L.A. Noire: An Ambitious and Fascinating Failure.

L.A. Noire arrives on consoles with no small amount of hype. A noir/detective story set amidst the bustling Los Angeles of 1947, the game received considerable attention for it’s MotionScan technology, which records actors faces from 32 separate cameras in order to provide detailed, highly realistic looking facial animation for the game’s characters. Furthermore it was published by Rockstar Games, developer of such recent classics as Grand Theft Auto 4 and Red Dead Redemption (a game that numbers with the very best of all time in my humble opinion). With such a pedigree, along with the promise of such advanced storytelling technology, L.A. Noire promised to be something special in the world of video games. Therefore, it is disappointing to note that the game is something of a disappointment, an experience that uncomfortably marries intermittently successful gameplay with a thoroughly uninteresting narrative.

 

L.A. Noire tells the story of Cole Phelps, a Los Angeles policeman who begins the game as a simple beat cop, but quickly rises through the ranks to become a detective. As you/Phelps solve cases (from such departments as Vice, Homicide and Arson), a criminal conspiracy begins to emerge that connects lowly criminals to the corrupt halls of power that are seeking to dominate Los Angeles in the ever-changing post WWII landscape. Interspersed with these cases, we are given flashbacks to Phelps’ time in World War II, experiences which haunt him still and might possibly connect with the unfolding conspiracy. Throw in a bruiser of a police captain, some crooked cops and a sexy German nightclub singer whom attracts Cole’s eye, and you have all the standard elements for an old-fashioned noir tale.

That plot description belies one of the multiple problems I have with the game: It is all too familiar. While it’s obvious that the story is supposed to be an homage to certain detective films in that style, the game seems content to simply reference without telling a satisfying story itself. The plot and characters consist of signifiers; stock elements that remain far too one-note and familiar to ever truly register as memorable in and of themselves. We get the requisite references to such films as The Maltese Falcon, Chinatown, Double Indemnity and (more recently) L.A. Confidential, but the game never develops an identity of its own. Phelps himself is an example of the way the game fails narratively. Beyond being thoroughly unsympathetic and annoying throughout, he is not developed as a character except in the most clichéd ways: former soldier who is haunted by his past, hard edged cop who is out for justice even at the expense of his personal life, etc. Even in terms of basic storytelling his arc falls short: about 2/3s into the game a major plot point hinges on his wife and children. As far as I can tell, the game had previously made no mention of their existence, which completely undercuts the impact of that twist in the story. The game is rife with oddly slack storytelling like that, undermining the narrative and rendering it fairly uninteresting throughout.

While the game’s story leaves something to be desired, how does the gameplay itself work? Unfortunately it too falters, though not for lack of ambition. The aforementioned MotionScan technology is very impressive, and the characters’ faces have a level of detail almost unprecedented in videogame history. Luckily this is not just for show, but actually forms the backbone of the gameplay itself. You see, in the course of solving investigations, in addition to gathering clues from crime scenes and the like, you must interview witnesses and possible suspects. Based on their answers you decide whether they’re lying or telling the truth. This is accomplished by examining their faces and searching for signs of duplicity, which might manifest itself in shifty eyes, nervous facial expressions etc. It’s a fairly ingenious gameplay mechanic and when it works it works well; it is truly satisfying to catch a perp lying solely through your powers of observation. In these moments the game does an outstanding job of making you feel like an actual detective. However, these sensations are undercut by the limits of the gameplay mechanics. If you suspect that a subject is lying then you have the option to select Lie (if you have evidence to back it up) or Doubt (if you have no evidence to back up the accusation). But it’s often hard to tell what evidence the game wants you to provide to back up an accusation. Even if you have evidence that seemingly backs up your claim, it might not be the exact piece that the game requires. Thus you’re more often trying to guess what the game itself wants you to do, which constantly pulls you out of the experience and reminds you that you’re playing a game. The game is quite forgiving in this respect. Too forgiving actually; no matter how many incorrect answers you give the cases will always work out the way they’re supposed to. While that is a generous way of offsetting the learning curve, it also lends you the feeling that you’re not truly contributing to the game’s progression, more like you’re watching a movie that requires you to press a few buttons now and then to get to the next chapter.

There are other problems with the gameplay as well. The game seems to give you an open world to explore (like the Grand Theft Auto series), but the game lends you no downtime between missions to explore it, as you’re constantly being shuttled from one case to the next. You could technically explore while working a case, but that detracts from the urgency of the mystery you’re trying to solve. Seemingly noticing this, the developers put the secret items that you can discover (vintage cars, landmarks around Los Angeles) on the map, which makes them easy to find but also takes away from any sense of discovery. Furthermore the action segments where you are forced to shoot it out with criminals suffer from truly clunky controls (I was often stuck to walls where I didn’t want to be, exposing myself to enemy gunfire). It makes for experience that is as frustrating as it is innovative.

L.A. Noire could have been something truly special. The elements are there to make a game unlike any we’ve seen before; a truly open-world detective story where you’re decisions make an impact on the narrative, where you have to hone your skills at reading (virtual) people in order to make tough calls of innocence or guilt. As it is, this is an unwieldy first step in that direction, a game that can’t quite reconcile it’s gameplay with its conceit. The recent PS3 game Heavy Rain, as ridiculous as it’s plot might have been under scrutiny, did a much better job of immersing you in a story and making you feel as if your decisions were of consequence. This could end up like the first Assassins Creed; a game where ambition far exceeded execution, which lead to a vastly improved sequel with sharply honed gameplay mechanics and a compelling story to boot. As it is, it’s an admirable but ultimately failed effort.

Review: Win Win

I’ve long said that the ability to write characters who are fundamentally decent is a skill that often goes unheralded in Hollywood. Not to say that it’s easy to write characters who are tortured souls, people who fundamentally flawed in some way, with a degree of psychological realism. It’s just that, for all the Innaritu’s of the world, sometimes it’s nice to have someone like Tom McCarthy, someone who can draw characters that are fundamentally decent, not perfect, but human beings with all the positive and negative attributes that follows. McCarthy’s last film, The Visitor, told a warm and moving tale of a guy whose world is opened up by a chance meeting with some immigrants. It wasn’t a terribly original premise, fraught with the potential for cheap sentimentality as it is, but McCarthy (aided immeasurably by the fantastic Richard Jenkins) navigated that territory with a sure hand, making the situations feel believable and the characters (again) likeable. Now we have Win Win, a similar tale of ordinary people finding the common decency within them. And while it might not be as successful overall as The Visitor, it’s still got plenty of charms of its own.

Mike Flaherty (Paul Giamatti) is a family man, with a wife (Amy Ryan) and two young children. He runs a law practice with Stephen (Jeffrey Tambor) and he’s struggling to make ends meet in these troubled economic times. He also moonlights as a wrestling coach for the local high school, though that too is not going very well. Dealing with those and other myriad anxieties, he decides to take advantage of an opportunity that presents itself to him, involving the care of one of his elderly clients (Burt Young), one that is ethically dubious at best and outright criminal at worst. This brings him into contact with the man’s teenage grandson, Kyle (Alex Shaffer), who’s arrived in town with no place to stay. As his family put him up in their house, Mike is surprised to discover that the kid is a phenomenal wrestler. Soon he, with the help of a bitter, recently divorced friend (Bobby Cannavale), has enrolled Kyle in school and has him wrestling for his team. Just as things start looking up for Mike, however, trouble arrives in the form of Kyle’s mother (Melanie Lynskey), an unwelcome presence in both Kyle and his grandfather’s life.

As stated previously, the defining characteristic of this film to me is how likeable the characters are. These are people attempting to do the best under difficult circumstances, whether economic or otherwise. Even when they stumble or act poorly, the film allows us to see their humanity at work, refusing (with one possible exception) to give in to the easy dichotomy of characters being only “good” or “bad.” All the actors acquit themselves to this task admirably. Giamatti brings his characteristic sad-sack persona, imbuing this family man with an inherent decency that stays with him through his trials and tribulations. Amy Ryan is a forceful presence as Mike’s strong-willed wife who wholeheartedly embraces the task of being a surrogate mother for Kyle. Bobby Cannavale gets bonus points for being stealing every scene he’s in. His bitter divorced character is hysterical, and he’s got an arc that is played just right, letting us know how much Kyle’s new presence is improving his life. Kyle himself is played by Alex Shaffer, a genuine wrestling champion who had never acted before. This gives his performance an unstudied quality that works well in the context of the film; Kyle seems like a normal kid, never like an actor going for “disillusioned teenager.” The scenes between him and Giamatti seem honest and real, and their relationship plays out nicely as Kyle quickly becomes the saving grace of Mike’s wrestling team.

The problems that I have with the film begin with the appearance of Kyle’s mother. Lynskey is fine in the role, but for me her entrance into the plot wasn’t handled particularly well. I understand that there’s a need for some sort of conflict, something to raise the dramatic stakes after things start to go so well for the Flahertys and Kyle. I just wishit was handled a bit more gracefully. For one thing, the mother’s motives seem to be inconsistent. The character is a recovering drug addict who sometimes seems to want Kyle to come home with her and sometimes seems only interested in the money that her father has in his will. Furthermore she comes off as less of a human being and more of a plot device, a notable flaw in a film that otherwise studiously avoids turning anyone into caricatures. Her inconsistent behavior also allows McCarthy to get at least one of his characters off the hook a little too easily. I’m a bit torn on this point, as the gentle quality of the film is one of its chief attributes, but it feels a bit unearned and softens the more realistic edges of the picture. Still, the closing shots do a bit to make up for that, illustrating in an understated fashion the (very realistic) sacrifices that these people have had to make for themselves and each other.

Win Win isn’t a film that will knock your socks off. It won’t show you some world you’ve never seen before or illuminate some previously little-contemplated aspect of the human experience. The film is about people, like you and me, doing what they can to help themselves and each other out in hard times. There aren’t too many films that attempt to do that, with most films being uncontent to focus on such small scale drama. However, McCarthy trusts in the inherent dramatic potential of even a modest storyline such as this, finding the nuances that make it feel real and handling them with maturity and grace. Don’t let the Fox Searchlight branding fool you; this isn’t an indie quirkfest in the vein of Juno. This is a simply entertaining story about modest people, living their lives the best way they know how. That’s no easy feat, but McCarthy makes it all feel effortless. Even with its flaws, it’s hard to find fault with a film this charming and pleasant.

Review: Thor

The summer of 2011 promises a glut of superhero films. With Green Lantern appearing to feature a scale more befitting a Star Wars film than the typically Earthbound comic book films we’ve been exposed to thus far, and Captain America bringing the genre into 1940s period high-adventure, the superhero film is still going strong, even venturing into promising new directions. While both of those films (along with Matthew Vaughn’s X-Men: First Class) have showed great promise in their marketing materials, the biggest question mark of the summer movie season has arrived before them all. Kenneth Branagh’s Thor, detailing the adventures of the god of thunder himself, comes already burdened with the weight of expectations. Unlike 2008’s Iron Man, which snuck up on audiences and won them over with charm and action to spare, Thor heralds the second wave of Marvel’s attempts to create a cinematic Marvel Universe that houses many of its most prominent characters, all culminating with next summer’s The Avengers. It is with a modicum of relief that I can say Thor is a largely successful, yet fairly uneven superhero flick that shines more often than it stumbles.

In the mystical realm of Asgard, Odin (Anthony Hopkins) rules over his kingdom, attempting to instill the virtues of a just leader in his two sons, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston). On the day that Thor is to be crowned the new king, an incident involving Asgard’s old enemy, the Frost Giants, disrupts the ceremony. Bent on proving his might to the Frost Giants, Thor disobeys his father and attacks their realm, pushing the two civilizations to the brink of war. Furious, Odin banishes his arrogant son to Earth, stripping him of his powers and the mighty hammer Mjolnir until he can learn humility. This puts Thor into contact with Jane Porter (Natalie Portman), a scientist researching the existence of alternate worlds, of which Thor is potential proof. As Thor must learn to cope with his human limits, Loki makes a grab for the throne of Asgard, attempting to engineer a conflict with the Frost Giants while ensuring that Thor cannot return to stop him.

The early scenes of Thor show much promise. After an unnecessary prologue involving Jane coming across Thor’s body in the desert, we are immersed in Asgard for the first third of the film. Branagh is clearly more interested in these scenes than the later ones set on Earth, as it allows him to indulge in all manner of theatrics and intrigue. The fantasy realm is well-realized, a place simultaneously of the past and the future. Here people wear suits of armor with ornate helmets, speaking portentously of things like the Bifrost Bridge, and the power of Mjolnir. This is more Lord of the Rings than Iron Man, and thus it’s all extremely silly, but also very fun. It’s a nice departure from the staid locales of most superhero films, providing the film with a sense of scope that the trailers did not promise. Furthermore, the actors seem to be having a ball with all of this. Chris Hemsworth, previously glimpsed briefly in the opening scenes of Star Trek as Kirk’s dad, is excellent. He imbues Thor with the requisite power and arrogance, but he also shows a great deal of genuine charisma, a screen presence that seems effortless and endears the character to us even when he is behaving foolishly. Anthony Hopkins gives a standard, recent Anthony Hopkins performance, which means he chews scenery like there’s no tomorrow. But with scenery like this, it’s no wonder. Finally, Tom Hiddleston is quite impressive as Loki, conveying deceitfulness the character requires, but never letting us lose sight of the hurt and fear that fuels his quest for the throne.

Once Thor is banished to Earth, however, the film’s problems start in earnest. First of all, the tone takes a shift into some broad comedy for a bit. Kat Dennings grates on the nerves as the comedic relief, a research assistant to Jane. Most of her jokey scenes have been featured in the trailers and, while they are brief, they do their part to disrupt the film’s flow. In keeping with that, the Earth segment causes the film to lose focus. By this point Thor’s arc is obvious: He must learn humility and the value of self-sacrifice in order to reclaim Mjolnir and his rightful place in Asgard. Theoretically the Earth scenes should show us that Thor is growing, learning to care about others as he grows to care about this strange new world. But that transformation seems to be taken for granted, with Thor arriving at his newfound wisdom out of nowhere after a few days of searching for his weapon and having the briefest of interactions with actual human beings. The film spends the time building up Thor’s character, only to abandon him for a 15-20 minute stretch as we follow Portman’s character as she struggles to comprehend this handsome new development in her life. But Portman’s character is not given much definition other than “she’s a serious scientist” and then “she’s in love with Thor.” Admittedly, Portman is extremely charming in her role; I especially liked how flustered and smitten she acts around Thor. But for us to believe that she is the reason Thor learns the value of others, she would need to be a more fully developed character.

The flaws don’t end there. I understand that product placement is an inevitability in modern blockbusters, but does it have to be so flagrant? 7-11 and Dr. Pepper are featured prominently in shot after shot, and it becomes distracting as the film goes on. Furthermore the at this point obligatory inclusion of elements of S.H.I.E.L.D., which will pay off in The Avengers, feels unnecessary, though they are integrated into the plot more smoothly than in Iron Man 2. This includes a cameo by a prominent actor set to appear in The Avengers who is in this film seemingly only to announce his existence to the general movie-going populace. It’s not integrated well and it comes off as forced (however, I should admit that I enjoyed some nods to the other films, including one tossed off reference to Bruce Banner’s predicament). Lastly are the dutch angles. I haven’t seen them so overused since Battlefield Earth. Okay, it isn’t that bad, but it feels like an unnecessary stylistic flourish that adds little to the proceedings. The opening scenes made me nervous with how prominently they appeared, but either they were used less later in the film or I got used to them.

Despite those flaws, Thor remains an enjoyable experience. The scenes on Asgard, as mentioned, are epic and silly and very fun, and the action is both inventive and well shot (which is a blessing in modern Hollywood). When Thor springs into action with Mjolnir you really get a sense of the awesome power that he wields. His fight on earth with a giant Asgardian killing machine is filled with iconic imagery, Thor flying around with his flowing cape while lightning clashes in the background. And the ending, when Thor returns to Asgard to stop his brother’s machinations end things on a satisfying note, both in terms of action and thematics. Special mention must be made of Idris Elba as Heimdall, the guardian of the portal between worlds. He’s quite an imposing figure, and his booming voice lends a power befitting a citizen of Asgard (he also gets the funniest line of the film, a quick aside that doesn’t disrupt the tone as the other humor does). If there is a sequel, the Elba had better be back.

What I can say definitively after viewing Thor is that I eagerly await Chris Hemsworth’s pairing with the rest of the Avengers, as it’s clear that he is a star and one who can hold the screen with the likes of Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans (who, barring something going horribly wrong, should be a great Captain America). I also look forward to future adventures in this universe, a place unique to comic book films thus far. If they can find Natalie Portman something to do in the next one and get a less uneven script, then there’s no reason that Thor can’t join the ranks of the best big screen comic book heroes. As a kick off to this summer of superheroes, it’s more than worthy.