitt can only carry two weapons at one time. However, the opposite trend is observed amongst the vigors. All vigors are available to DeWitt as he collects them. This attempt to shift the focus away from weapons and toward vigors is a smart one, in my opinion, especially given how effective the vigors are. For one, the vigors are just awesome. Familiar fire and electricity attacks are back, but new vigors in Bioshock: Infinite such as Murder of Crows, Undertow and Return to Sender really add to the fun. In addition to firing vigors at enemies, Booker can also set traps with them that allow you to plan the most effective strategy. There are also a number of combinations with which to use the vigors, allowing you to experiment with what works best against each particular foe.

Unlike in the world of Rapture, Columbia provides a more dynamic environment in which to engage your enemies. The first element of this is the Sky-Hook, a multi-pronged hook that you can use to jump from platforms up to Sky-Lines, a roller coaster-like system that allows very fast travel around the field of battle. Booker can jump on and off these lines and between them, while using firearms. Using the Sky-Lines, DeWitt can escape, flank or attack enemies that remain on the ground or those that jump up and pursue him on the Sky-Lines. The Sky-Line provides an extremely exciting element to the gameplay and they are designed well enough that they do not take away from the rhythm of the fight. In addition to the Sky-Lines, Elizabeth provides an edge for DeWitt in the heat of battle. Throughout the game Elizabeth will occasionally find money for DeWitt that she will toss to him. In battle, this becomes even more useful as she also shares items that you need to fight, such as ammunition, vigor refills and health packs. Elizabeth can also open tears that assist in combat, from ammunition and cover to friendly turrets to escape the onslaught. These exchanges between DeWitt and Elizabeth come with frantic and stressed dialogue, adding to the tension and intensity of the battle. Between the Sky-Lines and Elizabeth, the combat in Infinite is edge-of-your-seat fun. Just imagine the following scenario: you electrify an enemy, jump on to a Sky-Line, shoot another enemy farther away and then circle back around and dive off onto your still-shocked foe from a different angle. Then, as you dive for the cover that you’ve ordered Elizabeth to summon, you run out of ammo, only to have Elizabeth toss more to you, yelling “Sniper ammo!” These type of fast paced and well designed scenarios are all over Bioshock: Infinite and make for an extremely fun experience.

The Characters

…And here is where I politely request that all of you who haven’t played the game have a very nice day. And please take heed of my warning. If you have not played this game yet, but want to play it at some point, do yourself a favor and stop reading!

I have to comment on the story of this game because it is probably the best I have ever seen in a video game. And just like in film, the story heavily relies on the characters. Unlike many first person shooter games that feature a silent protagonist or one that only speaks in cinematics, Booker DeWitt, played by the brilliant Troy Baker, interacts with the world around him frequently. He speaks with characters he encounters and these interactions are well scripted and relevant. DeWitt shows frustration, anger, determination and confusion in his dialogue almost uncannily similar to the very thoughts I had while playing. I was impressed that, although I never saw my own character’s face, I felt that I knew him even only minutes into the game. In fact the concept of a faceless but strong character is so good that I was actually disappointed with 2K that they decided to put Booker’s face on the box art.

Elizabeth

DeWitt’s dialogue is drawn out by the presence of Elizabeth, who travels with him through most of the story. The character of Elizabeth alone makes this game worth playing. Never before have I seen such a strong female role in a video game. Elizabeth is not a bland teenager that you agree to escort across the game world. The game so easily could have done that. Instead, from the very second Booker meets Elizabeth, a relationship is created – one that develops meaningfully as the game goes on. The gameplay gives weight to this relationship not only through the assistance of Elizabeth in combat but also through the fact that you do not have to protect Elizabeth. A game that constantly has you checking on her health can turn a player against her and ruin the impact their relationship has on the overall plot.  That’s important because the relationship is not only central to the story but also vital to its impact. Elizabeth at first views Booker as a savior – a friendly stranger who springs her from her life imprisonment and a vessel that will lead to the fulfillment of her lifelong dreams. Soon however, Elizabeth discovers that DeWitt has his own motives and even a dark side. This change of heart is the first of many evolutions in their relationship. DeWitt and Elizabeth discover things about each other as the game goes on, and as a result of the clever writing, you do too. They underestimate and mistrust each other at first, but eventually they learn to depend on each other and begin to care for each other deeply. Each character’s greatest fears, regrets and motivations are drawn out through the turmoil they face together. By the end of the game you actually care about the outcome of the characters.

 

In the critical moments of a Call of Duty game, characters may express fear or emotion but I rarely feel genuine care for them because they haven’t been developed. They may spill some generic platitudes or, through decent voice acting, show genuine emotion, but most of the time I simply don’t have anything invested in them. Oftentimes the character I have directed through the whole game will be killed and afterwards I have to struggle to remember what his name was. Not so with Infinite. When precarious moments arise in the plot, I actually care about the outcome of DeWitt, and Elizabeth even more so, because I actually know them. 

TO BE CONTINUED...

Review: Elysium

Happy 2014, Russ!

I figure I’ll start the New Year off with a review.

As a film critic, the number one factor that can affect your perception of a movie is your expectations going in. Expectations are huge. For example, I went into Skyfall thinking it would be a return to the mindless fun or so-called "typical" template of a Bond film - cars, guns, girls, bad guys and gadgets with an interesting yet slightly over the top story to hold it all together. And even though Skyfall had many of those things, it was certainly not what I expected it to be. That is to say, it was far from mindless fun. The darker and more personal story held together by exceptional performances and beautiful cinematography made it quite possibly the best Bond film ever made. Yet I didn't really realize these things the first time around. I was disappointed because my expectations had not been met. I thought Skyfall was a flop. I left thinking, "yeah, Javier Bardem was good, but can we seriously forget the drama and just get back to the belt grappling hooks and the Lotus submarine cars?" Don’t worry though. My opinions changed.

Such is the danger with expectations. Many of these expectations begin with the trailers for a film, which is why several of my more serious movie-going buddies refuse to watch previews for films that they know they will be going to see. The only expectations they have are born from knowing who is involved with the film. This brings us to Neill Blomkamp's newest film, Elysium. I went in very excited mostly because I enjoyed Blomkamp’s previous work in District 9. It looked like, based on the previews, the look and feel of Elysium would be similar to that of Blomkamp’s previously Oscar-nominated work and this made me raise my expectations for good reason. District 9 had a lot of positive things. The performances were excellent, especially from Sharlto Copley, who seems to be Blomkamp’s go-to star (and a fellow South African). But what was best about District 9 was the novelty. You can call it a science fiction film comfortably, but it felt more like a documentary about real-life xenophobia and discrimination, so much so that I walked out briefly thinking that a huge alien ship actually did park itself over Johannesburg. Such was the magic of District 9 – it wasn’t just an excellent science fiction piece. It also drew you in close enough that you left feeling personally involved and, as a result, almost guilty afterwards. This tone, executed by the screenplay and supported by little details such as the setting in South Africa, a country which not too long ago dealt with its own brutal policies of segregation and racism, serves to draw the viewer in close and make a story, which at first glance looks alien, surprisingly human.

In Elysium, Blomkamp attempts to direct the attention of the audience to a few present issues through the lens of a science fiction story set in the future. This purpose is further affirmed by the casting of Matt Damon, who’s outspoken political commentary has recently burst forth in his film career from Gus Van Sant’s Promised Land to Paul Greengrass’ Green Zone. At first the film looks merely like an intense science fiction adventure, but a closer look reveals underlying (and sometimes abundantly obvious) statements directed at modern issues such as income inequality, corporate stewardship, environmental accountability and even healthcare.

Set in a mid-22^nd century Los Angeles where the middle class has seemingly disappeared, Elysium follows the journey of Max DeCosta (Damon), a former career-criminal-turned-factory-worker who attempts to gain access to Elysium, the appropriately-named utopian ring-world that the super-rich have built for themselves in orbit above Earth. Not only do the rich enjoy the luxuries that one would expect, they also benefit from perfect health and immortality, as made available by Med-Bays, a one-stop-shop for healing any ailment once Elysium citizenship is confirmed. While working at his factory job on Earth, DeCosta is exposed to a lethal dose of radiation. Desperate to stay alive, he seeks out criminal leader Spider (Wagner Moura) who promises to help smuggle him into Elysium if he is willing to help steal valuable financial information from the head of John Carlyle (William Fichtner), a wealthy corporation owner. Pursued by the head of Elysium defense Jessica Delacourt (Jodie Foster) and her ruthless Earth-based agent Kruger (Sharlto Copley), DeCosta embarks on his mission to get to Elysium and save himself, not knowing that his actions may change the destiny of both Earth and Elysium for good.

Wagner Moura and Matt Damon

With a compelling premise and a backdrop of stunning visuals, Elysium has all the elements of a compelling adventure. One excellent quality of the setting is the obvious wear and tear of Earth. While many science fiction futures portray an unrealistically clean and organized world, Earth in Elysium actually looks like humans live there. Although much of Earth is now organized and run by AI, the world does not have a sterile look. DeCosta’s exoskeleton suit is worn out and has problems, the vehicles and weapons used are makeshift and have a frequency to malfunction, and the vulnerability of Earth’s citizenry and infrastructure is evident.  Earth is a literal desert of slums and industry. Get a ticket to Elysium, however, and that wear and tear rapidly disappears. The environment is lush, slick and refined. Here the sterile look makes its debut, but due to the fact that all citizens of Elysium are super-rich, this ultra-clean look is to be expected. Just like the setting, the action is gritty and believable. Max is obviously hardened by a life of poverty and crime and able to handle his own, but his skills are tested when he faces a clearly superior warrior in Kruger. Although the action seems to grow sluggish at times, (the use of slow motion is particularly prevalent and overused), the peril of the protagonists is never in doubt.

This is first a science fiction film. You could say that, by definition, science fiction is supposed to expand the imagination and stretch the boundary of what is plausible. But in a film that is also trying to make a political or social point, believability is vital to establish relevancy, lest a film be dismissed with “Okay, we would never end up like that.” In Elysium, the biggest element in the film is the gap between the rich and the poor. Blomkamp did an excellent job representing this visually. But to create believability, details are needed. And similarly to District 9, they are back. One in particular that struck me was a conversation on Earth that takes place in Spanish. This was followed directly by a scene on Elysium where citizens speak together in French, a distinction that plays on the viewer’s own perception of the stereotypes that exist between lower class and upper class. But nothing portrays the divide better than Elysium itself, a literal paradise where the extremes of affluence and influence are only matched by the insurmountable distance it has from the rest of the world. The dominance of the system over Earth’s citizens lies not only in its weaponry and technology but also in the system itself. There is no legal flexibility or compassion on Earth, for example, where DeCosta receives a fierce lashing for merely making a snide remark to a robot, but on Elysium Delacourt can literally kill over two dozen people by employing a psychotic agent and merely get a slap on the wrist.

Sharlto Copley and Alice Braga

The humanization of villains almost always serves to improve the credibility of a story. One example that can be pointed to is JJ Abram’s Star Trek. While it certainly can be said that Niro, the chief antagonist, has no concern for the loss of life he causes, the presentation of his motives – retaliation for a past (or should we say, future) transgression by his enemies – allows the audience to understand him, at least a little. A lack of humanization can make a story feel bland, such as in James Cameron’s Avatar, a film that too easily and too implausibly polarizes the good guys and the bad guys. This, unfortunately, is exactly what happens with Elysium. Antagonists in the film are unbelievably disdainful of Earth’s citizens. John Carlyle presides over his factories like a plantation owner and even when his factory manager brings matters to his attention, Carlyle orders him not to breath on him. This resentment does not make a lot of sense if he depends on Earth to make the products that he benefits from. The same is true for Delacourt. Due to her killing of dozens of humans attempting to enter Elysium, Delacourt is reprimanded by President Patel (Faran Tahir), who despite being a citizen of Elysium himself, believes that a moral high ground should be maintained. He threatens Delacourt with her job, but also makes it clear that it is possible to keep it and still protect Elysium without using such brutal tactics. But Delacourt, a villain who is initially portrayed as cunning and intelligent, attempts a coup d’état instead of revising her methods, seemingly for no other reason than to be able to kill people. This is where Elysium ceases being a compelling story and instead becomes a full-blown political parable. Delacourt and Carlyle are no longer interesting characters with believable motivations but instead simply serve to give a face to the system Blomkamp hopes to demonize. Blomkamp makes a feeble attempt to humanize Delacourt later when she angrily chastises Kruger for his reckless methods but this doesn’t make sense at all from somebody who is willing to stage a coup simply to be able to kill without accountability.

Jodie Foster as Jessica Delacourt

But it isn’t just the bad guys that fall into this trap. Even DeCosta is thrown under the allegorical bus. Throughout the entire film, DeCosta is selfish. He is ruthless in his effort to get to Elysium because he wants to live. He irrationally threatens Spider, seemingly the only person able to get him even close to Elysium, he denies the pleas of his childhood friend Frey to help her daughter, and even offers himself to Kruger (and, by proxy, Delacourt) so long as he gets to a Med-Bay. But for some reason at the end, DeCosta becomes a martyr. He decides to die to destroy the system when merely an hour before he was willing to give power to a dictatorial murderer just for the sake of saving his own skin. Max changes his mind when Delacourt orders that Frey be killed, but for a man who hasn’t seen Frey for many years, denied her earlier and even put her in harms way, this motivation doesn’t make much sense. And even if it is believable that DeCosta undergoes a complete change of heart and now wants to save Frey and her daughter, it still doesn’t make sense that he would be willing to die to do so, especially after all the things he has done just to live. Character development can certainly happen. People can change as time moves on and events occur. But DeCosta’s development seems to happen in the span of only five minutes and that is where the problem lies.

The only character that seems to make any sense at all is Kruger. You have to like Kruger because we finally have a character that’s interesting. He’s a bad guy and he knows it and even gets a sick pleasure out of all the things he gets to do as one. This is the only character that stays consistent throughout the film and as a psychopath he doesn’t need any motivations. He kills because he wants to and nothing more. This is also the only character that you ever feel has any power. To be honest, I almost hoped Kruger would win the big climactic fight at the end against DeCosta, because at least Kruger is passionate about something.

Overall, despite some glaring plot holes that I don’t want to spend the time going over, Elysium is entertaining. It wows visually, Blomkamp’s gritty style is appealing, and the plot is helped along with good performances by the supporting cast. However, the main characters suffer from bland and simplistic screenwriting that turns the potential for a meaningful adventure into a predictable and painfully obvious political rant that was slammed in my face. Unlike District 9, where I came out having been completely immersed, Elysium falls flat and is ultimately forgettable. It is a fun ride, but no more compelling than Avatar.

Hey look! Its Halo!!

Another reviewer mentioned that Elysium might just be a scrap for Blomkamp’s portfolio in his attempt to gain funding to direct a film based off the popular Halo video game series. In that case, I think Elysium scores high in Blomkamp’s capability to establish a futuristic universe with the breathtaking visuals that a Halo film would require. In fact, there are probably not many fans of the game franchise that didn’t say “Oh look! It’s a Halo ring!” when they first saw Elysium. But as a Halo fan myself, I just don’t see Master Chief becoming a character in a political allegory, and for that I must ask Mr. Blomkamp to hand the screenwriting off to someone else.

Elysium: a 6.5 out of 10.

Regards,

DCon