Avengers Assemble - Review

I've never been an avid follower of Marvel's comics, having missed the opportunity to become a regular reader at some point during my youth. While I'm more than aware and respectful of their contribution to popular culture, my knowledge of comic book lore isn't exactly all that impressive.
My experience of the famous names of DC and Marvel is largely limited to their depiction in TV and film, and unfortunately for me, those adaptations have scarcely been any good.

In my opinion, comic book movies don't usually offer much of merit. They are quite often poor films, designed to keep film studios afloat with eye candy that is proven to sell to pre-established audiences. There are obviously a number of exceptions - most notably The Dark Knight - but these are the exceptions to the rule.
Perhaps expecting every comic book adaptation to display the intelligence of Nolan's Batman series would be foolish though, as many of these characters deserve a more lighthearted and colourful approach. But regardless, it is true that many adaptations struggle to strike up an even balance between character development and action. Adapting from comic to film presents the challenge of trying to translate decades worth of comic lore onto the screen - which is no doubt a daunting task - and the difficulty of trying to determine the right tone for the film and grounding its protagonist in any sort of reality. Few directors are successful in overcoming these challenges.

Whedon demonstrates a scene

It's true that my interest in The Avengers (or Avengers Assemble if you're in the UK) piqued once I learnt that screenwriter/director Joss Whedon was co-writing and directing. Whedon is a skilled creative individual who has made quite a name for himself with pulp entertainment fans, and you've likely seen some of his work whether you know it or not. To learn that he was taking up the reigns of a major studio production was good news indeed. My first and only concern was, will his creative streak shine through despite the financial pressure of such a big budget production, or will he fall foul at the hands of the studio system?
For those unfamiliar, Whedon has had many ups and downs throughout his career. Being a younger director, he first saw success in the 1990s with cult TV shows Buffy and Angel, and was then screenwriter for 1995's wildly successful Toy Story. He then had his screenplay for Alien Resurrection (which is actually quite good in literary form) turned into a visual catastrophe, before moving into the world of animation where he wrote Titan A.E and Disney's Atlantis: The Lost Empire. He then had his sci-fi TV series Firefly cancelled before he could complete a single season, but later managed to conclude the story by bringing the show to the big screen in the movie Serenity. This is the first (and only) time a cancelled TV show has subsequently been adapted for cinema. He was also responsible for writing current horror/thriller Cabin In The Woods.
Whedon - being a skilled writer/director and a huge comic book fan - was the logical choice to make The Avengers the success Marvel studios wanted it to be, especially since many of his previous works dealt with ensemble casts and the simultaneous development of various characters.

With the Marvel movies Iron Man, Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor all directly leading into Avengers via their post-credits teasers, it's obvious that Marvel has been gearing itself up for this event movie for some time. Avengers is a convergence of plot lines from all three of those films, and in that sense it has an awful lot to live up to, delivering a satisfactory continuation to each individual series but also being an exciting introduction to the famous collaboration of fictional heroes. For viewers who haven't seen any of those three comic book adaptations (or read the comic books), the opening portion of Avengers may seem a little confusing due to many of the characters' origin stories being featured in each of the preceding films, but once it picks up speed, you can rest assured that it's all self contained from there.

Tom Hiddleston as Loki

Having said that though, the premise of the film is fairly simple. Villainous Loki - the antagonist in Marvel's Thor - has come to Earth and stolen the Tesseract - the blue cube of immense power featured in both the Captain America and Thor movies. Loki's threat is to use the Tesseract to open another portal to Earth and bring through it an extra-terrestrial army called the Chitauri. To counter this threat, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) of fictional espionage agency S.H.I.E.L.D is tasked with assembling a response team consisting of recently defrosted Captain America (Chris Evans), Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Black Widow (Scarlett Johanssen).

It's important to consider that on paper, this film sounds like the recipe for certain cinematic disaster. You've got atleast 8 major characters all needing precious screentime and fleshed out story arcs, a concept which is incredibly hard to sell with any degree of realism and credibility, loose narrative threads to tie up from the previous films, a crisis to introduce and circumvent, an army of critical fans waiting to jump on the bandwagon at the first sign of disloyalty to the comics, and within the Marvel studio itself, a massive budget on the line and the potential for one incredibly expensive box office failure. But somehow, the film is not only successful in avoiding these potential failings, it's also one of the most enjoyable cinema experiences I've had.

Mark Ruffalo (Banner/Hulk) and Robert Downey Jr. (Stark/Iron Man)

For those who are familiar with Whedon's work, his trademark is (fortunately) all over the film. From the witty banter between the lead characters, to the humour that gives the characters a streak of vulnerability and humanity. The overall package is well balanced, with an equal measure of superhero action and equally important character dialogue and development. None of the characters are short changed in favour of another. Each member of the Avengers team is treated equally in terms of their role in the film.
This isn't Shakespeare, it's a Marvel movie and Whedon is aware of that as the film parodies its own seriousness at points for a pleasantly more lighthearted approach. But for what it is, it's incredibly well written. At one point, Captain America is warned not to engage in a fight with Thor and Loki as they are 'basically Gods' and their power is far beyond what the Captain may be able to handle. Leaping into the fray regardless, he replies 'There's only one God miss, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that.' That single line of dialogue sums up the Captain's attitude in a dangerous situation, his old-fashioned view of the world and religion and it delivers a few laughs along the way. It's not Shakespeare, but considering the genre, it sure is clever.
The pacing of the film, while not perfect, was consistent enough to maintain my unwavering attention throughout. Again, considering the multitude of elements the film had to address in its opening stages, it's incredible that pacing was consistent at all. To those reviewers who claim that Avengers is a 'slow movie' with 'too many dialogue scenes' and 'poor pacing,' you are idiots. Take away those 'slow dialogue scenes' and this would be just another comic book movie without any narrative purpose and with poorly established, unidentifiable characters. It's these character developing scenes that enhance the action later on, and it's these scenes that make Avengers stand out as the most accomplished Marvel film yet.

Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury)

While it does borrow a story beat or two from The Dark Knight (you'll know it when you see it), Avengers makes the smart decision of preventing its heroes from actually 'assembling' until the final act. The film is constantly building up towards the final confrontation, and this escalating tension is crucial in making the conclusion as exciting as it is. This doesn't prevent plenty of conflict from emerging during the earlier parts of the film though, with plenty of friction between the protagonists as they work out their personal differences and reveal their issues and concerns.

Some of the characters are actually portrayed better here than they were in their own origin movies. Captain America and Thor seem to be particularly more exciting and effective in a fight (the Captain actually throws his shield and Thor demonstrates plenty of hammer slinging and lightning bolt action) and the combat is visceral and dominated by large scale stunts rather than poorly composited high speed footage a la The First Avenger. With a twinkle of humour, Whedon's script repeatedly references the Captain's disappearance and subsequent lack of knowledge of the last 50 years. He emphasises the character's flaws, and reminds us of the humanity behind the hero, which is crucially important if you want an audience to invest emotionally in your film.
Hulk, who has recently been featured in two poorly received modern adaptations with two different lead actors, finally gets an appearance worthy of his character, and it's frankly quite amazing that a film with such broad ambitions manages to depict the character so well. Mark Ruffalo is fantastic as Hulk alter ego Bruce Banner, playing the role of the socially awkward scientist in the midst of a crisis situation. Making another smart choice, Whedon's screenplay prevents Banner from unleashing 'the other guy' until the latter half of the film, leaving the audience to wonder how long he can truly contain his anger and when he does lose control, where he will direct his rage. It's quite a potent buildup, and does more for the anti-heroic status of the character than the two Hulk movies combined.
Loki himself, who is often recognised as the weakest element of Marvel's Thor, is a much better villain this time around. He isn't written particularly intelligently, but his self obsessed ranting and self indulged moments of scheming make you quite happy to see him get the beating he deserves.
Newer characters Clint Barton/Hawkeye and Natasha Romanov/Black Widow, who were featured briefly in Thor and Iron Man 2 respectively, are given their own subplot this time around to integrate them fully into the story - testament to Whedon's caring treatment of even the lesser characters.
Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark is a show stealer as always, getting most of the witty lines and some incredible set pieces, most notably at the end of the film. His conclusion does border on the realm of cheesiness, but it's quickly rescued by sharp, humorous dialogue.
Joss Whedon seems to write with the philosophy of, 'if it doesn't quite seem credible, make it funny instead,' and for the most part it works. The final act itself - with its epic scale urban destruction - might have seemed reminiscent of Michael Bay's Transformers if it wasn't for the snappy dialogue, humour and well developed team character dynamic. This a blockbuster action picture that's been lovingly crafted by a writer/director who knows the importance of grounding a film in some kind of reality - albeit a heightened on - before launching the characters into larger than life situations.
Quite simply, all the characters here do what you would expect them to do, they look good doing it, and for many Marvel fans I'm sure that's a huge relief.

Avengers succeeds greatly despite the odds being stacked so heavily against it. Despite its protagonists being an odd squad of superheroes with bright latex costumes, Whedon gives them a dash of humanity and they almost become fully formed, believable characters. The action is slick and well conceived, and when the film reaches its final act, the climactic battle is mesmerising to watch. I found myself amazed not only by the stunning visuals and well conceived set pieces, but by the fact that I was engrossed in an adventure of such absurdly epic proportions and loving every minute of it. Joss Whedon deserves an enormous amount of praise for pulling off a feat as extraordinary as any depicted in the film. I sincerely hope he gets the credit he deserves for making the unbelievable so believable. It's bizarre to think of it this way, but essentially, it took the creator of Buffy The Vampire Slayer to show Hollywood how to make a decent Marvel film.

Solomon Kane - Review

To give a fair judgement of Solomon Kane, it's important to first put the film into context.
I - as many others surely did - watched the TV spots and trailers prior to the film's release in 2009 and judged it to be nothing more than a horrible B-movie fantasy, fit only for direct to DVD release. Made on a low budget and helmed by a relatively unknown director with not much to his name but the 2002 WW1 thriller Deathwatch, it wasn't looking all that enticing. Due to a poor marketing campaign, it reeked of video game style movie making, and trying to cash in on the works of Robert E. Howard; the famous writer behind Conan The Barbarian. I dismissed the film almost immediately.

Fast forward to 2011, and along came the reboot of Conan itself. Although I have the greatest respect for John Milius' original camel-punching Conan adventure of 1982, I was incredibly excited to see Conan back on the big screen, and curious to see where they took the character with modern effects and ofcourse, without Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Conan - This picture says it all really

So 2011's Conan was directed by Marcus Nispel, the guy behind the trashy remake of Friday the 13th. Taking up the mantle of Conan himself was Game of Thrones' Jason Momoa, possibly the only current actor who could play the character with any degree of credibility.
But let's be honest here - the film was awful. So bad that it barely had any redeeming features. The characters were bland, the origin story of Conan was rushed into a 15 minute opening sequence and the villain was laughably weak, spouting inane dialogue and facing off against Conan in one of the the most poorly conceived showdowns ever seen in cinema. The music by regular Zach Snyder collaborator Tyler Bates was a generic buzz of audio with a barely recognisable main theme, which is even more insulting when considering the epic score Basil Poledouris cooked up for the 1982 film. 2011's Conan felt like it was churned out of the cold Hollywood machine, marketed for a mindless teen audience whose main priority was to see a few heads roll in 3D. There were impressive visual effects and the characters certainly looked the part, but jaw dropping CGI and commendable costume design hardly made up for poor direction and the lack of a recognisable narrative. Gone was the epic fantasy tale of revenge depicted in the Milius film. Instead we get a bland, generic, hack and slash B-Movie with a high budget polish that's supposed to convince us that any genuine feeling went into the production. And with a budget of nearly 80 million dollars, one could surely have expected something more?

With Conan behind me and hopefully forgotten, I decided to give Solomon Kane a viewing. My expectations at this point were tremendously low - 'it can't be any worse than Conan, can it?' Add to that the knowledge that Kane's budget was half of that for Conan, and I was letting myself in for a laugh a minute attempt at the fantasy adventure genre that was likely to have more in common with Monty Python's Holy Grail.
Except that wasn't the case. While Solomon Kane is far from being a genre masterpiece, when compared to its competition, it tick's all the boxes that a pulp fantasy adventure should.
James Purefoy is charismatic and convincing in the lead role, and his character gets a substantial 30-40 minutes of screentime to establish himself as the brooding anti-hero. The supporting cast includes the late Pete Postlethwaite, Alice Krige, Jason Flemyng and Max von Sydow, and they all deliver acting turns worthy of a film with a much more established name, giving credit to a director who was obviously determined to get the best from his cast.
The primary antagonist is a voiceless, masked rider who aptly demonstrates his lust for violence at numerous points in the movie. While he isn't nearly as intimidating as the greatest of cinema's villains, he certainly carries enough heft to make you root for Solomon Kane. What's more, the villain gets a sliver of backstory, which is indeed rare for a film of this type.

The masked antagonist

Fighting is well choreographed and suitably violent at points, and the dialogue is sharper and more refined than I was honestly expecting. What's most important is that the viewer fully understands the characters' motivations before the violence ensues, which increases the dramatic impact of everything to follow. Not rocket science, but often so overlooked in other similar films.
There is plenty of religious reference throughout - as you would expect when the titular character owes his soul to the devil and turns to God for sanctuary - but none of it is overwhelmingly forced upon the viewer. It actually works quite nicely within the context of the film.
But most impressive here is the atmosphere that accompanies the narrative, depicting a rainy England filled with poverty and violence. To the director's credit, soundstages and sets are scarcely used, and instead we get real locations mildly adjusted with computer imagery. It really makes a huge difference when you know Kane is fighting enemies in a patch of real forest rather than on a small set surrounded by blue screen. It gives the film a sense of perceptible scale as Kane travels across the land in search of his objective.
Klaus Badelt's music score is suitably epic, romantic and memorable. It lends itself incredibly well to the film, and gives it a sense of grandeur that belies its low budget origins. For me, the score was the 'icing on the cake,' as no adventure movie can be complete without a memorable theme for it's titular character, and no fantasy film can be complete without sweeping orchestral overture. Kane has both in great quantity, and it's worth noting that this is something that Tyler Bate's Conan score is sorely missing.
I could mention more - the imaginative and varied cinematography that puts Conan to shame, the unexpected narrative twist, the costume design by Patrick Tatopolous (Stargate). But I'm sure you get the point.

Solomon Kane is an independent production that managed to muster a budget of $40 million, and 2011's Conan is a tentpole studio film with a budget of nearly $80 million. But in almost every way, Solomon Kane is superior. Granted, my low expectations could have affected my opinion of it to a degree, and there are a few cringe worthy and cliched moments in the film, but overall it's an enjoyable experience. If you expect something with the depth and scope of Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones, you will certainly be disappointed. But within its own niche, Solomon Kane is a highlight of the genre, and is certainly the better Robert E. Howard adaptation of recent years.

Klaus Badelt's score from Solomon Kane

Titanic: Case Closed - Review

There isn't likely to be a single person out there who isn't atleast aware of the Titanic disaster, and there are certainly many who have been touched in some way by the story of the ill-fated liner, whether it be through a personal connection to the sinking or simply by embracing the scale of the tragedy.

2:30am this morning marked the centenary of the sinking, and enthusiasm towards the ship and its story doesn't seem to have dwindled one bit, even after 100 years. Various documentaries and dramatisations are being broadcast across various TV channels - some with lavish production values and others being less adventurous rehashes of previously seen material.

But out of all of these programmes, the one that's impressed me the most is the National Geographic documentary Titanic: Case Closed. Rather than simply regurgitate old ideas or provide a dramatic insight into what 'might' have happened, Titanic investigator and published author Tim Maltin has gathered years of meticulous research and presented his well studied theories to the viewing public. His aim is to establish exactly what happened that fateful night - why did such a marvel of technical shipbuilding with such an experienced crew meet such an unexpected fate? And I have to say, his findings are fascinating.

Tim Maltin examines the Titanic deck plans

Maltin poses a number of questions as the programme opens. Why did the Titanic lookouts fail to see the iceberg until it was so close to the ship, particularly since the conditions that night were apparently so clear, and why did the nearby steamer Californian fail to respond to the Titanic's visual Morse code distress signals across the open ocean? These are questions that have remained unanswered for a hundred years due to insufficient scientific knowledge.

After the sinking of the liner, many supposedly 'incompetent' crewmen were blamed for their failure to avert the disaster, becoming the scapegoats for White Star Line's mistakes as the shipping company faced financial disaster. Captain Stanley Lord of the Leyland Line steamship Californian, for example, had his name disgraced and his career ruined for apparently 'ignoring' the call for aid from the sinking ship. The lookouts on the Titanic, Frederick Fleet and Reginald Lee, were disbelieved when they claimed a certain 'haze' had hung over the horizon that night, therefore making the iceberg near impossible to spot until it was nearly within striking distance. They were even accused of not paying proper attention to the sea, and blame was pointed at the officers for failing to equip them with a needed pair of binoculars.
Maltin's documentary boldly suggests that it wasn't human error responsible for the sinking of the ship, as previously believed. He effectively tries to clear the names of all those who've gone down in history as failing to perform their duties. Perhaps this is too late for those particular individuals, but as far as setting the record straight goes, it's a huge achievement.

Maltin visits the famous piece of Titanic's hull looking for clues

Maltin's theory suggests that atmospheric conditions on the night of April 14th/15th 1912 were infact imperceptibly dangerous, despite the calm appearance of things.

"It was very much a killing zone of nature due to atmospheric conditions - extreme high pressure and no moon, calm waters, and most importantly, this thing called a thermal inversion. A mirage, high pressure and darkness just came together."

Trying to illustrate Maltin's theory

Maltin's 'thermal inversion' occurred when the warm air of the Gulf Stream was suddenly cooled when coming into contact with the icy water of the Labrador current flowing south with the ice field, creating a layer of extremely cold air beneath a layer of warm air. Maltin explains that a 'cold water mirage' caused by this meeting of air temperatures would have effectively contorted the view of the horizon by refracting light. These conditions would have caused an array of atmospheric anomalies, many having been described in detail by survivors of the sinking but ignored due to lack of relevant knowledge in years past. It certainly matches up with Fleet and Lee's description of a 'haze' on the horizon. The effect of this mirage would have prevented the lookouts from seeing the iceberg against the night sky, perhaps even with a pair of binoculars, and almost certainly would have caused great confusion for Captain Stanley Lord in trying to identify the profile of the distant Titanic.
Another side effect of the refraction would have been the impression of vividly twinkling stars due to the bending of light in the air as it passed through the two temperate layers - something else which eyewitnesses reported seeing that night. It's no stretch of the imagination to suppose that Captain Lord would have had immense difficulty recognising the flashing of Titanic's morse code signal with both an unclear horizon and the distraction of so many blinking stars.

Cold water mirage effect caught on camera

There are many other theories and scientific explanations presented, including the idea that the heart of the 'killing zone' where Titanic foundered could have been a pocket of atmospheric pressure higher than anywhere else in the northern hemisphere at the time, with dramatically lower temperatures than normal. Weather records from ships travelling the Atlantic shipping lanes during 1912 seem to support this theory, with temperatures abruptly dropping from around 13 degrees Celsius to as low as minus 1 while crossing the Titanic disaster site - the same drastic drop in temperature that Titanic passengers themselves experienced not long before the ship struck the iceberg. The clash of warm and cold fronts at that particular time and location had created the perfect conditions for the disaster to occur, and it's possible than any number of bizarre atmospheric phenomenon could have been witnessed that night.

It is important to remember that these are all just theories, but what Maltin gets crucially right is showing evidence of these 'phenomenon' in action, aswell as lots of supporting texts including historical documents and overlooked statements from the survivors themselves. The findings are incredible, and by the time the credits rolled, I had no doubt they were as accurate as they could be considering the years that have passed. My immediate reaction to all the information presented was, how on Earth hasn't this come to light before? It will entirely change popular perception of what happened that night in 1912. No more blame to be laid upon crew members or apparent flawed shipbuilding. The Titanic was purely unlucky that night, meeting an entirely unforeseen side effect of the unpredictable environment, and sinking in possibly the worst icy conditions imaginable.

I highly recommend disregarding my overly simplistic explanation of these theories and checking the documentary out yourself, especially if you're remotely interested in Titanic. It's the first piece of television in many years - or any entertainment format for that matter - that's deeply affected my opinion of what happened that night. And unlike the barrage of overly familiar material that hits our screens on important occasions like this, it does what a good documentary should do. It teaches us new things.

Retrospective: Red Faction Guerilla

In the space of the next few (?) paragraphs, I'm going to convince you to shell out between £3 and 5 and buy Red Faction: Guerilla on Xbox 360 or Playstation 3, even if you've owned it before.
This is the only game I've ever bought twice. Come to think of it, I can't remember why I got rid of it in the first place (probably to fund some new and disappointing Xbox release). But I've been craving some Red Faction action ever since, and with the hefty price tag of £3 preowned attached to it at my local CEX store, I took a leap and bought the game again.

It feels like forever since I first played through Guerrilla, but in reality it's only been two and a half years, so take the term 'retrospective' in the title lightly. Guerrilla is still a current gen game and it's largely competitive with anything in the game charts. Graphically, it's still above average and it's one of the most technologically innovative games available, even when squared up against the current competition. This game is incredible, and having only great memories of it on the first playthrough, picking it up a second time was a no brainer.

Open World
This is a sandbox game, but unlike other such games the map's not overly large and there's always some degree of story oriented guidance to keep you focused and prevent you from getting bored. There's not much of a reason to stray from the beaten path anyway (unless you want to smash things, which is ridiculously enjoyable), as most of the open terrain is dusty, rocky and generally red. It's the barren surface of Mars, but that's part of the charm. As the sun pans across the sky in an accelerated day/night cycle, real-time shadows shift across the terrain, and at night shooting stars travel from horizon to horizon. This is an open world sci-fi game, and in that sense it's something of a rarity. Small outposts and colonial structures clutter the landscape, and buggies, trucks and military vehicles populate the roadways while EDF gunships patrol the skies. The map is divided into sectors of control which must be fought for, and once your influence in a particular sector has become significant enough, Red Faction soldiers will come to your aid during combat. When you get into a combat situation in this game, a combination of hilarious vehicle physics and low gravity can lead to quite the memorable set piece. But essentially, it's the environment and its ridiculous levels of destruction that make Guerrilla so much fun.

Destruction
Guerrilla has the best destruction system I've ever seen in a game, courtesy of the Geomod 2.0 engine. As you smash your way through walls with the franchise's iconic sledgehammer, it feels like they're coming apart brick by brick. Setting explosive charges and demolishing a building by destabilising its centre of gravity never gets old, watching it crumble like a real world demolition as pieces of the construct topple down in ever more interesting ways. Destabilising a huge industrial chimney and watching it fall through the roof of the next door building to crush your foes is particularly incredible. Nothing is scripted - it's just the unpredictable physics of the game at work. Optional hostage rescue missions, which are usually a chore in any other game, are a particular highlight. Go in all guns blazing, snipe captors from afar, or my particular favourite - ram a dumper truck through the walls and bring half the building down, pick up the hostages and drive off. Child's play. And rather than let your enthusiasm for these amazing physics dwindle over time, destruction has been implemented as a fundamental mechanic of the game. Toppled structures deposit chunks of scrap metal that must be collected in order to upgrade and purchase weapons at a Red Faction headquarters. Smashing things becomes compulsively addictive as you strive to unlock the biggest gun to smash through more buildings. Destruction is such a pivotal feature of the game that a turn based 'wrecking crew' mode can be accessed from the main menu, which challenges you to smash up as much of a particular scene as possible within an allotted time limit.

Drive thru

It makes me feel like a badass
This game is not easy, especially if you ramp the difficulty up to the higher levels. But regardless of the odd game rage inducing moment where several AI controlled EDF vehicles decide to steamroll your corpse until you are dead, it's escapist fun. Weapons are powerful and varied, so blasting your way through hordes of enemies is addictive. Manning turrets on armoured cars (some of which look strikingly like the APC from James Cameron's Aliens) is thoroughly satisfying. When your vehicle gets damaged, simply eliminate the crew of the next one and commandeer another. The low gravity comes into play here, allowing you to take lunging aerial leaps and come down on top of a vehicle, or even on an unsuspecting foe's head with your sledgehammer. And there's a cover system, which isn't nearly as advanced as the one featured in the Gears of War franchise for example, but considering the entirely destructible nature of Guerrilla's battlefield, I'm impressed it works as well as it does. The explosive charges deployed to bring down structures can be thrown and attached to just about anything, including enemy infantry (just like the original Red Faction). Nothing revolutionary here, but the game certainly knows how to let you be creative with your killing. Then there's the jet pack, which allows you to launch yourself skyward for a good 3-4 seconds before coming down in an advantageous location. It's certainly not possible to fly around the map (although the jet pack on the multiplayer modes allows a little more air time), but these minor restrictions feel like they were always supposed to be part of the game design, rather than being shoehorned into the final product to aid with player vs. AI balancing. Mention must also be made of the walkers, both industrial and military. These are mechanical suits, similar in nature to the famous powerloader from James Cameron's Aliens (the influences of popular film on this game are obvious). Usable as vehicles in Guerrilla, they allow you to run, punch, smash and shoot your way through just about every inanimate and hostile object in the game. Using them makes you feel like a badass.

Building + Propane tank + rifle fire = flying man

'Get your ass to Mars'
Yes it's true that Red Faction is as close to 'Total Recall: The Videogame' as we're likely to get. And just to clarify, I'm talking about the 1990 version of Total Recall, where he actually goes to Mars. Red Faction: Guerrilla gives you the red planet and the rebelling force of miners and civilians versus the oppression of a larger military force. It gives you the quaint little bubble cars and Martian vistas. It gives you the lone protagonist and the means to lay waste to everything, Schwarzenegger style. It highlights and utilises a lot of the points that made that film great, but it does it without a movie licence hanging over it, which inevitably seems to ruin everything video game related.

Paul Verhoeven's Mars in Total Recall, 1990

The multiplayer is good aswell
With a lengthy campaign including plenty of side missions to see you through to 100% completion, and a full expansion pack to further extend your solo playtime, Guerrilla is quite a substantial single player experience. But despite this, there's a multiplayer offering too, and it certainly hasn't been tacked on as an afterthought. There are the typical game modes such as deathmatch and capture the flag style matches, but there are also destruction based modes where you must raze your opponent's base to the ground. In turn, your enemy have a 'reconstructor' device they can use to rebuild their structures while trying to destroy yours. It's important to mention that this game mode is very fun, and very unique to this game and its destruction engine. Also featured are different 'backpacks' for different player classes, each offering a specific powerup including the ability to run faster, fly for a short period of time, burst through walls, or send out a damaging shockwave. Playing matches awards the player points which count towards a basic, but effective unlock system.

To sum up...
Now I've told you how amazing it is, I have to be fair and say this game isn't perfect. Some may criticise it for being ugly at times. The Martian vistas can look anywhere from beautiful, to lazy and empty. The visuals themselves can look a little messy in places, like too much has been crammed into one space (the PC version is supposedly superior in this respect). But these are flaws that can easily be overlooked where I'm concerned, as the game is just too much fun to deny. Getting killed by the rampant AI can be irritating sometimes, but I can never be angry with it for long. The destruction system and physics are something to behold, and I'm still surprised that Geomod 2.0 hasn't been used in more game titles since Guerilla's 2009 release. There is ofcourse the sequel to consider - Red Faction: Armageddon - but the linearity of that newer title is somewhat offputting. The destruction of Geomod is so much more entertaining when employed in a open world/sandbox environment.
So really, if you like the idea of smashing things apart, driving around Mars in various vehicles inspired by popular sc-fi movie culture to the vibe of Total Recall (1990), then you can't go wrong. Especially for under £5.