Detective Comics #14 Review

Detective Comics fills a niche right now as a Batman book that allows itself to be more free and more fun than the others. The tone of the series under new writer John Layman is not unlike Batman: The Animated Series, with its copious assortment of iconic Bat villains and a tone that isn't too dark or too comedic. It isn't ambitious or ground-breaking, but it achieves what it sets out to accomplish.

Though Penguin's quest for legitimacy is still the overarching focus of Layman' first arc, Poison Ivy hogs more of the spotlight. Layman attempts to fit his issue into the confines of the other at books, referencing both Scott Snyder's Death of the Family material and Ivy's recent defection from the Birds of Prey. Unsurprisingly, this continuity wrangling does nothing to actually serve the story, and I wish Layman could maintain a more continuity-light and editorial caption-free approach. The interaction between Bruce and Damian also seems odd and unnatural, partly because of the pointless references to other books, but also just because of the odd tenor of Damian's dialogue. But eventually the script shakes free of these shackles and focuses on the conflict at hand. Layman adds further spice to history with a surprise revelation at the end, one that is effectively fleshed out immediately after in the backup feature.

Both Jason Fabok and Andy Clarke provide attractive visuals to round out the solid script. Fabok's art play like a looser but still impressively detailed version of David Finch's style. Clarke's intricate line-work and moody panels stand out equally well. My only complaint is that Fabok's depiction of Poison Ivy's already underwhelming new costume is a bit weak compared to Clarke's.

I won't say that if you only read one Bat-book, to make it Detective Comics. It isn't the strongest of that pack by any stretch. But it still has its definite strengths, and when it isn't forced to reference pointless bits of continuity, it succeeds at offering a nice standalone adventure with plenty of familiar faces.

Jesse is a writer for various IGN channels. Allow him to lend a machete to your intellectual thicket by following @jschedeen on Twitter, or Kicksplode on MyIGN.

Source : ign[dot]com

X-Treme X-Men #3 Review

Slowly but surely, Greg Pak's new X-Men series is evolving into an X-book capable of holding its own among the many, many others on the stands. It doesn't hurt that the series offers readers a clean break from the rest of the X-verse, focusing instead on an Exiles-like band of mutants who traverse the multiverse in search of various evil Xaviers. Issue #3 wraps up the first arc and the battle against the mutants gods of Steampunk Earth.

The quality of characterization has been sporadic in the previous issues, but Pak seems to find a stronger handle on his team here. Every member has a moment or two to shine in the build-up to the final battle. Easily the strongest of these scenes involves a revelation about James Howlett. Suffice it to say, this alternate Wolverine has developed another interesting new wrinkly to set him apart from his regular counterpart. Disappointingly though, Pak chooses to shrink the team by one member without taking the readily available opportunity to replace them with a new recruit. Dazzler fans have continued reason to celebrate the series. Alison once again takes charge of the battle, proves her mettle, and gets in another musical number in the process. The only real negative to the storytelling in this issue is that certain scenes feel rushed and overly compressed.

But while the characterization has finally reached the level it needs to be, the art remains a sore spot. Stephen Segovia is joined by Paco Diaz, and the question that arises is -- why double-ship this book if it's going to make filler art a necessity? Diaz's work is merely loose and harried, but Segovia's panel arrangements and sloppy figures are the real sticking point.

Other than the reduced cast, this first arc doesn't necessarily have much long-term impact on the characters. On the other hand, the series has shown enough steady improvement that I feel a newfound sense of excitement for what's coming up on the next alternate world.

Jesse is a writer for IGN Comics and IGN Movies. He can't wait until he's old enough to feel ways about stuff. Follow Jesse on Twitter, or find him on IGN.

Source : ign[dot]com

Ghosts of the Abyss Blu-ray Review

There's an allure to the Titanic that's simply indescribable. For some, it's just a sunken ship. But for others, it represents a beacon of ingenuity, and thoughtless pride. The ship's tragic sinking is often seen as a metaphor for the crash, and looming depression that would strike American shores more than a decade later. However you look at the tragedy of the RMS Titanic, it's impossible to deny the sheer beauty and staggering design of the monster ship.

Ghosts of the Abyss is director James Cameron's follow-up to his Oscar-winning masterpiece, Titanic. While his mammoth hit did takes audiences down 12,000 feet to the sunken ship, the glimpses were only fleeting, at best. With Ghosts of the Abyss, however, Cameron and crew, along with actor Bill Paxton, return to the mystery of the deep to explore the Titanic one more time.

Told largely from Paxton's perspective, the documentary offers his compassionate take on the Titanic, sometimes juxtaposed with his hilariously anxious expressions (Paxton looks worried during every single dive).

Unfortunately, though, despite Paxton's jolt of humanistic humor, the documentary does drag every so often, swapping between emotionless, cold stills and stagnant images like a slide show. And some of the Titanic live-action recreations and sentimentalization is cheesy, degrading the overall allure of the film's daunting underwater photography. Still, for those even with a passing interest in the Titanic, Ghosts of the Abyss is a documentary well worth seeing.

Ghosts of the Abyss comes to Blu-ray courtesy of Buena Vista Home Entertainment. The three-disc combo pack includes Blu-ray 3D, Blu-ray and DVD copy of the film. Unfortunately, no Digital Copy is provided. The film is presented on Blu-ray 3D in 1080p/MVC and on Blu-ray in 1080p/AVC (1.78:1 aspect ratio for both). The Blu-ray 3D and Blu-ray both feature 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio.

Shot in native 3D, Ghosts of the Abyss looks positively wonderful on Blu-ray 3D, with striking imagery that pops right off the screen. Much like Cameron's Avatar, the film doesn't just rely on tired 3D gags and gimmicks, but rather the illusion of depth, which only adds luster to the mystery of the deep. That said, the underwater shots are not always as impressive as the above-water setting. Though a great many shots are terrific, the cloudy, milky texture of the deep sometimes smooths over depth, slightly hindering the 3D illusion. Still, for those looking for a solid native 3D title, Ghosts of the Abyss delivers an outstanding presentation.

The 2D Blu-ray is also quite sharp, with a staggering blue palette and bold textures and detail, though the film's heavy motion blur is more noticeable here. The image is layered with plenty of depth (pun intended), and stands against other top tier documentaries, especially ones designed for IMAX screenings.

The film's 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio track provides an appropriately atmospheric presentation that gives life to the film's moody underwater photography. Dialogue is also clean and crisp, with no distortions or high-end crackles noted. The film's score is also balanced and engaging. While this mix is hardly aggressive, there's little room for complaint.

Extras include a 92-minute extended cut of the film, which adds more than 30 minutes of material to the film. Unfortunately, this version is only included on the 2D Blu-ray and DVD copy, and not on Blu-ray 3D. That said, the longer version is just that – longer. And while some of the added scenes are interesting, the film drags quite a bit at feature-length, more so than even the 60-minute cut.

Other extras include a 30-minute 6-part retrospective featurette, loaded with interviews and behind-the-scenes footage. There's also a 2-minute cookie featuring a prank against James Cameron who, much to his chagrin, only gets served cheese sandwiches with extra butter when he dives. Both extras are presented in standard definition.

Ghosts of the Abyss is a fascinating companion documentary to James Cameron's hulking epic, Titanic. The Blu-ray 3D is positively terrific, as is the 2D Blu-ray. If you're a Titanic-lover, this is one disc that's well worth owning. And if you're in the market for a solid Blu-ray 3D title, this disc should do the trick.

"Music to drown by. Now I know I'm in first class." Become a friend of R.L. Shaffer on Twitter, Facebook or MyIGN for quotes, rants, reviews, news and more!

Source : ign[dot]com

Why ‘Real Death’ Beats the Hell Out of Respawning

Witnessing others act out this shameful deed, I’d scoffed at their stupidity. But here I was, playing Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, doing the exact same thing, glorying madly in my own blood-lust and sated revenge.

This was when I understood about how dying and killing means so much more in games where death is ‘real’, where there’s no respawning.

It was the sniper in Italy. The first time he got me I was strolling up a broad gallery like a goddamn idiot tourist. He blew my head off.

After waiting an age for the next game, kindling my bruised pride, I figured the bastard would play the same tactics. I was right. But he had a pal guarding his back with an SMG and, once again, I was forced to watch the game play out, fuming, helpless, literally lacking the facility to help.

The third time, I blew the guard away with a shotgun and cut the sniper’s throat. And that’s when I did it.

That’s when I stood over him pumping shells into his dead body.

Morons normally do this at the end of the game, a victory dance, when the shells don’t mean anything, when giving away your position doesn’t matter. But I’m a special kind of hot-tempered bloody idiot, so I was doing it half-way through the game, endangering myself and the mission.

In the end it didn’t matter. With the sniper dead, we won.

This is not the sort of primal reaction I've experienced in normal respawn FPSs, where dying doesn’t really matter.

Those games are merely about shooting, while Counter-Strike and its ‘real death’ kind are about killing.

Firing bullets into a corpse, even an avatar that rudely fails to reward you with disintegrating features, is a form of trophy-taking, a statement of power.

This kind of behavior is not the done thing in modern warfare, nor industrial, nor even chivalric battles. It’s what happens in primitive combat, the taking of heads, scalps, teeth, ears, genitals. It’s savage.

Shooting that sniper’s prone corpse, I was basically cutting off his dick so I could keep it in a jar of vinegar, along with all the others, like that Assyrian king way back when. (I keep my imaginary dead-dick-jar on the mantelpiece, next to the smiling seaside photograph of Aunty Pat.)

When you die in multiplayer arenas in Call of Duty, you are reborn, inconvenienced very slightly by a delay in the action, taking a tiny hit on your Kill/Death ratio.

“

If dying bugs the hell out of me, it must also rankle with the other guys too. He wants to live as much as I do.

When you die in Counter Strike, you’re dead. That’s it. You have to wait until the next mission. It’s only a few minutes, but it’s a long, long few minutes. You watch your team-mates soldier on without you, bumbling into a you-less world of dangers. When they lose, it’s your fault, at least partly. You failed, they paid the price.

Even on a purely selfish level, you are drumming your finger-nails, using your precious play-time to watch other people having fun.

It was my fault when that happened to me, of course, but I was going to make the sniper feel my frustration. That’s what we do, isn’t it?

So when you play Counter-Strike, you take the time and effort to avoid making dumb mistakes, to think about terrain, lines-of-fire, cover, fire-power, marksmanship, timing, strategy, tactics, teamwork. You use your eyes, your facility for silence or for sudden movement, you listen to the voice that says, ‘go back, not forward, get them later’.

You watch your buddies’ backs because when they die, you lose power.

The man says, “Stay frosty,” and you do just that, coldly going about your business, checking every corner.

You cooly watch as the stupid players charge down that alleyway firing off shots like a berserker, succumbing to the consequences of their own rashness. You profit from their lack of care.

Sooner or later you make a mistake or you come across someone who stayed frostier than you.

You awaken from the moment, not in a tense combat-zone, but in your front-room, watching some other guys play a videogame. You start yelling, nasty words that IGN's style-guide does not permit.

Respawn games? Yeah, you can play them carefully, but it just doesn’t feel this good, this real, when you’re effectively invincible. How could it? The consequences are so much less.

Of course, we use the word ‘real-death’ with the customary abandon of all videogame-mechanics argot. There’s nothing real about it, not even in the sense of ‘pretend-real’. Being dead here lasts only until the new game begins, the long-term consequences being slightly less moolah in your wage-packet to spend on guns, grenades, gear.

It’s a combat simulation, but it can’t simulate actual combat. Such would be a foolish claim. Even so, soldiers say the two things really missing from military games are that they encourage silly tactical behavior, like running around in the open firing off shotguns, and that they fail to encourage the core army ethic of the buddy system. Counter-Strike, at the very least, nods in this direction.

It’s a game, but Counter-Strike is still dry-of-mouth, carefully-does-it pretending, the kind that makes you really want to live long enough to hurt the other guys, to savour the moment of their defeat. It’s a game about staying alive as long as possible, taking a few of them out along the way. In the back of your mind, there are strategic concerns about bombs and hostages, but they are beside the point.

And here is where the difference really tells. Because what’s real for you is also real for them. Because if dying bugs the hell out of you, it must also rankle with the other guys too. He wants to live as much as I do.

It’s not the consequences of dying that makes Counter-Strike so awesome. It’s the consequences of killing, the way it really, actually screws up the bad guys and their nefarious schemes. It’s the pleasure I take from making the game end, for him.

So bye-bye sniper. You failed. You’re dead.

Counter-Terrorists Win.

I write opinions on games pretty much every weekday. You can follow me on Twitter to debate and argue about games. Or IGN.

Source : ign[dot]com

Ten Movies People Hate... and Why They're Not That Bad

In ten years, which of 2012’s films will you be defending? Some might argue for Prometheus, claiming Ridley Scott's epic ambition overrules his lapses in logic. Others will sing the merits of The Dark Knight Rises, in the face of those calling it the blight on a near-perfect trilogy. Some might say that 48 frames per second was the best thing to happen to modern cinema - but then, in 2022, maybe it will be, so best not to speculate.

Here’s a set of movies that are generally considered failures in one way or another. Some of them famously suffered from production problems, some were over-hyped, some flopped at the box office, some did OK with the critics yet were maligned by fans. All have been unfairly judged.

Even Waterworld.

This article contains mild spoilers for a bunch of movies you've probably all seen.

Waterworld

It cost too much, wore its influences too obviously on its sleeve, and was, for some ungodly reason, stupendously po-faced; no wonder Waterworld suffered a critical pummeling. But ignore its blatant ambition to be ‘Mad Max on water,’ and you’ve got a film which stands up – admittedly on water-logged legs – as dumb, fun escapism today.

Waterworld is peppered with occasionally brilliant ideas. The journey to the lost underwater utopia, for example, remains eerily beautiful, and the obsession with trinkets and resources from 'The Dryland' is an intriguing touch. Director Kevin Reynolds does the best job he can within the limitations of his hugely ambitious set, eking out some arresting skirmishes amidst the endless H20, well-matched by a nonsensical yet unique aesthetic in prop and costume (shouldn't they wear swimming outfits rather than leather straps and Bowie pants?). Ultimately, if you can embrace Kevin Costner’s uber-serious turn as a half-man/half-guppy and a convoluted narrative punctuated by a giant fish-thing cameo that clearly blew half the budget, you’ll have a great time with this one.

Superman Returns

Despite doing well critically, Superman Returns didn’t soar at the box office, and Warner Bros’ subsequent dismissal of a sequel has tarnished its reputation to the point where people will freely call it the worst thing since, well, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. We were, perhaps, too cynical for Superman Returns, a sweetly earnest movie that reflects the sweetly earnest character of Supes himself.

“

Superman Returns is a love story first and foremost, driven by emotional conflict rather than the fizzy physical.

More of a spiritual descendent than a reboot, Superman Returns tips its hat to the series’ history in a number of ways, not least the inclusion of John Williams’ majestic score and a touching posthumous appearance from Marlon Brando as Jor-El. Brandon Routh - who shares an uncanny resemblance to Christopher Reeve – injects the film with an ideal blend of charm, bumbling awkwardness and gentle melancholy. It’s the melancholy that stays with us, though, as Superman Returns is a love story first and foremost, driven by emotional conflict rather than the fizzy physical; although there’s plenty of that, too. Perhaps it was this meditative pace that turned those looking for more visceral thrills away, or perhaps Superman was just too wholesome for a modern audience already fattening up on a diet of grizzled antiheroes.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence

Stephen Spielberg’s A.I. Artificial Intelligence is by no means a bad film, but it's settled into the collective consciousness as a ‘mess,’ or the first sci-fi Spielberg ‘screwed up.’ A.I. Artificial Intelligence is a mess, a sprawling meditation on what it is to be human bound in sickly sweet and sticky honey, and a clash between two distinct sensibilities – Spielberg’s and Stanley Kubrick's, the original driver of the project.

Yet it was also Spielberg’s most ambitious sci-fi to date, a maddening mix of huge ideas and missed opportunities. The highlights outweigh the low, though; Haley Joel Osment treads a delicate line between 'synthetic' and 'real' emotion with remarkable nuance, while the whole film is enveloped in a dizzying fairytale mood that's enough to distract viewers from lulls in the narrative. Worth seeing as a curio, a  project built by two great minds that fell short of its extraordinarily lofty ambitions.

Quantum of Solace

Must’ve been a tough gig, making the follow up to Casino Royale. Bond had been rebooted so magnificently with Martin Campbell’s 2006 blockbuster, and we were rabid to see what hijinks 007 would get up to next in Marc Forster’s 2008 sequel. Unfortunately for us, Quantum of Solace turned out to be just like so many other hard-bitten actioners populating our multiplexes – the movie screams "BOURNE!" from the Italian rooftops – and we left disappointed and dejected, ruing the moment ‘gritty’ became the trend du jour.

“

We can look back on Quantum as a brief – yet thrilling - dalliance with Bond's broken psyche.

But is Quantum really all that bad? The movie speeds along at breakneck pace, offering up some of the best action sequences the series has yet seen, while Bond himself is humanized beyond even Casino, his grief for Eva Green’s Vesper Lynd written in every line of his scowling face. He has become a Bond we can relate to, a Bond mourning for a Bond Girl, and god forbid if he’s going to let a labyrinthine narrative involving Bolivian oil stand in his way of delivering justice. Let’s just hope that come Skyfall he has recovered from his melancholy, and we can look back on Quantum as a brief – yet thrilling - dalliance with his own broken psyche.

Ghostbusters II

Ivan Reitman’s follow up to the 1984 smash hit original sits at a mediocre 51% on Rotten Tomatoes, and was deemed at the time by prolific critics Siskel and Ebert as one of the “worst movies of 1989.” Critics disliked Ghostbusters II for a variety of reasons, but nearly all deemed it overstuffed and too similar to its predecessor. Bill Murray remains untouchable.

But Ghostbusters II is a fun, at times hilarious, comedy, self-assured and unapologetically for the fans. The movie doesn’t even announce itself with a title; just its iconic logo, that ubiquitous eighties ghost flipping us two fingers. And while Ghostbusters II’s narrative meanders along, it still delivers a pleasurable mishmash of the original’s weirdest elements, reveling in its own crapness and centered by a well-established repartee between its dry central cast. Indeed, caustic-edged humor is what Ghostbusters II is all about; how else can a movie get away with a final battle between a guy who could pass for an aging Finnish rocker, and what ultimately translates into ‘positively-charged mood slime?’ Peter Venkman, so droll it hurts, saves the day in more ways than one.

Alien 3

The negative response to Alien 3 – both critically and within the Hollywood community – must have felt like a slap in the face to first-time director David Fincher after a lengthy and extremely troubled production period. The combination of notoriety and critical backlash subsequently pegged his threequel as the ‘black sheep’ of the franchise (although Alien: Resurrection and Prometheus have since muddied the canon further).

It wasn’t Fincher’s fault, of course. Alien 3 was a case of ‘too many cooks,' Fincher’s original vision relentlessly compromised by studio execs distrustful of the fledgling director.  But look closer and there are still some sparks of magic in here – particularly if you ignore the theatrical release and focus instead on the 2003 work print version, a ‘spiritual’ addition of sorts which adheres far closer to Fincher’s original vision. Here we are presented with a much tighter production with stripped back ‘cat n’ mouse’ horror, where characters are given room to breathe and a nihilistic mood pervades throughout. It’s a longer cut, but the conclusion is much more satisfying.

The Village

Fantasy/thriller The Village was another in a series of M. Night Shyamalan passion projects where you wonder if anyone, at any point, had stepped in and said to the director – “Really, man? Really?”  Laughable ending notwithstanding, The Village is an elegant thriller, for the most part sustaining integrity thanks to beautiful cinematography, an excellent performance from Bryce Dallas Howard in the central role, and well-executed suspense. Shyamalan should be particularly commended for the latter; The Village’s thrills are delivered gore-free, reliant instead on atmosphere and an escalating sense of dread. Go into this without a snarky attitude, and you’ll have a good time.

Hulk

“

Hulk's a contemplative film, directing its attention to heavy, adult themes and ecological issues.

Has there been a gloomier comic book movie than Ang Lee’s Hulk? This was a movie where the Hulk rarely smashed, and when he did he was really smashing at his crippling internal angst. But Hulk’s more thoughtful than its critics – who understandably went in expecting action bombast - give it credit for. It’s a contemplative film, directing its attention to heavy, adult themes and ecological issues. It’s also a morality tale; look what happens if you try to mess with the natural order by attempting to create regenerating super soldiers!

But above all, Hulk concerns itself with the emotional journey of Bruce Banner, a man whose emotional repression manifests itself in hugely destructive physical release.  Viewed this way, it needn’t have been about a giant green monster at all; so sadly human are its core issues. Gloomy indeed, but meditative. Pity about the crappy CGI.

Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Indy 4 was doomed to fail. It was released to an audience hungry for nostalgic release, an audience who had forgiven or forgotten the plot-holes and questionable characterizations of previous Indiana sequels. Kingdom gave us an older Dr. Jones, a decidedly haggard Harrison Ford lurching round elaborate sets and a plot-hole-laden narrative. Like us, Indy had grown old, and we didn’t like it.

But Kingdom is still an Indiana Jones movie through and through. Silly, stupendous, escapist entertainment, with brilliantly executed action sequences lead by a charismatic and affable central character. Sure, some of Kingdom’s logic is dubious, but the franchise has always concerned itself with flights of fancy; these are family films, after all. And while Ford doesn’t always hit all the right comedic notes, when he gives his trademark smirk and that John Williams theme tune starts up, it’s difficult to deny the magic at work.

Terminator Salvation

Sitting at a woeful 33% on Rotten Tomatoes, Joseph 'McG' Nichol’s Terminator Salvation did just about as badly as it was expected to. Today, the film might be better remembered for star Christian Bale’s notorious rant at its director of photography over any kind of creative merit (although one could argue Bale’s tirade was pretty creative.)

Let’s be honest – Terminator Salvation isn’t a patch on Cameron’s films. It was directed by McG! It is, however, a propulsive action flick that should be commended for moving the series forward with new ideas, refusing to fall back on tired tropes, and being generally better than Terminator 3.This is a darker, grimier Terminator, and while some may find it lacking in charisma, others might find the absence of Cameron’s cuteness – or indeed, poor Kristanna Loken - refreshing.

What would you add to this list? Which inclusion are you outraged about? Let us know in the comments.

Lucy O'Brien is Assistant Editor at IGN AU. You should talk to her about games, horror movies and the TV show Freaks & Geeks on IGN here or find her and the rest of the Australian team by joining the IGN Australia Facebook community.

Source : ign[dot]com