DCU Movies Part III - "Batman: Gotham Knight"

It was just a matter of time for Timm and his team to work on a film for the character they once triumphed with. And it was the right time, too. Batman's first 21st Century outing in the silver screen had originally been met with limited success, but the film was so good it killed on DVD. Add to that the extensive and highly effective viral marketing campaign Warner threw in the way of the sequel, "The Dark Knight" and you have a winner.

"Batman: Gotham Knight" was released in late spring 2008, shortly before Nolan's celebrated film. Instead of going about the traditional Batman design from the Animated Series (which derived its style heavily from the Fleisher Superman shorts of the '40s), they came up with a sort of gimmick; they'd hire Japanese artists and directors to produce five animated shorts, in traditional Japanese (i.e. anime) style. Batman would be portrayed by none other than Kevin Conroy and these short movies (in the likeness of 2003's 'Animatrix') would tie in the continuity of Nolan's Batman universe.

What's relatively impressive is that they actually do. You can still watch the whole thing without any knowledge of either movie, but there are clear nods that put it in the same continuity. It works well for the most part, but it's also the project's biggest failing, in a sense. If you've read some of Nolan's statements regarding a Batman/Superman or a Justice League movie, he said (and I'm heavily paraphrasing) that his Batman is designed to be plausible within a framework where he's the only costumed hero in existence. And much flak as this statement earned him, I happen to wholheartedly agree. Batman's appeal is that he expresses pain, fear and a sort of darkness, while being one of us (ridiculously big trust-fund notwithstanding). If you take him out of that context and put him into one where his comrades could finish his job in mere seconds, he becomes irrelevant.

In fact, Batman happens to be a big paradox in the DCU, considering the kind of fantastical, larger-than-life storylines the company employs for its characters (as opposed to Marvel, who go for a more pseudo-realistic approach).

It's not terribly obvious, but just enough to notice in a couple of these shorts (e.g. the Killer Croc bit). If you try and consider all three movies as one and the same series, you can't help but notice that. But that aside, we still have a series of shorts that are truly satisfying; in fact, "Gotham Knight" is second only to (and may even rival) "The New Frontier". There is an underlying storyline throughout them all, but it's not the meat of the film. The core of this project is little bits about Batman as a character and his impact on the world around him. So, we go from a story in which kids all give their different POVs about this mysterious Batman, to Bruce training in India to withstand pain (and ultimately failing), to an exceptional finale against Deadshot.

Conroy is great in his role (nothing like that disappointing performance in "Arkham Asylum"), as is everyone from the supporting cast. The animation style and direction differ from short to short and while not all of them are to my personal liking, I can't deny that they're distinct and yet amazingly fitting for the character and the world around him.

I said last time that if you have to see one of these films see "New Frontier", but this would be a very close second. Hunt it down, watch it, treasure it. It's a great mix of anime, Nolan's Batman, comic Batman and even TAS Batman.

DCU Movies Part 2- "Justice League The: New Frontier"

The next movie produced was "Justice League: The New Frontier". It was based on a critically acclaimed and Eisner-winner DC limited series called "DC: The New Frontier" (the "Justice League" bit in the film was likely added to attract attention after the success of the Justice League TV cartoon), written and drawn by Darwin Cooke. And I have a confession to make here: I've never read the book. I'm actually embarassed about this, as a comic and DC fan, since it's considered one of the best series to ever have been produced. The simple reason for that is that the damn thing is just too.freaking.expensive. The one time I found it in the comic store, one volume (it was a total of THREE) cost more than most other books (including "Secret Identity", which I ended up buying). So, I can't really comment on how faithful the movie is to the book, but I do know that unlike "Superman: Doomsday", it wasn't simply inspired from it, but instead it was just a congested version of it.

And it was a pretty good one, as far as a standalone animated film goes. The story is really simplistic, at least in the film. A creature called "The Center", which looks like a freaking island and commands freaking DINOSAURS (yes, dinosaurs; it's THAT simple) is disgusted by the decay of the human race and wants to wipe them off the face of the Earth. The reason for that is the age of fear and hatred of the post-WWII era and in particular the early Cold War. So, the story takes place in the '50s, in McCarthy's time, which is one of the film's strong points for several reasons. For one, retro-settings are inherently fascinating, especially in terms of aesthetics. Staying close to home, there is no bigger proof than "Batman: The Animated Series", which while taking place in the present (1990s) utilized visuals reminiscent of the '40s.

The other reason is that Cooke deliberately set the story in that point in time when comic books experienced the transition from the darker and more pessimistic Golden Age to the more fantastical and humorous Silver Age. For any comic book fan this is quite a treat, exciting by default.

Last but not least, it's an interesting setting within the story's context, because it allows for intriguing characterization. The plot may be very simplistic, but it's not the meat of the story; the inner conflict of super heroes who have won a war against a ubiquitously evil enemy (Naziism) and now see their battles wasted by the people they have sworn to protect and manipulated by the governments they once allied themselves with is where the whole point lies. That's "New Frontier's" theme; unity, trust and struggle for good without agendas. Heroes of a darker age who find hope and people who abandon Fear for optimism.

And that's all there is in the film. Several heroes are involved; Superman, who walks a thin line between his desire to provide unconditional help, while being the poster-boy for an essentially oppressive government. Wonder Woman, who becomes alienated by Man's world after the end of the War and returns to her birthplace's ways. Batman, who... uhm... takes Robin by his side (Batman's a perv). Flash (Barry Allen), who is kind of an underdog and the first to be targeted by this fear-mongering government. Flash plays the role of the kind super-hero, who the government doesn't control in any way (both Superman and Wonder Woman had been part of winning the War), a part that Batman could also play, though he's mostly used as the detective here. Generally speaking, all these characters have smaller parts, since the bigger are reserved for J'on and Hal. The Manhunter doesn't have THAT much more screen time, compared to the others, but he becomes the most direct medium for the story to explain itself. It's only after he's arrived on Earth, by accident, he attempts to live with humans, doing good and he ends up being incarcerated by the government for being different.

The biggest part goes to Hal Jordan. His entire origin is done through this film; a war veteran, considered a coward by many, including himself, because of his opposition to the Korean War (he was in the war, but there is some background info about screwing up) and a dreamer of sorts, whose only goal has always been to see the stars. Hal encompasses every theme in the film, including the good-natured and deeply optimistic world that had to deal with harsh realities and can now live to see its dreams come true in a better future. Hal is traditionally one of the most moral figures in the DCU, so in a way he's also the antithesis to the goverment with the murky morality and the shady agendas.

There isn't much in terms of secondary cast (something tells me the secondary players out of the hero pantheon have bigger roles in the book), but we have a loyal pilot, who sacrifices himself with a mission-gone-wrong and a high-ranking government official, who ends up fighting for the genuine American values his employers have disregarded.

I've seen the film twice and I'll admit the first time I wasn't particularly impressed. The reason is that, though I haven't read the book, I could tell the film was somewhat rushed. The themes, the subtext are clear and the story self-contained, without loose ends, so I can't blame the film for any of that, it just feels that it makes its point a little too hurridly. But knowing that, the second viewing was a lot more enjoyable. To say that the story isn't relevant to our times would be silly; we've gone out of our way to find a new boogeyman for the 21st Century and without getting too political, it's easy to see how the story is still relatable. If you can't see it, yet, go read Civil War again, which has a similar theme and took place in present times.

But even if that's not your poison, it's still a smart story, with good characterization and themes you're welcome to constrict in the time the film takes place; and it's pretty enjoyable, too. The artwork is made to somewhat resemble Cooke's art. The action is standard super-hero stuff, but in all honesty, they're the least worth seeing in this film. The sound is solid, as is the soundtrack and the cast actually employs some pretty interesting names; David Boreanaz as Hal Jordan, Lucy Lawless as Wonder Woman (a wet dream of many, if I recall from her days as Xena), Miguel Ferrer as the Martian Manhunter, Neil Patrick Harris as the Flash and many more. They all turn in excellent performances and every voice is fitting to the character (stop bitching about Batman; I prefer the raspy tone, too, but deep is fine).

"Justice League: The New Frontier" is one of the best movies in DCAU series and will likely remain in a high spot, due to the quality of the source material and the refined effort that went to translating it to film. I can't quite say if it's the best (I still think it feels a little rushed as a whole), but if you could see only one of these animated films, that's the one I'd recommend.

DCU Movies Part I - "Superman: Doomsday"

I wanted to say a few words about Far Cry 2 this week, but it'll have to wait, because if Arkham Asylum managed to do one thing for me was rejuvinate my super-hero fantasies. So, after going through "The Batman" series in a breeze (an experience I won't be going over here, as my survival instincts suggest), I started watching the recent DCU DTV animated films again.

So, a little history first. A few years ago, Warner decided to boost their DC-related hero-dome in a world where Marvel was kicking their ass in the silver screen (Batman notwithstanding). So they tasked DCAU veteran Bruce Timm, creator/writer/director/producer of classics like "Batman: The Animated Series", "Superman: The Animated Series" and "Justice League/Unlimited" to lead the team(s), who would produce DC hero animated films, both original and based on popular comic book work. So, the first film would feature DC's flagship character, Superman and it would be inspired by his best-selling storyarc "The Death and Return of Superman".

Back in 1992, sales on the Superman books had once again dropped, so DC was looking for a way to give them a much-needed boost. Word has it the original idea was to have Clark and Lois get married and promote it as a huge event. But at about the same time, Warner was preparing a new TV show, "Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman". The concensus was that it'be even bigger if the wedding in the comics and the wedding in the show coincided. But the show was only starting at the time, so they had to postpone the event in the comics. So, they ran a different marketing trick.

The Death of Superman.

The idea wasn't really new, in that Superman had died several times in comic books before, but they were always either brief events resolved by the end of the issue or Elsewords stories. This was real. This would stick (for a while, anyway). This was continuity. And they promoted the SHIT out of it. The entire arc, from Death to Return, ran for almost two years and it was huge. It sold like crazy and it was featured even on great newspapers. Fans who grew up with the Superman of that era adored the story. Others... not so much. The death part was handled as simply as a marketing stunt could ever be handled; a powerful killing machine of unknown origin, dubbed 'Doomsday' (... subtle...), just started rampaging through Metropolis, ripped its way through the Justice League and was eventually stopped by Superman after a titanic battle, but not without claiming the Man of Steel's life first.

Opponents of the storyline latched on to that aspect and brought up a valid point; Doomsday was eventually given an origin, backstory and, down the road, even a personality, but for the years the saga ran, he had "SALES PITCH" written all over him. With a huge rogues gallery and a Lex Luthor with the practical means to ultimately win over Superman, the Last Son of Krypton had fallen in the hands of a plot device that his creators didn't bother to work on, as a character, AT ALL.

The story wasn't that great, either, it was just tight and the outcome shocking and unexpected. But it was a big event and even through its simplicity, Superman's most favorable traits showed to the end, which validates the soft spot many fans have for the arc. Regardless of which camp was right (if either), the fact was that the event was huge and it would never be forgotten as an integral part of modern Superman's history.

So, naturally, there have been attempts to adapt the story to other mediums, after it ran its course. "Lois and Clark" kind of tried to adapt the "World without Superman" piece of the arc in the end of the 3rd Season, when Superman leaves for a small colony dubbed "New Krypton" (which stood in for Kandor, no doubt), to fight and possibly die in the hands of a Kryptonian Lord, Lord Nor (who was a General Zod knock-off) and on his way there wore the black/silver (though black/purple for the show) costume Superman wore during his return in the comics.

The most popular debacle was the never-made movie "Superman Lives" in the '90s. Kevin Smith was tasked with writing a script for a new film and he based it off the comics of the era and the Death and Return storyline. And since we're on the subject, let's get something out of the way; whenever the topic of Superman's "production hell" comes up, keep in mind that Smith is one of the least responsible people for it. His script was faithful to the comics, with good dialogues and interesting characters. It probably doesn't hold up today after things like "The Dark Knight", but it would make a good Superman film. Its major weaknesses came from input from the studio and producer Jon Peters.

So, according to the script, Brainiac and Lex are forming their now infamous alliance and plot to destroy Superman. Lex would mess with the solar radiation, weakening Superman's powers and Brainiac would then send a destructive machine, Doomsday, to kill him. After the hero was dead and burried, Brainiac would show up as a savior (covering the skies and claiming to protecting the Earth from an alien invasion) and Lex as the mediator between him and the human race, leading to them conquering the world in their own way each.

But after a lot of drama, the script was scrapped (on account of Tim Burton wanting his people to write their own script), so the movie never saw the light of day. Since then, there have been nods to the storyline here and there, mainly in the Animated Universe.

Fast-forward in 2006 and the new DCAU films. The animation looked slick, the PG-13 rating allowed pushing further than the animated series ever could and the whole thing just looked great. The actual film, released in 2007, brought on mixed reactions. In a nutshell, LexCorp uncovers a space-dumpster, which holds the killing machine, Doomsday. Doomsday escapes and trashes his way to Metropolis, before being stopped by the late Superman. Unlike the comics, there was no Justice League to be seen either during the battle or in Superman's funeral. But shortly after, Superman returns to Metropolis only a little... different. With an uncharacteristic edge, which makes him a bigger menace than a protector. Spoilers here, so skip to the next paragraph if you haven't seen the movie; it turns out Lex has cloned Superman and uses his new copy to do his bidding. But Superman's Fortress robot figures out its master wasn't really dead, takes the body back and nurtures it to health. Though not at full strenght, a long-haired Superman wears the black suit and grabs a Kryptonite gun to even the odds, then flies to Metropolis to defeat the out-of-control clone.

Many were disappointed that the film wasn't more faithful to the comics. I didn't mind one bit though; I very much expected it to drift away from the original after the Death. How could they not, after all? The saga of the Return alone lasted for a year and heavilly involved characters, who would be regulars or recurring in the DCU from there on; the Eradicator, Steel, Hank Henshaw and Conner Kent/Superboy. They couldn't possibly cram one -let alone all of them- in a '90-minute-long film.

Having said that, I too am not sure how wise the alternative Bizarro-ish story they went with was. For starters, it kicks in far too early. It's a byproduct of the short run-time as well, but the problem was that Superman's death hadn't sunk in with the audience by the time he popped back in. An engaging story is one that creates emotions to the audience and this turnout kind of stepped on the toes of the emotions the first act of the film created. Secondly, it doesn't seem to fit in all that well. In any good Bizarro origin story, the theme is the conflict between a Superman raised with kindness and falling in love with a very flawed and yet strong human and a Superman detached, who lacks the moral fiber, despite his good intentions, to use his powers responsibly. Especially in versions such as this (previously seen also in "Lois and Clark"), a Superman raised by Lex Luthor.

And it's a good story and a classic theme, but then... what the fuck did that first act had to do with anything? NOTHING! That's what! It's a plot device! And as such it falls completely flat. That's my biggest problem with this. They seem to completely move away from the "Death" storyline and into something entirely different, like they're making two different movies with a few continuity links.

But like I said, I can understand they couldn't do the comic book storyline. And before I move on to my big problems with this film, there is a battery of other good things about it. The production value is impressive. The animation is every bit as slick as it looked in the trailers (even if those cheek bones on Superman are out of place). In fact, with the PG-13 rating to help out, this movie had some pretty impressive action. The battle of the Supermen in the end wasn't an ideal climax, in that it didn't surpass the opening battle with Doomsday, but the whole thing still looked really good; intense and brutal.

I was very happy with the voice acting, myself. Adam Baldwin's one of my favorite TV actors and he has a deep voice that fits Superman. Anne Heche's Lois Lane took most of the flak, because her voice is reminiscent of that of Margot Kidder's smoker Lois, who many people aren't very fond of. I'll admit her voice in itself isn't my favorite pick either, but her performance was solid; she had good dialogue that she delivered just as well. James Marsters as Lex Luthor was excellent; cunning and ruthless. I'll admit, "Buffy" kind of destroyed the poor man for me. Every time I hear his voice, I expect him to bust out an English accent and the fangs that go with it, but he was stunning here. That performance rivals my equally beloved Clancy Brown from the Animated Series. Everyone else turned in stellar performances as well.

And of course the writing itself was pretty solid, too. The dialogues were the high point, fast, smart and funny when needed. These films are made to appeal to all ages and I'm glad to say that at no point did I hear a dialogue so cringe-worthy that betrayed an attempt to appeal to kids. The script seemed polished and easy to sit through.

So, I've pretty much praised all the film's aspects (oh, the soundtrack was pretty good, too), so what problem could I possibly have with it? The writing. Yep, the writing. While the dialogues are good and I've already mentioned the complications with the big story points, there are the details and subplots that irk me to no end. Be warned; the rest of this critique is going to be fanboy-ish nitpicking and, again, SPOILERS, so if you're not interested in either, just scroll over to the last paragraph.

So, the details. The details that seem so... un-Superman-like that make the viewing of this film a chore at times. The first and most obvious is the fact that Superman and Lois have a relationship. Not only that, but they're doing it. They're having sex. And don't get me wrong, I personally don't give two shits. I'm the furthest thing from a prude there is. In my very personal opinion, Superman should not be subscribing to any religion (atheist would be too much in the DCU, where gods are established) and he should be getting laid from as far back as high school, with Lana or whoever. But somewhere across the Globe, there is an equally big Superman fan, who believes the Man of Steel shouldn't do it until after he's married, because it's a sin, or the right choice or whatever.

That's the thing with Superman; unlike many other characters, being the grandaddy of superheroes, Superman has to be able to be liked by everyone. If people don't like him, because they think he's too good or too powerful is one thing, but being shut off based on the character's e.g. political views is unecessary alienating. Superman as a character has nurtured entire generations of people and he should be as accessible as possible.

It's not the first time this happens, which is why I'm very surprised they did this in that movie. "Superman Returns" obviously did it (and Superman II before that), as did Smallville. There were raging fans over Clark and Lana having sex in Smallville in season 5. I didn't care, personally, but I understand where they're coming from. Because before that, the same show villified Lex Luthor on account of him having lots of very consentual, but very casual sex. Which pissed me off; the show literally preached in that episode (4th season, I believe) that the man who will be the root of all Evil and will bring Civilization to its knees turned that way, because he was getting laid with lots of different women (and Clark berated him for that). I'm sure someone out there must've agreed with that point of view, but I can't even count how many times I yelled "FUCK YOU" at the screen.

If you're going to tackle issues like this with Superman, you have to be highly political; you need tact. Like "Lois & Clark" had; in the 3rd season of the show, we learn that Clark's practically a virgin. But instead of shoving moralistic bullshit down our throats, the show explained it as simply as could be expected; Clark avoided sex, because the man could launch tractors into orbit when he was 5 and he was kind of worried of what would happen if he tried to sleep with someone.

See? Simple and very acceptable by everyone.

But this movie didn't do that. They just presented it as it was (and I do assume it was partly due to Superman Returns, which was still scheduled for a sequel at the time) and probably alienated many fans. But it gets worse; though the sex didn't alienate me, personally, they went on to doing something that would sure as hell piss off any Superman fan, anywhere. Superman and Lois are in a relationship, but he hasn't revealed his double identity to her. What. The. Fuck. Again, one of my MAJOR gripes with that piece of shit that was "Superman Returns", Superman is doing Lois, on a regular basis no less, but doesn't bother to tell her they work together in neighboring offices in the same newspaper?! Dude, that's fucking CREEPY! That could even qualify as stalking! I can't fathom how creators, especially ones that are truly well-versed in this universe and its characters, get things as simple as that so wrong. Okay, Lois has obviously figured it out herself, but still, fucking creepy!

It doesn't help that his excuse is completely nonsensical. He says he hasn't revealed his identity, because he doesn't want to endager her life... which WOULD make sense, if the identity in hiding was Superman and not Clark! How does dating Clark Kent make Lois a target, but dating Superman doesn't?! I struggle to comprehend the writers' train of thought on this one. Even Lois points out that everyone practically knows she's dating Superman, which makes her a target. And Superman himself says they have to carry on that romance in hiding. Hey, Supes? You know a better way to hide it? BE CLARK KENT, YOU IDIOT! Isn't that ONE of the reasons you put on that disguise, anyway? What? You couldn't figure out how to get Clark some so you said 'fuck it' and decided to go with the super-powered Adonis? Smooth. Makes you look real good. Asshole.

"I wanted to protect you". You're full of it.

All that comes early on in the film, fortunately, so most of the rest of the movie is enjoyable... until the end. You know, when Superman KILLS his clone. Do I even have to go over this again? Between this, Smallville and Superman Returns and the countless discussions I've had (especially concerning that last one) in message boards, I think I'll just tatoo it on my forehead: SUPERMAN. DOES. NOT. KILL.

GOT IT?

What? Just because he was a clone? That clone was a sentient being! Worse, he was a good-natured sentient being! His last words to Superman was "protect them" (mirroring Superman's own reaction before passing out in the first Act)! But no! The jackass makes no fucking attempt to save him! He just blows up a Kryptonite Capsule in the clone's face and then he shoves his tongue down Lois' throat! My hero!

These three points completely screw up the experience for me, which is a real pity, because I otherwise really like that movie. But they're pretty important details. Just like with Superman Returns, Superman himself doesn't come off as a very likeable person here. He has his values, he's heroic on occasion, but he does a number of other things, so out-of-character that just negate the good things he has going for him.

Having said all that, I can still find things to enjoy in this animated film. It looks great and I enjoy the dialogue, it's just too bad that it makes Superman so bloody unlikeable at parts that stops the movie from being a truly memorable Superman film.

REVIEW- "Batman: Arkham Asylum"

Ahh, hype is such a sneaky little bastard. You hear it, you believe it, you build your hopes upon it. And then you get what you deserve; you get to eat shit! "Batman: Arkham Asylum" is kind of like that, only it's shit covered with expensive Swiss chocolate and wrapped in gold cloth, sewn by fairies and blessed by God.

And has there ever been more hype for a game than for this one, coming only second this year to Modern Warfare 2! Eidos made a fuss from the get-go, they threatened to boycott reviewers, critics praised it to death, they went out of their way to put it above Metal Gear and Splinter Cell (really, they were *that* high) and they even made up a new Guiness category for it, which as far as insecurities go comes only second to your cabinet rivaling the armory of the US Military to compensate for your tiny dick.

But before you start sending bomb threats to my house, let me get something straight here; this is a good game, there is no doubt about it. No; my issue is that the ridiculous praise it's been getting is largely undeserved. And get used to it, if you'll keep following this waste of my personal time. Seeing how I don't have the means to review new games (i.e. I'm consistently broke), my critique is about things I like and dislike in older titles, instead of the usual, detailed analysis of the game's mechanics, which you can find anywhere by much more qualified people than myself.

Before I go on about the things that make this just a conventionally good game, let's get the things it does have going for it out of the way. The battle system is very impressive. It's simplistic, but button-mashing alone won't bring the best results. It's not NEARLY as deep as you might hear around, but there is timing required to counter and when done right, it shines, as do the various gadgets. Likewise, the stealth system is equally simplistic, but clearing a room of armed guards one by one, while the others go bananas over their disappearing companions is insanely cool throughout all 10 hours of the campaign. The soundtrack is effective and the atmosphere is decent, while *some* of the voice acting is downright amazing.

Okay? Happy? Let's get down to business.

There is a good balance between action and stealth, often-times one following directly after the other. The intention is noble, but there is a trap that everyone seems to be falling into when attempting such a thing; linearity. It seems to be a trend with Batman games, since "Begins" had a similar issue. Of course, it's nowhere near as bad here, but the problem remains that there is a limited amount of options of how to play the game. You can only combat straight on a specific kind of enemies. You can sneak up only another set of enemies, because they're always stationed in pre-set areas that allow the mechanic to be fully utilized. Even during combat, you mash the attack and counter buttons on the bare-fisted goons, you *have*to stun the knife-wielding ones and you have to dodge and attack from behind the electric-baton-armed ones. You can use a gadget as an alternative here and there and it's cool and functional, but unless the map has set it up for you (and sometimes the game even prompts you to do something in particular), you don't have much of a reason or options to experiment with the various mechanics.

Speaking of which, the maps are largely unimpressive. Visually, they're surprisingly alike, a byproduct of limiting the setting to a single, self-contained environment (but I'll get to that a little later). Linearity has infected them as well; there is a single way to get to another point. If the door's locked, there is always a conveniently placed vent nearby-- you'd think by the end Joker would've finally gassed the hell out of them, but nooooo. Or, if the game feels up to it, it'll have you blow up a wall to proceed. Now, I'm never one to deny clarity over freedom in a game (Bioshock will burn in Hell for its open maps), but in addition to the other mechanics, it becomes kind of daunting and literally robs the game off its 'cool' factor and the potential of all the ideas and work that went into it.

By the way, what happened to the 'fear' mechanic? It's somewhat present, but it seems to be mostly there for effect. Batman Begins did it, naturally and, save for the linearity, it seemed particularly interesting. I was hoping we'd see it again. Bummer.

On another note, it becomes a little bit dull in the long term. Now, despite the linearity, the gameplay switches often enough to keep things interesting, but you'll still be fighting the same guys 'till the end of the game. It's kind of odd, too-- how many identical criminals are in that place? Is there anyone in this city not serving a sentence? It's like in Max Payne, when the game starts really cool and you start uncovering this evil plot about drug rings and evil corporations and by the end of the game you've killed about half the population of New York.

What else? Ah, yeah. The boss fights are very, very underwhelming. They're all beat with a simple trick, one that usually involves Batarangs. The hardest part of any one of them are the goons that join in to up the stakes. These motherfuckers get in the way and provide a small challenge, certainly, but you deal with them throughout the entire game! It must be kind of emasculating for all these iconic super-villains to be credible and interesting threats only when they have their army of generic, faceless buffoons backing them up. Bane is unbelievably easy, as long as you successfully ignore his goons. Harley is standing in a booth and sends waves of goons, then you beat her in a fucking cutscene. Killer Crock doesn't even fight; you just follow along a very tedious labyrinth, that's two sections too long and you throw a Batarang in his face whenever he pops up from the water. Poison Ivy is in a gigantic plant, easily killable, as long as you ignore the goons. Scarecrow is interesting the first time, providing a radically different set-up, based on Batman's skewed perception of reality under the good doctor's fear gas. But by the third time, the novelty has worn off, he becomes tedious and undermines the coolness of the set-pieces they constructed for him. Hell, even fucking Joker, the lunatic, chases you for a bit and then jumps out of danger and sends down his goons.

It's the same fucking thing over and over and over! That's not the stuff of the Game of the Year, people!

I also couldn't be bothered less with the strangely revered "Riddler Challenges" and "Trophies". The former are riddles the Riddler gives you at the start of each area and you get to solve by scanning the correct object in that area. The latter are trophies scattered throughout the game and unlock the bonus features. Like I said, they didn't interest me in the slightest, though to be fair, this kind of thing never catches my attention in the first playthrough; that's always about the campaign for me. I guess I can see their appeal in the long term.

One thing I didn't like, in particular, were the graphics. Technically, they're fine; high-res stuff, detailed textures, beautiful animations (especially on Batman). But I really dislike the art-direction in this game. I very much understand the direction regarding Arkham, for example, but I still found it fairly generic and sometimes bland. The one part where linearity might come in handy is right here, since most areas look alike in style and substance. It's always the same kind of room, with the same kind of walls, with the same damn gargoyles popping up whenever stealth is required. Like I said, it's a problem with limiting your setting to such a small environment. All facilities in "Arkham Island" looks the same, with slight variations for things like, say, the sewers. For example; remember how in Half-Life, the entire game was set in the Black Mesa Facility and still every environment managed to be tremendously diverse? It's the exact opposite here. Also, why is the moon so fucking huge? It's about ten minutes from crashing in Gotham Harbor! GTA used to have the same problem in the three titles that preceded GTAIV... I don't get it. Making the moon smaller won't take away from the cinematic feel. I promise. Scout's honour.

Enviromental blandness aside, I like even less the character designs. For starters, the henchmen are all copies of each other. Each and every one of them looks the fucking same, save for the occasional different color. You get to fight... a few hundreds of them throughout the game? All. Look. The. Same. Identical. No variety.

Then you have Batman, who is one of the ugliest super-hero designs in videogames. Why the hell is he on steroids? You could call that a pet-peeve of mine, but people aren't supposed to look like that! BATMAN isn't supposed to look like that! He's trained, he works out, he's not a contestent for the Mr. Olympia title! And to make matters worst, they've outfitted him with a fugly suit that excarbates the problem. Also, for some odd reason, they've opted for that bullshit 'realistic' approach, where the eyes are human instead of white (but apparently can turn red under the influence of Fear Gas). Why, exactly? They're probably taking a cue from The Dark Knight, since the eyes do turn white when Detective Vision is on (on par with the sonar thingy Lucious Fox had made in the latest movie). I get why they do it in movies, but everywhere else is crap. Many people might not see it, but for me, giving Batman regular eyes, is like having Spider-Man carefully cut two small holes in his mask so he can see through the white lenses.

The others don't fair much better. Gordon looks oddly big for a man his age. The Joker seems strangely older than he really is. Crock's ok, as is Bane. The Scarecrow looks stupid. Poison Ivy... well, I guess she has a quality about her; a half-naked redhead with perfect lips is certainly hot, even if she's green. The only one I actually liked was Harley Quinn, oddly, since most other Batman fans are disappointed she wasn't wearing her Jester/Domino skin-tight costume. But I never really liked that one.

And since we're in the presentation, I was somewhat disappointed with the sound, specifically the voice-acting. Hamill as the Joker is amazing, as are the actors for Harley and the Riddler. The others are good, but the one that really, really bothered me was none other than the Dark Knight himself; Kevin Conroy. And don't get me wrong; I fucking LOVE Conroy. From the first episode of the Animated Series, down to the recent "Superman/Batman: Public Enemies", he's the voice of Batman for me. But here... he's is A LOT of hit and miss, something very unexpected for an actor of his quality and his familiarity with the character. His performance would be great, if not for some embarrassing, seemingly out of place delivery of specific lines, especially the ones that are set to guide the player. Of course, in all fairness, I'm only blaming Conroy for not managing to refine some really bad dialogue in the script. Because from there on, the writing in and on itself is to be blamed.

Which was the other HUGE disappointment for me. Paul Dini, who wrote the story, is a veteran; he worked in the Animated Series and in the comics. In fact, his run on Detective Comics was the only good Batman title after the shitstorm Infinite Crisis brought upon us. Which is why I didn't see that coming. The story isn't smart, but it's well-within what you'd expect-- that's fine. The dalogue is where it loses points rapidly. The lines, especially at the beginning of the game, that Batman utters in his head to guide the player sound incredibly cheesy; the kind of comic book or cartoon writing that make the material not be taken seriously by others. Some of them even sound out of character, maybe because for a guy who's usually quiet, the Caped Crusader seems to be talking too much, even if it's in his head. And if you honestly come and tell me a big reason of Batman's appeal isn't that you don't know what's in his head, then you're flat-out lying. There are equally embarassing lines throughout most of the game (it gets better toward the end), where Batman will even try and make a "tough-guy" remark, which inevitably falls flats on its ass.

To sum it up, there are many things to dislike in this game. Which is not to say it's a bad game. It's a GOOD game. I whole-heartedly recommend it, especially for Batman fans. But Game of the Year? One of the best action games ever? Really? Here's the thing folks; this is a solid, but wholly unoriginal game. It's like Uncharted. It's fun, play it, buy it but it won't set the world on fire. In the end of the day, if this game didn't feature Batman, it would already be forgotten among the pile of other 'solid' titles. Most of this game's credibility comes from the fact you can play as Batman, with all the moves and the gadgets and the sneaking up. It's the second best Batman game (THIS is the first and you'll go to Hell if you disagree with me) and all the work gone into it is absolutely honest. But whether we want to satisfy our super-hero-fantasies or not, the question with every game is if 60-70 bucks is worth spending. And in my humble opinion, it's not.

Forty-fifty bucks is fine, which is exactly how much the PC version costs... ironic, considering the PC version is inferior to its console counterparts; controls are fine, but it's clearly a console game, which takes away from the immersion. And then, the usual, inherent problems with PC ports; neither of my two gamepads would work, thankyouverymuch Games For Windows. And I ran into THREE errors in repeated installations (tried it in 3 drives, including copying and installing from the hard drive). The game still ran, but eventually the errors came back to haunt me later.

So, there you have it. A good and fun game, but not incredible by any means. Recommended, but I wouldn't put it over titles you may already be more interested in.

REVIEW- "Power Rangers: Super Legends" DS (and Power Rangers games in general)

I love the Power Rangers. I feel no shame in saying so either. The show was ridiculously stupid (though there have been good seasons since then and if you deny that you're going to Hell), but most everything geared toward kids is stupid. Remember that show about mutated turtles eating pizza in the sewers? That was silly. Or how about the Transformers, who spent most of their time making idiotic quips and coming up with the most ridiculous plots? And don't even get me started on He-Man and his Masters of the Universe.

But, aside of nostalgia, it's the fairytale that captivates our imagination (Amy Jo Johnson's bum probably had something to do with it too) and the potential in a story about spandex-wearing heroes piloting giant robots is right there. So, I remained a fan through the years and aside from the shows, I've been a witness to another form of entertainment the franchise has had a fairly long run in; videogames.

When the show started and became a huge, instant hit, there were naturally plenty of MMPR games made for almost every system in existence at the time. What's surprising, though, is that many of them were actually pretty good; they didn't exactly set any standards, but it was a time when a tv/movie-licensed game didn't have to suck. The first one that comes in mind is "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" for the SNES, a straight-up beat-em up, that had you choose between the five core Rangers (no Tommy, though) and had you battle your way to a monster, at first as a simple teenager and when confronting the monster, morphing into a Power Ranger. It was a pretty good game, even if it had some oddities... like the fact that all the Rangers shared the same sprite, which was not uncommon at the time, but it was weird here, because said sprite was made to look like fucking Schwarzenegger and it was used even for the girl Rangers. But the different characters were varied, the levels interesting and the game fun.

Unfortunately this one was followed by a very misdirected "The Movie" game (and then followed by the Zord "Fighting Edition", which was actually kind of fun). It wasn't a bad game, per se, but it had little to do with the show or the movie it was based on, the action was toned down (no combos, only single punches) and the whole thing was just a step back. The exact opposite happened with the Mega Drive, which started with a very 'meh' MMPR fighting game, followed up with a side-scrolling beat-'em'-up Movie game. The truth is that game came out a little too late since the standards in the genre had been set, so casual gamers might have found it a bit repetitive and bland, but it was fangasm all the way for the rest of us. It controlled well, it played well, it looked really good. It followed the storyline of both the 1995 movie and the show and it had music exclusively from "MMPR: The Album" and "A Rock Adventure", composed by Ron Wassermann and used in the show constantly. For many fans, it's their favorite.

The handhelds received their PR fix at the time too. Unfortunately, both MMPR games for the Nintendo Gameboy sucked monkey balls. The Movie one was at least somewhat playable, but the first one was just a cruel joke at the innocent souls of little kids and their parents' bleeding wallets. The ill-fated Sega Game Gear not only had better PR games, but it had what's probably the best set of Power Rangers games, ever. Ditching the side-scrolling, the games limited the player in a small screen and had them fight off putties until the monster showed up, followed by a Megazord battle. What made this pair of games better than any other version was that it was not just great in terms of a PR game (with all characters and monsters and storylines straight from the show), but a great handheld fighter overall. They were fast and exciting. They controlled well, there were plenty of combos to spice the gameplay up and they were just really addicting. Pretty challenging little motherfuckers, too. It was also the only time during that era that a PR game was a direct sequel to its predecessor in any shape or form; MMPR:TM uses the exact same mechanics, only with different characters, different storyline and somewhat better-looking graphics.

After that, PR games kind of disappeared. There was a very unnecessary "Zeo Racers" Mario Kart-ripoff for the SNES and a PC game, also based on Power Rangers Zeo (there was a pinball game somewhere there as well). Fast forward a few years ahead, to 2000. THQ is tasked with developing two new Power Rangers games, based on that year's show, 'Lightspeed Rescue'. One of them was for the Gameboy Color and one for the Sony Playstation. The Gameboy version is, to this day, one of the better PR games in existence. It was a surprisingly simplistic and yet an addicting and solid game. It didn't have a coherent storyline, it was instead divided into five (?) missions, each split into three parts- rescuing civilians, fighting and a Megazord battle. The Rangers couldn't do a whole lot, but what they could do fit in perfectly with the premise. In all honesty, those of you who still own a GBC or GBA with b/w compatibility, hunt a copy of this down.

The Playstation version, unfortunately, didn't have the same fate. Going for something less innovative, what we got was a 3D beat-'em'-up with awkward controls and clunky battle system. It wasn't awful, but it certainly wasn't good. Both of these games found sequels in the following years' PR games, based on "Power Rangers Time Force". The little Gameboy title wasn't up to its predecessor's standards, in the sense that it wasn't as varied and interesting, but it was a neat little thing for sure. The Playstation version also didn't stray very far, though it felt a bit more polished than the LR game. Only problem was that the game was licensed, before the show went into production and so the storyline has nothing to do with the show-- at first, the folks over at Saban believed that Time Rangers would have something to do with traveling through time to help people and thus the game follows the same pattern. Too bad the actual show used time-traveling only as a premise and not a gimmick and instead took place entirely in the present.

At the time, the new Gameboy Advance was making its appearance and so a Time Force game was made for it as well. Again, the standard side-scrolling action with a little of platforming, it was actually a very fun title. The action was solid, the controls good, the graphics pretty and even featured some of the music from the show. Of course, it was one of the early GBA titles, so it may not hold up that well today, but it was still neat for its time.

That was the last time these games were anything noteworthy. Every season up to SPD got a game since, traditionally published by THQ, but most of them were just playing it safe with the same gameplay elements and maybe a thing extra or two. The only one that still comes to mind is the Wild Force game, which kind of sucked, but it was the last time they tried something radically new with the series, going for an action title, with an over-head camera in a pseudo-3D environment. It didn't work that well. The last one, "Power Rangers SPD" was functional, but insultingly short and vastly underwhelming in its roster.

And then, a couple of years later, it's been 15 years and the Power Rangers celebrate. Disney Interactive, in cooperation with A2M make and publish "Power Rangers: Super Legends", for the PC, PS2 and Nintendo DS. Both of these games would take place across different timelines from the beginning of the show and feature several playable Rangers from most of the seasons.

The PC/PS2 version was a disappointment. A storyline kind of basic, but yet surprisingly underwhelming, with stunningly over-the-top voice acting and, all-in-all, just not worth the money spent to make it. Okay, it wasn't awful; technically it wasn't even that bad a game. It just felt very... poor. The Rangers are interchangeable, the graphics are a bit 'meh', the action dull and repetitive. Nobody would really care about this game; not even we, the fans. Hell, I doubt the kids, who like the show would care.

But that's not why we're here. No; we're going to focus on the NDS version, which feels less rushed, but equally shit.

Okay, I'll admit, there is something I like about this game. The storyline is shit and the writing is atrocious. The dialogue is over-the-top even by the show's standards and the whole thing just doesn't flow. But fuck this, let's talk gameplay. The focus is on the standard, overdone and oh-so-safe 2D platforming/side-scrolling-action. The game picks the Ranger for you, depending on the level you play and you start off with a basic combo, a sword attack and a blaster attack, which is non-lethal, but fortunately not useless. You gather crystals from fallen enemies or you find them scattered around the environment and you use them to unlock new moves on the 'Hall of Legends' safehouse in-between missions. I kind of liked this part early on; I already bitched about how safe they played it, but it's still beating the living crap out of Putties or Krybots or Mutorgs and for the most part it's fast enough to keep my attention sharp.

At first.

Soon enough the problems become apparent. For starters, command-response is often-times shit. New commands don't override old ones. It's not a huge problem, since you don't need that extra uppercut to finish off an enemy, outside of the effect, anyway, but if you are surrounded, it could be trouble. Since new commands don't override the old ones and you have to wait for the animation to end, if you're caught in the middle of a combo with your back turned to an enemy, you're bound to get beaten, since you won't be able to turn around in time to respond. It's a really irritating little thing that can be lethal, since enemies tend to inflict a lot of damage, probably a decision made to counter the fact that they are abysmally thick. They come from different directions and as soon as they see the player, they just attack 'till they die. Some times, if the player's on a different platform, they won't even bother jumping off to the same level; you'd have to go to them.

Want to see a combination of the aforementioned two issues in practice? Start beating up enemies in an endless combo, but don't finish it. Hold it off, then and watch the enemy stare at you for two seconds, before dropping on the ground and dying on its own. "This is where you fall down".

Once in every stage, the game switches to an overhead shooter, in the likes of 1942, where a Ranger rides a flying vehicle and shoots shit on the way. This is easily the worst part of the game. For starters, the entire game uses both screens to display the entire map. In the fighting parts it's not so bad, but in the shooting segment it's really annoying, because you have to split your attention between the LCD screen, where you have to shoot the enemies, before they get too close and the Touch Screen, where you have to dodge their shit. In addition, the enemies are dull and unimaginative and the hit-detection is atrocious. You start off with a shield, which however is lost if anything, ANYTHING hostile touches it. If you don't see where I'm coming from, let me make it clearer; the shield, which is there to protect your ship, goes *poof* if a bullet even scrapes it. The shield, not the ship. What the fuck? Usually, to lose the shield, it's the ship that has to be hit, but not here; here, you have to protect the shield. In other words, when you have the shield on, you become a bigger, harder to maneuver target! Nice going there, morons. That'll go down as one of the worst power-ups in the history of gaming.

Once every final stage of an era/show/season, there is a Megazord battle. They've chosen to go a different route here and instead put the player inside the cockpit, then use the stylus to fire at and slash the enemy monster/robot. It's not terrible and it's actually a much better change of pace than the previous segment, but it can be tedious until you get used to it. The ranged attacks are easy, but once the battle becomes close-quarters, you have to slash across the screen at specific body parts of your enemy and defend yourself from their attacks. The former is easy enough, but the latter is a pain in the ass, since it requires precision. And here's one of my main problems with the DS dual-screen gimmick; most developers have no fucking idea how to use it and they just throw it in, because "it's a DS game". Having to form a near-perfect-circle in the middle of a fast-paced battle is not good game design.

To make matters worse, the game has the gall to require you to use the stylus during the side-scrolling fighter parts toward the end of the whole thing. The Z-Putties show up and do you remember from the show how you had to hit them on the 'Z' or they wouldn't die? Well, once they fall here, you have to hit them with the stylus, or they'll get back up. Again, this is not good design, not unless the DS was originally made for people with 3 arms or circus performers. When the game uses both hands on the regular controls, reaching for the stylus right the fuck out of nowhere is problematic.

It's little things like this that make the game harder than it really is. It gives you plenty of lives (even if it's an obsolete system) and there is no real game over, but the bad decisions can often-times make it frustrating. Like the fact, for example, that there are no checkpoints. If you lose all your lives, which is very possible when you first encounter a boss and don't know the trick to beating them, you have to start over the entire level. That means 3-4 fighting areas and the over-head shooter thing, over and over again.

All that aside, the game looks... OK. It's not good-looking, but the comic-hand-drawn style fits the whole thing and the 3D segments in the Megazord are adequate, at least. The music is really bland, on the other hand, though I do have to give them some credit for the fact that some of the background music is inspired loosely from each season's theme song. Also, props for getting the original sound of the Putty Patrollers and... well, I don't remember that from the show, but it's stereotypically hilarious that when you hit Kelzaks, they yell out 'Oi!' (Ninja Storm was the first PR show to be filmed in New Zealand with a local cast).

Before I close this one, I want to point out how un-Power-Ranger-like this game is. The mechanics are something you'd expect in a PR game, but everything else is completely off. It's like they hired people, who had NO idea about the show to do this. For starters, why does NOBODY ever reference each other with their names? They're all "Red Ranger" or "Blue Ranger" or whatever. I mean, the only one that gets an actual reference by name is fucking Boom! So, out of the dozens of heroes included in the game, the only person acknowledged is the irritating comic relief of a subpar season?

There are plenty other such issues as well. Why is the Omega Ranger presented as the ultimate Ranger here? He's more powerful than his companions, but not as big as others that came before him. Even as a character, he sucked! He was a ball of light! Literally. They didn't have the budget to hire an actor, so they transformed him into a light-ball. That's not the stuff of Legends! I would sort of... kind of get it, if the game was released during SPD and they wanted to promote the show, but this was released during Operation Overdrive. Likewise, Emperor Grumm seems to be getting a lot more praise than he deserves here, even though he's one of the most unimaginative villains in the history of the show. On the bright side, he gets backstabbed by Zedd in the end.

And then there are other, little things. Why does the Omega Ranger say that "it was good to see Delta Squad again"? Who is Delta Squad? His Ranger friends are B-Squad and the entire Force is called Space Patrol Delta. Why do the Galaxy Rangers contact "Galactic Command"? Who the fuck is "Galactic Command"? The Galaxy Rangers didn't answer to anyone, they were in it themselves, with the occasional help from Alpha 6. Likewise, who the fuck do the Time Force Rangers contact? At first, I assumed they were back in the future and that's why they were contacting Time Command, but as it turns out, each level takes place during the year the shows took place in... which means, Time Force Rangers have no absolute commander! Why does the Quantum Ranger come out at some point and says "Rangers in my time don't quit so easily"? The QUANTUM RANGER IS FROM THE PRESENT. What? Did they randomly pick someone from the Time Force team and assumed he was from the future?

Last, but not least, WHAT THE FUCK DO THE RANGERS PILOT? During these irritating shooter segments, they just fly things never heard of or seen before in the show. There are a couple you might recognize, like Trip's Time Flyer or the Galaxy Rangers' Jet Jammers, but the rest are completely made up. Kimberly even references one as "shark"-something (no, not a Shark Cycle).

Anyway, this has gone for long now, so I might as well conclude. There is potential in the Power Rangers for a fun game, potential once realized. Unfortunately that was a long time ago. "Super Legends" for the DS is barely worth a purchase from fans, only for the satisfaction of beating up Putties, but for everyone else, it's just a bad game.

Next Review: "Arkham Asylum"!