Change Your Image
eric_buist
Reviews
Dances with Wolves (1990)
Not as good as I used to think, but still a great film
My view of this film has changed, but it's still great in many ways. I still never tire of watching the buffalo hunt, and the period is brought to life marvellously. The extensive use of the Lakota language, even if flawed, is immensely admirable and educational, as is the portrayal of Native peoples in a positive light.
But the portrayal of the Sioux is perhaps too positive, and that of the Pawnee too negative. As with Last of the Mohicans, the good guy Natives are Elves, while the bad guy Natives are Orcs. The Sioux and the Mohicans are graceful and respectable, while the Pawnee and Huron are bloodthirsty and barbaric. The Sioux and Mohicans are also long-haired and handsome, while the Pawnee and Huron are bald, unsavoury, and smeared in frightening war paint. The two films demonize the Pawnee and Huron in order to garner more sympathy for the Sioux and Mohicans. Kind of insulting if you ask me, to all four tribes. And while the film is commendable for portraying Native peoples (the Lakota anyway) in a positive light for a change, it seems to give the false impression that the Lakota were all saints. Some real-life Lakota carried out brutal attacks, against the supposedly exceptionally savage Pawnee no less, burning their lodges and killing women and children. Look up the Battle at Blue Coat's Village, and also Massacre Canyon.
People go on about the Americans being portrayed as all vulgar and repulsive, but I'm not sure this is fair. A very small amount of Americans appear substantially in the film, and it is easy to imagine that the behaviour and attitudes depicted actually would've happened. It's hard to tell if Kevin Costner intended to give a blanket portrayal of them, because the Lieutenant who questions him is a good character. There's even a deleted scene where Dunbar stops Wind in His Hair from scalping his dead body.
Sticking with appearance, although the period is brought to life really well, the Sioux always look like they've just stepped out of the shower, while the Americans are always dirty (Timmins especially) and the Pawnee are always sweaty. These contrasts kind of take me out of the period a bit.
Stands With a Fist is another contentious character. It's quite a coincidence, isn't it, that there just happens to be a white woman living with Dunbar's Sioux neighbours. And of course he just so happens to fall in love with HER. But it is a plausible situation. And if he prefers the white woman over all the Sioux women, that's his choice. It's also an interesting dynamic. But I still would've preferred if Dunbar had fallen in love with a Lakota woman. There wasn't any real intimate interaction between Dunbar and a Lakota person. He always seemed kind of distant from them.
Probably the most common critique of this film is that it's a condescending White Saviour film. This is just not true at all. I mean Dunbar gives the tribe a heads up on the presence of buffalo, and he evens the odds against the attacking Pawnee by giving the Sioux the guns from the fort. How is he a messianic figure? He's just helping them out and earning their respect. If anything the Sioux save Dunbar, I mean they literally do at the end of the film.
Overall I still like the film, but not as much as I used to. I still think it deserves an 8/10, but that's down from the 10 I used to give it.
The Last of the Mohicans (1992)
A thrill, but I was expecting more
I was expecting something like Dances with Wolves, which is such a rewarding and fulfilling film. This film was basically one long blood-bath punctuated by moments of forced romance between characters with little chemistry. I found the film very gripping, but when it was done, it just felt so incomplete, and I wanted more. When it got to the scene with the Huron village, I thought I was in the middle of the film and that a really interesting third act was ahead. But when I checked the time bar, I saw that the film was almost done! The climax was already nigh! Nothing truly interesting happens in this film, the only good things are the visuals, the fight scenes, and the acting. The story is not fleshed out enough, I have no reason to care about Hawkeye and his companions beyond basic empathy. It's just "protect the damsels in distress" and then "save the damsels in distress". But there are two things that prevent me from giving a rating lower than 7: The first is the ending, which is both beautiful and harrowing. The second is the character of Magua. I just couldn't take my eyes off him when he was on screen, and I hinged on his every word when he spoke. He is a brutal man, but there is a gravitas to him. He really carried the film.
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (2010)
Fun, but tainted by flaws
This game was very entertaining overall. There were some cool missions. I enjoyed the ones where you have to infiltrate the Borgia castle, it was reminiscent of a Robin Hood movie. There are also fun side missions, like Leonardo's Machines, where you travel to a Borgia stronghold, infiltrate it, and use an innovative military machine against the enemy before destroying it. These are great fun. The combat is also improved, allowing you to go on killstreaks, and you get a crossbow this time around, decreasing the annoying ammo refill trips to the blacksmith. It's also nice to be able to ride your horse through the city instead of having to leave it at the gate. It is amusing though how you can basically gallop through the streets and knock people over without worrying about hurting them.
Now for the bad:
1. You're mostly in one place, Rome, and it gets kind of boring. I was also kind of disappointed in Rome, I thought it was going to be a city even grander than those in AC 2, but it was basically just areas of narrow, claustrophobic, uninteresting streets, broken up by open areas featuring Roman ruins.
2. Infuriating missions. Some missions are so hard, with methods to complete them very unclear, demanding an unreasonable amount of thinking on your feet. I eventually stopped losing it whenever something inexplicably went wrong and just accepted that some missions are basically just like rolling a dice, hoping things work out for you the first time, and succeeding only after learning from your mistakes. However, on one mission, I got to the next checkpoint without even knowing how it happened! Next time I play the game, I'll be as unsure of what to do as I was the first time.
3. That damn Apple of Eden. I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to wield it properly without watching a youtube video of someone else doing the mission.
4. It was nice to finally be able to do virtual combat practice outside of the game, I don't know why this wasn't in the previous 2 games. As a veteran of the Batman Arkham games, it was really annoying. But nevertheless, it was finally there, though it was kind of limited. It would be nice to be able to just fight an unlimited amount of guards for an unlimited amount of time. The longest amount of time you can fight is 2 minutes.
5. Soundtrack was forgettable. There were a couple interesting additions, but it was mostly uninteresting, and there was too much rehashing of the 2nd game's soundtrack, which was exquisite in its entirety.
6. Like the the previous installments, the final boss battle was way too easy. It's anticlimactic.
Batman: Arkham Knight (2015)
Loved it, but got bored very quickly
I had all but written off even playing this game because I doubted that my computer would be able to handle it. But as it happened, it was on sale at Halloween for 12 bucks, and I read a review from someone with a similar system to mine that said that the game ran fine. So I thought "what the hell, I'll give it a go." The game indeed ran fine. A little laggy, but nothing too disruptive.
The gameplay: So first of all, I thoroughly enjoyed Arkham Knight. I've read a lot of other reviews and I'm surprised at how little people have mentioned the inventiveness of the game play. The detective work is super fun and so creative. Tilting the airship to get past the blocks was a fun little puzzle, and the voice synthesizer is a very nifty and clever new gadget that brought a smile to my face when I first used it. There's so many other things that Batman has to do that I've forgotten what exactly most of it was. But it really was a step up from the previous two games in terms of variety and creativity. I loved some of the Riddler puzzles where you have to rescue Catwoman. Stopping the Two- Face bank robberies was fun. However, after the story was completed, it wasn't long before I got bored. I couldn't be bothered getting the Riddler trophies and all the other tasks got repetitive and uninteresting. The Man Bat mission was fun, as were the Two-Face bank robberies, but everything else either got tiring or I just couldn't be bothered. Two weeks after buying the game, I have uninstalled it and returned to Arkham Asylum and City. Those games have more lasting value.
The story: Despite the intensity of the story, I wasn't very invested in it. The Arkham Knight just seemed like a nuisance and I couldn't be bothered worrying about Scarecrow. Every time he came up on the speakers, I almost wanted to ignore his over the top remarks. The final scene, however, was brilliant and it was great to come full circle and return to Arkham Asylum.
The Batmobile: Contrary to popular opinion, I LOVED the Batmobile. I don't think it was overused. It was more like compensation for not having been able to drive it in the previous games. I loved every minute of being at the wheel of that thing. The chases through the streets and the tank battles are incredible fun. And using the Batmobile to get on top of buildings and down into the Arkham Knight's headquarters are two of the really fun and creative moments in the game. I also loved the Riddler race tracks and the Riddler puzzle where you have to use the Batmobile to lower the water.
The Arkham Knight: I couldn't stand him. His ear-drum harassing electronic-y voice constantly taunting Batman got on my nerves pretty quickly. And his whiny teenager act throughout the final boss fight was unbearable and cringe-worthy. It felt like the constant presence of the Joker was to make up for a forgettable and implausible villain. I'm one of the few that did not predict that it was Jason Todd, both because of my ignorance of the wider Batman lore and because I didn't buy his transition from Robin to villain. And I don't get the connection with Arkham. He was tortured beneath Arkham Asylum, how does that warrant him making 'Arkham' part of his identity, even putting the Arkham logo on his army's tanks and uniforms? It seemed like a desperate attempt to keep the series grounded in 'Arkham', which seems kind of pointless. An "Arkham City" already seemed a bit of a stretch.
Scarecrow: Didn't like his character design and the change of voice. He wasn't menacing at all. He was laughably forgettable, especially when you compare him to how he was in Arkham Asylum. In that game, he was terrifying. I'll never forget playing that first hallucination level for the first time. I kept expecting at least one hallucination scene, even scarier than the ones in the first game, but it never came. The hallucination at the end was compelling, but not really scary.
Character design in general: Most notably, what the hell happened to Oracle, Gordon, and Catwoman? Oracle has gone from being a stern, sophisticated woman in the first two games to being a sloppily dressed, timid teenager. I wasn't really touched by her apparent death because it wasn't the Oracle who had loyally and lovingly guided me through the first two games. If she had had the same voice and features that fit with that voice, I would've been gutted at her supposed death. Gordon has gone from being a sweet and lovable but calmly tough customer to being a grouchy, bitter old man. And Catwoman has gone from being incredibly hot to downright ugly. It's not even the same face.
Gotham: At last! We get to be in Gotham! Well, I guess technically we do. But it never really feels like you are in Gotham. It feels too weird, messy, and unrecognizable. And there's not enough skyscrapers. The city feels too manipulated, too designed, in a video game sense. I don't feel like I'm in the big, ominous Gotham that towered over Arkham City and which I yearned to get to. I wanted to feel like I'm in a living, breathing Gotham, with plausible buildings and city structure with residents on the streets. It felt more like I was in some weird, special city sectioned off from Gotham. Wayne Tower, however, was great. It was the only part of the city where I felt I was in the same universe as the previous two games.
So it was a great game, but I had too many gripes with it for it to have the special place in my heart that Arkham Asylum and Arkham City did.