The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (2011) Review/Rant

Lucas Versantvoort / July 15, 2015

'Oh man, yet another Skyrim review…', I can hear you thinking. Well, if you're expecting me to sing this game's praises, then you're mistaken. Don’t get me wrong, Skyrim’s a decent game, but it’s got problems that extend beyond classic Bethesda glitchfests. My history with Skyrim is a tedious and drawn-out one. I first got it on PS3 back when it came out on 11-11-11 and had fun with it. I'd played the ever-loving f*ck out of Oblivion, which was my first Elder Scrolls game, so I obviously found the idea of a sequel immensely appealing. Needless to say, since the PS3 and Skyrim go together like Imperials and Stormcloaks, my experience with the game was a decidedly troubled one: there were glitches galore and lag issues that got worse over time. I eventually sold the game, but years later inexplicably bought it again, this time on PC, the platform of choice not just due to the bug fixes, both official and fan-made, but the mods of which there are now more than forty thousand. The presence of bugs in a Bethesda game has unfortunately become an expected scenario. Can you believe Bethesda recently stated it'll do everything in its power to at least ensure your Fallout 4 save files won't be corrupted!? Gee, thanks Bethesda. How about you make a game where I won't have to feverishly pray I make it through a loading screen! This little mini-rant aside, on to the review. I'll judge Skyrim from here on out without taking the technical side into consideration to see how it holds up as an experience. In other words, I'll judge it on content, not form.

True to tradition, the next iteration in the series takes place in a new environment, the wintery home of the Nords, Skyrim. You're a prisoner about to be executed, but a sudden appearance of a dragon, for the first time in forever, has everyone scrambling. You escape and you soon discover you're Dragonborn, meaning you have the inborn ability to use the powers of dragons, namely Shouts. Using your gift, you fight to rid Skyrim of dragons...or you could, you know, run off and do your own thing which is what the Elder Scrolls series is all about in the end. 

In terms of gameplay, no one besides the newcomers will be surprised by what Skyrim's got on offer. You create your character, customizing his/her looks and stats, and venture out into the world, looking for adventure. 

And there are plenty of adventures to be found. Probably the key characteristics of the series: side quests and dungeons. The average mission structure is as follows: talk to quest giver, clear dungeon, return to quest giver, receive reward. This is predictably fun up until the point you start to wonder what else the game's bringing to the table. After all, Skyrim is a role-playing game, aka you play a role, a very specific type of character and adhere to (your own) rules. This requires the upkeep of an illusion, both on your part as well as the game's part. 

Here is where I think the game starts to fall apart and you feel the game was rushed just so Bethesda could have its oh-so special 11-11-11 release date. Sure, the game's got plenty of dungeon crawling and character building, but what about that other type of character building; you know, character development, world-building and so on? This is where the illusion falls apart even on the most basic level. For instance, you can't walk five seconds in a city without encountering npc's who repeat their one or two lines before walking on pretending they’re actually doing something. To make Skyrim feel more 'alive' and prevent the cities from being too quiet, Bethesda programmed the npc's to say their little lines to you if you get too close to them. While a nice idea, since the npc’s only have a couple of lines, this gets tedious really fast, making you actively start walking around these characters just so you won't have to listen to the same lines ad nauseam. What immersion! And what is it with npc's who out of the blue divulge their problems to some stranger on the street? "I spend a lot of time at the market stalls so I ca--NEWS FLASH: nobody cares! It's Bethesda's lame excuse for alerting you to the fact that a particular npc can give you a quest. What immersion! 

Speaking of npc's, pretty much every character is boring and one-note. They serve one of two purposes: to give you a quest or to fit into a certain type of character (guard, farmer, merchant, etc.). There is not a single character that holds your interest for more than a minute. There's the occasional character development, but since this development has no real consequences beyond the mission it takes place in, it doesn't really matter anyway. No, what Bethesda relies on is your imagination, that you fill in the blanks, that you imagine the characters to be more than they seem. Taking any of these characters seriously requires Herculean effort and strength of imagination on the player's part. Some mod authors create custom followers with their own little backstories, but since most of these followers are not custom-voiced, they serve no real function. The backstories make no real difference, but are provided for the player, so he/she will hopefully project the backstory onto the follower. The mod author might as well say: ‘yeah, this follower is not custom-voiced, but try to imagine he had a really crappy childhood’…

Even more hilarious is the inclusion of a marriage system. You do a favor for a certain someone, wear an amulet and they'll hint at the fact they're interested in you. It says a lot that the inhabitants of Skyrim are prepared to say 'i do' to someone who got them an item or, better yet, delivered their mail. I guess South Park was right: we should watch out for those dastardly UPS guys. This entire system reeks of laziness on Bethesda's part once again. You marry the npc of your choice and stuff them in their/your home where they mostly sit around, doing nothing. But at least they now have maybe like FIVE entirely new lines, including such gems as "Hello, my love. Back from some adventure I bet." Wow, such immersion! Who needs a loving bond, the sharing of an understanding, the lengthy conversations when you can marry mr/mrs Doesn't-Say-Alot. 

And what about the civil war? You know, between the Imperials and the Stormcloaks!? Bethesda goes out of its way to make you aware of this conflict and how Skyrim's being TORN APART because of it. Yet, how is it then that I can walk around for hours and not stumble upon one fight between the two parties? According to the mod author of Civil War Overhaul, Bethesda hardcoded what they had to reach the deadline. In other words, what we got is a lot less complex than what could've been. As it is, the civil war is one of the most uninvolving aspects of Skyrim. Whether you side with the Imperials or the Stormcloaks, the mission structure stays the same: talk to general, liberate fort or something to that effect, return for reward. And don't you just love how in the middle of a civil war, you're sent on your own to kill a few dozen enemy soldiers? Sometimes npc's from your camp will help you, but even then it's like a 6v6 fight, hardly a number that instills the notion that a hard-fought civil war is going on. 

I could go on and on about the lackluster character development, the poor world-building, etc. The reason this bothers me is quite simple: poor world-building and poor character development = poor role-playing opportunities. To play a role means to lose yourself in the game world. Therefore, the game world and its inhabitants must conform to certain standards of realism and complexity. After all, how can you lose yourself in your own character, in the way you want to play, if the game world doesn't respond to your actions in the ways you'd expect? How can I believe in the Companions, see them as an elite fighter's guild with its own history and lore, when they never venture out to fight and I'm offered to join their elite Circle after just one mission? How can I believe there's a civil war going on when I don't experience the chaos that's supposed to go with it? How can I believe in the Thieves Guild when its recruiter Brynjolf walks up to me and tells me he can sense I'm an excellent thief even if my character's never stolen a single Septim? How can I believe in the whole marriage system when it's so lazily executed as to boggle the mind? How can I believe in the cities' inhabitants when the guards talk down to me even if I'm the Jarl of that particular city? How can I believe the Kahjiit trading caravans are conducting business with the local cities when all they do is sit around their little tents? How can I believe that Windhelm is a racist shithole, when I can be a dark elf and join the Stormcloaks without my character being exposed to copious amounts of racism and there not being extra demands placed on me? How can I believe in General Tullius and Ulfric Stormcloak when all they do is sit on their asses and look at their maps? How can I believe that I'm the key to stopping the dragons when a handful of town guards take one down with bows and arrows while I sit back and shove a few cheese wheels down my throat? The list goes on; believe me, it does. 

The causes behind all these shitty design choices aren't that hard to figure out. Previous entries like Daggerfall had mediocre graphics (by today's standards), but a gargantuan amount of content (with the map being roughly the size of Great Britain!) As graphics got better and better, making huge games took longer, got harder and more expensive as well. This led to the inevitable trade-off between graphics and content. The older games had so much content, because the graphics were relatively simplistic. (Daggerfall had such a rich variety of conversation options precisely because voice acting wasn’t as important as it is now.) With Skyrim, compromises had to be made. Making Skyrim literally the size of Great Britain would take eons. The aforementioned trade-off has consequences for all forms of content: from the number of dungeons to npc's. Bethesda wants their cities to feel alive, but they (were only able to) do so with the bare minimum of effort: a few dozen npc's with a few dozen lines (if you're lucky) who walk around doing nothing and say the same things to each other; day in, day out. Bethesda would want all followers to be unique and feel like real characters with motivations and backstories, but that would require dozens of voice actors and hundreds if not thousands of recorded lines, so instead we get these blank slates who follow you around, saying "I'm right behind you" every five seconds. 

I guess it's what you expect going into Skyrim that'll determine if you'll like it or not. Is the game fun? Sure, swinging an axe, shooting lightning bolts and clearing dungeons for loot is good times...up to a point. But if, like me, you like complex characters and impressive world-building in your rpg, then you'll start getting bored really quick.

Danny Collins (2015) Review

Lucas Versantvoort / August 17, 2015

Danny Collins is the based-on-true-events-but-not-really story of a '70s song writer who had to wait for several decades before receiving a letter by none other than John Lennon. The film begins with the classic white-text-on-black-background declaration that what you're about to see is based on real events, but the film subverts it by adding that it's kind-of-not-really based on real events. I'm gonna assume the filmmakers just used the letter and formed an entire film around it, but that opening alone already made me like the film.

Danny Collins is a typical pop-singer who sings all kinds of hits from the past much to the delight of his ever-aging legion of fans. He boozes, does coke in between concerts and his girlfriend's half his age. His best friend who's also his manager gives him the Lennon letter as a birthday present and Danny's world is turned upside down. As 'Imagine' plays, he reminisces about his life, deems it a miserable failure and decides to change his life around. He cancels all his upcoming concerts, breaks up with his girlfriend who was seeing someone else anyway, and travels to New Jersey where he checks into a random (but swanky) hotel. He's friendly towards everyone, he's trying to write his own songs again and seeks to establish a relationship with the son he never knew. 

If all this sounds familiar, it's because it does. We've all seen this type of story before, but Danny Collins executes it with enough aplomb to make it worth your while and that's the key to the film's succes. Of course, the aging father with the midlife crisis meeting his grown-up son for the first time is a familiar story, but their interactions here are quite well done. Even the extensive final scene focuses on his growing responsibility and fatherly love towards him. 

The film also succeeds in balancing the comedy with the drama quite well, which is a lot tougher than it sounds. Many films have tried and failed. A great example is the scene where Danny and his son meet for the first time. The son is obviously angry, but his ADHD daughter is excited and he's forced to calm her down. The irony is of course that he's calmly reciting a mantra to his daughter while probably boiling with rage himself. This goes for pretty much the entire film. The comedy never cancels the drama out and vice versa; in fact, most of the time (like the aforementioned scene) comedy and drama peacefully co-exist.

I make no secret of the fact I went to see Danny Collins because of Al Pacino. I've been a fan ever since I first saw his classics (the Godfather, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon and so on). Unfortunately, like Robert de Niro, life hasn't exactly handed him the top roles the past decades, so I was worried when I entered the theatre. Fortunately, Danny Collins provides him with a role that plays to his comedic strengths while downplaying the dramatic sections. In fact, there are quite a few scenes where I was really impressed with the subtle drama displayed by Pacino. Danny has a concert where he plans to premiere his new moody song, but the audience grows impatient and demands he sings the boring golden oldies. He succumbs to their demands much to his regret. After the concert, he stands alone backstage and you can see the regret and the self-loathing in his eyes. 

Danny Collins doesn't reinvent the wheel, but it doesn't have to. It's not gonna win any awards, but it's a nicely executed play on familiar themes.

Dutch version

Danny Collins is een ‘biografische’ film over een artiest die een brief van John Lennon na decennia aan vertraging ontving. De film begint met een bekende aanblik: witte letters op een zwarte achtergrond die verklaren dat je de komende twee uur naar een waargebeurd verhaal zal kijken. Danny Collins voegt een vleugje humor toe door te zeggen dat het enigszins, 'maar niet echt', op feiten is gebaseerd. Leuk om te zien dat er nog films zien die deze bekende uitspraak in humor kunnen omtoveren.

Danny Collins is een o zo typische popzanger die o zo typische popnummers zingt tot genoegen van zijn steeds ouder wordende groep fans. Hij snuift dagelijks cocaïne, is meerdere malen gescheiden en zijn vriendin is twee keer zo jong als hij. Voor zijn verjaardag geeft zijn manager, en beste vriend, hem een cadeau: de brief die Lennon aan Collins schreef, maar die nooit aangekomen is. Terwijl hij in bed aan het mijmeren is over zijn bestaan (en ‘Imagine’ van Lennon te horen is), begint zijn midlifecrisis, of zijn tweede jeugd, afhankelijk van hoe je het bekijkt. Hij is ontevreden met wat hij bereikt heeft en besluit het roer om te gooien. Hij spoelt de coke door het toilet, maakt het uit met zijn vriendin (die overigens al met iemand anders omging), pakt zijn koffers en checkt in een willekeurig (maar chique) hotel in New Jersey. Daar doet hij weer een poging om zelf liedjes te schrijven en om contact te leggen met de zoon die hij nooit gekend heeft. 

Dit soort verhalen zullen veel mensen bekend voorkomen: de midlifecrisis, de vader die zijn verloren zoon ontmoet. Het succes van de film zit 'm in hoe deze bekende elementen uitgevoerd worden. Dit is bijvoorbeeld te zien in de groeiende interacties tussen vader en zoon, er zitten leuke psychologische details in. 

Wat de film nog beter doet is het balanceren van humor en drama zonder dat de een de ander overheerst (waar zoveel films slachtoffer van worden). Zoals in de scène waar de zoon, Tom, thuiskomt en voor het eerst zijn vader ontmoet. Hij is natuurlijk boos, maar zijn aan ADHD-lijdende dochter is hartstikke enthousiast en begint van vreugde over haar nieuwe opa tegen haar vader op te springen. Tom kalmeert haar door een soort mantra op te noemen die haar afleidt en kalmeert. Mooi ironisch in die scène is dat hij zijn dochter kalmeert, terwijl hij zelf ongetwijfeld aan het koken is van binnen. Een subtiele vorm van humor die het drama niet ondermijnt en in vrijwel de hele film wordt deze balans behouden.

Het zal niet verbazen dat mensen de film kijken puur vanwege Al Pacino. Menig fan zal opgevallen zijn dat, net zoals De Niro, Pacino niet de meest aanzienlijke rollen heeft gekregen de afgelopen twintig jaar (hoewel hij veel succes met televisierollen heeft gehad). Met Danny Collins kunnen we blij verrast zijn. Het geeft Pacino de kans om zijn komisch talent tentoon te spreiden en het melodrama wordt in toom gehouden. Nergens wordt er overdreven geacteerd. Eerder het tegenovergestelde: Pacino laat een enorme subtiliteit zien. Zoals de scène na een concert waar hij van plan is om een nieuw nummer te spelen, maar uiteindelijk bezwijkt onder de druk van het publiek dat op de gouwe ouwe nummers aandringt. Na het ‘succesvolle’ concert staat hij backstage met de teleurstelling en zelfhaat in zijn ogen. Knap staaltje acteerwerk.

De film vindt niet het wiel opnieuw uit, maar dat hoeft ook niet. Danny Collins is een zeer geslaagde feel-good film die op bewonderenswaardige wijze z'n humor en drama in balans houdt.

San Andreas (2015) Review

Lucas Versantvoort / August 17, 2015

Back in the '70s, disaster flicks thrived. Now, every post-9/11 disaster movie runs the risk of offending the easily offended. I think that's why modern disaster flicks like 2012 and San Andreas focus on natural disasters, because at least then the on-screen characters die of 'natural' causes. Anyway, the quick answer as to whether San Andreas is a good film is, of course, 'no'; you know it, I know it. But that doesn't mean it's not worth watching per se. The film's flaws are numerous, but the film delivers plentifully on its promise of action. This is simultaneously the film's highlight as well as its flaw since little things like, you know, character development and story, suffer as a consequence.

Dwayne Johnson plays Ray, a rescue-chopper pilot. He's divorced, his wife Emma (Carla Gugino) has hooked up with someone new, but he's still very close with his daughter Blake (Alexandra Daddario). Then you've also got seismologist Lawrence Hayes (Paul Giamatti) who discovers the San Andreas faultline has started to shift causing massive earthquakes to hit the cities along the faultline. Naturally, Ray's wife and daughter are at risk, so he starts a cross-country trek with his chopper to save them. He's quickly reunited with his wife in LA, but Blake is still in San Francisco. 

The main attraction here is obviously the countless disasters taking place. Naturally, it's all CGI, but the film looks quite good nonetheless. The highlight involves a tsunami that has a nice twist. Ray uses a speedboat to get over the incoming wave and you think he will, predictably, make it at the last second, but then out of nowhere a frickin' cargo ship peels over the wave's edge, staring them down and Ray has to quickly redirect his boat to avoid the ship and the containers flying overboard. Easily the best part of the film.

Unfortunately, all is not quiet on the story-front. In fact, though I was having a decent time on the whole, I felt the story actually got worse as the film went on. At first the story seems straightforward: Ray rescues his estranged wife, rekindling his relationship with her in the process, and daughter. But unfortunately, the emotional manipulation reaches critical heights towards the end. It's the kind of manipulation where logic is thrown out the window and there are lots of 'false finishes', where it seems a character has died, but survives solely because the plot demands it. Lots of films do this: they don't want to actually kill off their characters, so they include these false finishes to make you feel like they've died after which they miraculously come back. You get to quickly feel as if they died without actually having to live with it in the end. It's a quick and cheap way to get the tears flowing. 

There's also the issue of casting Dwayne Johnson as Ray. He's seen plenty of action over the years for sure, but San Andreas plays against his strengths. Instead of punching guys in the face (which he does only once), he's flying helicopters, controlling speedboats, etc. He also has his 'Oscar moment', a quiet scene where he reminisces about the other daughter who drowned which requires Johnson to subtly emote and he...almost gets there. I don't know. Johnson comes across as a nice guy, so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt; I want to like his performance, but I can't honestly say it's 'good'; though you gotta admit, there are plenty of actors who would've RUINED a scene like this. Johnson at least rises above 'awkward'. 

In the end, I'd say there's enough action to make the film watchable. At least you can't accuse the film of false advertising; you get what you pay for. Despite the predictable and lackluster character drama, the acting's pretty decent which definitely helps. We won't be talking about San Andreas' cinematic achievements for years to come, but it's also not a 'avoid at all costs' kind of deal.

Dutch version

In de jaren zeventig floreerden de ‘disaster flicks’, films met meer filmsterren dan verwoestingen en ontploffingen. Na 9/11 moest elke rampenfilm oppassen om mensen niet onnodig te beledigen. Het aantal instortende gebouwen moet enigszins ingeperkt worden… Misschien zijn moderne disaster-films als San Andreas daarom vooral geobsedeerd door natuurrampen, omdat personages dan in ieder geval op een 'natuurlijke' manier overlijden. Hoe dan ook, is San Andreas een goede film? Nee, maar dat betekent niet per se dat je deze koste wat kost moet vermijden. De film heeft talloze gebreken, maar er is in ieder geval geen gebrek een actie. Dit is tegelijkertijd de kracht van de film, maar ook het grote minpunt aangezien alle ontploffingen de aandacht wegtrekken van ‘kleine’ dingen, zoals interessante personages en verhaallijnen.

Dwayne Johnson speelt Ray, een helikopterpiloot voor de brandweer in Los Angeles. Hij is gescheiden, zijn ex, Emma, heeft iemand anders, maar Ray heeft nog wel een hechte band met zijn dochter, Blake. Dan heb je ook nog seismoloog Lawrence Hayes (Paul Giamatti) die ontdekt dat de San Andreas-breuklijn in beweging is gekomen, vandaar de aardbevingen. Los Angeles zal geraakt worden en uiteindelijk ook San Francisco. Natuurlijk zitten daar respectievelijk Emma en Blake, dus voor Ray wordt dit een race tegen de klok. Hij redt Emma vrij snel, maar Blake zit nog vast in San Francisco. 

            In een film als San Andreas is het automatisch de vraag of de actie goed in elkaar zit en dit is voor het grootste deel wel het geval. Natuurlijk is negenennegentig procent van de film op een computer gemaakt, maar toch ziet San Andreas er degelijk uit. Het hoogtepunt is de scène met de tsunami. Je verwacht dat Ray met z'n speedboot op het allerlaatste moment wel over de top van de golf racet, maar uit het niets verschijnt een oceaanstomer over de rand van de golf, waardoor Ray snel moet bijsturen en ook nog alle containers moet vermijden die van het schip af vallen. Verreweg het spannendste deel van de film. 

Helaas, maar niet onverwacht, is het verhaal over deze ramp zelf ook een ramp... Het verhaal wordt steeds slechter, naarmate de film verder gaat. Het begint allemaal zo simpel: Ray zal Emma en Blake redden waardoor zijn relatie met z'n ex weer op gang komt. Maar zeker tegen het einde bereikt het emotioneel bespelen van de kijker ongekende hoogtes. Emotionele manipulatie hoort bij alle films, maar teveel daarvan en je publiek rent gillend weg. San Andreas heeft meerdere ‘false finishes’, zoals wanneer een personage dood lijkt te zijn, maar op miraculeuze wijze overleeft. Veel films doen dit, de filmmakers willen je de dood van een personage laten ervaren zonder zich eraan te committeren, dus krijg je de o zo tragische scène waarin personage X sterft, maar wacht… opeens blijkt die nog te leven. Bestaat er nog goedkopere emotionele manipulatie in filmland?

Over het casten van Dwayne Johnson als Ray valt ook te discussiëren. Johnson heeft aan behoorlijk wat actiefilms meegedaan, maar San Andreas is niet een rol waar je hem automatisch mee zou associëren. Onze actieheld deelt in deze film maar één stoot uit en ook heeft hij een subtiel ‘Oscar-moment’ waarin hij gevoelig moet praten over zijn overleden dochter. Hij komt er...bijna mee weg. Johnson komt over het algemeen als een aardig persoon over, dus ben je geneigd om hem het voordeel van de twijfel te gunnen. Zijn prestatie is best goed te noemen, maar om te zeggen dat het Oscar-waardig is... Hij doet het degelijk, laten we niet vergeten dat er talloze acteurs zijn die een scène als deze volledig zouden vernielen. Johnson is in ieder geval niet tenenkrommend.

            Uiteindelijk maakt de hoeveelheid actie de film wel het kijken waard. Je kunt San Andreas in ieder geval niet beschuldigen van misleidende reclame. Ja, het verhaal is middelmatig en de personages zijn flinterdun, maar het acteerwerk valt over het algemeen mee en dat helpt altijd. We zullen het over enkele jaren niet meer over San Andreas en diens filmische hoogstandjes hebben, maar deze rampenfilm is zeker niet total-loss….