The Hangover

There's comedy and then there's "comedy".

Ok, i'll start off by saying this: this movie is probably a lot better than i'll give it credit for, but it's also a lot worse than others give it credit for. For all that it is, The Hangover is certainly not one of the greatest comedies you'll ever see. It's not horribly dull, but it's not interesting enough to warrant the reviews it receives.

The main problem is that The Hangover relies almost exclusively on low-brow humour. It's not that this kind of humour is bad, but an entire movie composed of this kind of humour just doesn't work, completely alienating those who don't think fart jokes and slapstick are necessarily comedic gold. Whatever happened to clever word play, intelligent social commentary and snarky one liners? We still get them in The Hangover, but they're oh-so very rare! Well, ok, we don't get all of those, but there are a few clever quips - just not enough to make it a good comedy. I swear i can see when the actors are trying to be funny.

Most of the plot is incredibly contrived, but this is to be expected from most comedies. Doug (Justin Bartha) is about to be married and his friends decide they will take the bachelor party to vegas for one last blast. Complications (and supposedly hilarity) ensue. His "friends" include a mishmash of characters: Phil (Bradley Cooper), who's the bored cynic of the group; Stu (Ed Helms - he was funnier on The Daily Show, i swear!), the "weak willed" one; and Alan (Zach Galifianakis), the dumb one. Doug fills out the roles as "the straight man" for much of his time on screen. Don't be fooled by the set up: the story's not about Doug!

While for most of the movie the characters stubbornly stick to their predefined roles, given this is hollywood, i'm sure you can guess they will all overcome their characterizations by the end to show you that they are "more than what they let on". Yes, even the stupid one. Most of them won't even have very compelling motivations for the change - like Phil: he'll go from hating his family to loving them inexplicably for no reason at all. I guess this is a minor point, but it's kind of an annoying one.

The movie tries for the old "reverse order" plot dealy and has the friends wake up in a destroyed hotel room, groggy and unaware of what had transpired. We're treated to some unusual sights like a live chicken wandering around, a tiger in the washroom and a baby in the closet - and things get weirder from there! There's definitely an interesting hook here, but the film doesn't really do anything with it. Much of what's shown is never explained and that which is is given spectacularly unsatisfying explanations.

Since i'm sure everyone's seen the trailer, it'll come as no surprise that Mike Tyson is in the movie. Why? Apparently the group went to Tyson's mansion to party it up. Don't expect more explanation than that, 'cause you'll never get it. The "comedy" of the situation comes from urine jokes and slapstick *yawn*.

To the film's credit, the mandatory-by-law love story is sidelined to Ed Helms' character becoming more of a man when he finds a more respectable woman than his own controlling bitch of a girlfriend. Don't get me wrong, i'm happy this wasn't primary-plot material, but it still seems like an unnecessary component of the film.

Naturally, everything that can present itself as a problem will eventually be taken care of come the end of the movie so that poor Doug can get back to his waiting bride in the nick of time for his wedding. By this point, most comedies usually give on up the comedy component and just sort of fill in the blanks to have the story fill out as expected and The Hangover is no different. Despite my blasse explination, i don't fault the film for this. It is spectacularly difficult to have a movie end on a comedic high note and fill out the plot.

There's a few more "comedic" scenes at the end, but they're all but expected by this point, ruining whatever clever unexpectedness they were going for. During the credits the film treats the viewer to a slide-show of scenes from the group's missing digital camera to try and show you what had happened during their blackout more completely. I can't say that it adds anything more, though that may just be me speaking.

Overall, The Hangover is an ok comedy... though you'll really really have to want that laugh to get it. This is a glass half-empty: C minus.

Btw, sorry about the hastily done picture. I wanted to get the review up sooner than later and that really gave me not that much time for a "good" picture. I'll try and make it up in the future, but no promises!

Ghostbusters the video game review

Yup, it's another video game review... If you find them long and boring to read, here's a drinking game to get you solidly hammered: each time you see the word "ghostbuster" take a shot!

The first Ghostbusters movie was marketed as comedy, but it was so imaginative and well done, is it any wonder it captured the imaginations of adults and children alike? The movie was so successful, it spun off a sequel, a cartoon series (one which anyone who grew up in the 80's and early 90's will no doubt be familiar with) and a plethora of video games. While the cartoon was an unbridled success for most of its run, the video games were absolutely abysmal! I know; i had the first one for the NES (The Angry Video Game Nerd has an entire set of videos dedicated to the awfulness of the old-school ghostbuster games - see them over at www.cinemassacre.com). Given the poor track record of previous games, how does the newly released (and unimaginatively titled) Ghostbusters the video game compare? Well, let's find out.

First off, i played my game on the Wii, but it's available on all systems. Most people seem to prefer the Xbox360 or PS3 versions, but from what i can tell, it's largely based on superficial graphics preferences. Honestly, though, i can't compare since i haven't played the other systems versions (and i probably never will). So this will largely only be a "Ghostbusters the video game for the Wii" review.

Gameplay and Control

The game is set up so that you play as a new recruit for the ghostbusters there to test their equipment and (possibly) expand their team. The other ghostbusters are all there (with Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, Dan Ackyrod and Ernie Hudson even reprising the roles as voice actors), but they largely serve as support characters.

The control for this game is... great! No, really! It uses the wii-mote + nunchuck in the most intuitive possible fashion you can think of. The controls are so obvious that even a child could handle this - and that's how it should always be, people! I'm sick of games that claim challenge because their controls are crippled or difficult to grasp (and invariably poorly explained).

While i'm sure that even a marginally intelligent gamer can figure out the controls without any instruction, the game still provides a few (brief) tutorials on how to use the basics as well as how to switch weapons and equipment. The tutorials are largely done in-game as "explinations of the equipment" from the more experienced ghostbusters and can easily be skipped or even disabled via a menu. This means that you don't have to (unless you choose) watch cut scene after cut scene while replaying levels; it's a welcome addition.

I should also point out that all equipment usage can be done in real time in-game, meaning there's almost no need at all for bringing up the menu, except to pause, read a little backstory or disable/enable unlocks. Finally! A game that understands what a menu should be used for! This does wonders for immersion when you don't have to constantly flip into a menu screen for simple actions.

Gameplay is engrossing and, thanks in part to the interactive control-style of the wii-mote + nunchuck, feels a lot like you are a ghostbuster! Seriously: this is the game that every kid of the 80's has always wanted! Too bad it took more than 20 years to get...

The game is mostly wide open, allowing you (and at times, encouraging you) to destroy almost everything in every room and allowing you to wander the levels mostly unhindered. There are a few distracting game flags (like waiting for another character to open a door for you), but most of the time the limits seem acceptable.

While the ammo is unlimited, the proton pack does overheat from time to time if the stream is used continuously. It's not distracting or anything, but it can happen more times than you want, leaving you running in circles while your proton pack cools down enough to be of use again.

The AI that controls the other ghostbusters also seems to get worse and worse as the game progresses to increase the challenge. This isn't a bad thing, but does make very little sense when you stand back and think about it: how is it that these veteran ghostbusters can't handle a few ghosts without my continuously saving their asses? The harder difficulties (and higher levels) will also see you trying to revive the AI characters more than you care to. Fortunately, if there's more than one, they can revive each other.

Now, according to other reviews i've read, there are some purists out there who insist on controller-style fps (first person shooter, if you're not in the know) controls and thereby conclude that the Wii's controls are "gimmicky" or something; don't listen to these people! Honestly, i liked games like Starwars Battlefront or Goldeneye 64 for fps controls on a controller, but it is by no means "better" than point and click - just a very good adaptation given the tech limitations they had to deal with at the time. Technology has improved since the days of the NES gun, hopefully gamer attitude will improve one day as well. But i'm not going to hold my breath.

Graphics and Music

Graphics... ah, graphics. To the superficial gamer, the Wii's cartoony feel ruins the game. Of course they're wrong and i'll give them no shortage of ridicule as a result. Sure, nice graphics are nice to look at, but they don't enhance gameplay in the slightest nor do they make them more immersive. If you believe otherwise, you're wrong. No, this isn't debatable, nor is it only "my opinion". "Bad graphics" is more an issue of compatibility. When graphics don't suit the "feel" or tone of a game, they're bad (be they realistic 3D models or pixelated nonsense). There are no shortage of games that put graphics above gameplay and suffer as a result. As far as the Wii's version of Ghostbusters is concerned, the cartoony graphics fit the tone to a 'T' and give it a charm all its own.

As for music, it's the music used from the ghostbusters movie. What more could you ask for? It fits the genre and is exactly what the player wants. That's not to say it's perfect: the music repeats ad nauseum to the point it can get droning. Thankfully, it is in the background to the gameplay and story. Suffice it to say, you're more focused on busting the ghosts than listening to the soundtrack.

One last thing: the Ghostbusters theme song! I may be wrong, but i recall the only place it playing was the credits. I mean, i don't expect it to be played everywhere, but really? The credits? You expect me to watch the credits just to hear that awesome music? You bastards!

To the developers credit, they did include a simplistic "catch slimer" mini game that runs during the credits, so you're not just listening. Still, i just missed hearing it more, i guess.

Story

Dan Ackroyd has said that the game is essentially supposed to be a third installment, continuing the story from the 2 movies. In other words, this is a sequel... but good. The script writers make good use of the backstory of the previous movies and exploit the fact that everyone playing the game is intimately familiar with them. That's not to say the story is unfollowable to those who don't know anything about the ghostbusters (do people like that exist?), but it is a lot more gratifying for fans.

While the story does connect to both the previous films, it is more solidly a continuation of the events of the original Ghostbusters film. Gozer's minions seem to be springing back up and it's up to everyone's favourite ghostbusters to find the root cause and put an end to it. While the player character is part of the plot, most of the story is given by the other 4 ghostbusters with sparing references to the player character. Peter Venkman even goes as far as to say he doesn't want to know the players name "just in case". Really, it comes off a lot more charming than it sounds.

As the story progresses, however, the ghostbusters do gradually warm up to the increasingly invaluable "rookie" they've hired (Rookie? Please! I've been playing a ghostbuster since i was 5 years old!). The whole story culminates when, once again, the ghostbusters are forced to cross the streams to defeat absolute evil. Egon, Ray, Peter and Winston start to cross their streams when Ray turns to the player and nods for him/her to join in - this is a team thing, after all! An all but meaningless bit of gameplay follows in which the player (you) must join in with the other 4 in their "heroic sacrifice" and cross the streams... just like a real ghostbuster.

Wow. These guys knew who they were writing the game for!

Yeah, it's not Shakespeare, but it is a lot better written than a lot of mindless action games (particularly those adapted from movies). The humour and creativity of the movies definitely comes through and it's better for it.

Characters

Ray Stanz, Egon Spangler, Peter Venkman and Winston Zedmore are all there, reprised by their respective voice actors. What's more, you can tell the actors actually cared about the roles, giving all the proper inflection you'd expect, even for some of the cornier lines.

I know i downplay voice acting sometimes, but Ghostbusters definitely does it right. The side chatter of the characters is natural and unobtrusive enough that it sounds and feels exactly like what you'd expect the ghostbusters to engage in while on the job.

They are the same characters you're familiar with from the movies and cartoon and the game doesn't disappoint in adaptation. Ray is easily excitable and fun loving, Egon is reserved and thoughtful, Peter is lazy and sarcastic, Winston is eager but practical. The player character is left in the dark for personality (and name!) but it sort of works, allowing the player to sort of insert themselves in the role as they see fit.

The only issue that really comes up is a lack of line adaptations for the male or female player character choices. While most of the time the ghostbusters refer to you with generic "rookie" or "new blood" comments, there are a few points where they will gleefully refer to the player as "he" no matter what. It's a little grating considering how much care they gave the rest of the game. Why didn't they just have identical lines stored with "she" instead? Were the voice actors billing by the word or something?

Final Comments

My one major qualm is the brevity of the game. Sure, they have a few unlocks and scans and art pages to collect as well as a decent co-op mode, but seriously, is that it? They could've provided so much more with very little effort. Why not give a few random "bonus" levels for after the game? Not story driven, just good ol' fashion ghostbustin' (it makes us feel good)! It wouldn't even be that difficult!

Video game developers, take note: make 6 or so random "house" levels (a kitchen, a dining room, a few bedrooms, bathrooms, basement or attic), populate them with a random (catchable) ghost or two from the game and throw in some random minion ghosts for extra fun. You can even have a randomly chosen ghostbuster accompany the player on the mission. There. I just increased replay value and all it would've required was 6 new level designs and a random number generator with everything else just taken from what's already in the game.

As it stands now, there's very little to pull you back into the game other than playing through a few levels on a whim. Replay is definitely very low. However, that being said, this game is by no means bad.

Other reviewers have described Ghostbusters the video game as a "love letter to the fans", and that's exactly what this is. It thrusts the player into the role of "ghostbuster" and allows them to experience what it would probably feel like to be one. Controls are intuitive, gameplay is fun, story is solid and the characters are uncompromised. Non-fans will still find much to enjoy, but this game was clearly made for the 5 year olds inside each of us who remembers fondly the movies or cartoons and the desire to be a real ghostbuster themselves.

It's impossible to review this game without a nostalgia filter because it's so strongly invoked and it's a major part of enjoyment. Ultimately, if bustin' makes you feel good, get this game. I give it an A.

By the way, as for the pic: i was going for "lame". I think it came out well!

Double Feature: The Reader and Up

Two reviews for the price of one! But only one picture, so it averages out.

The Reader

Instant drama, just add nazis. This seems to be the formula this movie is working around. I'm pretty sure this is also the reason it won an award since Kate Winslet's performance is nothing more than average. Of course, the acting still stands out since "average" is way too high a bar for this film to touch.

I honestly don't know why this movie recieves such good press, since it's so spectacularly dull. One of the problems is that every single character lacks any kind of attachment to anything. It's one thing to have one character who's detached and alone in the world, but when your entire cast is this, it makes it hard for the audience to make any kind of connection or care themselves.

The film also suffers from all kinds of pacing issues, as it takes a little more than 1.5 of its 2 hours to find any sort of stride. This hurts the film even more since you don't really get attached to the characters, so waiting more than half the movie to find out why things are happening feels a little like waiting for the bus: the only gratification you receive is the relief at no longer waiting in the cold.

While this movie is clearly intended to be an emotional drama with touching elements, it fails at every single turn. Watching it, there are many times you know you're supposed to feel something... but you don't. Kate Winslet's performance isn't particularly moving or gripping and things take so long to happen the emotional impact invariably dies along the way.

Another problem i had with this movie is in its fumbled attempts at a setting. While the movie itself takes place after wwii, it uses the holocaust to try and prop up the plot. The main problem with this is that the movie doesn't try and create any emotional response in doing this, but just simply expects it. What's worse is the choice of the holocaust is horrifyingly arbitrary. The holocaust itself is not important to the plot and the situation's not explored enough for it to even matter. The only reason the holocaust seems to be used at all is because you, as the viewer, are supposed to just feel instantly saddened and/or angry by it, yet conflicted due to your knowledge of Kate Winslet's character. This in turn is clearly meant to allow you to identify with the conflicted male lead (Ralph Fiennes) and hence better understand his non-response that follows. But you won't, because the emotion isn't evoked, only expected. This is not just hackish, it's offensively hackish. One wonders if the usage of other historical wrongs would be just as "acceptable" to the audience. I'm going to go ahead and assume no... with very good grounds.

Now, you might think i'm callous for saying all that, but you're wrong. History in itself is not dramatic (at least, not in the sense you want for a story). It's the characters interactions in history that make the drama (and it takes all kinds). You can't simply evoke the holocaust and expect emotion in the audience... yet that's exactly what this movie does!

(Cue angry comments and accusations of antisemetism).

At any rate, i look forward to the time when we, as a society, can move beyond the holocaust as the sole source of human drama in history. I'm sure the flood of 9/11 movies are only a few years away.

Ultimately, while i don't want to spoil the plot, i don't really think it's anything special. Kate Winslet does an ok job; too bad the rest of the film can't quite hold her up a little higher.

Now i'm left with a bit of a conundrum myself: do i use a horribly tasteless joke for my "rating system" or just leave it off with a letter grade? Well, since i'm probably being cursed at by any number of overly-sensitive people already as an insensitive racist jerk, i'll keep my rating simple:

D for dull. See why i'm only doing one picture now? As i wish writers would realize sooner than later: not everything is better with nazis!

Next up, Pixar's Up.

Pixar's Up

Dispite the pic, this movie is not a disaster. In fact it's quite a touching film about dreams and moving on in life. It challenges the viewer to reflect on their own lives and think about what's really important to them, just as the main character, Carl (Edward Asner), of Up. It's kind of sad that a movie marketed to children (but aimed at everyone) evokes more emotion than The Reader, which is clearly aimed at adults. Also, less nazis.

Well Up is certainly everything The Reader is not, it's certainly nothing special. The problem is, it just doesn't stand out - at least compared to other Pixar films.

A large degree of the plot is derived from the hastily thrown up setting that shows that Carl was once happily married, but after the death of his wife had fallen into a seemingly never-ending state of depression. Despite the rushed nature of it, the intro is actually done quite well and establishes Carl as an identifiable character who has simply never learned to move on with his life. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of all the characters in the movie.

While most of the background characters are given strong characterizations and motivations for their actions, the main villain of the movie seems to have been left out. Not only does he lack any real motivation for hating the heroes (apparently, he's just gone nuts - that's even the movies explination), the entire reason he and the heroes are put at odds to begin with is because of the inclusion of a mysterious "monster" that serves no other purpose than to be a point of contention.

Now, i admit this is just nitpicking, but it's one of those things that really bugs me. Why is it that villains today are written with the sole idea of them being mindlessly evil? Is it really that hard to think of adequate villain motivation that doesn't just amount to "crazy and violent"?

To be fair, Up's primary story is interesting and the villain's purpose is just to add some conflict to what would otherwise be a linear trip. It's still worth a mention, though.

Anyway, it's a good film, just not a great one. I personally found WallE to be a much more enjoyable film on the whole with much more touching scenes. Also, 3D adds nothing (except perhaps dickish-level piracy protection - STOP MAKING US PAY MORE FOR YOUR PARANOIA!). Save your cash and watch it in 2D.

My rating? 99 (of 140) luftballons: B.

It's better if it's not C.

Star Trek (2009)

Corny! Corny corny corny corny corny! ... In all the right ways!

J. J. Abrams successfully revives the franchise a mere 2 years after it had supposedly retired (that's some retirement!). Star Trek (2009) (re)introduces all of the (old) cliches and characters of the original in an all-out fun entry into the franchise. Lennard Nimoy even returns, reprising his role as Spock - which is, of course, the logical choice.

One of the most important things to realize in watching this film is that it wasn't trying to be the next Matrix or Jurassic Park. Yes, it's classified as an action type sci-fi movie, but that doesn't mean "action" first. Star Trek (2009) is clearly a throwback to the original series and it makes no mistake in hiding that fact. The greatest pleasures will come in watching the new actors, mimicking the old, throw out all the characteristic lines of the original crew. It even revives all the old catch phrases - though, sadly, it fails to bring in my favourite (yet never actually used) catch phrase "beam me up, Scotty". Also, they could've done a little more work to have poor Chekov say "nuclear wessels" if for nothing else than to have the audience squeal in delight. For SHAME Abrams, for shame!

Star Trek is one of those films that's a guilty pleasure for those who are aware of the original series but aggravatingly stupid for those who are not. Yes, that means this movie's not for those who don't know what Star Trek is (if these people exist), but that's not really a problem since those people aren't really the target audience. Not appealing to an audience you're not aiming at is hardly a fault of a film (though you'd never guess that by the vehement criticisms leveled at films that do just that). In fact, i'd say the opposite is true: far too many films are ruined by (what i call) "focus group" writing that aims to please all but fails to please any. To see a director and writers take a different stance is actually very refreshing. It's a shame it doesn't happen more often.

I'm not going to ruin the plot, but suffice it to say, it has everything you'd expect from an old star trek episode, including the inexplicable mission in which two named characters go off to perform a dangerous task with one unnamed character. Sure, we all know Ensign Johnny is going to die, but it's fun because he's so blissfully unaware. Additionally, Kirk will invariably save the day (while showing up virtually everyone else) and Spock will comment on how very logical the situation was... but admit to having some feeling to it anyway.

The whole thing is stock star trek at it's finest! In fact, my one qualm can be summed up thusly: sure Chris Pine does an ok job as Captian Krik but...

Where. Was. William Shatner's. Iconic. Dialog?

I. Missed it. So.

He. Brought. Such. Life. To. The role. Of. James, T. Kirk.

...

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!

Oh, mercy.

Well, it was interesting to re-visit the series, i do have to say i can't see how this can be a novel idea for more than a movie or so. Yet, the actors have already signed up for an additional 2. Guess it's the curse of the new hollywood who refuses to take a chance and will only produce sequels. Sure it's PLAUSIBLE that the sequels will be good, but more than likely they'll be barely watchable (thanks, in part, to the dreaded disease "sequelitis" - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Sequelitis). Either way, we're going to get 2 more movies, so we might as well get used to it.

As for my rating, the original series was definitely a 'B' production, and that's what this movie deserves: a B. That's 7 and a half out of 10 phasers... set to fun!

...

Don't "boo" me!

Super Paper Mario

I know what you're thinking: who would go through the trouble of reviewing a 2 year old video game? Me, so strap in!

Super Paper Mario, despite being 2 years old, is still the latest rpg installment of the mario series. While i'm certain dozens of people have already reviewed it and anyone who's going to play it has already done so, i'm still going to review it. Just as in my previous video game review (The World Ends With You), i'll cover this one in sections.

Gameplay and Control

Control is entirely done using the Wii-mote and only the Wii-mote. This is kind of refreshing since almost every other game in the Wii's library requires some kind of "add-on" in the form of the nun-chuck or classic controller, if not out of necessity, then simply for ease of control (i'm looking at YOU, Super Smash Bros Brawl). It's kind of annoying when you learn one set of controls based on add-ons you own, only to go to a friends house and have to learn an entirely different set of controls based on the add-ons they have. Since this is mostly a qualm about what the Wii system comes with, i'll try not to dwell on it. Bottom line: either sell all "optional" add-ons together as "one controller" (wii-mote + nunchuck + classic controller) or don't have any add-ons at all!

Anyway, the control is actually very fluid. It's sad that i have to even point this out, but until every single video game developer on the planet gets on the trolley and learns how to make fluid controls for their games, i guess it's the curse of the reviewer to mention them for every game they play, good or bad.

Gameplay is straight up, goomba-smashing fun with rpg elements at its finest - done away with are the random battles of most (all?) of the other mario rpgs (thank you, nintendo). The game consists of 8 worlds, mostly broken into 4 chapters with the 4th chapter containing a boss fight. Yeah, it's unimaginatively stock mario game format, but don't mess with what works, right?

While most of the world's are very fun and entertaining (the bit-lands being a particular favourite), there are a few that are nothing short of annoyingly aggravating. While there are several examples of things that could've been ditched in development, from the top of my head i'd say anything that requires you to navigate a maze of doors should be first. Even though these mazes are almost always relatively short, they're still incredibly monotonous due to the bland backgrounds that are employed to make all the areas look similar. The space world was a particularly egregious offender for this one. The whole land looked similar and ended up being spectacularly dull.

As for the in game fighting, most of the enemies go down quite simple and the boss fights are largely a joke despite being horribly intimidating at first. There are a couple challenging boss fights, but even they become easier once you figure out their one weakness and exploit the hell out of it.

That's not to say the game is a walk in the park - a brisk stroll, maybe, but certainly not a walk. There's lots of little puzzles to solve and the pit(s) of 100 trials offer quite a bit of extra challenge for those of you who need to die repeatedly before you feel accomplished.

Graphics and Music

It's Mario. And he's paper. See the picture? That's pretty much how he looks in the game.

Actually, the graphics are a bit better than that. The characters do resemble "realistic" paper characters (whatever that is) and even though the whole game has a cartoon-y feel, it's quite charming in its own way. Essentially, anyone who thinks the graphics are "lacking" is seriously missing the point.

Music is good and serves its purpose. It doesn't stand out too much, but it doesn't really define itself either. Just the standard Mario style music you all know and love. Is that good? It does its job, i suppose, but it would've been nice to be able to pick out a "favourite song". Mostly it's unremarkable, but not necessarily in a bad way.

Story

Ah, story! The SOUL of an rpg! Well, just like all rpg franchises that last more than one game, if you've played the previous titles, you probably know exactly what to expect. That's not necessarily bad. I mean, the Final Fantasy games have been doing the same thing successfully for years, right? (The first fan who swears their favourite series stories' are drastically different gets bashed in the head - or somewhere where it might do damage.)

The real charm in Super Paper Mario comes from the extremely self-aware sense of humour the game has about itself. While other games would push really hard to have the "darker and edgier"-er feel, Super Paper Mario opts for the more light-hearted approach. Many standard video game tropes (as some would call them: see tvtropes.org) are openly mocked, but in a feel-good sort of way. There's even an entire level that makes fun of "nerd culture" and fanboy-ism that's particularly humourous and fun.

The rest of the story is very simplistic and clearly set in place just for the point of having a conflict. Nintendo kind of has to do it this way, though, since the mario-verse is already so heavily saturated with games that it doesn't leave much room for any original plots. This is a problem in general when dealing with a character like mario who's pretty much "done it all". I mean, what can he really do that would surprise fans now? Mario on vacation? Mario Sunshine. Mario in space? Mario Galaxy. Mario sports? Oh god where to begin! Mario getting drunk and beating the crap out of other nintendo franchise characters? Super Smash Bros.

Ok, maybe Mario wasn't drunk for that last one, but i certainly was - and i'm betting some of the developers were, too.

Anyway, the story is predictable, but the intrigue is in the execution. It's all kinds of fun to watch the game characters get confused by obvious "plot-twists" with hilarious results.

Characters

The greatest improvement over previous Paper Mario games is definitely in the characters department! While the previous titles had mario teamed up with allies like... goombario and kooper (who?), Super Paper Mario has him teamed up with actual Mario characters like princess peach, bowser and luigi. Finally! It took 3 games to get it right, but damn!

Considering how many characters the mario-verse has to choose from, i don't know why it took nintendo this long to get it right but it's certainly a HUGE improvement for the series. There's just something about being able to play as characters you recognize in a franchise you know and love that makes it that much more enjoyable. Is that so hard to understand? Well, i guess so since it took nintendo THREE GAMES to figure it out.

Final Comments

Though i've mostly praised the game in individual sections above, i do have to say the entire experience of Super Paper Mario just feels somehow... unremarkable. While ultimately i'd say the game is well worth playing and will give you many hours of fun, it still ends like a horribly mediocre movie. When the credits roll, you say to yourself "that's it?" and leave the theatre never to mention it again.

All in all, i give Super Paper Mario 2 kidnapped princesses (let's say, Daisy and Peach) out of 3 (Daisy, Peach and Rosalina). That's roughly 66%, but i'm gonna call it a B.