First Impressions: “Total War Battles: KINGDOM”

When I booted up Steam this evening, I saw “Total War Battles: KINGDOM” in the “Popular New Releases” section, so I thought I would give it a look.  I’ve played and enjoyed some of the other Total War games, including “Medieval II,” although I’ve primarily stuck to “Empire,” when it comes to Total War.  I had seen their previous casual dabble “Total War Battles: SHOGUN” a while back when it was new on Steam, but I didn’t pay it much mind.  “KINGDOM” is Free To Play, though, so I didn’t have much to lose.  Having played the tutorial, here are my thoughts:

I liked the somewhat zoomed-in feel of the game, focusing on just your little settlement and single army at first, rather than the grand scale world maps of the main Total War series. I particularly liked the ability to affect terrain to redirect rivers and such, although I would like it better if this could be used to affect combat (although maybe it can, and I just haven’t reached that point yet). I particularly liked how building a church has the effect of unlocking combat buffs for your troops. It always frustrated me in “Medieval: Total War” when I would get pestered by the Pope to build churches I had no use for or interest in.

The resource management is also a new addition to the Total War model.  Your expansion was limited only by gold and population in the main Total War titles I’ve played, so it was kind of fun to have to consider the availability of supplies as well as funding.  The use of time as a mechanic has always been a facet of the series, but “KINGDOM” shakes things up by making it real time, rather than in-game year.  In theory, this could be exciting, if it means you have to plan your projects and orchestrate them so that you don’t accidentally flood a construction zone, or build a bridge into hostile territory before you’re done recruiting your troops. That said, the option to pay “gold” to complete it instantly, or else wait twenty minutes to landscape a single tile suggests to me that this is much more likely a means of adding micropayments than a move from turns to real-time a la “Crusader Kings II.”

The combat was pretty underwhelming, when compared to the main entries to the series.  In the traditional model, you’re given a battlefield full of terrain you can use to your advantage, and you can arrange your troops however you like, even setting up ambushes and cover from enemy fire, and you can then move them all around the battlefield in real-time, once the battle has started.  “KINGDOM,” on the other hand, has a VERY streamlined version of these mechanics.  Units in “KINGDOM” are arranged on a grid, rather than freely on a map, and the most you can do is arrange them in the order you want and issue the occasional order to target an enemy unit with a special ability, or move one of your units into a free space.  For a casual player, I think that this system will probably work pretty well, and you can fight a battle or two with minimal time and attention while riding the bus or waiting for class to start.  Veteran players of the Total War series will probably get bored quickly.

Generally speaking, I’d say that this game feels a lot better suited for tablet use, particularly if it can be easily minimized and left to run in the background so you can read or browse the internet while your buildings and terrain modifications load. I like that it’s designed to be played from any device, so you can jump from computer to tablet and back, but if I’m at my computer, I may as well just play the ACTUAL “Medieval: Total War.” It’s a spiffy little take on Total War, translating it probably as well as could be hoped to the free-to-play mobile model, but it is, at the end of the day, a Free To Play casual game designed to work just as well on a tablet as on a PC.  If you want a Total War fix while on the road, or are a casual gamer looking to dabble in grand strategy without having to sink a bunch of time into a dense $20 RTS, then this game is worth a look.  Otherwise, you’d probably be better off just starting a new campaign in “Medieval II: Total War” or “Crusader Kings II.”

REVIEW: Star Trek: Into Darkness

After dropping the ball for quite some time, I am now going to review “Star Trek: Into Darkness,” the second in the series of Trek reboots from J.J. Abrams.

                The aesthetic of the film is, as with the first, very busy.  First of all, this film does not escape the signature Abrams Lens Flare, which remains pretty inexplicable and distracting.  Aside from that, there are lights blinking everywhere, and they’re all very excited to be on screen.  The bridge itself has a lot of these blinkies, as I’ve heard them called, but is, otherwise, very smooth and sleek, with many of the surfaces looking as though they’re made of glass.  Some people might take issue with this reimagining of the iconic Enterprise command center, but I think that it works.  With how sparse and plywood-looking the original was, the reboots had a choice to either touch it up with modern effects and sensibilities of The Future, or reimagine it completely (into something like CIC from “Battlestar Galactica” or the command deck from “Mass Effect”).

Speaking of, I joked when the trailer first came out for this movie that “Oh hey!  They made a ‘Mass Effect’ film adaptation!  Cool!”  The storyline of the movie did turn out to be more in keeping with Star Trek, but the prop choices certainly do feel a little alien to the Star Trek universe.  The uniforms worn on the Enterprise are still updated versions of the original uniforms, but the film takes every opportunity to get the characters out of the bright, solid colors, and into dark jumpsuits and combat gear with colored stripes indicating officer-type, or into grey wool dress uniforms.  I was never too attached to the TOS uniforms (My favorites have always been the TNG movie/late DS9 uniforms), so the change didn’t bother me too much.  Likewise for the updated phaser rifles (which look like something one might actually issue to a security officer).

There’s not a whole lot to say about the music, I’m afraid.  It’s mostly reworkings and recyclings of the music from the first film.  Don’t get me wrong:  I liked the music from the first film.  That theme is great.  There’s just really not much that stood out as a “Duel of the Fates” or “Ride of the Rohirrim.”

The cast remains pretty good.  Zachary Quinto is still a great Spock, and Karl Urban keeps McCoy’s exasperated, sarcastic self vibrant and dynamic.  Zoe Saldana, John Cho, and Anton Yelchin continue to work well as the younger, hotter versions of Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov.  Simon Pegg is up to his usual standards and antics, providing some good comic relief, but being able to play it straight when necessary.  Alice Eve, a franchise newcomer, is not bad, although forgettable as Carol Marcus (I literally almost forgot to include her on this list).  I’ve never signed on to the Chris Pine hate bandwagon, and I think that he does pretty well as his cocky, swaggering Kirk.  The show is stolen, though, by Benedict Cumberbatch as the main villain  (SPOILER  1), who provides all the nuance and emotional range that the other villain fails to muster up (SPOILER  2).

The plot, for the most part, is solid.  There are some twists and turns, some reveals, and some neat action sequences, and, in a departure from the complete space cowboy antics of its predecessor, there are some ethical dilemmas.  The film ends with a note that it is dedicated to the victims and heroes of 9/11 and its aftermath (Pretty late on the bandwagon, there, Abrams), but the movie manages to actually explore some questions about the post-9/11 world, rather than simply resort to “‘Murrikuh!  Fuck yeah!” jingoism.  In an added stroke of luck, the quandaries that are brought up in the manhunt for Cumberbatch after a bombing in London (Can we really justify killing someone without a trial first?  Or through the use of remote controlled weapons that have the potential to cause massive collateral damage?  Is security worth compromising our core principles? etc.) all are presented in ways in which right and wrong start to get lost between conflicting variables and goals, all which seem important and valid.

That said, this is a Star Trek movie, and it is eager to mine the canon for gold.  A little too eager, I think.  There is a somewhat forced detour that seems built around getting some franchise staples on screen, mostly just to have a rumble and then never come up again (SPOILER 3).  Some scenes and backstory events are downright copies of (ahem, “tributes to”) scenes and events from earlier Star Trek films and episodes, but with minor changes.  I can understand the desire to allude to the larger franchise (if they weren’t going to use the Star Trek universe, then they should have just made it a sci-fi action/adventure of its own), and in some cases, I enjoyed it, but some of it felt just a little too much like pandering, or dropping someone’s name to the doorman of a club.

All in all, I enjoyed “Star Trek: Into Darkness.”  If you liked the first of the reboots, you’ll like this one.  Better still, the plot and characters have developed more nuance and depth since the last time, so this movie feels more like a Star Trek movie, and less like a movie simply called “Star Trek.”  And now, I leave you with some filk of the original Star Trek II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPOILERS

1:  The main villain is Khan.  This movie isn’t a remake of “Wrath of Khan,” but it does insist on redoing a few scenes from the original Star Trek II…

2:  There’s also a Starfleet Admiral behind all this, and he’s hellbent on making a fleet of warships and then starting a war with the Klingons to justify commanding said fleet of warships, for no discernible reason.

3:  There are Klingons.  The plot is nominally about a secret plot to engineer a war with them (see above), but they only show up for one scene, long enough to show off some (weirdly redesigned) head ridges and bat’leths, and then we never hear from them again.  Klingons have always been a fan favorite, but if you’re going to include them, include them, please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review: The Dark Knight Rises

It’s been nearly a week since the release of Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight Rises,” but I figured I might as well review it anyway.

                The cinematography and art direction of the film are spot on.  The scenes in mansions and such are dimly lit with warm light, which creates a soft, but still oppressive, atmosphere.  Many of the outdoor scenes, particularly later in the film, give a muted and empty feeling, the snow contrasting nicely with the dark, monochromatic cityscape.  After the events of “The Dark Knight,” Bruce/Batman’s melancholy permeates Wayne manner, which seems like a corpse of its former self.

Christian Bale again gives a solid performance as Bruce Wayne/Batman.  He manages to muster the appropriate level of thinly veiled glee upon his discovery of a conspiracy and the arrival of the big, bad Bane.

On that subject, Tom Hardy does about as well as one can reasonably hope as Bane.  The film’s script and direction do a good job trying to add depth and motivation to the character, and Hardy does his best to put it all together, but it’s tricky to get excited about The Fairly Strong Man, especially after the hallucinogenic fear ninjas of “Batman Begins” and the utter Chaotic Evil insanity of “The Dark Knight”‘s Joker.

Anne Hathaway’s portrayal of the cat burglar Selina Kyle (never referred to as Cat Woman) is quite believable, and she does a good job of acting as though she cares about larger events despite herself.  The character itself is nicely formulated, with her talk of class warfare and corporate excess coming off as intentional delusions to justify her ongoing life of crime.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt shines as the up and coming cop, Blake, and probably does the most legwork in the movie.  While most of the other characters remain mostly static (With Bruce Wayne/Batman rehashing earlier story arcs), Blake develops a great deal over the course of the film’s two hours and forty four minutes, coming to terms with harsh realities and making choices about the man he wants to be, etc. etc. etc.

Michael Cain, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman reprise their roles as Alfred, Lucius, and Commissioner Gordon, respectively, each maintaining their high standards.  Marion Cotillard, a franchise newcomer, passes well as Miranda Tate, an energy financier and partner of Wayne Enterprises.

Unfortunately, despite the excellent cast and great ambiance, the plot is this movie’s weak point.  Now, the film is good, mind you, but the content doesn’t really live up to the depth of previous installments.  While a good deal of lip service is paid to Occupy-esque sentiment and class warfare, the only indication the audience is given as to why the villains are anything other than anarchist thugs are a few brief remarks that there are some eight hundred inmates being held at a high security prison without parole.  If this is supposed to fill the viewer with outrage, it does a poor job, considering it is established that the inmates are all in there because they are dangerous, violent criminals, and that they are armed with assault weapons immediately upon their release.  Weak rationale for violent uprising aside, the film does make the good point that, regardless of what you might think about the top 1%, the bottom 20% are unlikely to be an improvement.

Aside from the class warfare framing device, the plotline is fairly simplistic.  Bane shows up.  Batman shows up.  The two have a mid-film fight.  The two separate and hatch their respective plans, then there’s a finale.  There are a few neat plot twists, some nods to earlier installments in the series, and the plot formula does its job, but the story isn’t especially compelling.

Final thoughts:  As one might expect from the final installment of the Christopher Nolan “Batman” saga, this is a good movie.  It features a great cast, and they all do wonderfully.  The art direction is good and works great with the mood.  The storyline isn’t really anything to write home about, and its class warfare talk feels more like an attempt at a real world tie-in than an actual reflection on the subject, but it’s enough to carry the film along and take you for a great ride.  Definitely worth seeing.

Review: Seeking a Friend for the End of the World

This time, I am reviewing Lorene Scafaria’s “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World,” which stars Steve Carell and Keira Knightley.  Below is the trailer:

                Despite the editing on the trailer, which highlights the more comedic portions of the film, “Seeking a Friend” isn’t exactly a laugh-a-minute knee-slapper of a movie.  Yes, there are numerous run ins with oddball characters (shown in the trailer as the irresponsible fireworks dad, the gas-mask wearing survivalist, the unempathetic cop, and the overly friendly restaurant staff), but these colorful characters have an air of desperation about them, their strange behavior coming off not as eccentricities that had always been there, but more as dysfunctional coping mechanisms to distract them from their impending doom.  The sentiment of the movie is not so much “the world’s ending, let’s throw a party!” and more a meditation upon how humanity might react to inescapable destruction.

Carell puts forth, as usual, a good performance as the sadsack Dodge, an insurance salesman whose wife (played by Steve Carell’s real wife) leaves him as soon as she learns that the world will be ending.  In the face of imminent death, however, he does a remarkable job of retaining his composure while the world falls to pieces, carrying on with his job and his life despite the futility of it all.

Knightly plays Penny, a somewhat flaky young woman with her head perpetually in the clouds.  Her bouncy optimism and whimsy contrasts nicely with Dodge’s orderly manner.  As the movie goes on, Penny’s ditziness starts to grate on the nerves, though, but that seems largely intentional, on Scafaria’s part.  The pair of Penny and Dodge serve as positive ideals for the end of the world, being optimistic and at peace, respectively.

The aesthetic choices of the movie are pleasingly subdued, with more shots of suburbs and corn fields than of urban riots and destruction.  I joked to my father while we watched the movie that it was an alternate ending to “Armageddon,” but the common theme of an asteroid-related Ragnarok is the only real similarity between the two movies.  There aren’t many explosions, there’s only one gunshot, and there are no montages of people waving ‘Murrikuhn flags.

I found the soundtrack to be more or less unremarkable.  It was made up, as far as I can tell (I’m no expert on contemporary music) of classic light rock, and some indie/alternative stuff from more recently.  I didn’t hate the music, but I wasn’t left humming anything to myself as I left the theater.

As far as plot goes, it’s more or less a roadtrip story, set within the framework of a cataclysm.  After the first half hour, in which the characters are established, Penny and Dodge flee the city they had been in due to rioting.  Both of them are trying to find their loved ones, with Penny wanting to get back to England to see her family, and Dodge wanting to reconnect with an old flame.  The two agree to help one another, and they depart.  To go into further developments would involve spoilers, but suffice it to say that the two end up getting what they need, rather than what they want.

All in all, “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World” is a good movie.  It’s not the greatest thing I’ve seen this year (Thus far, “Moonrise Kingdom” remains my favorite new cinematic thing in the world), but it’s certainly worth seeing.  If you want a dramedy with a good heart and an existential crisis, this is a good pick.

Review: Moonrise Kingdom

In order to establish my film reviewer cred (adjusts hipster glasses and plaid flannel shirt), I’ll be starting with a review of “Moonrise Kingdom,” the latest film from Wes Anderson.  Below is the trailer:

                First of all, the art direction and cinematography in this movie is fantastic.  The film opens in the house of Suzy, the female protagonist, and the whole opening credits sequence feels very well put together.  Each room of the house is shown, and each one gives the sense that the viewer is not looking at a set so much as the inside of a diorama of a refurbished lighthouse.  When the film cuts to “Camp Ivanhoe,” the base camp of “Khaki Scout” troop 55, the site is shown with very few cuts (and even the cuts that do take place are for comedic effect).  The depictions of the “Khaki Scouts” mirrors vintage prints of Boy Scouts, not solely in the costuming choices, but also in the lighting and surrounding, as though Ed Norton and his troop stepped straight out of Norman Rockwell pieces.

Anderson and his team do a great job with visual storytelling, too, wholeheartedly embracing the notion of “show, don’t tell.”  Neither of the child leads (Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward) have any lines of dialogue until they finally come face to face, which is well into the film.  Prior to that point, both of them get a lot of screen time, in which their behavior introduces them to the audience.  The same thing goes for the rest of the cast.  Ed Norton’s Scoutmaster Ward stands up straight, and he carries himself with purpose.  Bill Murray and Frances McDormand, who play the parents of Suzy, the female protagonist, both trudge around their house looking beleaguered and half disoriented, a physical manifestation of the weariness they feel from dealing with their “very troubled child.”

On to the story.  “Moonrise Kingdom” tells the tale of the romance between Sam, a discontented “Khaki Scout” (clear Boy Scout proxies), and Suzy, an angsty schoolgirl with a fondness for young adult sci-fi/fantasy novels.  I found the courtship between the two to be very touching, with the couple going beyond being mere sweethearts, and instead each serves as the other’s sole friend and confidant.  Despite the youth of the protagonists, their feelings are not presented as petty, silly, or fleeting, but are treated as valid and real.  In fact, the relationship between Sam and Suzy, which Suzy summarizes to her mother as “We just want to be together.  What’s wrong with that?” is bitingly juxtaposed against the relationships and lives of the adult authority figures around the two, who, despite claiming that they know more about life and love than a couple of twelve year-olds, can’t seem to get their own lives in order.  The progression of the latter half of the film, in which the adult characters learn about love and priorities from the twelve year-old couple, should feel trite and cliché, but the film is so well made and the characters are so relatable and sympathetic that it manages to work.

All in all, I’d say that this is a great movie, and I heartily recommend it.  I liked it so much that I watched it in theaters twice, which I almost never do.  The script is delightful, the art direction and cinematography are excellent, and it features some great performances from some great actors.  If you haven’t yet seen “Moonrise Kingdom,” go watch it!