Retro Review: Kidou Senshi Gundam F91 - Formula Senki 0122 (Super Famicom)

In terms of genre influence and sheer relentless merchandising, the Gundam franchise is very much the Japanese Star Wars. Not the first of its kind, but one of those works that came along, dropkicked the status quo, and became the establishment. Anime wasn't the same after. It even has its own laser swords and Space Nazis. As it has nearly 40 years of material, of wildly variable quality, its not easy to generalise, but the gist is as follows. People live in space stations, some on Earth, bad feelings all round, so war with giant robots, piloted by angsty teens. Lots of moral ambiguity and war is hell motifs. Today's game, Kidou Senshi Gundam F91 - Formula Senki 0122 , or F91 for sanity, fits into the original Gundam canon, where a bunch of Space Nazis from Mars are causing trouble. They use robots which look exactly like those from the 1979 original, though updated, seemingly just for reasons of brand recognition(1). But is F91 any good? Well, interesting is perhaps the better word. 

The games big selling point is that while it looks like a SRPG it's actually a , honest to god, turn-based/real-time hybrid. A faintly underwhelming map screen, gives way to a faux cockpit, with 3rd person battle animations. Your main inputs are manoeuvre and positioning in real time, but with attacking and the map screen handled in a turn based fashion. Its a a rush to line up a shot against rapidly moving targets, with each weapon having own its optimal range, and your Gundam having limited fuel. Succeed, and you get an animation of the attack connecting, and hopefully an explosion. Fail, and see it miss. You can dash back to a capital ship for a top up, and switch between fancy weapon packs mid battle. The Gundam(2) you use for most of the game has modular parts, allowing you to tailor it to your requirements, adding a layer of strategy to an otherwise tactical game. But the battle continues without you, Jegans and Zakus beating 7 bells out of each other, meaning you can get flanked, and so on. Its not rendered in 3D, but feels a solid representation of Mobile Suit combat as presented in the various animations, with the music being a highlight. Meanwhile there's a story going on, depicted mainly by cutscences between battles. Any good? Well, it's a Gundam sidestory where the antagonists are cosplaying warmachines from 40 odd years prior. A translation patch is required, which seems to work OK. The narrative definitely looks and feels appropriate to the franchise, if not one of it's best. And that's the game in a nutshell, really. It looks and feels right, having pretty good production values, if not necessarily exceptional in its execution. The general feeling of above average is also backed up by it having a battery save, even though the game is light of justification for one. This game could have easily worked with a password system, as it has only 12 levels and is not an RPG, so I can only assume Japanese convention was happily at work here.

The battles do however get a bit samey. As the battle animations are repetitive, what the game ends up doing is training you to stare at the radar in the bottom right, as that's where most of the useful info is. That sense of repetition also increases as the game goes on, where you end up on Earth after fighting in space, and the game plays the same. Kinda disappointing, that. Its also something of a coin toss if an attack connects or not, as the game doesn't see fit to let you aim yourself, or tell you the odds. Also, choosing between the weapon pack doesn't actually represent that big of choice, as there's only 2 at first with limited weapons. This makes things a little frustrating, although new weapons and equipment do unlock and ease these complaints. Ultimately though, its not that deep of a game, despite nailing the setting. While by no means bad, I feel this game needed to be either more of a simulation, or more a bangy-zoomy game.

 

Conclusion
<Indecisive noise>, okay. F91 is a game that sets out to capture the spirit of its setting, while defying gaming convention, and largely achieves both aims, but I didn't love it. I wouldn't really call it a great game, but it is an mechanically interesting one. And, despite nitpicks, I can certainly imagine Gundam fans then and now warming to it. Some distance from a classic, but it doesn't have much to apologise for. If the concepts discussed above appeal to you, maybe check it out.

Foot notes

1. I am deeply cynical about this, and it makes less and less sense the more I think about it.
2. The term “Gundam” is also used mainly for brand recognition, as in universe it was the most famous Federation mecha.

Retro Review: Chō Jikū Yōsai Macross (Famicom)

I think we need some context, here. In 1982, Big West went and made The Super Dimension Fortress Macross, a very influential Japanese anime. They did however run short of money, prompting some poorly worded contracts, and a never ending legal nightmare for all involved. It is for this reason Macross is known as the foundational instalment of Robotech, a series where 3 unrelated properties were nailed together by the famously litigious Harmony Gold. Its a long story, but eff those guys. Transformers fans will also recognise the main mecha from it as Jetfire. Meanwhile, the UK gaming scene was off being its own thing, dominated by low-cost computers like the Sinclair Spectrum, and then by the Sega consoles and stuff like the Amiga. This is also a long story, but suffice to say the NES/Famicom wasn't as a big thing here as in America and Japan. Advance forward thirty odd years, and I'm experimenting with retrogaming platforms. I chance upon a Famicom Macross game, and decide it would make a good test subject for my Retrofreak.

I kinda hate it.

Now, this is not automatically the same as saying its a bad game. I lot of people make that mistake, especially fanboys, you disliking something is not automatically a failing in that media(1). Objective flaws of course do exist, coding bugs for example, and when writing a review it's best to keep some kind of dispassionate viewpoint, lest you confuse an emotional response for an actual fault. What this game does wrong is mainly be very old, and not especially creative with the licence, while I generally suck at this sort of game and don't have the necessary nostalgia goggles. 

So, lets talk mechanics. CJYM is a side scrolling spaceship shooter, a shoot-em-up, the Battle Royale of its day. You advance from left to right, shooting baddies, and eventually fighting bosses. It's fairly typical of its time, although with two major exceptions. Your Valkyrie can change form, behaving differently in each, and has a health bar. I didn't find much reason to transform, but the latter change goes some way to making the game tolerable for me, if still having embarrassing difficulty with the first level. Presentation is also quite reminiscent of the series, with recognisable enemy designs, and a Minmay doll starting the action with a gong, while a chip tune version of the series' track Shao Pi Long also plays. In so far as the technology of the time allowed, it's a reasonably mix of gameplay with licence, like putting Bruce Lee in a Street fighter 2 clone(2). Mind you, "of the time“ is probably the most obvious stock complaint I could make of the game. Its production values show its age, and the gameplay isn't good enough to compensate. Less subjectively, it would appear to be a game with no actual ending, instead looping indefinitely the same level, just with an increasing enemy count. I can't confirm this, and the let's play I found tend last 20 minutes at most, but I honestly can't bring myself to check. It's Transbot all over again. 

Conclusion

There could have been a good game here, but what we have here is a best a prototype that wasn't finished. Video games based on licensed properties do have a terrible reputation, and my self-doubt aside, this game is an example of why. I honestly can't recommend it. Maybe look into Scrambled Valkyrie on the Super Famicom, I hear its rather good.

Foot Notes

1. I'm looking at you, people complaining about female characters in Star Wars and Captain Marvel.
2. Which they did. And a Bruce Lee clone in actual Street Fighter 2.
   
   

Retro Review: Front Mission (Super Famicom)

OK then, I finished Front Mission 3. What game did I play next? Something even more obscure and gaming-hipster-weeb, the first game in the series, Front Mission. Another strategic game with big robots. A game made during the golden age of Japanese Role Playing Games, but one not to get an English version until it got remade for a later platform. Here we see two superpowers, the OCU and USN (1) slug it out over a scrap of nothing called Huffman Island, but is it any good? Well, I'll get to that, but first, I wanna talk about how I played it. While Front Mission received a remastered version on the Nintendo DS, here I used an original cartridge on the Retrofreak emulation console. This provokes a certain degree of "Vinyl versus Spotify" style argument amongst purists, as this is mechanically different from the original hardware, even with the original cart. 16 bit emulation is however a mature technology at this point, and devices such as this allow HDMI output, which is more convenient. I also used the Retrofreaks ability to apply fan-made translation patches, without which the game is somewhat unplayable.

Moving on.....

On first impression, the original game is much more consistent visually than FM3, if inevitably more primitive. FM doesn't have the burden of awkward 3D, and by the standards of the time, certainly holds its own. Its a later generation Famicom release, so the developers knew what they were doing, but also because the game is going against so many JRPG conventions. At the risk of making a sweeping generalisation, games of this ilk, especially those by Squaresoft, tended towards bright colours, and frequently cutesy character designs. Of course, cutscenes and close-up character portraits may have been completely different, but that was the default. Even the seemingly immortal Super Robot Wars series did and does favour a super deformed look for its mecha. This probably owes as much to technical limitations as artistic choice TBH, and this is by no means a failing, but genre convention was there. Here's a screen grab of the highly regarded Final Fantasy VI(2).

 

Notice how the baddie is a nice big-if-static sprite, where as the heroes are in totally different style, and the menu takes up much of the screen space. Now here's what today's review subject looks like.

 

See what I mean? FF6 is a classic for a reason, but, Front Mission is by comparison a darker, grittier, and more visually detailed game. At least in areas which it prioritises. Mecha designs are basically gorgeous, with pleasing animations, and lengthy customisation potential. It's not a big thing these days, but back then? Having equipment visibly change on a sprite was a rare, even if Front Mission seems to like its robots carrying a pair of guns as big as they are(3). Mind you, FM also boils down interactions outside of combat into a series of menus, and you'll see the same town a lot. A lot, a lot. There's no overworld to explore, no random encounters, no side quests, and the closest thing to a diversion is the colosseum, which offers simplified battles where you can bet on yourself. So, if you're not sold on the battles, there's only so much else here. The general interface does also feel outdated, with the day-to-day matters of Wanzer management being more fiddly than they should. In battle, its possible to loose Wanzers behind buildings, or forget what units are damaged, as the game isn't too hot at conveying info on the map screen. This is what I mean when I say this game was more primitive than its PS1 sequel; its clearly an earlier version for less capable hardware, but pixels are more nostalgic than polygons...

Combat is elegant, favouring large groups. if having some quirks. It uses a grid map, but displayed from a fixed isomeric angle. Its functional, dropping into more viseral combat animation, but Its somewhat more in your face and exaggerated than I expected. Most guns have a range of 1 square, the main exception being Missiles, which have limited ammo. Wanzers can act to defend themselves in the enemy turn, if not by counter attacking then by blocking with arms to protect the main body. Going melee is quite practical, due to the prevailing presence of single shot attacks and easy item stowage. Choosing the right tool for the job though is important, Wanzers having separate health bars for body parts, and guns firing either a burst of shots or one big bullet. Then there's wrinkles like Shields sharing the same shoulder mounts as Missiles and hybrid weapons that have variable range. The whole Lego mecha appeal is definitely here, if slanted towards Wanzers some de-facto character classes. The game presents foes with names like Missiler and Attacker, and while these aren't fixed, they do represent the obvious designs. All this often boils down to a rock/paper/scissors affair, but you'll be controlling more than 10 units at a time, so there's plenty to get your teeth into. Here's a summary of what you'll be working with, named after the class of weapons they use.

Fight Wanzers
Fairly self-explanatory, these guys rock up and punch things. Often literally, as while tonfas are a thing, some arms hit really hard bare-handed. These Wanzers have to be both fast and tough, as they not only have to walk a fair bit, enemies can fire their guns defensively before you can swing. Special skills however turn off that weakness, as well as allowing you to do combos and stun people. Fight Wanzers are the hard-counter to missile equipped Wanzers, but they aren't precise.

Short Wanzers
The tactically flexible and the most powerful type of Wanzer, with a wide array of weapons, but most frequently dual machine guns. This is due to the aggressive selection of special skills, which allow for both more dakka and the ability to target specific body parts. This can mince a majority of targets, although weight and effective range can be an issue.

Long Wanzers
*Sniggering* These are characterised by having two big missile launchers, and maybe a bazooka as a back-up. Acting to soften up a target before you finish them off, these only get one special skill, and it's a goody. They can target specific body parts at a distance, and can therefore disarm people before they become a threat. Ammo is however a problem, as is absorbing damage, so they tend to stick close to....

Peewee the supply truck driver

A source of passive buffs where everyone else is a fighter class, Peewee provides emergency repairs, and spare weapons should you need a different gun. He and his ilk add a lot the game, and I feel Front Mission 3 suffers for their absence. Then again, this is another area with an awkward interface.

Two things however bother me about the whole business though. Firstly, the game doesn't actually encourage you to experiment with Wanzer designs that much. Most parts are linear upgrades, which undermines the whole appeal of customising your robots, and upgrades are so frequent as to make it feel like busy work. Its the old RPG staple of new town, buy new sword. Second, while there is a hint of a logistics/management side to the game, I didn't feel I had to make difficult decisions as such. You do get money based on mission performance, and charged for repairs, but I was swimming in cash for the most part, even as my squad sizes hit double figures. If I'd done less well, or if replacement parts had been a bit more spread out, maybe I'd have enjoyed things more, but your mileage may vary. That said, variety and meaningful choice does increase as you go on, with weapons being more immediately complex than Wanzer bits as they often represent side grades to each other. Also on the plus side, the game does not require or encourage level grinding, in my experience.

And finally, there is the matter of narrative, which is OK, if slow to bloom and linear. Putting aside sheer genre saturation, the SNES/Famicom format having buttloads of RPGs, it wouldn't be a surprise if FMs story was part of the reason why it wasn't localised into English at first. Nintendo USA at around this time was clearly opposed to "adult" stuff, and while this game isn't gory its definitely dark and political. I mean, in the first level alone the lead character Lloyd Clive(4) undertakes a blackops mission that goes so badly a war starts, sees his fiancé brutally killed in combat by the final boss, only to then be made a scapegoat for the entire mess. He then joins a mercenary unit, thus becoming a man both grieving and in decidedly grey moral standing. Its not the hero's journey, and it doesn't really become a revenge story until much later. What it is at first is episodic, and quite anime cliché, but gets increasingly bleak and almost unrecognisable in later missions. That said, while the themes and ideas are interesting, the actual execution isn't great. How much of this is the fan translation, or just it being an old game, is up for debate, but I found it to be workmanlike rather than compelling.

Conclusion
A good first try, but not a masterpiece. Front Mission is a game with a very specific appeal, offering some nice strategic gameplay, robo-go-boomy, an interesting story, but very much a product of its time. Is it better than Front Mission 3, the game that brought me to the franchise? Honestly, no. The overall experience isn't as refined, the mechanics of the game not quite coming together, and the story being functional rather than having a strong hook. Is this the same as saying its a bad game? Definitely not. I had a good time with it, so check it out. Maybe go for the DS remake though, if the option is available.

Foot notes

1. That's Japan + others versus The USA + others.
2. Or Final Fantasy 6, if you want to use proper numbers, and aren't currently in 90's America.
3. Not a complaint, an observation.
4. At least, this is what the translation patch calls him. The instruction manual romanised his name as “Roid Clive”, while other sources give it as “Royd Clive”. I'm not in a position to judge which is more correct, so I'll use the one that is less immediately stupid.

A Brief Review Of Doctor Strange

Sorry, I know its been a while.

Well, its a Marvel film, do we need to say any more?

Dum-dee-dum-twiddle-my-thumb.

You can go now.

Oh, we do, sorry.

Right, Doctor Strange is the latest in the generally very consistent Marvel canon, and one of its smaller scale entries, as its an origin story for a single character. Like last year's Ant-Man, its almost a throwback to the “Phase 1” films, and has a fairly light connection to existing plot threads, excluding a mid-credits sequence and a rather notable name drop. This was probably for the best as this film attempts to place hand-wavy magic into a world of soft sci-fi, a tough sell at the best of times. This film however pulls it off, creating utterly beautiful action sequences that feel like lucid dreams. I do want to see this film again in 3D, I feel it would add to the effect, rather than than be a cheap gimmick, which is high praise from me. Its also a generally slick production with a strong cast, and a general feeling of competency. Benedict Cumberbatch is another great casting choice, fitting into the role as well as Robert Downey Jr. did with Tony Stark, and the beard is a massive boost to the man. The remainder of the cast do well with what they have, the narrative progressing in a solid manner for the genre, and there is no obvious weak point in the entire enterprise. 

This however is not quite the same as saying Doctor Strange is a great film in its own right. Something about it didn't click with me. There is where the comparison to Phase 1 comes back. Those were always entertaining films, but I didn't love any of them until the Avengers assembled. Doctor Strange has so much going with respects to its core concept that its almost surprising it works as well as it does. But we are still in a position where the rules of the world still need to be explained, and this undermines the concept of danger. The formula of the Marvel films, or perhaps just the genre at large, also shows through. Doctor Strange doesn't look like any other Marvel film, including Thor, but it has a similar feel in places, and the same sense of humour. You'd be daft to say this film was identical to say Guardians of the Galaxy or Captain America, but you can pick out common themes. If you'd been inclined to sketch out a plot for this film beforehand based on the trailer, you'd probably have got the specifics wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if you got the broad strokes. The ending was a surprise, however. Doctor Strange, while quite trippy could have been a lot stranger, perhaps to its benefit. Then again, to misquote someone, you have to have your feet on the ground, before you can build castles in the sky.

And, you'll forgive me if I don't open the can of worms that was casting Tilda Swanson as the Ancient One. She does a good job, but that's a topic for another day.

All this is however is me attempting to draw a line between the merely good, and the exceptional. Doctor Strange is good, and there's nothing wrong with that. While I don't wish to make comparisons with the distinguished competition, this film certainly handled magic a lot better than Suicide Squad did, and remains infinitely more watchable than some films about superheroes released this year.

The Verdict

Doctor Strange is exactly what it looks like, no more, no less, and that's just fine.

A Review Of Deadpool(2016), On Blu-ray, Some Spoilers

Near my home

Deadpool is a movie Fox didn't want to make. It was gonna have a high rating, "R" in the American system, when Holywood logic said such things were unpopular. Furthermore, the character was intimately associated with the disaster that was X-Men Origins: Wolverine, although the titualar Deadpool had been changed almost beyond recognition. The actor whom played him, Ryan Reynolds, was a comics fan, and clearly wasn't happy about it, as he spent the following years pushing for a more faithful adaptation. Things had to have taken a personal angle for him, as he starred in the similarly terrible Green Lantern. He must have felt some need to atone, reclaim his nerd pride. Eventually, test footage was leaked, with Reynolds making vague implications he did it, and the resulting cheers got it green lit. Then its budget got cut just before filming. Then it made some massive gross ticket sales. It actually. took more than Man of Steel, a Superman film. The original and most recognisable Superhero. The year isn't over yet, but at the time of writing it hovers around #3 of the American cinema rankings, with similar performance worldwide. And this is fully deserved.

Because Deadpool is, in a very specific way, the best X-Men film.


Now, I made this assertion to some friends, and it was a bit controversial. There are good X-Men films, although the ratio of good to bad is not a favourable one. The films certainly deserve credit for addressing prejudice and oppression, and this film is closer to top tier episode of Family Guy(1) than social commentary. Deadpool however succeeds in completely and utterly capturing the spirit and tone of the source material, juvenile as it is. The other X-Men films, especially the Brian Singer ones, tend to feel a step removed and samey, standard Hollywood. Be it superficial stuff like costumes, or bigger stuff like the Sentinels, the X-Men films have never quite embraced the quirks of the comics. This film does does. In fact its probably the most effective Marvel adaptation which Kevin Feige didn't have a hand in. Deadpool is, as near as it makes no difference, the comic book version. He's a hideous mercenary specialising in endless chatter and inventive obscenities. He's a fighter, whose resistance to injury allows for slapstick violence that would make the late great Rik Mayall proud. And he knows you are watching, that this film breaks the X-Men format, and the actor playing him has a few troubled productions on his IMDB page. They famously CG his mask to give it facial expressions. This personality shines like a beacon, and played into the masterful marketing for this film, a majority of which is happily on the disk. But does that make it an actually good film? Let's watch the uncensored trailer again.

Here be swears, BTW.

If any of that made you laugh, you will like the film. Its very good at what it does, and no, those aren't all the good jokes. The film is consistently funny, often taking a scattergun approach, and quite happy shift comedic tones in an instant. As a character, Deadpool as the potential to be as irritating to us as he is to the supporting cast, but much has been done to balance him out. For a start, as this basically is an origin story, we spend a lot of time with the pre-pool-less-violent-but-still-chatty Wade Wilson and his lovely love interest Vannessa, played by Firefly actress Morena Baccarin(2). The chemistry between the two is fantastic, as she isn't the serious girlfriend, she's almost as daft as he is. Both have a lot of pain in their lives, and basically the same sense of humour. And she does not take her eventual role as damsel lying down, so a thumbs up there. The other characters vary between functional and good. I do like Colossus as the straight-man Vanessa isn't, and as a thematic contrast to Deadpool. TJ Miller's performance as Weasel should be completely superfluous, he's a comic relief character in a film where the lead character tells more jokes in one scene than Jack Synder's entire career, but makes an impression with a few very memorable lines. Negasonic Teenage Warhead has a very cool name, and a pleasing antipathy to Deadpool. The villains of the piece, “Ajax” and Angel Dust, aren't quite as memorable, if competent in their roles, and this leads to possibly the film's main problem.

In my place of work....

When you get right down to it, Deadpool the film isn't too dissimilar to the X-Men and 2000's superhero flicks it periodically mocks. Action scenes are relatively few, take place in some fairly generic locales, and are perhaps pedestrian when compared to some of the stuff we've had this year. Its an origin story mixed with a revenge story, and is fairly conventional when viewed that way. Its doesn't really reach for anything difficult, its more about being funny instead. Yes, the film plays cancer and the resultant human experimentation scenes pretty serious, but its not really what the film is about. You don't necessarily notice this as an issue because A) it is very funny, B) that really should be enough, and C) the film jumps around its timeline. It makes the film seem slightly cleverer than it actually is, and I would say suffers slightly in repeat viewings through this. That, and the jokes getting old, of course.

The Verdict

You need to have the right sense of humour to enjoy Deadpool, but its seems there's no shortage of it lately. Fans of the character can rejoice in that they got it right. Fans of superhero films will have a good time. People whom think that superheroes need a little bit of ego deflation will probably enjoy it, although its not a satire of the genre. People whom feel superheroes should be serious need not apply, however. Not a perfect film, and maybe we won't remember it in 18 months. The best superhero comedy remains Kick-Ass, and its not quite a match for Guardians of the Galaxy, but Deadpool is just what we all needed.

Foot notes

1. A.K.A an actually funny one. Possibly involving the Chicken.
2. There is similarity in the two roles, but I'd say she was enjoying this role a bit more.

A Belated Review Of X-Men: Apocalypse, With Many Spoilers

I'm by no means the first to point this out, but the 16 year old X-Men saga is a bit weird. I mean, some of its good, some of its terrible. Its technically Marvel, but its not proper Marvel. Some of its really important to the genre, but also a lot has been made obsolete by the MCU and Christopher Nolan. There's some good drama and big issues, but the drama can often misfire, its often reliant on Magneto being the villain in some way, and the adaptations aren't always that close. Multiple mutants get crammed in, often only because of their powers, with their personalities and back stories ignored. Comic accuracy is not something they really do, but they've been getting better lately. And there's this kind of period drama, nostalgia for its own early instalments, type thing going on. Before it was near future sci-fi, now its more alternate history via continuity ruining time travel and soft reboots. Its probably best described as mediocre, and contract driven. Fox has to keep making these periodically, lest the rights default to their original owner, a competitor, and the X-Men are popular enough to keep the films profitable. Merit isn't a factor in the process any more. That said, Days Of Future Past worked better than it should have, and Deadpool is a highlight of 2016(1). Where does Apocalypse sit? Well, its a film in the mediocre category. There's a few strengths, some really head-scratching problems, but a lot of it just ends up being so dull my reaction is of apathy. At least until I started writing this.

To demonstrate my point, let me describe Magneto's big scene in this film. He's married and has had a daughter in the otherwise inexplicable decade since the last film. He's in hiding, but happy. We know what happens next. The creative types behind this film aren't gonna let him be happy. Even with the timeline being thoroughly messed up, Magneto, AKA Erik Lehnsherr, has to be the mutant terrorist. So, these characters are going to be sacrificed in the name of drama. So, Magneto accidentally reveals himself at the steel mill where he works, saving a man's life via magnetism. Why Magneto chose to work at a place where he could so easily use his powers by accident is unclear, maybe he wanted weapons to hand, but it was the noble thing to do. The Police come for him, and show enough genre awareness to leave the metal things at home, and he agrees to go quietly. Unfortunately, his daughter manifests her own mutant powers, and in the confusion, daughter and wife die. Fassbender acts his arse off, completely selling the anguish of a man whom has seen those he cares about murdered in front of him once again. He then slaughters the policemen with the only metal nearby, the locket containing a picture of his parents. It almost works, the scene, but then two realisations hit. The first is that you scarcely remember anything about Magneto's family, not even their names in my case. The second thing is that, somehow, a metal-free arrow fired by accident from a short bow killed two people. Instantly, with hardly a sound or blood.


Not to trivialise the death of a mother and child, but that's a Hawkeye/Arrow level of skill there.


And this is it right, pretty much the whole damn movie. I should care for the characters, or I should be angry they messed it up, but I don't. Its got some heavy weight stuff, or something potentially awesome, but then something happens to negate the effect, and its really noticeable in the second half. To continue on with Magneto, there's a scene where Apocalypse tries to recruit him. The pitch? To take him to Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp of reality, and the place where Magneto's parents died. Horrific stuff, which needs handling with care. Here Apocalypse seeks to convince the grieving mutant of the need to wipe the world clean, encouraging Magneto to rip the foundations out, while boosting his abilities. Throughout all this, all of it, the Horsemen loiter in their costumes like lost LARPers, and Psylocke in particular probably showing far too much skin for the occasion(2). The contrast between the characters, in their silly clothes, and what the scene is about is too sharp. Apocalypse himself has been ice for millennia, he's got a good excuse for any social faux pas, but his horsemen should know better. Were black cloaks not available? Did they not mention it to him? Did nobody think of this? Its a little tone deaf, isn't it?

Tone deaf isn't a bad way to describe the flaws here, especially when logic in general starts to fail. There's a scene where Professor X touches Apocalypse's mind and gets "hacked", Apocalypse using the link to launch every nuclear missile from its silo. Its an honestly tense moment, this dude is called Apocalypse, and he seems to have lived up to his name a whole act early. But then you realise not only is he firing them into space, completely against his objective, and they choose this point to do the Stan Lee cameo. Apocalypse instead uses Magneto to rip the metal from all the world, an act less radioactive, but no less destructive given that most of it came out of buildings. Erik easily killed millions, possibly hundreds of millions. Does anyone discuss this? No. His punishment? Nothing. He comes to his senses, fights Apocalypse, and gets credited as the hero of the hour. Insert your own comparison to Civil War and/or Batman V Superman here. I see what they are aiming for, but in ignoring these consequences, any deeper meaning of the film is diminished.

Also, given the plot of the last film, shouldn't the Sentinel Program be approved after all this? I mean, the world's nuclear arsenal got fired into space. Just a thought.


The film also suffers from the "Wolverine Detour", a chunk of the film that adds nothing to the plot bar fan service and a plot hole. Basically, the protagonists get captured by Colonel/Major Stryker, whom has been experimenting on Wolverine. They let Logan out, he kills a bunch of people, runs into the woods, and then the plot continues. This could have been excised completely from the film, and you would have lost nothing. In fact, it actually makes the post-credit scene less interesting as it spoils the surprise. Yes, you could argue Spider-Man was unnecessary in Civil War, but at least he didn't bring a continuity error. You see, Stryker didn't take Wolverine at the end of the last film, Mystique disguised as Stryker did. So what happened there? Wasn't it implied she had plans for him? Is this not a mistake? Mystique in this film seems to be written to reflect Jennifer Lawrence's role as Katniss from the Hunger Games and an Oscar winner. She's intended to be inspirational and heroic, but not the manipulator and assassin she should be. Her part in things could have been easily filled by any other character, and she's hardly ever blue, seemingly forgetting her mutant pride. Of course, having her be involved with the highly unethical Weapon X program would have greatly undermined her position as a Che Guevara, so I assume some form of studio politics and/or basic incompetence at play. Clearly, they hoped this would go unnoticed, or hand-waved it as being a decade later, but we know why the scene is here. Its to add to ticket sales by added Logan to the mix, not because the story needs it.

The young X-Men? Erm, OK, I guess. They do pass muster as teenage versions of those characters depicted in the first two Singer films. If you consider those depictions to good ones, this is a plus, but the film is a bit bloated, and not all characters really get due screentime or have a memorable moment. We also have to ask if their inclusion has more to do with nostalgia and a vague attempt to maintain continuity, rather than them having something notably important to do? Cyclops comes off well, but Jean Grey is back to set up the Dark Phoenix Saga again. I seriously hope that this is not the case, and that this is just another example of misused plot elements form the comics, because the films are samey enough without them trying to remake their worst instalment. Either go to space, or go back to the drawing board. Apocalypse himself? Nothing to him, but you'll excuse me if I bring this to a close.....


The Verdict
I should be listing some positives here, I know, but I' don't remember many. At best, its acceptable. At worst its kind of dumb, and borderline offensive if you like the actual X-Men comics. But mostly, its just there. Its not even bad enough for too hate. Seriously folks, its barely worth seeing once, let alone twice. Go watch the 90's cartoon again, I'm sure it on Netflix or similar.

Images copyright of Fox, used under fair use provisions.

Foot notes

1. A review of that follows shortly.
2. Aside from being hired muscle, all Psylocke really does is walk around in comic accurate fetish outfit. A missed opportunity.

A Concise Review of Generations Tankor In 500 Words Or Less

Pricepoint/Vintage: Deluxe, 2014.

Modes: Robot and Cybertronian Tank.

Transformation Style: Unique, lay down.

Play Patterns: Robot and tank, C Clip weaponry, pressure missile, spinning saws, a pack-in comic in the USA.

Points of Interest: A rare modernisation of a character from the then-controversial Beast Machines series.

The Good
Tankor has an almost perfect resemblance to the animation model in robot mode, and strikes an imposing silhouette. All the elements are there, spinning buzzsaws, opening claws, and an impressive shoulder cannon. Total joint count is 21, best in the arms due to a non-humanoid design, but extremely characterful. Switching to tank mode is simple, and the weapon is C rung based, granting some additional play value.

 

The Bad
This is one of those toys whom is probably in the wrong size class, many feeling the character would have been better served as voyager rather than a stumpy deluxe. As he stands, Tankor suffers from some very notable hollows in both modes, wheels that don't roll well, and a left leg that likes to separate at the thigh during transformation. There is also some misapplied paint on mine, while some examples have two left arms, preventing transformation, and the comic has its pages out of order too.

The Mediocre
Fidelity to the animation is much lower in tank form, and if you aren't familiar with Beast Machines, the Visible Head Syndrome will be a negative. There's been no attempt to work in 5mm functionality, not that he ever really had accessories in the show, and the implementation of the buzzsaws leaves them fixed to the forearms.

 

The Alternatives
Most of the alternatives to Tankor require you to go back to the original Beast Machines moulds, circa 2000. These vary significantly in price, likeness, and size, but the tiny Tank Drone toy is well-regarded. Be warned however that chrome, translucent plastic and balljoints were very common, and its been 16 or so years. If all you want is a big and brutal looking military vehicle though, consider Generations Warpath or Darkmount of a few years earlier.

 

The Verdict
Going by a checklist, Tankor just isn't very good. He needed a few less gaps, and a bit more functionality. If you are on-board with the marmite style, like me, the robot mode more than compensates. Tankor is probably the most unique Transformer of the past five years, but that's not necessarily the same thing as being great. If it is to you, or you're a Beast Machines fan, rejoice, he's quite cheap on the secondary market. But for everyone else, you can skip him.

A Concise Review of Combiner Wars Sky Lynx (And Sky Reign) In 500 Words Or Less

Pricepoint/Vintage: Voyager, 2016.

Modes: Dinobird, Shuttle, Combiner Torso.

Transformation Style: CW voyager, beastformer.

Play Patterns: Beast and vehicle, combiner, 5mm weaponry.

Points of Interest: A newly combining modernisation of the 1986 original. No partner legend toy. THIS EXISTS.

 

The Good
His dinobird mode has 26 joints, 4 in the neck and head, making him very expressive. He can't wield his weapons in the normal sense, but there 5mm ports on the wings, and dedicated tabs for tail storage. His shuttle mode captures the G1 toy, with a sci-fi spin. The torso mode is both distinctive and attractive, its lynx head, colours and chest granting much character. For this review, I've been forced to use a few stand-ins, but Sky Reign impresses, not least due to his combined sword weapon. He looks good in all three modes, and the play value is there, and boy, does he stand out on the shelf because he's so weird. Also, he's vaguely adorable.

 

The Bad
Sky Lynx has been the subject of repeated reports of loose joints, my example being effected. The back feet don't always hold a position, and the major ratchets are too soft. This is problematic in the combined form, not least because the shoulder assemblies don't lock in place. Its not as bad as a problem as say a first run of Motor Master, but it is an issue. Less subjectively, there's a few too many gaps here, and the lynx head isn't properly hidden.

 

The Mediocre
Due to his reduced size and combiner role, Sky Lynx has lost some modes, but you can fudge a lynx form. The lack of a true robot form will bother some, and I personally prefer to transform the torso mode differently from the instructions. The shuttle mode arguably does a better job than the CW Aerialbot moulds at concealing the robot forms, as while there's stuff under the wing, its not obviously limbs, and its meant to be there.

The Alternatives
Commander Modesty is so hugely odd that no directly comparable options exist other than the G1 toy. There's incoming release of the Liokaiser set which we know includes a repaint of this, but little else. This leaves almost any CW voyager, but none of those are beasts.

 

The Verdict
Sky Lynx benefits immensely from being completely unlike the rest of Combiner Wars, both visually and in play, while retaining most of the strengths. This is another one of those toys nobody expected, a welcome break from the monotony of the line, and has much to enjoy. However, the loose joints took the shine off things for me. This is not a consistent flaw, and one I intend to fix, but I would be remiss as reviewer to not mention it. Its also a marmite concept that suffers from having to combine with a load of repaints. Definitely good, but not mandatory.

Captain America: Civil War, A Somewhat Spoilery Review

Reviewing cinematic failure is easy. Flaws are usually obvious, or numerous, or even interesting, which make for good material. Some films can be so bad that writing about them is a safe way to vent. Yes, you are supposed to maintain some attempt at objectivity, which is why I make a point of finding strengths and weaknesses, but catharsis is catharsis. A legitimately excellent film is more difficult to talk about. On the fanboy level, you don't want to say too much for fear of ruining the experience. Its like explaining the joke, or dissecting the frog, you can't put it back together when you've finished. Similarly, you doubt if your own response is a reasoned one. Were you swept up in the moment? Do the nitpicks matter? Do you have an unacknowledged bias? Or will your opinion presumed to have one? I've already been extremely hard on the distinguished competition, after all. Going by fan reactions, and the occasional gulf between critics and those fans, you'd think most films are either excellent or dire, with nothing in between. This problem becomes worse when the film is a sequel, especially one which is part of these new, "universes".

Its at least partially a generational thing, back in the 80's, 90's, even at the millennium, ye olde video tape days, honestly good sequels were rare. Franchises did exist, don't let anyone tell ya different, but sequels were usually the domain of the lazy cash grab or the niche. This attitude still remains common in film critics, whom often take the view all works should be self-contained, rather coast on a previous success. Its not a baseless complaint though, diminishing returns is a thing, and its rather annoying to see a bad film presume a follow up. A persistent doubt is whether you can fairly judge a piece of a whole? And whether this flaw is a plot-hole or a sequel hook? As you liked the first film, aren't you sold on the sequel by default? And, when you get right down to it, multi genre long form story telling is some that hasn't really been done on screen before. Its not unique to comics, but its not exactly routine for Hollywood. When it comes to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, we have all of the above and more. The Marvel films have yet to produce an actual turkey, a few Ds certainly, but tending towards Bs for the most part. And people love them, assuming they don't have a dislike for the genre. But Marvel's consistent success adds to the review difficulty. We have an idea what to expect now, there's certainly enough for haters to hate, but, somehow, the movies keep on surprising us. And when they don't, we at least have something you can watch twice. The Law of Averages demands they must do a bad film eventually. Perhaps there was one, and we just loved them so much, we don't care. Does familiarity breed contempt? Or maybe this will run and run, like your average soap opera or Last of the Summer Wine. What will happen first, the end of the MCU, or the heat death of the actual universe?

Yes, I am stalling for time.

Look, you only need to know one thing about this film: its another success. If you need to know two things? The harshest criticism I can make is that it is indeed a sequel. Its drawing on eight years worth of material, which runs the risk of alienating new viewers, but just about everything that makes this film exceptional is made possible by that legacy. Could they have cut a few characters? Yeah. Would have been a better film? Probably nah. The airport fight that the trailers feature is a spectacle on a level we haven't seen since Avengers: Assemble, the sense that another fanboy dream has been made manifest. Whereas there the joy was that somebody had finally “got” the idea of a team of heroes with different powers, this film pitches two such teams against each other rather than disposalible foes, and its worth the price of admission by itself. All of a sudden, every single X-Men film looks like a missed opportunity. But more important than that, it sells the conflict. The film works because we know the characters, because we know that they would act like this, and we know what's at stake. Its like watching your parents divorce, or two mates in a nasty argument. Its a tragedy that plays out in front of you, as deep bonds are broken on principle. Who is right? Is the argument even about government oversight? Neither, and not for long.

Comparisons to Batman V Superman are impossible to avoid, and while its not really fair to make one, the contrast is sharp. Even with eight years of continuity weighing them down, and potential for Robert Downey Jr. to steal the show, the Russo Brothers has created a narrative that makes a hell of a lot more sense and doesn't shortchange anybody. Its still the Captain's film at the end of the day, plot threads from his previous solo outing being the starting point. As with the Winter Soldier, this film takes another sledgehammer to the status quo, but is notable for having something of a downer ending. Perhaps not for the reasons you might think, and certainly not the ponderous gloom of Bats v Supes, its a case where the actual villain of the piece wins. Marvel tends be criticised for its bad guys, because if they aren't Loki, they tend towards being 2-dimensional in some way, or not being given the due screentime. The antagonist in this probably won't defuse those complaints, but does go against the trend, and is used with same level of intelligence of the rest of the film.

I don't want to say much more at this point. With Marvel consistency being what it is, you know how you will likely react to this film. Spider-Man? Yeah, he's great. Black Panther? Nicely done. Vision and Scarlett Witch get some great scenes. I will end on this thought. Captain America: Civil War may not be the best film ever made, but its one of the best Marvel has ever done, and certainly top ten material.

Images copyright Marvel, used under fair use provisions

A Concise Combaticon Review of Combiner Wars Shockwave In 500 Words Or Less

Pricepoint/Vintage: Legend, 2015/2016.

Modes: Robot, Spaceship, Combiner Gun.

Transformation Style: CW legend, simplistic triplechanger.

Play Patterns: Robot and vehicle, “sixth member” combiner to Onslaught, 5mm weaponry, targetmaster.

Points of Interest: Homage to the G1 episode “The Revenge of Bruticus”. Rare new mould in Combiner Wars.

The Good

Nearly everything. The ship mode is very close to his original gun form, while the robot is a more of modernisation via the video games. Both look great, and the robot is almost ideally articulated for the size. There's a balljoint for the head, great motion in the shoulder through a balljoint/swivel combo, similar in the hips, and better knees than me. Joint count is 14, the neck being above and beyond the call of duty, so making natural poses with the gun arm is easy. He operates excellently as a big gun for Bruticus, being able to store on his back too.

The Bad

To emulate the G1 toy, translucent plastic is extensively here, most worryingly in the elbows. Breakages will be a thing to watch for. The forearms are a weak point, generating kibble in all modes. Achieving the gun mode is a matter of flipping a handle down, and while this can store on Onslaught's altmode, it doesn't sit well. There was also a tiny spot of misapplied paint on my example.

The Mediocre

Shockwave is specifically designed to work with Combiner Wars gestalt hands, and a bar of plastic before the peg will interfere with many regular hands, not to mention the weight.

The Alternatives

As a distinctive G1 original, Shockwave is extremely well supplied for toys, most recently with a Masterpiece release. Within Combiner Wars, the most obvious alternative is the Powerglide mould, specifically the Viper repaint. This would arguably fit the Combaticon theme better, BUT that's a weaker toy with tabbing issues. There is also the Botcon 2016 Relector pack remoulded from this, which I have, and adore, but its going to be expensive.

The Verdict

Shockwave is an unabashed success. Its difficult to image a version of the character at this size and price done better. As a partner mould to combiner, he's the best example of the concept. Yeah, he's basically a targetmaster whereas the other toys tried something new, but its a tried and true gimmick executed well. I would personally prefer that translucent plastic wasn't so big a feature, but its early days, and it makes the toy look good in a 1984 sort of way. Pick him up.

Radical Regenerations: Prime Rumble

I normally start a review when I have a spare moment, on a bus, or on lunch hour. Then when I get home, I put the toy to one side of my laptop while I do do internet stuff and play. It can take weeks from initial interest to final drafting, or I can be done in 24 hours because I don't have anything sensible to do with my time. The last thing I do is make my usual attempt at “photography”, where I take it to a good spot in my kitchen and.......

Conservative. Party. CONFERENCE.

Well, I've written a load on on this toy, and I'd rather not ditch all of it. So, I rewrote the introduction, and here it is. I must report however, this did have a small effect on my opinion of the toy. Enjoy.

Vehicle Mode
 Rather than being a little dude whom fits into Soundwave's chest, this Rumble is a small blue car, and a fairly uninteresting one at that. This isn't too much of a departure for Rumble, as he did appear in the Alternators line as a Honda, but the execution here is bad. While there is some attention paid to the front end, some tiny Decepticon badges, and tinted windows, the vehicle appears otherwise unpainted. This isn't actually true, Rumble has loads of paint on him, but its being used to conceal the fact that the entire roof is translucent plastic. Clearly the tightening of toy budgets hit here, but I think we'd would have been better off with ratio reversed, painted windows instead(1). There's also a lot of exposed robot bits on the underside, but you'll forgive me if I put off talking about that just now. Functionally, there's a bit more going on, with two 5mm ports worked in as petrol caps. These allow for the accessories to be mounted on the side, accessories that also needed paint. These do triple duty as pile drivers, guns, and for this mode rocket boosters although a certain degree of imagination is needed here, as they just look like black blocks. That said, 5mm ports do give plenty of options for some Road Warrior action. 

Beyond that, there's not much to say. Switching to robot mode is however very interesting, and while carformers are not my preferred tipple, I'm not aware of one which follows a similar pattern. The front end transforms into the legs, but the back end and roof form the arms, with the flanks and back wheels forming back kibble. There's also a dramatic head reveal. Its a shell-based transformation, and inelegant given how much of the car ends up around the arms and torso, but that strikes me as deliberate intent, rather than incompetence or laziness. They wanted a particular style of robot mode, which I will now talk about. And looking at the image below, you'll easily see how this toy made into my Radical Regenerations format. When his thumbs weren't breaking off.

Robot Mode

Now, the review actually starts. When you get this toy into robot mode, you notice only one thing. Rumble is invoking a very particular design aesthetic, one so distinctive its impossible to see this toy as anything other than a deliberate homage. Yes, this is inspired by the classic 2007 anime Gurren Lagann, and its characteristic “chest face” motif. And its light-piped too. Rumble has two sets of glowing eyes in a good light, though the upper set work best, with both a mouth and a mouth plate at the same time. You can leave the head folded in the chest, and still look him in eye. Here's some art from the series for comparative purposes. Note the attached thumbs.

Copyright: Studio Gainax

See what I mean? Its not necessarily unique to either Gurren Lagann or Rumble, of course. ROTF Bludgeon had a skull chest for example, while Beast Hunters Bludgeon had monster pecs. Nor did Gurren Lagann invent the design element in Super Robot cartoons, that honour probably goes to Gaiking. But the timing and shoulder kibble makes me think Gurren Lagann, and I think its extremely cool looking as a result. At least it balances out the very bland car mode, where the broken thumb doesn't matter.

 

His chest face is so distinctive and overpowering, you forget the other design elements, some callbacks to the original. The back kibble for example has guns sculpted in, regrettably unpainted, but similar to the G1 toy. He has the pile drivers, and the articulation to make make a fine ground-pounding pose. His overall build is quite short for a deluxe, but wide with the arm kibble balancing out the pile drivers. He's not a chest minion anymore, but he's still a short dude. I'm not entirely sure where the head sculpt came from though. There's nothing very Rumble about it, and to muddy the waters further, there was an alternative with an actual mouth(2), but that's not very Rumble either. Neither immediately say Gurren Lagann either, although you could claim the mouthed version is closer to the style than the one we have here. One wonders if designers had something very different in mind for this toy only for it to be re-purposed as a legacy character, or if the designers got a bit of leeway as the character wasn't actually appearing in the cartoon. All I know is, if they'd swapped out that chest face for something closer to a magnetic tape cassette, we wouldn't be here right now. Complaints can however be made about the lower legs, with the calves being a bit ramshackle, preventing a straight stance, and the actual knees being below a set of decorative knees. There's also some questionable colour and material choices; the neck joint is a balljoint in translucent plastic, while the hands are also painted, making chipping a problem. And, I forget if I've mentioned this, his thumb broke off.

Also, if I didn't know better, I'd think his feet were on backwards.

Regardless of what this actually looks like(3), the robot mode has a lot going on. The aforementioned pile drivers have quad gun barrels sculpted in, with a 5mm port on the underside for no obvious reason. This allows Rumble to do some gun fighting poses, and make combi-weapons of a sort. He's also got a total of four 5mm ports, two on the back of his shoulders for storage, and the two petrol caps on his flanks. Articulation is decent, with eighteen points. This is allows for the aforementioned ground-pounding, and I'd like to single out the shoulders as being far more mobile than they have any right being. Its a generously cut balljoint on top of hinge, with rotation at the bicep, so he has great inward motion even if outward motion is blocked by kibble. He can cross his arms, but not demonstrate how big the fish he caught was. The lower body also has a lot in the way of balljoints, but ends up being limited by the sculpt. There is a balljointed waist, but the crotch piece makes it all but useless. There's balljoints in the ankles too, but as mentioned, a perfectly straight stance is impossible. Plus his thumb broke off.

Conclusion

Rumble is a weird toy when you get right down it, and not just for the visual choices. The Prime toyline suffered from budget cuts and misapplied gimmicks, and while there are far worse offenders, Rumble is rough around the edges. I'm no toy accountant, and thus speak from a position of ignorance, but I do feel that ditching the translucent plastic would have been to the toy's net benefit. G1 purist are also not going to be overly keen on this interpretation of the character, even if they go Japanese, because he's some distance from the 80's. That's why he's in this review format, of course, but let's acknowledge some may that downside. But then, that's also a plus, and I'll happily stand up for a transformer that reminds me of one of my favourite animes. The designers clearly wanted to do something different here, and in robot mode it works very well. He's got the pile drivers, he's got the joints to use them, but now he's also a gunfighter with a monster face on his chest. Given how repetitive Prime was after a while, at least until Beast Hunters kicked off, this is a good thing. Its just shame that the car mode is so meh. All things considered, he's worth having, and is very inexpensive on the secondary market. If you want a rough diamond, Rumble is your guy. Assuming his thumbs stay on.

Foot Notes

1. The Japanese versions of the mould sidestep this with stickers as well as paint. Although, they omit the pile drivers for a singular Arms Micron, so some loss of play value there.
2. This was used for both of the Japanese versions.
3. i.e. quite badass.