Dark Night of the Soul . . . Or, Star Trek Into Darkness Review

A comment on the franchise?

Let's get something out of the way first.  I like Star Trek.  I was a fan of the reboot and the original series.  I'm a huge fan of Deep Space Nine and I think it represents a solid attempt to combine action with a meaningful debate on the morality of war, religion and about a million other things.  It was also fun as all get-out.

Which is what Star Trek Into Darkness definitely is.  Fun.  A wonton romp to just about nowhere, without rhyme or reason.  And several 'splosions.  And Alice Eve in her underwear.  Because, I mean, really.  For what other reason does her character appear except to randomly (and it really is out of the blue) undress in front of Captain Kirk?

Which is basically what this movie boiled down to.  A lot happened -- from a terrorist attack, to an interstellar manhunt, to a ten-second debate on the existential dilemma between law-and-order and justice -- but not a lot really happened.  Cribbing many of its lines from Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, it felt like a bad joke, or a poorly timed parody of a film that was deeply invested in exploring the boundary between life and death, heroism and the extent of scientific advancement.  Moreover, "Wrath of Khan" has a deeply emotional conclusion which is the ultimate culmination of decades of on-screen relationships between the central characters.

Because why not?

Ultimately, the second Trek is a silly pastiche of Star Trek tropes that descends quickly into inanity.  While it moves quickly, the pacing seems directed at brushing over its shallowness; the humor is sophomoric and the petty bickering between Kirk and Spock is just that: petty.  While it might be a spectacle to behold, it left me with a bad taste in my mouth.  It was pandering of the worst kind.

I don't recommend this movie to really anyone.   

What the What? . . . Or, Bioshock:Infinite Review

I feel as though the statutes of limitation has worn off, and I can discuss Bioshock: Infinite with a minimum of spoilers. 

Let's get this out of the way first.  Great game.  Deeply immersive, with a great plot, superb voice-acting, and a better-than-pretty-good companion.  That being said, when I pay $60-70 for a video game, I demand certain things.  One of those things is replayability; really, it's top of the list.  Great story, great gameplay, but what I really want is the ability to immerse myself in the game several times, constantly discovering more.  I want Skyrim. 

Bioshock:Infinite is no Skyrim.  Nor does it ever strive to be.  It's a first-person shooter through and through, with a beautiful environment and a pretty trippy story.  You play Book DeWitt, and ex-Pinkerton agent hired to infiltrate the steam-punkish floating city of Columbia and rescue a young woman named Elizabeth from the clutches of the evil Zachary Hale Comstock.  Yeah, if you're a student of American history, that last name should sound familiar.

Anthony Comstock

The Comstock Laws are named for Anthony Comstock, who was Post Office Inspector and helped craft and pass a series of laws in 1873 banning obscene materials from being mailed by the Federal Government.  If you think Zachary Hale Comstock would live up to that draconian moralizing, perhaps borrowing from history, you'd be wrong.  In fact, the fictional Comstock is a purposeful amalgam of several historical actors.  The name seems to have been chosen because of its vague association with the late nineteen-century and not for any particular thing that Anthony Comstock did.

Zachary Hale Comstock is a viciously racist jingoist.  Seeing the moral decline of the United States following the Civil War, he takes his magic floating city and secedes from the Union.  It's a strangely dystopian view of American history, and highlights the lingering darkness of American history.  By re-telling the American history through a lens of counter-factual narrative, the game glances at roads not traveled without examining the deep sociological and historical trends which drove the history of the United States. 

The "Battle" of Wounded Knee

Nevertheless, it is fun and one should forgive their central conceit.  I mean, really.  It's a floating city.  You knew it was fantasy going in.  But it does leave one wondering if video games should teach history.  On the one hand, at least people have the sense that history is valuable and can inform future decision.  But on the other, it's really sloppy, and tends to flatten the rich experience of both the historical profession, and the historical experience in which people actually lived.

But let's move on the gameplay itself.  I'm not a hardcore gamer, so much of it boiled down to how easy it was to move, shoot, and not get stuck on the myriad boxes lying around the map.  Uncharted 2 had this problem, as did Black Ops 2.  I refer to them as "sticky" games.  The character, instead of sliding around obstacles, often got stuck on a piece of paper strewn about and was shot dead.  Bioshock: Infinite, fortunately, did not have this problem.  Movement was easy enough, and the much-touted aerial combat was fine, but nothing to write home about. 

The main comment I have concerns their magic system.  Yeah, you can shoot crows and fire from your hand, but calling it a "vigor" instead of a "plasmid" doesn't change the fact that you're shooting fire and crows from your hand.  It's just magic by another name.  As such, it's not really that useful, or even that much fun.  Most of the time I ran around shooting people.  The vigors added very little tactical advantage.  But they were fun to look at. 

My hands are on fire! 

That seems to be the takeaway of the whole game.  The world is beautiful. 

The actual plot?  Just so-so.  Save the girl, beat the bad guy, flee the scene.  The many twists they introduced were fun, but never spectacular, though told in an original and innovative way.  Kudos for that.  But the conclusion left me scratching my head, trying to rectify what I'd learned playing the game versus what I learned at the final reveal. 

It sort of made sense, but only for the final third of the game.  Everything before that seemed to contradict, or at the very least not conform, to the final reveal.  Which is okay, I suppose, but it doesn't lend itself to wanting to replay the game to figure out how the storytellers were able to capture that effect.  It felt . . . lazy. 

So while it was fun at the time, it wasn't a great amount of fun.  The technical wizardy was evident, and appreciated, but couldn't quite make up for the fact that the plot was thin, confusing, and ultimately self-contradictory.  Would I recommend this game?  I'm not sure.  Maybe if you get it on sale, or rent it from a RedBox.  Otherwise, save your money and read a good book instead.